From: lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA (Michael Lewchuk)
Subject: Re: Rational Debate, Axioms, and Arguments
Organization: University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada
Date: Wed, 6 Jan 1993 19:50:03 GMT

pandit@ssd.intel.com (Milind Pandit) writes:
>>In conclusion, Rand struck me as an individual who knew far more about logic
>>than she did about human beings, and the irrational thought processes that
>>drive them.
>I disagree.  I think she realized that humans demean themselves and
>others and cause suffering to the extent that they allow themselves to
>be driven by irrational thought processes.

Interesting.  I agree with the "I disagree...".

>>  She advocated a black-and-white view of the world (the Playboy Interview)

>This is true.  That doesn't mean they shouldn't try to become 100%
>good.  An ideal that accepts every one just as they are is an
>oxymoron.  And she believes in Romantic literature:  literature that
>presents man as he should be.

An ideal that accepts everyone as they are is possible.  However it would
not then really be an "ideal" per se, more a value judgment.

>>To me the most telling point was when Toffler asked Rand whether following
>>Objectivism would lead to a "juiceless, joyless existence."...
>>almost nobody is raised an Objectivist.

>Let me correct you.  In response to whether Objectivism would lead to
>a juiceless, joyless existence, Rand showed how Objectivism promotes
>self-esteem and acceptance of reality and puts emotions in their place,
>which allows human beings to truly enjoy life.  It is only a
>conceptual leap to the extent that thinking rationally is a leap for
>people who have been raised to think irrationally a lot of the time.
>Unfortunately, that includes most of us!

I agree that most of us "think" irrationally.  I also agree that emotions
should be "put in their place".  However:

Did Rand also show how acceptance of the reality of humans and acceptance
of ourselves as irrational, fun-loving creatures puts logic in its place?  If
not, the argument is "promoting reason in and of itself denies the reality
that we are an irrational species which seem to thirst for emotionality and
actually need it to maintain our sanity".  If she actually thought logic and
rationality was the only human need, one needn't wonder why she became the
person she did -- emotional suppression is unnatural and, essentially, denying
reality.

While I admit that rationality is *very* nice to have, it is not everything,
and one should think not only rationally but emotionally (and however else
humans can think).  Sure it can screw up business deals, but you are *not*
going to build an effective society of *humans* on rationality alone.  Maybe
a society of Sun workstations, but not humans.

I also maintain that many of the assumptions of Objectivism, which are
charity and the like, are irrational acts, and, as such, are not assumed.
All one can assume in Objectivism is merciless greed and logic.  One cannot
assume any type of emotional thinking unless one is willing to work outside
rationality, and hence, Objectivism.

It seems Rand did really well with the flaws of emotionality, but did she
mention the triumphs of emotionality which include maintaining a sane society,
love, hope, inspiration (logic and rationality does *not* inspire), motivation,
trust (without which you cannot build an effective society), joy, etc.?

					Michael Lewchuk
					lewchuk@cs.UAlberta.CA
Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism