Galt's Oath

[Wolf DeVoon]

18 minutes ago, Don E. said:

My honest actions and honest debates and honest reasoning

Perhaps the term guffaw is unknown to you. Okay, let's talk about honesty. Honest actions and honest debate means what on a chat forum? Nothing. Zero. So far all I have from you is protestations of honesty and chastity. Throw in an idea once in a while, not a Rand quote, I mean something you cooked up yourself. Or tell a story. Anything. And lay off the honesty button FFS.

[Don E.]

9 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Perhaps the term guffaw is unknown to you. 

You're right. I thought "guffaw" meant "mistake". My mistake. I must have been thinking of "gaffe". I suppose that was another guffaw for you.  

9 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Honest actions and honest debate means what on a chat forum? Nothing. Zero.

Well, I think an honest debate is one in which you consider each and every point your opponent raises, and try to address it with your own reasoning and evidence, and elaborate as much as possible to make your meaning clear. As opposed to just making unsupported claims, or ignoring your opponent's points. As I said, communication involves both understanding and being understood, and both parts are the responsibility of both participants. So I think an honest debate is one in which you keep your end of the bargain by making the effort in both directions. And an honest action would be, for example, giving your opponent a chance to explain his reasoning before drawing conclusions about him or his ideas. This isn't always easy, either. So this is one way you can "try" to be honest but not be successful. 

9 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

Throw in an idea once in a while, not a Rand quote, I mean something you cooked up yourself. Or tell a story. Anything.

Well, I did tell one story in my introductory post in the "meet and greet" forum. But I don't really have a lot of stories to tell. And I thought the purpose of this forum was to discuss Ayn Rand's ideas. But even so, I think my interpretation and reasoning are my ideas. And, I'm pretty new to the forum, so I don't see how you can criticize me for not posting enough of my own ideas yet. And the Rand ideas and quotes I used as part of my argument were relevant to the debate. So I don't really understand what you want from me.

9 minutes ago, wolfdevoon said:

And lay off the honesty button FFS.

I don't know how to discuss honesty without using the word. I'm not trying to be irritating. Why does it upset you?

[Brant Gaede]

Honest debate? I say grab one thing and swoop in for the kill!

--Brant

they won't know what hit them!

[BaalChatzaf]

11 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

With a tautology?

--Brant

(I don't know if it is a tautology)

It is not a tautology.  It is a genuine theorem that requires proof.

[Brant Gaede]

7 hours ago, Don E. said:

 

I disagree that these were "guffaws". The first was just modesty, and I don't know of any Objectivist principle that prohibits modesty. I do believe I am 100% honest. But saying it that way makes me sound like an asshole. And believe it or not, I do make an effort to not be an asshole. (You seem to be doing the opposite.) So that's why I phrased it as "I try" to be honest; I allow others to decide for themselves whether I am or not, even though I know I am, and I don't really care whether they know it or not. My honest actions and honest debates and honest reasoning will speak louder than any mere claim of honesty.

The second is partially but not entirely true - I didn't mean that it matters to me what other people think, as an end in itself. What I meant was, I'm glad I was able to convey my honesty in a way that is recognized as honesty by other reasonable people. It is frustrating to try to communicate ideas and tone and motivation clearly, only to be misunderstood; the goal of communication is to understand, and be understood, but it is not always easy. So I take pride in my accomplishment when I can communicate successfully. That's what "I'm glad" about. 

Don, you can simply assume honesty here for the dishonest people leave soon enough; they can't get any traction. What we do have is people coming at things from their unique perspectives.

As a newbie here and as an Objectivist newbie suffused with the philosophy of Ayn Rand you haven't begun to digest it all. (I think you said you were three years into it.) I first read Atlas Shrugged when I was 19 in 1963. It was 9 years before I started climbing out of it. Everybody has a philosophy save the extremely young. It's the software of the human mind; usually it's a confusing mish-mash. Objectivism, as the philosophy of Ayn Rand, straightens that mess out, but she was such a powerful writer, polemicist and sheer presence they seldom understand right out of the box that her philosophy is not and cannot be theirs. In terms of volume her philosophy is 90% or even more, cultural, not intellectual, but it wears intellectual clothes. There is another, properly universal, Objectivism centered on its basic principles. In terms of weight, unintegrated into a person, it is 100% Objectivism. When those principles are integrated into you, you might then say, there is [an] Objectivism the philosophy of Don E.

There are four and only four such principles, one each in metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics. Reason applied to reality (completely common with science properly done), rational self interest and laissez faire capitalism (individual rights). It's all individualism at the core and the individualism and sanctity of a thinking mind unites each principle each extending to the next up ending in the politics. In the ethics and politics things get complicated and tricky for Rand went overboard with what can only be described as a kind of Utopian thinking. You see, we have not yet addressed human social existence in detail. You have rational self interest but on top of that we need to consider people as they are. Objectivism a la Rand posits people as they should be. In the politics it's also things as they should be, with not enough understanding of things as they are. The world of the Liberal Arts spreads out around us mostly unexplored and not well understood by Ayn Rand who was rather narrowly educated and who naturally enough over-emphasized philosophy's role in the operative scheme of things. Schematically rendered she was quite right, but it wasn't enough. This is why Objectivism hasn't gone very far even while helping millions live happier and more productive more guilt free lives.

--Brant

[merjet]

deleted

[BaalChatzaf]

12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

With a tautology?

--Brant

(I don't know if it is a tautology)

With a counter tautology.  Any proposition that implies a counter-tautology (i.e. a contradiction)  is  false.  A true proposition can not imply a false proposition

[Brant Gaede]

5 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

With a counter tautology.  Any proposition that implies a counter-tautology (i.e. a contradiction)  is  false.  A true proposition can not imply a false proposition

A proper theory leaves room for falsification or it's junk. I think falsification can be rendered by pointing out a theory's illogical construct and can thus be described as tautological (reference to itself?) or by experiment which goes to and from data out there in the world and isn't therefore tautological.

I am, however, in over my head on this. I'm not really sure if I know what I am talking about aside from the role of falsification of a theory per se.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

15 minutes ago, merjet said:

I don't agree you've adequately answered the question. I think you have tried to direct attention away from the breach assertion and not tackle it head-on. Here is her breach claim again: "[A]ny breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral."  The father buying his daughter braces is the actor, and the daughter is a beneficiary. There is a breach, as you even admitted here. Moreover, in my last post I asked:

You didn't answer either question. You didn't explain how the father buying his daughter braces doesn't contradict her breach claim. Note that Rand wrote "any breach". At a minimum "total breach" or "complete breach" would have been much better. That would have hit her polemical target and only her polemical target. It would not have included the father buying his daughter braces.

No, I do not believe Rand would have considered immoral every case of a father buying his daughter braces. On the other hand, what if she believed that the father's motive was "a moral duty" or "altruistic"? 

You have given no indication that there might be anything wrong with the breach claim. The only problem you've seen is "my interpretation". Do you believe the breach claim applies only to "altruism"? She didn't say that. Also, that is a way to whitewash the breach claim, but whitewashing isn't my style. Did Rand write the breach claim while an overzealous, polemical mood? Did she misfire and shoot herself in the foot? Did an editor/typesetter badly botch what Rand submitted and Rand failed to catch it? I don't know. I can't mind-read what her intentions were, but I can read with eyes wide open what she wrote, literally. And I'm convinced there is something very wrong with her breach claim, whether she intended it or not.

I appreciate the softened tone of your post here. So welcome to OL. I hope you now have a better understanding of my framing. It is my framing; I haven't seen anything even remotely similar anywhere else and doubt that you have. I am very attentive to quantifiers (evidence above). My motivation is to know the truth (and secondarily what might seem to be but isn't). As much as I agree with Ayn Rand, she doesn't get an exemption from my scrutiny. By the way, some of what I've said here is scheduled to appear in my article in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies next year.

Regarding my being terse, well, that's me. It's a long-time ingrained disposition, and I've heard the comment many times. It's a difficult thing to change, and I lack the desire to change it at my age (69). Also, I wouldn't rank my mind-reading skills very high. 

MSK, I appreciate your post, too. Ditto to Tony, but I see no interpretive error to concede.  

There are two beneficiaries. Rand ignores this. If Dad buys braces for the kid next door then we can discuss this matter out of Rand's context. Rand goes silly here because she assumes only one beneficiary, the one who is not the actor. The sacrifice of the moral to the immoral sounds like one mistake and it's Gotterdammerung. Absolutism will do that to you, being characteristic of a religion.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

50 minutes ago, merjet said:

deleted

? Do you want me to delete my quoting you?

--Brant

I think the contrast with what you replaced it with is interesting

[merjet]

I haven't mastered this multi-quote thing yet. I hope this attempt is better. I miss the preview function.

Don E.: [quote] So that's the immediate context, which you have ignored. She clearly states that the beneficiary is not her primary concern in the field of morality. And at the same time, although it's not the primary factor in determining morality, the general principle is that it's proper for the actor to be the beneficiary of his own action; as contrasted with altruism (discussed earlier in the chapter) which says the actor must NOT be the beneficiary of his own action. And, she elaborates on what she means by an "injustice" - a sacrifice of one person to another, of the moral to the immoral. The example of a father purchasing things for his daughter clearly doesn't fall into that category of sacrifice, and therefore it is not the kind of thing she's describing as an injustice. [end quote] 

I have not ignored any context. I focused on Rand's beneficiary-breach assertions and asked myself how well they fit reality.

She attached great importance to who the beneficiary is, whether or not it was her "primary concern." You even used "beneficiary" twice in your general principle statement. If not her primary concern, then it merited second place and lost "only by a nose".

Let's examine that general principle. You also said, like Ayn Rand did, "the beneficiary", which is singular and subtly excludes a second beneficiary. As I said earlier (link #1) and further explained (link #2), this posits a false dichotomy, as follows. The actor can be the only beneficiary, or somebody else can be the only beneficiary. In other words, the choice is (1) all the benefit to the actor and none to anybody else, or (2) all the benefit to somebody else and and none to the actor. There is no middle ground. That is a false dichotomy. The father buying braces and his daughter stand on that middle ground. 

If you think that was unreasonable or dishonest, then I suggest you check your premises.

. . . . .

I asked: What is your interpretation of the breach assertion? How does it exclude the father buying braces for his daughter? You replied:

Don E.: [quote]  I've already answered this question in my previous posts, and I've elaborated on it again above. The answer is that it is a general principle, not a commandment. [end quote]

I don't agree you've answered the question. I think you have tried to direct attention away from the breach assertion and not tackled it head-on. Here is her breach claim again: "[A]ny breach between actor and beneficiary necessitates an injustice: the sacrifice of some men to others, of the actors to the nonactors, of the moral to the immoral."  The father is the actor, and the daughter is a beneficiary. There is a breach, as you even admitted here.  In my last post I asked:

Me: [quote] 3. Could the beneficiary-breach passage in VoS have been better written? If so, how?

4. What is your interpretation of the breach assertion? How does it exclude the father buying braces for his daughter? [end quote]

You didn't answer either question. You did not explain how the father buying the daughter braces doesn't contradict her breach claim. Note that Rand wrote "any breach". At a minimum "total breach" or "complete breach" would have been much better. That would have hit her polemical target and only her polemical target. It would not have included the father buying his daughter braces.

No, I do not believe Rand would have considered every case of a father buying his daughter braces immoral. On the other hand, what if she believed that the father's motive was "a moral duty" or "altruistic"?

You have given no indication that there might be anything wrong with the breach claim. The only problem you've seen is "my interpretation". Do you believe the breach claim applies only to "altruism"? She didn't say that. Also, that is a way to whitewash the breach claim, but whitewashing isn't my style. Did Rand write the breach claim in an overzealous, polemical mood? Did she misfire and shoot herself in the foot? Did an editor/typesetter badly botch what Rand submitted and Rand failed to catch it? I don't know. I can't mind-read what her intentions were, but I can read with eyes wide open what she wrote literally. And I'm convinced there is something very wrong with her breach claim, whether she intended it or not.

I appreciate the softened tone of your post here . So welcome to OL. I hope you now have a better understanding of my framing. It is my framing; I haven't seen anything even remotely similar anywhere else and doubt that you have. I am very attentive to quantifiers (evidence above). My motivation is to know the truth (and secondarily what might seem to be but falls short). As much as I agree with Ayn Rand, she doesn't get an exemption from my scrutiny. By the way, some of what I've said here is scheduled to appear in an article in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies next year.

As for my being terse, well, that's me. It's a long-time ingrained disposition, and I've heard the comment many times. It's a difficult thing to change, and I lack the desire to change it at my age (69). Also, I wouldn't rank my mind-reading skills very high. 

I appreciate MSK's post, too. Tony's, too, but I see no interpretive error to concede. 

[merjet]

27 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

? Do you want me to delete my quoting you?

--Brant

I think the contrast with what you replaced it with is interesting

It doesn't matter to me. But if you do simply delete your quoting me, it would make your comment -- which I think is helpful -- seem "out of the blue".

[anthony]

At most, Rand can be accused of being stilted in her sentence, but it's clear enough in itself --and considering her widest context.

For every action - presupposing a man's motive/need, his thought, volition, the productive act - there's one who justly benefits. If that "one" is anyone but the actor, excepting his voluntary trade or permission, then a breach of his 'justice in reality' HAS to have taken place.

The one who acts must be the total beneficiary of his act. Who's of value to him and benefits (or personally benefitting himself, a small distinction) thereafter - is superfluous.

The actor = the beneficiary, one and the same person.

The "immorality", is of some sort of force that had to take place to create the "breach" and thereby reward an immoral 'beneficiary' ("looters", thieves, the State, fraudsters, plagiarists, etc.). There's the common thread that runs from rational selfishness, to laissez-faire capitalism to individual rights.

[KorbenDallas]

Holy dropped context, the trader principle folks:

(Notice the date, Aug 6th)

On 8/6/2016 at 7:20 PM, KorbenDallas said:

Value trade, ftw.

You can trade value for value, no breach, of matter and/or spirit.

Edited August 14, 2016 by KorbenDallas
typos

[anthony]

36 minutes ago, KorbenDallas said:

Holy dropped context, trader principle folks:

(Notice the date, Aug 8th)

You can trade value for value, no breach, in matters of material and/or spirit.

I saw it, Korben! The principle is relevant, although not always is there "trade", initially. 'You' are often the prime source of the act of production/creation or a spiritual/intellectual breakthrough. (Think of an inventor, artist, or a businessman with a new idea). But of course, any profit, any how, is one's own. That's my take anyway.

[BaalChatzaf]

4 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

A proper theory leaves room for falsification or it's junk. I think falsification can be rendered by pointing out a theory's illogical construct and can thus be described as tautological (reference to itself?) or by experiment which goes to and from data out there in the world and isn't therefore tautological.

I am, however, in over my head on this. I'm not really sure if I know what I am talking about aside from the role of falsification of a theory per se.

--Brant

You are out of your depth here.  I am talking about material implication  (denote it by =>)  if P => F  where F is a contradiction (P & ~P)  then P is false.

The way an empirical proposition is  falsified is to plainly see it is not the case.  So if some hypothesis implies (materially implies)  that a reaction will yield so many Joules + or -  some error bound and the experiment shows an energy reading outside of those bounds,  then the hypothesis is false.  Same principle. If something implies a falsehood then that something is false. 

[KorbenDallas]

11 hours ago, Don E. said:

The first was just modesty, and I don't know of any Objectivist principle that prohibits modesty.

Modesty seems close conceptually to humility, and humility is from altruist ethics and incompatible with self-esteem.  For reference, Nathanial Branden talks about this in his Basic Principles of Objectivism lectures, in The Objectivist Ethics lecture.  Instead of reason, purpose, and self-esteem, altruist ethics are faith, self-sacrifice, humility.  If you don't reason that modesty is close conceptually to humility, then that's fine, but I wanted to mention this.  Rand also talks about humility/humbleness vs. self-esteem here:

 

[Peter]

I think a person’s personal space (aura, sphere of being) is rarely a case of good vs. evil. Rather it is a pull (or path) taking you in one psychological direction but another path is perceived as more desirable, so you shift direction. That’s minor to the bigger universe but if it makes you happy . . . And I don’t see a hierarchy between material property and psychological happiness as Leonard Piekoff does. I can lose my wallet to a thief as some American Olympic swimmers just did in Rio, but is that worse than losing a race? Probably not.

 

I do think material sufficiency and wealth is important to some people and if you lose it as many did during the Stock Market Crash of 1929, then death seems better than living. But just think about that *choice.* If a man suffers outrageous fortune and takes his own life leaving a wife and kids, isn’t that a disgustingly bad frame of mind and action? I think so. Self destruction, whether you have been propagandized like a terrorist or a Kamikaze pilot, or you have suffered outrageous fortune like a Wall Street speculator is not right if you consider the people you care about.

 

From the Rand quote below, “Does an arbitrary human convention, a mere custom, decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principles – or is there a fact of reality that demands it?”

 

It is a tough row to hoe proving that the facts of reality demand you do the right thing, but going back to one of the earlier premises, should a person fix his child’s smile with braces, or repair a scar like a cleft lip? The child’s appearance will affect their whole life. How can you not get the “fix” done as soon as possible? That is not a sacrifice if you love the child.   

Peter

 

William Dwyer on Objectivism We the Living (OWL) wrote: To then ask, “Why should one pursue happiness?” would be to ask, “For what value beyond happiness is happiness a value?  Well, of course, there isn’t any.  And since there is no (non-moral) value more fundamental to the moral agent than his own happiness, it makes no sense to say that he “ought to” pursue his own happiness (because there is no other, more fundamental value ~for the sake of which~ he “ought to” pursue it).  All one can say is that he “ought to” pursue those goals that enable him ~to achieve~ his happiness.  In other words, all one can say is that he ought to live the kind of life that will ~make~ him happy, which is what Rand would call “man’s life qua man.”

 

Bill quoted from “The Virtue of Selfishness,” pp. 13,14: The first question that has to be answered, as a precondition of any attempt to define, to judge or to accept any specific system of ethics, is:  ~Why~ does man need a code of values? Let me stress this.  The first question is not:  What particular code of values should man accept?  The first question is: Does man need values at all – and why? Is the concept of ~value~, of “good or evil” an arbitrary human invention, unrelated to, underived from and unsupported by any facts of reality – or is it based on a ~metaphysical~ fact, on an unalterable condition of man’s existence?  (I use the word “metaphysical” to mean: that which pertains to reality, to the nature of things, to existence.) Does an arbitrary human convention, a mere custom, decree that man must guide his actions by a set of principles – or is there a fact of reality that demands it? end quote

[Peter]

I was just thinking about another, lower than human action: honor killings. And honor suicides as seen in the Japanese culture. But honor killings is the lowest human action with a supposedly *good* intention, if we discount mass murderers or monsters like Adolf Hitler, or Stalin who use ‘THE STATE’ to enslave and destroy whole groups of people .

 

I remember someone (Fernando?) had a changing historical map that showed all the conflicts throughout history and it was eye opening but I would like to see a historical map of human atrocities too. It would be more horrible than a map of nation - state wars.

Peter     

[Brant Gaede]

19 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You are out of your depth here.  I am talking about material implication  (denote it by =>)  if P => F  where F is a contradiction (P & ~P)  then P is false.

The way an empirical proposition is  falsified is to plainly see it is not the case.  So if some hypothesis implies (materially implies)  that a reaction will yield so many Joules + or -  some error bound and the experiment shows an energy reading outside of those bounds,  then the hypothesis is false.  Same principle. If something implies a falsehood then that something is false. 

Ditto to you.

You don't seem able to put your mathematical symbology into plain English. Since there are no numbers involved, you should be able to. Thus you are communicating gobbledygook except, perhaps, to a mathematician.

As for the rest of it, plainly seeing it is not the case merely disposes of what is plainly not the case. QM, BTW, implies a falsehood. Is QM false?

--Brant

[KorbenDallas]

12 hours ago, Don E. said:

My honest actions and honest debates and honest reasoning will speak louder than any mere claim of honesty.

Don, I think you might be weighting too much on the virtue of honesty, I've been seeing the virtue of justice more at play.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

39 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

You are out of your depth here.

Brant,

So crawl back down to your depth, you pathetic creature.

Worms below and birds above.

Don't you get it, yet?

Nothing's more ridiculous than a worm that tries to fly.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

15 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Ditto to you.

You don't seem able to put your mathematical symbology into plain English. Since there are no numbers involved, you should be able to. Thus you are communicating gobbledygook except, perhaps, to a mathematician.

As for the rest of it, plainly seeing it is not the case merely disposes of what is plainly not the case. QM, BTW, implies a falsehood. Is QM false?

--Brant

I am committed to accuracy.  I cannot dumb down the math anymore than I have.

[KorbenDallas]

3 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am committed to accuracy.  I cannot dumb down the math anymore than I have.

Ba'al, do negative numbers exist in reality?  ie. Can you have -1 apples?  Can you travel -1 miles?  Can you have -1 seconds?

[Brant Gaede]

26 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I am committed to accuracy.  I cannot dumb down the math anymore than I have.

No, no, no. I asked you to translate. If you can't do that you've got a bigger head problem than I do. I have no business on a mathematical forum. Do you on a philosophical one? And I don't see the math for I don't see your solution qua numbers or a number.

--Brant