Sign in to follow this  
Michael Stuart Kelly

More on Open and Closed System

Recommended Posts

My question would be: where is it open?

Jim,

How about the issue of tabula rasa? Programming all of your emotions by conscious will? Including human nature as a formal branch of philosophy? Theory of induction? The intrinsicist-emotionalist evasion oversimplifications? Pre-moral choice to live?

That's just for starters. I can think of a hell of a lot more.

I would hate to think that Objectivism will ultimately sink as a philosophy because some of the glaring warts like the above have to be swallowed in the manner Rand and Rand-endorsed folks presented them in order to keep the philosophy "closed."

Michael

I agree with all of these suggestions. And I would add Rand's theory of concepts as based on measurement-omission. I agree with her theory and regard it as brilliant, but it has yet to be fleshed out into a comprehensive science of epistemology, which would include, among other things, a theory of propositions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with all of these suggestions. And I would add Rand's theory of concepts as based on measurement-omission. I agree with her theory and regard it as brilliant, but it has yet to be fleshed out into a comprehensive science of epistemology, which would include, among other things, a theory of propositions.

I think there is a lot that could be done to reconcile and add to her theory of concepts with findings from neuroscience and child cognitive development.

About her theory of measurement omission, in 40+ years I have not seen anybody argue for it any better than Ayn Rand did. I believe there is a good reason for the absence -- her argument is woefully inadequate. If you are interested in what I say about it, see JARS, Volume 7, No. 2 - Spring 2006 (link). My paper on it presented at the TAS 2004 Advanced Seminar (which differed only slightly from the JARS essay) was available on TAS's website, but not since the recent overhaul.

Very briefly, I will repeat what I wrote on RoR earlier today: "As you probably know I reject Rand's doctrine of measurement omission being an essential part of concept formation. If young children can form concepts while knowing nothing about measurement (ratio or interval) or nothing about numbers, then the doctrine crumbles. If there are attributes that are qualitative but not measurable, then the doctrine crumbles. Of course, I hold both these conditionals to be true."

Don't we need a little controversy to liven up OL? Or are Phil Coates and George H. Smith providing enough already? :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Or are Phil Coates and George H. Smith providing enough already?

George and I are doing vaudeville. Every time he calls me a moron, I kick him in the testicles. But I'll tire of it soon....my leg needs rest.

> As you probably know I reject Rand's doctrine of measurement omission being an essential part of concept formation. If young children can form concepts while knowing nothing about measurement (ratio or interval) or nothing about numbers, then the doctrine crumbles.

Only if you think the measurement omission has to be conscious and explicit. Rather than implicit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Very briefly, I will repeat what I wrote on RoR earlier today: "As you probably know I reject Rand's doctrine of measurement omission being an essential part of concept formation. If young children can form concepts while knowing nothing about measurement (ratio or interval) or nothing about numbers, then the doctrine crumbles. If there are attributes that are qualitative but not measurable, then the doctrine crumbles. Of course, I hold both these conditionals to be true."

Don't we need a little controversy to liven up OL? Or are Phil Coates and George H. Smith providing enough already? :)

Well, Merlin, nothing personal, but if you say that, then you are not only “unbelievably ignorant,” but also “pig-headed” and a “blowhard.” (How am I doing?) :lol:

But you’re in good company. Dr. Stephen Hicks (Kant’s Skeptical Conclusion)—probably the sharpest mind at The Atlas Society—clearly qualifies as “pig-headed,” “unbelievably ignorant” and a “blowhard” as well. :o

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Dr. Stephen Hicks (Kant’s Skeptical Conclusion)—probably the sharpest mind at The Atlas Society

I should post that essay for George. But he'd just claim that Hicks' view is bizarre beyond belief and that the philosophy professor is ignorant about philosophy for denying that Kant is an advocate of reason and certainty.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Or are Phil Coates and George H. Smith providing enough already?

George and I are doing vaudeville. Every time he calls me a moron, I kick him in the testicles. But I'll tire of it soon....my leg needs rest.

Do you have any proof of this, such as a doctor's diagnosis of GHS's testicles? :)

> As you probably know I reject Rand's doctrine of measurement omission being an essential part of concept formation. If young children can form concepts while knowing nothing about measurement (ratio or interval) or nothing about numbers, then the doctrine crumbles.

Only if you think the measurement omission has to be conscious and explicit. Rather than implicit.

Measuring is a conscious act. Try measuring a distance or duration without your conscious attention and observation. Or with your subconscious. :)

Oh, my. Get ready for the handwaving, folks.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, Merlin, nothing personal, but if you say that, then you are not only “unbelievably ignorant,” but also “pig-headed” and a “blowhard.” (How am I doing?) :lol:

I readily admit to being unbelievably ignorant about some things, e.g. musical notation, the Russian or Arabic language. But not about math, measurement and epistemology.

But you’re in good company. Dr. Stephen Hicks (Kant’s Skeptical Conclusion)—probably the sharpest mind at The Atlas Society—clearly qualifies as “pig-headed,” “unbelievably ignorant” and a “blowhard” as well. :o

Thanks for the odd compliment, I think. But I wonder how Kant's Skeptical Conclusion relates to anything I have said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

George and I are doing vaudeville. Every time he calls me a moron, I kick him in the testicles. But I'll tire of it soon....my leg needs rest.

Do you have any proof of this, such as a doctor's diagnosis of GHS's testicles? :)

That’s not a job for a doctor, call a metallurgist. I believe an alloy of copper and zinc is involved. For Phil, I suggest a cranial MRI is needed to render a diagnosis. There’s strong evidence that much of his gray matter has recently been subject to what Douglas Adams called “spontaneous massive existence failure”.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
My question would be: where is it open?

Jim,

How about the issue of tabula rasa? Programming all of your emotions by conscious will? Including human nature as a formal branch of philosophy? Theory of induction? The intrinsicist-emotionalist evasion oversimplifications? Pre-moral choice to live?

That's just for starters. I can think of a hell of a lot more.

I would hate to think that Objectivism will ultimately sink as a philosophy because some of the glaring warts like the above have to be swallowed in the manner Rand and Rand-endorsed folks presented them in order to keep the philosophy "closed."

Michael

Well, again it seems pretty clear to me that these and many other...let's say "square pegs in round holes" have a rather elegant consistency to them if you argue backwards from the political endpoints I believe she sought as primary motivation.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, again it seems pretty clear to me that these and many other...let's say "square pegs in round holes" have a rather elegant consistency to them if you argue backwards from the political endpoints I believe she sought as primary motivation.

Bob,

And ignore the good stuff she wrote while you're at it?

That's the only way I see your analysis have its own "elegant consistency."

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, again it seems pretty clear to me that these and many other...let's say "square pegs in round holes" have a rather elegant consistency to them if you argue backwards from the political endpoints I believe she sought as primary motivation.

Bob,

And ignore the good stuff she wrote while you're at it?

That's the only way I see your analysis have its own "elegant consistency."

Michael

True enough and point taken. But to me it's like a con man: I don't admire all of his "good stuff" so much once the facade is broken and his dishonesty is exposed when he screws you (or tries to). Quite frankly I think Rand would have done a much better job if she was honest. It's a shame really. I might have fallen for it hook, line, and sinker if I head read her in my teens.

Bob

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quite frankly I think Rand would have done a much better job if she was honest.

Bob,

Do you have any evidence to back up your claim that Rand's intent was to deceive people?

Or do you just disagree with her and sling mud for emphasis?

Michael

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Or are Phil Coates and George H. Smith providing enough already?

George and I are doing vaudeville. Every time he calls me a moron, I kick him in the testicles. But I'll tire of it soon....my leg needs rest.

> As you probably know I reject Rand's doctrine of measurement omission being an essential part of concept formation. If young children can form concepts while knowing nothing about measurement (ratio or interval) or nothing about numbers, then the doctrine crumbles.

Only if you think the measurement omission has to be conscious and explicit. Rather than implicit.

Phil,

Since there exist countless "concepts" where measurements don't not factor in at all, measurement omission is not an essential part of concept formation.

I had always assumed that Peikoff’s effort to “close” Objectivism was entirely his own idea--his own pathetic, deranged attempt to assert territorial supremacy--but a passage in Anne Heller’s recent biography suggests that Ayn Rand, in the lonely bitterness of her later years, may have given him some marginal basis for thinking this was consistent with her own wishes.

I'm convinced that Peikoff would never have done anything which he believed not to be in sync with Rand's wishes.

Nathaniel Branden, in his essay "The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand" writes:

"Ayn always insisted that her philosophy was an integrated whole, that it was entirely self-consistent, and that one could not reasonably pick elements of her philosophy and discard others. In effect, she declared, “It’s all or nothing.” Now this is a rather curious view, if you think about it. What she was saying, translated into simple English, is: Everything I have to say in the field of philosophy is true, absolutely true, and therefore any departure necessarily leads you into error. Don’t try to mix your irrational fantasies with my immutable truths. This insistence turned Ayn Rand’s philosophy, for all practical purposes, into dogmatic religion, and many of her followers chose that path."

http://nathanielbranden.com/catalog/articles_essays/benefits_and_hazards.html

So when AR says (source given in MSK's # post):

"I’m glad you are not that acquainted with my philosophy, because if you were, you would know that I haven’t nearly said everything yet. I do have a complete philosophical system, but the elaboration of a system is a job that no philosopher can finish in his lifetime. There is an awful lot of work yet to be done.",

she refers it refers to herself not having said everything yet. But this is no permission given to others to modify, let alone discard parts of it. N. Branden is clear as a bell about this.

According to Heller, when Harry Binswanger started the Objectivist Forum in 1980, Ayn Rand provided him with some assistance but refrained from giving the magazine her full endorsement. In a letter to readers published in the first issue, she stated explicitly that she could not say with assurance that the content would be consistent with Objectivism. By way of explanation, she said: “…Objectivism is the name I have given to my philosophy—therefore, anyone using the name for some hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption of trying to put thoughts into my brain.” Heller adds: “She and her philosophy had become a unit.” (Ayn Rand and the World She Made, p. 407)

Imo Rand and her philosophy always were a unit.

The question has been brought up whether Objectivism will ultimately sink as philosophy.

When you look at the history of philosophy, does there exist any philosopical system which has survived as a whole?

The whole history of mankind can also be seen as a history of corrected and discarded beliefs.

Those who have a problem with this are the dogmatists, the ideologocical keepers of the grail. The ideologists who can't bear even one iota of the doctrine/dogma to be modified, let alone discarded. From their perspective, this fear is perfectly justified. For they of course know that once a dogma is subject to change, it loses its power qua dogma. They can't preserve the claim of the dogma's objective value if they allow it to be changed or even abolished. For allowing a doctrine to be changed - and those changes can very quickly reach the point of the doctrine being abolished as a whole, just think of what happened in the USSR - is admitting that they were in error about the objective value of the doctrine.

This is the reason why L. Peikoff fights tooth and nail to have the pure doctrine preserved as a whole.

Peikoff knows that once he allows people to live their personal version of Objectivism, by taking parts which suit them them and discarding others, in short practising 'patchwork philosophy', Objectivism as a package deal will naturally lose its power because it will be transformed into something else. In resisting these perfectly natural and creative transformations, the dogmatists have to pay a price they never wanted: without intending it, they in fact contribute to that which they wanted to avoid at all costs: the death of the dogma.

For not allowing fresh and inspiring elements into a philosophy (ideologists hardly ever allow this) is putting it on life support. This happened in the Soviet Union, and when the time of glasnost and perestroika had come, Gorbatchev finally pulled the plug on a 'patient' (the Communist ideology) long since brain-dead.

If Peikoff & Co keep isolating themselves in ther ideological Ivory ARI tower, ironically, they will contribute to Objectivism's demise more than the harshest critic ever could.

The problem is not the 'warts' in a thought system or philosophy. A wart can be removed. It is the premises which are the key. Should they be exposed as false, it has substantial onsequences for the system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the premises are fine. It's the elaborations and explications that get screwy. True critical thinking was never emphasized as that is at automatic conflict with a dogmatic presentation. Interestingly, Ayn Rand didn't like to have her picture taken except, perhaps, under controlled conditions. It's as if everything, even her personal appearance for posterity, had to be just so. No one was to see the twisting, conflicting humanity underneath it all, especially under Atlas Shrugged, no matter how much naturally a part of the human condition. That was private, to be withheld from the world. Thus no one helped her. Thus Frank was a Randian hero. Thus Nathaniel was John Galt with "a few blemishes." Thus an over-emphasis on philosophy and overly burdening philosophy continuing to this very day, it seems, with a book on "physics" with only four equations and an introduction by Leonard Peikoff. She looked around and saw the horrible state of the world and blamed it all on Kant. The necessary great philosopher for the great troubles. Never mind envy, tribalism and even power lust or the intelligence limits of the human brain generally speaking or the need for humanity to collectively evolve over time to a better place having been educated by war, blood, poverty and disease. Never mind the bifurcated nature of her favorite nation: state power vs individual rights basically settled by the Constitutional Convention and sealed by the bloody war between the states. What has come since has been the inertia of statism goosed by democratic taking from Peter to pay more and more Pauls devolving into outright insolvency and fascism. "I pledge allegiance to the"--what?

--Brant

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the premises are fine. It's the elaborations and explications that get screwy. True critical thinking was never emphasized as that is at automatic conflict with a dogmatic presentation. Interestingly, Ayn Rand didn't like to have her picture taken except, perhaps, under controlled conditions. It's as if everything, even her personal appearance for posterity, had to be just so. No one was to see the twisting, conflicting humanity underneath it all, especially under Atlas Shrugged, no matter how much naturally a part of the human condition. That was private, to be withheld from the world. Thus no one helped her. Thus Frank was a Randian hero. Thus Nathaniel was John Galt with "a few blemishes." Thus an over-emphasis on philosophy and overly burdening philosophy continuing to this very day, it seems, with a book on "physics" with only four equations and an introduction by Leonard Peikoff. She looked around and saw the horrible state of the world and blamed it all on Kant. The necessary great philosopher for the great troubles. Never mind envy, tribalism and even power lust or the intelligence limits of the human brain generally speaking or the need for humanity to collectively evolve over time to a better place having been educated by war, blood, poverty and disease. Never mind the bifurcated nature of her favorite nation: state power vs individual rights basically settled by the Constitutional Convention and sealed by the bloody war between the states. What has come since has been the inertia of statism goosed by democratic taking from Peter to pay more and more Pauls devolving into outright insolvency and fascism. "I pledge allegiance to the"--what?

--Brant

That's quite a nice post. I was especially caught by the observation of Rand's control on everything. Yes, I did the same when I started reading her philosophy. Twist out the humanity in order to fit with some imagined ideal. Seems almost military-esque in the need for self-discipline. When can you laugh, play, and let go? Maybe children aren't born human, they need to be trained and disciplined to be perfect. And when the adult arises, the child must die. (ok, I'm going too far here, but it fits)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Twist out the humanity in order to fit with some imagined ideal. Seems almost military-esque in the need for self-discipline. When can you laugh, play, and let go?

I never took the philosophy that way. Nor is it necessary to. A lot of people do go through a heavily Randroid phase, feel bad about their own emotions, or feel there is something wrong with letting go, though.

I've made other mistakes. But not this particular list.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a radical difference between having an “open mind” in the sense that Ayn Rand described and taking the viewpoint that Objectivism is an “open system.” In his monograph—Truth and Toleration (later revised as “The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand”), David Kelley carefully outlined certain key points of the Objectivist philosophy which are fundamental—e.g., reality as an objective absolute, reason as man’s only tool of knowledge, the ethical principle of rational self-interest and laissez-faire capitalism, among others. Rand’s view of objectivity (vs subjectivism and intrinsicism) would also be included. You might want to read Kelley’s essay for a full analysis of those fundamental tenets, which I think was thoroughly valid and accurate. Those who advocate the view that Objectivism is an “open system” do not regard such fundamental principles (not limited to the above) as in doubt.

The view that Objectivism is “open” simply means that we must be free to think independently about the more detailed aspects of Objectivism (e.g., Objectivist epistemology) and to further extend the Objectivist system as needed until it can reasonably be considered as complete. It means that we do not believe in treating the works of Ayn Rand as dogma.

No one could reasonably call himself an Objectivist and, for instance, claim to have an open mind about the existence of objective reality. We are entitled to have an open mind only in those areas of human knowledge where the existing evidence is inconclusive.

The advocates of “open” Objectivism simply believe that there is more philosophical work to be done Someone who claimed to have an open mind about everything has no genuine convictions. Such generalized agnosticism has nothing whatever to do with treating Objectivism as an open system.

Dennis,

I took the time to read a Google cache of "The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand" over the weekend and I will say it was very useful in answering my questions after reading "A Question of Sanction" and "Fact and Value." One issue I have is that I don't think Kelley clearly expressed enough why certain principles held in Objectivism are primary and why some are not. For instance, although Kelley states that the political implication of the Objectivist view of right is that government must be very limited, in the 2000 postscript, Kelley lists several "sticking points in Objectivism" that will be debated among Objectivists, one which being the question "Is anarchism or limited government the best system for protecting individual rights?" This suggests that Kelley does not consider the principles laid out in "The Nature of Government" to be primary to Objectivism. Is there anything written by an open Objectivist that goes into fuller detail about why certain principles are primary are why others are not?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I posted a commentary that is still in the Articles section of this site that delves into this further.

Like I said in it, if Ms. Rand and Piekoff wanted to have a completely closed system they would have used the model that Andrew Galambos used for his Free Enterprise School.

Galambos contractually made people agree they would never repeat or use any of the knowledge they acquired in his courses in print without his permission. While his venture was very successful and people attended his classes by the hundreds in which word got out about his school mainly by word of mouth.

Yet you do now know or hear anything about Galambos and his volitional science philosophy since his closed system method by contract was so successful that he and his philosophy are relegated to the realm of the unknown or ancient relics.

As for me, I think Objectivism itself is systematic to where it does not need to be changed. Just expanded upon.

Any of the claims by orthodox Objectivists that Objectivism is closed and their writings on the matter are nothing more than rationalizations and are not grounded in reality.

If Objectivism was Ayn Rand's philosophy, it automatically became dogmatic absolutely when she died and therefore should have been buried with her, not subject to a book by Leonard Peikoff which apparently misrepresented parts of it.

--Brant

I'm thinking of calling my philosophy "Misrectionism."

Edited by Mike Renzulli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Agreed.

I posted a commentary that is still in the Articles section of this site that delves into this further.

Like I said in it, if Ms. Rand and Piekoff wanted to have a completely closed system they would have used the model that Andrew Galambos used for his Free Enterprise School.

Galambos contractually made people agree they would never repeat or use any of the knowledge they acquired in his courses in print without his permission. While his venture was very successful and people attended his classes by the hundreds in which word got out about his school mainly by word of mouth.

Yet you do now know or hear anything about Galambos and his volitional science philosophy since his closed system method by contract was so successful that he and his philosophy are relegated to the realm of the unknown or ancient relics.

As for me, I think Objectivism itself is systematic to where it does not need to be changed. Just expanded upon.

Any of the claims by orthodox Objectivists that Objectivism is closed and their writings on the matter are nothing more than rationalizations and are not grounded in reality.

If Objectivism was Ayn Rand's philosophy, it automatically became dogmatic absolutely when she died and therefore should have been buried with her, not subject to a book by Leonard Peikoff which apparently misrepresented parts of it.

--Brant

I'm thinking of calling my philosophy "Misrectionism."

What about calling it an "open-ended" system?

(This had to be considered already, I'm sure.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> Or are Phil Coates and George H. Smith providing enough already?

George and I are doing vaudeville. Every time he calls me a moron, I kick him in the testicles. But I'll tire of it soon....my leg needs rest.

> As you probably know I reject Rand's doctrine of measurement omission being an essential part of concept formation. If young children can form concepts while knowing nothing about measurement (ratio or interval) or nothing about numbers, then the doctrine crumbles.

Only if you think the measurement omission has to be conscious and explicit. Rather than implicit.

Indeed it crumbles. Rand even alleges that a child is able grasp the concept "length" before having knowledge of words. ITOE, p. 11). The absurdity of this allegation warrants the conclusion that Rand has no evidence to back up her claim. If she had conducted any experiments with children in that field, it would have done a sobering litmus test of reality contradicting her belief).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand even alleges that a child is able grasp the concept "length" before having knowledge of words.

You mangled her words again. She said a child can grasp the concept "length" w/o having the specific word for it. For the umpteenth time Xray fails to check her own false premises. The absurdity of Xray's allegation warrants the conclusion that Xray has no evidence to back up her claim. Indeed, there is much evidence that contradicts Xray's claim. This is merely one example. One does not need to have the word to have the concept. This is especially true for a something physical, for which images suffice.

Edited by Merlin Jetton

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand even alleges that a child is able grasp the concept "length" before having knowledge of words.

You mangled her words again. She said a child can grasp the concept "length" w/o having the specific word for it.

I didn't mangle anything. Look up the ITOE page (11) I gave in my # 46 post. Rand writes verbatim:

The child does not think not in such words (he has, as yet, no knowledge of words.

That is, no knowledge yet of words at all. And you seriously believe that a child having yet no knowledge of words, if it "considers a match, a pencil an a stick", is able to perform mental operations like: "Length is the attribute they have in common, but must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. I shall identify as length that attribute of any existent possessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length, without specifiying the quantity." (Rand ITOE, p. 11)

MJ: For the umpteenth time Xray fails to check her own false premises.

The false premises are on Rand's part: she claims that a concept like e. g. "length", because it is "the concept of a single attribute", is "the simplest one epistemologically".

If Rand had conducted experiments with children, she would have realized her error.

For even children who already do have knowledge of words, when they see a match, a pencil and a stick, will not automatically focus on any common attribute, but perceive and treat those items as separate entities.

To see for yourself, feel free to conduct experiments in that field with children.

The absurdity of Xray's allegation warrants the conclusion that Xray has no evidence to back up her claim. Indeed, there is much evidence that contradicts Xray's claim. This is merely one example. One does not need to have the word to have the concept. This is especially true for a something physical, for which images suffice.

The link you gave is about object permanence, which is a different issue altogether.

Edited by Xray

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Rand even alleges that a child is able grasp the concept "length" before having knowledge of words.

You mangled her words again. She said a child can grasp the concept "length" w/o having the specific word for it.

I didn't mangle anything. Look up the ITOE page (11) I gave in my # 46 post. Rand writes verbatim:

The child does not think not in such words (he has, as yet, no knowledge of words.

That is, no knowledge yet of words at all. And you seriously believe that a child having yet no knowledge of words, if it "considers a match, a pencil an a stick", is able to perform mental operations like: "Length is the attribute they have in common, but must exist in some quantity, but may exist in any quantity. I shall identify as length that attribute of any existent possessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length, without specifiying the quantity." (Rand ITOE, p. 11)

MJ: For the umpteenth time Xray fails to check her own false premises.

The false premises are on Rand's part: she claims that a concept like e. g. "length", because it is "the concept of a single attribute", is "the simplest one epistemologically".

If Rand had conducted experiments with children, she would have realized her error.

For even children who already do have knowledge of words, when they see a match, a pencil and a stick, will not automatically focus on any common attribute, but perceive and treat those items as separate entities.

To see for yourself, feel free to conduct experiments in that field with children.

The absurdity of Xray's allegation warrants the conclusion that Xray has no evidence to back up her claim. Indeed, there is much evidence that contradicts Xray's claim. This is merely one example. One does not need to have the word to have the concept. This is especially true for a something physical, for which images suffice.

The link you gave is about object permanence, which is a different issue altogether.

To repeat Merlin :"One does not have to have the word to have the concept."

What is the problem with this - or are you asserting that nothing existed before man formulated words?

I don't believe that one has to study children to ascertain that the concept 'length', for example, is comparative.

It's self-evident and entirely plausible that one of the first things a newly focused brain does, is learn to compare size. The length of her own finger, let's say, against her mother's hand.

Then comparing this newly learned standard to everything she sees; with distance next, possibly, as she 'sees' that her finger is the same length as her father a long way off.

Also, the "separate entities" conceptualization by a child, whether it's at sub-conscious or semi-conscious level I can only guess, is likely the most important formative stage of the infant.

But I'm no expert at this.

Tony

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't mangle anything. Look up the ITOE page (11) I gave in my # 46 post. Rand writes verbatim:

The child does not think not in such words (he has, as yet, no knowledge of words.

That is, no knowledge yet of words at all.

I didn't read the next paragraph a while ago. In any case, she didn't write "words at all" or "any words" like you try to cram in her mouth, did she? She may have meant "those words" or "the words", meaning the words to express the thoughts, but it didn't reach the book that way. Typesetters and proofreaders do make errors! Of course, I don't expect you to ever give her any slack about anything, even considering that English wasn't her native language.

The link you gave is about object permanence, which is a different issue altogether.

No, it's not "a different issue altogether". It is an example of what I said immediately before -- one does not need to have the word to have the concept.

Answer this: Does one need to have the word to have the concept -- yes or no? Why or why not?

Edited by Merlin Jetton

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