Is Being Self-Interested the Same as Being Egoistic?

[Selene]

You have no proof of this statement:

"The Pope declared that contraception is against god's will.

It is an (objective) fact that he declared this to be the case."

Wouldn't it be fair to say that if I subjectively see the sun rise in the East that is a fact also?

[Brant Gaede]

Both Keating and Roark were volitional goal-seekeng entities, 100 per cent self-interest motivating each. That's all there is to it. Rand created her own linguistic universe, and her arbitrarily labeling Roark's decision as "rational" and "selfish", and Keating's as "irrational and selfless" merely indicates her subjectively attributing value or non-value.

However you slice it, you have subjective value judgement landing at your doorstep each time.

Virtually every ideology has its set of terms, arbitrarily declaring A as a value and B as the opposite.

There is nothing else like getting lectured on Rand, Rand's ideas and Rand's fictional characters than by a parvenu. If I wanted lectures I'd go back to school where, with my luck, some prof would tell me ignorant things about the etiology and consequences of the Vietnam War with "How to Perform Emergency Battlefield Surgery" as an after-class bonus out on the courtyard under bright skies and sunshine as near-naked cheerleaders practiced erotic acrobatic routines right behind him causing the same fellow to wonder at how incredibly good he was at holding our attention.

--Brant

Edited June 6, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

You have no proof of this statement:

"The Pope declared that contraception is against god's will.

It is an (objective) fact that he declared this to be the case."

Wouldn't it be fair to say that if I subjectively see the sun rise in the East that is a fact also?

The statement is that the Pope declared this, and proof can be provided by directly quoting his words.

The same goes for Jeffrey MacDonald. Proof can be provided that he made ths claim by directly quoting his words.

Wouldn't it be fair to say that if I subjectively see the sun rise in the East that is a fact also?

You can claim to see anything. For "claim" does not have the necessary sequitur that what is claimed must be untrue.

So a person can claim to have seen a ghost, claim to have said this or that, claim to have had nothing to do with a crime, etc.

Rand claims, expresses, implies, infers, states, declares etc. that values are objective.

The litmus test to be done is whether what she claims/states etc. is TRUE. That's what the discussion is about.

So - do there exist "objective" values, Selene? What do you think?

Edited June 6, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

But these are are categories (grouping by similarities), and not definitions which identify an entity by unequivocallly separating it from other entities via a set of differing characteristics.

I don't believe it is possible to "unequivocally separate it from other entities via a set of differing characteristics". Because language is built upon undefined terms there will always be some equivocation possible. Definitions may be chosen for various purposes and the "rightness" of the definition is determined by how well it accomplishes the purpose.

See electron for example. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of one's environment except by mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics. It's something you do thousands of times each day.

[Xray]

When the design to Cortlandt Homes was delivered to Peter Keating, Roark expected that the former was to honor the contract by building it exactly as he had designed it. It was not honored. [3] was falsified. His reasoning mind judged that by [6] he gained the right to demolish the Cortlandt-Homes constructions. His mind also judged that by [7] he must do so.

If per Rand, "breaches of contract" ethically entitle the objectivist man (the role model being Roark whom Rand thought of "as man should be") such acts of destruction, it can be inferred that in a society granting objectivists immunity, the amount of violent acts would substantially increase.

For given the fact of the many "breaches of contract" occurring among people, a lot of dynamited objects can be predicted.

Example: John (an objectivist) marries Jane. A marriage is a contract.

John is wealthy and generous, lavishing Jane with gifts. He builds a dream villa in the Bahamas for her. Jane is the legal co-proprietor of it. They own it together.

After a while, John finds out that Jane's frequent solitary trips to the Bahamas, allegedly to "relax" served the purpose of meeting her lover there. Adultery is clearly a breach of contract.

After finding out about the breach of contract, John's "reasoning mind" judges that he gains the right to dynamite the Bahamas villa.

He goes strictly by Rand's principle guiding the objectivist' man's actions: "I want it because it is right." (Rand)

Edited June 7, 2009 by Xray

[tjohnson]

See electron for example. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of one's environment except by mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics. It's something you do thousands of times each day.

I understand abstraction to mean a process of emphasizing similarities while ignoring differences. We are confronted with unique individuals in life but during abstraction we overlook this individuality and concentrate on similarities instead.

[BaalChatzaf]

See electron for example. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of one's environment except by mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics. It's something you do thousands of times each day.

I understand abstraction to mean a process of emphasizing similarities while ignoring differences. We are confronted with unique individuals in life but during abstraction we overlook this individuality and concentrate on similarities instead.

But which abstractions? Try this definition: Man is a naturally featherless biped with an opposable thumb and prehensile digits. Is that a good defintion?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

See electron for example. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of one's environment except by mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics. It's something you do thousands of times each day.

Definitions (by means of genus and species) is not sufficient. The comprehend the world we need to postulate or hypothesize causes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Bob,

A definition is only useful to identify the category (concept) as if it were a file folder. It does not identify everything in the folder.

Basically, you could say for visible things that a concept is initially communicated when a person points at something and says, "That." You really know it's a concept when the person points at something very similar and say, "And that."

Then a person puts a name on it (say "bird") so he doesn't have to keep pointing and can even point at other stuff while he talks about "bird."

Then, when a person is talking to another person who has never seen a bird, he can define it as a flying animal with feathers or something like that. This is particularly useful if the person who has never seen a bird uses the word "bird" to mean something else, say the middle finger stuck up in the air.

Thus, forming a category and naming the concept is supposed to open scientific inquiry, not replace it. It is supposed to open the mental folder with something that corresponds to observation, not fill the folder with details from closer examination and testing.

There.

Why We Use Concepts 101.

Michael

[tjohnson]

A definition is only useful to identify the category (concept) as if it were a file folder. It does not identify everything in the folder.

Basically, you could say for visible things that a concept is initially communicated when a person points at something and says, "That." You really know it's a concept when the person points at something very similar and say, "And that."

Then a person puts a name on it (say "bird") so he doesn't have to keep pointing and can even point at other stuff while he talks about "bird."

Then, when a person is talking to another person who has never seen a bird, he can define it as a flying animal with feathers or something like that. This is particularly useful if the person who has never seen a bird uses the word "bird" to mean something else, say the middle finger stuck up in the air.

There is an interesting formulation by Northrop called epistemic correlation. He calls forming a concept through your senses a concept by intuition but forming it by a definition he calls a concept by postulation. Epistemic correlation refers to the interplay between these activities. So if you observe something you compare the concept by postulation to your concept by intuition and if they match close enough I believe this is called identification in objectivist circles.

[tjohnson]

FYI

Note that the problem is: "what is the epistemic correlate of one's directly inspected visual image?" The problem is not what is really real. Unlike (certain interpretations of) Plato and Plotinus, there is in Northrop no propensity to degrade or downgrade the world-as-it-is-sensed in favor of the world-as-known by concepts-by-postulation. To experience the visual image of blue is as epistemically valuable and irreducible as knowing blue postulationally. The two sources of all our knowledge give information that is both complementary and supplementary. Without concepts-by-intuition we could never know the world in its particularity. Without concepts-by-postulation we could never know the world in its universality and necessity.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

This is basically called "percept" and "concept" in Objectivism.

Now that I am studying cognition in more depth, I have difficulty with breaking things down into these two categories since there is a third dealing with time. In other words, there are events that go in causal sequence, and there are events that go in temporal sequence irrespective of causation. If you want to use the word "percept" or the phrase "concept by intuition" for denoting the first contacts and mental processing with sequences, OK. But this is so different from simply identifying "things" that it deserves a separate category. A "static" percept (like a percept of a dog) represents an unchanging "thing" over time. A dog is a dog and stays a dog. The temporal sequence (both with and without causality) unfolds over time and the things in it change during that time. One could say that it can be held instantly in the mind, but to experience the correspondence to reality, a stretch of time holding the changes is needed.

Ironically, this gets simpler on a concept level (or what you are calling concept by postulation).

Michael

[tjohnson]

In my understanding of this my percept of a dog is not the same every time. Do you mean to say that your dog looks exactly the same every time you see it? Doesn't it actually look different every time, even if it is only slightly? What doesn't change is the concept of postulation, ie. the imagined or remembered image of your dog.

[Brant Gaede]

In my understanding of this my percept of a dog is not the same every time. Do you mean to say that your dog looks exactly the same every time you see it? Doesn't it actually look different every time, even if it is only slightly? What doesn't change is the concept of postulation, ie. the imagined or remembered image of your dog.

This is like using calculus to evaluate perceptions. No?

Sometimes a dog is only a dog.

Woof!

--Brant

in spite of the "Woof!", not a dog

(just quoting my chocolate Lab, Saga)

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

You are not thinking file folder and content.

Try it this way.

Does the file change every time you look at the dog? Do you put the details in a different file each time you see it?

In other words, if the dog's name is Fido, does it change to Lassie the next time you see it, then Rin Tin Tin and so on?

Or let's stay with categories. You see a Bulldog. The next time you see the Bulldog, does that information go into the Cocker Spaniel folder? And then into the German Shepherd folder after that? And so on?

The mental place (category, abstraction, concept, whatever you want to call it) where you throw stuff stays the same so long as enough details fit. But the particular details experienced change. Obviously one Bulldog is different from another, and even the same Bulldog changes over time (not to mention that you and your perceptions do also).

One does not annul the other.

Michael

[tjohnson]

The mental place (category, abstraction, concept, whatever you want to call it) where you throw stuff stays the same so long as enough details fit. But the particular details experienced change. Obviously one Bulldog is different from another, and even the same Bulldog changes over time (not to mention that you and your perceptions do also).

I agree, I think. The concept (by postulation) doesn't change but the precept (the details) do.

[Xray]

See electron for example. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of one's environment except by mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics. It's something you do thousands of times each day.

I understand abstraction to mean a process of emphasizing similarities while ignoring differences. We are confronted with unique individuals in life but during abstraction we overlook this individuality and concentrate on similarities instead.

But which abstractions? Try this definition: Man is a naturally featherless biped with an opposable thumb and prehensile digits. Is that a good defintion?

Ba'al Chatzaf

The term "good" indicates a value judgement depending on personal preference, which is why your question can't be answered with a "yes" or "no".

I take it you're talking about the definition of the term, "Man". In other words, you're talking about an infinite category created by mind, hence, existing in mind as opposed to the definition (description) of A man, i.e. a finite individual, existing outside of mind.

Is this correct? If not, what have I misconstrued? Have you ever seen or met "Man"?

No? Why not?

"Featherless biped", "opposable thumb", "prehensile digits" are categories to each of which human beings belong.

When you categorize, you choose the similarities you wish to include in the category. It is purely arbitrary.

Categorizing is literally unlimited. For example, an eating fork could be categorized as metallic object, a digging tool, a factory made object, longer that one inch, but shorter than a yard, etc.

There are no objective criteria by which a category is constructed. It is purely a matter of use value. Its function depends on general agreement of the persons using the terms. In a store, does an electric carving knife belong in the electrical appliance department, power tools, kitchen ware, etc. ?

There is no proof or disproof. The utility of the categorical term is dependent upon general agreement. It works quite well. It usually stops one from looking for a pair of shoelaces in a bakery.

However, in all cases at all times, the category does not refer to the idnividual entity.

What Radcalls "concept" is actually "category".

Concept - 1: "something conceived in the mind: thought, notion" (Webster's)

It is the general term, all inclusive, so to speak. It takes in the whole shooting match. Categorizing is but one of unlimited (ideas) concepts.

Example of a concept:

"A thing is—what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity." (Rand)

This is a conceived idea (concept) of entity identity. "A thing", not a group of things, nor the similarities of things.

The difference between a concept of 'entity identity' (by difference) and a concept of 'category' (grouping by similarity) is quite clear.

Why is the definiton and category issue so important in the discussion of Rand's philosophy?

A subjectively created category is NOT the objective existent, but Rand treats it as such by applying the categorial label "man" as if it were an objective universal entity.

Edited June 8, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

See electron for example. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of one's environment except by mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics. It's something you do thousands of times each day.

Definitions (by means of genus and species) is not sufficient. The comprehend the world we need to postulate or hypothesize causes.

Ba'al Chatzaf

I presume you're talking about a mentally created category with genus and species relating to the structure of the category. Is not the

comprehension of certain aspects of reality necessary BEFORE creating the category?

Global statements about categories are only valid if they - without exception - apply to every single member of the category.

To say "man is mortal" is to say each individual is mortal. No contradiction.

To say "man" is volitional is to say each individual is volitional. Again, no contradiction.

However, to say "life proper to man", this is a personal value judgment, the fallacy lying in presenting one's subjective values as "objective". This mental invention is the source of fallacious concepts like "universal man" with subsequent "universal objective values."

The life of a human individual is not a static condition. It involves a vast array of ongoing evaluations, valuations, choices and actions. Ergo, by logical inference, life as an "objective' standard" proposes to set an "objective standard" of food, drink, socializing, entertainment, education and virtually every aspect of an individual's life.

Jmpo, but to my way of thinking, dismissing personal preference does not fit well under the label, individualism.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

The mental place (category, abstraction, concept, whatever you want to call it) where you throw stuff stays the same so long as enough details fit. But the particular details experienced change. Obviously one Bulldog is different from another, and even the same Bulldog changes over time (not to mention that you and your perceptions do also).

I agree, I think. The concept (by postulation) doesn't change but the precept (the details) do.

GS,

Bingo.

And there's more.

The entity (or existent) itself doesn't change either although its micro-parts do. You are still you irrespective of whether you are digesting other food right now. The "you" that makes you you doesn't change.

(The part that doesn't change is what I call the top-down part.)

This doesn't mean that an unchanging existent exists without changing parts, or that changing parts exist without unchanging existents. Both are present always—and our mind organizes information about them in the same manner.

Michael

[Xray]

See electron for example. It is not possible to acquire knowledge of one's environment except by mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics. It's something you do thousands of times each day.

I understand abstraction to mean a process of emphasizing similarities while ignoring differences. We are confronted with unique individuals in life but during abstraction we overlook this individuality and concentrate on similarities instead.

But which abstractions? Try this definition: Man is a naturally featherless biped with an opposable thumb and prehensile digits. Is that a good defintion?

Ba'al Chatzaf

If the process of categorizing is selection and mentally grouping on similarities, wouldn't you first have to know of the existence of at least two entities before you can compare and select similarities? If you don't have knowledge of an entity (entities) as the primary, what is there to categorize? Ergo, the first question is how do you know an entity to exist?

What is the mental process by which you accomplish this? If not by mentally abstracting via a set of differentiating characteristic, what is it?

Automatic knowledge without process? Revealed truth? What?

[Selene]

Which drawer did I put my gun in....

[Brant Gaede]

Which drawer did I put my gun in....

It's all elephant shit and no elephant. Gun not needed.

--Brant

[Selene]

Ok going to the shed to get the BIG shovel.

Brant I do enjoy your posts, even when one comes flying my way.

LOL

Edited June 7, 2009 by Selene

[kiaer.ts]

If the process of categorizing is selection and mentally grouping on similarities, wouldn't you first have to know of the existence of at least two entities before you can compare and select similarities? If you don't have knowledge of an entity (entities) as the primary, what is there to categorize? Ergo, the first question is how do you know an entity to exist?

What is the mental process by which you accomplish this? If not by mentally abstracting via a set of differentiating characteristic, what is it?

Automatic knowledge without process? Revealed truth? What?

I suppose xray has ruled perception out of court? Kelley explains the bridge of the perceptual judgment.

[Selene]

xray as the Queen of Hearts

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWE7i5UwHSA