Hi there!

[Mushroom]

Hi, I thought I'd introduced myself when I made this account, but I guess I didn't. I've been a longtime on and off lurker/reader of this forum (8 years or so). I just graduated with degrees in philosophy and chemistry. I'd consider myself an Objectivist, but I'm not sure 100% of my views are compatible with it. Specifically, I've formed opinions in philosophy of science/biology that I'm not sure Objectivism supports (although my views are highly compatible with the fundamentals, they might end up contradicting some of Objectivism's views regarding science or concept formation). I've decided to become a little more active (begin posting) in the hope that this forum will help me make some logical connections between philosophy of science and Objectivism.

[softwareNerd]

Welcome. Hope you find the value you're looking for.

[Repairman]

Mushroom, it is a helpful to have someone with your background as a contributor. I have only recently discovered this forum, and immediately found it entertaining and worthwhile reading. As for myself, I arrived at many of the same conclusions put forth in Ayn Rand's writings, and found that I have been in aggreement with Objectivist disciplines for all of my life, with the exception of those unfortunate and misspent episodes that too frequently happen to many of us. These "episodes" may be explained by the fact that I've only discovered the writings of Ayn Rand in 2007, rather late in my life. Your background in science and philosophy is no small accomplishment. As a young man, you'll do well. As for integrating Objectivism into your personal lifestyle, no problem. What are your objections to Objectivism?

[Mushroom]

Thanks softwareNerd and Repairman,

 

I don't have any objections per se. Objectivism isn't a very accommodating philosophical system: either you believe in all of its tenants or you don't and you call yourself a neo-Objectivist or a libertarian or something else. I found Objectivism a great help throughout my Philosophy classes and life in general. One of the last classes I took was a Metaphysics of Biology class. My professor presented some really good arguments against biological essentialism. I also encountered some good arguments in favor of anti-realism (which I learned today is more precisely called 'constructive empiricism'). I haven't really done the mental leg-work to integrate these concepts yet (I'm in the process of doing so), so I might end up dismissing them... but I'm inclined to think they're valid. 

 

If I find that they contradict Objectivism, but that I continue to believe in them, I have a pretty big project of trying to square them against my other premises and I'll probably come out of it a neo-Objectivist of some sorts. My suspicions right now are that Objectivism was formed at a time when philosophy of science wasn't really in a mature state (all the papers/arguments that I've heard are less than 50 years old and most are less than 20). I'm thinking some more modern ideas in philosophy of science haven't been really addressed by Ayn Rand, Peikoff, or other prominent Objectivists.

 

I'm hoping that I'll be able to either develop or stumble upon convincing Objectivist arguments FOR biological essentialism and scientific realism or that I'll find no contradictions between biological nonessentialism, anti-realism, and Objectivism.

Edited August 16, 2013 by Mushroom

[New Buddha]

Disagreements with Objectivism means that you are thinking for yourself, and not just drinking the cool aid.  Nothing wrong with that.

[secondhander]

Welcome. I echo what Buddha said. While there are many topics that I've come to be more in agreement with Ayn Rand's views the more I understood them, there are still a few areas where I think she was a bit off (minor areas. I think she was right on with regard to the big issues). It's good that you think for yourself, and rationality should be your guide, not adherence to any individual person.

Edited August 17, 2013 by secondhander

[Eiuol]

 

I'm hoping that I'll be able to either develop or stumble upon convincing Objectivist arguments FOR biological essentialism and scientific realism or that I'll find no contradictions between biological nonessentialism, anti-realism, and Objectivism.

I doubt really that biological essentialism is anything Objectivist epistemology could support. Have you read the new book edited by Gotthelf? http://www.amazon.com/Concepts-Their-Role-Knowledge-Philosophical/dp/0822944243/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1376780277&sr=8-1&keywords=gotthelf There are some interesting points on concept formation and philosophy of science that I'm sure you'd be interested in it. I can elaborate if you want. I'll probably jump into your anti-realism thread soon.

[secondhander]

I will tell you, Mushroom, that I believe in evolutionary psychology and don't think there is a conflict between it and objectivism. However, I don't support biological essentialism. This relates to the "is-ought" problem, and I think you will find that some objectivists misunderstand Rand's "solution" to the is-ought problem.

 

In short, even if you are able to show that your biology--and the effects of sexual selection on your evolution--affect and influence your desires (and I believe it does), that doesn't mean that those desires are morally "good" (or "evil") just because you can find a natural or evolved explanation for them. The way Rand addressed the is-ought problem, I believe, is that she showed that morality is grounded in our existence as a living being, and that those things that "are" (the "is") that are related to our survival, are related to what is moral or immoral (the "ought").

 

To illustrate: Man breathes oxygen to survive (the "is"). Therefore, it is good for man to breathe oxygen; it is bad to breathe water (the "ought"). Man must use his mind rationally to find or create shelter, food, and other survival needs. Therefore it is good for man to use his mind rationally; it is bad for man to use his mind irrationally, or to not use his mind at all. However, even though you can show, for example, that humans have evolved in such a way that they are generally more sexually attracted to people of their own race than people of a different race, it means nothing in terms of morality if a person happens to be sexually attracted to someone of a different race, because it has no bearing on one's ability to survive and thrive. There are many other examples that can be given.

 

I don't know if this idea is of interest to you or relates to what you were asking, but if it does, I hope it helps.

Edited August 18, 2013 by secondhander

[Mushroom]

I doubt really that biological essentialism is anything Objectivist epistemology could support. Have you read the new book edited by Gotthelf? http://www.amazon.co...ywords=gotthelf There are some interesting points on concept formation and philosophy of science that I'm sure you'd be interested in it. I can elaborate if you want. I'll probably jump into your anti-realism thread soon.

 

 

Well, that's good. I'm not a big fan of biological essentialism. I think when I do a bit more research I'll start a thread on it. While I agree that Objectivism probably won't support biological essentialism, I have some questions about how we should Identify species concepts. (The one that Rand uses for "Man" and "Dog" is near usless to modern biology, so I'd like to know what the 'concepts' of biology relating to how we classify organisms are.

 

No, I haven't read that book. I'll need to check it out. Sounds like something that'd answer a lot of my questions!

 

I will tell you, Mushroom, that I believe in evolutionary psychology and don't think there is a conflict between it and objectivism. However, I don't support biological essentialism. This relates to the "is-ought" problem, and I think you will find that some objectivists misunderstand Rand's "solution" to the is-ought problem.

 

Huh. I'm not exactly sure what you mean that you believe in evolutionary psychology. I mean, I know what the field is and I've read some stuff from Pinker, Dawkins, etc. But I'm with a lot of people who think that it's a neat subject... but it's not really science or philosophy, it's mostly a collection of "just-so" stories that people make up to justify behavior/findings. (I.e. "I jump when dark irregular spots move on the ground next to me because I think it is a spider" -> "My ancestors would have had a survival advantage if they jumped when dark spots moved on the ground next to them."

As I understand it, most arguments for Evolutionary Psychology as a predictive/explanatory philosophy/science rely on some form of mind modularity. I'm not sure if Rand supported a modular mind. Certainly it is consistent with Objectivism to say that humans evolved, so their minds must have evolved, but EP goes a bit beyond that.

 

I don't know if this idea is of interest to you or relates to what you were asking, but if it does, I hope it helps.

 

 

It might have, although I'm not super concerned with EP at the moment. I view it as more of an interesting thought experiment that might provide some neat insight, but mostly provides 'feel good' answers that seem to be true, but have no evidence.

 

I think you will find that some objectivists misunderstand Rand's "solution" to the is-ought problem.

 

 

Oh. I'm actually kind of interested in the Objectivists that misunderstand her solution. What you said was in line with my understanding (I think). I've always thought of it as it making all moral imperatives (if I can borrow from Kant's lingo) "Hypothetical" rather than "Categorical" - "IF I want to live, THEN I must do X, Y, Z, and everything they entail." While I understand this isn't QUITE what Rand said, it's a kind of shorthand I go to. I understand that Rand ties it to man's "nature" and maybe that's a bit of a thing I'm having trouble with and something I need to sort out. Hopefully, the biological essentialism discussion will help.

 

 I believe, is that she showed that morality is grounded in our existence as a living being

 

 

And I think this might be part of my confusion. I believe that she showed it was grounded in 'man qua man' - which means 'man qua rational animal' (not that I'm trying to substitute the definition for the existent). That's the part that trips me up a bit. I accept that man has a rational faculty and that it is his basic method of survival. A hangup (that occurred to me while reading your post) is that Rand / Peikoff say something along the lines of: Man can't survive by acting like an animal, eating raw meat, grazing, etc. therefore he must use reason. Since 'Man' has no essence, then my worry is about the possibility of a rational animal that has ONE OF its methods of survival as reason, but not the only one. 

 

What if, say, we found an 'alien' species that was equipped with claws and fangs and thick gut linings to digest unprocessed food, but also with large prefrontal cortexes that allowed them to travel. Or what if we genetically engineered a human to have said other survival mechanisms. What if we put enough chlorophyll in a membranous tissue that man could survive by simply sitting and letting the sun hit him.

 

So I need to reread some stuff. 

 

Welcome. I echo what Buddha said. While there are many topics that I've come to be more in agreement with Ayn Rand's views the more I understood them, there are still a few areas where I think she was a bit off (minor areas. I think she was right on with regard to the big issues). It's good that you think for yourself, and rationality should be your guide, not adherence to any individual person.

 

Thanks. To be perfectly honest, I have little love for Miss Rand as a person. I agree with her philosophy (excluding, as you say, a few smaller areas that I haven't finished investigating) - but I think she presented it in a very unflattering light, and went about spreading her message in the wrong way. (I personally see the evidence that she's been assimilated by the Republicans as evidence of this.) She was unabashedly hostile to philosophers who she didn't take enough time to understand. I've heard TONS of arguments against her. Almost none of them deal with her philosophy as such, but take personal shots. I'm, frankly, irritated to keep hearing people say that Rand's work reads like a sophomoric paper. My irritation is partly because I agree with them and wish that she'd written her nonfiction like philosophical nonfiction, and not like a speech that Galt or Roark might make.

[Eiuol]

Well, that's good. I'm not a big fan of biological essentialism. I think when I do a bit more research I'll start a thread on it. While I agree that Objectivism probably won't support biological essentialism, I have some questions about how we should Identify species concepts. (The one that Rand uses for "Man" and "Dog" is near usless to modern biology, so I'd like to know what the 'concepts' of biology relating to how we classify organisms are.

That's actually a topic in the book I linked. There is an interesting discussion regarding Darwin's investigation of barnacles. Barnacles were once considered their own phylum, but then there were various arguments for considering them mollusks on account of development seeming to be more essential than surface features, at least for how to classify relationships between animals. That was before he published about evolution. It's  a very insightful essay about conceptual change.

Edited August 19, 2013 by Eiuol