Sign in to follow this  
BaalChatzaf

A photograph of the 29 smartest people in the world

Recommended Posts

3 hours ago, anthony said:

I'd ask: If there is "No ought from an is" -- or, Value is divorced from fact! ... where did "laws of physics" come from and how did they come about?

Yes/no - are they the result of scientists(consciousness/identification) applying themselves to nature(existence/identity)?  

The laws they worked to find are valuable ~principles~ derived from observed facts. Right? Then fact and value are one and the same, in scientific exploration as anywhere.

What you wish, and haven't denied, is for the laws of physics to be more than principles, but rather "axioms" (in defiance of philosophers). Dig deeper to discover the true axiomatic bedrock, on which all principles rest. Like the unaware man looking at an iceberg you remain ignorant of the complete fact, that there's much more to reality than meets your eye. You aren't doing the honest scientists any favors by this advocacy of the primacy of "laws of physics", Bob. It turns physics into quasi-religious intrinsicism("Scientism"?). 

 

The laws of physics are highly probable generalizations based on repeated observation and measurement of physical conditions and events.  The laws are human artifacts and came from the brains of the humans who formulated the laws.  The underlying facts and event occurred in nature.  Fact and value are quite distinct.  A fact simply is.  A value is a judgment that a human valuer attaches to a fact that he/she perceives. No humans,  no values.  But there will always be facts whether or not there are sentient observers to behold them.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2017 at 7:50 PM, BaalChatzaf said:

What the dickens is "objective value"? A fact, as such,  is value free. 

Consider this fact:  Water at standard pressure boils at 212 deg.  F.   This is neither good nor bad.   Being dunked in boiling water may be bad for your health and having boiling water to clean and sterilize medical instruments may be good for your health  but the fact that water boils at 212 deg. F  is just a fact.

It might be established factually that a certain treatment is good for  your health,  but the statement describing the treatment is neither go\od nor bad in itself.  Also the treatment might not be of value no one suffers from the condition that the treatment cures or manages.  Facts by themselves are value free. It requires a valuer to assign a value to a fact. 

"Water" is a metaphysical fact. That "water boils", is a metaphysical fact. That water boils at 100 deg. Centigrade is a scientific convention (and obversely, that 100Deg.C is the temperature at which water boils). You can't "see" the fact, you get to learn it. The Centigrade/Fahrenheit scales are an invaluable, essential standard for all ensuing empirical experimentation and for one's own purposes, comfort, etc., obviously. (With a precision thermometer and boiling water, you even can calculate your exact altitude asl).

One needs to sort out metaphysically given facts from man made ones, and facts from entities first.

What the dickens have you taken in here about Objectivism, you haven't read yet of "objective value"? Wow. Youve picked up (the fallacy of) "intrinsic value" - and, that's all she wrote?

The theories of value: Intrinsic, objective, subjective.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, anthony said:

"Water" is a metaphysical fact. That "water boils", is a metaphysical fact.

What is the difference between a metaphysical fact and an ordinary fact?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What's "an ordinary fact"? as you read, I was distinguishing the man-made from the metaphysically given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 25

Man’s faculty of volition as such is not a contradiction of nature, but it opens the way for a host of contradictions—when and if men do not grasp the crucial difference between the metaphysically given and any object, institution, procedure, or rule of conduct made by man.

It is the metaphysically given that must be accepted: it cannot be changed. It is the man-made that must never be accepted uncritically: it must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary. Man is not omniscient or infallible: he can make innocent errors through lack of knowledge, or he can lie, cheat and fake. The manmade may be a product of genius, perceptiveness, ingenuity—or it may be a product of stupidity, deception, malice, evil. One man may be right and everyone else wrong, or vice versa (or any numerical division in between). Nature does not give man any automatic guarantee of the truth of his judgments (and this is a metaphysically given fact, which must be accepted). Who, then, is to judge? Each man, to the best of his ability and honesty. What is his standard of judgment? The metaphysically given.

The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is—and man determines the truth or falsehood of his judgments by whether they correspond to or contradict the facts of reality. The metaphysically given cannot be right or wrong—it is the standard of right or wrong, by which a (rational) man judges his goals, his values, his choices. The metaphysically given is, was, will be, and had to be. Nothing made by man had to be: it was made by choice.

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 27

A man-made product did not have to exist, but, once made, it does exist. A man’s actions did not have to be performed, but, once performed, they are facts of reality. The same is true of a man’s character: he did not have to make the choices he made, but, once he has formed his character, it is a fact, and it is his personal identity. (Man’s volition gives him great, but not unlimited, latitude to change his character; if he does, the change becomes a fact.)

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 31

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Metaphysical vs. Man-Made

Any natural phenomenon, i.e., any event which occurs without human participation, is the metaphysically given, and could not have occurred differently or failed to occur; any phenomenon involving human action is the man-made, and could have been different. For example, a flood occurring in an uninhabited land, is the metaphysically given; a dam built to contain the flood water, is the man-made; if the builders miscalculate and the dam breaks, the disaster is metaphysical in its origin, but intensified by man in its consequences. To correct the situation, men must obey nature by studying the causes and potentialities of the flood, then command nature by building better flood controls.

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 27

Things of human origin (whether physical or psychological) may be designated as “man-made facts”—as distinguished from the metaphysically given facts. A skyscraper is a man-made fact, a mountain is a metaphysically given fact. One can alter a skyscraper or blow it up (just as one can alter or blow up a mountain), but so long as it exists, one cannot pretend that it is not there or that it is not what it is.

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”
Philosophy: Who Needs It, 31

Nature, i.e., the universe as a whole, cannot be created or annihilated . . . it cannot come into or go out of existence. Whether its basic constituent elements are atoms, or subatomic particles, or some yet undiscovered forms of energy, it is not ruled by a consciousness or by will or by chance, but by the law of identity. All the countless forms, motions, combinations and dissolutions of elements within the universe—from a floating speck of dust to the formation of a galaxy to the emergence of life—are caused and determined by the identities of the elements involved. Nature is the metaphysically given—i.e., the nature of nature is outside the power of any volition.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, anthony said:

"Water" is a metaphysical fact. That "water boils", is a metaphysical fact. That water boils at 100 deg. Centigrade is a scientific convention (and obversely, that 100Deg.C is the temperature at which water boils). You can't "see" the fact, you get to learn it. The Centigrade/Fahrenheit scales are an invaluable, essential standard for all ensuing empirical experimentation and for one's own purposes, comfort, etc., obviously. (With a precision thermometer and boiling water, you even can calculate your exact altitude asl).

One needs to sort out metaphysically given facts from man made ones, and facts from entities first.

What the dickens have you taken in here about Objectivism, you haven't read yet of "objective value"? Wow. Youve picked up (the fallacy of) "intrinsic value" - and, that's all she wrote?

The theories of value: Intrinsic, objective, subjective.

"metaphysical fact"  is redundant.  "fact"  will do.  "fact"  is what is the case.  Rand's terminology is off-standard and redundant.  What other kinds of fact are there. A fact is what is.  Either some is or it ain't.  If it ain't it is not a fact.  If something is  it is a fact. Existence is binary.  Either x exists or x does not exist. 

As to value,  that is a property or predicate that a valuer  attaches to an object, event  or fact. Values exist in our heads.  if there were no sentient beings in the cosmos there would be no values. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ha. An excess of Karl Popper will addle the brain. You actually dismiss the distinction between a fact made by man, and a natural one. All the same? Redundant? What is the procedure and discipline of science, then?

A magical "given", maybe? ;) Or, man-made?

All this is like arguing art, with somebody who believes art is made by a non-consciousness, by empirical means. Like this, ain't it?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, anthony said:

Ha. An excess of Karl Popper will addle the brain. You actually dismiss the distinction between a fact made by man, and a natural one. All the same? Redundant? What is the procedure and discipline of science, then?

A magically "given", maybe? ;) Or man-made?

All this is like arguing art, with somebody who believes art is made by a non-consciousness, by empirical means. Like this, ain't it?

A fact is something that is. I did not say anything about how this fact or that fact came about.  Same facts are natural.  That happened with no help from humans. Other facts are human made.  But a fact is that which is.  a thing that exists exists regardless of how it come to exist.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/12/2017 at 10:50 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

What the dickens is "objective value"? A fact, as such,  is value free.

I see an "objective value" as a value to man qua man but not necessarily any particular man.

I also see all valuing as subjective. That's because man as a concept cannot value, only representations of man: you, me, et al.

I guess water is an objective value to me for I need it to remain hydrated--to live. That's to my human organism. To my brain is another mater. The brain does the valuing from zip to I need to save my life.

If we say the brain is part and parcel of the body and the body is also brain, then a conflict may arise: The objective (evaluating body) versus the subjective (evaluating brain)? That's because the body doesn't think--it only knows. It has no free will. There are no choices to the body. There only is what is respecting it. We can say this is a metaphysical affirmation of free will to go along with the epistemological denial of determinism (Nathaniel Branden).

--Brant

always willing to add to the confusion

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

A fact is something that is. I did not say anything about how this fact or that fact came about.  Same facts are natural.  That happened with no help from humans. Other facts are human made.  But a fact is that which is.  a thing that exists exists regardless of how it come to exist.

Nice, you are coming round to differentiating facts. A tip of your hat to Rand, you now have two categories of fact where there was one.

But you're on your own to conceptualize the quadzillion existing facts. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I see an "objective value" as a value to man qua man but not necessarily any particular man.

Anything that is of value to Man (the class)  is of value to all men (the individuals).  I know of no such thing that all men will value. Each man (human)  values what he (himself)  values.  I find the idea of One Size Fits All  as incoherent.  We are all of different sizes and shapes (so to speak). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, anthony said:

Nice, you are coming round to differentiating facts. A tip of your hat to Rand, you now have two categories of fact where there was one.

But you're on your own to conceptualize the quadzillion existing facts. 

Rand has nothing to do with the conclusions I have reached.  I have a good working brain  and I don't need Rand to guide its workings. 

And I have characterized ALL facts  as that which IS.  I do not assign a  higher or lower measure of existence  to what is Natural and what is Man Made. Difference of kind and origin.  Neither is better or worse than the other.  Out there there are Man Made dams and Beaver Made dams.  They both hold water.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Rand has nothing to do with the conclusions I have reached.  I have a good working brain  and I don't need Rand to guide its workings. 

And I have characterized ALL facts  as that which IS.  I do not assign a  higher or lower measure of existence  to what is Natural and what is Man Made. Difference of kind and origin.  Neither is better or worse than the other.  Out there there are Man Made dams and Beaver Mad dams.  They both hold water.

I dunno. Those mad beavers . . .

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Anything that is of value to Man (the class)  is of value to all men (the individuals).

Could you support this statement? You did say earlier that water was a problematic value for the suicidal.

You are ignoring subjective-objective. Before you favored subjective--now objective?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Could you support this statement? You did say earlier that water was a problematic value for the suicidal.

You are ignoring subjective-objective. Before you favored subjective--now objective?

--Brant

In a way, all perception is subjective.  There is no way of eliminating the subjective altogether.  The best one can do is vary the view point and see what remains invariant under viewpoint transformation.   The objective, in  a way,  is the view from nowhere in particular. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Rand has nothing to do with the conclusions I have reached.  I have a good working brain  and I don't need Rand to guide its workings. 

And I have characterized ALL facts  as that which IS.  I do not assign a  higher or lower measure of existence  to what is Natural and what is Man Made. Difference of kind and origin.  Neither is better or worse than the other.  Out there there are Man Made dams and Beaver Made dams.  They both hold water.

Here, I did not specify higher, lower value - better, or worse. Nor, explicitly did Rand in the above passages (though strongly anywhere else).

You conceptualize-hierarchize or you don't, and if you consider all facts are equal, in magnitude and value without distinction, you certainly infer to any reader that you are anti-conceptual.

Follows, the egalitarian-collectivist premise that ~all~ else is "equal" without distinction. E.g., individuals, moralities, political systems, etc.. 

You have heavily "needed" Hume to guide your brain's "workings", I deduce from my readings of him and of you.

Frankly, I can't think of anything more apt than - "[The Empiricists] ...those who clung to reality by abandoning the mind".

The essence of Empiricism-Skepticism you best portrayed by dam building. In reasoning, volition, causation and final product, you cannot distinguish the innate instinct a beaver has, from the creative ingenuity man has! A dam is a "dam", what's the diff? Heh.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, anthony said:

I did not specify higher, lower value - better, or worse. Nor, explicitly did Rand in the above passages. You conceptualize-hierarchize or you don't, and if you consider all facts are equal, in magnitude and value without distinction, you certainly come over to any reader, as anti-conceptual.

Follows, the egalitarian-collectivist premise that ~all~ else is "equal" without distinction. E.g., individuals, morality, etc.. 

You have heavily "needed" Hume to guide your brain's "workings", I've noticed from my readings of him and of you.

Frankly, I can't think of anything more apt than - "[The Empiricists] ...those who clung to reality by abandoning the mind".

The essence of Empiricism-Skepticism you best portrayed by the building of dams. In reasoning, volition, causation and final product, you cannot distinguish the innate instinct a beaver has from the creative ingenuity man has. A dam is a "dam", what's the diff? heh.

See if you can parse this:  different,  not better or worse.   When dealing with differences one must address the particulars and do the differentiation.  The partial ordering "better"  is not universal.  There exists x and y are different and  such that x is not better than y  nor y  is better than x.   "worse" is the reverse of "better"   y is worse than x  if and only if  x is better than y.   Here "better or "worse"  is understood to mean better in some respect or worse in some respect or regard. It does not mean much to say that x is better than y  unless one indicates in which respects  x is better than y. 

A dam is a structure that impounds water from a flowing source.    There are man made dams and dams not built by man.  Some dams are due to accidental concentrations  of rock and soil due to an avalanche.  Some are built by non-human biota.   Beavers are clever rodents who are masters  at low tech dam building.  They just use their teeth  and the  trees and soil  that are found in some location near a running water source.  Humans have to  construct a complex society  in order to build a cleverly designed dam.  An avalanche or ice dam,  a  beaver dam and a man-made dam  all impound water from a flowing source.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

I see an "objective value" as a value to man qua man but not necessarily any particular man.

I also see all valuing as subjective. That's because man as a concept cannot value, only representations of man: you, me, et al.

I guess water is an objective value to me for I need it to remain hydrated--to live. That's to my human organism. To my brain is another mater. The brain does the valuing from zip to I need to save my life.

If we say the brain is part and parcel of the body and the body is also brain, then a conflict may arise: The objective (evaluating body) versus the subjective (evaluating brain)? That's because the body doesn't think--it only knows. It has no free will. There are no choices to the body. There only is what is respecting it. We can say this is a metaphysical affirmation of free will to go along with the epistemological denial of determinism (Nathaniel Branden).

--Brant

always willing to add to the confusion

The abstraction, "Man's life" is the standard of objective value. One's own 'concrete' life is one's supreme, objective value. Everything, all his further and future objective values hangs from that if he will make the explicit, conscious choice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

See if you can parse this:  different,  not better or worse.   When dealing with differences one must address the particulars and do the differentiation.  The partial ordering "better"  is not universal.  There exists x and y are different and  such that x is not better than y  nor y  is better than x.   "worse" is the reverse of "better"   y is worse than x  if and only if  x is better than y.   Here "better or "worse"  is understood to mean better in some respect or worse in some respect or regard. It does not mean much to say that x is better than y  unless one indicates in which respects  x is better than y. 

A dam is a structure that impounds water from a flowing source.    There are man made dams and dams not built by man.  Some dams are due to accidental concentrations  of rock and soil due to an avalanche.  Some are built by non-human biota.   Beavers are clever rodents who are masters  at low tech dam building.  They just use their teeth  and the  trees and soil  that are found in some location near a running water source.  Humans have to  construct a complex society  in order to build a cleverly designed dam.  An avalanche or ice dam,  a  beaver dam and a man-made dam  all impound water from a flowing source.

Beaver Bob: You're wriggling. Yes or no: is there a fundamental difference between what is man-made and what is metaphysically given?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, anthony said:

Beaver Bob: You're wriggling. Yes or no: is there a fundamental difference between what is man-made and what is metaphysically given?

Yes: One is man made and the other occurs as a result of natural (but non-human) causes.   What more can I say of this difference?  Do you want me to assert that one is better (in some sense)  than the other?  Sorry.  I can't do that.  I don't see where the "betterness"  comes from.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Yes: One is man made and the other occurs as a result of natural (but non-human) causes.   What more can I say of this difference?  Do you want me to assert that one is better (in some sense)  than the other?  Sorry.  I can't do that.  I don't see where the "betterness"  comes from.  

Who claimed betterness? "Betterness" doesn't enter into it. Distinction, under the Law of Identity, does.

Read Rand's passages again.

"What is his standard of judgment? The metaphysically given". 

For all its absolute significance, consciousness doesn't rule.

There is Primacy of Existence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, anthony said:

Who claimed betterness? "Betterness" doesn't enter into it. Distinction, under the Law of Identity, does.

Read Rand's passages again with attention.

"What is his standard of judgment? The metaphysically given". 

For all its absolute significance, consciousness doesn't rule.

There is primacy of existence.

Then I have already answered your question.  One kind of fact comes about by human agency  and another kind without human agency.  What more can I say? It is obvious. It is a tautology.  Whatever exists exists regardless of how it come into existence.  There is your precious law of identity. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

The best one can do is vary the view point and see what remains invariant under viewpoint transformation.   The objective, in  a way,  is the view from nowhere in particular. 

1

You give a mundane version of "objective". Objective means things out there exist independently of a mind. That's all. Those entities have an identity which the mind mustn't fake. (And the consciousness exists and has identity, too).

Mis- identifying "objective", it will follow that "objective value" becomes incomprehensible.

Take your a-consciousness version of "objective" - "the view from nowhere in particular" - and it makes a hash and impossibility of objective value. Values are something an individual ~cares for~ (no?) - consequential of the efforts one puts into thinking, looking for, choosing, creating and sustaining values with all the pertaining emotions and rewards that follow. Each value has an identity too, an unfakeable reality one self-commits to stay true to.

A "view from nowhere in particular" would effectively have Objectivists as detached, dispassionate automatons who could not have "values". 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Then I have already answered your question.  One kind of fact comes about by human agency  and another kind without human agency.  What more can I say? It is obvious. It is a tautology.  Whatever exists exists regardless of how it come into existence.  There is your precious law of identity. 

You remain blase about this critical distinction. It's simple: If one can't identify properly, one can't think straight.

The man-made 1. came from men's consciousness; 2. did not have to be 3. can be true or false, good or bad 4. can be changed.

The meta'given is what it IS.

Evading identification (e.g. like your 'axiomatic' laws of physics, and many on other things e.g. art) and a blurred indiscrimination between the meta'given and the man-made - fosters fuzzy thinking, subjectivity and so neo-mysticism. 

Is an entity the result of a process through a mind and minds--or is it "there"? Who cares, you imply - a tautology.

Here's very much how The State becomes ensconced in most "brains" today as NOT man-conceived and man-operated government - but as a semi-Godly entity from whom all blessings flow and who demands worshipful obedience.

 

This phenomenon is clearly only one result of the ignorance/denial of metaphysics, like your anti-metaphysical pronouncements. Not so obvious is it?

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this