Announcement: new print essays forthcoming!


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

You have GOT to learn how to read Rand's stylistic tricks and style if you are going to go into public print as a "Rand critic". Otherwise you will do incredible damage.

My lips are salivating! What kind of damage? How incredible? Could it truly destroy Rand's credibility and the chances of Objectivism being a decisive factor for good in the future? Amazing. :no:

"i.e., reason" means I'm simplifying in order to -select- using this aspect for literary purposes. It's -not- the same as saying "Apollo IS the god of reason and only the god of reason and Dionysus is ONLY the god of irrational emotion. And neither one could be used by any other writer to symbolize anything else."

Like the Witch Doctor. Like Attila. Archetypes, symbols. Get it? Not literal truth. Literary license. OK? Charitable interpretation of the author's intent? Comprende? [....] Let me explain this one more time in a different way . . . and I'm not just addressing Roger because there is an important how-to-read-a-thinker-charitably point here for any reader:

You seem to be taking some liberties with her use of Nietzsche's formulation to pick a nit. By making the following mistakes: 1) forgetting that the ideas of the Apollonian and Dionysian are used as symbolic--even 'literary'--devices, archetypes like the Witch Doctor -- takikng it too literally as if a Witch Doctor actually practiced medicine, 2) forgetting the multiple traits of Apollo in mythology which contrasts strongly with Dionysus on this issue and can be a basis for reason vs. irrational emotion, 3) equating her view with Nietzsche's.

In re your third point: I did ~not~ equate Rand's and Nietzsche's views on the reason-emotion dichotomy. I explicitly said that Nietzsche held the form Rand called the "alleged dichotomy," i.e., the "false dichotomy" or non-dichotomy of reason vs. emotion. And I pointed out that she identified the real dichotomy of reason vs. irrational emotion.

All I ~did~ equate between them was their view of Apollo being the god of reason.

Your second point is false. I did ~not~ forget the multiple traits of Apollo in mythology. But whether Rand focused on Nietzsche's small handful of traits or the much larger assortment you found (and I found 10-15 years ago), it does not matter. Rand was engaging in a very impressive feat of conceptual abstraction, of identifying the fundamental attribute of Apollo from the welter of other traits -- even while gathering her thoughts for a strikingly creative, relevant piece of cultural commentary. Doing what she did best. Using Apollo = reason as a mere "literary trick"? My God, I give her more credit, and more respect, than that!

Also, do you ~honestly~ think that if Rand had pored over the countless (or countably many) attributes of Apollo that you and I are privy to, and had been asked to summarize in a single attribute the fundamental nature of Apollo, she would have said something ~other~ than reason? Now, ~that~ is a good question. I suspect that she would have stuck with "reason," continuing to agree with Nietzsche -- and I maintain (and argue) that she would have been wrong. (Wrong with good reasons, but wrong.)

Your first point is just plain silly: I did ~not~ claim that Apollo was "actually" the sun. :rofl:

I think that someone ~is~ engaging in nit-picking and uncharitable reading here. That much is clear. :poke:

Note the asterisked portions below & note that the Greek gods came from multiple sources and could be used to symbolize different things, not always consistently if one wishes a symbol [...] Note that I'm doing some of your research work for you, which you should have done. So I expect six figure royalties once your revised essay has stunned the intellectual world :-) ===>[material on Apollo and Dionysus deleted]

Phil, you're a day late and a dollar short! I gathered most if not all of the points you supplied 10-15 years ago, but it is irrelevant to the present discussion. It does bother me, however, that you ~presume~ to inform me that I am both a shoddy thinker and scholar, and that you know better than I how to do my work. :angry:

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

> A great thing about OL is that posters engage in lively, er, discussions. If people want DOGMA, they can look elsewhere.

Jerry, I don't mind good discussion. But I do often get frustrated when I have to repeat a straightforward point over and over.

And then I'm likely to invoke the BIG DOG, Jesus H. Christ, as my co-author.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> False dichotomies (i.e., non-dichotomies ~alleged~ to be dichotomies) are ~not~ irreconcilable. Reason vs. emotion is an alleged, false dichotomy. Reason and emotion are not irreconcilable. [Roger]

If you had simply said something like this in the first place rather than implying [as follows] that Rand was accepting a variant of the reason/emotion dichotomy, it would have been much more clear -- since to many who read a lot of philosophy, a dichotomy means an irreconcilable war: "It's true that Rand didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy in its pure form. However, she did restate it on the third page of her essay as "the conflict of reason versus irrational emotion." [Rodger] -- Your "the conflict of reason versus irrational emotion", especially coupled wit the word 'dichotomy' in the preceding sentence sounds like irrational emotion will always be in conflict, can't be reconciled.

Now that you've explained what you meant, it's clear that it was just an unfortunate way of putting it on your part. But it would be best to avoid confusion by not using the words 'dichotomy' which has the flavor of a more radical cutting apart and 'conflict' which at least allows hope for conflict resolution.

That may not make you a better 'scholar' - if that's what you choose to call yourself, but it would make you a clearer writer -- a step closer to a Randian level of precision....and that is normally a VERY high level. B)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I gathered most if not all of the points you supplied 10-15 years ago, but it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Do I have to explain the relevance? The asterisked points for Apollo are something very close to reason when juxtaposed as a contrast to its opposite (what do you think God of truth and light and sun and civilization adds up to, ferchrissake) and by contrast for Dionysus something along the lines of irrational, blind, drunken whim or emotionalism.

Jesus Henry Aloysius Christ ...didn't you get this from my list of quotes ??????

And I even ASTERISKED it for you

. . . and left a trail of bread crumbs. :-)

.

.

.

Next, am I'm going to have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 by offering footnotes???

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> False dichotomies (i.e., non-dichotomies ~alleged~ to be dichotomies) are ~not~ irreconcilable. Reason vs. emotion is an alleged, false dichotomy. Reason and emotion are not irreconcilable. [Roger]

If you had simply said something like this in the first place rather than implying [as follows] that Rand was accepting a variant of the reason/emotion dichotomy, it would have been much more clear -- since to many who read a lot of philosophy, a dichotomy means an irreconcilable war: "It's true that Rand didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy in its pure form. However, she did restate it on the third page of her essay as "the conflict of reason versus irrational emotion." [Rodger] -- Your "the conflict of reason versus irrational emotion", especially coupled with the word 'dichotomy' in the preceding sentence sounds like irrational emotion will always be in conflict, can't be reconciled.

That is exactly correct, Phil. As long as an irrational emotion exists, it will always be in conflict with, and cannot be reconciled with, a rational thought. (See below.)

There is a ~real~ dichotomy between reason and irrational emotion, and they are ~necessarily~ in conflict and cannot be reconciled as long as they both exist.

When Rand said they were the fundamental conflicting factors of our age, she meant just that -- and that the only way to end the conflict was not to "reconcile" them, but to eradicate the irrational emotions by eradicating the irrational thoughts/unreason (bad philosophical premises) that generate them. She spelled out the thoughts to replace the irrational ideas with, but she never identified it or referred to it as a process of "reconcilation," neither of irrational emotions with reason or irrational ideas with reason.

Now that you've explained what you meant, it's clear that it was just an unfortunate way of putting it on your part. But it would be best to avoid confusion by not using the words 'dichotomy' which has the flavor of a more radical cutting apart and 'conflict' which at least allows hope for conflict resolution.

I'm not sure what you mean here. Are you suggesting that I use ~neither~ "dichotomy" ~nor~ "conflict"? Or just not use both of them together?

And why? A real dichotomy names things that are in ~necessary~ conflict, so there ~can't~ be a "reconcilation" or "conflict resolution."

E.g., as long as a person continues to think both rational thoughts and irrational thoughts, i.e., as long as he is going to try to hold contradictory ideas in his mind, he is going to experience both rational emotions and irrational emotions -- and he is NOT going to be able to resolve the conflict between the rational thoughts and the irrational emotions. He can not reconcile the irrational ~emotions~ with the rational thoughts, any more than he can reconcile the irrational ~thoughts~ with the rational thoughts. There is no reconciliation ~possible~, for they are contradictory. There is no truce or peaceful coexistence possible. If he eradicates his irrational thoughts, the irrational emotions will fade away and disappear. But that is not "reconciliation," but ~extermination~!!

That may not make you a better 'scholar' - if that's what you choose to call yourself, but it would make you a clearer writer -- a step closer to a Randian level of precision....and that is normally a VERY high level. B)

Phil, although I have really not enjoyed this dispute, I do appreciate your regard for my "normal" level of writing.

But one thing: if I stop using both "dichotomy" and "conflict" in referring to the reason vs. irrational emotion...."thingie"....how would that make me ~closer~ to Rand's "level of precision"? She referred to "reason vs. emotion" as an "alleged dichotomy," which necessarily implies that she viewed her own distinction of "reason vs. irrational emotion" as a ~real~ dichotomy. And she called it "the fundamental conflict of our age." If I ~eschew~ Rand's wordage and conclusions, how am I becoming ~clearer~ and ~more Randlike~? It seems as though I would be ~retreating~ from her level of clarity and insight, not emulating it! (???)

Roger (aka "Rodger"?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> I gathered most if not all of the points you supplied 10-15 years ago, but it is irrelevant to the present discussion.

Do I have to explain the relevance? The asterisked points for Apollo are something very close to reason when juxtaposed as a contrast to its opposite (what do you think God of truth and light and sun and civilization adds up to, ferchrissake) and by contrast for Dionysus something along the lines of irrational, blind, drunken whim or emotionalism.

Jesus Henry Aloysius Christ ...didn't you get this from my list of quotes ??????

Phil, I didn't mean that your asterisked points for Apollo were irrelevant to someone wanting to establish that Apollo is reasonably identified as the god of reason. Clearly, they are. (I still think that such a conclusion: Apollo df. god of reason, is an error, but it's a reasonable error.)

I meant that you don't need 10 or 20 traits of Apollo in order to ascertain/deduce from them that the fundamental one is (or could be) reason. All you need -- at least, all Rand needed -- were the several that Nietzsche mentioned.

Further (though this gets into establishing my thesis), I maintain that there is ample evidence in both Nietzsche ~and~ in the much larger amount of material you and I have both seen, from which to conclude that Apollo's fundamental trait was ~not~ reason, but something else. Deciding whether reason or X is the fundamental of Apollo cannot (I don't think) be answered just by the fundamental-extracting process. You have to look more closely at the mythological record, at the main stories about Apollo, in order to tell whether he is most basically rational or X.

For further details, see my essay in print (hopefully) next year.

And I even ASTERISKED it for you

. . . and left a trail of bread crumbs. :-)

.

.

.

Next, am I'm going to have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 by offering footnotes???

I'd be more interested in whether you try to establish it deductively or inductively. :)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having a hell of a time trying to understand what a rational emotion is as opposed to an irrational one.

Is it like a concept with a genus and differentia? What is its nature? What makes one emotion rational and the other irrational?

I see a premise that needs checking.

I can do this the Objectivist mini-guru way: If you love and admire ME, that's a totally rational emotion. If you harbor ill will or negative feelings toward ME in any respect, that, of course, is a disgustingly irrational emotion. :)

Ditto for Ayn Rand. So there!

I can't think of any other standard that is as clear as this one, despite the comedy (which is rational and irrational in name only, but very clearly divided into kinds). Maybe balance, but that is intensity or degree, not kind.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am having a hell of a time trying to understand what a rational emotion is as opposed to an irrational one.

Is it like a concept with a genus and differentia? What is its nature? What makes one emotion rational and the other irrational?

I see a premise that needs checking.

I can do this the Objectivist mini-guru way: If you love and admire ME, that's a totally rational emotion. If you harbor ill will or negative feelings toward ME in any respect, that, of course, is a disgustingly irrational emotion. :)

Ditto for Ayn Rand. So there!

I can't think of any other standard that is as clear as this one, despite the comedy (which is rational and irrational in name only, but very clearly divided into kinds). Maybe balance, but that is intensity or degree, not kind.

Michael

Sorry if this is not clear from the context, Michael. When Rand uses the term "irrational emotion," she refers to emotions generated by irrational thoughts and ideas. (Branden: thought/identification-->evaluation-->emotion.) A "rational emotion," then, is one that follows from (and is consonant with) rational thoughts and ideas. There is a necessary linkage, so the rational or irrational status of an emotion is really just a consequence of the status of the thought that led to it.

Remember my derivation of Rand's dichotomy? Reason (rational thought) and consequent rational emotion vs. Irrationality (irrational thought) and consequent irrational emotion. This is a solid, real dichotomy based on two irreconcilable kinds of causal linkages in human consciousness. So, for brevity, you can drop some of the wordage and simplify as Rand did: reason vs. irrational emotion.

Does that help?

REB

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> you don't need 10 or 20 traits of Apollo in order to ascertain/deduce from them that the fundamental one is (or could be) reason. [Rodddger]

Summarizing:

It's a mistake to try to find a 'fundamental' trait among the laundry list which resulted in ancient Greece from various tribal or local deities being merged (into Apollo, into Dionysus). It is -not- a mistake to use Nietzsche's view of what is a fundamental trait for purposes of exposition and symbolism. That is appropriate 'literary' license. It is further a mistake to nitpick Rand to death on issues like this in an academic publication in a world where her good and valid points and insights are not known to the academic world, are not being explicated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Rand uses the term "irrational emotion," she refers to emotions generated by irrational thoughts and ideas. (Branden: thought/i.dentification-->evaluation-->emotion.) A "rational emotion," then, is one that follows from (and is consonant with) rational thoughts and ideas. There is a necessary linkage, so the rational or irrational status of an emotion is really just a consequence of the status of the thought that led to it.

Remember my derivation of Rand's dichotomy? Reason (rational thought) and consequent rational emotion vs. Irrationality (irrational thought) and consequent irrational emotion. This is a solid, real dichotomy based on two irreconcilable kinds of causal linkages in human consciousness. So, for brevity, you can drop some of the wordage and simplify as Rand did: reason vs. irrational emotion.

Does that help?

Roger,

Actually, no. I look at babies and wonder how they can be rational in order to feel all those emotions. By the "rational emotion" standard, they must be feeling irrational emotions and they cannot do otherwise. This leads to original sin. That's bothersome.

Incidentally, this is an objection I have with Rand's programming-the-emotions concept, not you. I have had this objection ever since I fought my way out of drug addiction.

On another point, I started reading up on dichotomy. I think I am still going to stay to my guns and treat dichotomy as having opposed, but not irreconcilable, differences. I read somewhere (I can look it up later) that "false dichotomy" is a synonym for "false dilemma," however I do not see dichotomy as a synonym for dilemma. An element is missing for a dichotomy to be a dilemma (the value sought). I see dichotomy mostly as a cognitive term used for identifying parts or parties of a whole that are vastly different, where one doesn't work like the other works in terms of the whole, and dilemma as a more normative idea identifying a conflict where resolution is sought.

I have not yet read where a dichotomy entails one part having nothing in common with the other part. The very fact of belonging to the same whole implies some commonality.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is further a mistake to nitpick Rand to death on issues like this in an academic publication in a world where her good and valid points and insights are not known to the academic world, are not being explicated.

Phil,

I have an enormous problem with this standard. ARI has used this very standard it to lie to the world about Rand. (There is even an interesting quote from Binswanger about this, in a Q&A after a lecture, where he says it is OK at this stage in history to lie to people about Rand. I can dig it up if you like.)

I think Rand's ideas stand on their own merit, irrespective of where. There is no need to control any environment by censorship, omission and (in the case of ARI) airbrushing and lying (for example, endorsing PARC as the latest monkey-shine).

If Roger is in error, he will not influence academia about Rand and he certainly will not control people's thinking. That whole premise of controlling people's thinking is wrong, anyway. In this country there is freedom of speech, whether you are an Objectivist or not. That means people will think for themselves and Objectivists, particularly Objectivists, should honor that.

If you are frustrated about the academic world's acceptance of and familiarity with Rand's works, for God's sake, go make a case to them. Roger is making his. Hopefully I will be making mine before too long.

Rand herself made her case to the general public through commercial outlets when the issue was far worse than today. She chose where she should make her case and went and made it.

Incidentally, maybe you are aware of the fact that JARS is precisely a publication that is making Rand's "good and valid points and insights" "known to the academic world"? If not, I suggest you read a few issues of JARS and look at the academic accolades and acceptance that publication has received.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Rand uses the term "irrational emotion," she refers to emotions generated by irrational thoughts and ideas. (Branden: thought/i.dentification-->evaluation-->emotion.) A "rational emotion," then, is one that follows from (and is consonant with) rational thoughts and ideas. There is a necessary linkage, so the rational or irrational status of an emotion is really just a consequence of the status of the thought that led to it.

Remember my derivation of Rand's dichotomy? Reason (rational thought) and consequent rational emotion vs. Irrationality (irrational thought) and consequent irrational emotion. This is a solid, real dichotomy based on two irreconcilable kinds of causal linkages in human consciousness. So, for brevity, you can drop some of the wordage and simplify as Rand did: reason vs. irrational emotion.

Roger,

[...]I started reading up on dichotomy. I think I am still going to stay to my guns and treat dichotomy as having opposed, but not irreconcilable, differences. I read somewhere (I can look it up later) that "false dichotomy" is a synonym for "false dilemma," however I do not see dichotomy as a synonym for dilemma. An element is missing for a dichotomy to be a dilemma (the value sought). I see dichotomy mostly as a cognitive term used for identifying parts or parties of a whole that are vastly different, where one doesn't work like the other works in terms of the whole, and dilemma as a more normative idea identifying a conflict where resolution is sought.

I have not yet read where a dichotomy entails one part having nothing in common with the other part. The very fact of belonging to the same whole implies some commonality.

Michael

Michael, here is the relevant part of the entry from Wikipedia, and it is typical of what you will find elsewhere:

A dichotomy is any splitting of a whole into exactly two non-overlapping parts.

In other words, it is a bipartition of elements. i.e. nothing can belong simultaneously to both parts, and everything must belong to one part or the other. They are often contrasting and spoken of as "opposites."

Uses of dichotomy

The above applies directly when the term is used in mathematics, philosophy or linguistics. For example, if there is a concept A, and it is split into parts B and not-B, then the parts form a dichotomy: they are mutually exclusive, since no part of B is contained in not-B and vice-versa, and they are jointly exhaustive, since they cover all of A, and together again give A.

A false dichotomy is a logical fallacy consisting of a supposed dichotomy which fails one or both of the conditions: it is not jointly exhaustive or not mutually exclusive. In its most common form, two entities are presented as if they are exhaustive, when in fact other alternatives are possible. In some cases, they may be presented as if they are mutually exclusive although there is a broad middle ground (see also undistributed middle).

Take concept A = "that aspect of the psyche which rules human thought and action." Then B = reason and not-B = not reason are the two factors of the psyche that rule human thought and action. The reason-emotion dichotomy is basically trying to claim that emotion is not-B, i.e., not-reason. But this is a package deal. Irrational emotions are the product of not-reason, while rational emotions are the product of reason. So really B = reason and the emotions it generates (the rational ones), and not-B = not-reason and the emotions it generates (the irrational ones). THAT is the real dichotomy involving reason and emotions, not the over-simplified, historical package-deal. As Rand restated it for simplicity and clarity: reason vs. irrational emotions.

When Rand refers to the historical reason-emotion split as an "alleged dichotomy," she means that it is a false dichotomy -- and that asserting it is a fallacy. It fails ~both~ conditions for a real dichotomy. Reason and emotion are not mutually exclusive; they can and do co-exist and harmonize. Reason and emotion are not jointly exhaustive, for they do not exhaust the possibilities. There is also anti-reason, either thinking irrationally or choosing not to think. Either choice will generate emotions that ~do~ conflict with reason. But that does not mean that all and any emotion inherently conflicts with reason, just the emotion generated by anti-reason!

A real dichotomy is a real A or non-A alternative. A false dichotomy -- an "alleged dichotomy" -- is one that ~purports to be~ such an alternative, but really isn't.

Now, Michael, do you seriously mean to argue that a real dichotomy can be "reconciled"? That A can be "reconciled" with non-A?

But why argue about it? Let's get empirical. All it takes is one counter-example to refute my claim. Why don't you show me, if you would be so kind, even one real dichotomy that is "reconcilable." (Reason vs. emotion is not a real dichotomy. As Rand noted, it is an "alleged" -- i.e., false -- dichotomy.) (Mind vs. body is not a real dichotomy either.) (Just to get a couple of the more obvious ones out of the way.) :devil:

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

When Rand uses the term "irrational emotion," she refers to emotions generated by irrational thoughts and ideas. (Branden: thought/i.dentification-->evaluation-->emotion.) A "rational emotion," then, is one that follows from (and is consonant with) rational thoughts and ideas. There is a necessary linkage, so the rational or irrational status of an emotion is really just a consequence of the status of the thought that led to it.

Remember my derivation of Rand's dichotomy? Reason (rational thought) and consequent rational emotion vs. Irrationality (irrational thought) and consequent irrational emotion. This is a solid, real dichotomy based on two irreconcilable kinds of causal linkages in human consciousness. So, for brevity, you can drop some of the wordage and simplify as Rand did: reason vs. irrational emotion.

Does that help?

Roger,

Actually, no. I look at babies and wonder how they can be rational in order to feel all those emotions. By the "rational emotion" standard, they must be feeling irrational emotions and they cannot do otherwise. This leads to original sin. That's bothersome.

Incidentally, this is an objection I have with Rand's programming-the-emotions concept, not you. I have had this objection ever since I fought my way out of drug addiction.

Michael

Michael, when I went through a recovery program for "significant others" of addicts, I was given the same admonition that they give addicts, about "stinkin' thinkin'." Your irrational, unproductive emotions are the direct product of the bad, fallacious, unreality-connected thinking you do. You definitely ~do~ program your emotions for good or ill with the quality of your thinking.

As for babies, you have to keep the context in mind. They are perceptual, not conceptual beings. They have an innate, built-in drive/desire to connect with reality, and their emotions are congruent with the kind of contact they have. Since the contact is not chosen, but automatically sought, it is not an ethical matter, so what they do is neither sinful nor virtuous. It just is a fact -- as for other animals.

In other words, not all emotions are the product of either sin or virtue. If that were true, we'd have to punish dogs for being humble. :)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I just Googled "reconciled dichotomy" to see what would pop up. I got the following SERP blurb, but I don't feel like spring for the 30 bucks to read the article:

Social Science & Medicine : Pragmatic pluralism: Mutual tolerance ...

The mutual tolerance of the two groups seems to express a reconciled dichotomy, at least for the duration of the transplant and its immediate aftermath. ...

linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277953606005995 - Similar pages

That seems to be a term people use in the science world.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On emotions, I do believe we can program some of them up to a point. I do not believe we can eliminate all the other influences, so some of those influences can undermine our programming.

Incidentally, the emotions newborns feel are called affects and they are totally prewired evaluations with response. Our emotions proper come from affects+experience. (See here for a discussion on OL.)

Only much, much later does conceptual thinking enter.

Here's a cute anecdote. Crack cocaine induces a paranioa that gets comical. Back when I was a user, I, who rarely feel fear, would be hiding in the bathroom with my heart jumping out of my chest, terrified, fully expecting the police to come booming throught the crack under the door.

:)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

I just Googled "reconciled dichotomy" to see what would pop up. I got the following SERP blurb, but I don't feel like spring for the 30 bucks to read the article:

Social Science & Medicine : Pragmatic pluralism: Mutual tolerance ...

The mutual tolerance of the two groups seems to express a reconciled dichotomy, at least for the duration of the transplant and its immediate aftermath. ...

linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0277953606005995 - Similar pages

That seems to be a term people use in the science world.

Michael

The article descibes a ~detente~ between two groups of therapists whose ideas for dealing with transplants conflict with one another. It doesn't mean they have given up their conflicting ideas. It means they are behaving "pragmatically," for whatever reason. Pragmatism is not a reconciliation of a dichotomy.

Also, while it is apparent that their ideas are opposed to one another, it is not clear that they are mutually exclusive. Obviously, they found ~some~ common ground on which to co-exist in treatment situations.

More basically, I can't see the appropriateness of using the term "dichotomy" in this particular case. A writer's use of a given word in his articles does not establish the validity of his having used it. I could refer to any dispute you and I, or Phil and I have as a "dichotomy," or our disputed ideas as a "dichotomy." That wouldn't make it an accurate use of the English language. And if we worked out the disagreement, or agreed to disagree, or whatever, that wouldn't necessarily mean that we had "reconciled a dichotomy," just a dispute.

I googled the phrase and even inserted "the" and "a" and didn't find a whole lot that suggested the term is being used other than sloppily and illogically.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

OBJECTIVISM'S VIEW OF DICHOTOMIES -- FALSE AND OTHERWISE

I know that it is not very satisfying to have me refer to an off-hand reference by Rand of the "alleged dichotomy" of reason vs. emotion as a paradigm case of a false dichotomy, or to do my usual verbal handstands trying to argue for logical consistency in using the term "dichotomy." So, instead, I'll share a bit from two of Leonard Peikoff's lectures.

In 1974, while he was still under Rand's watchful eye (i.e., mind), Peikoff gave a course "Introduction to Logic," and in lecture 2 he talked about "informal fallacies," including the fallacy of the false alternative, which he defined as the failure to distinguish choices by the crucial act of specifying all relevant possibilities. There is a simple test to use: can you show that an alternative is a form of the Law of the Excluded Middle? If so, it is a true alternative; if not, it is a false alternative. He points out a number of false alternatives that have been exposed by Objectivism, such as reason vs. emotion, mind bs. body, communist vs. fascist, egoism vs. altruism, free will vs. causality. (Note that these are all also referred to as "false dichotomies.")

Thirty years later, in 2004, Peikoff gave his "DIM Hypothesis" course, and in lecture 1 he talked about "trichotomies." It doesn't take much reading between the lines of this relevant passage to see that, then as in 1974, he regarded dichotomies and alternatives, in the logical sense, as synonymous:

Now, tonight, I don’t think you’ll find much new in content, but I want to reorganize what you know, re-orient you to think and grasp the world and the trends in the world in terms of trichotomies -- that is, three possible trends, three possible views on an issue. Now, properly and fundamentally, we think of every issue as: it’s true, or it’s not true. That’s the Law of the Excluded Middle. It is, or it isn’t. That is the fundamental alternative on every issue. (He's defining, though not referring to, "dichotomy" here.) But, in order to understand the world and what’s going on, I think you have to make a crucial distinction between two different forms of the false, which will give you, therefore, three as the key number. [....] what is a trichotomy? [....] here is a definition: three mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities within a given field or question. A trichotomy means: three mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities within a given field or question. In other words, all the possibilities are exhausted by these three, and you can’t have two of them or three of them, you must take one of the three.

Of all the things to quarrel or quibble with the Objectivists about, this strikes me as the least likely or fruitful! :no:

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

We aren't necessarily disagreeing in the sense of being competitive, just bouncing around some ideas on usage. I do admit that with Peikoff, he used the term in the manner you are saying.

But just for the hell of it (and to learn properly), here are some things I got off the web. I decided to get away from Objectivism and Wikipedia and see what else is out there. It's very interesting.

I can't help but notice (from the Britannica entry) that the division in the dichotomy refers to a quality or attribute—not the entire set of qualities or attributes—of the class. That makes much more sense to me as a general rule.

Encyclopædia Britannica (with an annoying popup)

dichotomy

logic

(from Greek dicha, "apart," and tomos, "cutting"), a form of logical division consisting of the separation of a class into two subclasses, one of which has and the other has not a certain quality or attribute. Men thus may be divided into professional men and men who are not professionals; each of these may be subdivided similarly. On the principle of contradiction this division is both exhaustive and exclusive; there can be no overlapping, and no members of the original genus or the lower groups are omitted. This method of classification, though formally accurate, has slight value in the exact sciences, partly because at every step one of the two groups is merely negatively characterized and is usually an artificial, motley class; but it sets forth clearly the gradual descent from the most inclusive genus (summum genus) through species to the lowest class (infima species), which is divisible only into individual persons or things.

Merriam Webster

di·chot·o·my

Pronunciation: \dī-'kä-tə-mē also də-\

Function: noun

Inflected Form(s): plural di·chot·o·mies

Etymology: Greek dichotomia, from dichotomos

Date: 1610 1: a division into two especially mutually exclusive or contradictory groups or entities <the dichotomy between theory and practice>; also : the process or practice of making such a division <dichotomy of the population into two opposed classes

2: the phase of the moon or an inferior planet in which half its disk appears illuminated

3 a: bifurcation; especially : repeated bifurcation (as of a plant's stem) b: a system of branching in which the main axis forks repeatedly into two branches c: branching of an ancestral line into two equal diverging branches

4: something with seemingly contradictory qualities <it's a dichotomy, this opulent Ritz-style luxury in a place that fronts on a boat harbor — Jean T. Barrett>

The Free Dictionary

di·chot·o·my (d-kt-m)

n. pl. di·chot·o·mies

1. Division into two usually contradictory parts or opinions: "the dichotomy of the one and the many" Louis Auchincloss.

2. Astronomy The phase of the moon, Mercury, or Venus when half of the disk is illuminated.

3. Botany Branching characterized by successive forking into two approximately equal divisions.

[Greek dikhotomi, from dikhotomos, divided in two : dikho-, dicho- + temnein, to cut; see tem- in Indo-European roots.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2003. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

- - - - - - - - - -

dichotomy [die-kot-a-mee]

Noun

pl -mies

division into two opposed groups or parts [Greek dicha in two + temnein to cut]

dichotomous adj

USAGE: Dichotomy should always refer to a division of some kind into two groups. It is sometimes used to refer to a puzzling situation which seems to involve a contradiction, but this use is generally thought to be incorrect.

Collins Essential English Dictionary 2nd Edition 2006 © HarperCollins Publishers 2004, 2006

- - - - - - - - - -

dichotomy

division of material into two parts for the purpose of classification. — dichotomist, n.

See also: Classification

-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Aristotle's Biology

James Lennox in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

Dichotomy is the method of dividing the higher differentia into two exhaustive alternatives, which often entails that one of the alternatives is simply the privation of the other (winged, wingless). Division by non-essentials is the technique of dividing a prior differentia-class by means of an unrelated difference. For example, you might first divide animals into wild and tame, and then divide the tame animals into footed and footless.

Will Durant Glossary

Dichotomy, division into two groups.

Glossary of Religious Terms

from Religious Tolerance

Dichotomy: In the field of religion, the concept that a person is made up of a body and a soul, or a body and a spirit. An opposing belief, also justified by reference to biblical passages is trichotomy: the belief that a person is composed of body, soul, and spirit.

The only practical conclusion I can get from this is that the meaning of word dichotomy as generally given in Objectivism does not have universal usage. And this sample is pretty broad and distinguished.

I ain't playing "Gotcha!" I am truly interested in this and I want to get it right. I can't think of anything more important when discussing stuff like this with non-Objectivists. If people mean different things for the same words and don't realize it, or stubbornly refuse to see this while attributing their meaning to the other person (I'm not speaking about you), all communication breaks down.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

We aren't necessarily disagreeing in the sense of being competitive, just bouncing around some ideas on usage. I do admit that with Peikoff, he used the term in the manner you are saying.

But just for the hell of it (and to learn properly), here are some things I got off the web. I decided to get away from Objectivism and Wikipedia and see what else is out there. It's very interesting.

I can't help but notice (from the Britannica entry) that the division in the dichotomy refers to a quality or attribute—not the entire set of qualities or attributes—of the class. That makes much more sense to me as a general rule.

[....]

The only practical conclusion I can get from this is that the meaning of word dichotomy as generally given in Objectivism does not have universal usage. And this sample is pretty broad and distinguished.

I ain't playing "Gotcha!" I am truly interested in this and I want to get it right. I can't think of anything more important when discussing stuff like this with non-Objectivists. If people mean different things for the same words and don't realize it, or stubbornly refuse to see this while attributing their meaning to the other person (I'm not speaking about you), all communication breaks down.

Michael

Hence, the importance of the Randian injunction: "define your terms." The fallacy of arguing at cross purposes is a lot less likely to take root when a person has laid down, at the outset, what he means by his key terms/concepts.

Silly me, I didn't realize how much back-and-fill I would have to do with ~Objectivist~ critics of a well-understood (within Objectivism) term/concept such as "dichotomy." Terms like "reconcile" and "opposition" and "conflict" kept popping up in the discussion, and those are terms that are only validly applicable to ~false~ dichotomies. As I and Rand and Peikoff use the term.

That doesn't make us right, but when we have the Law of the Excluded Middle as the foundation of our position, I wonder why we need to waste time with concern about how other people fuzzily or incorrectly use the term. True, we ultimately want ~everyone~ (or as many people as possible) to understand what we are saying, but it won't help to fuzzy up our own language in order to "reconcile" our philosophy with their fallacious mental miasmas.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

There is an epistemological difference I have with your last sentence. I don't think that when a word has more than one meaning, it is due to people "fuzzily or incorrectly" using the term or "their fallacious mental miasmas."

Otherwise, I would have to throw away all my dictionaries (which almost always give more than one meaning for a term) and forget everything I ever learned about translating. And that's too many poisonous atmospheres to do away with. I have grown immune to them. I am now used to looking up terms when I have doubts. And I happen to like fuzzy.

:)

On a more serious note:

Silly me, I didn't realize how much back-and-fill I would have to do with ~Objectivist~ critics of a well-understood (within Objectivism) term/concept such as "dichotomy."

If people within Objectivism are having doubts or questions, imagine people not within Objectivism. That's my concern in terms of my own writing.

EDIT: That sounded terrible. Jeezus, I need to review my handbook of rhetoric.

I am not trying to be contentious for the sake of that. I want to see you succeed in spades. I really really want that. So I push a bit to test soundness. (I am also genuinely interested.)

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 months later...

UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE

My essay "Ayn Rand and 'The Objective': A Closer Look at the Intrinsic-Objective-Subjective Trichotomy" was published in the Fall 2007 issue of Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (Vol. 9, No. 1). Here, once more, is the abstract for the essay:

ROGER E. BISSELL offers a new interpretation and clarification of Rand's intrinsic-objective-subjective trichotomy, arguing that although her writings show the objective as having both epistemological and metaphysical aspects, the latter has been drastically downplayed, much to the detriment of further development of Objectivism. He traces the historical roots of the concept of the "objective," as well as the confusion and errors that led to the scope of Rand's trichotomy being radically curtailed by its two chief proponents, and he explains how the common view of the objective as "mind-independent" is a pitfall to be avoided.

A sequel to this essay, "Mind, Introspection, and the Objective," has successfully cleared two rounds of blind peer review and is now in the capable hands of JARS editor, Chris Sciabarra, who assures me it will be published in the Fall 2008 issue of JARS (Vol. 10, No. 1). Here is a summary of the main points covered in the essay:

It seeks to clarify the nature of introspection and its data by applying the method used in Robert Efron's analysis of perception and Leonard Peikoff's analysis of the ontological status of sense data. Sense data are neither intrinsic nor subjective but

objective, and the same will be shown to be true of our awareness of mind, will, and the various processes associated with them. An extended parallel is drawn between perception and introspection, between sense data and mental data, and between physical objects and the brain-mind. In simplest terms, mind is the form in which we are introspectively aware of the brain, and mind is an entity, viz., the brain, as we are aware of it directly, i.e., introspectively; and there are serious problems with viewing mind in any other way, such as a spiritual entity cohabitating and interacting with the body, or a non-physical process having causal efficacy. Rather than using the term "mind" to designate the attribute or capacity to engage in mental actions, it is proposed that we instead refer to it as "mentality."

This essay is a considerably revised version of a paper presented to the 2002 TOC Advanced Seminar in Waltham, Massachusetts, but the material pertaining to the free will-determinism controversy has had to be deleted for various reasons. I hope to submit a paper on that subject to JARS in the not too distant future.

Publication of my essay "Will the Real Apollo Please Stand Up?" has been bumped, along with the rest of the essays in the Rand-Nietzsche special issue of JARS, to Spring 2009 or later. I'll update you all again when I find out more.

Finally, I'm at long last digging into the task of writing my third "dual-aspect objective" essay, this one on the nature of logic and mathematics. When completed, it will be the first extended work that I am aware of on Rand's unit-perspective, extending it to the understanding of propositions and mathematical equations, as well as logical inference. I'm aiming at having it in the pipeline for publication in the Fall 2009 issue of JARS, but knowing how these things go--both my writing process and the JARS publishing schedule--it may not see print until 2010.

Happy Holidays, everyone!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE***UPDATE

My mind-body essay has survived all the stages of peer review and editorial review, and all the appropriate re-writes, corrections, and other nips and tucks have been performed--and JARS editor Chris Sciabarra assures me that the Fall 2008 issue is now less than two weeks away from publication, with my piece as the lead essay! (I say "piece," though it is over 80 pages long.) Our friend, Robert Campbell, follows immediately with an essay nearly as long on Objectivism's view of "the arbitrary." :cheer:

I highly recommend this issue of JARS--and I strongly suggest that anyone buying it also brew up a big pot of coffee. You're gonna be up late reading these pieces! :sleep:

Here is the abstract for my essay:

In this sequel to his essay "Ayn Rand and 'The Objective'" (JARS Fall 2007), the author warns against "the seduction of 'the basic'" and uses ideas by Efron, Peikoff, and Aristotle to argue that introspection and mental data (including mind) are objective and that causal efficacy of mind, and that mind-body interaction only make sense if mind is conceived of not as an attribute, but as an entity (viz., the conscious human brain). None of this, however, implies Epiphenomenalism or that consciousness is irrelevant to human history.

As for my Apollo essay (intended for the Spring 2009 issue of JARS), parts of which received so much valuable discussion several months ago here on OL, I am revising it to include a section on dichotomies and to clarify the material on personality type and mental functions (from the Jungian and Myers-Briggs perspectives, which are noticeably less rigorous than that of Objectivism). I'll be turning that over to editor Sciabarra before I leave town for the first of a number of winter and spring tours with the Side Street Strutters Jazz Band. (The first trip is to Midland, Texas for a pops concert with the symphony orchestra there. I hope it's not cold there, because I intend to travel light. :brr: )

Work on my epistemology-logic essay (incorporating my dual-aspect objectivity model into Rand's unit-perspective) continues, and I ~may~ be able to knock out a workable rough draft yet this winter. It's looking more and more like a book, though--and less and less like an essay. Maybe if delete every other sentence....? :hmm:

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now