Settling the debate on Altruism

[Daniel Barnes]

This is not Leonid, but Law of Identity which disavows contradictions. This Law is The Supreme Minister of everything.

Oh, if you are going to try to invoke a logical argument that the standard definitions of "sacrifice" in the dictionary are somehow false, then let's see it laid out.

I will bet in advance it amounts to nothing more than yours or Ayn Rand's say-so.

But feel free to prove me wrong.

[imurray]

Actually any good philosopher of language, like Wittgenstein, used metaphors all the time, e.g., "language game" or "form of life". There are also 'good' philosophers of language wo say that the essence of language is metaphor - that all words are metaphors. I guess you'd have to explain what you mean by "good" philosophers of language - perhaps you meant to say "those philosophers of language who I agree with".

No, I don't consider Wittgenstein to be an especially good philosopher of language, but that's not the point. My comment referred to the use of metaphors in definitions, not to their use in other contexts, where they can be extremely useful. Literal definitions are to be preferred over metaphorical definitions, whenever this is possible. I daresay you will find this advice in almost any elementary text on logic that you care to consult.

As for the claim that "all words are metaphors," that simply robs the term "metaphor" of any meaning, since there remains no literal meaning -- or "polar" term, as a Wittgensteinian might say -- to contrast it with.

Ghs

Time-binding is a concept, not a definition yet you went on to say that it was a metaphor and that made it bad because you shouldn't use metaphors in definitions.

That was the cause for my confusion.

[George H. Smith]

It is fair to say that this was the primary meaning that Rand assigned to the term, though I concede there are places where she waffles a bit in her usage.

Rand seems to argue that this original, yet obscure version describing acts almost no-one has ever practiced somehow captures the "essence" of misc. general acts we normally consider altruistic.

"Essence" is one word for it. "Strawman" is another.

Comte, as you know, coined the word "altruism," and the meaning he assigned to it was accepted and carried on by many nineteenth century "positivists." Comte's meaning is "obscure" only to those who know nothing about the history of philosophy. Philosophers often use words in a more precise sense than we customarily find in ordinary usage. This is why John Locke (among many other philosophers) claimed that the "civil use" of language is sometimes "very distinct" from its "philosophic use."

As for your crack about Rand and "essence," that merely demonstrates your ignorance of Rand's ideas.

As for your comment about Comte's altruism being a version that no one has ever practiced, if by "practiced" you mean "practiced consistently," then Rand agreed with you. Indeed, this was the key to a major criticism that she made against altruism. For example, in The Fountainhead, Toohey says to Keating:

"Tell men that altruism is the ideal. Not a single one of them has ever achieved it and not a single one ever will. His every living instinct screams against it. But don't you see what you accomplish? Man realizes that he's incapable of what he's accepted as the noblest virtue—and it gives him a sense of guilt, of sin, of his own basic unworthiness."

Toohey then explains how altruism has been used as a pretext and justification for political power.

Toohey's discussion of altruism in Chapter 14 of The Fountainhead is perhaps the most interesting thing that Rand ever wrote on the subject. I suggest that people who are discussing this topic read or reread it.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Time-binding is a concept, not a definition yet you went on to say that it was a metaphor and that made it bad because you shouldn't use metaphors in definitions.

That was the cause for my confusion.

GS cited Korzybski's definition of humans as "a time-binding class of life," stating that he prefers this to the classic definition of "rational animal." So how can one literally "bind" time? This is clearly a metaphor. In other contexts, this metaphor may be unobjectionable, but it makes for a crappy definition.

Ghs

[Leonid]

This is not Leonid, but Law of Identity which disavows contradictions. This Law is The Supreme Minister of everything.

Oh, if you are going to try to invoke a logical argument that the standard definitions of "sacrifice" in the dictionary are somehow false, then let's see it laid out.

I will bet in advance it amounts to nothing more than yours or Ayn Rand's say-so.

But feel free to prove me wrong.

[Brant Gaede]

Man: The rational animal.

Saga (my chocolate Lab): a non-rational animal, but not irrational.

Thus if man is "the rational animal" he is also the irrational animal. You cannot be a rational animal unless you have the capacity also not to be one. Thus Rand could have defined man as the irrational animal, but that would have defined man down and she wanted to define man up.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Man: The rational animal.

Saga (my chocolate Lab): a non-rational animal, but not irrational.

Thus if man is "the rational animal" he is also the irrational animal. You cannot be a rational animal unless you have the capacity also not to be one. Thus Rand could have defined man as the irrational animal, but that would have defined man down and she wanted to define man up.

--Brant

"Rational" in the standard definition stands in contrast to "nonrational," not to "irrational." I suspect you already knew this, however, so I don't really understand your point.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Man: The rational animal.

Saga (my chocolate Lab): a non-rational animal, but not irrational.

Thus if man is "the rational animal" he is also the irrational animal. You cannot be a rational animal unless you have the capacity also not to be one. Thus Rand could have defined man as the irrational animal, but that would have defined man down and she wanted to define man up.

--Brant

"Rational" in the standard definition stands in contrast to "nonrational," not to "irrational." I suspect you already knew this, however, so I don't really understand your point.

Ghs

The point is the supposed inadequacy of Rand's definition. Also, you seem to be partially implying that irrational and non-rational are the same thing. There is nothing irrational about Saga, but there is non-rational all over the place. Rationality is thinking and irrationality is willful rejection through ignorance or design of rationality regarding this or that or many, many things. Rational and non-rational is man and everything else we know about, including inanimate things. You could say the same about irrational. Either way you are talking about man, period.

--Brant

Edited March 25, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[Leonid]

Daniel :Oh, if you are going to try to invoke a logical argument that the standard definitions of "sacrifice" in the dictionary are somehow false, then let's see it laid out”

I’ll try to invoke your rational faculty. You may start to use it when you read my posts.

If you were, you would know that “definitions of "sacrifice" in the dictionary are somehow false” is not my claim. My claim is that dictionary gives common definition of sacrifice as surrender of value, a loss . It also describes the common useage of the word “sacrifice” which means giving up a lesser value in order to get a bigger one, a gain. Obviously one word cannot designate two contradictory concepts. One of them must be an aberration. A cannot be A and non-A the same time and in same respect. In the view of the historical meaning of the concept I argue that sacrifice means loss, not gain. But even if you’re right and this word is polysemous or homonymous, you have to explain how it happened that the same word denotes two contradictory concepts. As far as I know this is unprecedented case in English and in two other languages in which I’m fluent. My explanation is an internalization of altruism. If you have any other bright ideas, you are welcome to share them. Your childish outbursts against Rand or myself are not arguments and will not do.

Edited March 25, 2010 by Leonid

[anthony]

In the beginning was the Concept - then came the Word. B)

Simplistic, sure, what this all comes down to, is that words are man-made tools, while concepts are not - they can be identified, but not created, imo.

As much as I love and appreciate English, I will admit that its words are often imprecise, ambiguous and proximate to the concept we wish to convey.

I often had the sense that Rand would have liked to break into the odd Russian or French - or even make up her own word - in her expositions about concepts.

But she stuck rigidly and admirably to English. Where she didn't define, she described, where she didn't describe, she illustrated.

The 'bottom line' is that there is no way readers of her novels and essays can NOT understand her concepts.

Sacrifice and altruism might have common useage meanings contrary to the Rand useage. So what? Her meanings are clear.

Is 'Concept No.Xf4r,' pro Man, pro individuality and pro Reason - or is it not? Can one accept her meaning, and apply it and integrate it - or not?

Definitions are critical, but where they may have become hi-jacked or corrupted, it is even more critical that the Concept remains truthful and uncorrupted.

Otherwise, debating the meaning of words endlessly, raises a smoke- screen that might be convenient to some.

Tony

[tjohnson]

Speaking of vague terms, I've been hoping that you would define what you mean by "time," and define it in such a way that it is meaningful to say humans can "bind" time. So far, no luck. I suspect that "time-binding" is a metaphor -- and as any good philosopher of language will tell you, to employ metaphors in definitions is rarely a good idea.

Ghs

I just posted Korzybski's explanation of 'time-binding' but in case you missed it here it is again;

And now what shall we say of human beings? What is to be our definition of Man? Like the animals, human beings do indeed possess the space-binding capacity but, over and above that, human beings possess a most remarkable capacity which is entirely peculiar to them-I mean the capacity to summarise, digest and appropriate the labors and experiences of the past; I mean the capacity to use the fruits of past labors and experiences as intellectual or spiritual capital for developments in the present; I mean the capacity to employ as instruments of increasing power the accumulated achievements of the all-precious lives of the past generations spent in trial and error, trial and success; I mean the capacity of human beings to conduct their lives in the ever increasing light of inherited wisdom; I mean the capacity in virtue of which man is at once the heritor of the by-gone ages and the trustee of posterity. And because humanity is just this magnificent natural agency by which the past lives in the present and the present for the future, I define HUMANITY, in the universal tongue of mathematics and mechanics, to be the TIME-BINDING CLASS OF LIFE.

Is there something you don't understand in the above?

[Leonid]

Brant "Saga (my chocolate Lab): a non-rational animal, but not irrational."

Your dog is a-rational. Irrationality means denial of rational faculty which your dog doesn't posses. Only humans who are able volitionally to deny their rationality could be irrational. Rationality and irrationality are two sides of the same coin.

[tjohnson]

GS: "'Conceptual', there is another vague term. Can you explain this in more detail?"

It's not vague but rather complicated. In the nutshell conceptual thinking is the human way to interact with reality.According to Objectivism, concepts "represent classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents." The Objectivist theory of concepts is best described in " Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand

So you claim that animals are not rational because they cannot think conceptually and when I ask about 'conceptual' you say this is how humans act. So we are going in circles. I daresay animal form concepts all the time - they just don't speak about them and they don't makes inferences and they don't have science. These are exclusively human activities.

[tjohnson]

In the beginning was the Concept - then came the Word. B)

Simplistic, sure, what this all comes down to, is that words are man-made tools, while concepts are not - they can be identified, but not created, imo.

As much as I love and appreciate English, I will admit that its words are often imprecise, ambiguous and proximate to the concept we wish to convey.

I often had the sense that Rand would have liked to break into the odd Russian or French - or even make up her own word - in her expositions about concepts.

But she stuck rigidly and admirably to English. Where she didn't define, she described, where she didn't describe, she illustrated.

The 'bottom line' is that there is no way readers of her novels and essays can NOT understand her concepts.

Sacrifice and altruism might have common useage meanings contrary to the Rand useage. So what? Her meanings are clear.

Is 'Concept No.Xf4r,' pro Man, pro individuality and pro Reason - or is it not? Can one accept her meaning, and apply it and integrate it - or not?

Definitions are critical, but where they may have become hi-jacked or corrupted, it is even more critical that the Concept remains truthful and uncorrupted.

Otherwise, debating the meaning of words endlessly, raises a smoke- screen that might be convenient to some.

Tony

Yes, concepts are very important yet how are we to get them across to others without language? And if we need language then we must follow the rules of language or else we fail to grasp the concepts. So if a word has come to mean a certain concept then it is not a good idea to take it and use it for another concept because threads like this are the invariable result.

[dan2100]

In the beginning was the Concept - then came the Word.

Simplistic, sure, what this all comes down to, is that words are man-made tools, while concepts are not - they can be identified, but not created, imo.

As much as I love and appreciate English, I will admit that its words are often imprecise, ambiguous and proximate to the concept we wish to convey.

I often had the sense that Rand would have liked to break into the odd Russian or French - or even make up her own word - in her expositions about concepts.

But she stuck rigidly and admirably to English. Where she didn't define, she described, where she didn't describe, she illustrated.

The 'bottom line' is that there is no way readers of her novels and essays can NOT understand her concepts.

Sacrifice and altruism might have common useage meanings contrary to the Rand useage. So what? Her meanings are clear.

Is 'Concept No.Xf4r,' pro Man, pro individuality and pro Reason - or is it not? Can one accept her meaning, and apply it and integrate it - or not?

Definitions are critical, but where they may have become hi-jacked or corrupted, it is even more critical that the Concept remains truthful and uncorrupted.

Otherwise, debating the meaning of words endlessly, raises a smoke- screen that might be convenient to some.

Tony

Yes, concepts are very important yet how are we to get them across to others without language? And if we need language then we must follow the rules of language or else we fail to grasp the concepts. So if a word has come to mean a certain concept then it is not a good idea to take it and use it for another concept because threads like this are the invariable result.

I feel this should be moved to another thread: the relation between language and concepts. (And some of this is related to my survey of Prinz's Furnishing the Mind.) It might be pursued by asking what does it mean to understand a concept correctly and to use a word correctly. The two questions are intertwined, but still conceptually separable. (Pun intended.)

To return to how to get across concepts without language, I've been thinking about this for a while. I believe language is definitely an easy, economical way to communicate or acquire concepts, but, clearly (I believe), there has to be some pre- or extra- linguistic conceptual apparatus -- or one's concepts would only refer to language itself and conceptuality would just be a word game with only an accidental relevance to anything outside language. That doesn't appear to be the case.

So how to communicate concepts without language? Perhaps one way is show and tell. This still has problems as thinkers like Augustine pointed out. For instance, if I show you a few dogs, trying to get across the concept of "dog," how can I be sure you'll grasp that concept and not, say, "mammal," "pet," "furry things," or something else? Actually, I believe Augustine brings this up in the case of words (in his De Magistro), but I think it's a problem for both words and for concepts. E.g., in this case, one can apply this to you figuring out what I mean by the word "dog" -- which, let's say, you don't know, being a non-English speaker. Me pointing at my neighbors' dogs might lead you believe I mean something other than "dog." My guess is it depends on all of us sharing the same basic perceptions and that at a low level we're likely to get this right, though at higher levels -- me trying to get across the concept of "mammal" or "pet" this might be harder.

Still, I could be wrong here. I believe Steven Pinker, in his Words and Rules: The Ingredients of Language, pointed out that people in modern Western cultures tend to classify things along lines of origins or similarities, such as dogs and whales under mammals, tire irons and screwdrivers under tools, and the like while many other peoples classify things along lines of working relationships, such as classifying, maybe tire irons with cars or dogs with cattle because these things are used together. (Of course, this is just a tendency and it doesn't seem to me to be anything as radical as, say, the Sapir-Whorf Hypothesis. I hope no one here holds that hypothesis to be valid in its strong form.) This might lead to some dissonance in trying to related concepts or words in some cases.

Even so, I imagine repeated interaction between people would allow us to fine tune relating these things. If you think I mean "pet" by showing you dogs, for instance, I can test this out by showing you one of my neighbor's cats or finches and seeing if you think they fit with dog too. (Of course, this works much more easily with words. Trying to get this across without using words is not impossible, but would be hard in most cases. One way I can think of is that you might take certain actions with a dog that you simply wouldn't do with other pets, such as feeding it certain foods, putting it on a leash, and the like.)

[George H. Smith]

Speaking of vague terms, I've been hoping that you would define what you mean by "time," and define it in such a way that it is meaningful to say humans can "bind" time. So far, no luck. I suspect that "time-binding" is a metaphor -- and as any good philosopher of language will tell you, to employ metaphors in definitions is rarely a good idea.

Ghs

I just posted Korzybski's explanation of 'time-binding' but in case you missed it here it is again;

And now what shall we say of human beings? What is to be our definition of Man? Like the animals, human beings do indeed possess the space-binding capacity but, over and above that, human beings possess a most remarkable capacity which is entirely peculiar to them-I mean the capacity to summarise, digest and appropriate the labors and experiences of the past; I mean the capacity to use the fruits of past labors and experiences as intellectual or spiritual capital for developments in the present; I mean the capacity to employ as instruments of increasing power the accumulated achievements of the all-precious lives of the past generations spent in trial and error, trial and success; I mean the capacity of human beings to conduct their lives in the ever increasing light of inherited wisdom; I mean the capacity in virtue of which man is at once the heritor of the by-gone ages and the trustee of posterity. And because humanity is just this magnificent natural agency by which the past lives in the present and the present for the future, I define HUMANITY, in the universal tongue of mathematics and mechanics, to be the TIME-BINDING CLASS OF LIFE.

Is there something you don't understand in the above?

I understand the above just fine. Korzybski gives examples of what for centuries has been called man's rational capacity. What I don't understand is why you prefer substituting a metaphor to designate this capacity, and why you then tout the superiority of a definition that employs this metaphor, when the "rational animal" definition is more clear, more comprehensive, and more fundamental -- three key criteria of adequate definitions.

Morevoer, I initially asked for a definition of "time," but you still haven't provided one. Is there something about this request that you don't understand?

Ghs

[Leonid]

GS "So you claim that animals are not rational because they cannot think conceptually and when I ask about 'conceptual' you say this is how humans act. So we are going in circles."-that not what I said. I referred you to "Introduction". If you were reading at least the parts concerning with concepts formation you maybe would refrain from the statement "I daresay animal form concepts all the time - they just don't speak about them and they don't makes inferences and they don't have science. These are exclusively human activities." Besides, if animals don't have language, that is audio-visual system which designates concepts, how you do know that they form concepts all the time? And if they do, why they are space and not time binders?

Edited March 25, 2010 by Leonid

[tjohnson]

Besides, if animals don't have language, that is audio-visual system which designates concepts, how you do know that they form concepts all the time? And if they do, why they are space and not time binders?

How do you know they don't form concepts? Why does my dog wag his tail when he hears my car coming down the road? Doesn't it make sense to say he must have some concept of his owners and he is anticipating their arrival?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant "Saga (my chocolate Lab): a non-rational animal, but not irrational."

Your dog is a-rational. Irrationality means denial of rational faculty which your dog doesn't posses. Only humans who are able volitionally to deny their rationality could be irrational. Rationality and irrationality are two sides of the same coin.

Thanks for saying what I said, but in fewer words.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

I understand the above just fine. Korzybski gives examples of what for centuries has been called man's rational capacity. What I don't understand is why you prefer substituting a metaphor to designate this capacity, and why you then tout the superiority of a definition that employs this metaphor, when the "rational animal" definition is more clear, more comprehensive, and more fundamental -- three key criteria of adequate definitions.

Morevoer, I initially asked for a definition of "time," but you still haven't provided one. Is there something about this request that you don't understand?

Ghs

Simply saying "man's rational capacity" is quite vague - Korzybski's explanation is very detailed. It explains that the "time-binding" occurs as a result of endeavours in mathematics and mechanics (read science) of one generation are used as starting points in the next generation. The "time" refers to the passage of generations, having "rationality" doesn't address this passing of knowledge from one generation to the next

[Peter]

I have *Time* for George. As we have seen *dictionary definitions* are plural and not always illuminating. I previously posted a version of the following.

A contributor to Owl, Dawson Bethrick, Subject: RE: OWL: Objectivism and Time

Date: Wed, 11 Feb 2004 18:23:52 -0800 wrote:

“I think what is important about integrating the concept of time is to understand its proper place in the knowledge hierarchy: time is not an irreducible primary, for it presupposes motion (action, causality, etc.), and thus it must presuppose existence (since you cannot have motion, action or causality without something which moves or acts). (See for instance the discussion between Rand and Professors A, B, and E in the Appendix of ITOE, pp. 256-260.) This is not how many philosophers employ the term, however. Many couple the term with space (you've probably heard of "the space-time continuum"), but I think this can be very misleading, at least so far as I have come to understand these terms. David Harriman published an interesting lecture recording called "Physicists Lost in Space," where he discusses the misuse of the concept 'space' (it may be there that he elucidates the distinction about the concept time that I mentioned above, but I'm not sure of that).”

end quote

George, I hope further discussion or articles can be written about “Time” here or in other venues.

In the Ayn Rand Lexicon, Leonard Peikoff wrote, “Time is a measurement of motion; as such it is a type of relationship.”

And Ayn Rand wrote in [iTOE, 2nd Ed., p. 56.]:

“The units of the concept ‘consciousness’ are every state or process of awareness that one experiences, has ever experienced, or will ever experience (as well as similar units, a similar faculty, which one infers in other living entities). The measurements omitted from axiomatic concepts are all the measurements of all the existents they subsume; what is retained, metaphysically, is only a fundamental fact; what is retained, *epistemologically*, is only one category of measurement, omitting its particulars (time) - i.e., the fundamental fact is retained independent of any particular moment of awareness.”

End quote

Stephan Hawking observed on page 22 of his tenth anniversary edition of “A Brief History of Time”:

“. . . . the theory of relativity put an end to the idea of absolute time! It appeared that each observer must have his own measure of time, as recorded by a clock carried with him, and that identical clocks carried by different observers would not necessarily agree.”

End quote

One fact to consider when considering “Time” is that light has a constant speed. If one were on a speeding train and hurled a rock forward, it would initially have the velocity of the train plus the added velocity that your throwing arm provided, until the rock was slowed by wind resistance and gravity.

However, if you turned on a flash light and focused it forward on the speeding train, there would be no added velocity from the train, or from you throwing the flashlight and the beam of light forward. Light’s speed is always constant. “The meter is defined to be the distance traveled by light in 0.000000003335640952 (of a) second, as measured by a cesium clock.”

This is a strange idea but it is true, despite being counter intuitive to this non-scientist and Objectivist! So the speed of light is an objective way to measure “Time.”

We can agree that the experience of time passing is Epistemological. It is a subjective measurement and personal feeling that describes events, differences, and changes. Yet, this personal measurement is “Objectively” identifying metaphysical events.

I have long been puzzled by the concept of time as it relates to General Relativity. If the speed of light is constant and events happen “as they happen,” then where did the “cheating” occur when three differently positioned observers record three different times for the same event?

General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics more accurately describe “Time” that is subjectively observed as “Space/Time” or “Causality,” because distance (or space) and objects (which have mass and activity at the subatomic level) objectively affect “Time.” Experiments have proven this.

Imagine three scientists, at three different spatial locations, measuring (with time,) an event as it happens on earth with the aforementioned cesium clocks, objectively shown to measure time the same way. The first scientist is on earth, measuring time within all of the earth’s gravity at the surface of the earth.

A second scientist is on the moon, traveling around the earth, as the earth travels around the sun, as the sun travels around the Milky Way Galaxy, and as the Galaxy travels through the Universe.

The third scientist is in deep space, outside the Galaxy, and relatively away from most of the affects of gravity, though he is still infinitesimally affected by gravity, as caused by all the matter in the universe.

To reiterate, all clocks are all calibrated to the same time on earth. The scientists are all measuring the same event, using the “same” measuring device, as it occurs on earth at the position of the first scientist . . . Yet, they record three different times, demonstrably outside the margin for error. This experiment is infinitely repeatable and true.

The strange but true fact is that “Time” is affected by “Space.”

“Time” is affected by gravity.

The clock on the earth will record time more slowly than the time recorded by the clock on the moon, which in turn will be slower than the time recorded by the clock in deep space.

The earth, within the Universe is analogous to a marble on the surface of an expanding balloon. Distance between objects is generally increasing due to this expansion, though we are moving relatively closer or farther from individual objects within the Universe.

Stephan Hawking observed on page 31 of his tenth anniversary edition of “A Brief History of Time”:

“In general relativity, bodies always follow straight lines in four - dimensional space – time, but they nevertheless appear to us to move along curved paths in our three - dimensional space. (This is rather like watching an airplane flying over hilly ground. Although it follows a straight line in three – dimensional space, its shadow follows a curved path on the two - dimensional ground.)

end quote

To calibrate geo-synchronous positioning satellites in earth orbit, the differences in “the same time” in and out of heavier gravity are required to correctly position objects within feet of their true location. This is one very immediate and practical application of General Relativity.

We are affected by the past, which is the nature of Causality, and we can view the past in “our future” because light travels at a constant speed as the Universe expands. We cannot change the past. We cannot view the future.

Another interesting phenomenon to consider:

If gravity slows “Time” does it slow to near zero inside a massive black hole? Of course a living being could not exist experiencing such massive gravity but would bits of information (or other non - living entities) remain static to an outside observer? What form does light take inside a massive black hole? Is it a wave or a particle or some third form? Does “Causation” cease inside a massive black hole?

These questions and The Uncertainty Principle and Quantum Mechanics need to be addressed within the contextual philosophy of Objectivism.

Got to go. Be back in a timely fashion.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

Simply saying "man's rational capacity" is quite vague - Korzybski's explanation is very detailed. It explains that the "time-binding" occurs as a result of endeavours in mathematics and mechanics (read science) of one generation are used as starting points in the next generation.

You are contrasting a bare definition with an explanation. "Rational capacity" has been explained by a host of philosophers in far greater detail than Korzybski ever explained his definition. Moroever, his observations are commonplace among philosophers; much of Herbert Spencer's theory of social evolution, for example, is based on the transmission and improvement of knowledge from one generation to the next.

You might know all this if you ever read anyone other than Korzybski. Oh, but I forgot -- Korzybski solved (or dismissed) every fundamental philosophical problem, so you don't need to read anyone else. Please forgive me for this oversight, but I sometimes hear orthodox Objectivists say the same thing about Rand, so I've grown suspicious of such cultish claims.

The "time" refers to the passage of generations, having "rationality" doesn't address this passing of knowledge from one generation to the next

This is a preposterous claim, but if Korzybski said so, it must be true.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

Ooh...savage burn.

[tjohnson]

Simply saying "man's rational capacity" is quite vague - Korzybski's explanation is very detailed. It explains that the "time-binding" occurs as a result of endeavours in mathematics and mechanics (read science) of one generation are used as starting points in the next generation.

You are contrasting a bare definition with an explanation. "Rational capacity" has been explained by a host of philosophers in far greater detail than Korzybski ever explained his definition. Moroever, his observations are commonplace among philosophers; much of Herbert Spencer's theory of social evolution, for example, is based on the transmission and improvement of knowledge from one generation to the next.

You might know all this if you ever read anyone other than Korzybski. Oh, but I forgot -- Korzybski solved (or dismissed) every fundamental philosophical problem, so you don't need to read anyone else. Please forgive me for this oversight, but I sometimes hear orthodox Objectivists say the same thing about Rand, so I've grown suspicious of such cultish claims.

The "time" refers to the passage of generations, having "rationality" doesn't address this passing of knowledge from one generation to the next

This is a preposterous claim, but if Korzybski said so, it must be true.

Ghs

General Semantics is primarily a theory of sanity - not philosophy. I am not interested in Philosophy so I don't read it, I am interested in sanity and so I read about it. I'm sure many people have made similar observations as Korzybski but his was the first (and only AFAIK) general theory of sanity.

[dan2100]

Simply saying "man's rational capacity" is quite vague - Korzybski's explanation is very detailed. It explains that the "time-binding" occurs as a result of endeavours in mathematics and mechanics (read science) of one generation are used as starting points in the next generation.

You are contrasting a bare definition with an explanation. "Rational capacity" has been explained by a host of philosophers in far greater detail than Korzybski ever explained his definition. Moroever, his observations are commonplace among philosophers; much of Herbert Spencer's theory of social evolution, for example, is based on the transmission and improvement of knowledge from one generation to the next.

You might know all this if you ever read anyone other than Korzybski. Oh, but I forgot -- Korzybski solved (or dismissed) every fundamental philosophical problem, so you don't need to read anyone else. Please forgive me for this oversight, but I sometimes hear orthodox Objectivists say the same thing about Rand, so I've grown suspicious of such cultish claims.

The "time" refers to the passage of generations, having "rationality" doesn't address this passing of knowledge from one generation to the next

This is a preposterous claim, but if Korzybski said so, it must be true.

Ghs

General Semantics is primarily a theory of sanity - not philosophy. I am not interested in Philosophy so I don't read it, I am interested in sanity and so I read about it. I'm sure many people have made similar observations as Korzybski but his was the first (and only AFAIK) general theory of sanity.

Why would that distinction matter here? A theory of sanity (or of pickling cabbage, for that matter) would, I trust, not be absolved from having clear definitions or being subjected to the usual criticisms of other theories.