Dammit, Kimstu. Use spoiler tags.
Not for those who haven’t read it yet, but for those of us who have. I’m having flashbacks and the shakes now!
The proportion of recovering Objectivists on the SDMB exceeds that of any other group except Mensa.
Collectivist and doomed to never own a Corvette or compose a sonata.
Humans are not monkeys and Rand addresses this in ‘The Virtue of Selfishness’.
Humans may have been monkeys at one point but we have evolved.
Obligatory link to relevant “Bob the Angry Flower” cartoon.
But what we have evolved into remains essentially monkeylike in social relations – or, to choose another analogy, wolflike. Humans are not like ants, born to live entirely for the community. Nor are humans like cats, born to thrive as loners. Humans are like wolves – individuals, but still essentially dependent on the social group for all the necessities of life. A “lone wolf” is a sad and stunted creature, a lone human even more so.
Because in Rand’s universe, the Hank Reardons and Dagny Taggerts are infallable superpeople of business. They never make mistakes. Their assessment of the market is always perfect. They can get any task done through sheer will. In real life, Bill Gates is not as smart by himself as he is with all of Microsoft’s R&D and marketing divisions behind him. In the real world shit happens and it’s not because of looters and moochers. It’s because information is imperfect or in flux or machines wear out at inopportune times.
I believe the character in question was known informally as the “wet nurse”.
Perhaps we are zebralike because take care of our babies instead of eating them.
Wolves exist moment to moment on primal urges. Wolves cannot rationalize. Wolves cannot think further than to imagine stimuli when confronted with a audio/visual clue.
Our rational thought is what makes us humans and yet there is a certain segment of the global population that would prefer we did not use rational thought. They have gone as far as to try to teach us rational thought is an illusion.
Watch some old Nazi propaganda films and you will see that Nazi soldiers were taught to ignore rational thought in favor of behaving according to their feelings and emotional impulses.
And wolves instinctively align with a social group. And so do humans, though the details are different. Rational thought can trump instinct – but in this case, the instinct in question is not irrational. Humans depend on others of their own kind more than any other species on Earth – not only for immediate material needs, but for all the fruits of civilization and culture.
60 years of Wile E. Coyote cartoons have apparently given wild canines a mythical status in the animal kingdom.
About the only thing an animal is possibly capable of instinctively aligning with is magnetic north. Any other perceived alignment is pure human projection of our unique capability to judge using learned principles of which most are abstract concepts. Many animals group. Many humans group. No animals align.
Rand wrote about this in ’ For the New Intellectual’.
“An “instinct” is an unerring and automatic form of knowledge”
There is one type of group for wolves. There are 13 million types of groups for humans. More if you count the Usenet. To join one or a few or many of the 13 million groups is not instinct, it is a choice consciously made by judgment using abstract concepts. Again, an instinct is pre-programmed. Wolves will always do what wolves do due to instinctual behavior. We humans are forced to perceive our reality and are, or rather should be, complete masters of our destiny which includes the decision to join groups.
I think you’re being much too categorical on both sides of the topic. Wolves do have a complex social structure, and do make choices about which group (pack) they want to be part of, sometimes leaving one pack for another or forming new packs. It’s too simplistic to say that non-human animals are all instinct while humans are all reason. The spectrum from instinctual urging to self-conscious reasoning is pretty continuous, and humans and other animals just fall at different points along it. Yeah, we have a lot more self-awareness and cognitive subtlety than other animals, but that doesn’t mean we don’t have instinctual drives motivating many of the choices we make.
And yes, humans, like monkeys and wolves, are social animals. Any attempt at rationalizing us out of that classification just makes the term “social animal” pretty much meaningless. To say that we are or even could be “complete masters of our destiny” is just wishful thinking. What does that even mean? Nothing ever happens to us that we don’t choose? We never have any feelings or innate urges that our rational brain doesn’t consent to? That is obviously nonsense.
I loathe what Walt Disney has done to our species.
Wolves eat available animals and fight each other for alpha status to secure stronger-gened partners then go off to spread the species. Did I leave out any wolf secret societies or something?
I got it too with that, but you lost me when you put Aquaman on that list.
His ability to talk with fish is of no help in a Supermanocracy.
What on earth does Walt Disney have to do with it? Are you imagining that the only reason that humans recognize complexity in the social organization of some non-human animals is because Disney movies have persuaded us to regard all other animals anthropomorphically? That’s just silly.
And yes, you oversimplified the social structure of the wolf pack there. I could similarly say “Humans eat available animals and plants and compete with each other for higher status to secure more resources and stronger-gened partners and then reproduce and spread their species.” Which is a basically accurate description of the fundamental process of human survival, but hardly captures all the complexity in human society.
Again, there’s a spectrum between humans and other animals, not a binary divide. Humans, like wolves and many primate species, are social animals. The idea that humans can’t be compared in any way to other animal societies because of our rational abilities is an Objectivist myth. Rand was definitely passionate about her convictions, but she’s not a reliable source on biology or anthropology (or most other sciences, for that matter). She had her dogmatic convictions about what she saw as Great Truths of philosophy and ethics, and she had her vivid imagination that helped her tell stories about them, but she was not a scientist and she wasn’t always very rational or well-informed herself.
Sorry for the delay on that matter as I was watching a documentary on social complexities of wolves. I want my 7 minutes back.
Within the confines of physics and time, all normally functional humans are more than capable of being masters of our destiny.
Opposable thumbs, abstract thought, free will, 1.2EB of holographic memory with data striping functionality. Every damn one of us should be active juggernauts of our destiny… if it weren’t for those meddling intellectuals who have figured out that it is neat (and at this point in time, quite simple) to cripple others in order to serve their objectives. Social Darwinism in action.
Much is ballyhooed about “social” ants domesticating aphids, but your average person never stops to think about what other choice, or even random option, an aphid has. When an ant domesticates a human, I will give them a the courtesy of the word “social” and that ant better damn well explain his work. Mimics and opportunists are a dime a dozen and evolution dictates the rest. This goes right on up the line of the food chain where every single instinctual animal behavior is related to a projection by humans.
Rand offered the theory that the questioning of free will is proof that free will exists. I buy it. When a squirrel hand-palms itself in my presence, I will issue a retraction of most of what I have written here.
You left out Apollo XI, Casablanca, and the Hoover Dam.
I would not have left those out.
Any likewise notable wolf goings on you care to add?
Oh, I see. “Social” is not a technical term used by biologists and anthropologists to refer to a set of traits shared by various types of organisms including humans. Rather, it’s a term of commendation and approval reserved for the particular type of social behavior exhibited by humans alone, and the one who decides how the term is supposed to be used is Madgolf. :rolleyes: Well, that does clarify things.
Hmmm. Your example sounds more like the Justice Lords to me.
Technically, I am a professor of quantum physics… oh crap, hold on…
In the everyday world, it is natural and intuitive to think of everything being in an eigenstate of every observable.
There, now I am a professor of quantum physics.
Do I really need to explain this?
No amount of semantics can equalize the obvious and rational disconnect between brute animals and rational humans ESPECIALLY within the definition of what is social. There are explicit reasons certain people try to do it, and even in the face of mass-appealing romanticism spewing from the dizzying array of shameless offerings of the Disney Corporation, it is not going to ever become reality.
A=A
Is it fair to say that to be a Randian (or perhaps an Objectivist), you have to be a brooding adolescent or moderately autistic?