THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

[Victor Pross]

Truth claims, obviously, can only be true. <Yes, this is the ever elusive garnish that is being employed to distract that the fallacy of the Stolen Concept is at hand. (Yeah, yeah, to use the Randian term). Alas, it still remains a positive statement in regards to the nature of knowledge. You are claiming a truth! You can't escape this conclusion. Every time a skeptic (depending on the species of skepticism we have at hand) sticks in self-contradicting foot in his mouth, but he wishes to slouch off his positive epistemological principles as—some how, by the grace of magic fairy polemist elf—“hypothetical” to ignore the absolutism of anything.

"....Thus...amazingly....hypotheses are not truth claims, so...let's follow the bouncing ball r-e-a-l s-l-o-w here... thus there is no contradiction. Claiming certain knowledge leads to a contradiction?

Are you really going to argue hypotheses are the same as truth claims, Victor?

Not in regard to the specific inquiry of whatever is being investigated, tested or argued for, (it may be true or false) ---but the general principle, as you have formulated it above, is a positive stance in epistemology. That is: there is an absolute difference between hypothesis claims and truth claims. THIS is the dead-end, self-canceling stance that skepticism leads to. You want a contradiction, here it is.

Edited May 6, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

In reading your post, an idea is coming to me, and this is even before we define truth (which in Objectivism is merely the correspondence of a mental unit or proposition to a fact).

Let's start with the starting premise. How do we know we know? The truth is that we can only know we know by using our knowing faculty to begin with. There is no way to step outside of it and simultaneously deduce it. The mere exercise of it makes it's existence and operation true for us, but on and individual basis. It is a mental operation that corresponds to a fact by simultaneously being the fact and the knowledge of it. (Rand calls this "ostensive.")

In other words, I know that I know in a manner much differently than I know that you know (although I can imagine my knowledge of me in the same manner as my knowledge of you and subject that projection to the same method, but that does not annul my initial knowledge of me).

When we try to communicate a truth outside ourselves to another human being, we have to do two things:

1. Put it in a form where it is true for us inside ourselves, and

2. Put that in a form where it can become true to another inside himself through identification with his own knowledge processes.

This is where concept formation is so important—even more so than language (although language is critical). I am almost tempted to say that a concept is what you would call a "truth claim" and the changing context and knowledge it is built with as a "hypothetical claim," but I sense you are dealing with both concepts and propositions.

Don't take this for anything fixed. I'm just chewing right now, trying to connect some dots.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Daniel:

>Are you really going to argue hypotheses are the same as truth claims, Victor?

Victor:

>That is: there is an absolute difference between hypothesis claims and truth claims. THIS is the dead-end, self-canceling stance that skepticism leads to. You want a contradiction, here it is.

Desperation! :devil:

Given you've now conceded that hypotheses are not positive truth claims, you must now withdraw your initial argument, as there is no contradiction after all.

Once you've done that, we'll look at your latest inspiration.

[Victor Pross]

This is not desperation, but a valid point. Anybody who holds a specific and general stance in epistemology (even the skeptic’s) regards that stance as ‘truth’—even if he claims that he may be wrong about that!

Seriously though, tell me this, why should you…or Popper, or any thinker—or anybody for that matter—struggle to develop suppositions, ideas, constructs (whatever) in epistemology? I mean, for what? For naught? What is at the end of this path? The absolute certainty that we know nothing? Er, I mean, for the hypothesis that we can know knowing? Why? To what end is this?

And what the hell did you mean when you said that you are not a "100% skeptic"...if I recall correctly?

Edited May 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>This is not desperation, but a valid point. Anybody who holds a specific and general stance in epistemology (even the skeptic’s) regards that stance as ‘truth’—even if he claims that he may be wrong about that!

Ho, ho, just try to make sense of that sentence. Victor's out of control. :devil: Who knows what he will say next!

[Victor Pross]

Victor:

>This is not desperation, but a valid point. Anybody who holds a specific and general stance in epistemology (even the skeptic’s) regards that stance as ‘truth’—even if he claims that he may be wrong about that!

Ho, ho, just try to make sense of that sentence. Victor's out of control. :devil: Who knows what he will say next!

In the effort to untangle the webs of your epistemological stance, it comes out sounding convoluted, granted. And when your glaring contradictions come out from the shadows, you engage in witless cracks and 'humor' to distract attention from this. But my argument at the end of the day is only this: you are claiming a positive truth in regards to whatever epistemological position you take—skeptical, religious, innate, contextual…or whatever else. That is all.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

Victor:

>But my argument at the end of the day is only this: you are claiming a positive truth in regards to whatever epistemological position you take—skeptical, religious, innate, contextual…or whatever else. That is all.

This is only because, for the nth time, your argument fails because there is a difference between a positive truth claim and a hypothetical claim!

(BTW, this difference is also open to challenge, if one is so inclined, but I doubt it will have much success. So much for that line of argument anyway)

How long will it take Victor to get this, I wonder? A month? A year? Never?

[william.scherk]

Victor responds to Daniel Barnes' post in which Victor's latest unattributed borrowings are highlighted. Victor tells Daniel to grow up and claims that he does not know of 'this site' (Daniel have noted several instances of arguments by 'Immortalist' which contain the material Victor has claimed as his own).

Daniel,

Grow up. I don’t know of this site.

[ . . . ]

No one thinker "owns" the case to be made against the nonsense of universal skepticism, and it is a common objection.

Victor, maybe it is time for you to take a break from Objectivist Living. You do not seem able to participate in list discussions without lavish and unacknowledged borrowings of other peoples' ideas . . .

I know it is easy to do a search, find a smart, pithy post, cut and paste, alter a phrase or two, insert quotes, truncate . . .

It is easy -- and it is dishonourable to do so. Students who paraphrase without acknowledgement, or who do worse and pretend that borrowed words are their own receive failing grades and are often expelled. Authors who do so have their books pulped and their careers cut down. It distresses me and puzzles me that you would do such damage to your reputation before the forthcoming book of yours.

You may not understand that in between the lines of Michael's post above is the idea that if you plagiarise again on his 'glorified chat room' your privileges will be removed.

Is it worth it to plagiarise? On balance, don't you owe yourself and your career more care and attention, more respect? In some O-quarters, your nom de plume is already Victor Pross, Plagiarist, rather than Victor Pross, Artist. Don't you care? Do you want the sobriquet to hang around your neck for the rest of your O-list life, fercrissakes?

[Robert Jones]

I'm still waiting for the duel between Zell Miller and Chris Matthews.

[Victor Pross]

Will,

Ah, the school hallway monitor needs to get his two-cents in. I need to figure out that ‘ignore’ feature on this chat-room. Yes, a chat-room it is. (That's not an insult, that's what it is). And for the record, I never claimed that the argument against universal skepticism is mine. It is, to use Danny boy’s words, an “old argument.” I stated it has been argued by many. And even now, in my exchange with Danny, I have used that arguement. Try to pay attention. And if you are up to it, would you do another photoshop ‘caricature’ of me? I loved the first one. :turned: Edit: Plus, I don’t give a shit about O’ist quarters that would regard me as Victor Pross—nihilist modernist caricaturist who wants to cut down the good! :alien:

-Victor

Edited May 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Daniel Barnes]

William:

>In some O-quarters, your nom de plume is already Victor Pross, Plagiarist, rather than Victor Pross, Artist. Don't you care? Do you want the sobriquet to hang around your neck for the rest of your O-list life, fercrissakes?

Well said. To repeat, Victor does not know - or pretends he doesn't know - the difference between:

1) Making an argument that has been made many times before

2) Repeatedly cut-and-pasting large quantities of other people's work and passing it off as your own, not just on this site, but on others too.

How long will it take for Victor to understand this? A month? A year? Never?

[Victor Pross]

:bug: Dragonfly: “It is now some 20 years ago I read the complete works by Flaubert, so my memory is a bit vague, but I recall that I found Madame Bovary one of his best works. One of the contributing factors….”

[The fly goes on the spew, and then in the next post, loveable Kori asked]:

Dragonfly, Where'd you get that information, uh? Born with innate knowledge, were we?

To which the reply was: From Souvenirs littéraires by Maxime du Camp.

Kori again follows up: Why not credit that source initially?

And then….silence. Shhhh, don’t say anything. Hee-hee! You godda love the double standards.

[Chris Grieb]

Michael,

Victor's point is well taken.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael,

Victor's point is well taken.

Chris,

Not really. Dragonfly got information from a source that he presented, and actually did read the work that he said he remembered being the best (value judgment). He did not get actual phrases and sentences and, worse, whole paragraphs, and even worse, his evaluation of the work from an unnamed source. The information is in his manner of speaking and on being asked, he immediately stated where it came from.

I have seen Victor, on the other hand, outright deny that he even used a source when caught red-handed, with phrases put side-be-side (as in the most recent case).

But as any Objectivist knows, A is A. Denying a fact will not make it go away.

Here is an example of a borderline case from the head of this thread that has not been discussed. There is no attribution of where the title came from in the original post, yet the title "The Duel between Plato and Aristotle" is the title of the Epilogue of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff (p. 451).

I am now reading OPAR critically and when I saw that, I hit the roof. I became very angry and started examining the post to see if there were similar phrases from the chapter. Kat, on hearing me complain, looked and saw that there was the phrase "THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR" inserted in the Title description. This means when you click on "Chewing on Ideas" you will see the following on the list of threads:

THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE 1 2 3 4

THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR

However when you clicked on the thread, the phrase "THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR" was not present in the lead post. It all looked like it came from the pen of Victor—even the colorful title (which, for the record, I find horrible and was eventually going to comment on). So I edited the post and added the phrase from the title description in the listing to the title of the opening post. It would have been a good idea to use the name "Peikoff" but I will not quibble. After all, this is an Objectivist site and people know what OPAR is and who wrote it.

But on looking at the text, the issue is another. Here is how an idea is "summarized" in just one phrase (and most of the post is this way). Here is a quote from OPAR, p. 457:

Kant's Copernican Revolution reaffirmed the fundamental ideas of Plato. This time, however, the ideas were not moderated by any pagan influence. They were undiluted and thus incomparably more virulent.

Here is Victor's summary:

Kant's deletion of paganism from Plato's philosophy made his idea system more virulent...

You decide whether this is understanding and summarizing, or whether it is cribbing. It is so borderline that I let it pass. But I don't find words like "virulent" to be essential to the idea. And after reading oodles of posts by Victor, I find it fair to say that this is not a normal word he uses. It is merely a colorful adjective of an effect, so maintaining it at the end of the phrase as Peikoff did highlights where it came from (once one reads the original).

I know that if I were summarizing this idea, I would replace the adjective "virulent" with "toxic," or "contagious" or a host of other possibilities, or most likely, I would have made an exact quote and credited it to the author. I would have expanded on paganism also, so it didn't look like name-dropping picked up from someone else, but that's me...

Like I said, the post is full of other phrases (thank goodness it is short). Frankly, the only idea that is original to Victor is "Ayn Rand's removal of Plato's influence from Aristotle's philosophy...," which is a flat-out wrong interpretation.

Now this is a borderline case, but it clearly shows a method of going about research that is about as wrong as it gets. The only thing worse is copy-paste without any alteration at all, and that has been done elsewhere.

I like Victor. I like him a lot. But I despise that he does this. And I despise the denials.

My values here are antagonistic and cannot coexist for long in a healthy environment where integrity is prized. I am being forced to choose. Reality does not provide another option. I wish it were different, but it isn't.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR

Michael, Couched with the far reaching twisting of exonerating Dragonfly (when all else fell into silence) your post shifts from hand-slapping to become a critique in writing and formulation as such. (“Victor does not usually use the word ‘virulent’’”) And then you complain about the esthetics. WTF!

The name of this post is THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR---PERIOD! THIS says it all. The source of the subject matter IS THE SUBJECT MATTER.

In is a condescend snap-snot of a chapter in OPAR) for discussion.

Edited May 7, 2007 by Victor Pross

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But the game of string-pulling and favoritism-- and your attempts to “groom” me are becoming irritating.

Victor,

You are right about favoritism. I have played favoritism in your favor for far too long. I am not trying to groom you. I tried to give you space to catch your breath from the attacks and learn.

Bottom line. It doesn't matter anymore. I want you to stop plagiarizing on my site.

Michael

[Ellen Stuttle]

:bug: Dragonfly: “It is now some 20 years ago I read the complete works by Flaubert, so my memory is a bit vague, but I recall that I found Madame Bovary one of his best works. One of the contributing factors….”

[The fly goes on the spew, and then in the next post, loveable Kori asked]:

Dragonfly, Where'd you get that information, uh? Born with innate knowledge, were we?

To which the reply was: From Souvenirs littéraires by Maxime du Camp.

Kori again follows up: Why not credit that source initially?

And then….silence. Shhhh, don’t say anything. Hee-hee! You godda love the double standards.

What double standards? Man, you are brash. Kori probably genuinely doesn't know what the issue is, since she probably doesn't read the intellectual threads on which you've done the bulk of your plagiarizing. Summarizing what one has read in a source, as Dragonfly did, is not plagiarizing. Passing off someone else's writing as your own, is. I can imagine the screams of outrage from you if someone were to try to pass off one of your caricatures as his or her own. I think you'd quickly demonstrate that you understand the issue of its being wrong to take credit for someone else's work were it your own work which was cribbed. (The wrongness isn't mitigated by the fact that most of the stuff you crib is itself in error; though the presentations you choose to borrow from are generally badly done, borrowing someone else's work, wthether good or bad work, is intellectually dishonest.)

Ellen

___

[Victor Pross]

But the game of string-pulling and favoritism-- and your attempts to “groom” me are becoming irritating.

Victor,

You are right about favoritism. I have played favoritism in your favor for far too long. I am not trying to groom you. I tried to give you space to catch your breath from the attacks and learn.

Bottom line. It doesn't matter anymore. I want you to stop plagiarizing on my site.

Michael

Michael,

THIS post is not an example. Period. I am talking about the last chapter in OPAR, breaking down to the core what that chapter talks about--and you know that! And whatever my snotty attitude about this merely being a chat-room, I would never--ever--plagiarize when it comes to professionally published-for-profit works. And any works afixed with "By Victor Pross" means just that. It is not a conversation in a chewing ideas section. Having said this, I am not arguing against what you ask for.

-Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I would never--ever--plagiarize when it comes to professionally published-for-profit works. And any works afixed with "By Victor Pross" means just that.

Victor,

You do not get to rewrite the copyright law. Plagiary is not legally restricted to "for-profit" works.

You do not get to rewrite the moral distinction of producer and second-hander who rips off the producer.

And you do not get to set special conditions (signing your name) to designate when you decide not to plagiarize.

You don't have to like it but that's the way it is.

Michael

[Victor Pross]

THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE

THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR

[Brant Gaede]

Victor, you are wrong here. After reading you for a year, I think you are incorrigible. Live and let live, except I don't own this site. As something of a control freak, I couldn't have a place like this.

--Brant

[Victor Pross]

Victor, you are wrong here. After reading you for a year, I think you are incorrigible. Live and let live, except I don't own this site. As something of a control freak, I couldn't have a place like this.

--Brant

Brant,

Repeat: The name of this post is THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR---PERIOD! THIS says it all.

The source of the subject matter IS THE SUBJECT MATTER.

-V-

[Brant Gaede]

Victor, you are wrong here. After reading you for a year, I think you are incorrigible. Live and let live, except I don't own this site. As something of a control freak, I couldn't have a place like this.

--Brant

Brant,

Repeat: The name of this post is THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR---PERIOD! THIS says it all.

The source of the subject matter IS THE SUBJECT MATTER.

-V-

Why don't you apologize to Dragonfly then? I should have indicated that that was what I was particularly referring to.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

I'll make a better post tomorrow after I review this thread again.

--Brant

[Dragonfly]

:bug: Dragonfly: “It is now some 20 years ago I read the complete works by Flaubert, so my memory is a bit vague, but I recall that I found Madame Bovary one of his best works. One of the contributing factors….”

[The fly goes on the spew, and then in the next post, loveable Kori asked]:

Dragonfly, Where'd you get that information, uh? Born with innate knowledge, were we?

To which the reply was: From Souvenirs littéraires by Maxime du Camp.

Kori again follows up: Why not credit that source initially?

And then….silence. Shhhh, don’t say anything. Hee-hee! You godda love the double standards.

What double standards? Man, you are brash. Kori probably genuinely doesn't know what the issue is, since she probably doesn't read the intellectual threads on which you've done the bulk of your plagiarizing. Summarizing what one has read in a source, as Dragonfly did, is not plagiarizing.

Indeed, this comment was so moronically stupid that I didn't bother to answer it at first, as I thought the readers of OL would be intelligent enough to see that is was complete bullshit, but I'm afraid the latter is not true for all of them. I have never pretended to pass of texts of others as my own as Victor has done. How could I? It's obvious that I wasn't there when Flaubert wrote his books, so that I was relying on a contemporary source. You must really have few brain cells left in your skull if you think that this can be compared to plagiarism, which is the dishonest practice of pretending that the text you write is your own, while you literally copied it from another source, changing a few words here and there to mask the theft.