Is it in the genes?
Is it possible that philosophical thought can influenced by genetics? Are some predisposed to want to submit to the collective as a survival technique? I can't think of another explaination at the moment. Is this failing genetic experiment about to fail once and for all.
Previous comments... You are currently on page 2.
Have you ever read "Where Mathematics Came From?" Lots of fun.
P.S. Marking down, by definition, does not bother me also. But unfairness does.
Best.
Maritimus
"To choose death, I think, is a fundamental individual right. The social order which prohibits it is not fully reason based." Agreed.
"The main benefits of reason come from ability to minimize the risks within a world of omnipresent uncertainty."
I think that is one benefit. But we have actual knowledge also. For instance, I can exactly define how much weight a boat can carry.
Indirectly, yes. The degree of one's reasoning ability is influenced by one's genetics, and a person with greater reasoning ability is more likely to choose a sound philosophy and less likely to fall for the arguments of those touting inferior or evil philosophies.
Somebody marked you down. I thought that doing so was grossly unfair. I compensated.
For the benefit of the others, I would like to point out that the most important benefits from reason are the consequences of the fact that in every action we have a choice.
Anybody who has worked on development of new or improved products knows that the innovations involved require choices based on only limited ability to forecast outcomes for those choices. Every one of those decisions represents a risk taken.
To put it in another way, the main benefits of reason come from ability to minimize the risks within a world of omnipresent uncertainty and total inability to control all the variables active in any given choice situation.
I do think that cognitive ability of any given individual has a genetic component at its root. The history proves, without a doubt it seems to me, that great minds existed from the earliest recorded time, and most probably before. On the other hand, study any "dynasty" of an originator with a great mind and you will see that a great mind is not truly inheritable.
To choose death, I think, is a fundamental individual right. The social order which prohibits it is not fully reason based.
I ended up more verbose than I intended. One thought followed another.
Have a great day.
Sincerely,
Maritimus
Our beliefs vary. Only one is a lib and only one (another) returned to being a Catholic.
People can be conditioned to become lazy. When hard work is continually punished and demonized, Laziness and lawlessness are continually rewarded, society in general will follow the same path of water and money. the path of least resistance.
I forget where I hear this quote, but it seem to be almost a law of behavior.
"When the pain of change is less than the pain of maintaining the status quo, you will change."
Seems people are pain/pleasure driven in almost all cases. When you get hungry enough you will work in some way or another, but as long as government continues to promote benefits for the lazy and unproductive, this problem will continue to get worse. Productive people are quickly quitting and just going on public assistance, I estimate just because this is their way of "going on strike" and getting back some of what was taken from them by force in the first place.
I'd pray for her soul, but who'd listen? I'm an atheist.
Examples can be seen with business association with politicians and government only to be used as a scape goat or just rat on them to save face.
I think is not I know. Those five words describe the part of the difference between subjectivism and objectivism. The results of following the Second Law. One never sees fudge words.
"Could genetics be resonsible for influencing philosophical thought?"
A: I don't know have any studies been done on the subject? You don't know? Easy let's do a Google takes about five seconds
Do Genes Influence Personality? | Psychology Today
https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/...
Jul 11, 2013 - We all know intuitively that genes influence personality. The problem is developing the right paradigm that can accurately answer the question ...
Do your genes determine your entire life? | Julian Baggini | Science ...
www.theguardian.com › Science › Genetics
Mar 19, 2015 - But isn't all that thinking things over irrelevant if our final decision ... And doesn't the whole edifice of personal responsibility collapse if ... Genes would help us uncover the secrets of all kinds of ills, from the psychological to the physical. ..... of free will by Joseph L Price (a scientist, not a philosopher) as “the ...
Character traits determined genetically? Genes may hold the key to a ...
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases...
May 16, 2012 - Genes play a greater role in forming character traits -- such as self-control, decision making or sociability -- than was previously thought, new research suggests. ... say that genetically influenced characteristics could well be the key to ... the genetic influence was strongest on a person's sense of self-control.
Notice most of these follow the line of my second paragraph. On reflection I'll stick with the reason in paragraph one. It's as good as any other - so far.
Meaning liike Ayn Rand and Evolution I put it on the shelf. My time iis prioritized. But some other objectivist may wish to pursue the nature of potty training.
At present the answer to the question as posed is Yes. As me Mum used to say 'All things are possible in this best of all possible worlds.'
TK has articulated a subject of interest.
Explained why and stated his current limitation. Sound beginning. Myself i would look to see the results of the failing genetic experiment if knew where to look. Since google couldn't help we're going to need a more definitive connection to continue.
Until then neither explanation can be evaluated much less accepted.
You might say that each of us has that same potential "to be" or "not to be", baring any severe physiological abnormalities. Genetic predispositions or possibilities are not a precursor for behavior or ideological disposition. I once ask that question, (in my book) "is it genetic", but after much research and personal observations, all but the worst of cases are able to overcome and gain a conscience and become a value producing or creating, even if its a learned experience, (brain only). It would seem that choice to do so is the main driver of this process. Even bicameral man had the ability to choose. Awareness is always Key.
Even prior to progressiveism, there was a stark difference in cultural behavior across the world. Even in today's world there are cultures that have yet to ascent into conscious awareness and self inspection of the individuals behavior. They are simply not aware that there are other choices.
Our forefathers witnessed that ascension with the aid of civilization, language, education and the shear will of individuals that came from primitive cultures.
Humans are social animals, which means we perform better by cooperating with others, both of our species and other social animals. The exceptions to this instinctive preference are called sociopaths, who lack a sense of belonging or empathy. For those (thankfully!) rare individuals, other living creatures are merely objects to be exploited for the benefit of themselves. Sociopaths may be physically destructive, like serial killers who regard the agonies of their victims as entertainment, or they may be socially destructive, joining social structures simply for the pleasure of destroying them.
Other than the sociopaths, there do seem to be instinctive stratifications of behavior among humans. Some are less fearful of change, exhibiting more individualistic attitudes, while others are drawn to seek stability and security. There are "alphas" among both of these groups, who tend to gather followers, though the leaders who promise stability seem to end up with a larger following, which might indicate the change-seekers are a smaller population.
That the risk-takers make up a smaller portion of the human population shouldn't be a surprise, since increased risk results in earlier and more frequent mortality. Does this mean that we are destined to become herd animals, devoid of the risk takers?
My opinion is that risk-taking is a necessary genetic component for species survival. Otherwise we would have faced destructive famine, disease, and massive impact from natural events. I also think that the percentage of risk takers remains small, because too many individuals with looser ties to the community would destroy the social bonds that make us a (so far) successful species.
Long-winded response, but I think it indicates that Objectivists will always find themselves in the minority. I don't consider that a bad thing, as there's a fine line between risk-taking as productive, and risk-taking as destructive.
Load more comments...