Release Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 On page 145 of "Philosophy: Who Needs It?", Ayn Rand is pointing out the flaw in Skinner's behaviorism theory and attacking his book: "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". Well, she does an excellent job and I agree with EVERYTHING she says, but what got me thinking (a bit more) was what was said about Skinners view on individuality, and I quote: "Mr. Skinner's voice is loud and clear when he declares: "To be oneself is to be almost nothing." (P.123) As proof, he revives another ancient saw: the capacity of the human species to transmit knowledge deprives man of any claim to individuality (or to individual achievement) because he has to start by learning from others." She goes in a direction that she thought was proper for that essay and it was, but it left me questioning this ridiculous concept...and here is my thought on it. I'm reading a book on Objectivism, it was written by someone who read other philosophies extensively and learned what she needed to learn, and then used her ability to make extensive abstractions and grand concepts to present these ideas. We all know that information is passed down and no one can discover everything by themselves, knowledge compounds on top of more knowledge and thats how it works. So how is one considered an individual in the respect of taking on a philosophy that someone has written so perfectly? I've spoken to many people who go: "Psh, I don't need philosophy, I create my own, why live by others standards when life is all about discovering your own." They actually look down upon me for looking into other philosophies, because I'm not being an "Individual". Now, I have no problem with them saying such things, it's rather unimportant, but it adds the the question I'm asking. In what respect can we be individuals when we are trying to learn philosophies that have been created by someone else, and then basing ones ethics and morals on what was good for them? I believe that it is possible to have a code of ethics that works for everyone and I believe 100% the ideas that I've learned through Objectivism. I may be answering my question here, but I'd like to hear some of your views on the subject guys. ~Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JRoberts Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 In what respect can we be individuals when we are trying to learn philosophies that have been created by someone else, and then basing ones ethics and morals on what was good for them? Are you not an individual when you eat the food you buy from McDonald's...which was prepared by someone else? Are you not an individual when you sleep on a bed made by somebody else? Are you not an individual when you use a computer to do your work- a computer not created by yourself? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stephen_speicher Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 So how is one considered an individual in the respect of taking on a philosophy that someone has written so perfectly? When you understand an idea, when you integrate that idea with the rest of your knowledge, when you then act on that idea, then that idea has been made your own. You can acknowledge and give tribute to the originator of that idea, but that idea is made yours by your own individual accomplishment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AwakeAndFree Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 Sine no man can live in a modern society without relying on previously gained knowledge - defining individuality according to this criterion ("not learning from others") is not just silly, it is an attempt to wipe out the concept of individuality. Individualism means that the last arbiter, the final judge, in any decision in your life - is your own mind. This is not the same as being a stuck-up fool who never learns from others, in order to be considered original. In fact, this is exactly the opposite - since the man who avoids learning from others is in fact sacrificing his own well being. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Betsy Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 Since no man can live in a modern society without relying on previously gained knowledge - defining individuality according to this criterion ("not learning from others") is not just silly, it is an attempt to wipe out the concept of individuality. That's exactly what it is. To see why, in greater detail, read the article "Counterfeit Individualism" in the April 1962 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evangelical Capitalist Posted October 13, 2004 Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 To see why, in greater detail, read the article "Counterfeit Individualism" in the April 1962 issue of The Objectivist Newsletter. Which was also reprinted in The Virtue of Selfishness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Release Posted October 13, 2004 Author Report Share Posted October 13, 2004 Thank you guys for the answers, I just wanted a more articulated answer on the subject and you guys have really cleared things up. I just don't understand why someone would want to undercut individualism.... ~Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.