The Epistemology of Intimidation by Hatred

[anthony]

5 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

Wrong. It is gained by observation. Experiment is only one form of using observation.

Notice Rand's "ostensive definition" of existence. She circled her arm around and said, "I mean that."

When she did that, she presented a form of empirical knowledge, in fact, she presented the only way empirical knowledge can be formulated.

Michael

OK, I know - by observation - and - experiment. Gawd. Michael, would you please not pull up my one-liners to dissect? 

As far as I know, when one states (as did Rand) "I mean that", one is making a metaphysical statement, not an empirical one.

[BaalChatzaf]

11 minutes ago, anthony said:

OK, I know - by observation - and - experiment. Gawd. Michael, would you please not pull up my one-liners to dissect? 

As far as I know, when one states (as did Rand) "I mean that", one is making a metaphysical statement, not an empirical one.

What is a metaphysical statement  as opposed to a statement of fact or a statement of intent?

[Wolf DeVoon]

29 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

What is a metaphysical statement  as opposed to a statement of fact or a statement of intent?

The totality of existence and its iron indifference to particular statements of fact or allegation of intent is a metaphysical principle.

How can you not know this?

[BaalChatzaf]

2 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

The totality of existence and its iron indifference to particular statements of fact or allegation of intent is a metaphysical principle.

How can you not know this?

I had no idea that the totality of existence was a statement.  

[Wolf DeVoon]

24 minutes ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I had no idea that the totality of existence was a statement.  

The universe is not a statement.

[anthony]

2 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Tony,

How do you define tool? Command?

That's not how I define tool.

Just because one uses a tool as part of a whole, that doesn't mean the tool dominates the whole. 

Your leg is a tool for your body (and it provides mobility). Does it dominate your body? It's silly to even think like that. Strictly speaking, it's a part of your body that is used as a tool.

You wrote at the beginning of the paragraph:

Bingo.

They are tools within a larger process called cognition that, also, makes use of other tools.

Let me do this by analogy (although I don't like to argue this way normally). What is more important, the liver or the heart? The truth is, remove either and you are dead. Remove emotion from cognition and you remove memory from the brain. Without memory, there is no cognition.

As long as semantics are ruling the day, let's make it worse, shall we?  

Rand wrote in many places that reason is man's basic means of survival. I agree if survival means intellectual progress. But if survival means not dying and reproducing enough for the species to perpetuate, how could anyone agree with her statement? The only way is to claim that evolution does not exist.

If humans descended from apes or similar, what did these primates use to survive? Reason? Really? Apes using reason? As to humans, did humans suddenly lose all that apey goodness and survival means when the brain evolved? From what I can tell, cavemen survived long enough to be our ancestors, and I mean cavemen without fire, without the wheel, without language, and so on. They didn't use reason, but they survived. In fact, they survived on emotions (and instinct) as their ONLY cognition. The proof is we are here.  

The point is, it's not either-or. We ADDED reason on top of what we evolved mentally. We didn't replace our brain biology with reason.

But let me be clear on the other side. I am a huge proponent of reason and of dispassionately identifying things (you must have read something by me about cognitive before normative). I think we have to deny emotions at times when emotions threaten to cloud correct identification. But this emotion versus cognition dichotomy is simply not true. Emotion is part of cognition. It's a tool, just like logic is. Just like narrative is. Just like heuristics are (to use a Kahneman term).

In fact, I agree with you that if you let emotions dominate over reason, it generally ends in a bad place. Not always (especially in the amygdala shortcut to the cortex like when seeing snake-like shapes), but reason is usually best when consciously using volition. In other words, emotions cannot REPLACE logic (and other non-emotion components) in cognition. But it cannot be excluded from cognition and one still be referring to human beings.

Michael

Key to Rand's theory, there is one thing missing. In between reason (--) emotion, is "value"(to my understanding). Reason-value-emotion, otherwise the theory falls apart. If emotion were a tool, then it is an *automatic* tool, one which instantly and faithfully reflects our value-system when confronted by some situation (or memory or thought). But if it's an automatic response, it isn't much use as a tool. If it's not automatic ("automated") then the inference is one has control over one's emotions. Then they aren't honest emotions. If they can be faked, then they aren't tools of cognition. And so it goes...

Through all this, and specifically by William , I have the sense that it is not one's emotions wrt cognition, in and of oneself - i.e. for one's own selfish knowledge and morality - that is central. Rather, the unspoken crux of the issue, is one's emotional relations with other people.

I'd ask William, if he trusts his emotions to make good value-judgments of a person or situation, idea, etc.. If so, does he trust everybody else's emotional judgments?

More than that, is it by their emotions, 'tools of cognition', that mankind will learn to be 'good' to one another? How?

But there are negative emotions following with ugly actions, as well as there are positive and good ones. So, how can one and everyone suppress the bad and keep the good? They all are emotions. 

 

[Wolf DeVoon]

5 minutes ago, anthony said:

I'd ask William, if he trusts his emotions to make good value-judgments of a person. If so, does he trust everybody else's emotional judgments?

More than that, is it by their emotions, as tools of cognition, that mankind will learn to be 'good' to one another? How?

But there are negative emotions following with ugly actions, as well as there are positive and good ones. So, how can one and everyone suppress the bad and keep the good? They all are emotions.

To be brash in romance, brave in combat, bold in ventures that risk one's reputation are backed by something far deeper than "values."

[anthony]

16 minutes ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

To be brash in romance, brave in combat, bold in ventures that risk one's reputation are backed by something far deeper than "values."

It was David Kelley who made an obvious point: one's virtues are equally one's values. It makes beautiful sense, only seems obvious now.

There is no "far deeper" in value than your life, Wolf. Your chosen values hang off that one, singular value.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

1 hour ago, anthony said:

Gawd. Michael, would you please not pull up my one-liners to dissect? 

   

[Wolf DeVoon]

27 minutes ago, anthony said:

It was David Kelley who made an obvious point: one's virtues are equally one's values. It makes beautiful sense, only seems obvious now.

There is no "far deeper" in value than your life, Wolf. Your chosen values hang off that one, singular value.

We disagree. There is no virtue in romance, combat, or reputational risk. Each flies in the face of common sense, risks one's life and too often takes it. I was very much affected by Bob Fosse's All That Jazz, available on Netflix. Art kills. If you have children, perhaps you know what I meant about romance or could guess what it implies for women in particular. The pages of history are strewn with valiant sacrifice for no good reason apart from a fighting madness that does not happen in training or as a result of successful propaganda. I read Kelley as a pragmatist who risked nothing and won nothing except wertfrei sexuality.

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

To be brash in romance, brave in combat, bold in ventures that risk one's reputation are backed by something far deeper than "values."

Biology.

--Brant

madness?

[Brant Gaede]

4 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I had no idea that the totality of existence was a statement.  

Axiomatic statement.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

14 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

The totality of existence and its iron indifference to particular statements of fact or allegation of intent is a metaphysical principle.

How can you not know this?

Statements of fact assert conditions  of the universe.  While the universe may not "care" about statements,  statements of fact must assert conditions of the world that are actually the case. So there is a relation between statements of  fact and the what/how  of the universe.  That is the  essence of the correspondence theory of truth.   Instead of referring to a declarative statement as being metaphysics  why not just say  it is a true statement.  Any true statement -asserting a condition of reality- is "metaphysical"   It is easier to say "true".  Fewer letters to type.

[Brant Gaede]

22 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Statements of fact assert conditions  of the universe.  While the universe may not "care" about statements,  statements of fact must assert conditions of the world that are actually the case. So there is a relation between statements of  fact and the what/how  of the universe.  That is the  essence of the correspondence theory of truth.   Instead of referring to a declarative statement as being metaphysics  why not just say  it is a true statement.  Any true statement -asserting a condition of reality- is "metaphysical"   It is easier to say "true".  Fewer letters to type.

Nope--you want to be left free to dump on "metaphysics" with no acknowledgment that that has little or nothing to do with the explication metaphysics in Objectivism. But this is an Objectivist site, so no go. And this is your general approach to philosophy, which is to ignore it while you factualize your way through these discussions.

--Brant

[anthony]

On 8/22/2017 at 2:58 AM, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

   

Heh!

[anthony]

23 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

Statements of fact assert conditions  of the universe.  While the universe may not "care" about statements,  statements of fact must assert conditions of the world that are actually the case. So there is a relation between statements of  fact and the what/how  of the universe.  That is the  essence of the correspondence theory of truth.   Instead of referring to a declarative statement as being metaphysics  why not just say  it is a true statement.  Any true statement -asserting a condition of reality- is "metaphysical"   It is easier to say "true".  Fewer letters to type.

Ah, but truth isn't "metaphysical". It is the recognition of a fact of reality.

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Brant Gaede said:

Nope--you want to be left free to dump on "metaphysics" with no acknowledgment that that has little or nothing to do with the explication metaphysics in Objectivism. But this is an Objectivist site, so no go. And this is your general approach to philosophy, which is to ignore it while you factualize your way through these discussions.

--Brant

I was under the impression I was free to express and opinion or judgement on the matter.  You are under no obligation to agree with me.  As a matter of historical -fact-  metaphysics delayed the emergence of effective physical science for over 1000 years.  It was people who accepted Aristotle and Plato uncritically that kept the human race poor and ignorant.  Fortunately this condition began to dissolve starting in the late Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance.  Galileo was an early casualty of the struggle between Aristotelian Metaphysics  and just plain old facts.  Newton and other English Empiricists made the major breakthrough. 

Most successful people in the physical sciences and its applications to the human condition consider metaphysics (both Aristotelian and Platonic)  bullshit.  Einstein in his youth was one such person.  He carried a copy of David Hume's philosophy under his arm.  Later in life he became "metaphysical"  and lost touch with scientific progress.   Nowadays  very few people in the physical sciences believe in God or pay much attention to metaphysics.   We have given up Substance and Final Cause and have gotten the GPS  and computers in return.  I would say that is a pretty good exchange. 

[anthony]

 

The anti-metaphysics philosophers fought the good fight against supernatural mumbo-jumbo. John Locke was the very best of Empiricists, going on the bits I read. That was then, and the empirical philosopher today can rest on his laurels, take a sabbatical, retire. ;) His war is over and mostly won. However they haven't let up, but some now continue to attack "metaphysics" under the simplistic fallacy that abstractions in the mind are also "metaphysical" (i.e. 'supernatural'). Makes sort of sense: if you can't see/touch an abstraction, how do you know it is not also absorbed, religious cant? In fact, what's this thing called "mind" anyway, but "the immortal Soul"!!? So it might be hard to find an empiricist today who's not also non-conceptual or an anti-conceptualist. All they see are "facts" and if the "fact" doesn't stay under their noses, it vanishes out of existence. Also, being a-conceptual, all "facts" to them are "equal" in value, which gives rise to much of what can be seen: egalitarian anti-individualism, and of many people's incapability to derive value from facts, evaluate facts. (Judgmentalism - horrors). The worst of the empiricist-skeptics was Hume, without a doubt. He who pronounced that reason could not give him enough cause to scratch his finger to save the world -  unless he felt ~emotionally~ motivated to do so. Emotions, his tools of cognition.

[Brant Gaede]

3 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

I was under the impression I was free to express and opinion or judgement on the matter.  You are under no obligation to agree with me.  As a matter of historical -fact-  metaphysics delayed the emergence of effective physical science for over 1000 years.  It was people who accepted Aristotle and Plato uncritically that kept the human race poor and ignorant.  Fortunately this condition began to dissolve starting in the late Middle Ages and the beginning of the Renaissance.  Galileo was an early casualty of the struggle between Aristotelian Metaphysics  and just plain old facts.  Newton and other English Empiricists made the major breakthrough. 

Most successful people in the physical sciences and its applications to the human condition consider metaphysics (both Aristotelian and Platonic)  bullshit.  Einstein in his youth was one such person.  He carried a copy of David Hume's philosophy under his arm.  Later in life he became "metaphysical"  and lost touch with scientific progress.   Nowadays  very few people in the physical sciences believe in God or pay much attention to metaphysics.   We have given up Substance and Final Cause and have gotten the GPS  and computers in return.  I would say that is a pretty good exchange. 

Me too.

However, your idea about the Aristotle delay is questionable. Looking backwards through reams of historical data could make analysis subject to a confirmation bias and too much simplicity. But not to say you're bottom-line wrong.

I assume your comment about Einstein was his refusal to believe that "God played dice." "God" is about as "metaphysical" as you can get. His statement was not modest.

--Brant

I'm not a moderator on OL and would not accept such a role

[BaalChatzaf]

1 hour ago, Brant Gaede said:

Me too.

However, your idea about the Aristotle delay is questionable. Looking backwards through reams of historical data could make analysis subject to a confirmation bias and too much simplicity. But not to say you're bottom-line wrong.

I assume your comment about Einstein was his refusal to believe that "God played dice." "God" is about as "metaphysical" as you can get. His statement was not modest.

--Brant

I'm not a moderator on OL and would not accept such a role

In his earlier days,  Einstein believed that scientific theories should take in the actual conditions in the world to which they were applied.  He showed our notion of absolute time do no jibe with the operations we actually perform to assign a time to an event  and to determine the extent of an interval.  Einstein's favorite tactic was the  "gedanken experiment"  in which all non-essential aspects of a process or an event was stripped away.  Later on Einstein began substituting philosophy for science.  That is when he fiddled General Theory of Relativity  to prevent the theory from predicting either expansion or collapse of the cosmos.  When Hubble established for sure that the cosmos is expanding  (which means space-time itself is expanding),  Einstein expressed regret.  He said fiddling his theory was his biggest mistake.  Einstein's intuition was beginning to weaken and he lost touch (to some degree)  with physical reality.  If his philosophy had not tripped him up he also would have come up with a better version of quantum physics, than did Bohr and Heisenberg.  A point of Irony.  It was Einstein's clarification of the photoelectric process that put quantum physics in the big leagues.  Einstein also established the basis of lasers.  He came up with the first correct theory of stimulated emission of radiation.  Yet for all that, his philosophical disposition prevented him from accepting quantum physics as "the real thing".

[Wolf DeVoon]

On 8/22/2017 at 9:45 AM, BaalChatzaf said:

Any true statement -asserting a condition of reality- is "metaphysical"   It is easier to say "true".  Fewer letters to type.

I think we should let Bob off the hook. He's an empiricist, thinks the Universe is measurable, consists of phenomena to be studied, gravity and such.

[Brant Gaede]

5 hours ago, BaalChatzaf said:

In his earlier days,  Einstein believed that scientific theories should take in the actual conditions in the world to which they were applied.  He showed our notion of absolute time do no jibe with the operations we actually perform to assign a time to an event  and to determine the extent of an interval.  Einstein's favorite tactic was the  "gedanken experiment"  in which all non-essential aspects of a process or an event was stripped away.  Later on Einstein began substituting philosophy for science.  That is when he fiddled General Theory of Relativity  to prevent the theory from predicting either expansion or collapse of the cosmos.  When Hubble established for sure that the cosmos is expanding  (which means space-time itself is expanding),  Einstein expressed regret.  He said fiddling his theory was his biggest mistake.  Einstein's intuition was beginning to weaken and he lost touch (to some degree)  with physical reality.  If his philosophy had not tripped him up he also would have come up with a better version of quantum physics, than did Bohr and Heisenberg.  A point of Irony.  It was Einstein's clarification of the photoelectric process that put quantum physics in the big leagues.  Einstein also established the basis of lasers.  He came up with the first correct theory of stimulated emission of radiation.  Yet for all that, his philosophical disposition prevented him from accepting quantum physics as "the real thing".

Everybody has a philosophy--unless there is a severe mental disability. Philosophy runs the brain just as Windows runs a computer.

--Brant

but Windows doesn't run in circles

[Brant Gaede]

1 hour ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I think we should let Bob off the hook. He's an empiricist, thinks the Universe is measurable, consists of phenomena to be studied, gravity and such.

Bob's doing just fine. Some of his (liberal arts) ideas, I dunno.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

45 minutes ago, Brant Gaede said:

Everybody has a philosophy--unless there is a severe mental disability. Philosophy runs the brain just as Windows runs a computer.

--Brant

but Windows doesn't run in circles

It doesn't run mine.  I run on logic, reason, good sense, mathematical consistency and above all FACTS.  I never let a philosophical impulse blind me to facts. 

[BaalChatzaf]

2 hours ago, Wolf DeVoon said:

I think we should let Bob off the hook. He's an empiricist, thinks the Universe is measurable, consists of phenomena to be studied, gravity and such.

So true.  People who think that way provided you with the computer and the network  with which you just expressed yourself.