Philosophy Who Needs It

[tjohnson]

If General Semantics teaches that murdering innocent children is not evil because good and evil do not exist, I certainly want no part of that philosophy.

I'll stay with my silly certainty based on silly demonstrations that any silly person can see any silly old time, with 100% silly old accuracy...

This kind of fuzzy moral thinking is what allowed Hitler to get away with his atrocities. If the Germans had thought murdering innocent children was the pure rotten evil it is under all circumstances, they would not have let him get away with it.

But they didn't think that and they did let him get away with it.

(All right, let's say Mao to give Adolf a rest...)

Michael

This is a good example of a straw man argument.

[tjohnson]

It sounds like equivocation to me. Either something is wrong or it is right. If wrong we can still have degrees of wrong.

That is not consistent. As soon as you allow a third value (right/wrong/maybe) then you are no longer operating in 2-valued system.

But it's you putting the "maybe" into the equation, not me, not Rand, not common jurisprudence.

--Brant

let the punishment fit the crtime!

But you mentioned "degrees of wrong", how can you have degrees of wrong, it's either wrong or right, right?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

I don't know what straw man you are talking about. Genocide is evil. You say evil does not exist. That means to you genocide is not evil. Where's the straw?

As to your next post, all values are measurable by objective standards. That does not change their nature. Killing innocent children will never be anything but evil—except maybe to people who don't believe evil exists. It may be less evil (say when a nuclear bomb is deployed on a city) than the alternative of vast numbers of people being murdered, but it is still evil. And even then, it is only less evil in this case because of the scope, not because of the act.

I don't understand why it is difficult to understand that murdering innocent children is evil, but apparently it is. Anyway, I will let you have the last word if you want it. I've said what I have to say and I seriously doubt you will say anything to make me change my view.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

It sounds like equivocation to me. Either something is wrong or it is right. If wrong we can still have degrees of wrong.

That is not consistent. As soon as you allow a third value (right/wrong/maybe) then you are no longer operating in 2-valued system.

But it's you putting the "maybe" into the equation, not me, not Rand, not common jurisprudence.

--Brant

let the punishment fit the crtime!

But you mentioned "degrees of wrong", how can you have degrees of wrong, it's either wrong or right, right?

2nd degree murder is wrong. 1st degree is worse. That's all I meant.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

If General Semantics teaches that murdering innocent children is not evil because good and evil do not exist, I certainly want no part of that philosophy.

I'll stay with my silly certainty based on silly demonstrations that any silly person can see any silly old time, with 100% silly old accuracy...

This kind of fuzzy moral thinking is what allowed Hitler to get away with his atrocities. If the Germans had thought murdering innocent children was the pure rotten evil it is under all circumstances, they would not have let him get away with it.

But they didn't think that and they did let him get away with it.

(All right, let's say Mao to give Adolf a rest...)

Michael

GS said good vrs evil not that evil did not exist because obviously there is evil by his lights at least in good vrs evil (conflict) and good in good leaving evil alone but not mentioning evil leaving good alone which would mean no evil. If you can't appeal to evil call good evil and tell good not to be evil by letting evil do its thing. What a mess.

--Brant

kick evil in the ass

[tjohnson]

... and I seriously doubt you will say anything to make me change my view.

At this point in time, I agree.

[tjohnson]

GS said good vrs evil not that evil did not exist because obviously there is evil by his lights at least in good vrs evil (conflict) and good in good leaving evil alone but not mentioning evil leaving good alone which would mean no evil. If you can't appeal to evil call good evil and tell good not to be evil by letting evil do its thing. What a mess.

I agree, this post is certainly a mess.

[galtgulch]

I just listened to this talk that Rand gave and one thing struck me right away. She makes a point of belittling a number of philosophers and yet she seems unaware that she is preaching another philosophy herself. Why is her's right and everyone else's wrong? Philosophy does not not have a built-in means of choosing one "theory" over another like science does so I don't understand where her apparent feelings of superiority over other philosophers come from. She also refers to philosophy as a science several times so appears confused about what science actually is.

GM,

I recall my earliest encounter with a young man who turned out to be an Objectivist. It was over lunch with two other gentlemen and they were debating the ethical basis for certain job actions under consideration, in case the city didn't meet their demands. The first words he spoke were, "No man's needs constitute an obligation on the part of another man to fulfill those needs!"

I have never encountered those words in the literature of Ayn Rand expressed in just that way although it is a theme which is certainly consistent with Objectivism as I have come to understand it. After the dust settled, as the others vehemently objected to the notion that is implicit in that assertion, I asked him to explain. He took my question to be a demand for proof as he acknowledged that the statement is not self evident and suggested that in order to derive it we would have to agree that certain axioms are true, (truth being an identification of a fact of reality) and we would have to accept certain laws of logic.

Since you are an exponent of "logic" I thought you would find that reassuring. He said that was important because there are those who hold a different philosophy and to them there are different laws of logic depending on one's social class. I recall he mentioned that Marxists speak of "bourgeoisie logic" which allows them to discount the logical conclusions or rational thought.

He went on to mention in that context that there are no contradictions in the Universe. He pointed out that a contradiction would be that something exists which does not exist or something possesses an attribute which it does not possess.

Since there can be no contradiction with regard to the existence and identity of any entity, whether we are aware of that entity or not, and the Universe refers to all of the entities which exist, it follows, logically, that there are no contradictions in the Universe. It is simply a restatement of the Law of Identity, that things are what they are.

That being agreed with, he next mentioned that there are two fundamental axioms from which it is possible to derive his earlier ethical statement, Existence and Consciousness. I acknowledged that I agreed.

At this point I will digress to point out that if someone does not agree then the discussion may reasonably come to an end. As in geometry, if someone doesn't "get" the axioms, one cannot proceed to prove anything based on those axioms.

If someone fancies that Existence does not exist one might, our of respect for their opinion, ignore him, since, by his own lights, he must not exist either. This brings to mind Ayn Rand's notion of the "stolen concept" where one attempts to use a concept while denying its genetic root(s).

Assuming now for the sake of argument that you accept that there is indeed an objective Universe, Existence, which exists independently of our perception of it, and that there are entities, human beings, which possess a faculty of awareness, Consciousness, which includes the capacity for abstraction or conceptual thought, and that this capacity is under our own volitional control, then the concept of morality is meaningful in the first place.

I will not go further to show that Man's Life on Earth is the only meaningful standard of morality and that each human being possesses the right to his or her own life, because of his or her own nature. Science can study Nature in all its ramifications. I will not list the sciences but it is reasonable to me to consider that everything is open to the scientific method including philosophy and even theology.

One's conclusions ought to be based on rational evidence whether they are conclusions in the realm of physics, chemistry and biology or economics, psychology and philosophy.

As Ayn Rand has proposed, reality will show.

[BaalChatzaf]

I will not go further to show that Man's Life on Earth is the only meaningful standard of morality and that each human being possesses the right to his or her own life, because of his or her own nature. Science can study Nature in all its ramifications. I will not list the sciences but it is reasonable to me to consider that everything is open to the scientific method including philosophy and even theology.

I differ with this. Anything that cannot be refuted by empirical means is NOT a science. What makes science, science is that the hypotheses and theories can be checked out, and possibly falsified by experiment. It is this connection to Reality that keeps science honest, that distinguishes it from speculation and verbal vaporware.

By the way, by this criterion, abstract (pure) mathematics is NOT a science. It is an art and a discipline and has the distinction of being an indispensable tool for doing science, particularly physical science.

Likewise, formal logic is NOT a science. It is a logos, a method, and organon (basically a tool).

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Yes Galt, your long post doesn't change anything one iota. No matter if Ayn Rand was right about everything she said it is still only her opinion, her point of view, etc. Philosophy is not science.

[Brant Gaede]

Yes Galt, your long post doesn't change anything one iota. No matter if Ayn Rand was right about everything she said it is still only her opinion, her point of view, etc. Philosophy is not science.

A philosophy is wrong or right.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

For the record, you rarely see physicists talking about "reality" because this is an extremely vague term and useless for scientific work. You will see them speaking about tachyons, electrons, dark matter, black holes, etc., things which can actually be observed, or inferred by observation. You cannot observe "reality" you can only abstract from it and only selective amounts at that.

[Selene]

For the record, you rarely see physicists talking about "reality" because this is an extremely vague term and useless for scientific work. You will see them speaking about tachyons, electrons, dark matter, black holes, etc., things which can actually be observed, or inferred by observation. You cannot observe "reality" you can only abstract from it and only selective amounts at that.

You are right this must be one of the latest rare siting or citing.

Noted physicist questions reality and genetics

Feb. 6, 2009

KALAMAZOO--A world-renowned physicist and one of the nation's top experts on string theory returns to the Western Michigan University campus Monday, Feb. 16, to give a talk.

Dr. Sylvester J. Gates Jr., the John S. Toll Professor of Physics at the University of Maryland, is regarded as one of the foremost physicists in the world and is the first African-American to hold an endowed chair in physics at a major U.S. research university. He last spoke at WMU in April 2008.

His lecture, titled "Does Reality Have a Genetic Basis?" is from 6 to 8:30 p.m. in the Fetzer Center's Kirsch Auditorium and is free and open to the public. In addition to that lecture, he will speak earlier that day on "Fun at the Frontier of Physics" to area high school math and science students from 9:30 to 11:30 a.m., also in Kirsch Auditorium.

Gates has authored or coauthored more than 120 research papers published in scientific journals and contributed to numerous articles in many others. His research lies in the areas of mathematical and theoretical physics of supersymmetric particles, fields and strings and covers such topics as quarks, leptons, gravity and superstrings, as well as Einsteins's unified field type theories.

Gates coauthored the 1983 book "Superspace, or One Thousand and One Lessons in Supersymmetry," which provided the only advanced treatment of supersymmetry for more than a decade. He also reached a wide audience through lectures, a popular 2007 DVD series titled "Superstring Theory: The DNA of Reality" and numerous appearances in physics-related television programs airing on the Public Broadcasting Service.

Gates earned his bachelor's degrees in physics and mathematics in 1973 from Massachusetts Institute of Technology and a doctoral degree from MIT in 1977, with specialties in elementary particle physics and quantum field theory. Along with his other prestigious positions, he has served as the president of the National Society of Black Physicists.

In addition to his research accomplishments, Gates is known for his skill at communicating the ideas at the frontier of particle physics to a general audience. He has also spoken and written eloquently on issues of general education in science and mathematics, challenges of technical education for African-Americans and the issues of affirmative action, diversity and equity. He will also be speaking to a group of Alliance for Graduate Education and the Professoriate students on Sunday, Feb. 15 on the subject of "Got Ph.D.? Now What?"

Gates' WMU visit is sponsored by The Graduate College, the WMU Department of Physics and Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society.

[Selene]

For the record, you rarely see physicists talking about "reality" because this is an extremely vague term and useless for scientific work. You will see them speaking about tachyons, electrons, dark matter, black holes, etc., things which can actually be observed, or inferred by observation. You cannot observe "reality" you can only abstract from it and only selective amounts at that.

You are right this must be one of the latest rare siting or citing.

Noted physicist questions reality and genetics

Feb. 6, 2009

Wow it is getting less rare quickly...does that mean your stake in this argument is well done??

from the March 17, 2009 edition - http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0317/p02s04-usgn.html

Work on 'veiled reality' earns French physicist $1.4 million award

<h2 class="sub">Prestigious Templeton Prize recognizes his theory that a new reality lurks behind matter and other observable phenomena.</h2> By Brendan Conway | Contributor to The Christian Science Monitor For a young Frenchman, 1939 was a good time to think about alternative realities.

So it was that, on the eve of World War II, 17-year-old Bernard d'Espagnat first considered the idea that physical reality as it had been studied since the time of Sir Isaac Newton – consisting of measurable objects, light, gravity, and the like – may not be what it seems.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2009/0317/p02s04-usgn.html

[Christopher]

GS,

A couple pages ago you discussed differing opinions as to what is rational when discussing how to judge philosophies. If we are discussing rational foundations for the universe as observed through the senses, then we must start with appropriate requirements of rationality: namely, valid knowledge and the use of logic.

As the process of logic is required for rationality, different philosophies cannot differ in the rules of logic. If A = B and B = C, A = C (otherwise any logical discussion you and I hope to have is meaningless). On the other hand, premises can vary between philosophies. These premises can be validated or fail to be validated. I believe Rand's claim is that the premises of other philosophies concerning the universe cannot hold up to validation; thus, these premises are irrational.

Ultimately the answer to your question on this thread must come from the epistemological position that knowing anything is founded on processes of induction and deduction. Induction requires learning valid knowledge. Deduction is ruled by logic. If we continue to assert that all philosophies are equally subjective, then we ultimately contradict a foundation for knowing anything, and that is not a happy place.

Christopher

[tjohnson]

Wow it is getting less rare quickly...does that mean your stake in this argument is well done??

http://www.csmonitor...02s04-usgn.html

Thanks for the link! (emphasis mine)

"Quantum mechanics introduced another point of view, which consists essentially that the aim of science is not to describe ultimate reality as it really is," d'Espagnat recounted by phone Friday from Paris. "Rather, it is to make account of reality as it appears to us, accounting for the limitations of our own mind and our own sensibilities.

[tjohnson]

GS,

A couple pages ago you discussed differing opinions as to what is rational when discussing how to judge philosophies. If we are discussing rational foundations for the universe as observed through the senses, then we must start with appropriate requirements of rationality: namely, valid knowledge and the use of logic.

As the process of logic is required for rationality, different philosophies cannot differ in the rules of logic. If A = B and B = C, A = C (otherwise any logical discussion you and I hope to have is meaningless). On the other hand, premises can vary between philosophies. These premises can be validated or fail to be validated. I believe Rand's claim is that the premises of other philosophies concerning the universe cannot hold up to validation; thus, these premises are irrational.

Ultimately the answer to your question on this thread must come from the epistemological position that knowing anything is founded on processes of induction and deduction. Induction requires learning valid knowledge. Deduction is ruled by logic. If we continue to assert that all philosophies are equally subjective, then we ultimately contradict a foundation for knowing anything, and that is not a happy place.

Christopher

I cannot emphasize enough that 2-valued logic does not work, in general, in life - but it works very well in mathematics, as your example demonstrates. Probability and statistics offer a way to evaluate with 00-valued logic, for example, and has been shown to have very wide applicability in many fields. Anyway, as I said, science has a mechanism for ascertaining what constitutes "valid knowledge" whereas philosophy does not, in general. In this sense, all Philosophies (with a capital P) are equal.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Anyway, as I said, science has a mechanism for ascertaining what constitutes "valid knowledge" whereas philosophy does not, in general. In this sense, all Philosophies (with a capital P) are equal.

GS,

And as I showed you, this is not true.

I even gave you a trial-and-error routine.

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS,

And as I showed you, this is not true.

I even gave you a trial-and-error routine.

Michael

I think we have established that you and I are not going to reach any agreement on this.

[tjohnson]

"Quantum mechanics introduced another point of view, which consists essentially that the aim of science is not to describe ultimate reality as it really is," d'Espagnat recounted by phone Friday from Paris. "Rather, it is to make account of reality as it appears to us, accounting for the limitations of our own mind and our own sensibilities.

I could not have said it better myself. This is very similar to the theory of general semantics.

[Selene]

I think we have established that you and I are not going to reach any agreement on this.

GS:

I know that it is a rare event for people to come to the state of non-agreement on an issue.

However, you and Michael have come to that point.

Doesn't general semantics provide a solution to this type of rare impasse?

Adam

[tjohnson]

GS:

I know that it is a rare event for people to come to the state of non-agreement on an issue.

However, you and Michael have come to that point.

Doesn't general semantics provide a solution to this type of rare impasse?

Adam

You think that's rare? Anyway, just to be clear I do not dispute it means something to exist but I don't find it a particularly helpful formulation. As I said, we should be interested in the relationships between us and "reality", not whether or not reality exists. To me the phrase "reality exists' or "existence exists" has very little meaning. My answer would be like "that's great, now what?". I don't know how else to say it.

[Jerry Biggers]

GS:

Apparently, many respondents to your postings have considerably more patience than I do. It is obvious that you disagree with practically every (all?) principle of Objectivism: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. You continue to make statements that sound like you have never read Rand or other Objectivists, to any extent, or simply do not understand them - since you continue to be amazed that they actually take moral stands. That they believe philosophy not only describes the world, but can be applied in it.

If I have misconstrued your position, please inform us as to what exactly what statement or component (if any) of Objectivism that you are in agreement with. Or, please illustrate on what topic that Korzybski and Rand have agreed on in their writings (other than writing their beliefs down on paper).

I would maintain that there is no similarity at all between General Semantics and Objectivism (and I believe that the founders of these two viewpoints would at least agree on that). And if that is the case, please tell me (maybe others here understand this, but I do not): why are you posting in OL? I do not own OL, and I would not presume to tell Michael who can post, and who cannot. Consider this a rhetorical question: what are you trying to accomplish in a forum devoted to the discussion and promotion of a philosophy with which you are profoundly in disagreement with?

[Brant Gaede]

He's welcome here as far as I'm concerned. A bunch of Oists talking to each other isn't all that valuable.

--Brant

[BaalChatzaf]

I would maintain that there is no similarity at all between General Semantics and Objectivism (and I believe that the founders of these two viewpoints would at least agree on that). And if that is the case, please tell me (maybe others here understand this, but I do not): why are you posting in OL? I do not own OL, and I would not presume to tell Michael who can post, and who cannot. Consider this a rhetorical question: what are you trying to accomplish in a forum devoted to the discussion and promotion of a philosophy with which you are profoundly in disagreement with?

Any system of philosophy which is published is fairly subject to analysis and criticism. Do you think Objectivism, the philosophy, should be shielded from analysis and criticism?

Ba'al Chatzaf