Believing vs thinking. Why greatness has been ignored. *UPDATED*

[MrBenjamatic]

I MADE TOO MANY MISTAKES IN MY ORIGINAL TO KEEP IT HERE. I HAVE POSTED MY UPDATE BELOW AND MY ORIGINAL BELOW IT.

I HAVE CORRECTED THIS IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

1. I WAS WRONG IS CREATING A DEFINITION OF BELIEVING WHICH UTTERLY CONTRADICTED ITS OTHER DEFINITIONS. I HAVE REPLACED BELIEVING WITH WHAT I FIRST HELD IT TO MEAN: NON-THINKING.

2. I MISCONSTRUED THINKING AND REASON TO BE THE SAME THING. REASON IS THE CAPACITY TO THINK (IDENTIFY & INTEGRATE SENSORY EVIDENCE). THINKING IS THE IDENTIFICATION AND INTEGRATION OF SENSORY EVIDENCE ITSELF. I HAVE CORRECTED MY IMPROPER USE OF THE WORDS THINKING AND REASON.

I'd be glad to! It will be easiest for me to use my architecture as an example first. But before I do so I'll stress how it would be impossible to do so by non-thinking and by refusing to know. Plato held that effects don't pressupose causes; that something can move without anything causing it to move. To accept this as true would be an act of faith as the law of causality is an absolute. Could the man who invented the first car have done so by taking on faith Plato's assertion that things can move without anything causing it to move. How, then, would the car move? Because you wish it? Faith is not evidence of reality as faith is that which you accept as true without proof of its validity. Many people have faith in god; I've concluded he doesn't exist because I have no sensory evidence that he exists. A wish is not evidence of reality. Could you invent something new by wishing it will exist? No. Will an invention work because you whimsically decide it will work? No, you have to know it will work. Knowledge, said Rand, is sensory evidence and reason based off sensory evidence. Sensory evidence is evidence of reality; your senses are valid. Have I been specific enough in stating how genius can't rest on an attempt to identify and integrate wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith?

Now I shall explain how all genius is based on sensory evidence and the capacity to and act of identifying & integrating sensory evidence. Reason is the faculty of identifying and integrating sensory evidence. Thinking is the act of identifying and integrating sensory evidence. Sensory evidence, indubitably, is evidence of reality. Your senses are valid. In order to build a bridge one has to know on what terrain one is going to build it. How can one know the metaphysical properties of the terrain if not by first sensing it with his five senses? He will then have to identify and integrate the sensory evidence in order to build the bridge. Ask yourself how long you would be able to remain in existence if you were born without your five senses. What if you were born without your faculty of sight, of touch, of hearing, of taste and of smell. Think about that then ask yourself how anyone can remain in existence bereft of consciousness-the faculty of percieving that which exists? Man is a being of volitional consciousness. Now ask yourself if you would be able to remain in existence by refusing to know sensory evidence, by evading consciousness. How could you read this right now if not by excersizing your faculty of sight (which is sensory evidence). Take, for instance, Gary Cola, the creator of Bainite Steel (7% stronger than steel!). Cola is a self-taught metallurgist who created a new metal, the strongest metal on the market. Do you think it would be possible for him to create that new metal by refusing the know sensory evidence? He would not have been able to create Bainite Steel had he evaded sensory evidence for the same reason you would not be able to remain in existence had you been born without your faculty of percieving sensory evidence. The creators principle (which I've created) is: "if something exists and you don't like it, create a solution. If something doesn't exist and it can exist and you think it ought to exist. Create it". Creation exists in reality. How can you percieve reality if not by virtue of your 5 senses, your faculty to percieve reality? How can you solve a problem in reality if you refuse to know sensory evidence? I think I've made clear that acting in accordance to sensory evidence is requisite to live and to create (and basically to do anything in accordance with reality). Now I shall discuss why genius is based on reason (the faculty that identifies and integrates sensory evidence) and thinking (the identification & integration of sensory evidence). Before discussing genius, I shall discuss thinking itself. Thinking is the non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory evidence by the standard of the laws of logic. Rand said, "the process of thinking . . . is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections". I have realized I've made a mistake as you can identify and integrate your emotions (as I have done that); I defined thinking as the identification and integration of sensory evidence. I think it would be more fitting to define it as the identification and integration of that which exists (as this covers emotion and sensory evidence). As for Rand using the words casual connectings in her description of thinking, can anyone tell me what she means by this? These mistakes have not changed my conclusion that the majority of people refuse to know greatness as they refuse to know sensory evidence and thinking based on sensory evidence which justifies great creations. I've made the point that the laws of logic must be held as absolutes in order to reach valid conclusions. Thinking and the laws of logic are corrolaries. Would any thinking person believe that a thing is not itself- an overtly evident axiom?- In my psycho-epistemological study I had many long philosophical discussions with those who thought the laws of logic were folly, they were not rational. How can one be rational and at the same time believe that a thing can be itself and not be itself at the same time- believe that something can be absolutely true and false at the same time? They can't. Rand said a lot about the laws of logic and I suggest, if you're interested, you go to the Ayn Rand Lexicon. As I've proved, sensory evidence is absolutely evidence of reality. Sensory evidence is automatic. You cannot choose not to see that which is front of you without gauging out your eyes as you cannot choose to stop your heart from beating without moving. A pursuit of thinking identifies and integrates that which is absolutely evidence of reality, of existence. Being a genius presupposes acting in accordance to reality and thereby thinking in accordance to evidence of existence- of reality. In order to live, you must think. In order to achieve greatness you must think.

You also asked for me to be specific as to what I meant when I said great. I hold a great man to be a genius. Greatness rests on the grounds of great virtue (thinking), great ability (reason), and great talent (creativity achieved by thinking because of reason, purpose and self-esteem). When I use the word great before virtue, talent and ability, I mean "an ample supply of". A genius is incredibly virtuous, able and talented, if that makes more sense. I misconstrued thinking to be the identification and integration of sensory evidence. I subconsciously made that mistake because, as a creator, identifying and integrating sensory evidence (not emotions or anything else) is what I know it takes to create great things; at least in my case. A great musician, Lionel Yu, composed songs which he claimed were based on his emotion. I hold that his great work was achieved by his acting on reason, purpose and self-esteem. I have no problem admitting that when I acted on emotion in my past my work was horrid to the degree I was acting on emotion. Lionel Yu may have acted on emotion for some songs but most of his songs are brilliant and were achieved by acting on reason, purpose and self esteem. The emotion of happiness, for me, is the reason I create, the reason I go through a ream of paper a month and have been since I was 5 BUT I DO NOT INTEGRATE MY EMOTIONS INTO MY WORK: a crucial point in understanding why greatness is evade. Keep in mind that, though happiness is the motivation of greats (even though they may not know it as I didn't until last year), creation is achieved by the identification and integration of sensory evidence.

Louis Sullivan, the creator of the sky scraper, is great. It took an incredible amount of virtue (thinking), talent (rational creativity: a mind divorced from reality is NOT creative) and ability (reason) to create the skyscraper for the first time. I don't know the exact number of commissions he recieved; he didn't recieve many. His greatness was evaded by non-thinkers, by man-haters, by mediocrities (they didn't want to believe a sky scraper could exist or should exist). That which I put in brackets in the last sentence may not be objective, correct me if you can. The man who first invented the automobile is great in his virtue, talent and ability. His greatness was evaded; a great many people said they'd rather stick to their horses. Not all greatness has been evaded of course, in the long run; as evidence I offer you Coco Chanel. Ayn Rand, a genius, was evaded much more than she deserved; what she said is true, is right and good and she shouldn't have been evaded at all. It is most clear with Ayn Rand, as she created a great, non-contradictory, logical philosophy, that she was evaded by those who REFUSE(D) TO KNOW RATHER THAN TO THINK. Believers evade, refuse to know and are terrified of the laws of logic; they intentionally ignored Rands philosophy as it held the laws of logic as abolsutes -it held reason an an objective absolute.

I may have made a mistake in this, though I find it probable that I didn't. An individuals view of man is introspective. That being said, I only create by identifying and integrating sensory evidence. One's emotions have nothing to do with laws of physics and certanlty nothing to do with My Benjamin. I know that non-thinkers attempt to integrate their wishes, whims, beliefs, that which they take on faith and their emotions (while refusing to identify them which is impossible; they pretend to have different emotions than they do and integrate that I think, none-the-less they integrate, in some way their emotions). I previously called this process believing; I admit I was wrong to. Their attempted integration of the above is bound to contradict sensory evidence as knowlege is hierarchal and so more contradictions sprout from the continuance and acceptance of contradictory premesis. The false can contradict the false. The false always contradicts the true. Those who hold and continue false premesis which contradict the truth of sensory evidence, refuse to know that specific sensory evidence (which contradicts their premises) upon reaching the contradiction. I realize that SOME genius rests on thinking which identifies emotion. Ayn Rand is an example of that. I will now, insted of using the concept of sensory evidence use the concept of truth so to be objective. BELOW I'VE STATED MY MOST UPDATED CLARIFICATION OF THE POINT OF THIS POST: WHY, THROUGHOUT HISTORY, HAS THE MAJORITY OF MANKIND REFUSED TO KNOW GENIUS' AND GREATNESS.

All greatness is based on truth. SOMETIMES (AND VERY VERY OFTEN) when a non-thinkers false premises contradict a truth in existence, they refuse to know that truth. They continue their contradiction as they want to believe or believe that contradictions exist. When the truth upon which any genius or great creation may rest contradicts a false premises held vigorously and continued feverishly by a non-thinker, they will refuse to know the truth which contradicts their premises, thereby they refuse to know the thinking based on that particular truth, thereby they refuse to know the genius which rests on the thinking which rests on the truth which contradicted their false premises. This, I hold, is why, throughout history, the majority of mankind have refused to know genius' and refused to know the existence of great creations.

If you still don't understand how greatness has been ignored I refer you to Howard Roarks speech. I did originally use the word 'evaded' and if I confused you I apologise. I will say again that Rand is the perfect example to use of a genius and to answer your question. I say when truth and thinking based on truth clash with and contradict a non-thinkers beliefs, they refuse to know that truth and all thinking based on it. Objectivism, which Rand created, is a GREAT philosphy based ABSOLUTELY on her thinking based on that which, to the extent of her knowlege is true and objective. The truth and thinking based on truth Rand used in creating objectivism clashed with and contradicted the beliefs of MANY people as I'm sure you've realized. Argue with an anti-objectivist. Do they refuse to know the truth on which your thinking is based? Do they refuse to know the truth and the thinking which Rand used to justify Objectivism? The means justify the end. Objectivism is justified by truth and thinking based on truth. Have I made sense this time?

GOD I LOVE THINKING!

My original post is below. I made many mistakes and I have corrected them. Incidentally thats one of the most profound reasons I'm on this site is to have my mistakes corrected as I want to and must be right. The reason I post it below is so readers will know what the first posts were referring to.

Thinking is the non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory evidence by the standard of the laws of logic. Sensory evidence IS evidence of reality. Believing is the attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith (accept as true without sensory evidence). There are many degrees between thinking and believing, however, it is RIGHT to absolutely think (and never believe). Neither emotions nor wishes nor whims nor faith are evidence of reality. When a believers beliefs contradict sensory evidence and truth, they struggle to evade sensory evidence and truth. Firstly, ask yourself how long you would be able to remain in existence if you were born without your 5 senses (sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste). Ask yourself whether those who evade sensory evidence wish to remain in existence or to escape it and die. As I mentioned earlier, when a believers beliefs clash with and contradict sensory evidence, they evade sensory evidence, they refuse to know it exists. Believers thereby evade and refuse to know all reason based on sensory evidence which clashes with and contradicts their beliefs. Greatness and genius is based on reason based on sensory evidence. Believers are thereby evasive of greatness when the reason it presupposed is based on sensory evidence which clashes with and contradicts their beliefs. A belief is the attempted identification and integration of emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith. Believing is done in the expediency of the moment. When sensory evidence clashes with a believers belief (go back 2 sentences to see what I said of beliefs) a believer refuses to know that sensory evidence. Greatness can only be justified by reason based on *sensory evidence*. When the sensory evidence, upon which the reason of a creator is based, clashes with and contradicts the beliefs of a believer, the believer will evade the sensory evidence thus evading the reason of the creator thus evading the greatness achieved by that reason.

Throughout the history of mankind, the majority of individuals around the globe have been, to whatever degree, believers. It is insane, stupid and evil to believe: to act on the premise that emotions, wishes, whims and faith are evidence of reality and that sensory evidence is not (evidence of reality) when it contradicts ones beliefs. I hold that it is sane, smart, and good to think, as all true objectivists agree; this is because sensory evidence IS evidence of reality, so the non-contradictory identification & integration of sensory evidence by the standard of the laws of logic (which are axioms) is to act in direct accordance with reality. You can't be an absolute thinker and a believer at the same time. That would be a contradiction. You either act on reason absolutely or you don't. Either you think or you don't. Look around you (and I'm not speaking of this website); most people don't absolutely think. Of course there are undoubtedly those who accept reason as an objective absolute, but most of the population compromises between thinking and believing. As George Bernard Shaw, an evil fabian socialist, so eloquently said, "Most people only think once or twice a year". That is INCREDIBLY true. Either you accept reason as an objective absolute or you don't. Thinking is good and believing is evil. As all middle-ground between good and evil is evil, all middle-ground between thinking and believing is believing. Shaw dubiously joked, "an asylum for the sane in America would be empty". Then came Ayn Rand.

New: Many have been misconstrued by my definition of believing as it contradicts previous definitons, which I think is impractical. It occured to me to hereby call NON-THINKING that which I called BELIEVING. Do you agree, brother?

CORRECTION: What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith,;and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition?

*P.S. my purpose in doing this is to clearly differentiate thinking and non-thinking by being as clear in my estimation of non-thinking as Rand was in her basic estimation of thinking (the identification & integration of sensory evidence). If you can think of any way to better achieve this purpose I'd very much like to hear it. The non-thinkers sell non-thinking as thinking and I want to make it difficult for them to argue that they think. My primary purpose is to make aware of non-thinking those who want to think so they can more clearly and consciously evade non-thinking.

[PDS]

Sorry, but because your grammar has been ignored, you haven't adequately described why greatness has been ignored.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

MrBenjamatic,

Have you read anything here on OL?

You seem to be preaching.

Michael

[caroljane]

"Incredibly true" is , well, undoubtedly doubtful.

[MrBenjamatic]

I haven't. Have I missed something, Michael? I was stating that which, to the extent of my knowledge, is true. I merely wanted to have a philosophical conversation. That's all. Has Rand said anything on this point? I haven't read all her works yet.

PDS: I did type this somewhat fast so I'll clarify it and edit the end. A belief is the attempted identification and integration of emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith. Believing is done in the expediency of the moment. When sensory evidence clashes with a believers belief (go back 2 sentences to see what I said of beliefs) a believer refuses to know the sensory evidence (that contradicted their beliefs). Greatness can only be justified by reason based on *sensory evidence*. When the sensory evidence, upon which the reason of a creator is based, clashes with and contradicts the beliefs of a believer, the believer will evade the sensory evidence thus evading the reason of the creator thus evading the greatness achieved by that reason. Does this make sense? The reason a believer evades sensory evidence (and reason and greatness which rest on that sensory evidence) is because a believer believes that his beliefs justify his existence. As I said it is insane, stupid and evil to believe; no existence can be justified by insanity, stupidity and evil. The believers are subconscious of this; they are subconscious of their evil insanity and refuse to know the sensory evidence and reason which proves it. They evade sensory evidence because if they didn't they would know that they're evil and insane. That terrifies them. That is why they're terrified of the laws of logic. Terror and fear go together; you can't have one without the other. If you ever converse with a believer and you, in conversation, hold the laws of logic as absolutes and prove that their premises contradict the laws of logic, you'll scare them and they'll get angry. Does this make sense?

[MrBenjamatic]

Daunce, to the extent of my knowledge, most, not all, people believe rather than think. You can't be an absolute thinker and a believer at the same time. That would be a contradiction. You either act on reason absolutely or you don't. Either you think or you don't. Look around you (and I'm not speaking of this website), most people don't absolutely think. Of course there are undoubtedly those who accept reason as an objective absolute, but most of the population compromise between thinking and believing. Does this make sense?

[caroljane]

Daunce, to the extent of my knowledge, most, not all, people believe rather than think. You can't be an absolute thinker and a believer at the same time. That would be a contradiction. You either act on reason absolutely or you don't. Either you think or you don't. Look around you (and I'm not speaking of this website), most people don't absolutely think. Of course there are undoubtedly those who accept reason as an objective absolute, but most of the population compromise between thinking and believing. Does this make sense?

No, not much sense frankly. I actually started a thread called Most People, loosely about the relationship between thinking and believing. Maybe you might check it out.

[basimpson22]

Hey Ben, be careful about making so many assertions.

[Reidy]

You mischaracterize what belief is. I believe that tomorrow is Wednesday and that I drive a Hyundai, but neither of these beliefs fits your description. You believe a lot, to judge from your postings to date, and I doubt that you came to any of these beliefs by the process you outline in #1.

[basimpson22]

And I'm still not sure why greatness has been ignored or how you would, in fact, define "greatness". You make this statement,"Greatness and genius is based on reason based on sensory evidence." Is it? Ok, tell us why.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Have I missed something, Michael?

MrBenjamatic,

A little bit.

I have to travel early tomorrow and I will only be back Thursday night.

Have fun until then.

Knowing the folks around here like I know them, you can expect to have some of your premises checked.

btw - I am satisfied you are not a troll attacking the forum (like we sometimes get), so welcome to OL.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

People constantly think. How rational they are is another matter.

--Brant

[syrakusos]

The wordplay is interesting. Mr.Benjamatic sets aside a special definition of "belief." That could be valid, but it is narrowing the definition to only the intransitive verb "to believe in" - (or so I believe). Reidy's beliefs about his car and the day of the week show the problem with the restricted definition. I do agree with Mr.Benjamatic that in the sense he specifies, "most people" hold untested (and untestable) beliefs, that they do have faith in claims that deny rational thought based on empirical evidence.

I also understand Brant's point that the brain is always active. We commonly accept that definition of "thinking." However, that may only be a "belief" in the restricted sense proposed here.

For one thing, I am not aware of a statistically valid survey of what other people report to be going on in their heads - and whether or not that actually qualifies as thinking. I know my own internal processes, and I infer from my self-experience what Brant says about his own. However, it is not established that "most people" have "a voice in their heads." That voice is how I define thinking - though I grant that one might think in spaces, music, or many other modes. I just have no experience with it. I do hear music, by memory, but I do not make up new music - and I do not compare and contrast musics.

In the sense offered in this topic, I could accept that I have musical "beliefs" but no musical "thoughts."

Again the definitions are not commonly accepted, but once we agree to them, they do open some new perceptions.

[Peter]

I looked for the quote where Ayn Rand discusses “reasonable, rational, beliefs” in contrast to religious beliefs but I could not find it. I remember her saying she believed that the far side of the moon was not made of green cheese even before we traveled there. Here is a blast from the past.

Peter

From: "Philip Coates" <philcoates@worldnet.att.net>

To: "owl" <objectivism@wetheliving.com>

Subject: OWL: Subject: Defending the Language

Date: Wed, 21 Aug 2002 13:48:14 -0700

Subject: Defending the Language

One of the biggest mistakes young academics (this would be true of older established and influential full professors as well) often make in philosophy, psychology, and elsewhere in the humanities is they fail to defend in their own minds the context, the richness, the multiple meanings, the derivation, and the conceptual effectiveness of the English language as it has developed into a more and more powerful and supple tool across the centuries.

They seem too easily persuaded that there are puzzles or problems or improper implications in the usage of words such as "he", "man", and "referent". They are persuaded by journal articles more than by a full exposure to how people on the street, historical writers, magazine articles use words. Since they have often gone directly from high school to college to grad school, they (some or many of them) have never acquired enough depth of reading to be resistant to the ideas that "man" only applies to one gender. Or that "referent" only refers to a physical thing. [Paul Bryant, 8/21, claims this usage is insisted on by both analytic and continental philosophers].

Those of us who did not pursue graduate study in linguistics but instead have read widely in Shakespeare and Browning, or Aristotle and Plato, or Gibbon and Herodotus, or Orwell and Strunk and White . . . or simply just read the New Yorker or the Atlantic Monthly. . . have a much clearer idea through actual practice (the gold standard here) of how, for example, "man" and "referent" are used.

In this post, I'd rather not defend (again) point-by-point the sense in which "man" is understood quite clearly by those who are widely read and have a thorough liberal education to refer to both genders and to the species as such. Nor do I want to go off on a tangent to hammer home the general knowledge fact that one usage in the English language of a 'referent' is 'that to which something refers' and the 'that' can be much more than a physical object.

There's a deeper and far more important point here.

When you fail to integrate and defend the language you grew up with and everyone around you grew up with...and instead try to substitute for what already works some new, invented terms (such as some gender neutral construct for 'man', or 'signification' for 'referent') you are causing crippling and sometimes irreversible harm to your own thinking processes . . . as well as those of everyone who adopts the new terminology or insists that it be used in academic discourse or to be published in a journal.

The new term does not have the richness of history or association.

It does not have the metaphors, the poetry, the immediate mental connection with things you learned in childhood or high school history or English literature or ancient myth or great essays by Mark Twain or E.B. White or George Orwell.

Even worse when you discard a well-worn term one of whose sub-meanings or senses of connotations already serves the exact purpose you want, you or others will always constantly have a disconnect, a mental struggle going on:

People will misuse both the old term (whose meaning you have tried to alter or restrict) and the new one. If philosophers create technical terms such as 'intension/extension' either to exactly indicate connotation / denotation' (or even a subtle shift or distinction involving these), they are creating a special jargon which is unnecessary if terms already exist in the language that do that work.

Maybe for elitist reasons the originators didn't want to use terms which every English junior high school teacher can understand and teach her class (connotation and denotation). But what they have accomplished is to muddy the waters. Every time someone reads it they may have to wrench themselves mentally away from, for example, the ordinary meaning of the word 'intention' [purpose or intent]...they will have to try to automatize a new technical jargon. And they will have to also hold in mind the (old-fashioned) terms connotation and denotation.

Also, there is a whole thousand year history of discussions of denotation and connotation or their root ideas in the English language or the Latin and other languages that preceded it and have fed into it from many sources. By switching terms, philosophers keep their discipline 'pure' in their journals. It can too easily be a false and Platonic purity. Integration with, for example, English literature and historical sources tends to be excluded in favor of another tradition...that of academic philosophy of much more recent vintage. The examples would tend to shift from historical and "public" ones widely known throughout the culture toward thought problems and technical formulations that only the priesthood can understand. [i'm not even mentioning the possibility that the new terms may be found to have their own ambiguities and imprecision’s, such as when philosophers attempt to substitute the fuzzier, made-up term 'signification' for the crystal clear, already commonly known term 'referent'.]

The claim is often made by academics in the humanities that, like scientists, they are in need of sharper tools and finer-grained instruments. The English language is sometimes ambiguous or imprecise. There is no good word for what they need to be discussing.

But as Rand and many others of us have pointed out incessantly and academics don't seem to want to accept, philosophy and the humanities deal primarily with facts of reality about man and his everyday interactions with the world.

This is material accessible to any intelligent layman.

It is not like subatomic physics or the biochemistry of viruses.

There are two reasons why (with _extremely_ rare exceptions) it is generally unnecessary and inappropriate to invent special, technical terms (whose full context and usage can only be understood after years of mastering a

specialized professional literature)..and a third point which is their consequence:

i) The facts of reality and everyday situations and introspections involved have been experienced by virtually every thoughtful human being; they are quite well-known; they have been discussed by gardeners, stockbrokers, librarians, court jesters, lawyers, and physicians for centuries;

ii) Since this (accessibility and commonality of experience) is true, language has _already evolved_ to discuss nearly all of these 'humanistic' issues quite precisely and accurately;

iii) Your responsibility as a graduate student is to become aware of this huge past cultural context -- to master that language and that historical-literary-psychological background. You do not have the epistemological right to discard it all, say "don't bother me I want to be a philosopher not a historian", and just start afresh. That would be irresponsible and unscholarly on your part.

The English language as it has evolved over the centuries . . . through absorbing concepts from other languages and through a certain amount of creation of new specialized terms . . . already has long provided tremendous power to a skilled writer and to a deep thinker. It's hard to be certain but based on the academic writers I have read, the journal articles I have had recommended to me, what seems to be true is that academic writers are seldom good writers. Academic prose is well-known for being clumsy and unskilled, long-winded and obscure or obtuse. It seldom displays a good command of the English language in a supple, nuanced, literary, sophisticated, cultured level.

What (sometimes) seems to happen is the following:

a) The academics who invented or want to change terms did not do a thorough enough study of the language that is already out there. Sometimes the historical figures or current grad students came into philosophy from having been good at or devoted to science or math rather than literary or arts or history types ... so they came in _already_ not very language-sophisticated or relatively less developed in that sphere.

b) There _already exists_ a very good word, or phrase (or a combination of words which taken together conveys the meaning needed) But they were just not aware of it, or it was too difficult to formulate so they chose the "creative" satisfaction of inventing new language...which is also much easier and more fun than the long search to find just the right word or "public" formulation.

c) The new specialized jargon the academics create is readily accepted by journal editors because it is 'fresh' and 'original'...or is well-defined and presented in a seminal journal article.

d) The new language, new distinctions, long series of learned commentaries and critiques add new layers of clarification or adumbration to the special terms which all become part of the sizable body of knowledge new graduate students will be tested on/required to master.

e) New graduate students are epistemologically and linguistically vulnerable. They grew up in a century where they often did not acquire a good education. One where they often did not learn Latin (roots of words and their structure), did not thoroughly enough learn the canon of dead white males (great writers who used language forcefully and well) and other 'cultural and civilizational' areas such as world civ and world history.

That would have been the proper preparation to become philosophers. The grounding needed before one enters graduate school. Without it, they are susceptible to absorbing uncritically what their professors tell them is true about language and how it needs to be changed.

Here's the bottom line:

Language and words are the tools we use to think with.

The English language, rooted in other simpler and feeder languages, was developed over an enormously long period of time by tens of thousands of minds working in the planet-wide and millennia-deep laboratory of experience.

It needs to be treated with tremendous respect and mastered over decades. It is a very, very, very good tool, just as it exists right now and in common usage. While not unflawed, it is the most powerful thinking tool in the universe (more words and concepts than any other language...absorbs terms from other languages to identify previously unnamed concepts or existents...developing into a world language used by many civilizations and specializations).

To change the language we have grown up with and used to clearly specify issues, situations, and subtleties is an _incredibly_ serious matter. And it seems to be done too cavalierly too often by unscholarly or too pedantic or too disrespectful academics.

Words represent concepts. To change words is often to change our very conceptual understanding of reality.

It can affect our very ability to think.

A good, diligent graduate student does not merely absorb uncritically the terminology and definitions of his professors, no matter how prestigious or brilliant.

He may have to use them in papers to get a degree. But he always does keeps a separate mental notebook in which he asks and answers questions such as:

Was this new term or distinction or series of journal articles parsing the term necessary? Does it add further clarity or further confusion? Does normal language already cover this issue and therefore should we throw out the whole discussion? Is the debate (over for example the morning star/evening star issue) a semantic and linguistic one or a substantive one?

It's really important that, no matter how busy you are, you do all this extra work. (I certainly had to in college and graduate level courses in philosophy and I can't imagine someone not doing this and retaining mental clarity.) I'm not sure from postings, conversations, and writings I've seen over the years from, for example, Oist grad students in philosophy that, for all their claims to scholarship, they have always been as diligent as is necessary for cognitive self-defense.

Or critical enough of their own professors or their own mental/linguistic processes.

--Philip Coates

[MrBenjamatic]

And I'm still not sure why greatness has been ignored or how you would, in fact, define "greatness". You make this statement,"Greatness and genius is based on reason based on sensory evidence." Is it? Ok, tell us why.

I HAVE CORRECTED THIS IN THE FOLLOWING WAYS:

1. I WAS WRONG IS CREATING A DEFINITION OF BELIEVING WHICH UTTERLY CONTRADICTED ITS OTHER DEFINITIONS. I HAVE REPLACED BELIEVING WITH WHAT I FIRST HELD IT TO MEAN: NON-THINKING.

2. I MISCONSTRUED THINKING AND REASON TO BE THE SAME THING. REASON IS THE CAPACITY TO THINK (IDENTIFY & INTEGRATE SENSORY EVIDENCE). THINKING IS THE IDENTIFICATION AND INTEGRATION OF SENSORY EVIDENCE ITSELF. I HAVE CORRECTED MY IMPROPER USE OF THE WORDS THINKING AND REASON.

I'd be glad to! It will be easiest for me to use my architecture as an example first. But before I do so I'll stress how it would be impossible to do so by non-thinking and by refusing to know. Plato held that effects don't pressupose causes; that something can move without anything causing it to move. To accept this as true would be an act of faith as the law of causality is an absolute. Could the man who invented the first car have done so by taking on faith Plato's assertion that things can move without anything causing it to move. How, then, would the car move? Because you wish it? Faith is not evidence of reality as faith is that which you accept as true without proof of its validity. Many people have faith in god; I've concluded he doesn't exist because I have no sensory evidence that he exists. A wish is not evidence of reality. Could you invent something new by wishing it will exist? No. Will an invention work because you whimsically decide it will work? No, you have to know it will work. Knowledge, said Rand, is sensory evidence and reason based off sensory evidence. Sensory evidence is evidence of reality; your senses are valid. Have I been specific enough in stating how genius can't rest on an attempt to identify and integrate wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith?

Now I shall explain how all genius is based on sensory evidence and the capacity to and act of identifying & integrating sensory evidence. Reason is the faculty of identifying and integrating sensory evidence. Thinking is the act of identifying and integrating sensory evidence. Sensory evidence, indubitably, is evidence of reality. Your senses are valid. In order to build a bridge one has to know on what terrain one is going to build it. How can one know the metaphysical properties of the terrain if not by first sensing it with his five senses? He will then have to identify and integrate the sensory evidence in order to build the bridge. Ask yourself how long you would be able to remain in existence if you were born without your five senses. What if you were born without your faculty of sight, of touch, of hearing, of taste and of smell. Think about that then ask yourself how anyone can remain in existence bereft of consciousness-the faculty of percieving that which exists? Man is a being of volitional consciousness. Now ask yourself if you would be able to remain in existence by refusing to know sensory evidence, by evading consciousness. How could you read this right now if not by excersizing your faculty of sight (which is sensory evidence). Take, for instance, Gary Cola, the creator of Bainite Steel (7% stronger than steel!). Cola is a self-taught metallurgist who created a new metal, the strongest metal on the market. Do you think it would be possible for him to create that new metal by refusing the know sensory evidence? He would not have been able to create Bainite Steel had he evaded sensory evidence for the same reason you would not be able to remain in existence had you been born without your faculty of percieving sensory evidence. The creators principle (which I've created) is: "if something exists and you don't like it, create a solution. If something doesn't exist and it can exist and you think it ought to exist. Create it". Creation exists in reality. How can you percieve reality if not by virtue of your 5 senses, your faculty to percieve reality? How can you solve a problem in reality if you refuse to know sensory evidence? I think I've made clear that acting in accordance to sensory evidence is requisite to live and to create (and basically to do anything in accordance with reality). Now I shall discuss why genius is based on reason (the faculty that identifies and integrates sensory evidence) and thinking (the identification & integration of sensory evidence). Before discussing genius, I shall discuss thinking itself. Thinking is the non-contradictory identification and integration of sensory evidence by the standard of the laws of logic. Rand said, "the process of thinking . . . is the process of defining identity and discovering causal connections". I have realized I've made a mistake as you can identify and integrate your emotions (as I have done that); I defined thinking as the identification and integration of sensory evidence. I think it would be more fitting to define it as the identification and integration of that which exists (as this covers emotion and sensory evidence). As for Rand using the words casual connectings in her description of thinking, can anyone tell me what she means by this? These mistakes have not changed my conclusion that the majority of people refuse to know greatness as they refuse to know sensory evidence and thinking based on sensory evidence which justifies great creations. I've made the point that the laws of logic must be held as absolutes in order to reach valid conclusions. Thinking and the laws of logic are corrolaries. Would any thinking person believe that a thing is not itself- an overtly evident axiom?- In my psycho-epistemological study I had many long philosophical discussions with those who thought the laws of logic were folly, they were not rational. How can one be rational and at the same time believe that a thing can be itself and not be itself at the same time- believe that something can be absolutely true and false at the same time? They can't. Rand said a lot about the laws of logic and I suggest, if you're interested, you go to the Ayn Rand Lexicon. As I've proved, sensory evidence is absolutely evidence of reality. Sensory evidence is automatic. You cannot choose not to see that which is front of you without gauging out your eyes as you cannot choose to stop your heart from beating without moving. A pursuit of thinking identifies and integrates that which is absolutely evidence of reality, of existence. Being a genius presupposes acting in accordance to reality and thereby thinking in accordance to evidence of existence- of reality. In order to live, you must think. In order to achieve greatness you must think.

You also asked for me to be specific as to what I meant when I said great. I hold a great man to be a genius. Greatness rests on the grounds of great virtue (thinking), great ability (reason), and great talent (creativity achieved by thinking because of reason, purpose and self-esteem). When I use the word great before virtue, talent and ability, I mean "an ample supply of". A genius is incredibly virtuous, able and talented, if that makes more sense. I misconstrued thinking to be the identification and integration of sensory evidence. I subconsciously made that mistake because, as a creator, identifying and integrating sensory evidence (not emotions or anything else) is what I know it takes to create great things; at least in my case. A great musician, Lionel Yu, composed songs which he claimed were based on his emotion. I hold that his great work was achieved by his acting on reason, purpose and self-esteem. I have no problem admitting that when I acted on emotion in my past my work was horrid to the degree I was acting on emotion. Lionel Yu may have acted on emotion for some songs but most of his songs are brilliant and were achieved by acting on reason, purpose and self esteem. The emotion of happiness, for me, is the reason I create, the reason I go through a ream of paper a month and have been since I was 5 BUT I DO NOT INTEGRATE MY EMOTIONS INTO MY WORK: a crucial point in understanding why greatness is evade. Keep in mind that, though happiness is the motivation of greats (even though they may not know it as I didn't until last year), creation is achieved by the identification and integration of sensory evidence.

Louis Sullivan, the creator of the sky scraper, is great. It took an incredible amount of virtue (thinking), talent (rational creativity: a mind divorced from reality is NOT creative) and ability (reason) to create the skyscraper for the first time. I don't know the exact number of commissions he recieved; he didn't recieve many. His greatness was evaded by non-thinkers, by man-haters, by mediocrities (they didn't want to believe a sky scraper could exist or should exist). That which I put in brackets in the last sentence may not be objective, correct me if you can. The man who first invented the automobile is great in his virtue, talent and ability. His greatness was evaded; a great many people said they'd rather stick to their horses. Not all greatness has been evaded of course, in the long run; as evidence I offer you Coco Chanel. Ayn Rand, a genius, was evaded much more than she deserved; what she said is true, is right and good and she shouldn't have been evaded at all. It is most clear with Ayn Rand, as she created a great, non-contradictory, logical philosophy, that she was evaded by those who REFUSE(D) TO KNOW RATHER THAN TO THINK. Believers evade, refuse to know and are terrified of the laws of logic; they intentionally ignored Rands philosophy as it held the laws of logic as abolsutes -it held reason an an objective absolute.

I may have made a mistake in this, though I find it probable that I didn't. An individuals view of man is introspective. That being said, I only create by identifying and integrating sensory evidence. One's emotions have nothing to do with laws of physics and certanlty nothing to do with My Benjamin. I know that non-thinkers attempt to integrate their wishes, whims, beliefs, that which they take on faith and their emotions (while refusing to identify them which is impossible; they pretend to have different emotions than they do and integrate that I think, none-the-less they integrate, in some way their emotions). I previously called this process believing; I admit I was wrong to. Their attempted integration of the above is bound to contradict sensory evidence as knowlege is hierarchal and so more contradictions sprout from the continuance and acceptance of contradictory premesis. The false can contradict the false. The false always contradicts the true. Those who hold and continue false premesis which contradict the truth of sensory evidence, refuse to know that specific sensory evidence (which contradicts their premises) upon reaching the contradiction. I realize that SOME genius rests on thinking which identifies emotion. Ayn Rand is an example of that. I will now, insted of using the concept of sensory evidence use the concept of truth so to be objective. BELOW I'VE STATED MY MOST UPDATED CLARIFICATION OF THE POINT OF THIS POST: WHY, THROUGHOUT HISTORY, HAS THE MAJORITY OF MANKIND REFUSED TO KNOW GENIUS' AND GREATNESS.

All greatness is based on truth. SOMETIMES (AND VERY VERY OFTEN) when a non-thinkers false premises contradict a truth in existence, they evade that truth. When the truth upon which any genius or great creation may rest contradicts a false premises held vigorously and continued feverishly by a non-thinker, they will refuse to know the truth which contradicts their premises, thereby they refuse to know the thinking based on that particular truth, thereby they refuse to know the genius which rests on the thinking which rests on the truth which contradicted their false premises. This, I hold, is why, throughout history, the majority of mankind have refused to know genius' and refused to know the existence of great creations.

If you still don't understand how greatness has been ignored I refer you to Howard Roarks speech. I did originally use the word 'evaded' and if I confused you I apologise. I will say again that Rand is the perfect example to use of a genius and to answer your question. I say when truth and thinking based on truth clash with and contradict a non-thinkers beliefs, they refuse to know that truth and all thinking based on it. Objectivism, which Rand created, is a GREAT philosphy based ABSOLUTELY on her thinking based on that which, to the extent of her knowlege is true and objective. The truth and thinking based on truth Rand used in creating objectivism clashed with and contradicted the beliefs of MANY people as I'm sure you've realized. Argue with an anti-objectivist. Do they refuse to know the truth on which your thinking is based? Do they refuse to know the truth and the thinking which Rand used to justify Objectivism? The means justify the end. Objectivism is justified by truth and thinking based on truth. Have I made sense this time?

GOD I LOVE THINKING!

[MrBenjamatic]

You mischaracterize what belief is. I believe that tomorrow is Wednesday and that I drive a Hyundai, but neither of these beliefs fits your description. You believe a lot, to judge from your postings to date, and I doubt that you came to any of these beliefs by the process you outline in #1.

Reidy, as I mentioned to Aristocrates, I created a new definition of believing for the purpose of differentiating thinking and non-thinking. I created this definition for the same reason Ayn Rand created the following definition for sacrifice which hadn't existed before: the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. Sacrifice was always preached as a noble deed and Rand wanted to differentiate the difference between giving up lesser values or non-values for the sake of greater vales and giving up greater values for the sake of lesser values or non-values. Most people today hold that thinking and believing are interchangable words. I have created a new definition of believing to make clear that there is a difference between identifying and integrating emotions, wishes, whims and faith and identifying and integrating sensory evidence (by the standard of the laws of logic). According to my definition of belief, you did not believe that today would be Wednesday, you knew it (knowledge is sensory evidence and reason based on sensory evidence). By my definition of believing, yes, I used to be somewhat of a believer but upon discovering Objectivism I gradually replaced all my believing with thinking. Now, according to my definition of believing, I believe nothing (I'm not whimsical, I don't act on emotions, I don't take anything on faith and I know wishing won't make it so). I have been more clear in my argument in my reply to Aristocrates. Have I been clear?

[MrBenjamatic]

Have I missed something, Michael?

MrBenjamatic,

A little bit.

I have to travel early tomorrow and I will only be back Thursday night.

Have fun until then.

Knowing the folks around here like I know them, you can expect to have some of your premises checked.

btw - I am satisfied you are not a troll attacking the forum (like we sometimes get), so welcome to OL.

Michael

Michael, I very much look forward to having my premeses checked. I love it! I know I have to be right to gain and keep my vales and it is in me self interest to be corrected if I'm wrong. Unlike most I want to be corrected if I'm wrong as I love to be right because I love to gain and keep My Benjamin. If you didn't read the end of my architectural post, and if you're interested, my architecture is illegal by modern architectural laws and I'm bringing suit to the altruist architectural collective: what I've named the "professional collective" violating my right to use and dispose of, offer to trade and give away that which is mine and no one else's (my architecture) with no one else's permission: the AIA, AIAS, NCARB, ACSA, NAAB. Frank Lloyd Wright despised the AIA even before they illegalized greatness and now that they have I'm bringing suit. I've quoted, at the end of that post, my explanation of rights (which hasnt existed before) from my book which will contain my case and the practical political implementation of Objectivist politics (lassiez fair Capitalism) and a rational solution to socialism: court cases with my irrefutable justification of rights which is based directly off the laws of logic. Below, if you're interested, Ive included that which will be the cover of my book (I've found self publishing companies willing to allow it as is). My point of joining this website, aside from offering my work, is to correct any errors my case my hold; I must be absolutely right in court and offer only absolutely true and overtly irrefutable arguments.

The latest cover of my book of my case: The Benjamin Suit: The Diary, Testimony and Summation of a Fountainhead. Top left: Life, Liberty, Property and the Pursuit of happiness. The Benjamin Suit: The Diary, Testimony & Summation of a Fountainhead - Philip Benjamin Hart. Middle quote: "All the forces in the world are not so powerful as an idea whose time has come" - Victor Hugo. Top Right: The ...

Laws of Logic: A is A, Non-Contradiction, Either-or. Bottom: In Reason I Trust (will be changed to: By Reason I Think, On Reason I Act). Don't Tread On ME (Under the Liberty Snake). On Goddess Liberty's hand (sitting) is the sign of the dollar: the US monogram (a U overlapping an S).I've found publishers who will publish this cover as is, I refused to settle for another cover, this is perfect. I'm sure, haha, I'll be sued by a gaggle of misanthropes in which case I have a logical irrefutable case against them.

[anthony]

'Sacrifice' is meaningless if it's not giving up a higher value for a lesser.

Lesser value for a higher, is called 'profit.'

Don't you agree?

My old C.O.D. defines it in part as "Loss thus entailed.."

As usual with Rand, her definitions are the classical ones, I believe.

(I use 'believe' not as having faith in, but as in: "I conclude (for now) after

much observation and thought.")

Welcome, Mr Ben. You should know you're making me dizzy...!

[syrakusos]

Reidy, as I mentioned to Aristocrates, I created a new definition of believing for the purpose of differentiating thinking and non-thinking. I created this definition for the same reason Ayn Rand created the following definition for sacrifice which hadn't existed before: the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value.

I do not claim new definitions, but I do differentiate between ethics and morality. I understand that we study "morality" when we take "Philo 304: Ethics." I get that. In common parlance, as with sacrifice, altruism, capitalism, reason, we use the words carelessly.

I assert that "ethics" refers to specific codes of socially-appropriate conduct. "Morality" is the standard by which we establish ethics. Thus, professional societies publish their codes of ethics, but not codes of morality.

Therefore, I accept your offering of "belief" versus "thinking" apart from their vernacular uses as valid. Just be aware that not everyone will understand your point intuitively. You will have to explain yourself -- and accept that Peter Reidy believes that he owns a Honda, which in fact, he does.

[MrBenjamatic]

'Sacrifice' is meaningless if it's not giving up a higher value for a lesser.

Lesser value for a higher, is called 'profit.'

Don't you agree?

My old C.O.D. defines it in part as "Loss thus entailed.."

As usual with Rand, her definitions are the classical ones, I believe.

(I use 'believe' not as having faith in, but as in: "I conclude (for now) after

much observation and thought.")

Welcome, Mr Ben. You should know you're making me dizzy...!

Yes, sacrifice can only be the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value. If you've ever read history, you'll know that the founding fathers giving up of their comfort and money (lesser values than liberty) given up for the sake of liberty is constantly referred to as a sacrifice. Rand wanted to make clear that sacrifice never results in true profit and is evil.

Don't you think the word think would better (more clearly) describe rational thought than believe. Believe, nowadays, is used to mean both thinking and non-thinking (faith, wishing, whimsically deciding, emotions). The word thinking means only thinking (not faith, wishing, whimsically deciding, emotions). It would, I think, make it clear that your conclusion was reached rationally by means of reason if you replaced the word believe with think. Do you see where I'm coming from and why I want to differentiate the two?

Have you seen my linguistic correction to my post? What do you think?

Always a pleasure to offer reason for reason, brother

Carpe Diem, Carpe Noctum, brother,

PBH

[MrBenjamatic]

Reidy, as I mentioned to Aristocrates, I created a new definition of believing for the purpose of differentiating thinking and non-thinking. I created this definition for the same reason Ayn Rand created the following definition for sacrifice which hadn't existed before: the giving up of a greater value for the sake of a lesser value or a non-value.

I do not claim new definitions, but I do differentiate between ethics and morality. I understand that we study "morality" when we take "Philo 304: Ethics." I get that. In common parlance, as with sacrifice, altruism, capitalism, reason, we use the words carelessly.

I assert that "ethics" refers to specific codes of socially-appropriate conduct. "Morality" is the standard by which we establish ethics. Thus, professional societies publish their codes of ethics, but not codes of morality.

Therefore, I accept your offering of "belief" versus "thinking" apart from their vernacular uses as valid. Just be aware that not everyone will understand your point intuitively. You will have to explain yourself -- and accept that Peter Reidy believes that he owns a Honda, which in fact, he does.

He does believe he owns a car by one of the definitions of believing. One of the purposes of my coming to this site is to be corrected so to be right, as I must be in order to gain and keep my values. It just occured to me that it would be much more practical and clear to call non-thinking that which I've called believing. Do you agree?

[Reidy]

Rand did not rewrite the definition of "sacrifice." I knew the word before I ever heard of her, and that's what it meant. At most she disambiguated two senses, the one she mentions and the looser "incur an expense." We already have a clear and useful expression for what you're talking about - believe on faith - and we don't need another, potentially confusing one.

If "believe" is the wrong word to use in "I believe I'll have another helping," what's the right one?

[MrBenjamatic]

You mischaracterize what belief is. I believe that tomorrow is Wednesday and that I drive a Hyundai, but neither of these beliefs fits your description. You believe a lot, to judge from your postings to date, and I doubt that you came to any of these beliefs by the process you outline in #1.

You're right, brother. My definition contradicts the previous definition of believing, which is impractical. What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith; and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? What do you think?

[Brant Gaede]

You mischaracterize what belief is. I believe that tomorrow is Wednesday and that I drive a Hyundai, but neither of these beliefs fits your description. You believe a lot, to judge from your postings to date, and I doubt that you came to any of these beliefs by the process you outline in #1.

You're right, brother. My definition contradicts the previous definition of believing, which is impractical. What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith; and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? What do you think?

Being rational or thinking or using your mind creatively are all different things with some overlapping. You have to be very careful in throwing morality into cognitive processes so they aren't unnecessarily screwed up. Take responsibility for how you use your brain and what's right and proper will tend to follow naturally moral moral sensibilities.

--Brant

[MrBenjamatic]

You mischaracterize what belief is. I believe that tomorrow is Wednesday and that I drive a Hyundai, but neither of these beliefs fits your description. You believe a lot, to judge from your postings to date, and I doubt that you came to any of these beliefs by the process you outline in #1.

You're right, brother. My definition contradicts the previous definition of believing, which is impractical. What if, I call non-thinking the evasion to exersize the mind and/or any attempt to identify and integrate emotions, wishes, whims and that which one takes on faith; and as an estimation of non-thinking rather than a definition? Do you agree with my new estimation? Do you agree with it being an estimation rather than a definition? What do you think?

Being rational or thinking or using your mind creatively are all different things with some overlapping. You have to be very careful in throwing morality into cognitive processes so they aren't unnecessarily screwed up. Take responsibility for how you use your brain and what's right and proper will tend to follow naturally moral moral sensibilities.

--Brant

To the extent of my knowlege, all thinking is an act of reason. I hold that reason and thinking are the same thing as they both are the identification and integration of sensory evidence. Am I wrong?