When: Sunday, May 28, 2006
What: "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", Chapter 7, starting on the Section titled: "Man's Life as the Standard of Moral Value"
Sign up with the OPAR yahoo group for time and location details.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/
Tuesday, May 16, 2006
Wednesday, May 03, 2006
Living Beings as Neither Mechanistic nor Vitalistic
This is in reference to the passage in _Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand_ by Leonard Peikoff, starting around page 192, in the Soft Cover version. ("Materialists today, dedicated to monism (and to rewriting reality), insist that every science be "reducible" to physics in a sense that denies both consciousness (see chapter 1) and life...") It was noted at a recent meeting of the Plano OPAR group that other Objectivist philosophers seem to have said something different on this issue. ("Biology: mechanism vs. vitalism")
***********************************************
Since I was the one presenting a third alternative to living beings being either mechanistic or vitalistic at the OPAR study group (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand), permit me to expand upon my view.
My dictionary defines "mechanism" as: 9) (philosophy) (a) the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics; (b) the view that all biological processes may be described in physiochemical terms. My dictionary defines "vitalism" as: 2) (biology) the doctrine that ascribes the functions of a living organism to a vital principle distinct from chemical and physical forces.
I don't want to be rationalistic with this, so let me tease out the distinction in this manner: Mechanism says that all living beings function like a clock (which needs to be wound up for the motion to continue); and vitalism say that all living beings function due a living force (that is something other than the forces found in physics).
Some people want to split a hair and claim that all *biological* motions are like the clock (say our beating heart), but consciousness (and especially a volitional consciousness) has its own form of functionality that is unlike the clock. In other words, our body functions like the clock, but our minds have a vital force that makes it possible to operate (without implying that it is possible for the mind to exist outside the body).
This sounds like the mind / body dichotomy, and one can't have it both ways. Our mind is part of our biology; it is not something that is somehow super-added to our bodies once the other pieces are put together.
The third alternative that I mentioned comes from a view of causality that is arrived at via observation. At the meeting, I gave the example of someone participating in the discussion versus the chair he was sitting on. As the person got up, walked around, participated in the discussion, drank a beverage, breathed, and did other things capable to him, the chair remained where it was put by him. The chair did not get involved in the discussion (as wooden as its participation might have been); it didn't reach for a drink; nor did it have to perform some sort of motion (like breathing) for it to remain in existence as the type of entity that it is. In other words, both the person and the chair acted according to what it was -- an entity acts according to its nature.
That is, the third alternative is *causality*. It is something specific and acts accordingly -- without doing more than it can as the type of entity that it is.
To tease this out further, let's say that one took two good sized rocks and broke one of them up into its constituent elements. This pulverized rock would become oxygen, hydrogen, silicon, carbon, etc. The two items (the rock and the pulverized collection of elements) are placed on a hillside and given a nudge to get them to act towards the downward side of the hill. The rock will roll down the hill, but the collection of elements would not. In fact, some of the pulverized rock would float up into the air, never to be seen again, whereas the piles of silicon and carbon would scatter a bit on the ground. So, even though the two rocks were identical in their composition, they behave differently.
While all living beings are composed of similar elements to the rock, they no longer function as a mere collection of elements. A biological cell, is not the same thing as its constituent elements, and a living being is not the same thing as a collection of cells. One could shred a complex living being down into its constituent cells, but that collection of cells would not function like the original living being -- in fact the original living being would die long before it was shredded into cells.
However, this does not mean that somehow life is super-added to the elements nor to the cells that a living being is composed of once the parts are put together. No, once the elements and the cells are put together *it becomes a different entity* which has different capabilities compared to the elements or to the cells. It does not become something more than the some of its parts, it becomes what it is.
And this is true of man's mind as well. Man is a specific type of entity that has a volitional consciousness, even though he is composed of elements and of cells.
However, this does not mean that a living being (even the lower forms) are merely a mechanism that simply reacts to its surroundings the way a machine would. Rather, all living beings (at some stage of their existence) *seek out* sustenance for the sake of remain what it is: A living entity.
I apologize if this comes across as a scatter-shot. So if you have any rebuttals, please have at it.
© 2006, T. Miovas
************************************
***********************************************
Since I was the one presenting a third alternative to living beings being either mechanistic or vitalistic at the OPAR study group (Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand), permit me to expand upon my view.
My dictionary defines "mechanism" as: 9) (philosophy) (a) the view that all natural processes are explicable in terms of Newtonian mechanics; (b) the view that all biological processes may be described in physiochemical terms. My dictionary defines "vitalism" as: 2) (biology) the doctrine that ascribes the functions of a living organism to a vital principle distinct from chemical and physical forces.
I don't want to be rationalistic with this, so let me tease out the distinction in this manner: Mechanism says that all living beings function like a clock (which needs to be wound up for the motion to continue); and vitalism say that all living beings function due a living force (that is something other than the forces found in physics).
Some people want to split a hair and claim that all *biological* motions are like the clock (say our beating heart), but consciousness (and especially a volitional consciousness) has its own form of functionality that is unlike the clock. In other words, our body functions like the clock, but our minds have a vital force that makes it possible to operate (without implying that it is possible for the mind to exist outside the body).
This sounds like the mind / body dichotomy, and one can't have it both ways. Our mind is part of our biology; it is not something that is somehow super-added to our bodies once the other pieces are put together.
The third alternative that I mentioned comes from a view of causality that is arrived at via observation. At the meeting, I gave the example of someone participating in the discussion versus the chair he was sitting on. As the person got up, walked around, participated in the discussion, drank a beverage, breathed, and did other things capable to him, the chair remained where it was put by him. The chair did not get involved in the discussion (as wooden as its participation might have been); it didn't reach for a drink; nor did it have to perform some sort of motion (like breathing) for it to remain in existence as the type of entity that it is. In other words, both the person and the chair acted according to what it was -- an entity acts according to its nature.
That is, the third alternative is *causality*. It is something specific and acts accordingly -- without doing more than it can as the type of entity that it is.
To tease this out further, let's say that one took two good sized rocks and broke one of them up into its constituent elements. This pulverized rock would become oxygen, hydrogen, silicon, carbon, etc. The two items (the rock and the pulverized collection of elements) are placed on a hillside and given a nudge to get them to act towards the downward side of the hill. The rock will roll down the hill, but the collection of elements would not. In fact, some of the pulverized rock would float up into the air, never to be seen again, whereas the piles of silicon and carbon would scatter a bit on the ground. So, even though the two rocks were identical in their composition, they behave differently.
While all living beings are composed of similar elements to the rock, they no longer function as a mere collection of elements. A biological cell, is not the same thing as its constituent elements, and a living being is not the same thing as a collection of cells. One could shred a complex living being down into its constituent cells, but that collection of cells would not function like the original living being -- in fact the original living being would die long before it was shredded into cells.
However, this does not mean that somehow life is super-added to the elements nor to the cells that a living being is composed of once the parts are put together. No, once the elements and the cells are put together *it becomes a different entity* which has different capabilities compared to the elements or to the cells. It does not become something more than the some of its parts, it becomes what it is.
And this is true of man's mind as well. Man is a specific type of entity that has a volitional consciousness, even though he is composed of elements and of cells.
However, this does not mean that a living being (even the lower forms) are merely a mechanism that simply reacts to its surroundings the way a machine would. Rather, all living beings (at some stage of their existence) *seek out* sustenance for the sake of remain what it is: A living entity.
I apologize if this comes across as a scatter-shot. So if you have any rebuttals, please have at it.
© 2006, T. Miovas
************************************
Monday, May 01, 2006
Next Meeting May 14
Next meeting is May 14, sign up with the yahoo group for location and time details.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/opar/
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)