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, November 8, 2008 - 5:38pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ayn Rand had cats. 


The Naming Of Cats
   by T. S. Eliot
 
 The Naming of Cats is a difficult matter,
It isn't just one of your holiday games;
You may think at first I'm as mad as a hatter
When I tell you, a cat must have THREE DIFFERENT NAMES.
First of all, there's the name that the family use daily,
Such as Peter, Augustus, Alonzo or James,
Such as Victor or Jonathan, George or Bill Bailey--
All of them sensible everyday names.
There are fancier names if you think they sound sweeter,
Some for the gentlemen, some for the dames:
Such as Plato, Admetus, Electra, Demeter--
But all of them sensible everyday names.
But I tell you, a cat needs a name that's particular,
A name that's peculiar, and more dignified,
Else how can he keep up his tail perpendicular,
Or spread out his whiskers, or cherish his pride?
Of names of this kind, I can give you a quorum,
Such as Munkustrap, Quaxo, or Coricopat,
Such as Bombalurina, or else Jellylorum-
Names that never belong to more than one cat.
But above and beyond there's still one name left over,
And that is the name that you never will guess;
The name that no human research can discover--
But THE CAT HIMSELF KNOWS, and will never confess.
When you notice a cat in profound meditation,
The reason, I tell you, is always the same:
His mind is engaged in a rapt contemplation
Of the thought, of the thought, of the thought of his name:
His ineffable effable
Effanineffable
Deep and inscrutable singular Name.

I know that there are people here who have dogs as pets and I am sure that they are fine animals, loyal and brave and smart.  But a dog loves you more than he loves himself and that's not something I want to be around every day.


Post 1

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 9:19amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

But a dog loves you more than he loves himself and that's not something I want to be around every day.
You're trading on an ambiguity. Animals aren't even capable of real love (which is never just about elation or well-wishing or merely-visceral compassion).

My guess is that my answer doesn't surprise you (that you would have expected as much from me). So you must've been looking for more than an answer so shrewd in logic and so grounded in the integrated reality of things. What is it you are looking for with this post?

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/09, 9:21am)


Post 2

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 9:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike,

As an exploratory exercise, I would like you to examine this news link and report back on what was discovered about animals and humans and love. Others are invited to do the same thing.

Pic:
Koko the Gorilla holding her pet cat, All Ball

Koko

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/09, 9:32am)


Post 3

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 4:50pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If love is a response to values, and values are what one acts to gain and/or keep - why couldn't higher animals possess the capacity of love? ;-)

Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 18, No Sanction: 0
Post 4

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 5:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Only Humans Can Truly be Rationalists

Mammals share all the same neurotransmitter systems as do we. Look at oxytocin, snuggling and prairie voles.

Sense of life is the pre-conceptual equivalent to metaphysics. If one can have a sense of life without holding the explicit concepts, one can love without being able to put it in words. Words are great, but not the essence of love.

Of course an animal can't put it in words, can't write romantic poems. But animals can court and show loyalty and devotion and kill themselves for their mates and children. In fact, if I couldn't have both, I'd rather have the animal part of love without the words than the words of love without the animal devotion.


(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/09, 7:35pm)


Post 5

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 8:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Rev,

If love is a response to values, and values are what one acts to gain and/or keep - why couldn't higher animals possess the capacity of love? ;-)
Of course.

If love is only a response to values, and values are only whatever had happened to be what it was that one had acted to gain and/or keep -- then, yes, not only higher animals, but even plants, would possess the capacity of love. In such a conceptual framework, love, that grandest state, would be reduced to the relatively void and empty stimulus-response of a closing Venus Fly Trap.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/09, 9:07pm)


Post 6

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 9:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Both Humans and Animals Can Truly be Vulgar Hedonists
 
Mammals share all the same neurotransmitter systems as do we.
And -- as long as we reduce love down to the biochemical synaptic outpouring of dopamine and norepinephrine (because that wouldn't be rationalism, or anything) -- then animals can love, too. That's what you mean, isn't it -- when you state the neurological equivalence?

If one can have a sense of life without holding the explicit concepts, one can love without being able to put it in words.
And if one can love without the words, then the other can love without the words -- even if the other isn't even self-aware. They can't say the "I" in "I love you" -- but they still love ... somehow. That's what you mean, isn't it -- when you say that explicit concepts aren't a necessary part of what love is?
But animals can court and show loyalty and devotion and kill themselves for their mates and children.
Animals can die for you, but they cannot live for you. Not in the sense that humans can, incorporating your rational welfare into their hierarchy of values.

In fact, if I couldn't have both, I'd rather have the animal part of love without the words than the words of love without the animal devotion.
What a disheartening thing to say about love, not just that you say that the relatively meaningless issue of "animal devotion" is part of what love is -- but that it is a preferable part of what love is. Here's Rand against that kind of a thing:

It is only among the irrational, emotion-motivated persons, whose love is divorced from any standards of value, that chance rivalries, accidental conflicts and blind choices prevail. But then, whoever wins does not win much. Among the emotion-driven, neither love nor any other emotion has any meaning.
Ed


Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 10, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 9:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, your demeanor implies that you're not even interested in understanding here, just one-upsmanship. Look at your response to poor Robert. Do you really think he had to make the term emotional explicit? He said, with emotional made explicit:

"If love is a[n emotional] response to values, and values are what one acts to gain and/or keep - why couldn't higher animals possess the capacity of love? ;-)"

Yet you respond about plants. Did he have to exclude change machines too, because otherwise you would respond that they respond to dollars with quarters?

I'd suggest you read Animals in Translation, by Temple Grandin. It will tell you a lot about animal mind.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Sunday, November 9, 2008 - 11:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Ed, your demeanor implies that you're not even interested in understanding here, just one-upsmanship. Look at your response to poor Robert.
You start out your response with a bold, headliner cheapshot (implying I'm a rationalist) ... and you lecture me about one-upmanship???

And Robert is now some "poor" guy who I've mistreated or something ... because he and I and you all know that he meant to include the qualifier "emotional" in his statement about what love is???

Give me a break, Ted. Really. My argument doesn't hinge on whether he left out that word or not -- or the implication of that word or not. My response, had he included that word, would be the same ... and you say that my demeanor implies that I'm not even interested in understanding???

My point, for clarity, is that love isn't just some kind of an emotional response to some kind of a value -- and nothing I've said in this thread would point to any other conclusion.

It's obvious from my first statement to Mike that I think human love is something special and different. Something more than just a matter of "the heart"; or of really, really strongly-felt emotion; or of any kind of a thing that can have any kind of a value to any kind of an organism. I'm trying to make a point here. I'm trying to be understood. I'm trying to be clear. I'm using Rand to drive the point home.

I'm not going to back down or get intimidated by you saying that there are poor victims (like Robert) I need to be more considerate about. Robert is not a victim.

I'm not going to let you speak of my intentions with impunity, where you claim some moral highground rather than arguing the ideas. Ideas are important to me and that makes me hard to get along with sometimes -- but there is no other way to go about it. I will not stop defending ideas like love with the passion that I do, not because you question my motives, or parade so-called "victims" (of my actions) in front of me in order to get me to take ideas more "lightly" or with more of a "grain of salt."

This isn't about going along to get along. It's about standing up for what you see as important and taking your licks for it, too. If you believe in something that diminishes what's great in man (perhaps what is most great about man), then stand up and fight for it. But know this, I will try to knock it down. It's not even in question that I will defend what's great in man. I promise.

There's a quote Peikoff made in the Epilogue to VOR about Rand being able to see chains of destruction from the simple sentence: Reality isn't real. She could see the eventual torment and bloodshed. This gave her passion for defense of important ideas. She would become passionate before others would because she could see farther than they could (about where their thinking leads).

Now, here, you might say: But that's Rationalism! It's defending an "outcome of reasoning" rather than the "reasoning process" itself! You're rationalizing because you want man to be special. Because you want him to be different.

At that point, I would throw my hands up in the air. No one on this forum in at least the last four years has brought the same amount evidence and evidence-based reasoning to the issue of the "difference of man" than I have. You can criticize me for being a single-issue voter, or something like that. But don't sit there and tell me that I'm using whim (arguing my desires) in place of evidence or argument.

Ted, I appreciate you. It is so very often more than just a simple pleasure to interact with you. I had another Rand quote lined up about how special love is and how disastrous it could be for man to say or think that human love is only a matter of the heart -- but that's enough quotes for now. Rand made herself so damn clear that if one or two Rand quotes don't take hold, then it's not likely that more quotes will be better. Rather, it would be seen as appeal to authority or as a steam-rolling one-upmanship.

I've been on the other side of the steam-roller. I've been talked down to. I've been what appears to be intentionally mischaracterized by the kind of genius of a Daniel Barnes, or a Nathan Hawking -- a "genius" that goes down "only so far." So believe me when I tell you that I'm not some rationalistic, autistic prick who is such a pitiful and worthless, inconsiderate pedant who would stand up and argue against the existence of God at someone's church funeral.

I'm trying to play the ball here (the ideas), not the man. However, I can do no more than try to explain myself like I am -- when you charge me with either taking it -- or making it -- personal.

Ed

p.s. I will make myself at least mitigatingly familiar with the book you advised.

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 11/09, 11:32pm)


Post 9

Monday, November 10, 2008 - 5:48pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

It's a great book.

Post 10

Monday, November 10, 2008 - 8:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Animals in Translation is indeed a worthy book to read...

Post 11

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 3:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

I don't usually mention it when I sanction a post, but I sanctioned your post 4, and I sent it to my wife, who will enjoy reading it. You are an intellectual and a romantic.

jt

Post 12

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 4:47pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Your wife might enjoy reading the book, Animals in Translation that I mentioned in post 7 more than just reading what I myself wrote in post four.

Thanks, Jay. I'll have to review Grandin for Radicals for Happiness.

Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 13

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 5:43pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ed, Koko loved her cat.  In fact, this is a phenomenon that I have noted for over 30 years, back to the Washoe crowd.  It might have been Washoe herself, but one of them had a pet cat, dropped it from a tree, tried to play with it, then abandoned the corpse.  The same behavior is recorded by Jane Goodall.  No emotions, no outward tears, at least. The mother had a dead baby and just dropped it. 

But with Koko "ethnography" does not work.  Her mind has been expanded by language.  She may well experience the sense of loss we identify with.

You would have to ask her.  And with Koko you could.
She is not a chimp in the wilds.
She is not a plant.
She is not a computer or a program.  (Does the Internet love you?  You better hope it does because the current state of all interconnected machineries from Crays to iPods exceeds anything imaged by science fiction of even 1988 when cyberpunk was breaking out.  "It's alive, Igor!  It's alive!" ... )

Koko cried when she was told that her cat was dead. That is a conceptual being.

The chemicals can get released when you catch the scent of a female in estrus.  Or -- being a rational, volitional creature -- they they get released when you read an essay she has written.  

You talk about love as if it were a special kind of emotion, possible only to humans.  Is hate?
What other emotions are differentiated to those of us with "higher consciousness."?


Post 14

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 6:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit



"Animals don't have emotions. They are their emotions."



The Experiential World Inventory was a psychological test given to people being admitted for mental health care, thus previously diagnosed by someone under some conditions.  It was a screen prior to admissions.  Durk & Sandy gave it out to subscribers of The Libertarian Connection because they believed that individualism correlated with schizoid personality.  I was explaining it to my wife. (We have cats; four max; two min; three now.)  And I said that one of the questions was "True or False: Animals make fun of me behind my back." and she said, "They make fun of us to our faces."

If you don't think they do, it is only because you don't have pets -- and, really, no one does: they have you.  You feed them, give them medical care when you don't get it, make sure their needs are met.  I eat tofu; they eat turkey florentine.  What's up with that?

Speaking of rational animals, ever read "A Boy and His Dog"? 

Ever read The Mind of the Dolphin by John Cunningham Lilly?


Post 15

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 7:07pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mike and Ted,

I'll have to get familiar with the AIT book but I suspect you're both anthropomorphizing or projecting your feelings of love and warmth and other things that make folks great -- onto animals. In the last 4 years, whenever anyone called my attention to research on animals (most recent was Jordan calling my attention to pigeon research) -- I have been able to find holes in their theories; holes either based on someone projecting human experience onto animals, or making more fundamental errors of epistemology.

The latest evidence to review is the AIT book, it may be the hundredth piece of evidence that I, on request, review.

Ed


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 16

Wednesday, November 12, 2008 - 7:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

I am quite certain that were it not for "anthropomorphization" most humans would also be mistaken for animals.



Post 17

Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 5:07amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There are 4 ideas that matter most:

1. man (in contrast to animal)
2. world (as in Earth, reality, or the universe)
3. truth (as opposed to false)
4. reason (as opposed to irrational urge of thought)

It would be bad to treat a human as an animal, but it would be far, far worse to treat an animal as human (because of the ideas that most matter).

Ed


Post 18

Thursday, November 13, 2008 - 6:30amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted,

Actually, I purchased the book for her yesterday from Amazon after reading some sample passages. Even sent you a ROR thank you note. My wife is hard to shop for. (or for whom to shop : )

Interesting and easy to read. I think she'll enjoy it.

jt

Post 19

Saturday, January 10, 2009 - 10:18amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Ted, I sanctioned that, just because Dune rocks and my day is a little better for revisiting that scene.
Animals certainly seem to show emotion, along with a certain kind of love, in there own way. My question is, should animals be lumped together as a group in this? It certainly seems unfounded, given the biological diversity of "animals". This would be doubly unfounded for apes and other primates. Shouldn't we expect them to be different emotionally than other animals, by virtue of being the most similar animals to our own species?

edit-
PS - my dog rocks. :)
(Edited by Ryan Keith Roper on 1/10, 10:18am)


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.