Well the thing is, morality is for the living, if you choose death then it's a moot point really.
In a war you need to take risks to ensure long-term survival (and survival 'qua' man btw, not as a slave or prisoner), there's nothing irrational about that. When you're first born you have only the pleasure/pain mechanism to tell good from bad, and that alone is not sufficient for survival, so as your mind develops you must use reason to live.
Rand never mentioned evolutionary theory as far as I remember, the argument is based simply on the easily observable biological functions that support life. No knowledge of evolution is necessary in order to act morally or come up with a similar moral theory. Meanwhile you keep saying 'no man is an island,' 'no man exists in isolation,' but I'm not sure what you actually mean by that. I could just as easily say 'no man shares the mind of any other' - it's a bit of a platitude - what's your argument exactly?
Given that Rand tries to make universal claims your attempt to make exceptions are rather ironic.
Basically your argument about kids are not any different than the religious people trying to explain how a child that haven't been baptized can go to heaven if they die early.
What about the victims that meet the an enemy with overwhelming power. Are they heroic when they flee because that is the rational thing to do? Or are they irrational because they take the risk and attack the enemy?
What about the retarded? Are they not humans because they aren't rational?
You simply skip over all the problematic part with Rands philosophy. That's fine with me, just don't call it careful thinking.
The point about no man is an island is that the idea of the individual is not just naive it's flat out wrong.
With regards to your easily observable biological functions. Let me remind you that the body is a colony of cells that all work together to ultimately maintain the idea of you as an individual.
To claim that the individual is somehow a well defined thing is simply showing the same kind of ignorance that the religious people have towards science.
The survival instinct is hardwired into you only to the extent that it's not being suppressed by a severe depression. The brain is not a mechanical thing it's moldable.
Obviously being young and immortal Rand makes some sense. This explains why she is so popular to young people who lack any fidelity and experience outside the campus.
If anything Rands thinking is that of a immature human being who lack any desire to really understand the world around them because it is to occupied with themselves.
Existence exist, but the question is what is existence. Rand goes from description to prescription but forget to do the check and balances of her premise.
Rand makes claims based on clearly defined concepts - if you change the definition of the concept or misinterpret that's not her fault. When she says 'man' it is shorthand for an adult human capable of rational thought. If the human in question is not capable of rational thought (infant, retarded person), then most of Rand's theory does not apply. It consists of qualified universal claims, all depending on the nature of the organism (on a case by case basis, but we generalize for convenience).
Meeting an overwhelming foe in war is an ethical emergency where there is no good outcome, just a choice of bad ones. As such, do whatever seems to best protect that which you value most, either fleeing or fighting (or even dieing to save others) could be moral decisions. These are not the problematic parts of Rand's philosophy, the rules themselves don't change - but they are in fact the problematic parts of almost every other philosophy I come across: ie. the unhelpful focus on emergencies and exceptions, rendering the 'answers' irrelevant to everyday life. See Rand's essay 'The Ethics of Emergencies' for more on this.
You say the concept of the individual is wrong but just as morality only has meaning to the living, this very discussion only has meaning if it involves conscious, self-aware individuals, so there's literally no point entertaining any idea to the contrary (even though I'd like to point out that molecules still exist as unique entities even though they're made up of quarks).
Also it's irrelevant whether there is a hardwired survival instinct in place or not - as I said the whole thing rests on a conditional premise, a choice. Look at what Rand's saying like this:
Do you, lifeform, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]
It doesn't matter if Rand makes claims on clearly defined concepts. Her concepts are wrong. The premise is wrong.
I don't change the definition I am telling you what is wrong with her definition. There is a world of difference.
Again you speak of conscious self-aware individuals as if it's well defined what that means.
This is exactly the problem with Rands philosophy and your belief. Words are not reality, words are simplifications of reality.
No matter how many descriptors you put around the word individual it won't become more well defined. There isn't any clear cut easily observable individual when you start to really dig into it.
"Do you, life-form, wish to live? If so then [insert Objectivism here]"
This obviously isn't what she is saying since there are other ways to live than by the gospel of objectivism. Ways that have no problem supporting life. Religion being one of them.
Words are symbols for their referents, which are concepts - concepts that are a condensation of many, many observations about existents or other concepts. So yes words are simplifications of reality, they encode the essential aspects of some part of reality - but their definitions are right or wrong depending on the truth or falsehood of the condensed observations. Rand observed that biologically developed men were autonomous agents with the ability to perceive, reason and conceptualize (ie. conscious, self-aware individuals) and proscribed an ethical theory accordingly. She declares her definition so if you want to invalidate it you need to refute those observations or the manner in which they're integrated into a single concept.
Individuals are extremely easy to recognize, we do it all the time. We just don't know exactly how all the systems supporting our individuality work, but then we don't know exactly how all the systems supporting anything work either. Quantum mechanics, anyone? Humans are rational animals: that means as animals they have all the usual biological considerations of growth/development/decay but the end product of that growth/development (when successful) is always a being with the type of consciousness (ie. awareness) that allows him/her to not only respond to the environment and act autonomously, but also to abstract, conceptualize, and reason.
Also I think you misinterpreted my last line - Rand is only addressing or 'trying to reach' life-forms who choose life. Of course they could choose to follow some other advice and still choose to live (although not wholly consistently, Rand would argue)
I have refuted those observations simply by showing that men are not ONLY individuals. That they don't exist in a vacum, that they are not ONLY autonomous.
That's all I need to do. I don't have to buy Rands observations if they don't fully account for the reality they are trying to make claims about.
You are confusing what seems to be the case with what is the case. You take one interpretation of phenomena and makes it the only interpretation.
Then you (or Rand if you like) take that an try to make universal claims.
That is exactly what is wrong here. That is only one interpretation not very well thought out and certainly not grounded in any deep thinking on the matter.
Humans are not only rational animals they are also irrational animals. Sometimes that irrationality actually have benefits for survival. And then we haven't even looked at the problem with claiming that something is rational outside of it's context as you are fundamentally arguing.
No I didn't misinterpret it I understood very well what you said.
To boil it all down. The problem that you find yourself in is that every time I give you examples of where Rands universal claims don't apply you simply exclude them from the claim. You don't need to think about this very long until you realize that this is not what constitutes careful thinking. That's sloppy thinking.
There is nothing well defined about reality. No slam dunk easy peacey way to get to certainty in these matters no matter how many words you use to describe it.
Listen you will grow up meet the woman in your life, perhaps get kids. Then you will realize just how wrong Rands thinking is.
And don't get me wrong. Rand did have some clever things to say and sure did inspire many to do better. But a philosopher she was not. That requires careful thinking something that she and the whole objective school that came after her so sorely miss.
I think a lot of the things you say are contradictions. There's no reason why individuals can only exist 'in a vacuum.' Saying men are 'not ONLY autonomous' is like saying the president is not ONLY elected, he is also unelected. Men are rational beings, ie. they possess the ability to reason (regardless of whether they use it properly or at all), saying men are rational but also not rational is like saying 'this car is a diesel but it is also not a diesel.' If you think irrationality has benefits for survival you need to actually state your case, give examples.
I don't think you understand very well what Rand is arguing, either - the reason I responded initially was because you said 'rationality is good' was an unsupported claim by Rand, as if she used it as an axiom but she doesn't. I'm not making any effort to 'exclude' examples that you give - you just don't seem to fully grasp that which you're criticizing, so it's no surprise that you give inappropriate examples.
And of course something cannot be rational outside of its context - in man's case the context is the environment (and his own thoughts/memories), hence 'consciousness.' Consciousness implies something to be conscious of.
Look, you can try to deny statements like 'doves can fly' (all doves? baby doves? retarded doves? doves with broken wings? doves in cages? war doves?) all you want. You seem determined to deny the basic tenets of human existence - we just think we're individuals, but we're not; we just think we perceive reality, but we don't; we just think words denote reality, but they can't; etc etc. You know, the things that let us go about our daily lives. And let's face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of borderline unintelligible and almost always completely useless treatises and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions.
If you want to make universal claims as Rand obviously wanted then you naturally need to take all factors into account. You can't just cherry pick those that seem to support your argument and then skip over the rest.
Well you can but then you are not interested in making philosophical arguments. You are just making claims.
With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread.
But let's look at something she did claim.
"Existence exist"
The question obviously is, what is existence. You can't just say well the environment seems to have individuals, therefore individuals are a fundamental property of reality. And then use that as if it's a well defined entity.
You know, the things that let us go about our daily lives. And let's face it that's what most philosophy does, which is what leads to endless pages of borderline unintelligible and almost always completely useless treatises and critiques about 'pure reason' or 'phenomenology' or whatever. But this is not deep thinking or careful thinking... it's just a sneaky attempt to sidestep the facts of existence and hence shirk responsibility for one's decisions.
But that is philosophy whether you like it or not. Philosophy isn't there to let you go by in your daily life.
That is not the job of philosophy, luckily as there would have been no intellectual progress.
You are confusing what could be called life philosophy with philosophy. You wan't simple answers but in philosophy answers only lead to new questions. You want certainty were none exist.
And just to be clear here. Science is disagreeing with Rand, QM, Biology, Neuroscience. Reality is disagreeing with Rand.
Even if we were to take experience of reality for what it is. You try and have some children and you will realize that this egomaniac approach is nothing but an illusion that speaks to a very tiny part of the human mind.
That doesn't mean that you can't make rational decisions but to claim that it's somehow well defined is simply yet another non philosophical, non-sceptic approach.
Your last sentence really says it all. You want a life philosophy, that's all fine and good. Some follow Gods word you follow Rands. But independent rational thinking it is not.
With regards to rationality is good I was responding to that not claiming that, please read the thread.
In this case it is you that needs to properly read my reply. That's the second time you've misread my post (the first was the [insert Objectivism here] bit).
I want philosophy to help guide me through life, yeah. Whereas you want philosophy for, um, what exactly? I feel like there's a lot of empty rhetoric in your responses. First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible. You think you've made the case for this by mentioning the words 'context' and 'vacuum' or something. You also try to use the prestige of science (QM, biology, neuroscience) to trash Rand without offering any specific evidence/argument, and try the same thing with the emotional appeal of family. Maybe you do have arguments involving those things but I've yet to hear them. You also keep saying 'universal claims' without really explaining what you mean.
Put it like this. Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason. Which is fine, because non-rational beings could never understand/use it anyway. She says 'man' in place of 'rational animal' or 'rational being' because on Earth as we know it humans are the only entities that develop rationality. Anyway, if you don't think that usage of the word 'man' is correct, it doesn't really matter - again the point is that anybody reading Objectivism qualifies as a subject.
By the way, Rand does discuss epistemology and metaphysics in some detail in her paper 'Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology' if you were interested in reading more about these low-level details of Oism.
Well you are asking philosophy to do something that it can't.
Guiding you through life is the job of self-help books and religion and objectivism.
I don't want philosophy to help guide me through life. I use philosophy to constantly question assumptions in order to push my understanding of the world around me, not dictate what is right or wrong which is how Rand uses it.
First you just keep asserting that individuality and certainty are impossible.
Well by all means please show me something that is certain. Existence exist just isn't going to do it as existence itself is an open question. What is existence, how can you with certainty say something is the way you experience it.
I would be more than happy to be proven wrong. But if it goes like in most cases when I ask objectivist to prove their claim there will be silence.
Objectivism is only for rational beings, that is beings with the power to reason.
So the ability to reason makes you rational? Surely you can see what is wrong with that statement. A religious person is able to reason, a communist is able to reason.
That isn't what Rand was doing. She was reasoning a specific way based on specific premises. The rationale that followed her premises are what makes for objectivism. It is a specific moral claiming how man ought to be.
Of course as most first year student's of philosophy will quickly learn is that there aren't any certain premises.
Existence isn't a certain premise as you need to describe what existence is. That is the whole point of philosophy.
I too use philosophy to 'push my understanding of the world around me' but for what possible reason should I want to do this except to better inform the decisions I make in my life?
All of Objectivism can be extrapolated from 'Existence exists.' That statement implies that 'something' exists (hence law of identity, A is A) and that you are conscious of it (hence consciousness). That gives us the three axiomatic concepts on which Objectivism rests - everyone directly perceives them - and they cannot be denied because any argument against them would inevitably involve/imply existence/identity/consciousness resulting in self-contradiction. In a similar way, the validity of the senses is not up for debate because any attempt to negate this validity would at some point rely upon it. So you need to accept the three irreducible primaries (existence/identity/consciousness) and the validity of the senses - and happily basically everyone does accept those things, and lives accordingly, and would only so much as attempt to deny them during rare philosophical debates.
When I said rational beings are defined by their ability to reason, I did not mean such beings are automatically acting rationally. Its a different sense of the word, like a fast car vs a car that is actually going fast. Just a misunderstanding.
In a war you need to take risks to ensure long-term survival (and survival 'qua' man btw, not as a slave or prisoner), there's nothing irrational about that. When you're first born you have only the pleasure/pain mechanism to tell good from bad, and that alone is not sufficient for survival, so as your mind develops you must use reason to live.
Rand never mentioned evolutionary theory as far as I remember, the argument is based simply on the easily observable biological functions that support life. No knowledge of evolution is necessary in order to act morally or come up with a similar moral theory. Meanwhile you keep saying 'no man is an island,' 'no man exists in isolation,' but I'm not sure what you actually mean by that. I could just as easily say 'no man shares the mind of any other' - it's a bit of a platitude - what's your argument exactly?