ellis@chips.sri.com (Michael Ellis) (01/18/90)
> Peter Nelson > me >> I'm not an O'ist, so my interpretation of their thought may >> well be dead wrong, but I don't really see that there's any >> discrepancy between "being grounded in reason" and "being grounded >> in man's nature", given that it is man's nature is to be rational. > Attempting to be even a little rigorous, what can it mean > to say, "man's nature is to be rational"? A great deal of ink has been spilled over that question, and I don't think I could possibly do it justice in a paragraph or so. The first thing to get clear about is the use of the word "nature" as used by ancient philosophers. The existence of an occasional mutilated or mutant tiger in no way contradicts the claim "Tigers by nature have 4 legs". A beings's nature is what it would or should have become if it had developed "properly". For Aristotle, only certain kinds of beings have natures, "natural beings", those beings that arise and act according to an intrinsic principle within themselves. That includes living things and natural elements. This is all, of course, overtly teleological. To say that it is man's nature to be rational is an overtly teleological and probably also a moralistic claim as well. Sure, there are deficient and mutilated humans who are not or cannot be rational, just as there are 3 legged tigers. Too bad for them. But barring such deficients, most humans can, should, and probably will develop into beings who are able to think, plan, and communicate with others who can do the same in individual or cooperative efforts to acquire knowledge and create a more fulfilling world. If you are sincerely interested in "reason" as a philosophical entity, you would do well to check out Aristotle's original writings. I would strongly suggest the Nichomachean ethics, which for all its flaws, remains as important today as it ever was. Oddly enough, some of its most important conclusions are anathema to the O'ists. If Rand is seen as an Aristotelian, her worst flaws result from failure to come to terms with this text. > I have maintained very strongly that "man's nature" is > EXTREMELY complex and to try to reduce it to some absurd > simplicity like "rational" is very UNobjective. I have yet to hear anyone make such a stupid claim. You're just blowing hot air. > O'ists, for some reason, make a big deal out of the fact the rationality > distinguishes us from animals. Not just the O'ists think that. The ability of our brains to understand and express meaning, and thereby share in interpersonal relationships or create arts and sciences and all the rest, is arguably the most remarkable and mysterious ability we have, so much so that many people would regard a computer programmed to simulate this ability and pass the Turing Test to be one of "themselves" in some very profound way. Similarly, many religionists believe that disembodied minds are what is essential to being human. I might also point out that all you and I know about each other are these very character strings that pass between us, yet somehow we have managed by the interactions of these meanings to become involved as human beings. > So does the fact that human > females are always sexually receptive (i.e., they have menstrual, > not estrous cycles). This results in us being a highly sexual > species and our sexual behavior influences many aspects of our > personalities, values, and cultures. Definitions are supposed to be minimal expressions that specify what is essential to the definiendum, without including something else. Now sexuality is already expressed in "Man is the rational animal". Animals, after all, are sexual beings. Humans are the only rational animals, where by "rational" is meant something along the lines spelt out before. Maybe there are better definitions for other purposes, but "rational animal" has suited its philosophical purpose quite well. It's certainly more profound than anything you've ever offered to this newsgroup. >Should we create an ethical philosophy from this? I'll believe you if you can make it work. It be really be swell if making love with the person of my choice would resolve the ethical dilemmas in my life. On the other hand, I don't think I could handle having to make it with my boss if that's what it to took to get that promotion. > Then they say that rationality is the only tool we have to > develop an ethical philosophy. Even if this is true, so > what? Why does it follow that if we use rationality to create > our philosophy, that rationality should be the main feature of > humans that the philosophy should be based on? The objects that ethics is dealing with are mental objects, like desires, needs, volitions, plans, goals, and values. That these can be made to work harmoniously under conscious deliberation is a practical fact. Now maybe something besides reason is a superior means of satisfying conflicting goals, say, violence, nihilism, prayer, love, drugs, or masturbation, but until it can be demonstrated otherwise, reason is the only reasonable choice that comes to mind. Or maybe you have something better to offer? > RATIONALLY, I see humans as complex biological creatures for who > rationality is *one attribute*. RATIONALLY, I cannot see the sense in > adopting a social philosophy that is not based on the TOTALITY > of human nature, not just those features that some people > choose in a vain effort to simplify their world. You're blowing hot air again. Nobody ever said rationality was the only attribute of humans. Even the O'ists aren't that stupid. -michael