Sorry about the blood

Are we born tabula rasa (as blank slates)? Objectivists often tell me that by tabula rasa, Ayn Rand simply meant we are born with no innate ideas, e.g. a map of the world. But beyond the fact that this is basically uncontroversial, and does not imply blank slate psychology--it is not actually what Ayn Rand meant.

This is her stated premise (from The Virtue of Selfishness):

Man is born with an emotional mechanism, just as he is born with a cognitive mechanism; but, at birth, both are “tabula rasa.” It is man’s cognitive faculty, his mind, that determines the content of both. Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.

Whilst I do take some issue with the idea that our cognitive mechanism is born “blank,” it is especially the premise that our emotional mechanism is born tabula rasa that I take particular issue with and what I will be challenging in this post.

According to Rand, you can program—her word—your emotions. You can make emotions behave as you want and control which life events will end up making you happy, sad, infuriated, full of pride, etc. Rand doesn’t say you can control your response to your natural emotions. She is saying you control the initial emotion itself.

She writes:

Man has no choice to feel that something is good for him or evil, but what he will consider good or evil, what will give him joy or pain, what he will love or hate, desire or fear, depends on his standard of value. (The Virtue of Selfishness, 31, emphasis original).

Consequently, Rand admonishes people for finding enjoyment in activities that are not intimately tied to productive achievement in service of your objective survival. This includes the "mindless kicks" of "driving hotrod cars", family picnics, certain music, certain paint colours, and much more.

The work of Nathaniel Brandon before their split, which I think Rand endorsed, is also judgmental of many other forms of happiness. These include a theoretical man who takes pleasure in working only in the “routine and familiar”, men who want to hang around with friends who “have no standards whatever and with whom, therefore, he feels free to be himself”. For recreation, he approves of parties--but only as a reward for achievement (or engaging in interesting conversation and the like). He admonishes any other form of party as likely to involve acting like a “noisy fool.” He derides quiet forms of pleasure, including ladies’ parties, “coffee klatches,” and “vegetative kinds of vacation” as examples of people who seek the boring. He concludes that one should seek a “demanding pleasure"--not pleasure for pleasure’s sake, but one intimately tied to cognitive functioning and achievement.

In short, in my view, Objectivism makes sweeping statements about human nature that properly belong in the realm of science, not philosophy. In evaluating her position on emotions and psychology, Rand doesn't cite any empirical evidence to substantiate them. (This failure marks one way in which her work here reads as polemical advocacy rather than scholarly investigation and criticism).

In neuropsychology, e"motions" are motivational states (in contrast to feelings) (Barkley et al., 2012). For instance, when you feel the heat of a fire, that is a feeling, but what drives you to draw your hand back quickly is the emotion. (It can be hard to differentiate a "feeling" from an "emotion" when we observe them superficially, but the distinguishing feature is that emotions are motive states that drive action).

Thus, the reason why I see Objectivism as wrong here is because many characteristics of our psychology are substantially biologically influenced, emerge early in development, and are an integral part of who and what we are as individuals. We vary in our values, including what we find brings us enjoyment, and in our susceptibility to specific behaviours. We know this from extensive studies of twins, families, neuroimaging, and molecular genetics: our emotional mechanisms are not born blank. For the most part, what elicits our emotions, what we find "enjoyable", our motivational drives and what will make us feel a certain way etc. is down to our unique personality type, prewired largely by genetics.

Neuroscientists agree that the human brain has preset, hardwired emotions at birth. This view of emotion exists in stark contrast to the blank slate theory, according to which human behaviour is learned and innate and emotional drivers do not exist. Emotions have a purpose and work to do; they are meant to pack a punch and to move us in a way that aids survival and growth (MacNamara, 2016).

To concretise this, consider how some people you may know differ in their personalities. For example, with one of my closest friends, I don’t experience his personality and character as primarily the result of his consciously chosen beliefs and convictions. There is a particularly unique way he encounters the world that seems to come naturally to him. For example, he is introverted and socially reticent, but not because he has decided that socialising is bad, he just doesn’t have the spontaneous drive to put himself forward socially as others do. I know him as a particular person who responds to things in particular ways, what kinds of jokes are likely to make him laugh, when he is likely to become animated about something, the things he can become intensely interested in and the things that barely register for him. I know that he can be reserved with people while being extremely comfortable and affectionate with others. Etc. These are part of the person I have actually come to know, as opposed to abstract conclusions that he has reached about how he wants to behave. This is because innate emotions and other genetic predispositions have helped determine the kind of experiences he seeks out and enjoys, the things he becomes good at, the interests he develops, the friends he seeks out, and eventually the sort of character he has.

By contrast, I have another friend who is more extroverted, finds a lot of the stuff my other friend enjoys (reading, writing, etc). boring, preferring more social activities. This creates a division of labour, i.e. they have naturally selected into different careers based in part on their innate emotional drives.

Thrill-seeking personalities find genuine enjoyment in driving race cars. Introverted thinkers may enjoy coffee get-togethers. Space cadets like “vegetative kinds of vacation.” All of this plays a role in human life, and it's important information, because it helps determine whether you feel comfortable in your own skin or not.

That said, there is a distinction between primary and secondary emotions. Primary emotions are innate, but we can, through executive functioning, consciously create new, secondary emotions (de-novo) to motivate us to persist towards goals in the absence of immediate rewards, and in response to our conscious value-judgements. In that context, Rand would be partially correct that our emotions are responses to our conscious, cognitive judgements.

I also would agree that emotions, by themselves, do not establish value, since objectivity does not mean that whatever someone happens to enjoy is necessarily good for them (that would be subjectivism). But it also does not mean judging against a predetermined ideal of what everyone ought to enjoy or pursue, as if it had intrinsic value (this is the error Ayn Rand makes). An objective account of value must consider how a pursuit relates to the individual's particular nature, needs, and requirements for living including what will bring them genuine happiness, in the long-term. So this would require distinguishing pathological traits from adaptive or at least harmless aspects of an individual’s psychology, including where egosyntonia is apparent. Yet, at the same, human beings have requirements for living that are relational to their individual nature. This must account for their unique neurobiology.q

The other problem is that Rand seems to alternate between two definitions of reason, or rationality. Under Objectivism, reason is not just a way to "understand the external world". It is also defined in another way, in which reason is understood as the mind (cognition) over the heart (emotions). She tends to demote emotions as mere "whims", as stuff that is not inherently reliable that should be controlled and regulated by the cognitive mind. This promotes a moral bias against emotions. Yet emotions often are very valuable (even if primitive) signals about your actions.

Politically, the manifestation of tabula rasa in Objectivism appears to be an inversion of the Marxist conception of the blank slate that, once men have "accepted" or been "conditioned" to altruism, they will automatically be motivated to act according to the principle “from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.” In the Objectivist version, once men have "accepted" the ethical code and standard of value set forth by Rand's Objectivist ethics, their emotions will automatically serve and motivate them to act by that code, in accord with their rational, long-term self interest.

The irony is that ethical egoism can only be seen as valid once the blank slate premises are abandoned! When we apply selfish gene theory to neuropsychology, it becomes clear that we have evolved innate, self-interested rather than altruistic motives. Even when cooperating with others, the motive behind such action is principally self-interested, just over the longer term. But these motives are innate and cannot be altered by adopting a different ethical code. So while you can exercise free will and force yourself to act against your perceived self-interest, you cannot make such actions actually motivating or enjoyable. This explains why collectivist societies could not motivate people to “serve the greater good” and "renounce the self-interested pursuit of profit", despite people believing it was morally right to do so. Yet, according to Objectivism, anyone can “program” their emotions to behave in any way they want--if you set yourself to accept altruism as a standard of value, then you'll enjoy it. Thus, on Objectivist premises, opposing collectivism on the grounds of human nature becomes impossible!

I was thinking about Jensen’s situation. I read “The Nvidia Way” last year, and I was kind of blown away by Jensen. His recent resignation is insane. Is Jensen Howard? What happens next?

It's been about ten years since I last read Ayn Rand, but I caught myself thinking about her characters today, Francisco d'Anconia especially, and Roark too.

Some context: I grew up in an industrial family in Brazil. Nothing close to a multimillionaire, just a comfortable life, but I've been around eccentric presses, machining centers, sewing machines, sheet metal, plastic and zamac injection molds, and tooling since I was a kid. My family's company covers a good part of that production chain, with about 20 employees, in a country that mostly treats people like us as the enemy.

What stuck with me from those books isn't really "being the best" for its own sake. It's the idea that you should always be learning, always be good at what you do, and that there's a philosophical reason behind it. I'm happiest when I'm figuring something out and connecting pieces of knowledge. Rand gave that feeling a shape and a face, and it's kept me motivated to be honest, to work, and to keep picking up new skills.

I know this is a bit vague, but I'm curious: has anyone else reflected on this? Did these characters shape how you approach work and learning in real life, especially in an environment that isn't friendly to it?

A quick clarification, since a few things might come across the wrong way. I've never gone deep into the formal side of Objectivism, like the epistemology or metaphysics. I'm just a regular guy, not a philosopher. What Objectivism gave me was a strong moral compass, and that's really all I'm talking about here. I've also never cared much about the "is Rand a good or bad writer" debate, or whether the characters are well written. What stuck with me was the message, the philosophy overall, and the way of thinking.

My husband has been a fervent Ayn Rand follower since high school. He was particularly inspired by The Fountainhead, joined Objectivist communities in college, and has remained deeply interested in the philosophy throughout his adult life.

Fast-forward to his 40s: we are married, have a young daughter, and carry a substantial mortgage. I am increasingly concerned that his interpretation of Objectivism, particularly the idea that everyone is responsible for their own happiness, has become a justification for some rather one-sided behavior.

I am the primary breadwinner, work long hours, often past midnight, and still take care of our daughter in the evenings. He seems perfectly comfortable with this arrangement. He spends money as he wishes as long as he thinks we can afford it (for example, ordering takeout almost every day despite having household help hired to cook). Most recently, he unilaterally decided to leave the workforce because he simply doesn’t want to work anymore, leaving me to shoulder the family’s financial responsibilities.

I genuinely want to understand: Does rational self-interest mean one has no moral obligations to people around him? What does Objectivism say about the responsibilities one voluntarily assumes by getting married and having children? I’m particularly interested in hearing from people who understand the philosophy, rather than simply diagnosing our marriage problems. Thanks. 🙏

Culture is not static. The values and experiences that shape our perception are themselves subject to change. They recede like the tide, sometimes so gradually that we scarcely notice.

Make no mistake. Culture is never constant.

Drifting lazily along a slow-moving creek, we move along. Impercetible, and yet we move. We look up and the scene on the bank has changed.

The culture we recognize today may no longer resemble what we once took.for granted. We may not recognize the culture we experience tomorrow.

Be careful. We have not ceased moving.

"Keep all hands and feet inside the car until we come to a complete stop," our guide entones. While it may appear we are static, we are not.

Where are we then?

I would reply, somewhere on the arc of a pendulum. And the pendulum swings.

I'm asking because it's well known that Miller's been a huge fan of Ayn Rand & Objectivism since he was in high school, and to have someone who really believes in Objectivism so close to the President must be pretty exciting. It certainly bodes well for Objectivist policies coming out of the Trump WH.

I know this is not the forum for discussing Joe Rogan, unless you see Roark/Galt in Joe Rogan. So help me go away. I'm looking for the perfect Subreddit to discuss the current situation where grotesquely overpaid influencers are elevated to a stratospheric delusion bubble of their own self-validating creation where they entice others to indulge in the same bubble . . . where followers follow them from one political aberration du jour to another like addicts. I'm looking for discussion with the most self aware and intelligent people on earth. The skill is "metacognition". The topic is "viral self-delusion in extremely successful mass media influencers". What is the most you ever lost in a presidential election? The importance is unbounded. This disease can kill everyone.

Different races of people have very different features which could be eyes, facial features, skin color, athletic performance,.. .

I am curious if there could be similar differences in these races minds statistically speaking

Libertarians have always had a strong connection to conservatives due to people like Rothbard, and generally the supposed idea that conservatives were or are pro-small government, less regulatory and tax burden, more pro-freedom etc. But as of recent, it became pretty clear, at least in the US that a significant portion of the libertarian movement is conservative-aligned.

Do you think the same thing is happening with Objectivists due to recent events like Peikoffs political takes, Atlas Society's populistic pro-conservative culture war talking points, or was it actually always the case that Objectivist were conservative-aligned similarly to libertarians due to Reagan etc?

This is a more of a contextual side note about where Im coming from: I am not American, and I have never felt the need to politically align with a "side" just for the sake of it. I strongly oppose any intellectual integration of statist/relativist/mysticist talking points or ideas in hopes of political advancement or as a coping mechanism.

Im pretty strongly convinced that this sort of embrace and/or integrated defense of ideas/people who would otherwise be hostile to objectivist/liberal philosophical concepts is irrational and self-destructive, because it fundamentally only helps those who the defended/embracer views as "allies" both on a philosophical-cultural level and a political level. (its destructive on a psychological level, in terms of the political game, on a philosophical level, its shown to be destructive through public choice theory, and from historical accounts).

So TLDR: I dont think defending or engaging in conservative talking points or aligning with conservatives is a good idea, is there any specific reason why American Objectivists are gravitating towards conservatism (in the case you think they are) outside of human flaws?

Came across this on TikTok. The voice sounds almost identical to Leonard Peikoff. Pretty sure it's AI-generated.

Something about this seems off to me. What do you guys think? Does cloning someone's voice like this raise any intellectual property issues from an Objectivist perspective, or would this fall under freedom of expression?

Suppose you can mine asteroids and get some rare minerals that are very expensive on earth and make unimaginable about of money from that....

The initial cost to even do this is super high and out of reach for most capitalists but say some trillonaire can afford to do it...

How does fair market hypothesis of Ayn Rand plays out in such cases...

Note that right now we are living in a world of extremes and unimaginable future... The way nuclear is kind of a power where if you at at the level of atoms and can create astronomical amount of power, we seem to be at such inflection points where we are playing with the hard code of life and the universe, things that are not accessible to normal people except few very powerful companies that can create an extreme imbalance of power, not talked about and considered by Rand...

I am not sure till when is such a thing can be allowed and if there are any limits where lives of other people can be at risk...

I do know the standard 9bjectivist response to such standard questions... Looking for some new thoughts and fresh ideas...

At what point does Utopia become Benevolent Despotism? I fear a society where The Dictators of the Public Good are only too eager to flog the rest of us with their good intentions?

In the current direction of Government, will the Collective Good eviscerate individual liberty? Can freedom and inequality co-exist, or does one exclude the other? If you are free to choose, then does not the act of personal choice create inequality?

The predictable end of a Culture of Consensus is one where the Free Market of Independent Thought will be usurped by the homogenized, pasteurized, lobotomized process of thought prevalent today. Unfortunately for humanity, I fear all great civilizations endure great hardship to ascend great plateaus; and once they arrive, only to fall from their own prosperity.

Why has nobody so far not fought for economic rights including anti trust laws in us supreme court

I understand that human beings have individual rights derived from being rational...

Do corporations have individual rights? They aren't living entities (ofcourse shareholders in those corporations do)

Can AI have individual rights?

Capitalism is a social system based on the recognition of individual rights. In Objectivism and the classical liberal tradition, capitalism is established through a constitutional government — a monopoly on retaliatory force — limited to fulfilling that function.

Libertarian anarchists, however, oppose such a monopoly government. They claim it is wrong to impose morality by force, and that government, as a monopoly, necessarily does this, since it is on moral grounds that it prohibits “competitors.” But this just means the anarchist ends up denying individual rights, including the right of self-defence.

This is because all force is monopolistic. Force is monopoly. To use force is to attempt to monopolise. Even in the economic realm, "monopoly" means a business protected from competition by force, not merely a single seller.

There is no such thing as force that lets dissenters go their own way. If force in self-defence is justified, this means that monopolising an interaction is justified. If I use force to defend myself against someone, I am not trying to persuade him; I am attempting to forcibly stop him from acting as he chooses - i.e. to exclude the "competing" force-wielder from carrying out his notion of “justice“. I am also using force to impose my morality -- my right to my own life -- on the gunman shooting at me.

If the government monopolisation of retaliatory force were wrong, so would be the private use of force by individuals. And if one must avoid imposing moral ideas by force, then one must renounce force altogether--i.e., practice pacifism. The argument against government's monopoly on force is thus an argument against self-defence, and it leads to pacifism (at best).

To concretise this, let’s remember that Ron Paul, formerly a leading libertarian in government, is a committed anti-abortionist, who thinks abortion is murder. Now how can his “competing police force” treat mine, which allows abortion? Does mine allow “murder”? Does his “competing police force” stop women from exercising their rights to their own lives? How can what is or isn’t murder be a matter of “You go your way and I’ll go mine, and neither will impose a monopoly solution”?

There are only two possibilities:

1. I have no right to use force against what I think is Ron Paul's initiation of force.

2. I am in my right to do so.

The first alternative is the one implicitly adopted by anarchists, but it cannot stand the light of day; it leads to total pacifism: YOU as an individual (let alone the government) would not be allowed to retaliate against anyone if (1) were valid. Because then it’s not enough that YOU think you are being robbed, beaten, etc.–the "competitor" has a “right” to his own standards of behaviour.

So, ironically, anarchism, so often put forward as an extension of the right to self-defence, ends up denying the moral legitimacy of any self-defence: one cannot forcibly impose one’s own evaluation on the other party. That would be monopoly!

Made while bored. Constructive feedback appreciated.

I’m just curious what the thought process would be on this? The biggest hang up I have about this is that you provide the material for a child to be born which you exonerate yourself from responsibility. You allowed a person to be created in exchange for cash and detach yourself from any “parental” connection or obligation. Seems. Wrong to me.

And it is kind of a weird feeling knowing there might be another person out there that connected to you that you have no association with because you did it for cash.