The New Atlantis report on Sexuality and Gender an Objective review.

I ran across an audio book form of the New Atlantis Report on Sexuality and Gender. I decided to give it a unbiased and objective review of what I thought and if it is as horrible as some have said it is. First of all I want to quote from the preface of the report about whom the lead author is for this report. This will help to clarify and set at rest the idea it was written by an ex-gay movement bigot.

Readers wondering about this report’s synthesis of research from so many different fields may wish to know a little about its lead author. I am a full-time academic involved in all aspects of teaching, research, and professional service. I am a biostatistician and epidemiologist who focuses on the design, analysis, and interpretation of experimental and observational data in public health and medicine, particularly when the data are complex in terms of underlying scientific issues. I am a research physician, having trained in medicine and psychiatry in the U.K. and received the British equivalent (M.B.) to the American M.D. I have never practiced medicine (including psychiatry) in the United States or abroad. I have testified in dozens of federal and state legal proceedings and regulatory hearings, in most cases reviewing scientific literature to clarify the issues under examination. I strongly support equality and oppose discrimination for the LGBT community, and I have testified on their behalf as a statistical expert.

An undertaking as ambitious as this report would not be possible without the counsel and advice of many gifted scholars and editors. I am grateful for the generous help of Laura E. Harrington, M.D., M.S., a psychiatrist with extensive training in internal medicine and neuroimmunology, whose clinical practice focuses on women in life transition, including affirmative treatment and therapy for the LGBT community. She contributed to the entire report, particularly lending her expertise to the sections on endocrinology and brain research. I am indebted also to Bentley J. Hanish, B.S., a young geneticist who expects to graduate medical school in 2021 with an M.D./Ph.D. in psychiatric epidemiology. He contributed to the entire report, particularly to those sections that concern genetics.

I

 dedicate my work on this report, first, to the LGBT community, which bears a disproportionate rate of mental health problems compared to the population as a whole. We must find ways to relieve their suffering. 

The lead author of the report is one Lawrence S. Mayer, M.B., M.S., Ph.D.; who's credentials and acceptance/support of the LGBT community is written about in the preface quoted above. Since he was being misunderstood he took the time to write a FAQ about his report which says the following.

Does the report argue that being gay or transgender is a choice?

No. The report explicitly states that “sexual orientation is not a choice,” but demonstrates that, according to currently available scientific research, “biological factors cannot provide a complete explanation” for sexual orientation and argues that “environmental and experiential factors may also play an important role.”

Does the report argue that sexual orientation or gender identity can be changed through therapy?

No. The report argues that “sexual orientation may be quite fluid over the life course for some people” and observes that “only a minority of children who experience cross-gender identification will continue to do so into adolescence or adulthood.” The report does not advocate trying to change — or confirm — a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity through therapy. The report’s authors are especially wary of medical interventions directed at children.

The report argues strongly for better addressing the mental health problems (anxiety, depression, suicide) and behavioral and social problems (substance abuse, intimate partner violence) that non-heterosexual and transgender populations experience at much higher rates than the general population. 

So much for the report being some sort of clandestine undercover ex-gay pushing investigation. Not once throughout the 5 hours it took to listen to the report in full did it support therapy to convert people. Not once in the 5 hours did it support any sort of hypothesis of the ex-gay community. In fact, it said they were incorrect for considering orientation to be a chosen lifestyle choice or somehow being volitional. Not a single study that was vetted for the report was connected to the ex-gay movement in anyway. All 500 plus citations are from mainstream scientific studies and not from any form of therapy group that supported therapeutic conversion.

While the report does actually acknowledge that evidence is on the side of orientation being mutable and changing within people it never says it can be done through therapy and willpower, It instead represents the studies it cites correctly by considering it a natural change overtime in the populations studied. The statement it makes in the summary that 80% of the population in the studies they cited were heterosexual by a certain Wave/Age of study is correct. That is what the cited studies they have in the linked citations in the report says it found. It is simply reporting honestly what these Longitudinal Studies showed.

In fact, out and proud Lesbian Psychologist with the American Psychological Association Lisa Diamond has this same information in her contributions to the APA's LGBTQ Handbook for working with the LGBTQ population. Similarly, also Out and Proud Gay Psychologist also contributing to the research on LGBTQ peoples and the handbook Ritch Savin-Williams said as much as well. There was no disputing that there was more movement in the studies of the population towards an opposite sex attraction being present. I think if people knew that their sources were studies cited by LBGTQ people themselves the accusations that this was an Ex-Gay based report would have never taken off.

In fact, the idea that orientation is a combination of factors is in fact the official statement of the American Psychological Association.

There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay, or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles; most people experience little or no sense of choice about their sexual orientation.

In other words exactly what The New Atlantis stated in their summary of their findings when they said that it appeared to be a mixture of different factors which affected ones orientation and identity of themselves sexually. However, when The New Atlantis said the research we have supports this view and not the easily digestible have a gay gene be gay narrative people went nuts. Unfortunately, due to the role of the ex-gay movement with trying to squash gay rights by dismissing gay gene hypothesis anyone whom ever says there is more to it than your genes will be mistaken for being on their side.

It is also in the APA Handbook on LGBTQ issues that cross-gender identifying children will indeed the majority of the time not be trans and be identifying with their biological sex by the time they have been through puberty. In order to be considered Trans or gender dysphoric you need to be having it long term and not just as a little child, but, an ongoing issue with your gender of your body./ The New Atlantis is not differing from mainstream psychology or science in this regard either. They correctly articulate the studies they have present in their list of hundreds of citations they used.

A little boy playing with Barbies or even wearing a dress is not determined or destined to be a trans person. Or to have gender dysphoria or to take hormones nor to transition with surgery. Many little kids can play fantasy without really being the sex they are playing as based on their dress or other traits. After all we do not say that all butch, tomboyesque little girls are boys in girls bodies. Cross-sex fantasies and play does not equal being gender dysphoric and needing to be transitioned to the opposite sex. Kids are kids and let kids be kids. They should not be pushed or indoctrinated into thinking that just because they might have differences from others of their sex that means they are trapped in the wrong body.

On the issue of Gender Identity I fully concur with The New Atlantis lead author that we should not be placing labels on kids and assuming they are trans based on their traits alone. The idea that children as young as 2 years old whom cannot even fully reason what the truth of the world is yet are being seriously considered to be not their right sex by their parents is insane. It is not OK to take a young person whom is not yet capable of fully reasoning and confusing them by talking about gender dysphoria or transgender to them. That should be left until they have developed the mental capacity to be able to reason for themselves about such matters. They are more than likely to be just engaging in harmless childhood flights of fancy and not showing signs of gender identity in-congruence. In some instances they might turn out to be LGBQ, but, more than likely not T.

Gender Dysphoria or the state of being Transgender is not something that is likely to be the case for most children that people have. It is a very, very small minority of the overall population. One should not be jumping on the idea that ones kid is this way just based on their habits, or toy preferences, or other interests or the like. Nor should our kids be put into a list for hormones to stop them from going through puberty simply based on these things either. The introduction of hormone blockers in ever growing younger children is an issue for me as well. The vast majority of cross-identifying children if allowed to go through puberty will be identifying with their biological sex once puberty has been allowed to occur. Most of them will not be someone that should ever have been on the blockers in the first place.

If you are an older person and you are not a child. If you want to go on hormones and it has been deemed safe it is your body. However, children are a special case and they are not consenting of age adults. They can be pressured or hell even completely brainwashed by batshit crazy militant parents whom want to push the Trans label onto their non-conforming kids. Young people are susceptible to suggestion and parents whom are pushing their own agenda could easily manipulate a gender atypical child into thinking they are in the wrong body and then say, "see he or she is saying they are not what they were assigned at birth." This is why I recommend that kids be at an age where they have better cognitive capacity before they learn about sexuality and gender identity. It is too easy for them too be confused or downright manipulated by parents that are teaching to push an identity not teach acceptance.

In the end I found upon looking at their citations that The New Atlantis report is far from ex-gay propaganda. Indeed it does an excellent job of giving a summary of the current state of sexuality and gender identity based sciences. I, in fact will link the report at the bottom of this review, so, you can look at it or listen to it for yourselves. However do not just be second handed and believe me nor the report dogmatically like sheep as opposed to humans. Go to all of their citations and read them as well. Then see if it matches the reality of the science articles cited in their 500+ citations. Use your own mind and your own reason. Be objective!


https://www.thenewatlantis.com/docLib/20160819_TNA50SexualityandGender.pdf

Audio Book version

Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions by Edward Hudgins

The following article is by Edward Hudgins as posted on"Sense of Life Objectivists."

September 21, 2010 -- The essay “Why Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is Incomplete” by the Prometheus staff claims that the facts of biological evolution reveal a logical flaw in Objectivist philosophy. This claim is based on serious philosophical confusion and a misunderstanding of the philosophy developed by Rand.

The essay states that “One of Objectivism's fundamental axioms is that ‘existence is identity,’ which Rand derived from Aristotle's law of identity,” that is to say, A is A. The essay also states that “evolution shows us that existence is a process of evolving identity.” It then concludes that “Far from the ‘A is A’ certainty of Aristotlelian-Randian thought, evolution holds that change is the only true constant. Time's arrow specializes in contradiction.”

What changes and what doesn’t

To untangle this confusion, we must ask what it means to say that everything that exists has an identity. A is A, that is to say, the law of identity, is a metaphysical premise or axiom. It is the acknowledgment that to exist is to be something in particular, to have certain attributes and not to have others. Change in the world does not contradict the fact that to exist is to possess a certain identity. Rather, how an entity changes is an aspect or attribute of its identity. Change occurs in an orderly, law-like manner. Rand states that “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act.” Here “action” means any kind of change.

Observe that concrete entities are what changes. A flower grows. A rock rolls down a hill. A planet orbits the sun. Hydrogen atoms, subject to intense gravitational forces inside the sun, fuse together, becoming helium atoms and releasing a certain amount of energy.

Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity’s identity. According to the Prometheus essay, “evolution holds that change is the only true constant.” Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay’s authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change?

Of course, evolution refers to the fact that some individual living organisms suffer genetic mutation; that the attributes that are altered by mutations can confer survival advantages or disadvantages on the organism depending on the environment; that when a mutation confers an advantage, the organism will be more likely to survive and produce offspring which, in turn, will pass along those advantageous genes to the next generation. Over many generations more mutations occur, changing the individual organisms in subsequent generations. Over long periods of time, individuals might be greatly changed from earlier organisms from which they came. We say that the species has evolved. It is that law-like manner of change that we refer to as evolution.

Indeed, the task of science is to discover such laws or constants concerning the nature of entities. A plant needs water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients to survive and flourish. The force of an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. And so on.

Forms vs. concepts

The Prometheus essay seems to treat “identity” as if it were a metaphysical essence or entity, as if it were some sort of eternal and unchanging Form. It then attributes such a view to Objectivism and criticizes that view for not allowing for change and evolution. But Objectivism explicitly rejects this view of identity.

Objectivism understands that the concepts by which we identify entities and their attributes are not metaphysical entities but, rather, the epistemological means by which we understand the world, by which we classify things, by which we have rational knowledge. Rand had a very specific understanding of concepts. Rand states that a concept “is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s ) and united by a specific definition.” In other words, to define “human” as a “rational animal” is to observe attributes that all humans share with certain other entities—animals—as well as attributes that distinguish humans from those entities—the capacity for rational knowledge. Were there creatures a million years ago that could be identified by the concept “human?” The evidence says “No.” We would have to use a concept other than “human” to describe those earlier creatures. Were there creatures back then from which today’s humans evolved? The answer is “Yes.”

Whatever the attributes of those creatures from which modern humans evolved, the creatures today to which we apply the concept “human” have a certain identity, that is, certain attributes that we can describe and understand. Among those attributes is that fact that they did evolve from earlier creatures through a process that we describe as evolution.

How blank a slate?

The essay quotes Rand’s statement that “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Let’s acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The Prometheus essay asserts that Rand’s agnosticism led her to misunderstand human nature. She said that “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.”

According to the essay, evolutionary psychology tells us that “Human psychology is far from a tabula rasa, and is hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts which mitigate against all attempts to employ pure rationality.” The essay acknowledges most human achievements come “thanks to our ability to transcend these evolutionary handicaps,” adding “but gainsaying their existence is sheer misrepresentation of scientific reality.”

Here the essay has a point. Recent discoveries about evolution and the brain do, in fact, reveal that human nature is much more complex than perhaps Rand understood. Even so, a close look at Rand’s works shows her to be a more sophisticated observer of human nature than perhaps the essayists appreciate. But that’s another discussion. Still it is crucial for Objectivist thinkers to take account of these discoveries if they wish to refine their understanding of how individuals might live happy lives.

But these discoveries so far do not undermine the basic Objectivist understanding of ethics. The essayists acknowledge the human ability “to transcend these evolutionary handicaps.” Another way to put this is that we humans can use our volition to check our immediate emotions, including those that might involve hard-wired capacities. We can reflect upon the world around us and on ourselves and our own nature. We can ask how we might act, including how we might discipline our emotions or hard-wired tendencies in order to best survive and flourish. This is the virtue of rationality.

Here we also see that in a very crucial way humans are “tabula rasa.” We do not have pre-programmed conceptual knowledge. Even if we are “hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts,” it is only through a volitional, rational process that we discover and validate knowledge about the physical world in which we exist and about our own nature—our nature as evolved beings and as beings that can only survive and flourish if we act in accordance with certain principles found in our own nature, that is, in our identity as human beings. In any case, any instincts or biases that we humans have do not give us automatic knowledge concerning how to survive and flourish. We must discover this knowledge, using our rational capacity. From this perspective we might as well consider ourselves to be “tabula rasa.”

The Prometheus essay acknowledges Rand’s insights about free choice, free markets, and limited government in society. But these insights trace back to the deeper Objectivist understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The essayists rightly ask about the implications of evolution for Objectivism, but they would do well to ask about their own understanding of Objectivism so that they might avoid the errors analyzed above and have a better understanding of the foundations of the freedoms that they rightly cherish.

Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions by Edward Hudgins

The following article is by Edward Hudgins as posted on"Sense of Life Objectivists."

September 21, 2010 -- The essay “Why Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is Incomplete” by the Prometheus staff claims that the facts of biological evolution reveal a logical flaw in Objectivist philosophy. This claim is based on serious philosophical confusion and a misunderstanding of the philosophy developed by Rand.

The essay states that “One of Objectivism's fundamental axioms is that ‘existence is identity,’ which Rand derived from Aristotle's law of identity,” that is to say, A is A. The essay also states that “evolution shows us that existence is a process of evolving identity.” It then concludes that “Far from the ‘A is A’ certainty of Aristotlelian-Randian thought, evolution holds that change is the only true constant. Time's arrow specializes in contradiction.”

What changes and what doesn’t

To untangle this confusion, we must ask what it means to say that everything that exists has an identity. A is A, that is to say, the law of identity, is a metaphysical premise or axiom. It is the acknowledgment that to exist is to be something in particular, to have certain attributes and not to have others. Change in the world does not contradict the fact that to exist is to possess a certain identity. Rather, how an entity changes is an aspect or attribute of its identity. Change occurs in an orderly, law-like manner. Rand states that “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act.” Here “action” means any kind of change.

Observe that concrete entities are what changes. A flower grows. A rock rolls down a hill. A planet orbits the sun. Hydrogen atoms, subject to intense gravitational forces inside the sun, fuse together, becoming helium atoms and releasing a certain amount of energy.

Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity’s identity. According to the Prometheus essay, “evolution holds that change is the only true constant.” Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay’s authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change?

Of course, evolution refers to the fact that some individual living organisms suffer genetic mutation; that the attributes that are altered by mutations can confer survival advantages or disadvantages on the organism depending on the environment; that when a mutation confers an advantage, the organism will be more likely to survive and produce offspring which, in turn, will pass along those advantageous genes to the next generation. Over many generations more mutations occur, changing the individual organisms in subsequent generations. Over long periods of time, individuals might be greatly changed from earlier organisms from which they came. We say that the species has evolved. It is that law-like manner of change that we refer to as evolution.

Indeed, the task of science is to discover such laws or constants concerning the nature of entities. A plant needs water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients to survive and flourish. The force of an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. And so on.

Forms vs. concepts

The Prometheus essay seems to treat “identity” as if it were a metaphysical essence or entity, as if it were some sort of eternal and unchanging Form. It then attributes such a view to Objectivism and criticizes that view for not allowing for change and evolution. But Objectivism explicitly rejects this view of identity.

Objectivism understands that the concepts by which we identify entities and their attributes are not metaphysical entities but, rather, the epistemological means by which we understand the world, by which we classify things, by which we have rational knowledge. Rand had a very specific understanding of concepts. Rand states that a concept “is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s ) and united by a specific definition.” In other words, to define “human” as a “rational animal” is to observe attributes that all humans share with certain other entities—animals—as well as attributes that distinguish humans from those entities—the capacity for rational knowledge. Were there creatures a million years ago that could be identified by the concept “human?” The evidence says “No.” We would have to use a concept other than “human” to describe those earlier creatures. Were there creatures back then from which today’s humans evolved? The answer is “Yes.”

Whatever the attributes of those creatures from which modern humans evolved, the creatures today to which we apply the concept “human” have a certain identity, that is, certain attributes that we can describe and understand. Among those attributes is that fact that they did evolve from earlier creatures through a process that we describe as evolution.

How blank a slate?

The essay quotes Rand’s statement that “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Let’s acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The Prometheus essay asserts that Rand’s agnosticism led her to misunderstand human nature. She said that “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.”

According to the essay, evolutionary psychology tells us that “Human psychology is far from a tabula rasa, and is hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts which mitigate against all attempts to employ pure rationality.” The essay acknowledges most human achievements come “thanks to our ability to transcend these evolutionary handicaps,” adding “but gainsaying their existence is sheer misrepresentation of scientific reality.”

Here the essay has a point. Recent discoveries about evolution and the brain do, in fact, reveal that human nature is much more complex than perhaps Rand understood. Even so, a close look at Rand’s works shows her to be a more sophisticated observer of human nature than perhaps the essayists appreciate. But that’s another discussion. Still it is crucial for Objectivist thinkers to take account of these discoveries if they wish to refine their understanding of how individuals might live happy lives.

But these discoveries so far do not undermine the basic Objectivist understanding of ethics. The essayists acknowledge the human ability “to transcend these evolutionary handicaps.” Another way to put this is that we humans can use our volition to check our immediate emotions, including those that might involve hard-wired capacities. We can reflect upon the world around us and on ourselves and our own nature. We can ask how we might act, including how we might discipline our emotions or hard-wired tendencies in order to best survive and flourish. This is the virtue of rationality.

Here we also see that in a very crucial way humans are “tabula rasa.” We do not have pre-programmed conceptual knowledge. Even if we are “hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts,” it is only through a volitional, rational process that we discover and validate knowledge about the physical world in which we exist and about our own nature—our nature as evolved beings and as beings that can only survive and flourish if we act in accordance with certain principles found in our own nature, that is, in our identity as human beings. In any case, any instincts or biases that we humans have do not give us automatic knowledge concerning how to survive and flourish. We must discover this knowledge, using our rational capacity. From this perspective we might as well consider ourselves to be “tabula rasa.”

The Prometheus essay acknowledges Rand’s insights about free choice, free markets, and limited government in society. But these insights trace back to the deeper Objectivist understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The essayists rightly ask about the implications of evolution for Objectivism, but they would do well to ask about their own understanding of Objectivism so that they might avoid the errors analyzed above and have a better understanding of the foundations of the freedoms that they rightly cherish.

Ed Hudgins | Objectivism, Evolution, and Ethics

Ed Hudgins offers in this talk a detailed examination of the attempts by the new secularists and atheists to address the fundamental questions of ethics and morality from an evolutionary and based on insights into human evolution and neuroscience. he discusses how thinkers like Dawkins, Dennett, and Shermer have wrestled with these issues and analyze where they've succeeded and where they've failed to establish a rational foundation for ethics. The he shows how Objectivist meta-ethics is both consistent with the core of their discoveries and, indeed, necessitated by their understanding of science and the role of reason.

X said Y is not an argument that your position is founded in reality

Sometimes when people have themselves a philosophical home they will begin to look up to and even admire the intellectuals in their philosophy. This will not only be the discoverer of their philosophy, but, also people that help to spread the philosophy as well. Sometimes it might even be people that were in the private circles of the philosopher, but, not the philosopher themselves. They will argue that you must agree with said people about everything or else. They will in fact become a second-handed person of a cult mentality. 

Craig Biddle did a great job of addressing this in his article, "Ayn Rand Said is not an argument." However, there is more than just Ms. Rand that has had this issue take place those that followed her as well have been adorned with almost supernatural Omnipotence by people that have become obsessed with people like Leonard Peikoff. There is people that would defend him if he told people to go out into the street and butcher the community. Similarly, some are the same way with Harry Binswanger and Yaron Brook. 

However, I have found things that all of these men have said that was inaccurate due to numerous things that have been said. I do not think they say inaccurate things to intentionally lie anymore than the times Ms. Rand was wrong. I think that they are ignorant on certain topics,. but, yet they continue to speak on them as if they know they can dismiss them. Whether it is evolutionary psychology which is not at odds with us having the ability to be reasonable; nor is determinism, but, is painted that way by these folks. Or Harry Binswanger being a fucking Cartesian Duelist when it comes to how the mind works. 

Nor does me stating that they like anyone else are only human and can be wrong mean they are wrong on everything or even most things. Also, sometimes people can say things in ways that come across as not what they had intended to be overheard as being meant. However, it is not what these or anyone else says that is an argument. It is the facts of reality that make up arguments. Just like you do not shoot the messenger you also should not jump to believing the messenger either. Or as Craig Biddle so aptly said it in his own article, "Truth is not recognition of Ayn Rand’s (or her students/friend/followers) words; truth is recognition of reality."

When an Objectivist is wrong then other Objectivist's; whom are supposed to take reality as the only absolute should not be afraid to point out others errors. As reality and existence is the only True and real Supreme Being that we have in this world. It is reality that is the judge of an idea being wrong or right not if it was an Objectivist whom makes the claim or not. To live any other way is to be just as dogmatic as a fundamentalist Religion and to turn the independence virtue of Objectivism on its head. To throw it out due to someone talking and it is an appeal to authority no better than an appeal to an evangelical pastor in the Southern Bible Belt of the USA.

If Objectivists want people to stop seeing our philosophy as some sort of Godless Cult we need to be ready and willing to question everyone else that is an Objectivist if we smell ignorance. This includes the discoverer of Objectivism; this includes Ms. Rand herself. Everyone whom makes statements on subjects needs to be open to scrutiny we should not have a listen and believe attitude about anyone we meet. Individualism should not turn into its own form of Lone-Wolf Tribalism.

Yaron Brook | Ayn Rand's Philosophy on Helping the Poor, Capitalism, and Human Nature

Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions by Edward Hudgins

The following article is by Edward Hudgins as posted on"Sense of Life Objectivists."

September 21, 2010 -- The essay “Why Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is Incomplete” by the Prometheus staff claims that the facts of biological evolution reveal a logical flaw in Objectivist philosophy. This claim is based on serious philosophical confusion and a misunderstanding of the philosophy developed by Rand.

The essay states that “One of Objectivism's fundamental axioms is that ‘existence is identity,’ which Rand derived from Aristotle's law of identity,” that is to say, A is A. The essay also states that “evolution shows us that existence is a process of evolving identity.” It then concludes that “Far from the ‘A is A’ certainty of Aristotlelian-Randian thought, evolution holds that change is the only true constant. Time's arrow specializes in contradiction.”

What changes and what doesn’t

To untangle this confusion, we must ask what it means to say that everything that exists has an identity. A is A, that is to say, the law of identity, is a metaphysical premise or axiom. It is the acknowledgment that to exist is to be something in particular, to have certain attributes and not to have others. Change in the world does not contradict the fact that to exist is to possess a certain identity. Rather, how an entity changes is an aspect or attribute of its identity. Change occurs in an orderly, law-like manner. Rand states that “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act.” Here “action” means any kind of change.

Observe that concrete entities are what changes. A flower grows. A rock rolls down a hill. A planet orbits the sun. Hydrogen atoms, subject to intense gravitational forces inside the sun, fuse together, becoming helium atoms and releasing a certain amount of energy.

Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity’s identity. According to the Prometheus essay, “evolution holds that change is the only true constant.” Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay’s authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change?

Of course, evolution refers to the fact that some individual living organisms suffer genetic mutation; that the attributes that are altered by mutations can confer survival advantages or disadvantages on the organism depending on the environment; that when a mutation confers an advantage, the organism will be more likely to survive and produce offspring which, in turn, will pass along those advantageous genes to the next generation. Over many generations more mutations occur, changing the individual organisms in subsequent generations. Over long periods of time, individuals might be greatly changed from earlier organisms from which they came. We say that the species has evolved. It is that law-like manner of change that we refer to as evolution.

Indeed, the task of science is to discover such laws or constants concerning the nature of entities. A plant needs water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients to survive and flourish. The force of an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. And so on.

Forms vs. concepts

The Prometheus essay seems to treat “identity” as if it were a metaphysical essence or entity, as if it were some sort of eternal and unchanging Form. It then attributes such a view to Objectivism and criticizes that view for not allowing for change and evolution. But Objectivism explicitly rejects this view of identity.

Objectivism understands that the concepts by which we identify entities and their attributes are not metaphysical entities but, rather, the epistemological means by which we understand the world, by which we classify things, by which we have rational knowledge. Rand had a very specific understanding of concepts. Rand states that a concept “is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s ) and united by a specific definition.” In other words, to define “human” as a “rational animal” is to observe attributes that all humans share with certain other entities—animals—as well as attributes that distinguish humans from those entities—the capacity for rational knowledge. Were there creatures a million years ago that could be identified by the concept “human?” The evidence says “No.” We would have to use a concept other than “human” to describe those earlier creatures. Were there creatures back then from which today’s humans evolved? The answer is “Yes.”

Whatever the attributes of those creatures from which modern humans evolved, the creatures today to which we apply the concept “human” have a certain identity, that is, certain attributes that we can describe and understand. Among those attributes is that fact that they did evolve from earlier creatures through a process that we describe as evolution.

How blank a slate?

The essay quotes Rand’s statement that “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Let’s acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The Prometheus essay asserts that Rand’s agnosticism led her to misunderstand human nature. She said that “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.”

According to the essay, evolutionary psychology tells us that “Human psychology is far from a tabula rasa, and is hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts which mitigate against all attempts to employ pure rationality.” The essay acknowledges most human achievements come “thanks to our ability to transcend these evolutionary handicaps,” adding “but gainsaying their existence is sheer misrepresentation of scientific reality.”

Here the essay has a point. Recent discoveries about evolution and the brain do, in fact, reveal that human nature is much more complex than perhaps Rand understood. Even so, a close look at Rand’s works shows her to be a more sophisticated observer of human nature than perhaps the essayists appreciate. But that’s another discussion. Still it is crucial for Objectivist thinkers to take account of these discoveries if they wish to refine their understanding of how individuals might live happy lives.

But these discoveries so far do not undermine the basic Objectivist understanding of ethics. The essayists acknowledge the human ability “to transcend these evolutionary handicaps.” Another way to put this is that we humans can use our volition to check our immediate emotions, including those that might involve hard-wired capacities. We can reflect upon the world around us and on ourselves and our own nature. We can ask how we might act, including how we might discipline our emotions or hard-wired tendencies in order to best survive and flourish. This is the virtue of rationality.

Here we also see that in a very crucial way humans are “tabula rasa.” We do not have pre-programmed conceptual knowledge. Even if we are “hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts,” it is only through a volitional, rational process that we discover and validate knowledge about the physical world in which we exist and about our own nature—our nature as evolved beings and as beings that can only survive and flourish if we act in accordance with certain principles found in our own nature, that is, in our identity as human beings. In any case, any instincts or biases that we humans have do not give us automatic knowledge concerning how to survive and flourish. We must discover this knowledge, using our rational capacity. From this perspective we might as well consider ourselves to be “tabula rasa.”

The Prometheus essay acknowledges Rand’s insights about free choice, free markets, and limited government in society. But these insights trace back to the deeper Objectivist understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The essayists rightly ask about the implications of evolution for Objectivism, but they would do well to ask about their own understanding of Objectivism so that they might avoid the errors analyzed above and have a better understanding of the foundations of the freedoms that they rightly cherish.

Ed Hudgins | Objectivism, Evolution, and Ethics

Ed Hudgins offers in this talk a detailed examination of the attempts by the new secularists and atheists to address the fundamental questions of ethics and morality from an evolutionary and based on insights into human evolution and neuroscience. he discusses how thinkers like Dawkins, Dennett, and Shermer have wrestled with these issues and analyze where they've succeeded and where they've failed to establish a rational foundation for ethics. The he shows how Objectivist meta-ethics is both consistent with the core of their discoveries and, indeed, necessitated by their understanding of science and the role of reason.

Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions by Edward Hudgins

The following article is by Edward Hudgins as posted on"Sense of Life Objectivists."

September 21, 2010 -- The essay “Why Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is Incomplete” by the Prometheus staff claims that the facts of biological evolution reveal a logical flaw in Objectivist philosophy. This claim is based on serious philosophical confusion and a misunderstanding of the philosophy developed by Rand.

The essay states that “One of Objectivism's fundamental axioms is that ‘existence is identity,’ which Rand derived from Aristotle's law of identity,” that is to say, A is A. The essay also states that “evolution shows us that existence is a process of evolving identity.” It then concludes that “Far from the ‘A is A’ certainty of Aristotlelian-Randian thought, evolution holds that change is the only true constant. Time's arrow specializes in contradiction.”

What changes and what doesn’t

To untangle this confusion, we must ask what it means to say that everything that exists has an identity. A is A, that is to say, the law of identity, is a metaphysical premise or axiom. It is the acknowledgment that to exist is to be something in particular, to have certain attributes and not to have others. Change in the world does not contradict the fact that to exist is to possess a certain identity. Rather, how an entity changes is an aspect or attribute of its identity. Change occurs in an orderly, law-like manner. Rand states that “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act.” Here “action” means any kind of change.

Observe that concrete entities are what changes. A flower grows. A rock rolls down a hill. A planet orbits the sun. Hydrogen atoms, subject to intense gravitational forces inside the sun, fuse together, becoming helium atoms and releasing a certain amount of energy.

Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity’s identity. According to the Prometheus essay, “evolution holds that change is the only true constant.” Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay’s authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change?

Of course, evolution refers to the fact that some individual living organisms suffer genetic mutation; that the attributes that are altered by mutations can confer survival advantages or disadvantages on the organism depending on the environment; that when a mutation confers an advantage, the organism will be more likely to survive and produce offspring which, in turn, will pass along those advantageous genes to the next generation. Over many generations more mutations occur, changing the individual organisms in subsequent generations. Over long periods of time, individuals might be greatly changed from earlier organisms from which they came. We say that the species has evolved. It is that law-like manner of change that we refer to as evolution.

Indeed, the task of science is to discover such laws or constants concerning the nature of entities. A plant needs water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients to survive and flourish. The force of an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. And so on.

Forms vs. concepts

The Prometheus essay seems to treat “identity” as if it were a metaphysical essence or entity, as if it were some sort of eternal and unchanging Form. It then attributes such a view to Objectivism and criticizes that view for not allowing for change and evolution. But Objectivism explicitly rejects this view of identity.

Objectivism understands that the concepts by which we identify entities and their attributes are not metaphysical entities but, rather, the epistemological means by which we understand the world, by which we classify things, by which we have rational knowledge. Rand had a very specific understanding of concepts. Rand states that a concept “is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s ) and united by a specific definition.” In other words, to define “human” as a “rational animal” is to observe attributes that all humans share with certain other entities—animals—as well as attributes that distinguish humans from those entities—the capacity for rational knowledge. Were there creatures a million years ago that could be identified by the concept “human?” The evidence says “No.” We would have to use a concept other than “human” to describe those earlier creatures. Were there creatures back then from which today’s humans evolved? The answer is “Yes.”

Whatever the attributes of those creatures from which modern humans evolved, the creatures today to which we apply the concept “human” have a certain identity, that is, certain attributes that we can describe and understand. Among those attributes is that fact that they did evolve from earlier creatures through a process that we describe as evolution.

How blank a slate?

The essay quotes Rand’s statement that “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Let’s acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The Prometheus essay asserts that Rand’s agnosticism led her to misunderstand human nature. She said that “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.”

According to the essay, evolutionary psychology tells us that “Human psychology is far from a tabula rasa, and is hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts which mitigate against all attempts to employ pure rationality.” The essay acknowledges most human achievements come “thanks to our ability to transcend these evolutionary handicaps,” adding “but gainsaying their existence is sheer misrepresentation of scientific reality.”

Here the essay has a point. Recent discoveries about evolution and the brain do, in fact, reveal that human nature is much more complex than perhaps Rand understood. Even so, a close look at Rand’s works shows her to be a more sophisticated observer of human nature than perhaps the essayists appreciate. But that’s another discussion. Still it is crucial for Objectivist thinkers to take account of these discoveries if they wish to refine their understanding of how individuals might live happy lives.

But these discoveries so far do not undermine the basic Objectivist understanding of ethics. The essayists acknowledge the human ability “to transcend these evolutionary handicaps.” Another way to put this is that we humans can use our volition to check our immediate emotions, including those that might involve hard-wired capacities. We can reflect upon the world around us and on ourselves and our own nature. We can ask how we might act, including how we might discipline our emotions or hard-wired tendencies in order to best survive and flourish. This is the virtue of rationality.

Here we also see that in a very crucial way humans are “tabula rasa.” We do not have pre-programmed conceptual knowledge. Even if we are “hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts,” it is only through a volitional, rational process that we discover and validate knowledge about the physical world in which we exist and about our own nature—our nature as evolved beings and as beings that can only survive and flourish if we act in accordance with certain principles found in our own nature, that is, in our identity as human beings. In any case, any instincts or biases that we humans have do not give us automatic knowledge concerning how to survive and flourish. We must discover this knowledge, using our rational capacity. From this perspective we might as well consider ourselves to be “tabula rasa.”

The Prometheus essay acknowledges Rand’s insights about free choice, free markets, and limited government in society. But these insights trace back to the deeper Objectivist understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The essayists rightly ask about the implications of evolution for Objectivism, but they would do well to ask about their own understanding of Objectivism so that they might avoid the errors analyzed above and have a better understanding of the foundations of the freedoms that they rightly cherish.

Dancing is not at all non-conforming nor Gender Queer in anyway. Dancing really is a Man's Game!

One of the metrics in the studies on non-conforming or so-called gender queerness in men; AKA gay traits is actually of all things dancing. One of a few metrics that are considered non-conforming in studies to which I facepalm and shake my head. The claim is that dancing is an "effeminate" trait and thus makes one gender queer or homosexual typical/gaydar inducing, This makes no sense to me at all and is counter to all of ones personal experience of men that do dance. The human experience is filled in our history with men whom were not effete whom danced and also sang as well.

One of the biggest names in this history is Gene Kelly whom famously said in his day, "dancing is a man's game." The truth is that men have been dancing since time immemorial and at no time have these men dancing been considered effete or "Queer." In fact, women love a man that can dance with them. Men that dance show how well they move which is often very sensual and ones dancing style can tell a woman a lot about how that man will partner with them in the bedroom. Dancing as Gene Kelly mentioned is also a form of athleticism.

How dancing became associated with men being womanly or associated with gayness, or with being effete is beyond me. The truth is there is nothing more traditionally part of the heterosexual mating game than cutting a rug with your woman. Was Patrick Swayze in Dirty Dancing being queer and a fag? Or somehow being non-conforming to having a penis and testicles? I do not think so. How about Frank Sinatra? Fred Astaire? Danny Key? Clark Gable in his musicals? Carey Grant in his musicals? Gays do not own dancing in anyway at all. "Queer" is not at all a word that describes men dancing in anyway either.

Dancing is a human thing and it is not an effete thing at all. No man should feel less than for loving to move on the dance floor; nor should they feel less than for loving to sing along with it. This also connects to the odd idea that musical theater is gay, queer and effete for young boys or grown man. Once again dancing is a form of athleticism it just does not use a bat or a ball. It uses the body and a solid dance floor. It uses sometimes props which are associated with the dance this is the dancers own bat and ball. People whom classify this as non-conforming behavior in metrics for studies need to have their head examined.

No young boy whom likes dancing should be labeled as pre-gay children. Nor should they be labeled as gender variant or queer or pre-trans or effete in anyway at all. Nor should boys whom like to be singers be considered effete or pre-gay or anything. These things are not unmanly and these things are not to be attempted to be pushed out of a person. Let people be and let men enjoy singing/dancing to their hearts content.

What are emotions and how to treat them by Harry Binswanger

Evolutionary Psychology is a description of our nature; Objectivism is a prescription.

I have been doing a lot of tackling our sociobiological nature lately and been rebutting more than one of the more prominent Objectivist intellectuals while I have been at it. This could leave some to assume I somehow think Objectivism as a philosophy is not coherent with reality and that I take the Open-System view of the philosophy. This would be further assumed by the fact that I have embedded a video defending the compatibility of sociobiological reality with Objectivist philosophy from The Atlas Society. The video I posted was by Ed Huggins, but, just because he is an Open-Objectivism proponent does not mean I agree with his personal outlook.

I can find value in someones input on a topic without agreeing with them philosophically. If someone only uses people they agree with on everything as sources of information they are doing nothing more than living in an echo-chamber bubble. The truth is I am in the Objectivism is Objectivism camp and I fully adhere to the so-called Closed System view. All this means is I agree with the following statement;

Objectivism is the name Ayn Rand used for her philosophical achievement. As such, the term "Objectivism" may only be applied to the ideas by Rand or by those she explicitly endorsed. This is not to say that there are not other philosophical truths that rational thought can illuminate, but that passing these ideas as the work of Ayn Rand is misleading.

This means not even the Ayn Rand Institute can speak for 'The Objectivist view." Anything that is not part of the fundamentals and essentials of Ayn Rand's philosophy is not part of Objectivism. They can be an attempt at applying Objectivism proper, but, it will not be and is not Objectivism. It could be considered "An" Objectivist view, but, not "The" Objectivist View. It could also be called "An" Objectivist view and be a total crock of shit which is a total misapplication of Objectivism on said topic due to the person simply rationalizing their own cognitive bias in Objectivist language. We are an animal that can use even the most rational seeming language really just to further our own inbuilt biases.

Just because someone uses the label Objectivist does not mean that person is worthy of any respect as an intellectual. Nor does it mean you should trust said person persay. There are some douches and vile people that use the label just as there are douches/vile people that do not use the label. We should not concentrate on whether the other people around us are Objectivists or not, but, whether they have the virtues and values that good people should espouse irregardless of their views for or against Ayn Rand's Philosophy. This is a place where for SOME Objectivists the virtue of independence is lacking for them Objectivist equals automatically good and any non-Objectivist is like something of the devil. This is a very isolating view it is also not thinking individualistically at all. It is turning Objectivism into a sort of Collective of agree with Ms. Rand good and disagree on even the most mundane thing is evil.

This is one of the reasons that Freedom Party of Canada; despite their platform being based entirely on reality, reason, self and consent is still a fringe party. Meanwhile the Libertarian Party of Ontario was voted in enough to be considered the 4th Party in the Ontario Election that just passed. The people behind that party make agreeing with Objectivism on everything a primary. Which means that sense so little people in Canada are actually philosophically grounded; let alone Objectivists they lost out on the votes. The Ontario Libertarian Party which at the time was headed by Allen Small got more votes because they did not push Objectivism or else on the electorate. This is not to say that I sign off on the broader "libertarian movement." I do not. However, a small l libertarian which goes back to the insanity of Murray Rothbard at its inception and a Capital L Libertarian need not at all be the same thing. One is a Party Designation and the other is a much broader intellectual movement.

Now, I am going to move onto actually give information not on Evo-Psych, but, information on Objectivism proper. To show there is no incompatibility between accepting our nature and accepting Ayn Rand's Philosophy as part of your own outlook. First of all we will need a detailed description, but, yet a concise one of what Objectivism actually says; what Ayn Rand actually said not on matters of the personal, but, philosophical.

"Objectivism is the name chosen by Ayn Rand for her philosophy. Some essentials of Objectivism are that reality is real (i.e., Existence exists), and that we are conscious of reality (Consciousness is conscious).

From this, Objectivism propounds that knowledge is objective: it is not simply revealed or "obvious", nor is it whimsically subjective. Knowledge is the result of a consciousness gaining understanding of reality.

The better we understand reality, the better we can deal with it. Ayn Rand described Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth -- by which she meant that it was a philosophy grounded in reality with the purpose of enabling its adherents to better deal with reality. A common thread running through all of Objectivism is the sanctity of the individual, rational human being.

Ayn Rand rejected the idea that men who pursue their own interests must end up in conflict with one another. Objectivism holds individual rights to be the mechanism by which men can pursue their individual interests without being in conflict with one another. 

Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter). 

There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism. 

         You should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.

In fact, to assume without proof that everything Ayn Rand said is true, contradicts Objectivist Epistemology.

The above is a very basic, but, still well detailed explanation of Objectivism which comes from the totally awesome website ObjectivismWiki. So, basically Objectivism is in metaphysics reality is objective and external to anyone's consciousness. This is true it is a fact of reality and how existence works. In epistemology it says that reason and being rational is our means of gaining true knowledge. In ethics it says we should pursue our long term happiness in life in a manner which does not sacrifice either your own values or the values of others. In other words one should be Rationally Selfish and live for oneself not as s sacrificial animal on the alter of others. In Politics this becomes Capitalism as it is the only moral social system; the only system which bars initiation of non-consent and coercion and fully defends ones individual rights. In Aesthetics it says art should portray life as it could be and should be in order to be morally proper art for a person with the right mindset.

Nowhere in the philosophy itself does it say; "oh and the human animal is not an animal and has nothing baked into their nature." There is in fact no conflicts at all between our Sociobiological nature and any of the above statements. The above constitutes the philosophical views of Ayn Rand and thus constitutes Objectivism. That is it; nothing added to it and nothing taken from it. The prescriptions of moral values and virtues within the philosophy are a prescription for living a flourishing life on Earth. Whereas Evolutionary Psychology is a description of our nature that we have to work within the bounds of while following her prescription. Reality is the arbiter of life and not Ms Rand's application of the virtues or values in her own time and place. Or misapplication as the case maybe.

Evolutionary Psychology far from being anti-Objectivist or in conflict with Objectivism actually fits right in with Objectivism as it was formed. After all the majority of The John Galt Speech is focusing on mankind having a nature and needing to live according to it. We have simply found out information about that nature that is different from what was supposed in her time. If anything it has shown that John Galt was right when he said in his speech a humane society must let "man live as man." That as Galt said, "man is man and that he must live as a man." (Man here is referring to mankind.) Or as Ayn Rand said herself when the subject of human nature came up, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed."

Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions by Edward Hudgins

The following article is by Edward Hudgins as posted on"Sense of Life Objectivists."

September 21, 2010 -- The essay “Why Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is Incomplete” by the Prometheus staff claims that the facts of biological evolution reveal a logical flaw in Objectivist philosophy. This claim is based on serious philosophical confusion and a misunderstanding of the philosophy developed by Rand.

The essay states that “One of Objectivism's fundamental axioms is that ‘existence is identity,’ which Rand derived from Aristotle's law of identity,” that is to say, A is A. The essay also states that “evolution shows us that existence is a process of evolving identity.” It then concludes that “Far from the ‘A is A’ certainty of Aristotlelian-Randian thought, evolution holds that change is the only true constant. Time's arrow specializes in contradiction.”

What changes and what doesn’t

To untangle this confusion, we must ask what it means to say that everything that exists has an identity. A is A, that is to say, the law of identity, is a metaphysical premise or axiom. It is the acknowledgment that to exist is to be something in particular, to have certain attributes and not to have others. Change in the world does not contradict the fact that to exist is to possess a certain identity. Rather, how an entity changes is an aspect or attribute of its identity. Change occurs in an orderly, law-like manner. Rand states that “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act.” Here “action” means any kind of change.

Observe that concrete entities are what changes. A flower grows. A rock rolls down a hill. A planet orbits the sun. Hydrogen atoms, subject to intense gravitational forces inside the sun, fuse together, becoming helium atoms and releasing a certain amount of energy.

Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity’s identity. According to the Prometheus essay, “evolution holds that change is the only true constant.” Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay’s authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change?

Of course, evolution refers to the fact that some individual living organisms suffer genetic mutation; that the attributes that are altered by mutations can confer survival advantages or disadvantages on the organism depending on the environment; that when a mutation confers an advantage, the organism will be more likely to survive and produce offspring which, in turn, will pass along those advantageous genes to the next generation. Over many generations more mutations occur, changing the individual organisms in subsequent generations. Over long periods of time, individuals might be greatly changed from earlier organisms from which they came. We say that the species has evolved. It is that law-like manner of change that we refer to as evolution.

Indeed, the task of science is to discover such laws or constants concerning the nature of entities. A plant needs water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients to survive and flourish. The force of an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. And so on.

Forms vs. concepts

The Prometheus essay seems to treat “identity” as if it were a metaphysical essence or entity, as if it were some sort of eternal and unchanging Form. It then attributes such a view to Objectivism and criticizes that view for not allowing for change and evolution. But Objectivism explicitly rejects this view of identity.

Objectivism understands that the concepts by which we identify entities and their attributes are not metaphysical entities but, rather, the epistemological means by which we understand the world, by which we classify things, by which we have rational knowledge. Rand had a very specific understanding of concepts. Rand states that a concept “is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s ) and united by a specific definition.” In other words, to define “human” as a “rational animal” is to observe attributes that all humans share with certain other entities—animals—as well as attributes that distinguish humans from those entities—the capacity for rational knowledge. Were there creatures a million years ago that could be identified by the concept “human?” The evidence says “No.” We would have to use a concept other than “human” to describe those earlier creatures. Were there creatures back then from which today’s humans evolved? The answer is “Yes.”

Whatever the attributes of those creatures from which modern humans evolved, the creatures today to which we apply the concept “human” have a certain identity, that is, certain attributes that we can describe and understand. Among those attributes is that fact that they did evolve from earlier creatures through a process that we describe as evolution.

How blank a slate?

The essay quotes Rand’s statement that “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Let’s acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The Prometheus essay asserts that Rand’s agnosticism led her to misunderstand human nature. She said that “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.”

According to the essay, evolutionary psychology tells us that “Human psychology is far from a tabula rasa, and is hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts which mitigate against all attempts to employ pure rationality.” The essay acknowledges most human achievements come “thanks to our ability to transcend these evolutionary handicaps,” adding “but gainsaying their existence is sheer misrepresentation of scientific reality.”

Here the essay has a point. Recent discoveries about evolution and the brain do, in fact, reveal that human nature is much more complex than perhaps Rand understood. Even so, a close look at Rand’s works shows her to be a more sophisticated observer of human nature than perhaps the essayists appreciate. But that’s another discussion. Still it is crucial for Objectivist thinkers to take account of these discoveries if they wish to refine their understanding of how individuals might live happy lives.

But these discoveries so far do not undermine the basic Objectivist understanding of ethics. The essayists acknowledge the human ability “to transcend these evolutionary handicaps.” Another way to put this is that we humans can use our volition to check our immediate emotions, including those that might involve hard-wired capacities. We can reflect upon the world around us and on ourselves and our own nature. We can ask how we might act, including how we might discipline our emotions or hard-wired tendencies in order to best survive and flourish. This is the virtue of rationality.

Here we also see that in a very crucial way humans are “tabula rasa.” We do not have pre-programmed conceptual knowledge. Even if we are “hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts,” it is only through a volitional, rational process that we discover and validate knowledge about the physical world in which we exist and about our own nature—our nature as evolved beings and as beings that can only survive and flourish if we act in accordance with certain principles found in our own nature, that is, in our identity as human beings. In any case, any instincts or biases that we humans have do not give us automatic knowledge concerning how to survive and flourish. We must discover this knowledge, using our rational capacity. From this perspective we might as well consider ourselves to be “tabula rasa.”

The Prometheus essay acknowledges Rand’s insights about free choice, free markets, and limited government in society. But these insights trace back to the deeper Objectivist understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The essayists rightly ask about the implications of evolution for Objectivism, but they would do well to ask about their own understanding of Objectivism so that they might avoid the errors analyzed above and have a better understanding of the foundations of the freedoms that they rightly cherish.