Rand Critics

[BaalChatzaf]

What would you call a fairy tale figure like e. g. Little Red Riding Hood which is not a finite physical quantity but a mere fantasy product of the mind?

An existent. Clearly an idea or an abstraction does not exists in, of, or by itself, so it is not an entity. But ideas, visions and fantasies do exists. They are the twittering of neurons in someone's head.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Feeling quite taut today.

Just try to relax a bit.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Ba'al:

Thank you so much, I was afraid that I would never learn to twitter, so now I can tweet away.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

How can someone understand abstracting from abstractions if they never understood how to abstract correctly from their senses (i.e., input from external reality)?

For those familiar with ITOE, since nobody is mentioning this, it would be wise to review what Rand said about treating a concept as if it were a concrete (and unit) in forming new concepts. Then think about the cognitive status of imaginary things.

But this is way over the head of someone who thinks that "existence doesn't exist" makes sense.

Michael

[Xray]

What would you call a fairy tale figure like e. g. Little Red Riding Hood which is not a finite physical quantity but a mere fantasy product of the mind?

An existent. Clearly an idea or an abstraction does not exists in, of, or by itself, so it is not an entity. But ideas, visions and fantasies do exists. They are the twittering of neurons in someone's head.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I'm interested to hear what Michael has to say on this. For I can't find "Little Red Riding Hood" in what he wrote about "existent":

(Michael Stuart Kelly @ Jun 26 2009, 02:19 PM)

Entity is a whole in itself. Existent can be merely a part or even a background. The color red for instance is an existent, but not an entity. A red apple is an entity.

"Merely a part or a background" does not fit Little Red Riding Hood, who, albeit a fictional character, certainly is "a whole in itself".

Even the wolf had that epistemological awareness, one has to give him that: after all, he swallowed Little Red Riding Hood as a whole.

Couldn't resist the pun, but kidding aside - can't wait to hear what Michael has to say on it.

Michael, what label does Little Red Riding Hood receive in Objectivst terminology?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, what label does Little Red Riding Hood receive in Objectivst terminology?

Xray,

Character in a fairy tale.

Pretty obvious...

Michael

[Xray]

Michael, what label does Little Red Riding Hood receive in Objectivst terminology?

Xray,

Character in a fairy tale.

Pretty obvious...

Michael

Michael,

That's what it's commnonly called, but since the discussion is about objectivist terminology, I'd like to read clearer words from you regarding "Little Red Riding Hood".

Ba'al Chatzaf for example thinks LRRH is an "existent". What do you think, Michael? Is Ba'al correct?

Is little Red Riding Hood

An entity?

An existent?

Please answer with a clear "yes" or "no" and elaborate. TIA.

Edited June 28, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

And if you are a good little German boy - teacher will let you graduate and you can grow up to be a psychotic murderer.

Love that self esteem stuff from the educational Valkyries.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... but since the discussion is about objectivist terminology, I'd like to read clearer words from you regarding "Little Red Riding Hood".

Xray,

In "Objectivist terminology," Little Red Riding Hood is called...

guess what?...

... a character in a fairy tale.

Know why? Because that's what she is.

If you want the 60 dollar epistemological terms, try "imaginary existent" or "make-believe existent" something like that.

I suspect you will have difficulty with this since I believe you will not know how to fit "fairy tale" within existence on a conceptual level (or fit any man-made story within existence for that matter, including the ideas of imaginary and make-believe). I predict you will get stuck and then holler, "Contradiction! Little Red Riding Hood doesn't really exist as a person so she can't be an existent. See? Rand was wrong!"

Michael

[Xray]

... but since the discussion is about objectivist terminology, I'd like to read clearer words from you regarding "Little Red Riding Hood".

Xray,

In "Objectivist terminology," Little Red Riding Hood is called...

guess what?...

... a character in a fairy tale.

Know why? Because that's what she is.

If you want the 60 dollar epistemological terms, try "imaginary existent" or "make-believe existent" something like that.

I suspect you will have difficulty with this since I believe you will not know how to fit "fairy tale" within existence on a conceptual level (or fit any man-made story within existence for that matter, including the ideas of imaginary and make-believe). I predict you will get stuck and then holler, "Contradiction! Little Red Riding Hood doesn't really exist as a person so she can't be an existent. See? Rand was wrong!"

Michael

Of course, Little Red Riding Hood is a fantasy, not an actual person. That is understood by the designation of fiction. However, in the context of the fictional story, Little Red Riding Hood is an entity.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Not just entity. Imaginary entity.

But I won't be a stickler over an implied word.

If that's what you meant, finally you got something correct ("within the context of the story" and all).

I congratulate you.

Now what's your point?

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

Not just entity. Imaginary entity.

But I won't be a stickler over an implied word.

If that's what you meant, finally you got something correct ("within the context of the story" and all).

I congratulate you.

Now what's your point?

Michael

I was just thinking of how often posters here refer to Rand's "imaginary entities" (= the fictional characters in her novels) as if they were real.

They infer from e. g. Peter Keating's fate in the novel that this is what happens in reality to so-called "selfless men", the "altruists", whom, to compound the absurdity, Rand also calls "looters" and "moochers", terms which blatantly contradict the definition of "altruist".

By attributing those self-interest motives to "altruists", Rand herself collapses the very opposition she created when claiming that there exist persons not motivated by self-interest.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Xray,

Not just entity. Imaginary entity.

But I won't be a stickler over an implied word.

If that's what you meant, finally you got something correct ("within the context of the story" and all).

I congratulate you.

Now what's your point?

Michael

I was just thinking of how often posters here refer to Rand's "imaginary entities" (= the fictional characters in her novels) as if they were real.

They infer from e. g. Peter Keating's fate in the novel that this is what happens in reality to so-called "selfless men", the "altruists", whom, to compound the absurdity, Rand also calls "looters" and "moochers", terms which blatantly contradict the definition of "altruist".

By attributing those self-interest motives to "altruists", Rand herself collapses the very opposition she created when claiming that there exist persons not motivated by self-interest.

They are motivated by gaining the unearned. Altruism is used as self-justification or by power lusters to justify their power seeking and political rule. Their behavior can be described as altruistic in that what they do is not productive but destructive activity based on force and not reason, creation and trade. You can call it selfish if you want to, but "rational self interest" would be much more controversial to this point. If their victims go along with this bullshit, then they'd be behaving altruistically or selflessly apart from how they experience the situation--that is, the best choice available since they have been morally disarmed out of ignorance and fear.

--Brant

[Xray]

Rand on "Entity":

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific

attributes." (end quote)

Very good. Let's expand a bit for clarification. "Specific attributes" exclude all attributes of all other things, hence, finite is the core identity of entity manifested in specific attributes; which further translates into a specific set of attributes which may also be called set of characteristics. Since finite is a factor in entity identity, this translates to limitations, which logically implies part, not all. Combining a specific set of characteristics with limitation and difference, we arrive at entity identity. One may further note that finite physical quantity is a key element in entity identity.

"The development of human cognition starts with the ability to perceive things, i.e., entities. Of man's five cognitive senses, only two provide him with a direct awareness of entities: sight and touch. The other three senses—hearing, taste and smell—give him an awareness of some of an entity's attributes (or of the consequences produced by an entity): they tell him that something makes sounds, or something tastes sweet, or something smells

fresh; but in order to perceive this something, he needs sight and/or touch." (Rand)

But entity identity is by mentally abstracting by difference. Whether by one or all of the senses, if there is difference noted, this is entity identity. The sound of a club striking a pillow is different from the sound of a club striking a metal drum. A given bit of food may smell and/or taste different from another bit of food.

The principal part is that any element of difference constitutes entity identity. The issue becomes what degree of identity is required to fulfill a

specific purpose. For instance, you mentally abstract a tree by its set of differentiating characteristics. If your purpose is to utilize the tree for shading purposes,

identifying the branches and leaves that will suffice for shading is as far as you need to go.

On the other hand, someone looking at the same tree and evaluating it for lumber to make furniture will want to know the characteristics in order to assess if the tree is suitable for his/her purpose. Another person may bei interested in the chemical make-up of the tree in order to know the proper fertilizer to make the tree grow. In such instances, the person may mentally abstract again and again to understand molecular structure.

The critical element here is to realize entities within entities, so to speak, with knowledge gained by every step of mentally abstracting by difference.

The greater the degree of entity abstracting, the greater the knowledge of the particular entity.

The principle involved here is the same principle that is involved in acquiring of knowledge in whatever instance. It is a succession of mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics. It makes no difference whether we're talking about mentally abstracting the tree from all other existents, or talking about mentally abstracting a subatomic particle, it's all about identity by difference.

Rand:

"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes."

Even though by words, she describes entity identity, she then proceeds to categorize and treats a category "Man" as entity identity by inferences such as "life

proper to man."

In abandoning entity identity by limitation and difference, she abandons the only viable objective referent by which to acquire knowledge. Instead of focusing upon the real finite individual AS IS (existing outside of mind), she focuses upon the infinite category, "man" (existing only in mind) to mentally treat the latter as the former.

The beauty of entity identity as an epistemological principle is that it is consistent with reality. Since no one is infallible, there is the potential of a mistake in

attempting to establish entity identity, making error possible.

On the other side of the coin, when the process of entity identity is abandoning in thinking, error is a 100% certainty.

By entity identity, each individual is a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity. These characteristics assure 100% self interest and attributing value in correspondence with beliefs and personal preferences. Hence value can only be to an individual, goal-seeking entity, not to an abstract, category or otherwise.

Which is why a claim "Life proper to man", is based on false premises.

Any and every thought, idea, premise of claim to the contrary is false. When the dust settles and source is easily seen, the values, i.e., attributing value, will ALWAYS be some individual flying under the false colors of "universal values."

Edited July 6, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let's expand a bit for clarification. "Specific attributes" exclude all attributes of all other things, hence, finite is the core identity of entity manifested in specific attributes; which further translates into a specific set of attributes which may also be called set of characteristics.

Xray,

I need not read further. Boy did you ever get that wrong. My eyes have white eyeballs. The wall next to me is white. It's the same color attribute since the light in the room comes from the same source.

You need to rethink what individual means.

Michael

[Xray]

Let's expand a bit for clarification. "Specific attributes" exclude all attributes of all other things, hence, finite is the core identity of entity manifested in specific attributes; which further translates into a specific set of attributes which may also be called set of characteristics.

Xray,

I need not read further. Boy did you ever get that wrong. My eyes have white eyeballs. The wall next to me is white. It's the same color attribute since the light in the room comes from the same source.

You need to rethink what individual means.

Michael

Thanks for making my point by stating that a category (grouping by similarity, like e. g. all objects of the color white), can't constitute entity identity.

The process of mentally abstracting is about a specific set of attributes differerentiating an entity.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Just because you identify a specific attribute, this does not mean you exclude that attribute from other things. It means you identified it.

Identification means becoming aware of differences and similarities.

Baby steps...

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

Just because you identify a specific attribute, this does not mean you exclude that attribute from other things. It means you identified it.

Baby steps...

Michael

But entity identity is about a specific set of attributes unequivocally differentiating an entity.

Edited July 5, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

So?

Nothing is exactly identical to anything else in all details taken as a whole (i.e., the set).

That's the way reality is. Do you disagree?

Even if an exact clone were possible in the full set of attributes, the clone would still occupy a different space than the original.

I don't get your point, other than trying to claim Rand was wrong...

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

So?

Nothing is exactly identical to anything else in all details taken as a whole (i.e., the set).

That's the way reality is. Do you disagree?

No, I don't disagree, but totally agree. For you have pointed out the fundamental principle of entity identity.

Even if an exact clone were possible in the full set of attributes, the clone would still occupy a different space than the original.

Another fundamental point, Michael.

I don't get your point, other than trying to claim Rand was wrong...

Let me elaborate:

Suppose you look around a room and see a couple of chairs, a TV, a couch and other items. The identifying takes no conscious

effort and appears as automatic, i.e., the given. To assume this is a serious mistake.

The speed and efficiency of sight may prompt you to assume this knowledge is instant and automatic. It isn't. It's by a principled process that underlies the natural law of epistemology. By a correlation of the sense of sight and mind function, each of these items is mentally abstracted by a differentiating set of characteristics.

To "see" the process in slow motion, imagine you are left in a strange dark room. As you move forward with a finger extended, the finger encounters an object. You notice if feels rough. You now have as perceptual identity of the object. You apply pressure and observe the object is rigid. Mind integrates the percepts of rough and rigid to form a conceptual identity.

Assume you move away and lose track of the object. You repeat the process with finger extended. Your finger comes in contact with an object. You notice it is rough. You apply pressure and find the object is soft. Your mind integrates the percepts of rough and soft to form a conceptual identity. The conceptual identity of rough and rigid is different from the conceptual identity of rough and soft, hence, a different entity identity.

What is illustrated by this simple demonstration is that entity identity is estblished by difference no matter what similarities may be shared. Indeed, similarities cannot possibly be known until AFTER entity identity by difference. What follows is that a category cannot be entity identity, ergo, "man", the category, is not entity identity.

After providing an illustration of identity by difference in the percept/concept example of identifying in the dark, let's try one right out

in the open light of day:

In a kitchen there is: a food mixer, a cooking range, and a refrigerator.

The objective is to identify the refrigerator as each item is described.

A is a metallic object. B is a metallic object. C is a metallic object.

Which is the refrigerator?

A is white in color. B is white in color. C is white in color.

Which is the refrigerator?

A operates on electricity. B operates on electricity. C operates on electricity.

Which is the refrigerator?

A does not operate with a compressor. B does not operate with a compressor. C operates with a compressor.

Which is the refrigerator?

The point being, of course, that you can list similarities on and on and on, but will never get to identity except by difference. How could it be otherwise? Similarity blends, not differentiates. This is just one more example of the fact that all knowledge is rooted in entity identity by a differentiating SET of characteristics. Popular opinion will never change this fact.

WHY it is so important to point out in the discussion of Rand's work the epistemological principle that knowledge is rooted in entity identity by difference?

The answer is: because Ayn Rand when speaking of life proper to "man", treats a category ("Man") as if it were a finite individual entity.

But when the process of entity identity is abandoned in thinking, error is almost 100% certainty.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The point being, of course, that you can list similarities on and on and on, but will never get to identity except by difference. How could it be otherwise? Similarity blends, not differentiates.

Xray,

I swore to myself that I would not, but I cannot resist this.

There is no such thing as difference without similarity.

Gimme a break.

You need both.

You can't have up without down. You can't have big without small. In like manner, you can't have different without similar. These are concepts of comparison. You cannot eliminate the standard used for comparison, nor the scale of degree, and then compare things. It doesn't work.

For proper identification, you need to identify both differences and similarities, not just differences. In fact, it is impossible for things to exist with only differences and nothing in common, starting with subparticles.

Michael

[Alfonso Jones]

The point being, of course, that you can list similarities on and on and on, but will never get to identity except by difference. How could it be otherwise? Similarity blends, not differentiates.

Xray,

I swore to myself that I would not, but I cannot resist this.

There is no such thing as difference without similarity.

Gimme a break.

You need both.

You can't have up without down. You can't have big without small. In like manner, you can't have different without similar. These are concepts of comparison. You cannot eliminate the standard used for comparison, nor the scale of degree, and then compare things. It doesn't work.

For proper identification, you need to identify both differences and similarities, not just differences. In fact, it is impossible for things to exist with only differences and nothing in common, starting with subparticles.

Michael

Michael ----

I am impressed by your clarity of response, and by your patience.

Bill P

[Xray]

The point being, of course, that you can list similarities on and on and on, but will never get to identity except by difference. How could it be otherwise? Similarity blends, not differentiates.

Xray,

I swore to myself that I would not, but I cannot resist this.

There is no such thing as difference without similarity.

Gimme a break.

You need both.

You can't have up without down. You can't have big without small. In like manner, you can't have different without similar. These are concepts of comparison. You cannot eliminate the standard used for comparison, nor the scale of degree, and then compare things. It doesn't work.

For proper identification, you need to identify both differences and similarities, not just differences. In fact, it is impossible for things to exist with only differences and nothing in common, starting with subparticles.

Michael

But in establishing entity identity, it is the difference by a unique set of characteristics which tips the scale for identification.

Suppose you grope for the light switch in a dark room and your fingers touch an object on the wall which is of hard plastic like the light switch. But since its shape is different, your fingers conclude it can't be the light switch and identify it instead as the frame of a picture hanging on the wall.

A popular game often played in kindergarten to school the touch sense is "Who is it"? The children sit in a circle, one child is blindfolded, then led to the place of another child and told to touch its head to find out my mere touching who it is.

It is only the specific set of characteristics differing the child from the rest of the group which makes it possible to identify the person. Entity identity by limitation and difference.

In language acquisition, it is always the encounter with the finite object which precedes categorizing. The child is shown an object accompanied by the sound chain "ball".

Only later, after several encounters with similar objects, an awareness of the category "ball" is established.

Edited July 6, 2009 by Xray