Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!tut.cis.ohio-state.edu!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!usc!ucsd!ucsdhub!hp-sdd!apollo!nelson_p From: nelson_p@apollo.HP.COM (Peter Nelson) Newsgroups: alt.individualism Subject: re anti-rationalism Message-ID: <481de659.20b6d@apollo.HP.COM> Date: 18 Jan 90 23:38:00 GMT Sender: root@apollo.HP.COM Distribution: usa Organization: Hewlett-Packard Apollo Division - Chelmsford, MA Lines: 87 Tim Atkins posts... >.. Man, like any other existent, >..has a specific nature. >. >. He doesn't have a specific nature, he has a very complex nature. This >. preoccupation with rationality is simply not realistic. Rationality >. is NOT OUR ONLY SIGNIFICANT FEATURE. What is the significance of the >. fact that it distinguishes us from other creatures? > >That the Man's nature is complex hardly implies there isn't one! Or that it >is unknowable. No one has claimed rationality as the only significant >feature, merely as the most important one for man's continued survival >and well being. But this is not at ALL obvious. It may well be that our aggressiveness, our mating behaviour, our "herd instinct" (whatever you want to call it, but I am referring to the tendency of many humans to mindlessly follow a charismatic leader), our tendency to form societies (man as a social animal), or our spirituality are also been VERY important to our SURVIVAL. Consider a nation at war. Sure, it takes rationality to plan strategy, design weapons and so forth. But it also takes a highly emotional form of nationalism to make the sacrifices, all pull together, and follow the dictates of authority that are required for a country to win. Most of all it takes lots of young men who are willing to risk their lives and limbs for their country, which may hardly be a rational thing to do. If you think that most of the young men who have enthusiastically charged into battle throughout military history did so because they rationally sorted out the objective facts, you're dreaming. And building a great cathedral takes rationality to design and plan it, but to actually marshall the resources to get the damn thing built, or to even conceive of building it in the first place may come from non-rational aspects of man. Also, we should be well-cautioned that the "nature" of human beings is poorly understood even by biologists, neurophysi- ologists, social psychologists, economists, and others who have tried very systematically to establish more about man's "nature". Science in general has a much better track record at describing things and building on its knowledge than philosophy does, and science still has a long way to go with humans. Objectivists would do well to ESTABLISH what man's nature is, rather than just asserting it. >.. This nature imposes requirements for optimal functioning. >. >. What is "optimal"? Optimal for whom? What is optimal for me may >. not be optimal for you. >. > >Optimal for a human being is not a matter of convention or vote given that >human beings have a specific nature. If you think that perhaps you do not >know whether it would be "optimal" to live in a dictatorship then I suggest >you go try it! As a dictator or a peasant??? Dictatorships have worked out pretty well for dictators. Recent events notwithstanding, historically most kings, dictators, etc, were not deposed by the peasants. There must be some reason why autocracies have been MUCH more the rule than the exception throughout history. How does Objectivism's assumptions about man's nature square with this historical fact? Besides, one may perfectly well imagine situations where it may be optimal for one individual to deny freedom or even life to another individual. Objectivism claims to address this, but how? > Without reference to any sort of definition of what man's >nature is, I don't really see any other way for you to decide the issue. >Do You? Sure. I know what *I*, as an individual, prefer. I don't need to create some theoretical model of human nature to know that *I* would be less happy in, say, Albania, than in the U.S. ---Peter