What is a Human

[Earle Jones27]

*
If a Christian is "one who follows Christ"
A Human is "one who follows Hume."

earle
*
"A wise man proportions his belief to the evidence."

--David Hume (1711-1776)

[*Hemidactylus*]

You misspelled Humean twice. Didn't Popper consider Hume a bucket head?
Or he put Hume up as an example of the inductive thinking he wished to
counter. We do tend to think the future will follow upon the past. But
as Kant held in Prolegomena, we impose our laws upon reality. And he
gave us the categories.

Topically didn't Hume's _Dialogues_ inspire Paley's watchmaker book
_Natural Theology_?

One aspect of Hume's thought many still grapple with is Hume's
guillotine. I now call this Harris's firewall, after Sam Harris as
is-ought is bridgeable, but given proper decision rules. Harris upholds
the value system of eudaimonism, but I tend towards WD Ross's
multipronged prima facie duties in part of the transition between realms.

Not sure well being is well indicated by brain scans or practical. And
there are other considerations such as nonmalfeasance. I am reminded of
a video course on ethical values by Patrick Grim where he uses Ursula Le
Guin's story "The Ones Who Walk Away from Omelas" as a problem for a
utilitarian or consequentialist ethics:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Ones_Who_Walk_Away_from_Omelas

What if the well being of the whole is best served by the hapless child.
In a system of non-malfeasance, doing harm to that kid would be wrong. I
would not want to break a few eggs to make an Omelas.

Aside from that ethical systems have problems defining the "good" a
point explored by GE Moore. Is good analyzable or definable in simpler
terms? Can all our eggs be placed in the eudaimonic basket? I find GE
Moore to be very dense to read. I have sympathies for Sam Harris when he
characterizes ethics as boring. Very much so in Moore's case.

But I found the audio lecture "Evolutionary biology: the Darwinian
revolutions" by Allen MacNeill to make such a thing digestible. He
covers Hume's gap and Moore's naturalistic fallacy in an approachable
manner. If I recall he states the problem in defining vegetarianism
versus its merits. In one case we can define what vegetarianism is,
which oddly enough for many people includes such plant products as eggs
and cheese. But the problem come when we ask if vegetarianism is Good.
It does cause us to eat healthier foods enhancing our well being and
maybe reduces our carbon footprint and other impacts on world like
treatment of animals we consume. It's the "natural" thing to do
(appealing to nature), but some would argue so is the so-called Paleo
diet as it harkens back to the cavemen before the rise of evils of
agriculture and farming. Zuk's _Paleofantasy_ covers this stuff and
shows how evolution has occurred after the "EEA". I guess there are many
reasons one uses to justify food choice and vegans take it to the nth
degree. My reasons are more about wanting to eat better and not so much
for the animals. Singer would argue that I should expand my circle and
stop eating those Others in our midst. Is that view justifiable?

In using facts to justify moral decisions one needs to cross the
threshold of Hume's fact-value dichotomy. Facts are necessary, but one
needs enough of them in concert with the values one upholds to make the
decision of what ought to be done. Boghossian brings one's metrics into
the picture. But metrics can inform, not determine. A chosen value
system is the ultimate arbiter. And as Kant would ask, can it be done?
Is it within your power to do? In being overly charitable are you doing
yourself harm and reducing the long term outcome of potential others? A
recent episode of Chicago Med touched on this and also why people are
the way they are. A guy had come into the hospitable that was a very
giving sort to the point of personal detriment. The hospital shrink
worried he was actually a danger to himself. A brain scan was done
revealing a stroke that was responsible for this patient having seen the
light and becoming monklike. He had another stroke in hospital. Upon
recovery the same guy was extremely selfish and protective of his food
bowl. It was disturbing to contemplate.

Another way to collapse Hume's gap is by fatalism, accepting things the
way they are as being the way they ought to be, whether by Nietzsche's
*amor fati* or by inshallah of the Muslims. Or more subtly maybe the
just world fallacy is a subspecies? People get their just deserts and
rich and poor are sorted accordingly. This smacks of social Darwinism,
which is something of a naturalistic fallacy too.

[youngbl...@gmail.com]

I know I'm likely to viewed as the anti-0christ now, but I think Ayn Rand defined "Human" as a being of volitional consciousness. IOW a being that has to continue to learn in order to thrive.

Her moral ideas proceed from there. Proper morality is a code of values that allows humans to thrive. It identifies the rights that are necessary to do that and codifies them as we did with the Bill of Rights. It recognizes that all of should be equal under the law and that nobody should be considered above the law.

I can't think of a better approach.
Certainly there is no religious moral code I would wish to follow. Christianity and Islam both have moral codes that do harm, making them unworthy of consideration.

[*Hemidactylus*]

On 02/21/2016 12:43 AM, youngbl...@gmail.com wrote:

[snip]

>
> I know I'm likely to viewed as the anti-0christ now, but I think Ayn Rand defined "Human" as a being of volitional consciousness. IOW a being that has to continue to learn in order to thrive.
>
> Her moral ideas proceed from there. Proper morality is a code of values that allows humans to thrive. It identifies the rights that are necessary to do that and codifies them as we did with the Bill of Rights. It recognizes that all of should be equal under the law and that nobody should be considered above the law.
>
> I can't think of a better approach.
> Certainly there is no religious moral code I would wish to follow. Christianity and Islam both have moral codes that do harm, making them unworthy of consideration.

Well Rand was a staunch atheist which is an awkward fact for people who
have recommended her such as Glenn Beck or Paul Ryan. At least I recall
Rush Limbaugh being wise enough in the past to point out she was an
atheist on his radio show years back IIRC when a caller queries him
about her views.

One can follow a non-Randian moral code without being religious. Can't
recall exactly how she handled is-ought but as for epistemology in "For
the New Intellectual" she puts up a dichotomy of Attila and Witch Doctor
putting Hume as an example of the former for his treatment of the
problem of induction. Descartes was a Witch Doctor. Kant, Rand's
personal bugbear, combined both. I agree with Rand that the categorical
imperative pretty much sucks, but Kant did inspire the UN Declaration of
Universal Human Rights.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-development/

[quote]Like other watershed figures, Kant has contributed to the shape
of world civilization, and the conceptualization we have of the world
today. His practical ideas, such as the Categorical Imperative and its
implications (1785), informed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights
(1948), the Political and Economic Covenants (1966), and the
International Criminal Court (2002). His exploration of natural sciences
and his metaphysical ideas, particularly those of his pre-critical
period (1747–1770), are stunning. Kant gave the first account of the
evolutionary reciprocity of spacetime and momentum-energy, and
formulated the first general law of free field radiation (1747). He
suggested the conceptual solution of the three body problem, which
emerges in the interplay of Earth, Moon, and Sun (1754). He was the
first to construct a detailed evolutionary cosmology (1755). His ideas
on biospherical dynamics allowed him to predict the rhythms of the
monsoon and the oscillation of coastal winds (1755–1757). He suggested
that the building blocks of matter are energy bubbles (1756)—an idea
that is useful today in superstring theory in the guise of Calabi-Yau
manifolds.[/quote]

Rand inspired Alan Greenspan a member of the "Collective" :-)

Rand does manage to critique the social Darwinist Spencer in that essay.
That's a plus. But though not similar in intent her laissez faire
capitalism would bring similar outcome. For some reason she voices
disapproval of Zen Buddhism in "For the New Intellectual"??? She also
critiques Nietzsche's superman ideals as embodying Attila. Yet one is
struck with the Nietzschean underpinnings of John Galt and the other
ubermenschen who populate Rand's fiction. She used Fritz's
Apollo-Dionysus dichotomy to critique the hippies vs. the astronauts on
Apollo mission in another essay. She was a minarchist (not anarchist),
so she wasn't as off the chain as Murray Rothbard, and she had a bee in
her bonnet about libertarians (and ousted Objectivists such as the
Brandens), though they are for the most part not too far from her. The
same critiques apply. Jerry Coyne critiques libertarian thought a bit in
the following:

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2016/02/19/my-review-of-matt-ridleys-new-book-the-evolution-of-everything/

Two problems I vaguely recall with Rand, but am fuzzy on memory are her
views on the human mind (she was a blank slater right?) and volition (I
think she championed free will). I could be wrong on her views going on
memory, but tabula rasa is bunk (Kant wins!) and free will problematic.
Dennett tries to save a modicum of free will worth having in _Freedom
Evolves_, but I'm not sure he was successful. Sam Harris offers a
devastating critique that's hard to ignore.

As for a general critique of Rand:

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/making-sense/column-this-is-what-happens-when-you-take-ayn-rand-seriously/

h/t Skepchicks

[Dana Tweedy]

Never mind that. If a Vegetarian eats Vegetables, what does a
Humanitarian eat?

DJT

[eridanus]

> period (1747-1770), are stunning. Kant gave the first account of the

> evolutionary reciprocity of spacetime and momentum-energy, and
> formulated the first general law of free field radiation (1747). He
> suggested the conceptual solution of the three body problem, which
> emerges in the interplay of Earth, Moon, and Sun (1754). He was the
> first to construct a detailed evolutionary cosmology (1755). His ideas
> on biospherical dynamics allowed him to predict the rhythms of the

> monsoon and the oscillation of coastal winds (1755-1757). He suggested
> that the building blocks of matter are energy bubbles (1756)--an idea

The problem with reading so many authors is that one gets drunk with words
but famelic in meaning. The movie about Mozart presents the emperor of Austria
commenting on his opera, "too many notes." The poor man could not digest such
a long opera, but he tired after 20 minutes of listening. I can understand
the poor emperor, I also tire after hearing music for more than 20 minutes.

From "too many notes", we can jump to "too many words". But while listening
music is a passive entertainment, hearing words should not be so. Unless we
could accept that speeches, even intellectual speeches, are devoid of sense
and they only value is musical. The pleasure of hearing nice intellectual
words. Just figure we are learning Mandarin Chinese but we have a weak
command of the language. We are hearing some Chinese poetry and we only
understand a few words, for the language is archaic. We can speak about the
beauty of those verses, even if we scarcely understand them.

In this archaic poetry that is the intellectual speech, we can have a
delusion or understanding, for we love those words. But if we are so fond
of intellectual speech, and we are very so greedy or hungry for culture
we could get intoxicated with so many words. Or we can get an indigestion.

I am unable to read much intellectual books, for I get tire. It contain
"too many notes" or too many words... that are swallowed without analysis, I
mean chewing. If you do not chew well the words... I had passed half my life
swallowing words without chewing... well, I would exorcise my sins, for
most of my life I was reading without the help of dictionaries. Then a
myriad of abstract words were stored in my brain half cooked, and rather
indigested. After I started to argue with people in the Internet, I realized
that some questions I wished to write required some verification. For even
if I was ready to write some crap... quite often I was not sure if the crap
was a decent crap. I solved this problem with a concise Oxford dictionary.

The first time I was conscious that I needed a dictionary was when a Jesuit
was trying to sell me some argument. The question was... "do you think...
that a man with his intelligence can arrive to find the truth?" I must
confessed that all had I read till this moment, had not read about this
question of elemental logic. But I had not a concise Oxford dictionary at
that time, when I was 20. So, I fled in from of the attack of the enemy.
I was almost blushing. But the next day, I approached the Jesuit priest,
and asked, "do you want to hear my reply?" But he said, "no".

It was not till a few years ago, that chatting with some British or rather
New Zealand prof of... philosophy of Science in this site, John S. Wilkins,
that I was able to decipher this problem of "knowing the truth". The man
presented the question of Starsky "P (a phrase) is true iff P" I asked the
man if he could explained this. He explained it in such a manner that I
have to ask him for a translation. He wrote something that pretended to be
such... but after several weeks, I was unable to understand any of his
translations. But the problem was very serious to me, and I expended some
days thinking on it. I arrived to the conclusion that the only valid
definition for a statement to be true was a social convention within a group. Then, it can exist as many trues as social groups can accord that something
is true. And with that, all my conceptual problems were erased. I do not
needed any translation to understand that a statement of the sort, "lord Krishna is a true god" must be valid for some set of persons that accept it
is true.
A statement such as "the dinosaurs were exterminated when some meteorite
called Chicxulub that crashed on the earth" can be true for some set of
individuals. But outside this group this statement is not valid, or it has
not any meaning.

Then, the question of Ayn Randy about the freedom of an individual to do
as he pleases, hides some ominous meaning. Assuming this person is not
omniscient, or do not care to be omniscient, it can desire something that
eventually can cause his own destruction. Just imagine some Atlas Shrugged
can discover cocaine, or some other drug that enslaves him and destroys
his brain. Well, lets assume that Atlas is not going after chemical drugs.
He is hook at building colossal buildings. Eventually he can be ruined
if he make more buildings that he can rent. Or other case, the combined
effect of a set of Atlases can be working with great perseverance till they
arrive to wreck the economy. This happened already in during the roarings
twenty. All was jazz and prosperity, till Wall Street crashed. This was
the collective work of a set of dedicated Atlases. Or take other example,
like Enron, or other bubble, like the recent construction bubble.
Then, if we are overburdened by too many words, we can be sort of drunk
and feel like "full of wisdom". We can impress anyone by telling a complex
phrase of very difficult translation. By example, some phrases of the
Analects of Confucius, the very few scholars can understand. But we can be
very proud of knowing something we do not understand.
The, the great Atlas of Ayn Rand is valid if we are so superficial as not
trying to dig into the meaning of the words, and the implications of some
statements.

It is a pity that we have read so many books, for the more we read the less
one knows. For to dig into the meaning requires a lot more time than for
reading. We can read about 2.5 words per second. But if we want to really
understand what the author is really saying (I do not refer to a novel) we
need to stop now and them, to question what the author pretends to prove
or to say. And to determine if it makes any sense. For sometimes is not
other than a symphony of words.

eridanus

[czeba...@gmail.com]

Eridanus said:"...the question of Ayn Randy..."
Eridanus, I admire your willingness to tackle difficult subjects in a foreign language. Have you, in your musings on Science really considered the question of evidence? Is it all subjective from your perspective?

gregwrld