The limitations of reason?


audiognostic

Recommended Posts

all I did was try to clear up some space and unneccessary jumble as to not further confuse the discourse.. As I feel that matt has already actually touched on exactly the very issue i am trying to speak of.. that post was no longer neccessary.. i didnt want anyone going back and responding to it since that would only take me off topic

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's Nathaniel Branden, Pope.

Yes, NB did effectively say that Rand knew next to nothing about psychology, which somewhat contradicts some of his other post-break statements. Her knowledge of the subject was quite lumpy, but she could be very positively potent in one on one situations and came with interesting observations, especially in The Fountainhead. Nathaniel's statement is most accurate if applied to psychotherapy. When Rand acknowledged her ignorance she seems to have also been buttering up NB who, of course, was a psychologist. As a very controlling person she had to have known quite a bit to be successful in that. She praised those around her and they praised her creating a tower of positive re-enforcement, one was always afraid of being kicked off from. It all collapsed.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the things people do on this forum, is explore the differences between introspection and narcissism.

Carol, Actually of interest to me would be exploring the possible connection between

narcissism and extreme subjectivism. Any bridge from psychology to philosophy or vice-

versa is fascinating.

(But how does introspection tie in?)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"This is the fallacy inherent in hedonism—in any variant of ethical hedonism, personal or social, individual or collective. “Happiness” can properly be the purpose of ethics, but not the standard. The task of ethics is to define man’s proper code of values and thus to give him the means of achieving happiness. To declare, as the ethical hedonists do, that “the proper value is whatever gives you pleasure” is to declare that “the proper value is whatever you happen to value”—which is an act of intellectual and philosophical abdication, an act which merely proclaims the futility of ethics and invites all men to play it deuces wild."---Ayn Rand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I am profoundly opposed to the philosophy of hedonism. Hedonism is the doctrine which holds that the good is whatever gives you pleasure and, therefore, pleasure is the standard of morality. Objectivism holds that the good must be defined by a rational standard of value, that pleasure is not a first cause, but only a consequence, that only the pleasure which proceeds from a rational value judgment can be regarded as moral, that pleasure, as such, is not a guide to action nor a standard of morality. To say that pleasure should be the standard of morality simply means that whichever values you happen to have chosen, consciously or subconsciously, rationally or irrationally, are right and moral. This means that you are to be guided by chance feelings, emotions and whims, not by your mind. My philosophy is the opposite of hedonism. I hold that one cannot achieve happiness by random, arbitrary or subjective means. One can achieve happiness only on the basis of rational values. By rational values, I do not mean anything that a man may arbitrarily or blindly declare to be rational. It is the province of morality, of the science of ethics, to define for men what is a rational standard and what are the rational values to pursue."---Ayn Rand

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to make a big deal out of this, but the member who started this thread, audiognostic, requested that I change his display name to his real one, Pope Johnson. (At least I believe it's his real one.)

He claimed there are people stalking him from some stuff he wrote elsewhere. (And, yes, I looked into it--no biggie.)

He likes to splash, but hates the ripples.

Anyway, OK. I always like it when a person uses his own name.

Apparently, he used his emotions as a fundamental cognitive guide for his Internet actions, and now he has to resort to rationality to try to clean up the mess.

Maybe his should consider a thread entitled "The limitations of emotions?"

:smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not going to make a big deal out of this, but the member who started this thread, audiognostic, requested that I change his display name to his real one, Pope Johnson. (At least I believe it's his real one.)

He claimed there are people stalking him from some stuff he wrote elsewhere. (And, yes, I looked into it--no biggie.)

Full disclosure: I wrote to Pope upon his first appearance at OL. Here is what I wrote in part:

It seems unfair to beak you for English, but that is just the way things are. If it seems like you yourself don't give a shit about 'other people' then they tend not to give a shit about offending you, or using the larger stupider blunt clubs in their argumentarium. It is a cheap and non-intellectual way to get you riled (in part) and so no one will give that up. Nice people like PDS will try to give you even-handed advice without riling you.

So, ignore the spelking/punkchewation mavens and keep posting unedited drafts, but know that they will not ignore non-standard writing that looks sloppy. The sloppy writing (in their eyes) implies failure, flab, weakness, less-than-complete mastery of simple tools that any idiot can master. They think, if you cannot write as well as a fifth-grader, how can you reason ...

I took a chance that you used the 'audiognostic' screen-name elsewhere, and discovered the audiognostic that is deeply involved in music, as DJ/rapper/composer(?), and in private musical tutoring. He is also involved in bodywork.

He also is single (or was the last time he posted) and once asked advice for how to get a '2' in bed without giving her humanity.

You can be the character you want yourself to be, that is the long struggle. It is your life story.

In the meantime -- if you do not care about your performance and how it is viewed, if you really do not care how good you are doing, you will not care that the people who disdain you now might later be the people who will cheer you on your journey -- as you successfully meet your challenges.

All this to say is that you might have some social issues, not know exactly how to perform more effectively, so think about it, don't just react and pat yourself on the back. It isn't easy at the best of times, and it is not easy in a place like this forum, with lots of longterm opinion-makers, some of certain renown in the Objectivish communities. Everyone, almost without exception is large in his or her own mind, and can be especially cruel, or seemingly so, in dealing with those considered nitwits or socially-retarded.

Think of it as a play you are writing, but the only way you can get the other players on stage to behave as you wish them to is through your own performance, your own lines, your own acting. Nobody acts the way you wish them to but by persuasion, by cunningly reasoned, reasonable, and convincing arguments.

I know you can write standard English. Show the discipline you show in molding your body in how you mold your words, and no one will ever be able to challenge you on that again. Don't let sloppy communication become your calling card.

I just got a reply from Pope. I won't give the details, but he asked if I found it 'weird' that I was stalking him.

I replied:

What makes you think anyone is 'stalking' you?

Stalking is harassment, stalking is menacing, stalking is designed to strike fear into the person targetted, and is illegal in most states and provinces.

Have you felt 'harassed' by my earlier communication? Did you feel that I was menacing you? Do you feel that someone making the connection between an 'audiognostic' on OL and an 'audiognostic' elsewhere is wrong, unethical, illegal or criminal in some way?

The National (US) Center for Victims of Crime gives a general definition of stalking: ""Virtually any unwanted contact between two people [that intends] to directly or indirectly communicates a threat or places the victim in fear can be considered stalking"

Further (from the same link): "Stalking behaviors are related to harassment and intimidation and may include following the victim in person or monitoring them."

That said, I enjoy reading your newer posts to OL. They are challenging, and they are less troll-like and belligerent that you started off.

I am sorry to have caused any distress to Pope. I invite him to put his complaint into perspective, and to think about menace, intimidation, and harassment.

I invite Pope to respond here, thus taking the 'stalking' from the shadows.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

right now the sunlight is coming from my window and shining on my walls in a way which gives me a very posltive "vibe" which caused me to open my window.. is it rationally explained that the reason for this is because I know its not the end of the world since the sun is out?

Sunlight generally stimulates good mood in humans, so there has to be a physiological connection.

(This does not work always though, but is context-dependent: if for example you just had suffered the loss of a loved one, I suppose no amount of sunlight would be powerful enough to mitigate your feelings of grief).

For example I am a big believer in "feng shuei".. not all their rules..

I have picked up several practical tips from feng shui books, but some rules sound more like magical thinking imo.

but in general.. the way you arrange your furniture in your house.. and the look of your furniture and accessories can have a great degree of affect onto your emotional state..

Correct, but not everything works the same way with everyone: I for example can't stand clutter - it makes me nervous because I connote it with it things like 'unfinished business', 'blocked energy flow,' etc; but I know quite a few people who don't seem to be bothered by clutter at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

you know what totally cracks me up is how people just totally ignored what i wrote on the last page and started throwing Rand quotes at me

ok lets put everything aside an focus on these prior posts

particularly in reference to post 95, 98 and post 97 I really like how people ignored that and what me and Matt were saying for a minute..

When I was talking about using emotions as tools of cognition.. we were talking about "intangible" things.. etc..

I showed an example of a DJ set where the whole time through I used emotions as tools of cognition.. BALANCED with reason.. BUT NOT exclusively reason with emotions playing no role in decision making.. emotion were used to DECIDE and MAKE VALUE JUDGEMENTS .. not just as tools of post-evaluation... was that dj set "immoral" then?

I also showed a video I made with music for a BMW commercial.. where I used strictly emotions balanced with reason for tools of cognition to make value judgements on sounds to place to the video.. core value judgements being made with emotion.. balanced with reason.. was that video also "immoral"?

basically lets focus for a minute on what me and Matt were talking about for a moment on "intangibles".. where things are not strictly all calculated with logic.. but rather "felt"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pope,

Are you familiar with what Rand meant by "cognition"?

Your posts show you don't. So why should people who know this stuff comment on your misunderstanding when you are framing it as you disproving Rand like David slaying Goliath?

You certainly are trying to debunk something and adding Rand quotes to it, but it is not Rand's ideas.

I've already given you some hints and pointed to some directions (ones incidentally you have ignored and evidently have not pursued), but here is another one. A big one.

Rand's theory of concept formation is based on algebra.

Seriously.

Once you start to understand that, you might be able to talk about why she claimed emotions were not tools of cognition.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol man OF COURSE I understood it was with algebra..

multiple+ints.gif

logic and math are in the same intelligence sector.. did you know it also had to do with Isaac Newton??????

my question is

how do you define this through logic and algebra if passions dont exist and emotions are not tools of cognition or decision making

how about this

or how about the process I used to score this video?

did everything begin with mathematical formulations of logic first?

this all began with mathematical algebraic decisions and not with emotions?

360 million people must really relate to algebra.. must be.. because apparently all emotional decisions are bound to end in disaster.. thats why you should never follow your passions.. only an idiot would do that

just ask this rich and famous guy on cnn.. hell tell you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3x8555Dz83M

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reason - Passion

Rationality - Creativity

The false dichotomies mount up.

Pope, do you believe your mind is a pie-chart?

There intellect can be modeled as though it has several functional modules. The separation is functional, not physiological.

Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modularity_of_mind

Ba'al Chataf

Link to comment
Share on other sites

lol man OF COURSE I understood it was with algebra..

Pope,

You're faking it.

As the saying goes, fake it 'til you make it. But that doesn't work with precise ideas.

You're not faking?

Then explain how Rand based concept formation on algebra, please.

Just saying you know, then doing a bunch of unrelated meme-talk doesn't cut it.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand's theory of concept formation is based on algebra.

Seriously.

Saying it "is based on" is a huge stretch.

The basic principle of concept-formation (which states that the omitted measurements must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity) is the equivalent of the basic principle of algebra, which states that algebraic symbols must be given some numerical value, but may be given any value. In this sense and respect, perceptual awareness is the arithmetic, but conceptual awareness is the algebra of cognition (ITOE2, 17).

"Is the equivalent" does not mean "is based on."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Merlin,

You're nit-picking in the wrong context.

We're talking to a kid who knows absolutely nothing about Objectivism other than what he can skim and copy-paste from the Lexicon. (And he's already been busted big-time for faking expertise on another forum unrelated to philosophy.)

Anyway, what does it matter whether Rand studied algebra first or lined up the similarities between concepts and algebra later? They both work the same in a very fundamental way in her system and that's what I meant.

And, yes, I know about your distinctions between measurement and counting and so on. Repeat your argument here if you will since it looks like an opportunity to plug it, but in this context, the main thing you will accomplish is to offer a lifeboat to someone who is faking knowledge. And you are going to be rewarded with a bunch of pop memes and poorly written pleas for attention as an ally to enrich your learned discourse. :smile:

A word to the wise. I have, too often, learned the hard way that once you feed a stray dog, you own it. So you better like the way it barks because you can't get rid of the damn thing. :smile:

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

ok explain to me how passion is explained through logic and reason since you know so much...

let me ask you this...

if the measure of all morality is what benefits ones life, and we dont chase emotions becuase chasing emotions = hedonism = bad...

then you are offered with two career paths

1. go to school, get a doctorate in engineering, work hard, get a good stable job that will last for a long time and make a lot of money

2. risk it all, screw everything, no back up plan, become an artist, because you would rather die than do anything else.. you chase your passion.. there is no seeming rationality behind it.. its just what you FEEL..

In essence choice 1 is based around whats best for your well being.. choice 2 is based around risking your life and your well being for a higher purpose, a passion, a will to power, an emotional cause..

here is what a famous musican named Travis Barker didtravis11.jpg

He got tatoos all over his body just so nobody would ever FOR SURE hire him for any other job..

In essense he risked his well being in order to chase his passions.. and he made it..

you realize that just about all famous artists picked the second choice right? you actually cant do both.. everyone who attempts to do that never makes it as a big time artist.. because too much time and focus is dedicated away from the art.. if you wish to make a living as an artist for real.. it becomes your full time career..

does that make them "immoral hedonists?"

what about the guy who picked the stable job.. then at the end of his life realizes he should have risked it all.. since he only had one life.. and the only thing that really mattered in his life were his experiences.. that living just for the sake of existance was rather nonsensical.. that his life was boring and bland, because he never took the risk.. and now he regrets it..

in this case how does passion interrelate with logic.. other than logically deciding to chase your emotions as the primary cause

Its like Nietzsche said.. most rationalists would pick choice one.. because they are weak.. they are too concerned about their well being etc... whereas the strongest man, the uberman would pick option two.. because he knows a life not fully lived through passion is not worth living

dude i know logic and math are the same damn thing you gotta be kidding me..

do I think my mind is a pie chart? No.. but i certainly dont think its a damn calculator even more hahaha

who is John Galt?2129407-accountant-and-calculating-businessman-personality-concept-photo-manipulation-depicting-a-calculator.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Pope, you're either/or scenario above isn't that cut and dried in reality. The question not to forget is the 'WHY' in decision making. Emotions are not primary tools of cognition or for making rational decisions, they are the reward or consequence of a persons value system. Injecting heroin may feel good to someone, but rationally it is an unwise activity to engage in. I can make that destinction because reason lets me step outside of the emotional draw of my urge and appeal to logic. When I ask WHY of something I am able to ascertain a reason, reason is mans tool to make objective assessments of his situation divorced from his own person bias.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now