Does a person have to base every decision on reason to be considered an Objectivist?
Posted by edweaver 8 years, 9 months ago to Ask the Gulch
A few discussions got me thinking about the question and I'm wondering what others think??
You type: | You see: |
---|---|
*italics* | italics |
**bold** | bold |
While we're very happy to have you in the Gulch and appreciate your wanting to fully engage, some things in the Gulch (e.g. voting, links in comments) are a privilege, not a right. To get you up to speed as quickly as possible, we've provided two options for earning these privileges.
And Objectivism doesn't require that every decision lead to a positive outcome. Many decisions involve balancing risk vs. reward, with no guarantee of success. All that a rational person can do is make the best choice given the knowledge available to that person at that time.
Dagny and Hank were childless. That, like alcoholism, tobacco and other drug addictions, is suicide on the installment plan. Were they irrational?
I made the decision not to pursue great wealth in order to have more time with my kids. The business of my life was not to be business.
If the goal was material wealth, I chose poorly. If the choice was to develop personal relationships and to relax more along the way, then I chose wisely. I was a single Dad with full custody of two sons still in diapers. I could have pursued wealth and fobbed the care of my sons off on hirelings or I could focus on my sons. I tried to split that decision by marrying two more times. That was a major waste of time. (Note: I am now happily married for the past 16 years).
A decision is only irrational if it disagrees with a defined goal.
Deciding to not have children is not "suicide".
A decision is irrational if it opposes rational principles - objectively defined principles.
RIGHT!
From "The Objectivist Ethics":
"Rationality is man’s basic virtue, the source of all his other virtues. Man’s basic vice, the source of all his evils, is the act of unfocusing his mind, the suspension of his consciousness, which is not blindness, but the refusal to see, not ignorance, but the refusal to know. Irrationality is the rejection of man’s means of survival and, therefore, a commitment to a course of blind destruction; that which is anti-mind, is anti-life.
"The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one’s only source of knowledge, one’s only judge of values and one’s only guide to action. It means one’s total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness, to the maintenance of a full mental focus in all issues, in all choices, in all of one’s waking hours. It means a commitment to the fullest perception of reality within one’s power and to the constant, active expansion of one’s perception, i.e., of one’s knowledge. It means a commitment to the reality of one’s own existence, i.e., to the principle that all of one’s goals, values and actions take place in reality and, therefore, that one must never place any value or consideration whatsoever above one’s perception of reality. It means a commitment to the principle that all of one’s convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought—as precise and scrupulous a process of thought, directed by as ruthlessly strict an application of logic, as one’s fullest capacity permits. It means one’s acceptance of the responsibility of forming one’s own judgments and of living by the work of one’s own mind (which is the virtue of Independence). It means that one must never sacrifice one’s convictions to the opinions or wishes of others (which is the virtue of Integrity)—that one must never attempt to fake reality in any manner (which is the virtue of Honesty)—that one must never seek or grant the unearned and undeserved, neither in matter nor in spirit (which is the virtue of Justice). It means that one must never desire effects without causes, and that one must never enact a cause without assuming full responsibility for its effects—that one must never act like a zombie, i.e., without knowing one’s own purposes and motives—that one must never make any decisions, form any convictions or seek any values out of context, i.e., apart from or against the total, integrated sum of one’s knowledge—and, above all, that one must never seek to get away with contradictions. It means the rejection of any form of mysticism, i.e., any claim to some nonsensory, nonrational, nondefinable, supernatural source of knowledge. It means a commitment to reason, not in sporadic fits or on selected issues or in special emergencies, but as a permanent way of life."
Do you think choosing to have an unhealthy lunch that may lessen the length of time a person lives is Objectivist? And if so, does that fall under the risk vs. reward?
I've had others tell me they don't think gambling at a casino can ever be rational. The way I look at it is, I fully expect to lose the money I bring in there to play with. If I expect to get enough enjoyment out of the game to be worth that price, then it was a rational decision anyway. If I don't, then walking in there was a bad idea.
The comedian Lewis Black in his 2004 "Black on Broadway" had some things to say about such a view of health and linked to the 'snowflakes' by saying: "Everyone of you has a health that is unique and totally different from everybody else. Completely! Because we... are all like snowflakes". And later in his show used snowflakes more like it would fit today's generation snowflakes.
There most likely is no food that will shorten a lifetime but if you want to, say, continue a booze habit for lunch and other meals you may just possibly reduce a lifespan while, for a while, having some extra physical feeling of pleasure.
Of course you can eat dangerous fad foods or tainted foods that may cut life very short if you are unlucky with the preparation of them.
One is not obligated to do everything with a focus on how long he will live.
It is her name for her philosophy. If you want to have a different philosophy, go ahead, but it might be wise to use some other name if you wish to differ with Rand on anything important. Peikoff once suggested "Gloopism."
Rand's selfish insistence on her own name for her own philosophy may be seen as dogmatism, if you wish. That view does not make one correct.
I like art deco and craftsman design elements in choosing furnishings simply because I like them. That's another purely emotional choice.
The best decision I ever made, marrying my soul mate and still best friend after 40 years was kind of a mixed bag. First, she had the unusual talent for rational thinking and direct expression. I never have had to guess what's on her mind. That part of the decision was reason. The fact she had a spectacular body was pure lust, no rational thought involved.
Emotional and conditioned belief systems rely on influencing the sympathetic nervous system, biological-chemical based. Basing life decisions on that system while denying reasoning is the opposite of Objectivism.
I believe Ayn would consider me a student of objectivism. That is how I refer to myself. I do not know what it takes, short of being Ayn herself, to be an "Objectivist". I believe she once said she was the only objectivist and all others were students. One thing I think important is to exhaust all reason before resorting to decision based on emotion. If after due consideration the only direction left to one is emotion and a decision must be made then go with your gut. If on the other hand one rejects reason and places emotion paramount they are not even on the path of student.
Respectfully,
O.A.
As much as we might like to think otherwise, we do have emotions, they drive us passionately to create value...without which...we might as well be robots or "Vulcan's".
do you base every decision as best you can on "reason"? If not why not? However, even if you do that does not constitute that you are an objectivist, but it goes a long way towards you becoming an objectivist.
"Emotions are not not primaries as a 'default position', they are automatic reactions"
Again, go back and look at a child. Children evince pure, raw emotions that do not come from prior knowledge. Emotions are instinctual - not developed as a result of reason. You have it backwards. Reason is a product of rational capacity and experience/training. The ability to reason may be inherent, but its effectiveness is dependent on an aggregation of acquired knowledge and application. We can train ourselves to recognize and rationally react despite those displays of raw emotion, but emotions come whether you want them to or not. Take one example: love at first sight. There is absolutely nothing whatsoever rational about it. Take anger. If you see someone beating someone else, you immediately are indignant that that other person is being treated that way, but it isn't because you stop and think "Hey, that's wrong" and then decide to elevate your blood pressure and pump adrenaline into your veins. Can we learn to control our emotions? Only to the point that we do not allow our emotions to determine our responses to everything the way children do. That's called maturity. But the position that emotions are the product of reason is denied both by empirical observation and psychological studies.
Trying to root out all emotions leads to serious mental aberrations. To discard emotions is to cut off a leg. You might still be able to stand, but you are at a serious handicap in the race of life.
An objectiivist without passions is in deep doo-doo.
Please read "The Objectivist Ethics" in The Virtue of Selfishness and other discussions of reason vs. emotions in Philosophy: Who Needs It?.
Spock was only half human ... and just not a hell of a lot of fun to be around.
Is that a moral decision? you are wrong.
Your emotions are the summations of your ideas. If your ideas are realistic and rational, your emotions will be valid guides. But they are guides only. You must examine your own feelings and thoughts. "Check your premises."
As Zenphamy asked, what else would you use, but reason tested by reality?
(We use these words in both a common and technical sense. We should keep them straight. In common talk "realism" and "rationalism" mean about the same thing. In technical philosophy, they are false alternatives, diametrically opposed. Objectivism holds that the real is rationally explicable and rational conclusions can be empirically validated. No dichotomy exists.)
Rand wrote an open letter to Boris Spassky, who was "100% rational" about playing chess and 100% irrational about politics, playing chess for the glory of the USSR. You cannot have it both ways.
To use your implied standard, CBJ, you are asking if Boris Spassky could have called himself an Objectivist because he was "mostly" rational (chess, crossing the street, matching his clothes, ...) and just irrational about some things, like politics and ethics.
The often implied question is "what about making mistakes?" The answer is that, as in baseball, errors count, but you don't lose the game (necessarily), as long as you identify them and fix them (with practice). We all make mistakes.
An Objectivist engineer I know says that "the perfect is the enemy of the good."
And the good is the enemy of the perfect. That is where our rational minds must intervene and decisions must be made.
We edit our lives on the fly.
"(We use these words in both a common and technical sense. We should keep them straight. In common talk "realism" and "rationalism" mean about the same thing. In technical philosophy, they are false alternatives, diametrically opposed. Objectivism holds that the real is rationally explicable and rational conclusions can be empirically validated. No dichotomy exists.)"
Exactly.
Maybe my question would be better asked, if people use methods other than reason to make some decisions, no matter the method, when are they qualified to be an Objectivist?
BTW, I don't believe there is a better way of making decisions than using reason & logic but not all people use that to make decisions or all people would be an Objectivist, wouldn't they?
They don't. But reason as an exclusive method of cognition is a necessary, not sufficient condition. Ayn Rand's philosophy has a content, it doesn't just say 'use reason'.