Linguistics for Objectivists

[jeffrey smith]

And some languages don't make this distinction, or even confuse it further. In Hebrew, "yodeah" translates as any of the standard English meanings for "know", plus another meaning famous because it's the preferred Biblical term for sexual intercourse.

Nay, nay. In the ben Yahudah dictionary for Modern Hebrew there are the following words for "know"

yodeyah, heeckeer, and hayveen. Which correspond to knowing the externals, recognizing and understanding. That latter is knowing at the conceptual level. There is the famous hebrew/yiddish word "maven" which is derived from hayveen. One who understands, grasps and comprehends in the deeper sense. Yodeyah as a word for having intercourse is a biblical euphimism. There are coarser words, but the people who put the bible together Way Back When preferred the euphimism.

Ba'al Chatzaf

My dictionary gives both 'heeckeer" and "hayveen" as the translations of recognize, and hayveen as the translation of understand. But yodeah covers both meanings.

"Be wise with understanding and understand with wisdom". And Daath--Knowledge--is something different from both Chokhmah (Wisdom) and Binah (Understanding).

[Xray]

Subject: Multiple Concepts under one Word; the Need to Define and Illustrate One's Terms

The reason for multiple meanings is that there are in -reality- many levels and ways in which one knows. So each needs a concept. And (1) languages evolve from simple to complex. Starting with a simple concept such as someone saying "I know" when someone says "there is an apple tree over there" or "I know how" to build a fire. And (2), it is easier to extend an already known word to more abstract, more metaphorical, more distant meanings than to come up with a new, entirely unrelated set of symbols.

My French dictionary [no i'm not going to try to figure out how to type accents on this keyboard, so just deal with it ] has a pretty good conceptual breakdown of this basic concept of consciousness:

know (verb):

<>to be in the know - etre au courant, etre a la page"

<>know - by reasoning or learning - savoir

<>know - by the senses or perception, through acquaintance or recognition - connaitre

<>know about - etre informe de, savoir

<>know how to - savoir + infinitive

(I'm not trying to be pedantic here - doing 'dictionary dump overkill'. This is such a key concept that seeing how it develops in different languages is enormously helpful in epistemology / one's own thinking and clarity.)

Since the purpose of language is to communicate, unambiguity is always required for effective communication.

While there does exist the phenomenon of homonymy (as e. g.in tire/tire, seal/seal), there is usually no conflict in communication when they are used. "I dont tire easily", "I had a flat tire" is unambigously clear what is meant in each case.

Homonyms usually have different lexicon entries, the terms just happen to have the same audiovisual likeness, they are often of different origin, or sound changes like vowel shifts contriburted to the alikeness.

Essential in communication is both partners have to share the same code, which is why a "private" definition can't work. When Jane asks John "Could you please pass me the butter?" and he hands her a spoon instead, and explains to puzzled Jane: "MY personal definition of butter is (.. describing the spoon..), all communication will of course break down completely.

A basic linguistic misunderstanding -- often in my experience between, for example, the often too literal-minded math/tech major or specialist and the humanities major -- is that the former often doesn't have well-integrated the fact that words objectively -do- and -must have- multiple meanings even though those meanings may be allied [example: Rand's use of selfishness vs. the common use]. "Too messy, too imprecise, too subjective."

Arbitrarily using words in a sense completely contrary to the accepted meaning will cause problems; imo Rand's use of "selflessness" is an example.

Or he's annoyed and obstinate about people very reasonably having different usages. Or about the request to define his terms. Or about the demand, after a long chain of floating abstractions which he thought was brilliant and crystal-clear: "Concretize, please! Give me an example."

Imo it is always a good idea to ask people running wild with floating abstractions to concretize with examples. Asking the speaker to connect to reality by providing examples keeps the listener's mind from getting embroiled in often confusing rhetoric.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Xray

[BaalChatzaf]

Since the purpose of language is to communicate, unambiguity is always required for effective communication.

Not so. The ambiguity in poetry is one of the things that make it effective. Poetry is written to move the reader as well as inform him.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

Problem: How Do You Best Designate Radically New Concepts in a New Philosophy?

> Since the purpose of language is to communicate, unambiguity is always required for effective communication...Essential in communication is both partners have to share the same code, which is why a "private" definition can't work...ask people running wild with floating abstractions to concretize with examples. Asking the speaker to connect to reality by providing examples keeps the listener's mind from getting embroiled in often confusing rhetoric. [Xray]

Very true and very important: One of the classes (a two lecture series) I gave at one of the TAS/TOC (Atlas Society/Objectivist Center) summer conference earlier this decade was entitled "Concretization". It was an extremely detailed exploration of the who, what, why, when, where, and how of this vital issue. (Examples are only one way of concretizing, BTW. There's approx. a dozen - I'd have to dig out my paper to see exactly how many I identified and went over.)

> Arbitrarily using words in a sense completely contrary to the accepted meaning will cause problems; imo Rand's use of "selflessness" is an example.

I take it you meant selfishness (although the other was also used contrary to the usual accepted meaning). I recall she normally made it clear what she meant by it each time she used it, how it differed from the conventional meaning, and gave examples. But it is still easy for newbie readers so used to another sense to slip back into the old context and all its associations. The modifier 'rational' in front of the noun and the extended discussions in VOS, in Galt's speech, etc. make it clear she doesn't mean selfish in the usual sense. But on the other hand, even the standard sense of the word is often used in an equivocating (or package deal) way - someone starts out saying selfish people trample other people, kill, steal. Selfishness is wrong. Then they say, you should give your things away or always share. Don't be selfish.

I agree, though, that many people misunderstand what Rand means -- in epistemology by reason, rational, objective, etc.; -- in ethics by egoism, virtue; -- in politics by capitalism; -- in esthetics by romanticism. (...And probably more, if I stopped to try to assemble a list.)

I'm not sure that she should have invented new concepts in each of those cases. But her radically new concepts are a HUGE hurdle to the grasping of Objectivism. You constantly see even academic philosophers misstating her views. And I don't think the whole profession is basically dishonest.

Xray, I take it you aren't an Oist. But, if you were, or were developing a new philosophical (or scientific?) system like this one, what would be -your- solution to how to label what she means by reason, egoism, capitalism, romanticism, etc.?

It's certainly an interesting question - and my views on it are not set in concrete (whoops, there's that multiple meanings word again! ) yet.

[Brant Gaede]

Romanticism (aka "romantic realism") may be Objectivism, but there's no logical tie of esthetics to the philosophy so it's arbitrary. It's properly described as Ayn Rand's esthetic viewpoint(s).

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ambiguity can be a very effective way to communicate. It may keep your head on your shoulders. Ambiguity can communicate ambiguity. Ambiguity can be a set up for clarity. Ambiguity can be a way for having some fun.

--Brant

[Xray]

Since the purpose of language is to communicate, unambiguity is always required for effective communication.

Not so. The ambiguity in poetry is one of the things that make it effective. Poetry is written to move the reader as well as inform him.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The thought of mentioning poetry had been on my mind when writing my # 102 post.

The unambiguity aspect when reading poetry is to expect ambiguity, that is, the recipient does not automatically expect clarity. In short, you know what you are dealing with when reading a poem as opposed to a phone book, a newspaper article or a scientific publication.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Ambiguity can be a very effective way to communicate. It may keep your head on your shoulders. Ambiguity can communicate ambiguity. Ambiguity can be a set up for clarity. Ambiguity can be a way for having some fun.

--Brant

In that case, the "unambiguous message" is to convey ambiguity ("Ambiguity can communicate ambiguity" as you wrote), for the purpose to get the other party to reflect about it, see the fun in a pun etc.

[Brant Gaede]

I'm not a fan of ambiguity. It seems mostly to be a tool of poets and novelists pretending to be literary.

--Brant

[kiaer.ts]

I'd like an example of ambiguity in poetry where it doesn't amount to a joke.

[Xray]

Problem: How Do You Best Designate Radically New Concepts in a New Philosophy?

> Since the purpose of language is to communicate, unambiguity is always required for effective communication...Essential in communication is both partners have to share the same code, which is why a "private" definition can't work...ask people running wild with floating abstractions to concretize with examples. Asking the speaker to connect to reality by providing examples keeps the listener's mind from getting embroiled in often confusing rhetoric. [Xray]

Very true and very important: One of the classes (a two lecture series) I gave at one of the TAS/TOC (Atlas Society/Objectivist Center) summer conference earlier this decade was entitled "Concretization". It was an extremely detailed exploration of the who, what, why, when, where, and how of this vital issue. (Examples are only one way of concretizing, BTW. There's approx. a dozen - I'd have to dig out my paper to see exactly how many I identified and went over.)

I often use examples in my post for illustration purposes, and I'm very interested in knowing about other methods of concretizing.

> Arbitrarily using words in a sense completely contrary to the accepted meaning will cause problems; imo Rand's use of "selflessness" is an example. [Xray]

I take it you meant selfishness (although the other was also used contrary to the usual accepted meaning).

No, I did mean "self less ness"; I should have made it clearer in my post though. (I failed to disambiguize, so to speak , hence the misunderstanding).

Rand wrote about Peter Keating: "A perfect example of a selfless man who is a ruthless, unprincipled ed egotist - in the accepted meaning of the word." (Rand)

So Rand equates "selfless" with "ruthless egotist", which clearly is the exact opposite of the definition found in the dictionary.

Suppose philosopher X arbitrarily defined, let's say "theft" as being "gift" - even if he explained his reasons for doing so - wouldn't this cause problems in communication too?

I recall she normally made it clear what she meant by it each time she used it, how it differed from the conventional meaning, and gave examples. But it is still easy for newbie readers so used to another sense to slip back into the old context and all its associations. The modifier 'rational' in front of the noun and the extended discussions in VOS, in Galt's speech, etc. make it clear she doesn't mean selfish in the usual sense. But on the other hand, even the standard sense of the word is often used in an equivocating (or package deal) way - someone starts out saying selfish people trample other people, kill, steal. Selfishness is wrong. Then they say, you should give your things away or always share. Don't be selfish.

I agree, though, that many people misunderstand what Rand means -- in epistemology by reason, rational, objective, etc.; -- in ethics by egoism, virtue; -- in politics by capitalism; -- in esthetics by romanticism. (...And probably more, if I stopped to try to assemble a list.)

I'm not sure that she should have invented new concepts in each of those cases. But her radically new concepts are a HUGE hurdle to the grasping of Objectivism. You constantly see even academic philosophers misstating her views. And I don't think the whole profession is basically dishonest.

Xray, I take it you aren't an Oist. But, if you were, or were developing a new philosophical (or scientific?) system like this one, what would be -your- solution to how to label what she means by reason, egoism, capitalism, romanticism, etc.?

It's certainly an interesting question - and my views on it are not set in concrete (whoops, there's that multiple meanings word again! ) yet.

Clear definition is the conditio sine qua non approach I would take.

In a first step, I would collect quotes where she defined the terms, and compare the definitions to lexicon entries.

In that context, I have been looking for Rand's definition of the adjectives "objective" and "subjective", even asked at the Epistelomology thread if and where she defined them, but got no reply. Do you know whether she gave a definition? Imo giving one is absolutely crucial for a philosophy called "Objectivism".

Edited September 13, 2009 by Xray

[kiaer.ts]

If you intend to continue this discussion of Rand's use of the words selfish and selfless please continue it on another thread, it has nothing to do with linguistics as such.

[Xray]

"Making itself intelligible is suicide for philosophy."(Martin Heidegger)

In other words, per Heidgegger, unintelligibility is vital for philosophy. Thank you, Mr. Heidegger for the info.

Heidegger obviously believed these "great thinkers" (himself included of course) are so far above the "common man", that one is left only to believe, not question.

Abandoning connection to reality seems to be valued over understanding.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

If you intend to continue this discussion of Rand's use of the words selfish and selfless please continue it on another thread, it has nothing to do with linguistics as such.

I think it does. My focus here is on definition, which belongs to linguistics.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Ted:

I'd like an example of ambiguity in poetry where it doesn't amount to a joke.

Maybe "ambiguity" is not the apt term comprising what is often called "obscure" in poetry i. e. not clear in meaning, open to interpretation.

Edited September 13, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

Xray, I still have in mind to answer the questioning you and others gave to my 'case for Latin' post. I can't follow that subject as well as address your question on definitions of objectivity, etc., as I believe sizable topics shouldn't get interleaving posts. (My fault for the issue of multiple senses.

I do have some infor for you on Rand's meaning.. if you create or have a thread for that [one where people are civil and respectful like this one - which I"ve liked very much], I can post it there. (I won't deliberately post to a thread where it seems to be consumed by people trying to take digs at each other.)

I'd rather not post it here, as this is already getting too cluttered. We have, all of us, 'stretched' the meaning of a linguistics/different languages discussion...but I don't want to add still one more tangent.

(sorry lots of typos...I'm very tired tonight ....I need some black beans and a root beer float.)

[jeffrey smith]

I'd like an example of ambiguity in poetry where it doesn't amount to a joke.

Shakespeare's Sonnets are full of examples. Sonnet 30 is a good example early in the cycle, where "loss" and "account", among other words, have double meanings that work together to create a double sense for the entire sonnet.

Edited September 14, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[kiaer.ts]

SONNET 30

When to the sessions of sweet silent thought

I summon up remembrance of things past,

I sigh the lack of many a thing I sought,

And with old woes new wail my dear time's waste:

Then can I drown an eye, unused to flow,

For precious friends hid in death's dateless night,

And weep afresh love's long since cancell'd woe,

And moan the expense of many a vanish'd sight:

Then can I grieve at grievances foregone,

And heavily from woe to woe tell o'er

The sad account of fore-bemoaned moan,

Which I new pay as if not paid before.

But if the while I think on thee, dear friend,

All losses are restored and sorrows end.

Yes, I suppose ambiguity is a good word for this.

[Xray]

Xray, I still have in mind to answer the questioning you and others gave to my 'case for Latin' post. I can't follow that subject as well as address your question on definitions of objectivity, etc., as I believe sizable topics shouldn't get interleaving posts. (My fault for the issue of multiple senses.

I do have some infor for you on Rand's meaning.. if you create or have a thread for that [one where people are civil and respectful like this one - which I"ve liked very much], I can post it there. (I won't deliberately post to a thread where it seems to be consumed by people trying to take digs at each other.)

I'd rather not post it here, as this is already getting too cluttered. We have, all of us, 'stretched' the meaning of a linguistics/different languages discussion...but I don't want to add still one more tangent.

(sorry lots of typos...I'm very tired tonight ....I need some black beans and a root beer float.)

Philip, I'd be very interested in going over these basics; I have the impression you don't lauch into rants and attacks when someone does not happen to be an Objectvist, but that you genuinely want to discuss things.

A while ago, I asked at the Epistemology thread whether Rand has defined the terms "objective" and "subjective", but have got no reply so far. I know that she defined "objectivity" but am interested in the adjectives objective/subjective.

If it is okay with you, you could post your info there. TIA.

Edited September 15, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

Xray, there is a point on a thread when it is no longer a rational undertaking, where whenever somebody views another poster as an enemy, they will post multiple attacks. So if I post a thoughtful piece, it will be layered over with acrimony and it will be a struggle to get focus back on the underlying points. I have only looked at that super-long Epistemology thread once or twice and saw more heat than light. I don't even remember who was doing it, but it seemed like multiple people engaged in what I call a "food fight".

I like the respectful, non-personal, non-adhominem type discussion we've all had on the Linguistics. I won't linger on the Epist. thread for a discussion.

(I don't care whether someone is an Objectivist if they are capable of good discussion. Your discussions on this thread have been good ones. I find personal attacks and put-downs in debate EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE and not in accordance with a philosophy of reason. I try not to, but I've once in a while gotten into personal exchanges with people here, but it's highly unlikely if they simply disagree with what I've said as opposed to questioning my motives or being abusive/insulting & if they don't misstate my views - that's a personal pet peeve: the lazy, sloppy, irresponsible poster who repeatedly can't take the time to go back and reread a post and who unfairly attacks other posters because of a straw man version of their views.)

If I have time, maybe I can post once on 'objective' and then let people agree, disagree, ignore, or whatever. Let me think about it.

I'm more inclined, however, to start a new thread on a topic of which objectivity is a subtopic, but not as wide as 'epistemology' which is way too broad, as I'm certainly not willing to wade through a thousand posts, many of them worthless, to try to see if someone has already said what I have to say.

I also don't like to jump from topic to topic too quickly. And I haven't finished what I have to say here on Latin yet. Too many short-attention span people on these discussion boards.

[Brant Gaede]

Phil, I agree that some men shouldn't live amongst wolves.

--Brant

call of the wild

chomp, chomp

[Xray]

Xray, there is a point on a thread when it is no longer a rational undertaking, where whenever somebody views another poster as an enemy, they will post multiple attacks. So if I post a thoughtful piece, it will be layered over with acrimony and it will be a struggle to get focus back on the underlying points. I have only looked at that super-long Epistemology thread once or twice and saw more heat than light. I don't even remember who was doing it, but it seemed like multiple people engaged in what I call a "food fight".

I like the respectful, non-personal, non-adhominem type discussion we've all had on the Linguistics. I won't linger on the Epist. thread for a discussion.

(I don't care whether someone is an Objectivist if they are capable of good discussion. Your discussions on this thread have been good ones. I find personal attacks and put-downs in debate EXTREMELY OFFENSIVE and not in accordance with a philosophy of reason. I try not to, but I've once in a while gotten into personal exchanges with people here, but it's highly unlikely if they simply disagree with what I've said as opposed to questioning my motives or being abusive/insulting & if they don't misstate my views - that's a personal pet peeve: the lazy, sloppy, irresponsible poster who repeatedly can't take the time to go back and reread a post and who unfairly attacks other posters because of a straw man version of their views.)

If I have time, maybe I can post once on 'objective' and then let people agree, disagree, ignore, or whatever. Let me think about it.

I'm more inclined, however, to start a new thread on a topic of which objectivity is a subtopic, but not as wide as 'epistemology' which is way too broad, as I'm certainly not willing to wade through a thousand posts, many of them worthless, to try to see if someone has already said what I have to say.

Phil, sorry about forgetting to give the link to the specific thread in the Epoistemology section: "Subject and Object".

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=6999&st=20

In # 23, I asked whether Rand has defined the terms objective and subjective. Is it possible for you to just post your info there on what Rand stated, or to give me a link so I can look it up?

Edited September 19, 2009 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

The Ayn Rand Lexicon is a good source. But to fully understand Binswanger's terse formulations, you need to read the essays themselves. Peikoff's OPAR probably has it as well, but I'd have to look to be sure.

As for where it is in Galt's speech and the essays, you're asking people to hunt down exact passages, which you can do for yourself.

I have the sense that you may not have read Rand's 'corpus' and there is really no substitute for that. She often uses words differently as we discussed and there are whole contexts. I do know that she has discussed different aspects of the objective and the subjective in a bunch of different places and one needs to put them all together - in what is capitalism and in the romantic manifesto essays are two of them if I recall.

...As I posted elsewhere, I'm winding down my posting at OL. Not a good audience for me. Very few posters have a fully integrated understanding.

No more patience: One guy on another thread posted a long list of Rothbardo fallacies and selective readings in politics and foreign affairs. I didn't have the patience to continue a dialogue and swat them down for the ten millionth time.

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Dictionary Lust

At a second-hand store this past week I was able to pick up the Shorter OED. One million words for only six dollars. An absolute steal, but I have no shame.

The Oxford English Dictionary at 20 volumes is widely considered the finest dictionary ever written (for any language). This is the OED in 2 volumes (and no microscopic type) but about the same number of words. I'm not quite sure how they did it or what they omitted, because looking at basic concepts like 'go' or 'do' and more philosophical ones like 'objectivity', its hard to see what could be missing (probably a quote to illustrate every meaning or sense...instead there is an array of them at the end of the entry...but you can do a matchup). Origins and changes. All the different meanings. Chronology of each meaning or sense. Every prefix or root or suffix or compound word.

Amazing and very clear. Massive storehouse of knowledge about concepts. If you are a JWCE (Junior Woodchuck Epistemologist), not having this handy is like running a hundred yard dash with your left foot shot off. (Aside: Don't start with a big, thick dictionary when you look up a word. First you get in the ballpark with a tiny one, then if you need or are curious you go big.)

Edited October 3, 2009 by Philip Coates

[James Heaps-Nelson]

I came across this overview of linguistics by Ted and was reminded of how important new syntheses will be in growing the Objectivist system. In some ways the Harriman work on physics is indicative of the misdirection of Objectivist inquiry. Despite large swaths of modern physics that Orthodox Objectivists are against, physics is now a relatively stable discipline.

For a real challenge, take on induction in neurology, complex and chaotic systems and molecular biology. The real trick is not dealing with the known and validating it. It's how we make a useful synthesis from the uncertain, unpredictable and partly known.

Objectivism is really taking its first steps into a new and exciting new frontier where knowledge will extend into the probabilistic, economic modeling will say less and capture more and new fields like neuroeconomics will meld together and provide fresh insights. We will shift from a paradigm of what can be proven to what can be said about fields of knowledge where we are just starting our walk into the unknown.

Jim