Settling the debate on Altruism

[George H. Smith]

-- aside from than the fact that I'm a lot smarter than you are

Well, I don't know about smarter but you're way more vain than I am.

That's because I have a lot more to be vain about.

Ghs

GS,

The reality, that George can try to pretend doesn't exist all he wants, is that someone who considers himself a serious Philosopher and a Rand supporter is a contradiction in terms, but he can still be vain. After all, Hulk Hogan was very vain as well proclaiming he was a great wrestler. But even the Hulkster didn't really believe it.

Bob

Insult alert! Insult alert! Careful, Bob, GS might register complaints about you as well.

So "someone who considers himself a serious Philosopher and a Rand supporter is a contradiction in terms"?

First, "someone" (a person) cannot be a "contradiction in terms," because there is only one term here, not two.

Second, even if the terms "serious philosopher" and "Rand supporter" were contradictory -- and I assume your muddled remarks were intended to convey something to this effect -- it would not be a contradiction in terms for someone to consider himself to be both.

Third, "serious philosopher" and "Rand supporter" would be contradictory terms only if you include the concept of a "non-Rand supporter" in your definition of "serious philosopher." That's some definition of "serious philosopher."

As for my remark about having a lot to be vain about, must I place a smiley face after every such remark so that humorless beings will understand what I'm up to?

I would rather be a Rand supporter than an athletic supporter. Get it, Bob? "Athletic supporter" -- you know, "jockstrap." Get it? Would a smiley face help?

Hulk Hogan wore a jockstrap when he wrestled. Q.E.D.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

Ghs:

As for my remark about having a lot to be vain about, must I place a smiley face after every such remark so that humorless beings will understand what I'm up to?

You might consider doing that, but a halfway-decent alternative it is to use the one wearing the sunglasses--that way you kind of get the job done, but avoid fully nauseating yourself. It's one of the few workarounds I've ever been able to come up with. B)

Regards,

rde

Always There To Help<tm>

[anthony]

For anyone seeking morality in his or her life, the lessons of evolution are useless.

What do they portray? That we are commanded by our genes? That we owe it to future generations to guard them ? Or that each individual life is of minor significance in the grand scheme of things?

I find this harking back to biological necessity, collectivist and altruistic, in its advocacy of responsibility to anyone but oneself.

Tony

[George H. Smith]

Ghs:

As for my remark about having a lot to be vain about, must I place a smiley face after every such remark so that humorless beings will understand what I'm up to?

You might consider doing that, but a halfway-decent alternative it is to use the one wearing the sunglasses--that way you kind of get the job done, but avoid fully nauseating yourself. It's one of the few workarounds I've ever been able to come up with. B)

Regards,

rde

Always There To Help<tm>

What I really need is an icon for "button pushing" -- as in "I am now pushing one of your buttons." Then again, if there were such an icon, to use it would be self-defeating.

For those who understand what I mean by this, no explanation is necessary. For those who don't, no explanation is possible.

Ghs

[Rich Engle]

. <---Press Here For Petulant, Pedantic Frenzy

There, you're good to go, George. Just send the ether shipment to that place we were talking about.

rde

Text editor, schmext editor.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Rich Engle

[tjohnson]

Now I will apologize to GHS if I implied that he was mentally ill.

In the past 2 years or so I have tried to be careful NOT to bash Rand. My goal has always been to provide an alternate view as expressed in the work of Korzybski, obviously when you see the nic I use. In using general semantics I believe agreement is always possible - if the parties WANT to come to an agreement. It is not my fault that general semantics is largely about sanity and the possible role that language in general (Philosophy in particular) has played in unsanity over the centuries. This by no means means everyone who studies Philosophy is insane but it does imply that we need to take a close look at the language of philosophy and determine if it could possibly have detrimental effects on unsuspecting individuals. I have heard many stories on this list about how when people were quite young they became obsessed with objectivism and became "Randroids" (even our host MSK said this about himself) and then in later years they matured and became much less dogmatic about it. These are exactly the issues that GS was invented to deal with - to minimize damage to our nervous systems due to indiscriminate use of and reaction to words and symbols in connection with their meanings to the individual. I have mostly got along with people here and have learned a great deal myself but the recent attacks by GHS are by far the most personal and insulting I have seen on this forum. MSK recently sanctioned X-Ray for making so many repetitive posts (I assume?) but GHS is allowed to call people morons, profoundly ignorant, etc. and so silence the opposing views. Even if it doesn't silence the other person the "debate" usually descends into a name-calling affair which is hardly good for intellectual discussion. That's why we are all here isn't it?

[dan2100]

I already explained that, but I shall try again. If I ask my dog "where's the ball?" and he goes and gets it I claim that he has a concept of 'ball' in his brain.

I must have missed that. I don't think that's an example of conceptuality in action -- or, at least, it's not an unambiguous case of it. I think a better example of conceptuality in a non-human would be trying to evince something more abstract. Imagine, for example, trying to see if your dog could get the concept of "roundness" by asking for a round object out of a pile of many different -- many not round -- objects and mixing this up so that each time the differentiating feature is roundness. (This sort of test is much more in line with ethological studies. It might be good to look the actual science here rather than just assume that because Rex fetches the ball, he has a concept of "ball.")

Are you serious? You want me to ask my dog to pick out a round object from a pile of objects? Look, if I ask him to get his ball and he does then he obviously knows what I'm talking about. In fact, not only does he have a concept of his ball, he even associates a label with it.

What I was getting at with picking something from a pile -- as a means to test whether an organism understood a concept -- was to be clear that conceptuality was involved. Associating a sound with an object, in my book, is not conceptuality -- or, if it is, then you have to expand the range of beings that are conceptual to anything that can be conditioned to respond in such a way. Now, granted, this might not rule out conceptuality, but I think yours is not a good test for it. In other words, your observation allows, in my view, for too many false positives or, at least, ambiguous cases.

How would distinguish "conceptual" behavior?

[George H. Smith]

Now I will apologize to GHS if I implied that he was mentally ill.

I was not offended by your remarks about philosophy, philosophers, and mental illness; they were far too absurd for that. At first I couldn't even believe you were serious, which is why I specifically asked if you were. It was after you said you were serious that I abandoned all hope.

I wrote a post some time ago explaining that I have no problem whatever with people who disagree with Rand. All I ask is that they show some indication of understanding her ideas before they presume to criticize them. You have shown no indication (that I can recall) that you have read much if anything by Rand, yet you have repeatedly dismissed her ideas with an implicit sneer.

OL is not a general philosophy list. It is a list specifically devoted to Rand's ideas, so it is reasonable to expect active posters who talk about her ideas to show a working knowledge of them.

Maybe I'm wrong about you. If so, what have you read by Rand?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

It is not my fault that general semantics is largely about sanity and the possible role that language in general (Philosophy in particular) has played in unsanity over the centuries. This by no means means everyone who studies Philosophy is insane but it does imply that we need to take a close look at the language of philosophy and determine if it could possibly have detrimental effects on unsuspecting individuals. I have heard many stories on this list about how when people were quite young they became obsessed with objectivism and became "Randroids" (even our host MSK said this about himself) and then in later years they matured and became much less dogmatic about it. These are exactly the issues that GS was invented to deal with - to minimize damage to our nervous systems due to indiscriminate use of and reaction to words and symbols in connection with their meanings to the individual.

Do you have any notion, even an inkling, of how profoundly condescending these remarks are? They are far more insulting, by implication, than anything I have ever written on this list.

OL is not a mental hospital, and you are not a psychologist.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

Do you have any notion, even an inkling, of how profoundly condescending these remarks are?

I never intended any condescension, I wonder how many others on the forum feel that it is condescending?

[dan2100]

Do you have any notion, even an inkling, of how profoundly condescending these remarks are?

I never intended any condescension, I wonder how many others on the forum feel that it is condescending?

I believe your comments can be reasonably read as condescending. In other words, I agree with George on this.

[George H. Smith]

Do you have any notion, even an inkling, of how profoundly condescending these remarks are?

I never intended any condescension, I wonder how many others on the forum feel that it is condescending?

If a born-again Christian posted frequently on OL, claiming that Objectivists are sinners who can attain happiness only through accepting Jesus as their savior, and that it is in this spirit that she writes her posts, would you regard her as condescending? I certainly would.

Substitute General Semanticist for Christian, Objectivists for sinners, Korzybski for Jesus, and sanity for happiness. There are no substantial differences.

Ghs

[tjohnson]

What I was getting at with picking something from a pile -- as a means to test whether an organism understood a concept -- was to be clear that conceptuality was involved. Associating a sound with an object, in my book, is not conceptuality -- or, if it is, then you have to expand the range of beings that are conceptual to anything that can be conditioned to respond in such a way. Now, granted, this might not rule out conceptuality, but I think yours is not a good test for it. In other words, your observation allows, in my view, for too many false positives or, at least, ambiguous cases.

How would distinguish "conceptual" behavior?

I think possibly I am using 'concept' in a slightly more specific way than you are. I am suggesting the dog has a concept of his ball, not balls or round things in general. Similarly, he would have concepts of his owner, and other everyday things he is in contact with.

[Rich Engle]

GS:

but the recent attacks by GHS are by far the most personal and insulting I have seen on this forum.

Wait, how long have you been here? You gotta be kidding me. I mean, when it was new, the idea was to not have it turn foul but the only way to do that was wait until it turned foul as expected and then MSK fixed it, which required him to get a little Machiavellian. Long time ago, that one.

The foulest things I have ever seen are those like bizarre levels of statistical density in numbers of posts, and occasional hyper-anal-retentiveness (Neener-neenering<tm>). But in comparison to all that at its worst this is no more significant than "a flea sitting on the penis of an alien, in outer space," as Adrien Belew once lyriced.

George is both funny AND smart, and sometimes that combination gets certain people who write on philosophy boards all assed-out. Oh well.

Edited March 29, 2010 by Rich Engle

[tjohnson]

If a born-again Christian posted frequently on OL, claiming that Objectivists are sinners who can attain happiness only through accepting Jesus as their savior, and that it is in this spirit that she writes her posts, would you regard her as condescending? I certainly would.

Substitute General Semanticist for Christian, Objectivists for sinners, Korzybski for Jesus, and sanity for happiness. There are no substantial differences.

Ghs

I think general semantics and objectivism have far more in common than with any form of religion. For example, both are very much involved with applying "rationality" to our everyday lives, as opposed to religion. So I don't think that is a valid analogy.

[dan2100]

What I was getting at with picking something from a pile -- as a means to test whether an organism understood a concept -- was to be clear that conceptuality was involved. Associating a sound with an object, in my book, is not conceptuality -- or, if it is, then you have to expand the range of beings that are conceptual to anything that can be conditioned to respond in such a way. Now, granted, this might not rule out conceptuality, but I think yours is not a good test for it. In other words, your observation allows, in my view, for too many false positives or, at least, ambiguous cases.

How would distinguish "conceptual" behavior?

I think possibly I am using 'concept' in a slightly more specific way than you are. I am suggesting the dog has a concept of his ball, not balls or round things in general. Similarly, he would have concepts of his owner, and other everyday things he is in contact with.

I've created a new topic to discuss this:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8432

I'd say the problem is distinguishing what you believe is a highly specific concept from a non-conceptual association -- presuming such a distinction can be made and is defensible.

[imurray]

Do you have any notion, even an inkling, of how profoundly condescending these remarks are?

I never intended any condescension, I wonder how many others on the forum feel that it is condescending?

I believe your comments can be reasonably read as condescending. In other words, I agree with George on this.

I'm not sure how this could be construed as condescending - unless giving an overview of the goal of general semantics, as GS understands it, is considered condescending?

He basically says that GS is a system that was designed to help people think about words and symbols so they are better prepared to take in the language of philosophy - what's the problem and how is that condescending? You either agree or disagree, but I don't see how you get offended. He specifically stated that not everybody who reads philosophy becomes insane - so presumably those who aren't taken in are already competent (whatever that entails). I don't know enough about GS to say that it holds the answers, but I will say that I believe that people are sometimes tricked by language - take a Christian for example

No offense Dan, but you have butted into numerous conversations to defend George without really understanding what is going on.

[bmacwilliam]

-- aside from than the fact that I'm a lot smarter than you are

Well, I don't know about smarter but you're way more vain than I am.

That's because I have a lot more to be vain about.

Ghs

GS,

The reality, that George can try to pretend doesn't exist all he wants, is that someone who considers himself a serious Philosopher and a Rand supporter is a contradiction in terms, but he can still be vain. After all, Hulk Hogan was very vain as well proclaiming he was a great wrestler. But even the Hulkster didn't really believe it.

Bob

Insult alert! Insult alert! Careful, Bob, GS might register complaints about you as well.

So "someone who considers himself a serious Philosopher and a Rand supporter is a contradiction in terms"?

First, "someone" (a person) cannot be a "contradiction in terms," because there is only one term here, not two.

Second, even if the terms "serious philosopher" and "Rand supporter" were contradictory -- and I assume your muddled remarks were intended to convey something to this effect -- it would not be a contradiction in terms for someone to consider himself to be both.

Third, "serious philosopher" and "Rand supporter" would be contradictory terms only if you include the concept of a "non-Rand supporter" in your definition of "serious philosopher." That's some definition of "serious philosopher."

As for my remark about having a lot to be vain about, must I place a smiley face after every such remark so that humorless beings will understand what I'm up to?

I would rather be a Rand supporter than an athletic supporter. Get it, Bob? "Athletic supporter" -- you know, "jockstrap." Get it? Would a smiley face help?

Hulk Hogan wore a jockstrap when he wrestled. Q.E.D.

Ghs

You're right, I should be more precise.

But... "First, "someone" (a person) cannot be a "contradiction in terms," because there is only one term here, not two. "

There are TWO, count them, terms. Serious Philosopher, Rand Supporter... One...two....

But again, I should be more precise. The intersection of these two sets is null.

Bob

[imurray]

GS:

but the recent attacks by GHS are by far the most personal and insulting I have seen on this forum.

Wait, how long have you been here? You gotta be kidding me. I mean, when it was new, the idea was to not have it turn foul but the only way to do that was wait until it turned foul as expected and then MSK fixed it, which required him to get a little Machiavellian. Long time ago, that one.

The foulest things I have ever seen are those like bizarre levels of statistical density in numbers of posts, and occasional hyper-anal-retentiveness (Neener-neenering<tm>). But in comparison to all that at its worst this is no more significant than "a flea sitting on the penis of an alien, in outer space," as Adrien Belew once lyriced.

George is both funny AND smart, and sometimes that combination gets certain people who write on philosophy boards all assed-out. Oh well.

I think it's cute that you've come out to defend George, who is obviously more than capable of defending himself. It's heartwarming to see that altruism still exist, Rich.

[Rich Engle]

I'm not defending George, I'm piling on.

[imurray]

I'm not defending George, I'm piling on.

HAHA! That's different! I take it back, altruism is dead!

[bmacwilliam]

I speculate that you are a punk with no intellectual accomplishments who is attempting to make a name for himself by showing how much more clever you are than Rand.

You talkin' to me, punk? When you have accomplished something of intellectual worth in your life (high school essays don't count), get back to me, and we will shoot it out. Wannabes like you are a dime a dozen. I've encountered many in my life, and I have grown weary of target practice.

Meanwhile, if you expect me to take any of your personal proclamations about Rand seriously, provide some E-V-I-D-E-N-C-E for them.

Ghs

Right George, I'm so sorry for insulting you. But I'm sure those aren't insults, just like you didn't argue from authority right?

Care to comment on anything even remote related to the discussion? Nah.. didn't think so, why start now.

Bob

[dan2100]

You're right, I should be more precise.

But... "First, "someone" (a person) cannot be a "contradiction in terms," because there is only one term here, not two. "

There are TWO, count them, terms. Serious Philosopher, Rand Supporter... One...two....

But again, I should be more precise. The intersection of these two sets is null.

Bob

I must have missed something. What do you mean by serious philosopher? And what do you mean by Rand supporter?

In my mind, people can take both Rand and philosophy seriously -- in fact, take Rand as a serious philosopher or her views as philosophically serious. But I'd like to see what you mean here to see just how you and I are disagreeing.

[Rich Engle]

HAHA! That's different! I take it back, altruism is dead!

Well, I don't know about that, but... It's more like buying a hot dog--sometimes you get one and have to wonder what it's made of.

rde

I hate when they grind up turkey lips, for instance.

[bmacwilliam]

For anyone seeking morality in his or her life, the lessons of evolution are useless.

What do they portray? That we are commanded by our genes? That we owe it to future generations to guard them ? Or that each individual life is of minor significance in the grand scheme of things?

I find this harking back to biological necessity, collectivist and altruistic, in its advocacy of responsibility to anyone but oneself.

Tony

We are not commanded by our genes, but it's equally wrong to assume we're not strongly influenced.

Evolution is not useless at all. Evolution created our bodies, and moulded our behaviour. What the (!*@&@ do you think created morality in the first place - Rand? God? Evolution did, without question. Morality helps us survive. I don't see how this is anything but completely obvious. So obvious in fact, George won't address it.

Examining human behaviour and morality without looking at evolution is like trying to assemble an IKEA kitchen without reading the directions - needlessly difficult at best.

Bob