Ian

So, disregard what others have voted or opined. I am requesting your independent evaluation of the status of T2. The more detailed your opinion, the better. Take a stand.

"gfds" is not a symbol standing for any other variable

P.S. GS, I just found a syllogism useful. How about that? ;)

Ian.

xray only visits reality as a tourist and occasionally visits Rand via some other dimension.

Adam

Ian

I have already given a comment on Bill's example re the "goal" of a football game.

So you did understand, and you are only pretending not to. See my sig.

Ian

Have you read my comment?

From your post #208:

How can "existence" be a volitional, goal-seeking entity?

From your reply to Bill P, post #250:

And who sets the goals of a football game? A group of people who have agreed on those goals. So "goal" requires a volitional entity.

Goal is and end to be achieved. As for "joy is the goal of existence" - who is the volitional entity setting the goal "joy" as an arbitrary end/aim /purpose for all "existence"?

Here you've let slip that you understand the English: That x is the goal of y, or that the goal of y is x, does not necessarily mean that y is a volitional, goal seeking entity. That construction depends on whether y is in fact a volitional, goal seeking entity. If not, that phrasing means the goal is that of those playing the game, in the one case, and those existing in the other.

Yet you still pretend, in your reply to me, that you don't understand: post #305:

Then what exactly does it mean in your opinion? TIA for elaborating.

If you wish to argue that values are necessarily subjective, that is another issue, which I addressed in my post #237:

Or, jump off that bridge over there, if that's your subjective choice, since there is, after all, no objective difference between wanting to live and wanting to die."

Have at it.

Ian.

I have already given a comment on Bill's example re the "goal" of a football game.

So you did understand, and you are only pretending not to. See my sig.

Ian

QUOTE (Ian @ May 10 2009, 04:10 PM)

I responded to a post by another German (Xray) who had said she was not a native speaker of English. She had taken an idiommatic statement by Ayn Rand's character, Hank Rearden, that "Joy is the goal of existence," to mean that existence was a sentient being that had goals. That is not what that phrase means in English.

Then what exactly does it mean in your opinion? TIA for elaborating.

As I wrote to you in the first place: "I think you are encountering an idiom of the English language. The sense of the first sentence is more like "Joy is the goal of a living being's existence (and should be the goal of a human existence)." Your reply did not include either disagreement with that being the meaning of Ayn's phrasing, or any indication that you did not understand what I wrote. I regretted before I posted, that I did not have enough German to use that language for my explanation, but I expected that if you did not understand me, you would ask for clarification.

Bill P gave a better answer, using an example of the same phrasing in another context: "If you read "the goal of a game of football is to score more points than the other team" do you conclude that the writer is saying that the football game is sentient, and has intentions and goals? Or do you realize that the writer is speaking of the goal of the players in the game?"

Did you not understand him either? Or are you just playing games?

Ian.

Entities exist separate from human awareness. Things about entities (facts) exist separate from human awareness. Connections between facts (e.g., causes) exist separate from human awareness.

I am simply saying that entities are not the same thing as facts. Facts are things about entities, and things about other existents.

E.g., it is a fact that mass is an attribute of entities. The fact is not mass, nor entities, nor attribute, but THAT mass IS an attribute of entities. Being an attribute of entities is the relationship between mass and entities, and THAT mass IS an attribute of entities is the fact about that relationship.

All of this exists separate from human awareness.

REB

I like your clarity.

Ian, I just peaked through this thread. Wilkommen. Ich bin auch Deutsch. Wie lange bist du in Amerika? Kann ich fragen wie alt due bist?

(Sorry, everyone else, just wellcoming a fellow kraut).

Ginny

Hi, Ginny.

I afraid I must disappoint you. I am not German, except in some of my ancestry. I have been in many places in the world, and was last in Germany in 1980. I am American, born in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, which used to be a German city in America but before my time. I speak German only about well enough to order a beer. I can get the sense of written German somewhat better. If I understand your last question, I am 59 years old.

I responded to a post by another German (Xray) who had said she was not a native speaker of English. She had taken an idiommatic statement by Ayn Rand's character, Hank Rearden, that "Joy is the goal of existence," to mean that existence was a sentient being that had goals. That is not what that phrase means in English. I believed hers was an honest misunderstanding and responded accordingly. She blew off my explanation without question or dispute, and, in later posts, insisted on her interpretation.

Idioms, phrases which mean something other than what they literally mean, are common in English. They can make it hard for foreigners to understand. But I would expect someone to accept an explanation by a native speaker. Since she ignored my explanation, I decided to show her that her own native language also contains things which are not meant as literal truth: gender, in the German language treats items that have no sex as either male or female, and treats people, who do, as if they did not. I thought it best to show this in German itself, and used a translated quote from the American humorist, Mark Twain.

And so that's how I came to post partially in German.

Ian.

...So, here then is a modern problem: mathematics makes a claim that contradicts philosophy. More specifically, a branch of math, set theory--which is the basis of mathematical logic and many other offshoots dependent on it--this branch has an axiom stating that the complement of the empty set is the universal set. That is, the opposite of nothing is everything. Its corollary is that the complement of everything is nothing.

Now this mathematical axiom contradicts philosophy, namely, the Objectivist philosophy. In particular, it contradicts a basic philosophical axiom, the axiom of existence: that existence exists--and its corollary: that only existence exists. (For the full context, see 58-60.) It suffices to say informally, the opposite of existence is not nonexistence.

By the nature of the problem, both branches cannot stand apart in epistemological détente, if they purport to be knowledge. Being axioms, the repudiation of either one has fundamental ramifications for its respective branch, if not its destruction. One side must be true, but which one?

How is "nothing," or "nonexistence" distinguished from "does not exist?"

Ian.

xray:

Rand was an intelligent individual human being, yes...

Rand did not mean that "existence" was a conscious entity that could have a goal, yes...

Therefore, the phrase "Joy is the goal of existence" most probably referred to the goal of conscious, rational human beings, yes...

Adam

Ole!

Ian.

That's the well-known 'turnip' example.

You are confusing natural with grammatical gender.

In German, the turnip is grammatically a "she", ("Die Rübe"), whereas the girl grammatically is an "it" ("Das Mädchen").

May sound strange to non native speakers of German, but does not sound strange at all to native speakers of the language.

But what does the distrubution of the grammatical gender in the German language have to do with the discussion of Rand's work?

Ian.

But imagine a mother who has lost her husband and all her children in an earthquake. If one told such a mother: "Joy is the the goal of existence" - how would that ring in her ears?

This mother may not be able to feel joy anymore because the pain is so overwhelming that she wishes to die too. Again, all remains subjective choice.

The mother you describe already knows that joy is the goal of her existence. She went for it. She achieved it, in having her husband and children. And, is suffering now because she lost them. Telling her "Joy is the goal of existence," at that point would be rubbing in her loss. It would be like telling her that her husband and children are dead, and they're not coming back, ha, ha.

I suppose you would prefer to tell her: "Joy is not for the likes of you. Look what happened when you tried for it. Give up. Live a grey life, without joy, if you can stand it. Or, jump off that bridge over there, if that's your subjective choice, since there is, after all, no objective difference between wanting to live and wanting to die."

I think any words, at that point would ring hollow. The best one could do is show her that joy is still possible, by means of any acts of kindness one could think of.

Ian.

Don't get me started on Rand's use of the word "existence". In her mind, existence is also a goal-seeing entity:

"Joy is the goal of existence".

Can existence have goals? How's that?

I thought I clarified that for you.

Or perhaps, the whole country of Germany thinks young women are sexless:

Gretchen: „Wilhelm, wo ist die Rübe?“

Wilhelm: „Sie ist in der Küche.“

Gretchen: „Wo ist das vielseitig gebildete, schöne englische Mädchen?“

Wilhelm: „Es ist in der Oper.“

http://german.about.com/gi/dynamic/offsite...%2Dsprache.html

Ian.

Bravo Ian!!

Spot on mate!!!

Adam

And for the "cool, rational way she carries her hmmm..."

Thanks B)

Ian

"Joy is the goal of existence" - that's the credo Rand's heros seem to cling to. The fact that pain is part of life (and often a life-saver!)just as joy is downright uncacceptable to them - pain is something so dreadful to them that they go right into denial mode.

An strange opposition is constructed between the "sufferer" Philip whose credo is "only to suffer is to feel" and Rearden rejecting it by replacing it with his own, no less odd credo.

Existence has a "goal" ("joy"), it is claimed. Who please sets that goal? How can "existence" be a volitional, goal-seeking entity?

I think you are encountering an idiom of the English language. The sense of the first sentence is more like "Joy is the goal of a living being's existence (and should be the goal of a human existence)." It certainly is mine. I am now in constant pain (peripheral neuropathy) which I certainly would not attempt to deny, but the the joy of living is so overwhelming that the pain seems insignificant. I read Rand's heroes as having a similar attitude.

It is possible for joy not to be merely a temporary state, but a permanent attitude toward life. It is also possible to take pain and suffering as a permanent attitude toward life, "this vale of tears, etc." I think this is the contrast Ayn was getting at.

Ian.

I now offer a key passage in which Hank Rearden and his brother have a confrontation. It starts with Philip speaking:

"One's supposed to have some sort of feeling for one's brother."

"Do you?"

Philip's mouth swelled petulantly; he did not answer; he waited; Rearden let him wait. Philip muttered, "You're supposed … at least … to have some consideration for my feelings… but you haven't."

"Have you for mine?"

"Yours? Your feelings?" It was not malice in Philip's voice, but worse: it was a genuine, indignant astonishment. "You haven't any feelings. You've never felt anything at all. You've never suffered!"

It was as if a sum of years hit Rearden in the face, by means of a sensation and a sight: the exact sensation of what he had felt in the cab of the first train's engine on the John Galt Line—and the sight of Philip's eyes, the pale; half-liquid eyes presenting the uttermost of human degradation: an uncontested pain, and, with the obscene insolence of a skeleton toward a living being, demanding that this pain be held as the highest of values. You've never suffered, the eyes were saying to him accusingly—while he was seeing the night in his office when his ore mines were taken away from him—the moment when he had signed the Gift Certificate surrendering Rearden Metal—the month of days inside a plane that searched for the remains of Dagny's body. You've never suffered, the eyes were saying with self-righteous scorn—while he remembered the sensation of proud chastity with which he had fought through those moments, refusing to surrender to pain, a sensation made of his love, of his loyalty, of his knowledge that joy is the goal of existence, and joy is not <as_857> to be stumbled upon, but to be achieved, and the act of treason is to let its vision drown in the swamp of the moment's torture. You've never suffered, the dead stare of the eyes was saying, you've never felt anything, because only to suffer is to feel—there's no such thing as joy, there's only pain and the absence of pain, only pain and the zero, when one feels nothing—I suffer, I'm twisted by suffering, I'm made of undiluted suffering, that's my purity, that's my virtue—and yours, you the untwisted one, you the uncomplaining, yours is to relieve me of my pain—cut your unsuffering body to patch up mine, cut your unfeeling soul to stop mine from feeling—and we'll achieve the ultimate ideal, the triumph over life, the zero! He was seeing the nature of those who, for centuries, had not recoiled from the preachers of annihilation—he was seeing the nature of the enemies he had been fighting all his life.

"Philip," he said, "get out of here." His voice was like a ray of sunlight in a morgue, it was the plain, dry, daily voice of a businessman, the sound of health, addressed to an enemy one could not honor by anger, nor even by horror. "And don't ever try to enter these mills again, because there will be orders at every gate to throw you out, if you try it."

Ah, Heinlein!

I always light up when someone mentions his work...

I just finished this one:

Couldn't resist that cover. ;)

A concept, in Objectivist epistemology (as I understand it) is part of one's map. The object is that part of the territory to which one refers when using the concept.

What word do you use to refer to part of the territory?

'Concept' is used quite ambiguously usually. It's used either as a term or a mental image and this causes a great deal of confusion. When you describe an object, say an apple, what are actually describing? Is it not an image in your cortex? What other data do you have? Is the apple green or do you merely see green (if it's a granny smith)?

An ambiguous word is one susceptible of more than one meaning. Since we (you and I) mean different things by "object," that word is subject to the same objection (ambiguity) you are making for "concept." I must confess to not understanding what import your dichotomy between "term" and "mental image," would have. In Objectivist epistemology, as I understand it, a "percept" is a first order abstraction. A "concept" is a second (and higher) order abstraction, a grouping of percepts in order to handle the lot as if it were a single percept, by giving it (the concept) a lable, a word. Percepts and concepts are the map. Objects are reserved for the territory, this in order to keep map and territory separate in one's thinking, as they are in reality.

To say a given apple is green identifies the same fact of reality as to say I see green when I look at that apple. The second formulation expands on the first.

I have no objection, in writing to you, to using the word "object" to refer to the mental construct which I'd call a "percept" in writing to an Objectivist. What I'm wondering is whether you have a word to refer to what in reality, in the territory, gives rise to percepts/objects, and to which we refer by using concepts/words. If you've answered, I haven't understood.

Ian.

A cliff. A lake. A rock.

I have liked the map-territory metaphor for reality and what we understand of it ever since I first read the quote "The map is not the territory," in the work of Robert Anson Heinlein. He attributed the saying to Alfred Korzybski, and a system called "general semantics." In writing to "General Semanticist," I thought it best to start with a point of agreement.

Ian.

According to gemeral semantics, objects can be considered first order abstractions and words are 2nd order abstractions and words about words are 3rd order etc. Animals are restricted to first order abstractions. When we "see an object" this is a misnomer because it is lightwaves bouncing off atoms and then hitting our retina that eventually produces the object (concept, abstraction etc.) in our visual cortex. So the existence of the object depends on the observer but not the existence of the lightwaves. This was not known before science was advanced enough to figure it out but many of us still believe and act as if this wasn't so.

A concept, in Objectivist epistemology (as I understand it) is part of one's map. The object is that part of the territory to which one refers when using the concept.

What word do you use to refer to part of the territory?

Way back on the first page Baal and I had this exchange;

It all comes down to this: Is there anything besides you? If so, something exists independent of your perceptions or even your being. I take "existence exists" to mean there is something besides myself and I am not imagining the entire world.

If so, then why not say "something exists"? To me, that makes more sense than "existence exists". Something may exist but there can't be any knowledge (verbal or non-verbal) of it without an observer.

People are construing that because I say knowledge and existence are inter-related that something doesn't exist independent of us. This is not the case.I admit that something exists independent of us BUT the objects we sense are actually abstractions from that something. My point in starting this thread was that the premise "existence exists" makes no sense as an axiom. I can accept "something exists" but I don't see much value in it as an axiom. Is anyone saying nothing exists?

I was construing exactly that. And wondering whether general semanticists were people who could simultaneously assert: the map is not the territory, and the map is the territory; which would make their system non-Aristotelian for sure. Your clarification, "the objects we sense are actually abstractions from that something" is something I agree with. And, in reference to your reply to me, I wasn't restricting my use of the word "knowledge" to refer only to verbal knowledge. I think perception, even in other animals, is an active process in the brain (or nervous system) of that animal. They make maps, too; just not with words. ;) And our maps include more than words, or at least mine does.

Existence exists. Existence is a concept that is implicit in anything you, I, or anyone, does or says. To say "existence exists" is to make that implication explicit. That's my take on it, anyway.

When we discovered the planet Neptune it was clear that it exist before anyone had any idea it was there.

This is where we disagree. It is not clear to me that something exists when nobody has any knowledge of it. We can only assume it existed before. I guess my position is that existence and knowledge are inseparable. You can't have one without the other.

I've a small question:

"Existence and knowledge are inseparable?" But isn't the map (knowledge or belief, something you've constructed in your head) a different thing than the territory (that reality which your map is presumably intended to describe/locate)? How does the absence of an item on your map prevent the existence of anything in the territory?