Is emotion simply a form of primative instinct formed by chemical impules or is it something deeper.
There have been form of religions and practises that try to control our emotions. Will we ever fully control our emotions?
Does feeling let us know that we’re still human and not just machines?
Is emotion simply a form of primative instinct formed by chemical impules or is it something deeper.
Man has no instincts–not even so much as a relic of one.
There have been form of religions and practises that try to control our emotions. Will we ever fully control our emotions?
But we do control our emotions. You choose your values and emotions are just automatic responses to the things that you value (see OPAR Emotions As A Product Of Ideas p. 153). You change your emotions by changing your value judgments. Yes, there is a lapse in time between when you consciously choose changes in your values and when your emotions respond according to these choices. I don’t think that this means that we don’t “fully control” our emotions. We do effect the change just not immediately so.
Does feeling let us know that we’re still human and not just machines?
Emotions don’t “tell us” anything (see OPAR Reason As Man’s Only Means Of Knowledge p. 159). The two facts that really separate us from machines are (1) we are alive and (2) we are conscious.
Emotions are an automatic reaction to a fact of reality, or something perceived as such, based on one’s value judgements. I believe AR called them “a lightning calculator giving us the sum of our gain or loss.” (That’s approximate, I don’t have the exact quote in front of me, nor do I remember exactly where it came from.)
My favorite demonstration of this is a technique Dr. Peikoff used in teaching the subject to a class, and which is relayed in OPAR. He walks in to class one day and begins handing out exam booklets. Much consternation and gnashing of teeth on the part of the students ensues. Why? Because they identified the booklets (the object) as being part of a process of examination for which they weren’t prepared and thus their grade in the course (a value) would be harmed. Ergo: fear and trepidation. It was noted also that students auditing the course, i.e. not taking it for a grade, had no such reaction. The situation held no implication for their values.
There are four steps, or components, of an emotional experience: the object of the emotion (this need not be a physical object,) the identification of that object, its evaluation according to our value judgements, and the emotion itself. The first and last of those are beyond our immediate control. However, the rational identification of reality is a volitional process and our values are chosen by the same process. Our emotions, therefore, will be rational to the extent that our consciousness functions rationally, to the extent that the value swe choose are rational.
To answer your question directly: no, our emotions are not a form of instinct as such. They are not causeless, irreducible primaries. They are not an alternative measn to knowledge about reality. (They may tell us something about our subconscious values if we take the time to examine them rationally by stepping backwards through the 4 steps listed above.) They are automatic indicators of the success or failure of our values, much like the physical sensations of pleasure or pain. They are a good thing, warning us of danger, motivating us to achieve, rewarding us when we do so, but only if we have selected the proper values. If our values are set against our livlihood, then our emotions will destroy us. If by “controlling our emotions” you mean that we’ll all become stoic Vulcans, then no, we won’t. We have no choice about experiencing emotions, but we can indirectly control their content by the values we choose.
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…?
And I suppose you think having an erection is an act of volition…?
Actually I’m quite surprised that you didn’t list sex as another one of our “instincts.”
I agree with Dr. Peikoff when he writes,
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.
You are confusing reflexes (which man does possess) with instincts.
Actually I’m quite surprised that you didn’t list sex as another one of our “instincts.”
I agree with Dr. Peikoff when he writes,
You are confusing reflexes (which man does possess) with instincts.
An instinct is an inborn pattern of behaviour. Reflexes are a form of instinct. Some instincts are not beyond our conscious control, but that does not mean they are not automatic. They are automatic because if the conscious mind does not intercept the instinctive behaviour, we would perform the action, without deliberate initiation. Where we are still volatile is in our choice to ignore the instinct and not intervene.
I would further define “instinct” as being a behaviour that is inborn, requires no conscious effort to initiate, and has a certain degree of automation. We are the only being that can consciously control most of our instincts, and reflexes. We can choose not to sneeze, and we can choose not to vomit. But if we make no choice, we default to performing the action, without any conscious thought. On the other hand, if we feel hungry, this will not automatically make us find and cook our food. We have to learn how to do this. We can however, retract our conscious mind, and perform the cooking as it has been learned by rote. This does not make it instinctive because of how we discovered cooking: consciously.
I don’t agree with Piekoff when he concludes that man does not have instinct. Man cannot function merely by the guidance of sensations or percepts, but that does not disprove the existence of instinct in man.
OK, I retract what I said earlier…you’re not confusing reflexes with instincts. You’re just plain confused, period. I have no way to know what you mean by “instinct,” “reflex” or “volition” since you mix them all up together as you please.
I would further define “instinct” as being …
I agree with Bowzer that you are conflating a number of separate terms, each that has both an historical basis and a proper conceptual one. But, I am curious as to where you are getting your information from. Are you perhaps reading Dennett?
I agree with Bowzer that you are conflating a number of separate terms, each that has both an historical basis and a proper conceptual one. But, I am curious as to where you are getting your information from. Are you perhaps reading Dennett?
No, at the moment I only have the dictionary to hand, and what that says is vague. Which is why I explained what I meant by the terms I was using. I don’t think I conflated the terms “reflex” and “instinct”, but nor did I specify what the difference was. Hence I stuck to using the word “instinct” to describe any inborn, automatic behaviour; a definition that I am sure is accurate, if not very specific (because I don’t have a specific definition to hand), and abandoned the word “reflex”. I don’t think I confused the term “volition” at all.
These are the dictionary definitions I have:
Instinct: Inborn pattern of behaviour often responsive to specific stimuli
Reflex: An automatic instinctive unlearned reaction to a stimulus
Piekoff adds that instinct is automatic. I was attempting to explain that man has automatic, inborn patterns of behaviour, and based on the definition of “instinct” and the examples I gave, instinct is real in man.
@Bowser: What seperates instinct from reflexes?
@Bowser: What seperates instinct from reflexes?
Good question. One of the things that I disagree with in your above post is the fact that you include reflexes under the heading “instinct.” A reflex is not a type of instinct.
A reflex is a simple motor action elicited by a sensory stimulus. The typical example of a reflex is the knee-jerk response. This is known as a “spinal reflex” because, generally speaking, the only part of the nervous system involved are the motor and sensory neurons that meet in the spinal cord. There need not even be a brain present for this reflex to take place.
The reason that a reflex differs fundamentally from an instinct is not just a degree of complexity. Reflexes do not involve consciousness; a nervous system, yes, but consciousness is not needed. Reflexes do not pose a problem to Objectivism because they are not a product of consciousness. Instincts are the province of consciousness proper and this is the point that Dr. Peikoff picks up in OPAR.
I agree with Bowswer that there should be a clear distinction between processes that involve consciousness and those that do not. Instincts involve conscoiusness while reflexes do not. I think the confusion tends to stem from the fact that both are automatic.
Then, within the categoy of conscious behaviors, there is a distinction between instincts, which are automatic, and volitionally driven behavior, which are non-automatic.
On this subject I have many questions. Many people bash Ayn Rand because they think her ‘tabula rasa’ statement was “naive.” I have had the book ‘Blank Slate’ thrown in my face more times than I care to comment. I haven’t yet read it. Also, you will hear arguments made from the perspective of Evolutionary Biology or the more suspicious sounding Evolutionary Psychology. I wont dismiss these subjects but I would like for them to be put in proper context. Is there an Objectivist intellectual who has tackled them?
I also would like a good definition of ‘instinct.’ It seems it means different things to different people. Without a good starting definition, this conversation can go nowhere.
I also would like a good definition of ‘instinct.’ It seems it means different things to different people.
Yes, that is true, and that is one of the reasons, but not the only, that I disagree with some of the things said above by Andrew and Bowzer. Essentially, instinct is an anti-concept, a notion which takes the place of a causal explanation.
The idea of instincts goes back to the Ancient Greeks, lost during the Dark Ages, and re-discovered by Renaissance philosophers. But these were but dabblers in the idea, and it was only in the middle- to late-nineteenth century that the scientific notion began to develop. Herbert Spencer in his 1851 Principles of Psychology defines instinct as an unconscious action, a “compound reflex action.” Less than forty years later William James defined instinct as “the faculty of acting in such a way as to produce certain ends, without foresight of the ends and without previous education in the performance.” But James took this primarily from investigation of animals, and he derived human instincts from that.
Interestingly, psychology around that time taught what was known as the Fallacy of the Faculty. By dividing the human mind into an endless series of faculties, each faculty being what explains some conscious action, it became understood that this procedure was no explanation at all. That we have certain faculties, is just saying that that is how we act, and this is the Fallacy of the Faculty, a pseudo-explanation of conscious action that had no real meaning.
In another 1897 paper on instincts (I do not have the reference handy) the author states “In proposing to write upon the psychology of instinct, I have assumed that it is a conscious process: otherwise it would not come within the province of psychology.” So, there you have it. If instincts are to be the province of psychology, we better make instincts a conscious process else it will not apply to psychology! But, even so, until the early part of the 20th century, these issues in regard to instincts garnered little scientific attention. In a 1921 paper, C.E. Ayres reflects back upon some comments made just at this time, 1897.
“In 1897 Alfred Russell Wallace began a review of Lloyd Morgan’s Habit and Instinct with the following words: ‘There is probably no subject in the whole range of biology the study of which has been so universally neglected as Instinct.’ Those words could not be written now; since then it has rained instinct.”
C.E. Ayres, “Instinct and Capacity – I: The Instinct of Belief-in-Instincts,” The Journal of Philosophy, Vol. 18, No. 21, pp. 561-565, Oct 13, 1921.
So by 1921 it was raining instincts! Everyone and everything began to be explained by instincts. Ten years later the instinct orgy permeated all the popular journals.
“If we are to judge by examples that have appeared in leading publications during the past year, any phenomenon of behavior that tends to exhibit even a minor degree of stability sooner or later will be referred to as ‘instinctive’.”
– Richard Stephen Uhrbrock, “Popular usage of the Terms ‘Instinct’ and ‘Instinctive’,” The Scientific Monthly, Vol. 34, No. 6, pp. 544-546, June 1932.
And, even worse, the same fallacy that was accepted in regard to faculties as a pseudo-explanation in psychology, was now rationalized away when it came to these instincts.
“It will be granted that an instinct is a sort of faculty, but it is suggested that we can employ the concept of an instinct as a sort of faculty without being guilty of the distinctive blunder of the faculty-psychologists.”
– C.A. Mace, “Faculties and Instincts,” Mind, Vol. 40, No. 157, pp. 37-48, January 1931.
With such an irrational foundation as this, the groundwork was set for the nativists who arrived just a few generations later. The likes of Jerry Fodor and Noam Chomsky firmly implanted nativism in psychology, and the neuro sciences that took off shortly thereafter acted as the reductionist mechanism for these premises.
That man is both a physical and mental being cannot be denied, but to explain anything about man’s behavior as an “instinct” is the very same fallacy as the Fallacy of the Faculty. It is a pseudo-explanation, which is worse than no explanation at all. This is true not only on the conceptual level, but on the perceptual level as well. The notion of “instincts” must be banished from the realm of consciousness altogether, whether in man or other animals. It is not a definition of “instinct” which is needed, but its total obliteration.
That man is both a physical and mental being cannot be denied, but to explain anything about man’s behavior as an “instinct” is the very same fallacy as the Fallacy of the Faculty. It is a pseudo-explanation, which is worse than no explanation at all. This is true not only on the conceptual level, but on the perceptual level as well. The notion of “instincts” must be banished from the realm of consciousness altogether, whether in man or other animals. It is not a definition of “instinct” which is needed, but its total obliteration.
I’m not yet prepared to throw out the concept of instinct, either animal or human, altogether. I’ll need to think about this some more. In the mean time, if you further flesh out your reasons why ‘instinct’ is an anti-concept, I would appreciate it.
The scientific uses of the words instinct and reflex tell us all we need to know in this case:
An INSTINCT means a complex pattern of behaviour, like mating, hunting, building a nest.
A REFLEX is a quick, automatic movement or action that is not consciously controllable: like your leg bouncing when the kneecap is hit, or your mouth watering at the smell of food.
These two have to be completely differentiated from innate ABILITIES, like the ability to recognize certain patterns, or the ability to form concepts - which are not reflexes NOR instincts, but simply abilities, which can be exercised or not.
Stephen Speicher: “Interestingly, psychology around that time taught what was known as the Fallacy of the Faculty. By dividing the human mind into an endless series of faculties, each faculty being what explains some conscious action, it became understood that this procedure was no explanation at all. That we have certain faculties, is just saying that that is how we act, and this is the Fallacy of the Faculty, a pseudo-explanation of conscious action that had no real meaning.”
A psychological model makes divisons of the mind to yield more information about our behaviour, our thought process and countless other things. By dividing the mind into categories we can subject different parts to tests to yield information; like for instance, how effective the chosen method of division is. A psychological model is as good as it can effectively demonstrate the mind’s capabilities and show how they affect each other. This is what psychology is.
Stephen_Speicher “That man is both a physical and mental being cannot be denied, but to explain anything about man’s behavior as an “instinct” is the very same fallacy as the Fallacy of the Faculty. It is a pseudo-explanation, which is worse than no explanation at all.”
By this count, you would expect an absolutely 100% correct explanation of the human mind…science can provide us with working models that are not 100% correct (see Bayes Theorem) but are still useful.
I dont see what the problem is with descibing some of man’s attributes as instinctual: We have base drives - we naturally look for a mate, for food - men can be reduced to those instinctual drives. There is no use in denying that we are of animals. HOWEVER: to accept this, is not to use it as a defence for indulging in such actions without intellectual consideration of consequences. We have a volitonal consciouness aswell. We can look beyond these animal, chemical drives and excercise freewill over them.
To say we have instinct is not to say we are instinct. Just because we have evolved beyond the parameters, dare I say determinism, of instinct does not mean it does not comprise a part of us, that we revert to if we do not make use of our higher faculties.
iouswuoibev "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…?"
Bowzer “You are confusing reflexes (which man does possess) with instincts.”
No he isn’t: a reflex such as the knee-jerk response (myotactic reflex) will happen regardless of conscious decision - whilst you dont have total control of facial expressions; body language (reading+writing 
), jumping to the sound of a gun etc - you can consciously prevent them, you can create a false expression to hide an otherwise saddened face, act provocatively - even stop an erection by consciously thinking about…book binding or something?!
Stephen,
I can agree with what you are saying; I’ve always had problems with the concept of an instinct. Would you tell me how we should explain more complex animal behaviors that don’t seem to be learned? These behaviors aren’t reflexes because they involve the consciousness of the animal performing the action. Or are all of these behaviors acquired after birth?
Stephen,
I can agree with what you are saying; I’ve always had problems with the concept of an instinct. Would you tell me how we should explain more complex animal behaviors that don’t seem to be learned? These behaviors aren’t reflexes because they involve the consciousness of the animal performing the action. Or are all of these behaviors acquired after birth?
We explain it the same way that we explain the perceptual level of man: we look at the neurophysiological nature of the animal and the interaction processes in repsonse to physical reality. Consciousness of the external world (on the perceptual level) just adds to the vegetative another level of complexity in self-regulatory behavior. The animal does not have some mysterious “instinct” towards behavior, but rather we explain its behavior by the nature of the perceptual/physiological mechanisms by which the animal functions, and how those mechanisms interact with the physical environment.
As I said in my previous post, “instinct” is an anti-concept because it is a pseudo-explanation, one which does not enlighten in terms of understanding behavior, and actually acts as a block for real scientific analysis.
We explain it the same way that we explain the perceptual level of man: we look at the neurophysiological nature of the animal and the interaction processes in repsonse to physical reality. Consciousness of the external world (on the perceptual level) just adds to the vegetative another level of complexity in self-regulatory behavior. .
That satisfies me completely. Now I understand why the concept of instincts bothered me. The only thing that an “instinct” could be other than what you mentioned (i.e., an animal’s neurophysiological makeup and its perceptual-level consciousness) is some form of innate knowledge and we know that there is no such thing. This is, however, exactly what proponents of instincts want us to believe especially the nativists as you mentioned.
I’m going to study this issue some more but that helps me very much.