Re: Apple II and God (was Re: Notice to Scott Gamon)

[amitai.schlair@usa.net (Amitai Schlair)]

Scott Gamon <pubpc1@library.ucla.edu> wrote:

> amitai.schlair@usa.net (Amitai Schlair) wrote,
> in response to Rubywand:
> >>      On the whole, it would be unfair to pick apart Heinlein's statement.
> >> Obviously, it is intended to convey an ideal. It is intended to be
> >> extreme and to be understood as intended to be extreme.
> >
> >And that is the beauty of it! Can you picture a world in which this
> >ideal is in universal practice? I, for one, do my best to adhere to a
> >similar credo; Nathan, whatever my disagreements with whatever his
> >religious beliefs may be, does pretty damn well too.
> 
> The problem is that he does not always stick to facts himself when
> he attacks others.  That's hypocrisy.

If that's true (I don't know the facts of the case myself), then it is
certainly hypocrisy on his part. Not that I care; if Nathan wants to say
one thing and do another, it's his prerogative. A sad choice, but his
nonetheless... (note that I have no idea whether this is really what he
does -- my apologies in advance to Nathan if this is not true)

> 
> >
> >It seems you are drawing an invisible demarcation between "ideal" and
> >"real," "extreme" and "practicable." This distinction is a perfect
> >example of the power of the human mind, in that it exists because people
> >have thought that it exists. If one chooses ideals that are irrational
> >and impracticable, i.e., religious teachings and their secular
> >outgrowths of "charity" etc., then obviously one is going to encounter a
> >sort of peripateia in which this divergence of worlds occurs. It's
> >entirely self-wrought. Because I reject those ideals, I haven't
> >encountered any such problems other than the deadening numerical
> >majority of my philosophical opponents. Sometimes that's hard... but I'm
> >young and stubborn and I'll make it.
> 
> You sound like an Objectivist.

In the sense that I have read Rand and find it illuminating and
thought-provoking, yes. In the sense that I congregate with other
"Objectivists", no. (I think it's sadly ironic how they have
conventions.) I'm also not as good at applying her ideas as I would like
to be; this is an opportunity for me to try and improve.

> 
> Charity in the sense of altruism, I believe, is biologically based.
> 
> Objectivists say that it is natural for individuals to be selfish.
> Here is the problem: a biological organism's natural state is dictated
> by its genes.

[snip of fascinating explanation]

> 
> The crux of the matter boils down to: a selfish altruisic gene's need
> to survive and outcompete other genes results in kin altruism in
> individuals.

This was certainly an interesting point.

That said, I'm not convinced that it matters where altruism originates.
If it's natural to be selfish, then we have no excuse for the state of
our world. If it's natural to be altruistic, we still have no excuse --
it's just that we have one more minor obstacle to overcome before we
become "enlightened" (please excuse my terrible word choice -- it's late
and I'm tired).

Now we're going in the direction of the "Nature vs. nurture" argument,
which I would like to avert by noting, as with my previous opinion on
the existence of God, that it doesn't matter which force is more
powerful. Philosophy, a combination of the two, can shape a human being
more than parents' genes or values can. I, for one, have formed a value
system which is fundamentally independent of what my parents believe and
what they try to teach me (which, by the way, are often not the same!).
I used to be altruistic, but I can't stand the thought of it any more,
and whenever anyone gets the idea that I am helping them for their sake
I immediately relieve them of their illusions.

For example: Over the course of the school year I accumulated a list of
things I wanted to do/accomplish over this summer. My older sister is
now home for the summer taking physics at a local university, and since
she has difficulty with "hard" sciences (anything quantitative, really)
I offered to tutor her a bit. A few days ago I realized she had been
laboring under the misapprehension that I was doing it for her benefit.
She was on the phone with a friend when I entered her room and offered
to help, and she told me to wait a few minutes, which inevitably
lengthened into fifteen. She obviously thought that I cared enough about
how she did on the upcoming exam that I would make time for her whenever
_she_ was ready. When she finally hung up and came to me, I told her
that I would not help her that night, and that if she ever wanted my
assistance again, she would have to make herself available whenever it
was convenient for me; I have other things I want to do, I said, and I'm
not willing to sacrifice them for her benefit. She responded by telling
me I was just after power over her (and if it was about power, then
wasn't it she who had wanted power over me, to have me come running when
she needed help?), thinking that she held over me my "responsibility" as
a brother to help his beleaguered sister. Obviously I feel no such
responsibility.

Sure, I think it would be great if she became a kick-ass physics student
and gained an appreciation and love for its beauty, but that's not at
all a priority for me. The reason I help her from time to time is
because I want to make sure that I learned physics as well as I could (I
missed a lot of school this year due to illness), and a chance to
explain it to someone is a chance to prove it to myself. And because I
just like talking about physics. Who doesn't? :p

Of course you could go here into an elucidation of the symbiotic gene,
and you would be right to do so. When I choose a course which benefits
me (talking about physics, which I like), it benefits my sister too
(because she needs to hear someone talk about physics). I don't mind
that it helps her. But it's certainly not why I do it. Note that there's
a lot more benefit to me if I instead spend my time studying Pascal and
C and Java and classical piano, and playing basketball and Ultimate
frisbee and biking, and cleaning my [very messy] room and working at my
[very nice] job, and reading and writing, and in general enjoying
myself. When I need a break from all that, I don't mind physics at all,
and it sure is convenient to have a sister around who needs it
explained!

> 
> Those who express charity for strangers is simply extending this
> behavior unconsciously to include non-relatives.  That is, the mechanism
> that usually leads us to sacrifice for our kin is not 100% effective
> at excluding non-kin.  This happens in animals too.  Stick an egg in
> most bird's nest and the bird will "adopt" the chick because it has
> an instictive need to react to gaping mouths by feeding them.  Like
> human beings, sometimes others take advantage of this fact.  The
> cuckoo, for example, has evolved to sneak into other birds nests and
> replace one of the host bird's eggs with its own.  Similarly, some
> human beings take advantage of the charitable nature of people.

i.e., my sister!

This is a good point, and one that Rand makes (among many others) in
_Atlas Shrugged_. However, it's interesting to note that, in her book,
the people taken advantage of in this way are the Objectivist heroes,
who find their good work being mooched by the people who _claim_ to be
acting in the name of charity.

I can't stress enough the importance of reading _Atlas Shrugged_. If you
like Rand's work you'll love _AS_ -- it's a consummation of her efforts
to form a consistent and logical philosophy. If you hate Rand, you'll
love _AS_ -- it's full of the bombast and hard-headed style her
detractors love to trumpet as support for their case against her. Either
way it's a great read. The plot is top-notch, and while it is neither
strictly a mystery or an austere work of philosophy, it is definitely an
explosive combination of the two.

> 
> This is really starting to get off topic for this newsgroup, but I
> felt your position deserved a comment.  Before you stick to your
> philosophy for life, read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins
> before deciding that altruism originated from religion.
> 
> -Scott G.

Yep, it is getting off topic... I will definitely read that book. I'd
heard about it but never got around to grabbing it. Will do!

-- 
Amitai Schlair
amitai.schlair@usa.net
--