The limitations of reason?

[audiognostic]

oh boy isnt this a lively discussion

[audiognostic]

check out this video

[anthony]

oh boy isnt this a lively discussion

Yes - it is. That's the reason, here, why I've stayed with the discussion so

far despite your anti-rationality: You are entertaining.

Y'know, audiognostic, that you are returning more often to this left-brain,

right-brain, thing. It is one more duality/disintegration you are inserting. It's a sort

of self-fulfilling prophecy, one should be wary of.

The fact is that it is apparently not as accurate as neuroscientists first thought

- I've read somwhere lately that there is actually much more cross-over between the

brain hemispheres.

Either way, so what? To be completely efficacious, a person extends his total consciousness

all the time.

I believe your evidence is getting thin, and your pet theories running out of steam.

You have painted yourself into a corner by attempting to make an irrational case,

by way of rationality. Matt has pointed this out.

This was Rand's "Fallacy of the Stolen Concept".

[audiognostic]

despite your anti-rationality

my arguments for irrationalist type thinking being valid.. does not mean that I am anti rational.. or that any of my arguments were irrational

whether its actually physically left or right makes no difference to me..

lets identify it as "one style of thinking vs another" both of which are proven to exist.. at least as far as im aware.. seems to me like one of the basic tenets of psychology.. but if not.. please show me evidence

honestly i dont see where i made any logical fallacies.. anywhere within this post.. anywhere

please show me..

Show me how my evidence that reason and logic cant explain everything and has limitations is getting thin...

perhaps use it to explain how comedians make people laugh..

make me a rational theorem behind "timing" and "feel"

is this good for their lives?? did "timing and feel" come to rescue them as children?

please explain to me through reason what is a "funky beat".. and why one sounds "just right" or why one sounds "off"

did the just right beat come to save me as a child??

or is it in my genes? if so.. show me the evidnece for the "just right beat gene"

it seems to me like YOURE the one painting yourself into a corner.. as I have totally refuted everything you guys have said so far..

Now you can simply laugh and say "hahaha no you havent".. with no evidence.. or proceed to try to refute any evidence/examples I have made without taking them out of context

I am not sure where Matt has pointed anything out which I have not directly refuted

Even when I posted things which refute "existence exists" which was your whole argument you were trying to get into me with.. you simply failed to respond to my post.. then posted some non sequiter statement that

"oh youre losing now!"

this reminds me of this

[anthony]

Ahh, man. I've gone and broken my only rule: Avoid debating a subjectivist.

It's like bringing a bazooka to a pillow fight. Or swatting at the fog.

[audiognostic]

this is hilarious..

[anthony]

I am not sure where Matt has pointed anything out which I have not directly refuted

Even when I posted things which refute "existence exists" which was your whole argument you were trying to get into me with.. you simply failed to respond to my post.. then posted some non sequiter statement that

You refuted "existence exists"? Really, I must have missed it.

I get it now - you want your contention of primacy of consciousness to be taken

seriously...

Is it your conviction then that matter emerged from consciousness?

Whose 'Consciousness'? God's, I assume.

Are you a Creationist/Deist/theist? Does that mean one's consciousness is one's

immortal soul?

Fair enough, then at least you are being consistent.

The only alternative, is the belief that existence comes about by YOUR consciousness,

which is solipsism I guess.

Which one is it?

[Matt Faherty]

I appreciate that you tried to answer my question, but there is really too much here to repond to. You have seriously jumbled up a huge pile of concepts accross multiple philosophical categories to the point where your whole thought process is a big mess. I recommend going back to the basics of metaphysics and reason to work your way up.

One issue I can pin point is this bizzare "left brain/right brain dichtomy." There is no dichotomy between reason and creativity or however else you are phrasing it. Abstract conceptual connections are not arbitrary or emotion based (or at least they shouldn't be so). And furthermore, just because you "feel" something to be true, that doesn't mean you are acting irrationally or without reason. The fact that you "feel" red to be your favorite color means that you are rationally determining your innate preference. You don't have to be able to write out a detailed explanation about wavelenghts and color theory to make such a preference "rational."

[audiognostic]

There is no dichotomy between reason and creativity or however else you are phrasing it.Abstract conceptual connections are not arbitrary or emotion based (or at least they shouldn't be so).

they shouldnt be so.. because.. Ayn Rand said so.. and she is god... I get it now.. I should just start writing music her way.. then i can be "moral"

And furthermore, just because you "feel" something to be true, that doesn't mean you are acting irrationally or without reason. The fact that you "feel" red to be your favorite color means that you are rationally determining your innate preference.

No it doesnt.. what it means is that the emotional decision PRECEDES rationality

You refuted "existence exists"? Really, I must have missed it.

You must be wearing your grandmothers glasses so you cant see straight

I recommend going back to the basics of metaphysics and reason to work your way up.

Why would i work my way up using Ayn Rands framework when I have just explained to you why I dont believe in her framework..

You have seriously jumbled up a huge pile of concepts accross multiple philosophical categories to the point where your whole thought process is a big mess.

I really love statements like this because they try to make one look as if he has lost an argument without offering any evidence...

you have seriously failed to provide any legitimate evidence to your posts or failed to refute any of mine where I have refuted all of yours ... all you have done is called me "a big mess" .. which is a nice statement.. but you really need some evidnece for it in order to be able to back it up.. right now it makes about as much sense as "existence exists"

apparently the easiest way to win an argument in these boards is to call the other person rediculous and say they make no sense without offering any legitimate logical refutation..

In that case i should have done that in my first response post and have ended it right there

One issue I can pin point is this bizzare "left brain/right brain dichtomy." There is no dichotomy between reason and creativity or however else you are phrasing it.

This is a statement of pure retardeness.. ok this so called "bizzare dichotomy" is a psychological concept which i by the way didnt arbitrarily create.. and I have also pointed out how some people are very good at being athletic/creative and are very bad at math and logical reasoning type things.. and some people are the way around.. so apparently there is a dichotomy.. at least according to psychology.. but im not sure if there is one in Rands psychology.. a woman who knew nothing of psychology,, I guess to her mathematicians make the best artists and comedians and vice versa.. since there is no dichotomy

Whats funny is I have directly addressed every single point you guys made.. and you have failed to directly refute any of mine except for saying nonsense non sequiter statements, taking things out of context, ignoring my refutations and continuing as if they dont exist etc.. I am feeling like I am arguing with closed mind internet trolls who belong to the Rand cult.. and will stop believing the world exists if they found out that Rand thought so.. In which case.. this is all pointless\\

Rand was OBVioUSLY NEVER wrong about ANYTHING because she was GOD.. and understood everything about everybody, their psychology, human drives, the laws of nature, etc.. all objectively.. a truly superhuman genius of godlike proportions.. all forms of thought are pure nonsense and invalid if they do not work their way up through Rands framework of human psychology

What it seems to me you are criticizing me on is that im not arguing based of Ayn Rands framework.. and instead I am arguing based of evidence seen in reality..

You have a "primacy of Ayn Rands framework" over a "primacy of reality"

make you not objective at all.. but rather more like a dogmatic worshipper

[audiognostic]

let me quote this regarding Ayn Rand and emotion

"From a naturalist point of view, it is difficult to escape the view that man is a product of an evolutionary process, and that this process plays an important part in the development of man's character. Since a species, if it is to survive, must both reproduce and care for its offspring, it is likely that the process of evolution will favor those individuals who have a strong predisposition to reproduce and bestow care upon their progeny. Hence the near universality of both sexual desire and jealousy.

In comparing Rand's view of human nature with what we find in the study of actual human beings, the astute observer can hardly fail to notice the degree to which Rand has stripped away everything she found annoying in man. In distinguishing all those elements that separated man from the animals, Rand, in effect, implicitly suggests that man is not essentially an animal. His animalistic characteristics are mere accidents. Man's essence is his "reason" and his volition. These elements supercede the natural or animalistic characteristics. Man has no "instincts" or innate predispositions, only such acquired dispositions as he imbibes from the people around him or his own thinking. Although it is unlikely that Rand would have ever (à la William Jennings Bryan) explicitly denied that man was a mammal, her philosophy, at times, seems to blissfully evade this palpable fact. Indeed, in some ways, this evasion is worse than an outright denial. Bryan, because of his belief in the myth of original sin, could at least be brought to recognize those actual characteristics which human beings share with animals. Rand, on the other hand, saw such characteristics (provided they were not merely physical) as defects acquired through evasion and lack of focus, rather than intregal aspects of a functioning animal."

Emotions can be entirely "rational," as long as the value premises behind the emotions are "rational." Of course, it would be the most dreadful heresy to suggest that Rand herself ever experienced an irrational emotion. In all of this, what is conspicuously missing is any sense of emotions as cues or incentives for behaviornecessary for the propagation of the species; that, in other words, emotions exist, not to help create Rand's ideal men or provide incentives for enlightened self-interest, but to assist naturalistic goals which, in their absence, would lead to the extinction of the species. On naturalistic premises, the existence of the human species is not, nor could it ever be, the product of a rational decision, since prior to the existence of human beings, no rational thought existed. Therefore, if one wishes to be a naturalist (and this appears to be the case with Rand and her followers), one must accept those facts which are logically connected to the naturalist view.

Regarding emotions as mere value premises, either accepted by default or chosen by a focused mind, renders it impossible to understand the natural and biological function of emotions within the human organism. Emotions are somatic markers or cues for predipositions and cognitive evalutions which promote the maintenance and continuance of the species. In their absence, we would no longer exist. While Rand might have been able to recognize the importance for emotions to survival, her inability to fully appreciate the mammalian side of human nature rendered her incapable of understanding the role of emotions in furthering the reproduction of the species.

[audiognostic]

please go ahead and make another post totally disregarding everything I said and say "you have shown nothing!"

ok ok.. and the gingerbread man is real too

hold on hold on.. im predicting the next statement : "this is funny .. your thoughts are quite a mess.. you still havent shown how emotions precede logic or how there is any limitations to reason.. your thoughts are a jumbled mess.. and totally irrational..you really need to read your way through Rads epistimology then metaphysics first.. then you will be able to argue anything and your thoughts will make sense (since only Randian thoughts make sense)"

seems to me like I have no reason to argue anymore .. I have already accomplished proving my point.. over and over again..

[Xray]

check out this video

Randian constructions like "existence exists" and "consciousness is conscious" have often been criticized because they sound odd.

Analogous grammatically incorrect constructions to "Existence exists" and "Consciousness is conscious" would be e. g. "Sleep sleeps" / "Hunger is hungry".

On the other hand, philosophers have a great deal of 'stylistical license' when it comes to putting their thoughts in words. For as opposed to the 'scientific community' with its clear and internationally accepted terminology and symbols ("+" is "+" everywhere), there exists no philosophical community doing the same; philosophers are therefore quite unconstrained in that respect.

"Existence exists" is a tautological construction; one function of tautology is emphasis, and I think Rand wanted to point out is that what exists really exists, i. e. that it is no illusion, that it has a basis in fact. "Existence exists" can be understood as an attack on any kind of subjectivism where it is claimed that what we perceive is illusionary.

Heidegger btw whom Rand criticized for "reification of the zero" because he coined the phrase "Nothing noughts" merely used the same stylistical license to convey emphasis as she did, only from the other end of the spectrum.

One could even combine those two philosophical statements and say "Existence exists until noughted by nothing".

[audiognostic]

you missed my first refutation of it

http://maverickphilo...-existence.html

"existece exists" is a useless statement which means nothing and proves nothing..

about as much as "jumping jumps"

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Pope,

Slow down.

You don't have to agree with someone to get and give value.

When you dismiss with insults, you get no value and provide even less.

My impression is that Matt comes in peace and his comment about the tidiness of your thinking is not meant as a put-down. I think he sincerely wants to get you both talking about the same thing without reckless opinionating on Rand's ideas.

Here's an exercise for you. Try to paraphrase a thought about, say, emotions (or existence or anything you fancy) through a Randian framework. Or what you perceive to be a Randian framework. Do not use her jargon. And for God's sake, do not copy-paste. Paraphrase it in your own words.

That's the best way to check if your understanding is correct.

Michael

(btw - To Matt, Welcome to OL.)

[audiognostic]

1. Why does something need to be phrased through a Randian framework for it to be correct.. is Rand the god of reasoning? every philosophy class is Nill unless they speak through a Randian framework?

2. it seems to me like they are the ones opinionating and saying non sequiter statements while I am only consistently logically refuting every single thing they say

3. I am just getting frustrated because the only thing I see is that they pick and choose and ignore everything I have said that they cant refute.. and come at me with many of the same things over and over again so I have to keep phrasing myself in different ways.. then telling me I lost the argument.. the whole thing is getting rather rediculous

[Xray]

Why would i work my way up using Ayn Rands framework when I have just explained to you why I dont believe in her framework..

Just curious: what originally got you interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy?

[audiognostic]

let me paraphrase my main points:

1. emotions are valid tools of cognition in circumstances in which they are - such as the type of abstract thinking I am talking about

2. there are types of "abstract right brain" thinking which exist.. according to the study of psychology.. which are non linear.. which show how mathematicians dont make good comedians or artists.. and vice versa..

3. there are limitations to what reason can explain.. a) it cannot explain things unless it knows 100% of the proper context - such as human psychology.. which must be studied through evidence rather than pontificated about b) you cannot use rational linear thinking to explain abstract things.. such as why comedians are funny.. or why a musical beat can sit "just right"

4. Only being strong in linear logic doesnt make you a superior thinker.. as every comedian, salesman, musican etc.. knows.. logic alone will get you nowhere...

5. you cant simply call that part of human nature "stupid and mystical" and dismiss it as nonsense

6. what exists is primacy of evidence, not primacy of reason.. something can be real without making rational sense.. such as comedy and music.. and something can make rational sense and not be real.. such as reasoning based on faulty premisis

[audiognostic]

Why would i work my way up using Ayn Rands framework when I have just explained to you why I dont believe in her framework..

Just curious: what originally got you interested in Ayn Rand's philosophy?

The concept of virtue of selfishness.. although now as I see it, is not necessarily an "objective virtue".. nevertheless it got me to see something which is a good way of living if one is to live for ones own happiness.. such as the concept of "rational selfishness" and further evidence that altruism is not some universal law of morality... as well as the concept of buildling your own virtues based on your own end.. so if you are to live for your own self interest it is entirely fine to have virtue like "pride, self interest" etc.

Also I very much like her ideas, and those of thinkers like Milton Friedman which show that free market capitalism and pure economic self interest works to maintain a healthy society

But mostly as a rebellion against people trying to impose the standards of altruism and selflessness upon my behavior.. my rebellion against so called "virtues" of humility etc...

What I believe now is that NOTHING is exactly a true objective "virtue".. but certainly social virtues are not the mark from which everything should be measured.. and neither is "god" the mark from which things should be measured.. with that I agree with Rand

Then I started getting deeper into what she had to say about the nature of the mind, human psychology etc.. and being a musican.. I automatically started backpeddling and realzing that this totally did not fit anything of the evidence of which I saw in the real world about the ways people or myself think..

Then I found Nietzche..

. so now I would say I am probably far more into Nietzche than I am into Rand.. the only reason I stick around here and argue is to solidify my own thinking.. not because I am an altruist and I want to change your mind ;)

Lets just say I agree with the surface-level concepts of Rand .. but I dont agree with the deeper ones.. which Rand apparently says is impossible and that its "all or nothing" but I dont agree with that..

I would place my current philosophical stance being somewhere between Nietzche and Rand.. closer to Nietzche though.. I agree with some of Rands ideas as being quite good... but I agree with Nietzches essential core framework of thinking.. at least as far as I understand it.. with certain discrepancies there as well.. I really dont agree with anybody but myself 100%

[audiognostic]

my current values and morals are more based on this now than on Rand

Although Rand came up with many of the same moral values.. which I think is why many people compare her to Nietzsche

In essense the master morality lives for oneself

the slave morality lives for another..

Same as selfishness Vs altruism.. .. I believe neither one being INHERENTLY "right or wrong" but simply being are what they are.. with one being better for the individual, and one being better for a cause outside the individual.. you choose your way..

[Matt Faherty]

Thank you Michael, you are spot on.

Audiognostic, we are mostly ignoring your larger arguments because they are built upon very basic errors in your premises. Everything you are saying about "rationality," "emotion," "creativity," etc is irrelevent in an Objectivist context if you do not understand the meanings of those terms or how they relate to each other. It is fine that you are attacking Rand's philosophy, it is even ok if you don't understand some of the premises which underlie her conclusions, but what you are doing here is attacking some very basic components of Objectivism without understanding the even more basic components upon which they are built. In terms of addressing these issues, I think you need to break them down in other specialized threads, since to address them all right here would be a rather sizeable task.

[audiognostic]

I think what I have is not any raw logical errors in my premisis.. but errors in my premisis according to the objectivist framework.. which I do not inherently agree with to begin with..

The problem that I see is one cannot argue against objectivism while arguing within the objectivist framework

Clearly I think the majority of the worlds philosophical establishment agrees with me due to massive teachings of Nietzches philosophy, and none of Rands, who is considered by many professional philosophers to be merely a pontificator.. Even Kant is more widely taught than Rand

So i think what we can do is agree to disagree on this one and call it a day

I think if any of you ever composed music on a musical instrument, you would understand exactly where I am coming from.. I know it seems liek a rather silly assertion but it is true.. as one cannot argue with direct evidence of experience.. unless one believes in primacy of logic over primacy of evidnece.. in which case.. I guess I cant argue with you as it is as pointless as arguing with somebody who believes in primacy of faith.. no matter what I say if it does not make sense within the "rational objectivist framework" it might as well not exist

According to Rand.. every philosopher ever is wrong.. except for Rand.. or those other two she likes, Aristotle, and that other one.. basically if Rand does not agree with you.. you are objectively wrong.. which to me is a joke

Rand has effectively attempted to create a philosophy in which she can never be questioned, and never be wrong.. and anybody who disagrees with her is a "stupid irrationalist who hates reason"... since everything she believes is objectively right.. thats why she is not really even considered to be a real philosopher by many .. and its evident why many think objectivism is a cult.. and it is not taught in university courses on philosophy.. since if it was taught.. that would mean that any ideas which dont agree with her would be "objectively wrong"

(^^ not objectivist art)

Im sorry for attempting to emphazise a point using emotions as tools of cognition.. gee golly im so immoral

[shifty]

I think what I have is not any raw logical errors in my premisis.. but errors in my premisis according to the objectivist framework.. which I do not inherently agree with to begin with..

The problem that I see is one cannot argue against objectivism framework while arguing within the objectivist framework

Clearly I think the majority of the worlds philosophical establishment agrees with me due to massive teachings of Nietzches philosophy, and none of Rands, who is considered by many professional philosophers to be merely a pontificator.. Even Kant is more widely taught than Rand

So i think what we can do is agree to disagree on this one and call it a day

I think if any of you ever composed music on a musical instrument, you would understand exactly where I am coming from.. I know it seems liek a rather silly assertion but it is true.. as one cannot argue with direct evidence of experience.. unless one believes in primacy of logic over primacy of evidnece.. in which case.. I guess I cant argue with you as it is as pointless as arguing with somebody who believes in primacy of faith.. no matter what I say if it does not make sense within the "rational objectivist framework" it might as well not exist

According to Rand.. every philosopher ever is wrong.. except for Rand.. or those other two she likes, Aristotle, and that other one.. basically if Rand does not agree with you.. you are objectively wrong.. which to me is a joke

Rand has effectively attempted to create a philosophy in which she can never be questioned, and never be wrong.. and anybody who disagrees with her is a "stupid irrationalist who hates reason"... since everything she believes is objectively right.. thats why she is not really even considered to be a real philosopher by many .. and its evident why many think objectivism is a cult.. and it is not taught in university courses on philosophy.. since if it was taught.. that would mean that any ideas which dont agree with her would be "objectively wrong"

(^^ not objectivist art)

Im sorry for attempting to emphazise a point using emotions as tools of cognition.. gee golly im so immoral

It seems to me that your opponents here are not trying to argue within the objectivist framework, but are just trying to point out that u do not yet understand the Epistemological foundation in its entirety.

From quickly looking over ur posts I think u addresses something about existence exists. So they may be wrong on that pointification, but u do seem very quick to condemn here.

Focus more on making exact replies instead of quickly digressing to lengthy rants, it will make u look more amicable.

Of course, it's just advise that I'm selfishly giving to get this discussion going on a deeper level (it's starting to bore me). I hope u'll consider it.

[blackhorse]

When I first got introduced to Ayn Rand and Objectivist philosophy it was a rush. I was a young man breaking out of the "accepted paradigms", or thought, that dominated society. I learned the hard way that I needed to temper my fervor with context, civilty, and a thorough understanding of Objectivist tautology, Otherwise, I appeared, and actually was, a cocky know it all who, instead of warming people to myself and insights, turned everyone off around me with my "shoot from the hip" interactions.audiognostic, you seem to be advocating hedonism of sorts as opposed to rational happiness. When there are no rational values to guide men we have only arbitrary assertions. Hedonism both destroys man and destroys the society in which he lives.

[audiognostic]

here are some ridiculous assertions by an objectivist against pop music, heavy metal, grunge etc.. saying "they are not real music".. sounds like some arguments by a bunch of dam old people stuck i the 1800s

http://hettingern.pe...cal_Culture.htm

this is enough for me to disprove objectivism right there where it stands..

Who cares if harmony or melody is not clear.. what matters is if it "vibes" with a person or not a subjective judgemet...

I once encoutered a cult called the larouche movement which was a cult which did not claim it was a cult, but based on scientific reasoning... they had similar views on music.. sayiig that "electronic music was evil and not beautiful" criticizing pop music as garbage and praising classical

I for one am all for pop music, hard rock etc....

These people what they really show is a precise misunderstanding of what music or art even means.. if it was up to them.. everyone would listen to motzart and look at pictures of the mona lisa all day

objectively immoral music ^^^ fails to convey ideas through harmony and melody and complex rhythms

[shifty]

http://hettingern.people.cofc.edu/Aesthetics_Fall_2010/Scruton_Decline_in_Musical_Culture.htm

This seems a rough outline for a paper using Scruton as his main source. If true, can u point me to the completed paper?