Gay Parents

[Free Capitalist 0]

Since you don't trust the studies, how about the opinions of Objectivist psychological professionals? Try posing your questions or checking your conclusions with experts like our Dr. Rosman or Dr. Michael Hurd.

I dare you.

(emphasis mine) I feel priviliged in a way because I haven't really seen you dare anyone else in the year that I've had the privilege of reading the posts you guys write. I would take the dare, except I think our disagreement lies on a far more fundamental level than psychology -- metaphysics would probably be more like it.

Aristotle would say, an acorn's proper nature is to turn into an oak. If somehow during this process it becomes a pine tree, then the pine tree is not a proper result of a perfectly good acorn, or the acorn itself was somehow damaged and was not a proper acorn to begin with. The word 'proper' in this chain of reasoning holds no moral evaluation, and merely denotes something that should be; conversely, 'improper' denotes something that is an error, a mistake in the natural course of things, a statement that again lacks any kind of moral component. It is here that I believe our disagreement lies, and I think you will either a.) disagree with what I wrote, or b.) agree with it but argue that it is somehow different for humans, or somehow doesn't apply.

That's why why I say metaphysics is the crucial area here, and why any discussion of psychology is not really essential at this point. If you said something like, "Yes, homosexuality is improper and an aberration of the proper way of things, but it makes no impact on the child because of my observations A, B, C, and studies X, Y Z", then I would be a lot more comfortable with that, and my disagreement would be a lot less emphatic, if present at all. We would both agree on what constitutes the nature of something, and what defines a proper nature and what defines an improper nature. In that hypothetical situation, having agreed on the metaphysical level, our ouly disagreement would be in the realm of psychology, and there I would be willing to give ground, and would probably not raise a disagreement at all; after all you have far far greater experience, so it is more likely that your arguments based on that experience are far more correct than my arguments based on mine. However, as you can see, our disagreement here is on a metaphysical level, and is premature to bring psychology into this.

I tell you who I would like to have as an Expert here: Alan Gotthelf, who is not only an Aristotelian scholar in general, but specifically a expert on Aristotle's biology (and teleology, I'm assuming). It would be really nice to ask him what Aristotle would say here, and what arguments he would make; if, as I suspect, Aristotle would side with me on this issue he'd make better arguments than I can at the moment; and if he'd disagree with me, then I'd settle down and accept the error of my ways for sure. My argument rests in large part on Aristotle's biology, teleology, and methodology in general ("-logies" galore), and as we all know, Ayn Rand also shared this approach, so I would really like her input as well, if I could get it.

Either way, it is obvious to me that the thread has gone off and seriously overstepped its original scope -- we've gone from gay parents to nature of homosexuality to the nature of an acorn. Therefore, since it is after all I who am the culprit here, I will have to exit the thread for the third (and hopefully final) time, always feeling grateful of having deserved earnest and heartfelt responses from you guys Oh, and if we can get a reply from Dr. Gotthelf or another Classicist with a definitive 'response' from Aristotle, you just know that I'll have to chime in again, whichever side the response will come down on.

[Nodrog 0]

Aristotle would say, an acorn's proper nature is to turn into an oak. If somehow during this process it becomes a pine tree, then the pine tree is not a proper result of a perfectly good acorn, or the acorn itself was somehow damaged and was not a proper acorn to begin with.  The word 'proper' in this chain of reasoning holds no moral evaluation, and merely denotes something that should be; conversely, 'improper' denotes something that is an error, a mistake in the natural course of things, a statement that again lacks any kind of moral component.

←

But this IS surely a moral evaluation. If I say that "psychology isnt a proper science" or that "mixed race marriages arent proper marriages", it's quite obvious that I am talking in a derogatory manner. The same applies when you say 'homosexuality isnt proper' . Objectivism differs quite significantly from what currently takes place in academic departments; would you say that it's not a proper philosophy?

You CAN use the word 'proper' in a neutral sense, but it's so loaded with connotations that I would question the motives of someone who chose do so here.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Since you don't trust the studies, how about the opinions of Objectivist psychological professionals? Try posing your questions or checking your conclusions with experts like our Dr. Rosman or Dr. Michael Hurd.

I dare you.

(emphasis mine) I feel priviliged in a way because I haven't really seen you dare anyone else in the year that I've had the privilege of reading the posts you guys write. I would take the dare, except I think our disagreement lies on a far more fundamental level than psychology -- metaphysics would probably be more like it.

←

Don't worry. Objectivist psychiatrists and psychologists know their metaphysics too -- particularly the metaphysical nature of man and his volitional consciousness. If we are to make arguments about man's nature, we first ought to understand what man's nature actually IS. Right? The people I mentioned could teach us all a thing or ten about man's nature.

So I double-dare you.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

I tell you who I would like to have as an Expert here: Alan Gotthelf, who is not only an Aristotelian scholar in general, but specifically a expert on Aristotle's biology (and teleology, I'm assuming). It would be really nice to ask him what Aristotle would say here, and what arguments he would make; if, as I suspect, Aristotle would side with me on this issue he'd make better arguments than I can at the moment; and if he'd disagree with me, then I'd settle down and accept the error of my ways for sure.

←

If you state the issue here in your own words, succinctly, I'll ask Dr. Gotthelf if he would like to comment.

(As to Aristotle's teleology, Dr. Gotthelf's essay on Aristotle's conception of final causality, and the later postscript to that essay, are both classic papers in the field. Each are found in the book that he edited, Philosophical Issues in Aristotle's Biology, edited by A. Gotthelf & J.G. Lennox, Cambridge University Press, 1987/2000.)

[Bill Bucko 0]

Here's a point I don't recall hearing anyone mention.

I strongly suspect that much of the historical opposition to homosexuality, is based on the unspoken premise that homosexuality is a form of self-rejection. To many people, that seems like a sort of common-sense appraisal. They conclude, in effect: "If I were to perform the sex acts that homosexuals do, I would be rejecting my deepest self." Hence the disgust that many people have felt for homosexuality.

But common sense may prove inadequate to deal with things far outside one's own realm of experience.

Many homosexuals in effect maintain that, were they to reject their homosexuality, that would be a form of self-rejection.

A brilliant thinker once said: "If you're trying to understand other people, it's a mistake to look at them and ask: 'How could I do such a thing?' The question to ask is: 'How could they do such a thing?'"

One may view homosexuality as a developmental problem, like a plant that's grown into a bizarre shape to reach the sunlight. Nevertheless, once a homosexual has developed that nature, it may well be true that from his perspective, it would be self-rejection to attempt to give it up.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Here's a point I don't recall hearing anyone mention.

I strongly suspect that much of the historical opposition to homosexuality, is based on the unspoken premise that homosexuality is a form of self-rejection.  To many people, that seems like a sort of common-sense appraisal.  They conclude, in effect: "If I  were to perform the sex acts that homosexuals do, I would be rejecting my deepest self."  Hence the disgust that many people have felt for homosexuality.

But common sense may prove inadequate to deal with things far outside one's own realm of experience.

Many homosexuals in effect maintain that, were they to reject their homosexuality, that  would be a form of self-rejection.

←

Thanks for making that point explicit, Bill. I am as far from a new-ager emotionalist as they come, but in fact there is a lot to be said for empathy.

[Free Capitalist 0]

If you state the issue here in your own words, succinctly, I'll ask Dr. Gotthelf if he would like to comment.

Okay, here's essentially my question: what would Aristotle say in regards to the following quote by Betsy:

"Since when is 'natural' synonymous with 'good' or 'proper?' "

However, before I fully submit that question, a number of things have to be sorted out in -- where else -- definitions. When Betsy said the phrase above, and I claimed Aristotle would disagree, she said that environmentalists benefit from my conclusion:

Since when is "natural" synonymous with "good" or "proper?"

Since about 390BC, when Aristotle was born.

The environmentalists would love that!

←

Again, that we are missing what the other person is saying is probably undisputed at this point. The word "nature" does not exclusively refer to the undergrowth, bushy green leaves, tropical rainforests, and such. In the philosophical sense, it is a metaphysical concept, referring to the identity of a thing.

Furthermore, about the words 'proper' and 'good'. As I keep repeating, to no avail, there are many ways in which these two words can be used without any moral evaluation whatsoever. True, like Nodrog said, there is an evaluation and an approval/disapproval involved here, but it isn't true that all such judgments are of moral nature. The tsunami in South East Asia was a bad event. A piece of wood that breaks easily, doesn't float, and doesn't burn well, is a crappy piece of wood. An acorn that grows into a small pine bush is a bad acorn.

The first two examples don't deal with the nature of things, and thus are not the same as the third one, but all of these statements approve/condemn things without employing any moral evaluation. Not all derogatory comments are moral in nature.

Therefore, and this is how I meant it since the first post, when I equate the 'natural' with the 'good', I am essentially make a qualitative metaphysical evaluation -- an acorn that develops into an oak is a good and proper acorn, whereas one that develops into a pine three is a bad an improper one; and again morality is nowhere here.

This is the context that I would like to set the quote in, and to see Dr. Gotthelf's reply about what Aristotle would say. Would Aristotle say that the acorn that grows into a pine tree is just as good as the one that becomes an oak tree? Or would he say that it is a bad acorn? Let's agree about this context and then we can submit the quote to Dr. Gotthelf. Here's the 'complete message', if you will (and I hope you'll grant me that it is uncharacteristically succinct ):

---

Would Aristotle equate the "natural" (in the metaphysical sense) with the "good" and the "proper"? For example, would he say that an acorn which grows into an oak tree is a "good" acorn, and one which grows into a pine tree a "bad" acorn?

---

P.S. There is a great deal to be said for empathy, and I couldn't agree more with Stephen on that; those that know me in real life will attest to that. In fact, outside of this thread and a few others in the past couple of years, my posting history attests to it as well, as do practically all of my private communications.

[Stephen Speicher 0]

Would Aristotle equate the "natural" (in the metaphysical sense) with the "good" and the "proper"? For example, would he say that an acorn which grows into an oak tree is a "good" acorn, and one which grows into a pine tree a "bad" acorn?

You have changed the meaning and ignored the context. You asked the question:

Isn't there some way in which homosexuality may be considered unnatural?

To which Betsy replied:

Of course, but so what? Deliberately using birth control is "unnatural" and impedes normal fertilization and gestation. So do some popular and delightful heterosexual sexual practices.

Since when is "natural" synonymous with "good" or "proper?"

I think what you really want to ask is something like: "Did Aristotle consider homosexuality to be unnatural, and therefore bad and improper?"

I will submit a question like that, which is direct, succinct, and to the point of this discussion.

However, frankly, I am somewhat perplexed as to why what Aristotle would say is so important for you. You stated that if Aristotle would "disagree with me, then I'd settle down and accept the error of my ways for sure." This sounds like what Aristotle would say is more important than the truth. If you are convinced of your ideas than why would their truthfulness be so dependent on the utterance of another, even considering as great a man as Aristotle was?

[Free Capitalist 0]

Stephen,

The reason why my question didn't mention homosexuality is because, as I said before, I don't know if Aristotle ever explicitly addressed that particular issue. Furthermore, here's why I believe my question didn't change the meaning or omit context: I am trying to get at the principle with which Aristotle approached all living things, whether he categorized things as good/proper and bad/improper, and if he did so then on what grounds. Once we establish that, then we can apply the principle to the issue at hand namely to my claim that homosexuality is improper in some sense. But if we start and end the question with homosexuality, the principle gets pushed aside somewhat and it is unknown whether Dr. Gotthelf will see the need to address it. And as I said, I'm afraid he will find it sufficient to respond with "Aristotle didn't say much about homosexuality".

However, frankly, I am somewhat perplexed as to why what Aristotle would say is so important for you. You stated that if Aristotle would "disagree with me, then I'd settle down and accept the error of my ways for sure." This sounds like what Aristotle would say is more important than the truth. If you are convinced of your ideas than why would their truthfulness be so dependent on the utterance of another, even considering as great a man as Aristotle was?

What matters so deeply to me is the modus operandi of Aristotle, and that is what I am struggling to apply. As far as I know from AR's comments, she shared his approach to identification of things (and she shared his penchant for saying what she felt even if some were to be uncomfortable); however, because I haven't found her writings to focus much on that, I am mostly relying on the old man himself for learning about, understanding, and applying his approach to my own life, values, and ideas. Thus if I am found by Aristotle to be wrong here (in regards to nature, and goodness/badness thereof), it will be an indication that I have seriously misunderstood some very important aspect of his thought, and will give me much cause for reflection. As I hope you can see, all of this is one big giant learning process for me.

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

What matters so deeply to me is the modus operandi of Aristotle, and that is what I am struggling to apply.

←

Does Aristotle's method differ from Ayn Rand's? If so, how?

More appropriately, how should the participants in this thread approach the particular problem of deciding whether or not homosexuals should be parents?

Is the question even a philosophical question or is it a scientific question? If you believe it is philosophical, then what guidance in methodology does Aristotle give that Ayn Rand does not offer? If you believe it is scientific, then which science and what are its methods?

[Stephen Speicher 0]

The reason why my question didn't mention homosexuality is because, as I said before, I don't know if Aristotle ever explicitly addressed that particular issue.

Aristotle discussed homosexuality in, for instance, both Politics and Ethics.

Furthermore, here's why I believe my question didn't change the meaning or omit context ...

I'm sorry, but your own explanation shows that is exactly what you did.

Free Capitalist, this is more than enough talking about talking. I'll ask Dr. Gotthelf to comment on the question I worded, and if he cares to I will post it here. To me, however, whatever Aristotle might have thought on this issue is totally irrelevant to what I know to be true, so quite frankly I do not even care what the outcome of the question is.