Separateness, Religion and Collectivism

[Tonix777]

Sometimes it seems to me that Ayn Rand created a wonderful philosophy or at least its foundations but she only had time in the span of her life to leave us the basic, powerful concepts defined in broad strokes. Most Objectivists on the other hand would respond "it is all what we need"

But it is beginning to be not enough for me lately, specially because there are at least two conflictive fields where I think further analysis is needed:

1-Religion

2-Colectivism

Rand's position about these two ideas is clear-cut: Absolute rejection

Which is good and somehow needed given the human history during the last several millennia, but I would like here to go further and ask why these two phenomena has been a constant in human history during these last several millennia?

Isn't this a good question to ask?

If objective-scientific method indicates that every effect has a cause, what is the cause of these two constant phenomena along the ages?

Specifically about religion I have started already several (some of them polemical) topics in this prestigious Forum like:

God exists

Seven Deadly Sins against Reason

The problem with this guy called Jesus of Nazareth

About religion I mostly subscribe to Matthew Alper's theory exposed in his book "The God part of the Brain" which main premise is HERE

Theory that I find absolutely compatible with Objectivism since it doesn't say that God exists, bur explain instead why this issue is so important for mankind: There is something genetically "hard-wired" inside our brains to have some religious behavior, tendency, instinct...

Following a similar reasoning process with Collectivism there has to be something about it "hard-wired" into our brains and for some important reason concerning our survival as individuals and species

Besides different approaches in singular cultures/countries the old conflict between the collective and the individual existed in every society in every geographic location and every era of humanity

So here it goes my hypothesis:

As brilliantly stated by Ayn Rand herself the two main functions of our brain are perceive differentiated entities and integrate them into concepts (1) so I propose that our brain do something similar with ourselves as living entities (2)

1-We differentiate ourselves from other entities of our own kind: other men.

Since we can't perceive ourselves as separate independent entities (which we physically are) unless we compare our existence against the existence of others as a collective = those which are not me. The very existence of individuality presupposes a collectiveness to differentiate from as light need darkness to exist.

I would at this point complete Aristotle's assessment "A is A" as follows: A is A only if there is at least B to differentiate from. (If all the infinite Universe is only A, then A ceases to exist as entity)

2-We then integrate ourselves into the collective be it family, clan, group, tribe, society, country, or the whole mankind from which we learn a very important part of what we are since we are kids and through the whole process of growing up. This collective gives us very valuable assets like protection, help to get food and shelter, education, culture, etc. to name just a few, so it is not a surprise that most people values it so highly: our very survival as individuals, or at least the individuals we currently are (the only ones we know) depends on our relationship with the collective

Finally the very existence of the collective, depending our genetically "hard-wired" tendency to live together, certainly allowed our survival as species thru the ages of our biological evolution

This hypothesis explains the origin/cause of the recurrent psychological and social deformation of individual's dilution in collectivistic societies along the whole history of mankind and whose extremes are recently represented by Communism, Nazism and Fascism. These and other societies took and still take advantage of this natural tendency to belong to a collective that is genetically "hard-wired" in our brains thru millennia after millennia of natural selection

(1) " ...Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible..." Ayn Rand - For the New Intellectual

(2) (For a more extensive analysis please refer to Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology")

Edited June 26, 2010 by Tonix777

[dream_weaver]

1-Religion

2-Co(l)lectivism

If objective-scientific method indicates that every effect has a cause, what is the cause of these two constant phenomena along the ages?

Religion is most likely a primitive form of philosophy. John Ridpath states in his ARI available lecture:

Religion: A set of mystical views about the supernatural origins of, workings of, and purposes of reality, and what that implies about the living of human life.

Then he boiled his research down discover the history of religion looking through the following four questions:

1. What is it?

2. Where did it come from?

3. How do I know it?

4. What should I do?

Collectivism, far from being 'hard-wired' into the brain, is little more than the sacrifice of the individual to the group, with those who show the greatest degree of indiviuality being the most likely candidated for the next sacrifice.

Tonix777 - a better grasp and comprehension of what Objectivism is might provide you with a better foundation from which to suggest parallels from other endevours that might be benificial. For instance, the work done by Martin Cowen III in founding the Fellowship of Reason, is in interesting mix of what religion has to offer blended with the principles of reason.

[Plasmatic]

As weaver pointed out, religion is just bad philosophy. The acceptance of "instincts" as the cause is to follow the goof balls of evolutionary psychology and simply abdicate the job of understanding the fundamentals of epistemology, particularly concept formation and the effects of ones ideas/values on ones choices and therefore history.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Plasmatic

[Grames]

About religion I mostly subscribe to Matthew Alper's theory exposed in his book "The God part of the Brain" which main premise is HERE

Theory that I find absolutely compatible with Objectivism since it doesn't say that God exists, bur explain instead why this issue is so important for mankind: There is something genetically "hard-wired" inside our brains to have some religious behavior, tendency, instinct...

Following a similar reasoning process with Collectivism there has to be something about it "hard-wired" into our brains and for some important reason concerning our survival as individuals and species

Besides different approaches in singular cultures/countries the old conflict between the collective and the individual existed in every society in every geographic location and every era of humanity

Any theory relying upon innate knowledge is false, and is contrary to Objectivism.

[Vik]

An explanation shows how an action, process or state of affairs could logically follow from causes. But actions, processes, and states do not exist apart from entities. A complete explanation of an entity's action will include the *properties* of the entity that are responsible for the action.

"Hard-wired" isn't a proper explanation. It's hand-waving and it flies in the face of the fact that we are capable of correcting our assumptions.

The fact that our brains are *capable* of misinterpreting events as "signs from god" and emotions as "religious experience" does not mean that we are incapable of becoming atheists.

Likewise, the fact that we can interact with people does not mean that we will be altruists. We can grasp the dangers of self-sacrifice and make an effort to change our habits.

[Vik]

Why "hard-wired" is hand-waving:

It's saying that people do something just because.

[Tonix777]

Religion is most likely a primitive form of philosophy. John Ridpath states in his ARI available lecture:

Religion: A set of mystical views about the supernatural origins of, workings of, and purposes of reality, and what that implies about the living of human life.

Then he boiled his research down discover the history of religion looking through the following four questions:

1. What is it?

2. Where did it come from?

3. How do I know it?

4. What should I do?

Collectivism, far from being 'hard-wired' into the brain, is little more than the sacrifice of the individual to the group, with those who show the greatest degree of indiviuality being the most likely candidated for the next sacrifice.

Tonix777 - a better grasp and comprehension of what Objectivism is might provide you with a better foundation from which to suggest parallels from other endevours that might be benificial. For instance, the work done by Martin Cowen III in founding the Fellowship of Reason, is in interesting mix of what religion has to offer blended with the principles of reason.

I have a full grasp of what Objectivism says don't worry, I am just trying to look somewhat beyond...

And Matthew Alper tries to address your point # 2: Where did it come from?

I will try to read Martin Cowen's work though, thanks for the recommendation, I always like to learn new things

[Tonix777]

Plasmatic, Vik, Grames

Matthew Alper doesn't mention any "innate knowledge", instincts and hard-wired tendencies are not knowledge

Sex is another good example: It is a strong instinct that exists in everyone, whether you choose to accept it or not and no matter what is your conscious decision about how to manage it

[Grames]

Plasmatic, Vik, Grames

Matthew Alper doesn't mention any "innate knowledge", instincts and hard-wired tendencies are not knowledge

Sex is another good example: It is a strong instinct that exists in everyone, whether you choose to accept it or not and no matter what is your conscious decision about how to manage it

"God" is an idea, not a reflex. It is not at all analogous to having sexual organs. Alper is asserting innate knowledge regardless of whether he agrees or not.

[Plasmatic]

Essentially, what I'm suggesting is that humans are innately "hard-wired" to perceive a spiritual reality. We are "hard-wired" to believe in forces that transcend the limitations of this, our physical reality. Most controversial of all, if what I'm suggesting is true, it would imply that God is not necessarily something that exists "out there," beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited perception, the manifestation of an evolutionary adaptation that exists within the human brain. And why would our species have evolved such a seemingly abstract trait? -In order to enable us to deal with our species' unique and otherwise debilitating awareness of death.

How else are we to explain the fact that all human cultures - no matter how isolated - have maintained a belief in some form of a spiritual/transcendental reality, in a god or gods, a soul, as well as an afterlife?

Wouldn't the universality with which such perceptions and behaviors are exhibited among our species suggest that we might be "hard-wired" this way?

perhaps humans are compelled to perceive a spiritual reality...as a reflex, an instinct.

it would imply that God is not necessarily something that exists "out there," beyond and independent of us, but rather as the product of an inherited perception,

With the dawn of human intelligence, for the first time in the history of terrestrial life, an organism could point its powers of perception back upon its own being; it could recognize its own self as an object.

Here lies the origin of humankind's spiritual function, an evolutionary adaptation that compels our species to believe that though our physical bodies will one day perish, our "spirits" or "souls" will persist for all eternity. Only once our species was instilled with this inherent (mis)perception that there is something more "out there," that we are immortal beings, were we able to survive our debilitating awareness of death.

The author makes the common equivocation between perception and conception / beliefs.

He also implicitly denies free will and its role in concept formation and action.

The same principle not only applies to universal physical traits, but to universal behaviors as well. Take, for instance, the fact that all honeybees construct their hives in the same hexagonal pattern. That all honeybee colonies, regardless of whether they've been exposed to any other, construct their hives in such an identical fashion means that they must be "hard-wired" to do so.........In essence, any behavior that is universal to any species is, more than likely, the consequence of a genetically inherited impulse or instinct. The above principle not only applies to honeybees, peacocks, or cats but to every life form, including our own......this supports the notion that for every cross-cultural behavior our species exhibits there must exist a specific part of the brain from which that behavior is generated.

[A is A]

Sometimes it seems to me that Ayn Rand created a wonderful philosophy or at least its foundations but she only had time in the span of her life to leave us the basic, powerful concepts defined in broad strokes. Most Objectivists on the other hand would respond "it is all what we need"

But it is beginning to be not enough for me lately, specially because there are at least two conflictive fields where I think further analysis is needed:

1-Religion

2-Colectivism

Rand's position about these two ideas is clear-cut: Absolute rejection

Which is good and somehow needed given the human history during the last several millennia, but I would like here to go further and ask why these two phenomena has been a constant in human history during these last several millennia?

Isn't this a good question to ask?

It's a good question to ask but your method of solving the problem is not the way to go about it. Ideas are not explained by reference to what goes on inside a human body on a physiological level.

If objective-scientific method indicates that every effect has a cause, what is the cause of these two constant phenomena along the ages?

This has been amply explained and demonstrated in the Objectivist literature. The connection between religion and collectivism is altruism, which is the cause of their propagation into the modern era after the industrial revolution.

Specifically about religion I have started already several (some of them polemical) topics in this prestigious Forum like:

God exists

Seven Deadly Sins against Reason

The problem with this guy called Jesus of Nazareth

About religion I mostly subscribe to Matthew Alper's theory exposed in his book "The God part of the Brain" which main premise is HERE

Theory that I find absolutely compatible with Objectivism since it doesn't say that God exists, bur explain instead why this issue is so important for mankind: There is something genetically "hard-wired" inside our brains to have some religious behavior, tendency, instinct...

This makes no sense and I don't see how you can regard it as an explanation. One does not explain ideas (God, religious belief, morality) by claiming something is "hard-wired".

Following a similar reasoning process with Collectivism there has to be something about it "hard-wired" into our brains and for some important reason concerning our survival as individuals and species

Besides different approaches in singular cultures/countries the old conflict between the collective and the individual existed in every society in every geographic location and every era of humanity

So here it goes my hypothesis:

As brilliantly stated by Ayn Rand herself the two main functions of our brain are perceive differentiated entities and integrate them into concepts (1) so I propose that our brain do something similar with ourselves as living entities (2)

1-We differentiate ourselves from other entities of our own kind: other men.

Since we can't perceive ourselves as separate independent entities (which we physically are) unless we compare our existence against the existence of others as a collective = those which are not me. The very existence of individuality presupposes a collectiveness to differentiate from as light need darkness to exist.

I would at this point complete Aristotle's assessment "A is A" as follows: A is A only if there is at least B to differentiate from. (If all the infinite Universe is only A, then A ceases to exist as entity)

I can certainly perceive my self as separate from other independent entities. What are you referring to here? I do not have to compare myself to others as a collective. I can perceive perceptually that I am different from another human entity as well as different from other non-human entities.

I think your analysis of Aristotle's 'A is A' is spurious. Are you implying that there is something outside the universe ("B") else the universe (A) would not exist? (And there is no "infinite" universe.)

2-We then integrate ourselves into the collective be it family, clan, group, tribe, society, country, or the whole mankind from which we learn a very important part of what we are since we are kids and through the whole process of growing up. This collective gives us very valuable assets like protection, help to get food and shelter, education, culture, etc. to name just a few, so it is not a surprise that most people values it so highly: our very survival as individuals, or at least the individuals we currently are (the only ones we know) depends on our relationship with the collective

Families and groups are not collectives. Families and groups are a collection of individuals. They become a collective when the group is regarded as the unit of value or the source of rights or the source of thinking.

Finally the very existence of the collective, depending our genetically "hard-wired" tendency to live together, certainly allowed our survival as species thru the ages of our biological evolution

No, there were many collectives that went out of existence and did not survive. And evolution was not the cause.

This hypothesis explains the origin/cause of the recurrent psychological and social deformation of individual's dilution in collectivistic societies along the whole history of mankind and whose extremes are recently represented by Communism, Nazism and Fascism. These and other societies took and still take advantage of this natural tendency to belong to a collective that is genetically "hard-wired" in our brains thru millennia after millennia of natural selection

(1) " ...Man’s consciousness shares with animals the first two stages of its development: sensations and perceptions; but it is the third state, conceptions, that makes him man. Sensations are integrated into perceptions automatically, by the brain of a man or of an animal. But to integrate perceptions into conceptions by a process of abstraction, is a feat that man alone has the power to perform—and he has to perform it by choice. The process of abstraction, and of concept-formation is a process of reason, of thought; it is not automatic nor instinctive nor involuntary nor infallible..." Ayn Rand - For the New Intellectual

(2) (For a more extensive analysis please refer to Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology")

This was a thoughtful exercise but I don't think you've added significantly to answering your questions.

[Vik]

I wouldn't call it a "tendency". I'd call it a "potential".

"Tendency" implies that statistical dominance is beyond volition. And that's as deterministic as "hard-wired".

As a human being, you have the potential for doing X, Y, and Z.

You then make choices in regard to that potential.

Religious people can become atheists.

Communists can become capitalists.

It only takes logic applied to the facts gained through experience--an act that every human being with a functioning brain can do.

[Tonix777]

I knew this topic would be polemical...

The word "Instinct" (much less the word "tendency") doesn't mean compulsion or obligation

According to the dictionary:

Instinct:

- A powerful motivation or impulse.

- An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.

- An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

Can anyone cite any Ran's paragraph where she actually says "Man has no instincts"?

Because if she did she was wrong, I have read almost all of her books and I don't recall something like this...

We DO have instincts.

Our marvelous consciousness is mounted on an "animal chassis"

Man species still belong for now to the animal genre and we still share a lot of characteristics with them, which makes sometimes our conscious/moral decisions even more commendable because we make these decisions sometimes against our own instincts: The presence of these instincts doesn't invalidate our free will

But on the other hand our instincts, coming from this "animal chassis" were the insurance policy for the species to survive in remote ages when our consciousness was not as evolved as now, specially considering our wonderful-modern-western mind, and in my opinion they are still the failsafe for our survival in case of a major planetary-scale disaster...

I usually make the following analogy with computers:

Our body is our hardware, our instincts are our firmware and our mind is our software

The most important part of theses three is of course is the software, it is the magnificent result of millions of years of evolution but some of you are forgetting that it still needs the necessary hardware and firmware to run on

A is A, we are animals with consciousness, the stage of being pure consciousness is SciFi for now

[DavidOdden]

The word "Instinct" (much less the word "tendency") doesn't mean compulsion or obligation

According to the dictionary:

Instinct:

- A powerful motivation or impulse.

- An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.

- An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

I have a copy of the dictionary right here, and it doesn't say that. So your problem is that you need to check the dictionary, before you make claims about man having instincts.

[JayR]

I'd find it harder to find one of Rands works that doesnt say it, at least implicitly. What do you think she means by man is born "tabula rasa", or ALL the talk about man not possesing an "automatic form of knowledge", or "automatic course of action" "automatic values" "automatic code of survival".... etc.?

j..

Edited June 28, 2010 by JayR

[Tonix777]

I have a copy of the dictionary right here, and it doesn't say that. So your problem is that you need to check the dictionary, before you make claims about man having instincts.

This is the dictionary I used and it seems a good definition for me since it is in line with my previous concept of what "instinct" means

What is your concept or what says your dictionary?

It would be interesting if you mean something very different with the same word

English is not my native language but I thought I knew it enough...

[dream_weaver]

I knew this topic would be polemical...

The word "Instinct" (much less the word "tendency") doesn't mean compulsion or obligation

According to the dictionary:

Instinct:

- A powerful motivation or impulse.

- An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.

- An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.

Can anyone cite any Ran's paragraph where she actually says "Man has no instincts"?

Because if she did she was wrong, I have read almost all of her books and I don't recall something like this...

We DO have instincts.

Our marvelous consciousness is mounted on an "animal chassis"

Man species still belong for now to the animal genre and we still share a lot of characteristics with them, which makes sometimes our conscious/moral decisions even more commendable because we make these decisions sometimes against our own instincts: The presence of these instincts doesn't invalidate our free will

But on the other hand our instincts, coming from this "animal chassis" were the insurance policy for the species to survive in remote ages when our consciousness was not as evolved as now, specially considering our wonderful-modern-western mind, and in my opinion they are still the failsafe for our survival in case of a major planetary-scale disaster...

I usually make the following analogy with computers:

Our body is our hardware, our instincts are our firmware and our mind is our software

The most important part of theses three is of course is the software, it is the magnificent result of millions of years of evolution but some of you are forgetting that it still needs the necessary hardware and firmware to run on

A is A, we are animals with consciousness, the stage of being pure consciousness is SciFi for now

Merriam Webster

Instinct: a largely inheritable and unalterable tendency of an organism to make a complex and specific response to environmental stimuli without involving reason.

When 90% of the population believes in a God of some sort, everyone in some way shape or form is influenced by the conversations we hear during the course of our lives. If we do not explicitly identify what it is that we believe and why, is it any wonder we might absorb some sort of belief in a God by 'default'?

Consciousness as a difference detector is about as close as it comes to being 'hard-wired', but likely no more or less than the eyes, ears, nose, taste-buds are considered 'hard-wired'. The differences may be given to us automatically via perception, the integrations are strictly volitional. Integration without contradiction determines the quality and reliability of the 'software', it is by integration that we write our own 'program'.

[dream_weaver]

Watching a martial artist deploy his craft, to the untrained observer, appears to be delivered as if by instinct. As a martial artist, you are well aware that when the skills are called upon, it is the years of honing the skill to your proficiency that bring them forth as trained responses.

[JayR]

Consciousness as a difference detector is about as close as it comes to being 'hard-wired', but likely no more or less than the eyes, ears, nose, taste-buds are considered 'hard-wired'. The differences may be given to us automatically via perception, the integrations are strictly volitional. Integration without contradiction determines the quality and reliability of the 'software', it is by integration that we write our own 'program'.

Yes, and that 'program' can be written and used correctly, or not. This follows from consciousness having a specific identity. Learning the proper usage of our cognitive hardware (or software, perhaps) is under volitional control, its not instinctual, or innate from birth. As an aside, Binswanger gives a cool analogy about consciousness having identity: He relates using our mind to using a computer program such as Microsoft Word, he says just as one couldnt successfully use white out on our computer screen to delete a phrase from a document, one wont have any cognitive success without obeying the specific nature of our means of cognition.

j...

[DavidOdden]

Use an authoritative dictionary, not a web page. I would use either the Oxford English Dictionary or else Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. From the former, excluding obsolete usages

Innate impulse; natural or spontaneous tendency or inclination. Formerly applicable to the natural tendencies of inanimate things.

An innate propensity in organized beings (esp. in the lower animals), varying with the species, and manifesting itself in acts which appear to be rational, but are performed without conscious design or intentional adaptation of means to ends. Also, the faculty supposed to be involved in this operation (formerly often regarded as a kind of intuitive knowledge).

Any faculty acting like animal instinct; intuition; unconscious dexterity or skill.

Observe that innateness / inheritance is an essential part of the concept. If you want examples of what Rand said about "instinct", you can look online in the Ayn Rand lexicon.

[Tonix777]

Use an authoritative dictionary, not a web page. I would use either the Oxford English Dictionary or else Webster's Third New International Dictionary, Unabridged. From the former, excluding obsolete usages

Innate impulse; natural or spontaneous tendency or inclination. Formerly applicable to the natural tendencies of inanimate things.

An innate propensity in organized beings (esp. in the lower animals), varying with the species, and manifesting itself in acts which appear to be rational, but are performed without conscious design or intentional adaptation of means to ends. Also, the faculty supposed to be involved in this operation (formerly often regarded as a kind of intuitive knowledge).

Any faculty acting like animal instinct; intuition; unconscious dexterity or skill.

Observe that innateness / inheritance is an essential part of the concept. If you want examples of what Rand said about "instinct", you can look online in the Ayn Rand lexicon.

OK you got me on this one, I will do some more research and reformulate

I still believe that I have a valid idea, I just have to fine tune concepts and definitions

Thanks for your contribution

[Grames]

Can anyone cite any Ran's paragraph where she actually says "Man has no instincts"?

Because if she did she was wrong, I have read almost all of her books and I don't recall something like this...

We DO have instincts.

We DO NOT have instincts because we have volitional conceptual consciousness which controls all of our behavior, our actions and thoughts are voluntary. In the philosophical context, instinct is the brutal version of mystical revelation and is to be obeyed not validated.

Galt's speech:

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an 'instinct'. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold, Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history.

"You who speak of a 'moral instinct' as if it were some separate endowment opposed to reason—man's reason is his moral faculty.

"And to forestall any inquiry into the cause of the difference between a jungle village and New York City, they resort to the ultimate obscenity of explaining man's industrial progress—skyscrapers, cable bridges, power motors, railroad trains—by declaring that man is an animal who possesses an 'instinct of toolmaking.'

Journals of Ayn Rand

"It is pointless to argue with the instinct—feeling—urge—emotion—compulsion—sub-conscious boys and to debate what percentage of man's nature can be called rational. It is simpler to take them at their word. Even if we suppose that man is not a rational being, but a howling neurosis endowed with one percent of rationality—it still remains true that in order to survive he must take rational actions rationally thought out from rational motives, and that unless he does so, he won't be there to enjoy his sub-conscious. Let it be but one percent of his nature, his rational faculty is all that matters in him and all that counts. It must still be taken as his dominant trait—because it is his sole lease on life. He can survive only to the extent that he is able to exist in accordance with it. When and if he is unable to do so—he has stated and signed his death warrant. There is no point in discussing the way of life proper to a creature who has no means to keep itself alive."

[A is A]

To begin with' date=' man does not possess any instincts. [/quote']

Playboy

Edited June 28, 2010 by A is A

[Tonix777]

Of course I understand Rand's position, but I also understand she was at war against the mystics of any kind so she couldn't take any prisoners...

I will do some more serious research and come back with this topic when and if it worth

Edited June 29, 2010 by Tonix777

[Tonix777]

Of course I understand Rand's position, but I also understand she was at war against the mystics of any kind so she couldn't take any prisoners...

I will do some more serious research and come back with this topic when and if it worth

I did more research about this topic and the result lead to a somewhat blind alley because the definition and scope of the concept "instincts" varies according to scholars and history

In modern science though several related concepts refers to similar but not necessarily identical human traits:

Instincts

Biological predispositions

Innate behavior

Human motivational forces

Instinctual drives

On the other hand different researchers have different opinions and when asked: Do humans have instincts?

They answer by example:

"We sure do. Our basic survival depends on them. Although greatly subdued through modern means, "grocery stores, etc." we have a killer instinct. Ever notice someone getting upset because they are hungry? Eons ago, this would be the body telling the mind to go out and get something for dinner. You would have to hunt, or pull something from the ground "vegetation" to satisfy those cravings. Now one only has to reach for the fridge. And, of course, the other survival instinct, only second to hunger, is sex. Survival of the species would be impossible without it"

"Short of the "suckling" response, humans have NO instincts. We have reflexes which are not instincts or the resullts of instincts. A reflex never makes it pas the spinal colum. It is a part of the autonomous nervous system which cannot be overriden."

"According to what scientists currently say, humans have no instincts. Much of what people have already listed, sucking, choking, finger grabing are obvious reflexes. I have to agree with what the last poster wrote. However I do believe in the mothering instinct. It is far from unheard of in the animal kingdom that a mother will kill or abandon her babies. This is not always due to defect of the young, I supose some females (human and otherwise) just don't have that instinct."

"It is very surprising to read above answer that human beings do not have instincts.There are few important human instincts ,which are not learning by any means. Laughing, crying,sweet eating,sex desire ,meternity instincts etc are natural as duck baby starts swiming at the time of birth.These instincts are not learned behaviour.there is no relation between envirnment and instincts."

"Sex is not a learned response. How did the first humans mate without the general knowledge of others? Because it's an instinct. It is a PROVEN fact that if you put a newborn baby into water, the baby will try to keep itself above water. It's the child's INSTINCT to try to swim with no prior knowledge before hand. As for the whole "read a book" thing above.. It's your instinct to get food when your hungry. Today, our knowledge generally overrides our instincts because we have it so easy. If you put a person that lives in California in Alaska, they have no prior knowledge of Alaska. The only thing they have to survive on is instinct. They find food because they are hungry. INSTINCT. They try to find shelter because their body can't handle the cold. INSTINCT. There is no argument for the "Humans have no instinct" side of the issue. We obviously have it. We're also an animal species."

Wikipedia stresses that this subject is "is still hotly debated" among scholars

"Additional human traits that have been looked at as instincts are: sleeping, altruism, disgust, face perception, language acquisitions, "fight or flight" and "subjugate or be subjugated". Some experiments in human and primate societies have also come to the conclusion that a sense of fairness could be considered instinctual, with humans and apes willing to harm their own interests in protesting unfair treatment of self or others.[2][3]

Many scientists consider that it is instinctual in children to put everything in their mouths, because this is how they tell their immune system about the environment and the surroundings, what the immune system should adapt to.[4]

Other sociologists argue that humans have no instincts, defining them as a "complex pattern of behavior present in every specimen of a particular species, that is innate, and that cannot be overridden." Said sociologists argue that drives such as sex and hunger cannot be considered instincts, as they can be overridden. This definitory argument is present in many introductory sociology and biology textbooks,[5] but is still hotly debated."

Other references are also unclear or in disagreement between each other:

Neuroscience Forum

"...However, if you remove the egg halfway through her trip back to the nest, she will continue back to the nest with her bill on the ground, "rolling" the now-absent egg.

The question is, then, are there fixed action patterns in humans? Surprisingly, scientists do not agree on this answer. It's hard to visualize any human behavior that is that stereotyped, that automatic, that is definately inheritied, not learned. Some have argued that behaviors such as caring for babies or the incest taboo are fixed action patterns, but this is debatable."

Random Forum

"This is a good debate.

Not really because to debate that we are born with instincts is ridiculous.

EMOTIONS BTW are taught, they are conditioned because they are how you respond to certain things, you are taught how to respond to things.

While some instincts you have are taught, you actually do have physical & biological instincts just like any other mammal or animal that critical to survival, procreation and so on ... only difference is that we are supposed to be in control of ours as the "superior beings".

Objectivist Forum

Bowzer, on Aug 3 2004, 06:21 AM, said: Man has no instincts--not even so much as a relic of one.

"This is untrue. We are equipt with mental behaviour which is not learned and exists within us. Everything from the ability to recognise facial expressions and read body language, to jumping at the sound of a gun; from vomiting to breast-feeding, is instinctive. We aren't taught to do it.

And I suppose you think having an erection is an act of volition...? "

The voices of the orthodox Objectivism are clear but they are philosophers and probably not final authorities on biology or neuroscience

They are in my opinion speaking about a broader/higher level of man's consciousness and its relationship with reality. In this context they are absolutely right: Man's consciousness can never be replaced by any innate behavior in acquiring/generating knowledge about reality

Leonard Peikoff _OPAR_ pp. 193-4 said:

"The lower conscious species may be said to survive by "instinct," if the term means an unchosen and unerring form of action (unerring within the limits of its range). Sensations and percepts are unchosen and unerring. An instinct, however—whether of self-preservation or anything else—is precisely what a conceptual being does not have. Man cannot function or survive by the guidance of mere sensations or percepts. A conceptual being cannot initiate action unless he knows the nature and purpose of his action. He cannot pursue a goal unless he identifies what his goal is and how to achieve it."

Galt's speech:

"Man has no automatic code of survival. His particular distinction from all other living species is the necessity to act in the face of alternatives by means of volitional choice. He has no automatic knowledge of what is good for him or evil, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. Are you prattling about an instinct of self-preservation? An instinct of self-preservation is precisely what man does not possess. An 'instinct' is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge. A desire is not an 'instinct'. A desire to live does not give you the knowledge required for living. And even man's desire to live is not automatic: your secret evil today is that that is the desire you do not hold, Your fear of death is not a love for life and will not give you the knowledge needed to keep it. Man must obtain his knowledge and choose his actions by a process of thinking, which nature will not force him to perform. Man has the power to act as his own destroyer—and that is the way he has acted through most of his history..."

AR Playboy interview:

PLAYBOY: "You attack the idea that sex is "impervious to reason." But isn't sex a nonrational biological instinct?"

RAND: "No. To begin with, man does not possess any instincts. Physically, sex is merely a capacity. But how a man will exercise this capacity and whom he will find attractive depends on his standard of value. It depends on his premises, which he may hold consciously or subconsciously, and which determine his choices. It is in this manner that his philosophy directs his sex life."

PLAYBOY: "Isn't the individual equipped with powerful, nonrational biological drives?"

RAND: "He is not. A man is equipped with a certain kind of physical mechanism and certain needs, but without any knowledge of how to fulfill them. For instance, man needs food. He experiences hunger. But, unless he learns first to identify this hunger, then to know that he needs food and how to obtain it, he will starve. The need, the hunger, will not tell him how to satisfy it. Man is born with certain physical and psychological needs, but he can neither discover them nor satisfy them without the use of his mind. Man has to discover what is right or wrong for him as a rational being. His so-called urges will not tell him what to do."

My final conclusions are as follows

1-The word "Instincts" became an anti-concept as time had gone by as brilliantly stated by stephen_speicher in our own Forum

2-In any case we should distinguish between Instincts and Reflexes being instincts possible to be "intercepted" by our volitional consciousness because they reside in the brain, while reflexes are generated directly in the spine and can't be volitionally managed. None of them gives to Man any innate knowledge about reality, only about himself

3-To avoid confusions I would better use the more scientific term Instinctual drives to define strong impulses we humans have like physical sexual attraction, hunger, violent anger, caring for our children, etc.

These instinctual drives would include some degree of religious and collectivist-altruist innate tendency in most of us according to Matthew Alper and me

4-The HUGE difference between lower animals and us is that have our conscious volition to decide what to do with these "Instinctual drives". We can manage them while other animals can't, it is our free will

5-Besides all scholar sources that can be disputed or not in legitimacy, seriousness, etc. I have always been a very self-centered person and I can also recognize inside me these impulses or "Instinctual drives" even since my early childhood and in matters where I hadn't learned yet anything from my environment-family-society, or even more clear: sometimes my "Instinctual drives" (some of them absolutely shameful) were at odds with the alleged teachings of the society