bmacwilliam

You both deny and affirm determinism and free will in every living thing under the useless rubric of "decision."

--Brant

Not at all. I simply object to the extension of the word "decision" into the realm of involuntary biology. A decision implies responsibility, so it's only a matter of time before the typical randian bait-and-switch happens. In fact I indeed reject the treatment of "decision" as useless.

Bob

First the date rape flap and now this. Someone needs to give Doctor Peikoff his “late in life talk.” Leonard Peikoff un-philosophically channeled through BaalChatzaf wrote:

The fetus, grown in the body of the woman is her property. She can dispose of it as she pleases as long as no public safety laws are violated.

end quote

A scientist would say the identity of a water molecule inside a person is no different from the identity of a water molecule outside a person. So, a baby lying inside its mother and later, lying in a bassinette after separation from its mother, is likewise the same. Why is location important? Its location inside or outside the mother is only important as a legal distinction, but not as a scientific distinction. Doctor Peikoff, does location change the law of identity? No. I agree with Ayn Rand, that there IS a legal status change at birth. But the law of identity states that “What is: is.

If you disagree imagine this emergency room scenario. Three women are in the emergency room. One woman gives birth “naturally.” One woman has a Caesarian Section. One woman has a miscarriage. But in each case the baby is viable. The shift changes and new doctors and nurses enter the ER and observe all three babies in incubators. Would they observe any difference in the three baby’s, rights bearing, personhood? Of course not, and Rand would agree. All three are persons. Location does not change the law of identity.

Let us extend our ER scenario to four viable babies. What if a woman’s intent is to kill her baby by abortion? Does intent change the law of identity? No. If a baby is viable but is separated from its mother by abortion it is still the same as a viably born, naturally delivered baby. It has the same identity as a viably born baby miscarried, or a viable baby born through Caesarian Section. The shift changes and the new medical personnel see four babies in incubators and the doctors and nurses all agree that those four babies are all the same: rights bearing individuals, endowed with certain inalienable rights. I think the evidence shows Ayn Rand and true Objectivists agree with this analysis.

I hope Leonard and the channeled Ba’al will recover from their loss of objectivity.

Peter

This issue is a tangled mess of ethical issues and pragmatic implications. As immoral as you may take Ba'al's position to be, the alternative seems even worse. From a pragmatic standpoint, I'd have to agree with him. The woman has control, anything else is unacceptable.

Bob

"However, she's wrong to be at the total far end of the spectrum."

Every being, including man, is completely self made. Every cell division and specialization of cells in the womb is the result of the being in question. Right decisions result in birth, wrong ones miscarriage. Once born every movement, every sound you make, every thing you put in your mouth, everything is the result of an individual decision. Everything you become is your decision. You can have a dream, focus all your energy on it and achieve it or you can decide "it's too hard", "I didn't get the right breaks", and fail. The dreams you have are your decision, they can be based on fantasy or realities. In the end, no one makes you except you. All of the accidental conditions in your life and your environment are not decisive. The decision making being at your center is. You are either self made or you are nothing. This is extraordinaryly obvious.

Except you're wrong...

"Right decisions result in birth, wrong ones miscarriage. "

You have a very "interesting" definition of decision....

I do not deny the influence of self on one's character development, intelligence etc., nor do I deny the influence of the environment either. It is an objective and empirically answerable question how much influence each exerts. Best answer right now looks like about 3/4 genetics with variations depending on which trait you examine. Just facts...

Bob

Everything that happens to a living being is a result of the decisions the being makes in response to the environment it finds itself in whether the response of the a clump of cells in the womb or a man deciding whether to plant his ass on a couch eating doritos or get up and make a decent meal or go out and exercise. There are no forces aside from internal ones driving these decisions. To nature, the universe, you are no different than a pile of dust. To other living beings you are either a symbiote (trader) or a potential consumable source of energy. If not self made, then what? There is nothing else. If you can't see this you are a fool.

A clump of cells makes a meaningful decision. I'm the fool? Fuck off.

"Babies are born blank slates more or less, they have to choose to learn everything - knowledge, morals, everything. Even if this isn't exactly right, what's the big deal??" The problem is the extension of her argument here that places the responsibility of moral development entirely on the individual. Hey, I think we could use a great deal more of individual responsibility and accountability in just about every walk of life. However, she's wrong to be at the total far end of the spectrum. Personality, intelligence and morality are more inherited than they are self-directed and self-created. We need to understand this reality and deal with it, and not accept Rand's deceptive and erroneous utopia of the 100% self-made man. This is a fantasy, it ain't real. Bob

"She's wrong to be at the total far end of the spectrum" - well, I suppose that depends where one stands.

If one starts in the middle, one stays there - I believe I've seen/experienced. Just drifting a little, one way, or other

according to "the flow".

Start at the end you think reality lies - and you can always adjust yourself to what life throws at you, but with

firm ground to step back on.

I don't know what this means. What I mean is that Rand is scientifically wrong to argue that man is tabula rasa and bears all responsibility in developing his own character. One can always improve in these areas within limits, but no matter how hard we try we all cannot be 6'6'' and 350 lbs of muscle just like we all cannot be her moral/character ideal either. We are powerfully genetically pre-programmed.

From Galt's speech:

"As man is a being of self-made wealth, so he is a being of self-made soul."

No he's not. Only partially so, but 'partially' doesn't sound as good though does it? Truth nonetheless.

The best way to predict a man's wealth is to look his parents, even if he was separated from them at birth.

Bob

"However, she's wrong to be at the total far end of the spectrum."

Every being, including man, is completely self made. Every cell division and specialization of cells in the womb is the result of the being in question. Right decisions result in birth, wrong ones miscarriage. Once born every movement, every sound you make, every thing you put in your mouth, everything is the result of an individual decision. Everything you become is your decision. You can have a dream, focus all your energy on it and achieve it or you can decide "it's too hard", "I didn't get the right breaks", and fail. The dreams you have are your decision, they can be based on fantasy or realities. In the end, no one makes you except you. All of the accidental conditions in your life and your environment are not decisive. The decision making being at your center is. You are either self made or you are nothing. This is extraordinaryly obvious.

Except you're wrong...

"Right decisions result in birth, wrong ones miscarriage. "

You have a very "interesting" definition of decision....

I do not deny the influence of self on one's character development, intelligence etc., nor do I deny the influence of the environment either. It is an objective and empirically answerable question how much influence each exerts. Best answer right now looks like about 3/4 genetics with variations depending on which trait you examine. Just facts...

Bob

I don't see what Bob _ Mac's beef is with this statement:

"At birth, a child's mind is tabula rasa ; [semi-colon] he has the potential of awareness -

the mechanism of a human consciousness - but no content."

Rand did that a lot - a proposition, followed by an explanation - in different phrasing.

Substitute the semi-colon for : "which means..." and it's clearer.

Nothing circular about it. Nobody can fault her for imprecision, agree with the statement, or not.

Nothing I can do if you cannot see how the basic reasoning is viciously circular. But, be that as it may, your question is a good one. What I mean is the question, more or less :

"Babies are born blank slates more or less, they have to choose to learn everything - knowledge, morals, everything. Even if this isn't exactly right, what's the big deal??"

The problem is the extension of her argument here that places the responsibility of moral development entirely on the individual. Hey, I think we could use a great deal more of individual responsibility and accountability in just about every walk of life. However, she's wrong to be at the total far end of the spectrum. Personality, intelligence and morality are more inherited than they are self-directed and self-created. We need to understand this reality and deal with it, and not accept Rand's deceptive and erroneous utopia of the 100% self-made man. This is a fantasy, it ain't real.

Bob

"Knowledge as Rand defines it can only be acquired through experience. Therefore, the assertion (or conclusion) is directly implied in the premise."

So what? That doesn't make it fallacious.

Premise: 3 > 2

Conclusion: 2 < 3

Fallacious?

Um... yeah....

The fallacy stems from the idea that in order for an argument to have any dialectic/epistemological value, the argument must proceed from a point of agreement (premises) to a conclusion that must be something that was NOT known or agreed upon. By defining knowledge as Rand does, tabula rasa is implied in the definition. Therefore the statement "Man is born tabula rasa" has zero epistemological value.

It is a viciously circular argument as you have shown. It is NOT wrong. It is worthless. There's a difference. Sometimes circular arguments have value. Not this one.

Bob

You know what? Perhaps "derived" was a poor choice of words - let me just say "based" on axioms.

Bob,

This is still wrong.

You are so full of your conclusion you can't see the fact right before you when you look at it.

I mean that literally.

I do not mean you cannot deduct the fact from a proposition. I mean you cannot see the fact itself.

Logic in Objectivism has fundamental axioms at the base. The entire philosophy does not. Logic is merely one part of the philosophy.

I expect you to have the intelligence to understand that, but I do not expect you to have the willingness.

So you're arguing that Objectivism is only loosely connected to the foundations so there's logical "wiggle-room" with respect to truth or accuracy?

Nope.

And this is where I stop discussing with you.

You are a conclusion in search of anything to back you up. But you are just a wrong as the stuff you want to debunk.

Michael

EDIT: I wonder why I let myself get sucked into these anti-intellectual exchanges. I don't really care if Bob Mac thinks Rand and her ideas are stupid. May he live long and prosperous and distant, and soon get tired of mouthing off to people he knows will not agree with him.

Go ahead, quit. Fine.

You wrote:

"Logic in Objectivism has fundamental axioms at the base. The entire philosophy does not. Logic is merely one part of the philosophy."

I don't disagree. This is the part that's broken. That's my point. I did not discuss, nor give a crap, about the other parts.

I think we agree.

Bob

Sounds simple, but it's fallacious.

You sound like a broken record.

Here, I'll include the next two sentences (I guess you didn't get that far) that explains precisely why...

"Knowledge as Rand defines it can only be acquired through experience. Therefore, the assertion (or conclusion) is directly implied in the premise."

Wel, Bob_Mac, now it's your turn to explain why you believe Rand's reasoning IS petitio principii. All you've done so far is assert. What do you say are the premises and conclusions? Since circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious, why exactly is it a fallacious? Simply your declaring it petitio principii does not imply it is fallacious.

Ok, let me do this in the simplest possible terms.

Man is born tabula rasa. Assertion.

Why? Because he has no knowledge at birth. Premise.

Sounds simple, but it's fallacious.

Knowledge as Rand defines it can only be acquired through experience. Therefore, the assertion (or conclusion) is directly implied in the premise. That's all there is to it.

Bob

Or to put it another way Man is born tabula rasa because Man is born tabula rasa,

What is true is true because it is true. That is true, but it tells us nada.

Ba'al Chatzaf

The only difference is that the form of Rand's argument hides this somewhat. She of course takes the reasoning further but initially asks us to concede the point first by smuggling tabula rasa in via the definition of knowledge. You're right, but Rand is just sneakier.

Bob

[Rand] claims that Objectivism is derived from the foundational axioms [...].

Where?

Ellen

"`If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought.`"

Is there any doubt whatsoever that she felt the system wasn't provable? C'mon now....

Wel, Bob_Mac, now it's your turn to explain why you believe Rand's reasoning IS petitio principii. All you've done so far is assert. What do you say are the premises and conclusions? Since circular reasoning is not necessarily fallacious, why exactly is it a fallacious? Simply your declaring it petitio principii does not imply it is fallacious.

Ok, let me do this in the simplest possible terms.

Man is born tabula rasa. Assertion.

Why? Because he has no knowledge at birth. Premise.

Sounds simple, but it's fallacious.

Knowledge as Rand defines it can only be acquired through experience. Therefore, the assertion (or conclusion) is directly implied in the premise. That's all there is to it.

Bob

Rand:

`If you held these concepts with total consistency, as the base of your convictions, you would have a full philosophical system to guide the course of your life. But to hold them with total consistency—to understand, to define, to prove and to apply them—requires volumes of thought.`

'total consistency'

'prove'

That's deduction - in her own words. But I suppose 'total consistency', 'define', and 'prove' have context-specific meanings??

The problem is that she makes much stronger claims. She claims that Objectivism is derived from the foundational axioms...

Bob,

You just showed that you really do not understand the fundamentals of Objectivism.

The philosophy is built from induction, not deduction. So it is not "derived" from any principle. On the contrary, principles are abstracted (not even "derived") from observation at the base. Deduction comes only after that part, and it can always be superseded by reality. Deduction only comes after concept formation, for that matter.

Objectivism starts with observation and experience, not deductive reasoning. Conceptual thought kicks in after the perceptual part, and after abstract integration.

Crack open ITOE and you will see that axiomatic concepts are in Chapter 6, not Chapter 1.

Hell, Chapter 1 (Cognition and Measurement) deals with the mathematical basis of concept-formation and that you need implicit (perceptual) knowledge before you can have explicit (conceptual) knowledge, and Chapter 2 (Concept-Formation) is based on developmental psychology. None of that is "derived" or deduced from fundamental axioms.

I have several differences with Rand on her view of how the brain works (especially since I have started studying neuroscience, albeit neuroscience light so far), but I try to understand her correctly so I can agree or disagree correctly.

I am loathe to discuss my disagreements with you, though.

The impression I always get from you is that if a person bashes Rand for outright wrong reasons--like claiming she was a collectivist at root or something like that--I believe you would call that person a profound thinker, say you know exactly what the person is getting at, and crow some kind of imagined victory. I sense your negative judgement of Rand is far more important to you than accuracy. Something like a cognitive bias on steroids.

Michael

You know what? Perhaps "derived" was a poor choice of words - let me just say "based" on axioms.

So you're arguing that Objectivism is only loosely connected to the foundations so there's logical "wiggle-room" with respect to truth or accuracy? The axioms do not serve as a base for a strictly deductive chain so problems (fallacies) at the base don't matter?

That's you're argument? Seriously?

Bob

It isn't an argument. It's an assertion as a two-part sentence, not a premise and a conclusion.

In the case of the quote above, yes. But that's hardly where she stops with tabula rasa is it?

You damn well know that she extends this circular/fallacious/tautological nonsense much further than that simple sentence. The truth is that the basis of her extended arguments is a fallacy.

Some Rand quotes:

"Since men are born tabula rasa, both cognitively and morally, a rational man regards strangers as innocent until proved guilty, and grants them that initial good will in the name of their human potential."

"He has no automatic course of action, no automatic set of values. His senses do not tell him automatically what is good for him or evil, what will benefit his life or endanger it, what goals he should pursue and what means will achieve them, what values his life depends on, what course of action it requires. His own consciousness has to discover the answers to all these questions—but his consciousness will not function automatically."

"Since man has no automatic knowledge, he can have no automatic values; since he has no innate ideas, he can have no innate value judgments."

All based on a fallacy. That's the point, not the single sentence - the larger idea of tabula rasa. Sheesh, thought that was rather obvious.

Bob

FWIW, I think Rand was too smart not to know this was a fallacy. She was all-too-familiar with fallacious reasoning. In my opinion, this (and other examples) were deliberate. That's a opinion, but the fact that the reasoning is a fallacy is not an opinion. That much is certain.

I disagree with it being fallacious and that she deliberately made a fallacious argument. Facts go against her position (tabula rasa at birth), but that is all.

Facts are secondary to the logic here. If you disagree, you must explain why the reasoning is NOT petitio principii.

Rand overextended with the "tabula rasa" notion.

The only way to make that work is to say that an infant's mind is "tabula rasa" in terms of concepts with words attached to them. That meaning of "tabula rasa" makes her statement true. I know of no newborn who speaks a language. But I'm not so sure that Rand would have limited it that way.

Rand-bashers try to make Rand's "tabula rasa" statement a point that invalidates the entire philosophy, but all that does is show they have the same agenda-driven mindset as the one they presume to bash. They just go at it from the opposite end.

I hold you can isolate Rand's oversimplifications and oddities, relegate them to "not valid," and still get enormous benefit from the philosophy. I know this is true because I get such benefit while doing exactly as I just said.

Michael

I understand what you're saying, really I do. I share this attitude, only to a much lesser extent.

The problem is that she makes much stronger claims. She claims that Objectivism is derived from the foundational axioms so that in a nutshell, Objectivism = Reality + Reason. There are major holes in the reasoning side. Same idea with life as the standard of value. The reasoning is similarly (maybe not exactly though) fallacious in this case as well. And we have the Reality question too - not always in accordance with Rand's assertions either - I digress.

This is much more than just "overextended". These problems are foundational and deadly IMHO.

Bob

FWIW, I think Rand was too smart not to know this was a fallacy. She was all-too-familiar with fallacious reasoning. In my opinion, this (and other examples) were deliberate. That's a opinion, but the fact that the reasoning is a fallacy is not an opinion. That much is certain.

So? Still earlier our atoms were in a star somewhere. This says nothing.

Rand's tabula rasa idea simply states that before we have any experience, we have no knowledge of the type that derives from experience. A rather meaningless circular tautology (if that's not redundant). This cannot be used as a basis for arguing anything.

Are you saying there is some other kind of knowledge? If so, what is it? An innate idea? Leibniz's monads?

That's the crux of it yes. There exists other kinds of knowledge or there does not exist other kinds of knowledge depending on how you define it. But you cannot define knowledge as Rand did, and then make the tabula rasa claim. That is fallacious.

Some birds and fish somehow "know" how to migrate to their spawning grounds without prior experience. Babies kinda "know" how to do some things, but is this knowledge? Yes or no, depending on how you define it. However, this is not relevant to the form of Rand's argument. Regardless of what you believe knowledge to be, Rand is clear on how she defines it. This is what makes the form of her argument fallacious. This is "pre" true or false. The form of the argument is logically illegal.

Bob

It's pretty clear that a third trimester fetus's neural system is developed enough to have some perception via touch and sound. How aware it is is debatable. Of course, there are websites fond of exaggerating the degree of awareness. So tabula rasa is true to a large extent but not entirely. Obviously, there is some earlier time at which it is entirely true.

So? Still earlier our atoms were in a star somewhere. This says nothing.

Rand's tabula rasa idea simply states that before we have any experience, we have no knowledge of the type that derives from experience. A rather meaningless circular tautology (if that's not redundant). This cannot be used as a basis for arguing anything.

Bob

The rest doesn't matter - potential/mechanism whatever - not relevant. The definition of knowledge assumes/necessitates tabula rasa. Therefore the conclusion is contained in the premises. That's it. Simple as that. The argument is DOA.

"no content," not "no knowledge." I believe this is an awkward statement, but not necessarily fallacious, or, begging the question. Additionally, that specific question implies a hidden agenda, rather than an awkward verbal construction.

Adam

No, I don't think so. From ITOE:

"Man is born tabula rasa; all his knowledge is based on and derived from the evidence of his senses. "

Knowledge and "content" are used interchangeably (I don't have any quibble with this on its own). But this is as clear petitio principii as I have ever seen. Not acceptable.

Yes, blank. No knowledge. That's what makes the reasoning fallacious. It doesn't matter what a newborn knows or doesn't know. The form of the argument is a fallacy.

Nonsense.

Just look up "begging the question" fallacy, you'll see.

Bob

Rand: "At birth, a child’s mind is tabula rasa; he has the potential of awareness—the mechanism of a human consciousness—but no content."

If we can equate content with knowledge then she defines this content as:

"“Knowledge” is . . . a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation."

This is as fallacious as fallacious can be. Logic 101. Clear textbook fallacy.

The conclusion of the first statement (no content) is ASSUMED in the premise (of definition) of that content because the newborn child has no observations yet. This is not a "chip", this is inexcusable nonsense. Objectivism is rife with this kind of crap on core, foundational issues. The "chip" dwarfs the Grand Canyon.

How do you know what a newborn knows? What "chip"? Tabula rasa means blank slate, not no slate.

Yes, blank. No knowledge. That's what makes the reasoning fallacious. It doesn't matter what a newborn knows or doesn't know. The form of the argument is a fallacy.

Life as the standard of value is similarly fallacious. Don't get me wrong I like many of the questions and ideas that Objectivism addresses and I find it interesting. But as a philosophy, I dismissed it long ago, and these reasons are only part of the whole reason.

It is interesting, but as a coherent philosophy I can only conclude it is hopelessly weak.

Bob