About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


Post 180

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 8:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon, in response to Rand's acknowledgment of a pyramid of ability, you write ...

================
... we can’t pretend she didn’t say those other things just because we find her making more sense elsewhere.
================

What the hell, Jon? Are you saying that ALL differences in human ability are due to differences in human choices? And that, where Rand had agreed with this notion -- she is right; and that, where she disagreed with this notion (as she appears to in the quotes I've marshalled); she was wrong?

Get bold. Make a positive statement about this matter (like I do, and have done).

Ed




Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 181

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 6:15pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen wrote,
Glenn, as I understand what Bill is trying to demonstrate, it's that Rand's view of tabula rasa is correct, including that no aspects of character come from genetic disposition. But Bob Mac is saying that instead of demonstrating this, Bill has presumed it. Judging from the quotes juxtaposed in post 91, I'd say that Bob Mac is right.

The first quote accepts a particular definition of "character."

--"Yes, given the Objectivist view of 'character' as that aspect of a person's nature or identity that is shaped by his moral values." ("Shaped," btw, is tricky there; what does it mean?)
It means that aspect of a person's nature or identity that is "determined" by his moral values. We say, "He is a man of good character," referring to someone who characteristically acts in a morally respectable manner.
The second asserts that pre-determined character is false "because a person enters the world tabula rasa."
"Tabula rasa" means born without innate ideas.
--"Rand points out that this is false[pre-determined character], because a person enters the world tabula rasa, and because his convictions, values, moral character and achievements are determined by his choices and acquired knowledge rather than by his genetic lineage [...]."

But whether or not a person "enters the world tabula rasa" is just the question at issue, is it not?
Not exactly. To enter the world "tabula rasa" simply means to enter it with no innate ideas. The issue that sparked this discussion refers specifically to whether or not one's character is inherited. I argued that the way Rand uses the term, one's "character" is not inherited, because the convictions and moral values that determine the choices on which one's character is based are not innate but acquired. They are not innate, because there are no innate ideas.

I don't see how this begs the question. The question is, what is Rand's position, and is it true? Her position is that one's (moral) character is not innate, because one isn't born with any pre-formed or innate ideas, moral or otherwise. I think the evidence for this is incontrovertible. One acquires one's ideas, including one's ideas of right and wrong, from experience. Therefore, one's moral character is determined by one's choices and acquired knowledge rather than by one's genetic lineage.

- Bill

Post 182

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Biiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiilllllllllllllll's Baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack!

Look out, argumentators!

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 183

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 9:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

BillD:
Not exactly. To enter the world "tabula rasa" simply means to enter it with no innate ideas.

A clear definition! ;-)

This is actually interesting.  I don't think everyone participating in this thread would agree.  Further, I'm not so sure Rand would agree, since Rand was quoted as broadly and bluntly saying:

"No one is born with any kind of 'talent' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

Clearly there are "talents" and "skills" which do not require any particular ideas or concepts. Physical skills, such as strength and stamina, for example, are by-in-large products of one's specific overall biology, and not of one's ideas about stength or stamina.  Obviously, thought the exercise of volition there is flexibility within the biologic framework, but there are also clear restrictions.   And yet, Rand does not make any such distinction.  She is quite clear with "any kind" and "every".   This strongly suggests to me that Rand took the state of "tabula rasa" to be blank beyond just "ideas".

Further, we also know that there are human beings born with talents and skills that are not nourished and grown through the typical conceptual framework, but again, appear to be by-in-large a product of specific biological circumstances.   People within the "autistic spectrum", such as those with Williams syndrome, as well as people like Kim Peek, and Daniel Tammet all display extraordinary talents and skills that appear to be enabled not by typical effort through conceptual integration or the like, but through specific in-born biological circumstances.

BillD:
..one's "character" is not inherited, because the convictions and moral values that determine the choices on which one's character is based are not innate but acquired. They are not innate, because there are no innate ideas.
I completely agree that there are no "innate ideas".  However, it does seem to me that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that "character" is more complicated that one's consciously held beliefs and convictions. 
 
We know, for example, that the levels of serotonin in an individual's brain significantly influence levels of "happiness", and consequently can have an influence on how we act in any given circumstance (demonstrating "character").   Again, there is flexibility, but biology does seem to provide a significant base.

We also know that even people with very strong moral values and convictions, take for example Ayn Rand, can fluctuate WILDLY in their "character".  Rand wrote to Nathaniel Branden in 1950 about the non-virtue of anger:

"The first step is to feel a conviction strongly enough to want to scream about it, but a still better step is to feel it so strongly that no screams are necessary.  If you feel like Steven Mallory now, it's good, but a still better step is to feel like Roark.  You understand very well why he would not scream at anybody. "

She also writes to Barbara Branden during the same time:

"I'm glad [...] I don't have to lecture you on why one should not scream in arguments, as I lectured Nathan."

And yet, we know Rand screamed at a lot of people...  So, it would seem to me that there is at least a little bit more to this issue of "character" than ideas, convictions, and moral values.




RCR


Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 184

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Hi Ed,

By “we can’t pretend,” I mean you don’t get to pretend she didn’t say what she did about Mozart and herself just because you can find her making more sense in some other quote. You still have to engage those views of hers (Mozart simply tried the hardest, she was simply more honest) and try to answer why would she say those things.

You ask if I am “saying that ALL differences in human ability are due to differences in human choices?” No. And to the follow-up question; no.

You say it’s time I get bold. I can’t get bold on the genes vs. environment question because I have no idea. Genes more than environment for some outcomes, the other way around for others, I suppose. I will boldly say that her placement of all of it on honesty is silly.

Now it’s time for you to get bold.

When you thought I might put all emphasis on choices, it earned me a “What the hell, Jon?” So will you post a “What the hell, Ayn?” for similar nonsense she uttered, “often,” to Peikoff?

Seriously, though. In post 153 I give a try at explaining what would make her say such a silly thing. Now you try.


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 185

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
BillD:
Not exactly. To enter the world "tabula rasa" simply means to enter it with no innate ideas.
RCR:
A clear definition! ;-)

This is actually interesting. I don't think everyone participating in this thread would agree. Further, I'm not so sure Rand would agree, since Rand was quoted as broadly and bluntly saying:

"No one is born with any kind of 'talent' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

Clearly there are "talents" and "skills" which do not require any particular ideas or concepts. Physical skills, such as strength and stamina, for example, are by-in-large products of one's specific overall biology, and not of one's ideas about stength or stamina. Obviously, thought [sic] the exercise of volition there is flexibility within the biologic framework, but there are also clear restrictions. And yet, Rand does not make any such distinction. She is quite clear with "any kind" and "every". This strongly suggests to me that Rand took the state of "tabula rasa" to be blank beyond just "ideas"
As I noted in Post #83, The American Heritage Dictionary defines "talent" as: "1. A mental or physical aptitude; natural or acquired ability." So, the term "talent" can be used to refer either to a natural endowment or to an acquired skill. I suspect that Rand is using it in the latter sense. I don't think she'd say that what separates Francisco D'Anconia from Eddie Willers is that D'Anconia was industrious and Willers, lazy. Willers is portrayed as a decent and conscientious man of somewhat limited natural endowments and potential; D'Anconia, as an supremely gifted man with enormous potential. The difference between them is not one of application, but of innate ability.
Further, we also know that there are human beings born with talents and skills that are not nourished and grown through the typical conceptual framework, but again, appear to be by-in-large a product of specific biological circumstances. People within the "autistic spectrum", such as those with Williams syndrome, as well as people like Kim Peek, and Daniel Tammet all display extraordinary talents and skills that appear to be enabled not by typical effort through conceptual integration or the like, but through specific in-born biological circumstances.
I don't think Rand would disagree with you.
BillD:
...one's "character" is not inherited, because the convictions and moral values that determine the choices on which one's character is based are not innate but acquired. They are not innate, because there are no innate ideas.
I completely agree that there are no "innate ideas". However, it does seem to me that there is sufficient evidence to suggest that "character" is more complicated that one's consciously held beliefs and convictions.

We know, for example, that the levels of serotonin in an individual's brain significantly influence levels of "happiness", and consequently can have an influence on how we act in any given circumstance (demonstrating "character"). Again, there is flexibility, but biology does seem to provide a significant base.
True, but according to Objectivism, a person's moral character is something that he has control over. To judge him as immoral for an action over which he had no control and which is due to the involuntary effects of brain chemicals is unwarranted. That's not to say that, assuming such effects to be present, it is always easy to discriminate conscious choices from involuntary reactions. But to the extent that one identifies an action as involuntary, it does not bear on the agent's moral character.
We also know that even people with very strong moral values and convictions, take for example Ayn Rand, can fluctuate WILDLY in their "character". Rand wrote to Nathaniel Branden in 1950 about the non-virtue of anger:

"The first step is to feel a conviction strongly enough to want to scream about it, but a still better step is to feel it so strongly that no screams are necessary. If you feel like Steven Mallory now, it's good, but a still better step is to feel like Roark. You understand very well why he would not scream at anybody. "

She also writes to Barbara Branden during the same time:

"I'm glad [...] I don't have to lecture you on why one should not scream in arguments, as I lectured Nathan."

And yet, we know Rand screamed at a lot of people... So, it would seem to me that there is at least a little bit more to this issue of "character" than ideas, convictions, and moral values.
Same answer as the above. To the extent that we are talking about moral character, involuntary reactions are not at issue.

- Bill

Post 186

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 6:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
To pinpoint the difference between the Objectivist method and that of the proponents of verbal metaphysics: We form definitions by observing reality first-hand (granting as much weight to introspective data as to any other type). They do it by mulling over what other people have said and thought, and considering what they might permit themselves to say in this verbal community.


Post 187

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:08amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
They get their clues from the tribe - I get mine from reality...

Post 188

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 7:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Another aspect is that they are primarily concerned with proving things to others, and think this is the essence of science; we are concerned primarily with knowing--i.e., with "proving" things to ourselves, the swaying of others being just a side task that can sometimes be desirable.

Post 189

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 8:14amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
So, is there a 'we-they' dichotomy?

Ed

Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 11, No Sanction: 0
Post 190

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 10:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Quick remark on this sentence quoted from Rand:

"No one is born with any kind of 'talent' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

Bill says in post 185 that he thinks Rand is using "talent" there in the sense of an "acquired skill."

She couldn't have been, Bill, unless she was writing a more inept sentence than I can recall ever coming from her pen.

Substitute "acquired skill" in the sentence, and you'd have:

"No one is born with any kind of 'acquired skill' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."

Also, there's further context. Haven't time to look back through the posts right now for the rest of the quote, but she goes on to say that writers are made not born, specifically "*self*-[her emphasis] made." Why would she have said that if what she was meaning by "talent" in the context was "acquired skill"?

(I'll respond further later this week if I get a chance, but I might not have time.)

Ellen

___

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 191

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:39amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ellen is of course right. You can try to reinterpret what Rand said but it won't work. She really thought that Mozart hadn't any kind of special inborn talent. I understand that it's difficult, but you'll just have to live with the fact that she screwed up royally here.

Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 192

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 11:50amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rand wrote, "No one is born with any kind of 'talent' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired." To which Ellen replied,
Bill says in post 185 that he thinks Rand is using "talent" there in the sense of an "acquired skill."

She couldn't have been, Bill, unless she was writing a more inept sentence than I can recall ever coming from her pen.

Substitute "acquired skill" in the sentence, and you'd have:

"No one is born with any kind of 'acquired skill' and, therefore, every skill has to be acquired."
She wouldn't have put it that way, because the wording is so obviously redundant. If she were to have rephrased her statement to avoid ambiguity, she would have said, "No one is born with any kind of skill; every skill has to be acquired" or "No one is born with any kind of talent; every talent has to be acquired" -- which is true.

For example, I'm a good juggler. I can do clubs, four balls (I used to be able to do five); I can juggle off walls and floors, etc. Now some people would say that I have a "talent." But I was not born with this talent; I was not born knowing how to juggle. When I first started, I couldn't juggle at all. My talent (or skill) had to be acquired. I think that Rand juggled the two terms "talent" and "skill" out of stylistic preference - to avoid verbal repetition, but that she meant the same thing by them.
Also, there's further context. Haven't time to look back through the posts right now for the rest of the quote, but she goes on to say that writers are made not born, specifically "*self*-[her emphasis] made." Why would she have said that if what she was meaning by "talent" in the context was "acquired skill"?
Well, jugglers are self made not born, aren't they? No one is born knowing how to juggle. Why is it so surprising that she would say the same thing about writers? I don't think Rand would deny that people have different capacities or potentials for acquiring a certain skill or talent. But a capacity or potential is not itself a talent. I was born with the capacity to learn to juggle, but that capacity had to be actualized before it became a talent. As I said in an earlier post, Rand does not repudiate natural endowments, for she states, "Whatever a child's natural endowment, the use of intelligence is an acquired skill."

Suppose Rand had said, "No one is born with any kind of talent or skill; every talent or skill has to be actualized." Would you disagree? Suppose that Mozart had never been exposed to music or written any musical scores. Would you or anyone else say that he was a highly talented composer? No, of course, you wouldn't. He would have to demonstrate this talent, wouldn't he? But what he would be demonstrating is something that he developed. The potential was there at the start, to be sure, but the talent itself - the actual ability to compose great music - was not; it had to be developed.

- Bill


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 193

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 1:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Bill,

She also thought that every skill must be developed, you’re right. And you are right that this point can be seen as offered against the notion of inborn ideas.

However, you must see that you are wishing that that was *all she had to say.* It wasn’t.

Why are you unwilling to engage the fact that she held peculiar views about herself and Mozart? Why do you keep pretending that she didn’t hold them, that she meant simply and only to say that newborns can’t write novels yet? Do you really think that’s all she meant to say? Should we repost the stuff?


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 194

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 2:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon,
Why are you so willing to accept the hearsay and anecdotal evidence about Rand's views of Mozart when, to my knowledge, she never mentioned this idea in print?  If you do a search of the research CD for "Mozart" you find only one hit, and that has nothing to do with talent or innate ideas or tabula rasa

If, on the other hand, you read what she has said about talent and intelligence and native ability in her many writings, you'll see that Bill is right.

As far as the hearsay evidence goes, let's take the Branden quote as an example:
"'The difference between me and other people,' Ayn liked to say, 'is that I am more honest.' She was speaking of intellectual honesty. I would laugh and ask her if she thought anyone else we knew, if completely honest, could have produced *Atlas Shrugged*. She resisted the idea that her powerful intelligence was as important as her honesty. In retrospect, it seems clear that she not only lacked insight about her faults but also often lacked insight about her strengths."
What could she possibly have meant by "other people"?  Did she mean retarded people?  Did she mean people who couldn't read or write?  Perhaps she meant other people as intelligent as her.  That is, she could have meant:
"The difference between me and other people [of comparable intelligence] is that I am more honest."
When Branden says that "She resisted the idea that her powerful intelligence was as important as her honesty.", he doesn't say that she thought that her "powerful intelligence" was unimportant, just not sufficient.

Nothing in her writing suggests that Rand believed that the only difference between my success at music (nonexistent) and that of Mozart could be explained by hard work only.  As Bill said, "Rand does not repudiate natural endowments".

Thanks,
Glenn


Post 195

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 2:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How well-established is this stuff about "abundant mental stimulation in the first decade of life (when canalization occurs)"?


Go to PubMed and type in "neural plasticity children" or anything with neural plasticity in it. It's not "junk science"-- astrology is "junk science", not neuroscience.

Post 196

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 2:21pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Perhaps while some of them may not have been born with the tendency to habitual action?


I've lived through this for 28 years-- habitual action was near crazy to attain because of ADD. Now that I've been treated, I can understand why one's neurochemistry-- stemming from genetics (my father has ADD too, but his is untreated and he has disorganized thought and action) can cause a person to be unable to go beyond physiological constraints and be mentally unfocused as well as actively unfocused. (Try asking a schizophrenic to act unschizophrenic, or a diabetic to quit peeing so much). Habitual action (which is part of being human) is both nurture *and* nature-- it is changeable, to a point, within the context of the individual's life.

Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 197

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 2:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Glenn,

I don’t think you can dismiss this by belittling the evidence as hearsay and anecdotal. The hearsay is strong, for one thing. You chose to use the N. Branden source, yet nearly the exact same thing was said by Peikoff. Read the Branden quote you provided, then the Peikoff interview. Unless those two were in cahoots on this, it’s perfectly solid that she harbored those views. Nice try, though.

“Other people” comes from the Branden version, and your interpretation—that by “other people” she means “other people as intelligent as I”—gets a pass there. However, Peikoff says, “…she said that she thought the only difference between her and most people.” “Most people” are not as intelligent as her. In the sixties “most people” equated to billions of people. (Edit to add: The very next words after the “most people” sentence: “She did not think she had an intelligence beyond that of most people.” She said most people *were* “as intelligent as she.”) So much for that.

You say that Branden “ doesn't say that she thought that her "powerful intelligence" was unimportant, just not sufficient.” OK, Branden doesn’t make clear enough for you that she was saying that honesty was the only difference that had any explanatory power. But Peikoff *did* make it clear. He says, ““…she said that she thought the *only* difference between her and most people” And he says she said this often.

You haven’t justified refusal to engage the fact that she harbored these odd views. Keep trying.




(Edited by Jon Letendre
on 7/11, 3:13pm)


Post 198

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 3:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hey, Jon,
You seem to agree that Branden's version is open to my alternative interpretation, whereas you point out (rightly, I think) that Peikoff's is not.  So, who actually captured the spirit of what Rand thought about this?

What bothers me is the importance that is being attached to these two observations about Rand.  Why not go to the source itself?  Where in her writing does Rand even hint at the possibility that the only difference between any two people's achievements in any endeavor is due to hard work alone?  Where in her writing does she suggest that there is no difference in natural endowments between people?  I don't see it.  What I see is the opposite.

You said:
You haven’t justified refusal to engage the fact that she harbored these odd views. Keep trying.

I didn't refuse to engage the fact; I engaged it and found it wanting. : )
Thanks,
Glenn


Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 7, No Sanction: 0
Post 199

Tuesday, July 11, 2006 - 3:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Glenn,

I find your engagement wanting.

Was she lying to Peikoff as to her actual thoughts on the matter? Was she lying in print? Would it be better to describe her as having boasted wildly to Peikoff? Which do you prefer? This is the engagement I seek.

At a minimum, real engagement includes,

-Acknowledging that she really did say these things to her confidants. (Not sure if you have done this.)

-Acknowledging that she really did mean to say it, that is, she didn’t misspeak to Branden and Peikoff, that is; She really intended to say to them precisely what they report. (You haven’t done this.)

-Explaining *why* she said what she said to them. “In order to boast” is a passable response. “’Cause it wasn’t in print, so why should she or I care?” is not.


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Page 6Page 7Page 8Page 9Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.