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 unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


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

Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In Leonard Peikoff's DIM course (Session 1, Part2, available to registered users at www.aynrand.org), he makes several statements that imply the evolution of philosophy was a metaphysical fact. Here are some quotes from the session:
From the very beginning, mysticism necessarily set the terms and ruled human life. It had to because it was way too early for rational guidelines even to be conceived as a need or a possibility, let alone be defined and worked out. There are any number of early centuries in which it would be ridiculous to say to them, "Don't you have a concept of reason, objectivity, logic, science, methodology." Those are tremendously sophisticated discoveries. All of the norms and standards and rules of epistemology are possible only after countless centuries of accumulating knowledge a bit at a time.
(8:37 - 9:34)
The very fact of being primitive puts you in a position of mysticism and some kind of supernatural as the source of knowledge, because you haven't a clue as to how to trace the knowledge which you're taking for granted as crucial, down to sense perception.
(11:10 - 11:27)
...for many many many centuries, man has the need and the capacity to form some view of reality and knowledge but no ability to guide it rationally.
(13:31 - 13:50)
He also states that when pre-Socratic philosophers first attempted to develop a rational (one-world) philosophy, they did not have the intellectual means to do it. This difficulty of developing an objective philosophy opened the door to subjective/skeptic (zero-world) philosophies in order to counter mysticism (two-worlds).

If the statements above are correct, doesn't that free early man from any moral culpability? Also, at what point do we then say that man has the necessary intellect and experience to develop a rational philosophy and must be held accountable for his actions?

I have only finished listening to the first session so if Peikoff addresses these issues in later sessions, I am unaware of it.
(Edited by Ryan Brubaker
on 12/16, 2:38pm)


Post 1

Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 8:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Science is making predictions about Reality, and then learning from comparing the outcomes to the predictions. Reasoning is induction and deduction. Surely people were capable of performing logical reasoning and science back then. They just didn't apply it to as complex of issues, and well, maybe their brains couldn't perform as well as ours do due to being more primitive in the biological evolutionary tree. I'd say there has been progress in the validity, usefulness, and complexity over the ages, but the ideas were more intellectually generated then natural-selection generated, so I wouldn't call it "evolution".

As for holding people accountable for their actions: it matters little whether a person had an accident, was ignorant, or incapable, if they trounced on the natural rights of another, they (or whoever is responsible for them) should be forced to repair/repay whatever damage was done. To what extent prison/confinement is necessary would depend on their motives and potential future threat.

As for dead people: their dead, its too late to hold them accountable : ) What to do other then learn from their successes and mistakes?

Post 2

Saturday, December 16, 2006 - 10:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ryan,

He also states that when pre-Socratic philosophers first attempted to develop a rational (one-world) philosophy, they did not have the intellectual means to do it.
Well, first of all, there's knowledge (information for minds to work with or on) and then there's intellect (the power minds have -- to work with or on their knowledge base). Trust me, these pre-Socratics had the intellect, though perhaps not the knowledge (ie. Peikoff is wrong here).

If the statements above are correct, doesn't that free early man from any moral culpability?
No. It just moves the "bar" back, somewhat. Early man, judging from the works of the pre-Socratics, already "knew" (ie. had knowledge of) the basics of human survival and flourishing.

If you asked a pre-Socratic philosopher whether or not man could be happy lying all the time -- then he would be (already) wise enough to tell you where that would get you. If you asked a pre-Socratic philosopher whether or not man could be happy cheating all the time -- then he would be wise enough to tell you where that would get you. If you asked a pre-Socratic philosopher whether or not man could be happy stealing all the time -- then he would be wise enough to tell you where that would get you. If you asked a pre-Socratic philosopher whether or not man could be happy raping all the time -- then he would be wise enough to tell you where that would get you. If you asked a pre-Socratic philosopher whether or not man could be happy killing all the time -- then he would be wise enough to tell you where that would get you.

Pre-Socratic man had had enough knowledge to be morally judged, even by today's standards.

Also, at what point do we then say that man has the necessary intellect and experience to develop a rational philosophy and must be held accountable for his actions?
~700-600 BC, when Western philosophy began (with Thales).

Ed


Post 3

Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 5:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed:

After reading your post, I realized I probably misquoted/misinterpreted Peikoff's statements about those who made the first attempts at developing a rational philosophy. I should have used the word knowledge instead of intellectual means.
(Edited by Ryan Brubaker
on 12/17, 7:51pm)

(Edited by Ryan Brubaker
on 12/17, 7:52pm)


Post 4

Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 6:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ryan, good point about knowledge.

Also, regarding my "onset of moral culpability" date above (beginning with Thales), I forgot about an earlier time when morality was already being contemplated by homo sapiens--The (moral) Code of Hammurabi. The new date, after which humans should be blamed for their morality -- is 1800 BC (Hammurabi's time as king of Babylon).

Ed

Post 5

Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 8:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I would say it goes much further than that - since such as Hammarabi's Code did not come out of thin air, but a culmination of long oral tradition.....

Post 6

Sunday, December 17, 2006 - 8:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, Dean:

Thanks for your responses and I can see your points.

I'm still a little surprised though at Peikoff's statements, and am having trouble trying to resolve how they fit into Objectivist philosophy. So checking my premises here:

1. Man (i.e. every man who ever existed) is a volitional being. He does not have to make the choices he makes and thus, must be held responsible for them (Objectivist philosophy).

2. Early man had no choice but to attribute unknown natural phenomena to mysticism. He did not have the epistemological foundation to use reason, objectivity and logic so mysticism naturally arose. So he can hardly be blamed for developing a mystic philosophy (Peikoff's statement).

So either one of the above statements is wrong, I'm stating them wrong, or I'm not integrating them correctly. Peikoff's statements seem almost deterministic to me. At the same time, at least for very early man, I can see his point.

Ed: You provided a lot of examples, but they were all are shared beliefs between religion and Objectivism. What about an example where a belief would conflict between the two? So for example, let's look at the Israelites in the Old Testament. Assuming they qualify for Peikoff's statements, they had no choice but to develop a mystic world-view. This mysticism led them to believe they were a chosen people and rightfully owned the land God had chosen for them. They then conquered that land, violating the rights of those already living there. Did they have any other choice in their actions if their first choice necessarily was a belief in a mystic God?

I would think so and I would think Objectivist philosophy would say so, but Peikoff's statements seem to be saying the opposite. But maybe I'm wrong in saying that Peikoff would think that secondary beliefs rising from a mystic foundation also happened necessarily.

Dean: I realize this is an intellectual exercise and we can't go back and prosecute the Israelites :)




Post 7

Monday, December 18, 2006 - 3:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ryan, as I alluded to before, I believe in a sliding scale of moral culpability. No one, ever, gets a "pass" (as Peikoff seems to suggest). If the story of Moses is true, and Moses and his inner circle slaughtered 3000 of their friends, family, and loved ones -- for worshipping a golden calf -- then Moses was wrong; even if he "thought" he was right.

Rand spoke of "errors of knowledge" vs. "breaches of morality." Seems like Moses "could" have merely been in "error" -- but look closer. When slaughtering your friends and family, one has to willfully turn into a monster. Don't take my word for it, visualize it. Picture yourself doing that. How does it 'feel' to you? That's how it felt for Mose, et al. -- only they ignored the moral compass that had already taken hold of civilized man by that time (ca 1800 BC).

As the Rev" said: Hammurabi's Code didn't "begin" with him. Humans have been thinking explicitly about morality for at least 4000 years. Moses shouldn't get a "pass" because he heard a voice, not for what he did TO HIMSELF that day, when taking all of those lives, taking the life from those familiar faces -- that takes a monster; someone who has willfully sold out his very humanity.

You can't become inhuman without blame.

Ed


Post 8

Monday, December 18, 2006 - 4:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
... when I mention "feelings" above, I don't mean to suggest ethical subjectivism. Feelings are judgments from held premises, and humans have had "enough" of the most basic moral premises for 4000 years.

Ed

Post 9

Monday, December 18, 2006 - 8:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Regarding Moses, there is a context being lost here.....  for instance, consider the commandment - thou shalt not kill....  the context of the times then is vastly different than the context of the times now - thus understanding what was meant then is a vast differentness than what it means now... consequently, this 'error of knowledge' being ascribed to Moses need not be so, and yet need not however presume him culpable of being a monster for those acts - any more than ascribing this monstrousness to the issue of descimating the Caananites, a matriarchal society with a relative equality of importance of the female, because of the impossibility of allowing a non-patriarchal society to co-exist for the rightly perceived notion that to do so would undermine adherance to the patriarchal Moses society....  in other words, to the extent of them being able to understand the issues involved, he acted according to known proscribed responses - that is, he acted morally as they understood it....

Post 10

Monday, December 18, 2006 - 9:36amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For what it's worth, the pre-Socratics didn't engage in moral philosophy.  They talked about cosmology and natural ezpanation, primitive versions of what we now class under metaphysics and natural science.  The first philosopher to take up ethics was Socrates.  I don't think Peikoff is claiming otherwise in the passages people have quoted here; he's simply saying that the pre-Socratics engaged in expressly philosophical thinking, a necessary condition of philosophical thinking about ethical questions.

Post 11

Monday, December 18, 2006 - 9:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit




The first philosopher to take up ethics was Socrates.

I presume you're referring to the idea that he was the first to question or raise the notion of 'good ethics' versus 'bad ethics' and what might constitute the differences....


Post 12

Monday, December 18, 2006 - 10:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Yes, that question among others, including what virtue is, whether it's teachable, what kind of society we ought to live in, whether acts are good because god likes them or god likes them because they're good, when we may properly break the law and so on and on.  We have edicts from earlier times, such as Hammurabi's or the Bible's, but not philosophy.

Post 13

Monday, December 18, 2006 - 10:24amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
For point 1: "Man" is not a black and white concept. Its not possible to look at every organism throughout history and be able to determine whether they are "Man" or not. Why? Because "Man" is a fuzzy concept. The idea "Man" is the idea of a thing with many attributes, such as having a skeletal structure similar to my own, similar nervous system, muscular system, sensory system, etc. One could remove or very the attributes of these systems, and one may still call the thing a "Man". Hence I do not think it is accurate to draw a sharp line around the classification "Man". "Volitional" is also a fuzzy concept...

But my real point for point 1 is:
Man (i.e. every man who ever existed) is a volitional being. He does not have to make the choices he makes and thus, must be held responsible for them (Objectivist philosophy).
We don't hold "Man" responsible for their actions because he is volitional. We hold "Man" responsible for their actions because if we didn't then he would benefit from "Walking into our house, killing the husband, raping the wife and children, kill the children, clean up the mess, and then take the wife and house and all of the belongings as if they were his own." He would benefit, which means that some men would do it, while on the other hand, we would surely not benefit (it goes against one's goals) so one would make sure that the potential killer, rapist, and thief met one's gun, or at least the government's gun in the near future.

For point 2: There is another option other than mysticism: to realize that one is ignorant. Surely there existed people who did not use faith in the distant past.

Moses didn't exist, and his entire story was fabricated. There is no geological record. Its not even recorded by the Romans, which surely would have written about such a large number of slaves escaping and traveling through their fortified lands.

- Dean
I'm not a True Blue Objectivist.

Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 15, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 8:51amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ryan Brubaker insightfully identified a fact of reality, to wit: 2. Early man had no choice but to attribute unknown natural phenomena to mysticism. He did not have the epistemological foundation to use reason, objectivity and logic so mysticism naturally arose. So he can hardly be blamed for developing a mystic philosophy (Peikoff's statement).
The real problem is a psychological inability to face unpleasant facts.  Early people were no more or less "mystical" than we are, or than were the Greeks of Ionia in the BCE 6th Century. 

What animates you?  Do you have a "spirit"?  What makes a deer different from a rock?   You can stand in the center of a woods or in the center of the village and you can lay down on the edge of a cliff and look over.  Where is the "center" of the world?  Has anyone you know ever reported anyone who ever found the edge of the world?  When we see herds go by, we know they go somewhere else and then come back.  So, too, do the sun and stars move around us.  Where do they go?  I have no answer for that, but their going somewhere is plain enough.  Did I ever tell you about the founders of our tribe?  Now, my grandfather told me that his grandfather told him that long ago -- well, not all that long ago, really -- there were huge, I mean freaking huge, bears here.  But our founder, killed the biggest of them...  Our founder also taught us that if we all stick together and take care of the weakest that our tribe will survive, and here we are to prove him right about that.  Of course, now, there are those other guys who wander off by themselves and come back with interesting women, but, well, that's harder to understand than the stars.  Anyway, it's getting late.  Time for bed...
Religion is no more irrational than an ancient map with a prime meridian passing through Alexandria and Rhodes. 

The problem is that there about 5 billion people on Earth willing to kill or die for the power and glory of putting their meridians on your maps -- among them, many Objectivists, for whom this nominally rational empiricism serves the same purpose as a religion.  Dr. Leonard Peikoff is one of those.

I believe that it is in Demon Haunted World that Carl Sagan defends the "primitive" hunters as the truest of scientists whose very survival depended on their being able to observe, abstract, hypothesize, and test.  If someone like that tells me that mountains survive the weather because the spirit of the mountain is stronger than the spirit of the weather, well, I guess I have to consider it for what it's worth without denigrating the man himself.

Barbara Branden recently excused Ayn Rand's psychologizing of her opponents while cautioning us lesser mortals against attempting the same.  According to some Objectivists, if you have incorrect ideas, it must be because you are evil. That makes history difficult.  It makes today even harder.


Post 15

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 10:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
These citations are all from the Wikipedia.  I array them here only to remind us that we all know the facts. What counts is how you explain them.  It seems that Zoroaster was the first religious thinker, i.e, the first philosopher.  It is also interesting -- fascinating, really, when you think about it -- that Thales came first and then Confucius and Siddhartha were contemporaries. The compelling thing about Thales, is that Ionia was contiguous with (and later subsumed by) the Persian empire.  See note at the end of this page.

Zoroaster (Greek Ζωροάστρης, Zōroastrēs) or Zarathustra (Avestan: Zaraθuštra), also referred to as Zartosht (Persianزرتشت), was an ancient Iranian prophet and the founder of Zoroastrianism, a religion that was the national religion of the Sassanian Empire of Persia; it is predominantly practiced today by the Parsi community of India.

Zoroaster is generally accepted as an authentic historical figure, but the period in which he lived remains unclear. Many scholarly estimates place him circa 1200 B.C., making him a candidate to be the founder of the earliest religion based on revealed scripture, while others place him anywhere between the 18th and the 6th centuries B.C.

Siddhārtha Gautama (Sanskrit सिद्धार्थ गौतम, Pali Gotama Buddha) was a spiritual teacher from ancient India and the historical founder of Buddhism. He is universally recognized by Buddhists as the Supreme Buddha of our age. The time of his birth and death are uncertain; most modern historians date his lifetime from 563 BCE to 483 BCE, though some have suggested a date about a century later than this.

Confucius (Chinese: 孔夫子, transliterated Kong Fuzi or K'ung-fu-tzu, lit. "Master Kong," but most frequently referred to as Kongzi 孔子, traditionally September 28, 551 – 479 BC) was a famous Chinese thinker and social philosopher, whose teachings and philosophy have deeply influenced East Asian life and thought.

Thales of Miletus also known as Thales the Milesian (Θαλῆς ὁ Μιλήσιος), (ca. 624 BC–ca. 546 BC), was a pre-Socratic Greek philosopher and one of the Seven Sages of Greece. Many regard him as the first philosopher in the Greek tradition as well as the father of science.

Anaximander (Greek: Αναξίμανδρος) (c.610 BC – c. 546 BC), also known as Aniximander, was the second of the physical philosophers of Ionia, a citizen of Miletus, a companion or pupil of Thales, and teacher of Anaximenes of Miletus.

Aspasia (c.470 BC[1][2]–c.400 BC,[1][3] Greek: Ἀσπασία) was a renowned woman of ancient Greece, famous for her romantic involvement with the Athenian statesman Pericles.[..Aspasia appears in the philosophical writings of Plato and other philosophers and is regarded by modern scholars as an exceptional person who distinguished herself due to her political influence and intellectual charisma.
Socrates (Greek: Σωκράτης, invariably anglicized as [sɔkɹətiːz], Sǒcratēs; circa 470–399 BCE) was an ancient Greek philosopher who is widely credited for laying the foundation for Western philosophy.
Mencius (Romanization; 孟子, pinyin: Meng Zi; Wade-Giles: Meng Zhu; most accepted dates: 372–289 BCE; other possible dates: 385–303/302 BCE) was a Chinese philosopher and arguably the most famous Confucian after Confucius himself. He argued that human beings are naturally good but become corrupted by society.

Note: having read Jane Jacobs's The Economy of Cities, I went and got the original Scientific American articles about Çatalhöyük c. 7000 BCE.  It is not so much a matter of what we know, but more a matter of when did we stop knowing it.  In other words, how did mankind get so stupid?  At Çatalhöyük there was no evidence of warfare.  Trade drove culture.  Infant mortality was high, and few people lived beyond middle age, but they lived well and even had mirrors and make-up.  What happened?  It was not "religion" because Çatalhöyük had that. 


Post 16

Tuesday, December 19, 2006 - 10:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What happened?
Ever study the dPopulation(rabbits) dPopulation(Wolves) graph in mathematics? When there are lots of rabbits and rabbit population is climbing, wolf populations will climb... but eventually wolf population will get too high and rabbit population starts to go down. Then wolves eat many rabbits, and both wolf and rabbit population goes down. Then with few wolves, rabbit population will start to go up again, a cycle that never ends and is always adjusted by other environmental factors.

Rabbits are pacifist producers and wolves are forceful looters. Humans play these roles. There are other roles too, all in flux, and environmental variables in flux too.

Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 5:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As I pointed out in discussing the Taking and Trading Syndromes, the issue of the fall of the trader societies was one of competing worldviews, and the difference, psychologically, between individualists regarding warfare and tribalists regarding warfare.....  tribalists subjugated the  humans, just as they did animals, making slaves of them - is called 'domestication'....  individualists are not easily domesticated...  since, to tribalists, the value of a person is only such as of use to the tribes, regardless of skill or creativeness or 'genius', the solution to recalcitrant individualists is - eliminate them.....  thus the loss of the knowledge, and why the stupidity...


FYI - to equate pacifism with peacefulness and productivity is an error - rabbits, vegetarians, are no more producers than wolves, carniverons....  and wolves no more looters than rabbits.....  it is, however, with humans seeking to imitate animal characteristics, that looting arose - producing, however, is a human trait...

(Edited by robert malcom on 12/20, 5:38am)


Post 18

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 6:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
---
According to some Objectivists, if you have incorrect ideas, it must be because you are evil. That makes history difficult. It makes today even harder.
---

I believe Rand stated there is a difference between breaches in knowledge and breaches in morality, and that one should know the difference. :) Too bad most wannabe Oists don't remember that quote. o_O

-- Bridget

Post 19

Wednesday, December 20, 2006 - 11:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Excellent contribution to this discussion, Rev'!

Ed


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.