IamBalSimon
-
Posts
91 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Store
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Articles
Posts posted by IamBalSimon
-
-
How am I going to deal with the fact that I am to lose it? You mean, upon my death? The biological clock may be ticking but leaving my knowledge or mark in this world in places like this means I am never going to lose my claim. In that sense, I am immortal (or my ideals are immune to change). You see, I can pass my essence as apart from my being... even without blood heirs, I can formally teach someday and have a hundred others who might carry on my legacy - for which, in that particular, I am yet to know how effective it will be.
David, I don't mean to be in any way pejorative in my criticism, but you seem to be expressing a kind of absolutism that I find interesting and perhaps charming. No - charming's not the right word, though it comes close... I'm not sure what the word is that I'm looking for here.
etc...
David,
I've been thinking about what I wrote above. I stand by it, but I need to be extremely clear that it was not meant in any way as a dig. I think what you are interested in doing - in leaving a mark on the world is an admirable thing. I think I reacted to the word "immortality."
If we can substitute the word "legacy" instead of immortality, that seems closer to what you are after. If we can go with that word, then I acknowledge that I too would like the world to be a better place as a result of my having been in it. I'd like people, if and when they remember me, that they do so with justified affection. I don't need to wait till I die for wanting this. When people I love or who are my friends are not with me, if and when they turn a thought in my direction, I'd like it to be with justified affection.
Regardless - I need you - and everyone else reading this - to get the message that my intent in writing the above post, while written in earnest and playfully, was not intended to be caustic, derisive, or the like. Whether you believe it or not is up to you and none of my business. But I have now done what I can to clarify what may have been less than clear.
- Bal
-
How am I going to deal with the fact that I am to lose it? You mean, upon my death? The biological clock may be ticking but leaving my knowledge or mark in this world in places like this means I am never going to lose my claim. In that sense, I am immortal (or my ideals are immune to change). You see, I can pass my essence as apart from my being... even without blood heirs, I can formally teach someday and have a hundred others who might carry on my legacy - for which, in that particular, I am yet to know how effective it will be.
David, I don't mean to be in any way pejorative in my criticism, but you seem to be expressing a kind of absolutism that I find interesting and perhaps charming. No - charming's not the right word, though it comes close... I'm not sure what the word is that I'm looking for here.
Do you really and truly believe that you can leave an indelible mark on this world that will be recognizable as your mark? AND are you really and truly using this forum "and places like it" as a way to leave permanent marks?
There are currently 6 billion+ people on planet Earth in 2011. Billions more have died today going backwards through antiquity. There have been trillions (way to small a number) more animals, plants and microbes that live and have lived on this rock for the past several billion years. Every one of them leaves and has left one or more (probably more) "marks." Add to this the "brownian noise" of time.
About 50,000 years ago, long after humans began walking upright and thinking that fire, wheels and language were cool, a meteor slammed into Arizona, the result being Meteor Crater (source: Wikipedia). Now imagine that some "David" who lived there thought about immortality and decided to paint some really cool murals on adobe walls. His marks are GONE. (Added after original post: I think I got my history wrong... Humans have been around this long; civilization not. But it doesn't change the main thrust of my argument.)
OK - that's extreme, I'll admit. So let's take one that is less extreme. Have you ever heard of a painter named Robert W. Vonnoh? Until this moment, I did not. But as an experiment, I did a bit of Googling on the query painter bob, and he turned up. Turns out he was a decent enough painter in mid to late 1800s Philadelphia. Now, I acknowledge that I'm no bellwether about how well less than famous painters are known, but I never heard of him. And I dare say that there were painters named Bob (as well as Philip, Barbara, and Larry, etc.) who have never made a public mark in any way shape or form. And then there are the millions of us (I include myself so far in this) who live very private lives; who live decently enough, have friends, family, enjoy living. Nothing bad; but nothing special, either.
But even for the special ones (and who knows, maybe you are and/or will be one who is incredibly important in the course of human affairs), I will now nail the coffin shut: one good supernova in our local neighborhood (say within 16 lightyears from us) will wipe out any kind of immortality you're likely able to implement. I can say this with near certainty because I am willing to be every penny I own that humanity will not reach the stars in my lifetime, and probably not your lifetime either. Meaning that if that supernova did happen, that would about wrap it up for humanity.
We don't "own" our own lives. We control very little that goes on in them. We are susceptible to unanticipated events, and there is literally NOTHING you or anyone else can do about it other than to prepare in advance as best you can. But sometimes events can be so overwhelming that there truly is nothing you can do. Did you see the aerial footage of the Japanese tsunami; I watched it live and was just amazed and horrified at how easily 10,000+ lives could be snuffed out (the ethical and depraved; the smart and the dumb; the Objectivists, the General Semanticists, the Kantians, the Taoists, the Shintoists, and the solipsists; the family man and the hermit; the professor and the prostitute; the Epicurian and the hit man - all dead in "an instant." Did they "own" their lives? Did they leave a permanent mark that is recognizable as theirs? Maybe a very few; but I daresay not most. Not by a long shot.
I find that I am happiest when I don't try to "own" things; including my life. I just live. I try to do good in the ways that I understand good. I try to be a source of pleasure and help for others in my life. Not out of some kind of selflessness; but because I find myself happiest when I do so. Call it a quirk.
I don't mind that you try for immortality. Go for it if it is important to you. Just understand that at least one man doesn't give a rip about it and has other things he considers more fun, more entertaining, and more useful.
But I tip my cap to you, sir. Sincerely I do. May you live happily and productively forever. The true owner of your life.
- Bal
-
Bal:
First, I never asked if you were a spambot and I apologize if you felt I was asking.
David - Please - no apologies needed. It usually takes a lot to irritate me in a forum like this, let alone offend me. I try my darndest to not be a pompous windbag who worries about needles doing a nice puncture job. And if I ever become a pompous windbag, then needles are what I deserve.
Simple perspective: I've had a lot worse than anyone here can possibly throw at me and still, my wife laughs at things I come up with. How can my life be anything other than glorious overall? So I shake your hand in the middle of a delightful, if challenging discussion.My spirit in these discussions could be labeled "earnest playfulness" or perhaps better, "playful earnest inquiry and discussion." Please take my conversations in that mode, and not in the mode of trying to pull anyone's leg; other than perhaps as a good-natured ribbing. And I expect to get as good as I give.
Don't know the GS guy; my experience with General Semanticists has been that they seem very similar to the conversants in this forum. The subjectmatter and the jargon differ somewhat, but the spirit of inquiry seems very similar as do the range of personalities. Indeed, I think I could map different personalities I've seen here to those I've encountered in one of the GS forums some time ago.
Well, Epistemology is the study of science so it is fair to say that you may or may not use reason to arrive at your conclusions about how you get to know things. A scientist and a voodoo priest may both know, for example, that certain plants cure certain illnesses but the former relies on science i.e. putting his knowledge in a system (using logic and reason) while the latter simply follows tradition/relies on luck/accident/god(s) or (if he is bright) use reason to some extent but ultimately gives up because of the irrationality in his culture. The priest could become a scientist had he not succumb to the abject thinking of his fellows mind you. In conclusion, Epistemology of reason/Objective epistemology is different from Epistemology in itself. By the way, what you do know is called knowledge and please do not confuse it with the subject of getting to know it.So - I'm looking at the Rand Lexicon (http://aynrandlexicon.com) and there is some discussion about epistemology and a little about knowledge. Nothing on the word "belief."
I prefer to call what I have "information-beliefs." IF they happen to correspond to facts, then these have the special status of knowledge.
Let's look at a different example. The scientific method, as described in the late 19th century forward has not changed all that much between then and now. But a physicist in the early 20th century would have a mere glimmer of the information-belief structure of a 21st century physicist. I don't know if Scientific American still publishes this column, but they used to reprint stories from "50 years ago" and "100 years ago." It is quite instructive to see what information scientists had access to and what they believed about it. I'll wager that some of the scientists weren't so far removed from your voodoo priest in terms of the validity of their information-beliefs.
Very real and unfortunate predilection to commit mistakes? If you mean that you are fallible, well, so is everyone else.I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Misery loves company? I don't believe that's what you want me to take away from it. But how does the fact that other people are fallible or not figure into this discussion?
The highlighted words above are quite contradicting: Are you unable to influence your environment/variables and that is why it's unfortunate?Sometimes.
OR Are you unwilling to try and are the type who likes to botch his work for its sake?Not usually.
I'm hoping for the former. Mistakes, as long as you are alive and acknowledge it can be corrected: check our premises please.I guess that depends on what you mean by "corrected." Do you mean that the knowledge itself can be corrected, or that the actual consequences of mistakes can be undone?
In any case; I was once working at a company as a tech writer, on contract. One day, while there at my desk, someone from the HR department told me to pack up my things and escorted me out the door. I asked why, and she said she was not at liberty to tell me. To this day, I have no idea why I was escorted out the door. There are situations in life where you can't peal back and see what's behind the curtain. Sometimes, the information you need to make a proper evaluation is not forthcoming.
If you take it from an eagle's vantage point, akin to seeing a branching road from high above, you'd be surprised to find out how close is Ethics from Epistemology. Meanwhile, if you start walking down that road rationality, self-interest and egoism are the kinds of precious stones that you'd be able to see but must have the proper tools and perspective to recognize.Hope this helps.
Well, I read the words, but I'm not sure of what you mean. In my view, epistemology underlies and informs ethics; assuming one takes the time (when life is flowing at a significantly reduced pace) to explore his or her information-belief structures in order to understand hirself. I see ethics emerging as a realtime application of the evaluation of right-and-wrong; and this evaluation will be influenced by one's epistemological underpinnings. Forget the same page... am I in the right library?
- Bal
-
Roy persuaded me that I was interpreting Rand's theory of rights in a deontological framework, rather than viewing it from an egoistic perspective. I put a lot of stress on Rand's metaethics, while not paying sufficient attention to her theory of egoism.
Ghs
(emphasis added)
Wow! I really do have some jargon/concepts to learn if I'm going to participate here in a way that lets me hobnob with the cognoscenti.
Indeed, I am an egg.
- Bal
-
First, I would just like to say that SJW had one of the best answer before this thread caught fire.
Nate, answer these questions: Who owns your life, how do you know it and for whom do you live for?
If, in your answer, the word "I" ever appears, then you've just answered your question. These questions involve metaphysics - epistemology - ethics which are objective, observable and practicable. I think I have formulated it correctly and should suffice. However, feel free to ask or object.
OK - I'll ask...
So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics?
Really?
- Bal
Far from it. My questions are under Metaphysics - Epistemology - Ethics and would suffice for Nate's query (context). Oh, please do not be generalsemanticist in another name. I found that guy similar to a spambot.I am just an egg, with much to learn... So you're saying that your answer here was sufficient to answer Nate's original thread question? Let's go with that. But I'm still not getting it unless this is another term of art that O-ists use that I wasn't familiar with: Epistemology of reason. Is that a term of art for a subject related to, but different from the general subject of epistemology?
I ask because I use the word epistemology to label my explorations of what I know; the processes (physical, physiological, sociological, psychological, linguistic, etc.) by which I come to know various things; the constraints that exist as I try to understand these things; my very real and unfortunate predilection to make mistakes (generally recoverable, but sometimes not) - etc.
This leaves the discussion of "self-interest" and "egoism" (si&e) miles away. I'm not saying si&e are not relevant. Just miles away from a current focus that wanders around the universe in ways that sometimes astonish me. (My wife calls my mind "ping-ballish" because it jumps hither and yon in ways that she can't fathom. Call it a quirk.)
Oh - and I think you are the first person in my life to ask me if I was akin to a spambot. I'm not sure how I feel about that. B)
- Bal
-
First, I would just like to say that SJW had one of the best answer before this thread caught fire.
Nate, answer these questions: Who owns your life, how do you know it and for whom do you live for?
If, in your answer, the word "I" ever appears, then you've just answered your question. These questions involve metaphysics - epistemology - ethics which are objective, observable and practicable. I think I have formulated it correctly and should suffice. However, feel free to ask or object.
OK - I'll ask...
So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics?
Really?
- Bal
-
Who determines the fidelity of the correspondence of belief to facts? How is this done? In many cases, I think it takes man-years, maybe man-decades to get at the facts. In the meantime we live our lives, and cannot wait. I submit that we make "intellectual dodges." (
- Bal
Hi Bal,
Who can't wait? (apart from yourself, that is. B) )
I can, even if it involves living with contextualism, and Ghs's "delicate balance between relativism and absolutism.".
OK - maybe my language wasn't artful. So let me try to clarify...
Suppose you are an investor. Some developer wants to build a bypass through a fellow citizen's home; let's call him ADent. He, of course, objects. In the meantime, a bunch of Environmentalists (who despise developers and wish we could all go back to the paradisaical savannah from which we came) decide to invoke a study to slow down the developer. The wheels of government begin to turn. Glacially. No global warming (or any other kind of warmth) between the ears of those running City Hall. Hearings are scheduled, and could last as long as 2 years. Should you buy ADent's home? Should you invest with the developer's company? Or should you invest in something else? The facts that can guide you with any accuracy are beyond the ken of anyone since we don't know how the hearings will turn out. Yet you have money that wants to be invested, and you are loathe to put it in a pillow, awaiting City Hall's decision.
One way of looking at it is to say that I don't have time to wait for all the parties to sort this thing out, so I'm going to make a decision not involving them. A different way of stating it is that I do have enough data right now to make a decision right now. I can choose to wait or I can choose to move on. I don't need to drill down into the factors about what might be the outcome of the hearings unless I choose to wait.
Some absorbing issues come up from your questions, however it seems that you're putting the 'consciousness cart' ahead of the 'existence horse'.If one looks around at what the sum total of knowledge is, one realises that we won't know a fraction of it, not to mention the stuff that's still out there to be discovered past our lifetimes.
Our senses can mislead us, and become frail, but by measurement we know their optimum levels, and can check them. Man-made instruments measure invisible radiation - we know it exists, we don't have to sense it first hand.
Yes - this is my view as well.
If one doesn't start with Existence Exists, and is knowable, (but not all of it, and not by one individual), it gets mighty convoluted, I think.Yes - and I agree with this as well.
Who determines the fidelity of the correspondence of belief to facts? You do.This is where I part company with you a bit. It's all well and good to have a health dose of self-confidence. It is quite another for me to believe that I truly have a good bead on the facts that make up reality. The number of times I thought one thing was happening - truly believed it with every fiber of my being, only to find out that I'd missed a data point or two or three that turned the whole thing around is legion. The number of times I thought I understood something and missed an incredibly important context that ruined not only my day but that of several million others is also documented.
I'm talking about the Northridge earthquake in the early morning of January 17, 1994. I lived 7 miles from the epicenter of that quake. If I'd had any inkling of the true geological context that lay under my bed as I slept that morning, I very likely would have taken books off the shelves, put glass out of harm's way, etc. But not only did I not know of the impending disaster, neither did the geologists with all their sensitive equipment and then-current theories.
Beyond that, there are the practical actions one is faced with going forward. One does not wait for all the data that could make one truly secure in a future major quake before rebuilding. One does not wait for engineers to know enough before buying a new home in an earthquake zone that is virtually guaranteed to have another big one. "One has to live." This seems so utterly clear to me. We make do with the best information we have. We hope that those with whom we deal (the carpenters, the brick layers, the architects, the inspectors, etc. etc.) are operating out of good faith and actually have the ability to put "best practices" into play; knowing all the while that ultimately it may not be enough to shield us from disaster. Buildings that are supposedly earthquake proof still come down in a big enough quake, or in a quake that creates unanticipated sets of vibrations, etc.
Does any of this make sense? Or do you view me as living off in some kind of head-trippy la la land? B)
I appreciate the interesting discussion. I don't have too many people in my day-to-day life with whom to discuss topics like this.
- Bal
-
George's key words in the above paragraph are, ". . . however justified they may have been at one time," and this is what I wish to discuss. If you disregard what an Objectivist requires for proof, including the process of *reducing* an assertion to its underlying hierarchal, logical, and proven assertions, and ultimately to its underpinnings of sensory/perceptual data, then you have not adequately described what an Objectivist means by contextual truth. Yet, if we consider all that was once considered as "The Gospel," George is certainly correct.
And contextualism requires a certain time frame. Contextualism requires the present, i.e., the sum total of all knowledge acquired up to the second you are reading this, and I am writing this.
Hey Peter,
Who could dispute the notion of proof as George specified? I wouldn't use the word "hierarchical" without also suggesting the "heterarchical" underpinnings too. Also, I would add into the mix the neurological and the linguistic aspects of assertions. But all in all, the view synchs up with mine just fine.
However - I know I'm going to open up a thicket here - our senses can mislead us. I do not deny the "transducer" quality of our senses. A photon hits a rod or a cone in my retina, and assuming no organic damage, it "responds" per whatever "its structural specifications" are. But I note that my vision is not what it used to be. Nor is my hearing. Nor my sense of touch. Unfortunately, IMO, these are all subject to the vagaries of age.
Add to this that my knowledge2011-05-04 differs from my knowledge2011-05-03, and sometimes "what a difference a day makes" can apply to the state of my knowledge, or more appropriately, my beliefs. Certainly my beliefs2011-05-04 or more likely to be correct about a good many things than those I held when I was 5 years old. There are things when I was 5 years old I never even thought about. And there are things today that you think about which would never cross my mind no matter how long I live, and probably vice versa.
Who determines the fidelity of the correspondence of belief to facts? How is this done? In many cases, I think it takes man-years, maybe man-decades to get at the facts. In the meantime we live our lives, and cannot wait. I submit that we make "intellectual dodges." (To the best of my knoweldge, Teilhard de Chardin is the originator of that phrase.) We make educated guesses and act on them. We live with "as-if-true" estimates and, if we are acting in good faith, I think that this is the best that I can expect.
One more very quick, very extreme example, and then you can tell me if I've gotten your meanings all bollixed up.
Several years ago, a very good friend of mine had a severe, lower brain stem stroke. Apparently, the lower on the brain stem a clot or an aneurism occurs, the more severe a stroke is likely to be. One of the results of this was that the left half of each eye was "blind." Oh - the retina was fine. The rods and cones behaved just like the good transducers that they are. But their signals were not reaching my friend's brain/consciousness (I don't know where brain ends and consciousness begins. That's a whole 'nother discussion.). One of the results of this symptom was what is called "left neglect." A consequence of this was that he could not be allowed to sign contracts without someone he trusted to be at his side to read the contracts for him. His ability to scan a page was severely impaired. He would read the right half of a line, and upon reaching the rightmost word, would go down a line to about half-way to the left. He treated the mid-line of the page as the leftmost point. Imagine a sentence which had the word "not" in the leftward portion of a line. Changes the entire meaning of the sentence. Eventually, he was able to be retrained, but it took months.
How do I know that I don't suffer from some other less severe kind of "neglect" in my evaluations of things. My friend was absolutely certain of what was in reality his mistaken understanding. It took time to convince him that he had a problem, and it took a lot more time still to retrain him.
I don't see any way out of this kind of situation we humans find ourselves in. We do the best we can with the best tools and methods we have available at a given time, in the most sincere effort to apply those tools and methods to get at the reality of things. But, as I see it, there is no certainty that I can get it right, though for the most part I act "as if" my beliefs are good.
- Bal
-
If genes are the reason that some people choose not to think, then it is obvious that those who do choose to think have to separate ourselves from those who do not. And that separation has to be permanent.
Hi Chris,
Why, exactly, is this obvious?
When he was a lad of about 5 years old, I began telling my son,
-------------------------
"There are 4 things you need to consider when evaluating whether you should hang out with someone (besides just liking him or her).
1 - Whether they have and use the brains that God gave them. (I do not mean God as God; it's just a colloquialism, OK?)
2 - What is in their hearts. (Another colloquialism, yes?)
3 - Who they hang out with. (Hang out with idiots and you set the bar for yourself far too low. Hang out with geniuses (if they'll let you) and you will find opportunities to excel that won't come any other way.)
4 - Whether they have communicable (especially airborne) diseases. (Family and others close to your heart form an exception to this rule as might professional responsibility.)"
-------------------------
The ability and performance of "thinking" does not guarantee good, high-fidelity, accurate thoughts. (GIGO still applies - and I think that is more obvious than anything this study might tell us.) But even with good, high-fidelity, accurate thoughts, IMO the other three factors still count bigtime.
I'd rather hang out with an ignorant, superstitious, out-in-the-sticks rube who happens to treat people decently, with honesty, has a light sense of humor, and a sense of the square deal than with some high-fallutin' gun-slinging, barbarian who happens to "think" original thoughts, who tells everyone "no" instead of "yes," has steely, shifty, beady little eyes, and wouldn't know how to square a deal if his mother's life depended on it. (Fortunately, most of the time, our choices aren't so binary.)
If you are saying that a "thinker" wouldn't do that, then I believe there's a semantic issue you need to address; namely that your definition of "think" and the definition of "think" used by the people performing the study (who likely are not Randian O-ists) probably are very different, meaning you can't get to your conclusion from their definition without some translation of their definition into your philosophical system.
- Bal
-
Since we've made a side-foray into Nature/Nurture Free Will/Determinism, let me present one more nice little factor to make the matter even more complicated.
Enjoy.
Humans have one additional source of "mind control" other than the kind shown in the video. We also have memes (I'm aware of the irony where I criticized Dawkins as a pompous windbag and now use a term he invented. Sometimes he makes sense; sometimes he seems arrogant. What can I say?) I think one of the great things that Rand brought to the table, though she didn't have the word "memes" at her disposal, was the idea that ideas can be self-destructive; e.g., the idea that we MUST live for other people's benefit is a form of mind-control by others; especially others who do not live by that idea.
- Bal
-
Great advice, Michael. Here are some of the science venues I frequent. And even then, I do so with a skeptic's eye because (1) they are not the 1st hand reports of scientific journals and more importantly (2) in the "mind" sciences (psychology, sociology, anthropology, etc.), political correctness has a way of rearing its hideous ugly face and skewing the reporting of the data - sometimes to the point of lunacy. Next time I come across such a beast I'll try to remember to post it here.
Here's the list:
http://scitechdaily.com (they also have a wealth of other science links: http://scitechdaily.com/resources.htm)
http://sciam.com (Scientific American)
http://www.popsci.com/ (Popular Science)
Just for fun: http://www.historyoftheuniverse.com/
One of the questions I would have of the authors, assuming the effect is real, is whether the effect "out in the wilds of normal society" is determinative or marginal in its effect. I suspect the answer would be marginal for most people and extreme for some cases. Then, of course, would be the follow-up question of the factors that move one from being marginally influenced to being highly determined by the effect. (Nature? Nurture? Evil Spirits? What?)
- Bal
-
Whew!
Slow down, old chap.
Tony
Thanks for the laugh!
Kind Regards,
Bal
-
Tony (and anyone else),
Maybe you can clarify something for me.
Are "details" and "contexts" really O-ist synonyms? If so, why create a special term of art for a word that works well for non-O-ists?
In any event...
The lexicon that Peter pointed me to does not define "details" though it does seem to provide a reasonable explanation of "context." I say reasonable because I come at context from a kind of "general semantics/gestalt psychology/taoist" mutt-mix of understanding. Namely, no matter how well I get at a "context" there will be a meta-context that I am not paying conscious attention to. I may or may not be able to consciously access any given meta-context; but at some point I will not be able to do so.
As you know by now, I like to provide examples. So here's one.
I write these words. There is a vocabulary context for it. There is also a syntax (rules? context?) that makes the words line up in a "proper" way. I am free, within this context, to manipulate the words in many different ways, but if I want to maintain the syntactical context, I have to use them in certain ways, or I have to make clear the deviation, as now I words these write to a point a make. I'm pretty sure you'll be able to make out the meaning of the italicized words even though they don't fit the culturally accepted syntax.
Behind that syntax is another context: my neurology. I might, with some help from neuroscience, be able to have a partial understanding of this context, but I have no conscious awareness of my or anyone else's neurology. I have no idea why the color "green" appears the way it does to me. Nor do I know the neurology behind my disliking rap sounds and loving classical music. Nor do I know, first hand, my evolutionary context. I don't even have access to family tree data that might give me some clues. My grandparents came over during the Russian pogroms and their town was burned to the ground. So in a "family tree" sense (would you use the word context instead of sense?), I'm something of an orphan.
Beyond this, you have contexts that interplay with great complexity. Culture/nurture affects nature and vice versa. I don't currently have any way of teasing out much of the "nature" context of my life from its "culture" context. Indeed, I can't even wrap "my mind" around the boundaries that would make up either context.
"But so long as and to the extent that his mind deals with concepts (as distinguished from memorized sounds and floating abstractions), the content of his concepts is determined and dictated by the cognitive content of his mind, i.e., by his grasp of the facts of reality. If his grasp is non-contradictory, then even if the scope of his knowledge is modest and the content of his concepts is primitive, it will not contradict the content of the same concepts in the mind of the most advanced scientists." - Rand in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology found at the Lexicon.
I'm kind of vague about what Rand means here. So --- Questions...
1 - How does one know without an exploration of meta-contexts (and see above about the limits there that I believe exist), whether one's "grasp" is non-contradictory with the facts of reality. Does O-ist epistemology require one to painstakingly examine non-self-evident facts? (Self-evident fact: I exist. Non-self-evident fact: the moon is 240,000 miles from the Earth.) How big a priority would this be? I can see it taking a very long time depending on how deeply you want to drill down into the facts. I could write a 500 page book about one of my fingernails with enough motivation and time.
Human participation seems to have very real constraints - time, energy, attention span, insight, creativeness, etc. One's ability to have confidence that his or her (hir) grasp on non-self-evident facts about reality is non-contradictory seems questionable at best.2 - So let's take another historical example: Consider how people thought about diseases prior to widespread knowledge of the germ theory of disease (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease#History). Prior to this, many people believed that diseases were caused by evil spirits (which is where "Bless you" comes from when you sneeze). The knowledge was indeed primitive by today's standards, and as near as I can tell, it is contradicted entirely by the facts as we know them today.
I interpret this to mean that while my contexts do indeed provide an intelligible framework around what I know, they are also every bit as fallible and susceptible to being mistaken as any other data.
As always, I'm open to being shown where I err or if there are other things I should take into account.
- Bal
-
I think that if Non-objectivists are on this list they should go to The Ayn Rand Lexicon to review definitons. It is quick, free, and easy.
Type in Ayn Rand Lex and it should pop up but if not, keep typing Lexicon. Topics are arranged alphabetically, and reference the book or publication where the original statement was written.
According to her marginalia Ayn Rand delighted in tweeking definitions and confounding people.
Peter Taylor
Hey Peter,
Got it - will look it over. Thank you.
Regarding Rand tweeking definitions and confounding people, I understand the spirit of that. There are times I playfully try to confound people, and I truly enjoy when there is an "aha!" so that's what Bal meant. But without that "aha!" it is not all that fun for me. I live for the "aha!" And it's not an "aha!" for anything profound. It might just be making a connection between two very loosely related points. One small example: I'm a fan of the current series Doctor Who. There are all kinds of "bad guys" in that show. And nearly all of them have dialogue that repeats over and over and over again. Most famously the "Daleks" say "Exterminate" over and over and over again. Watching the show with my wife, I commented that this dialogue was handed off to the "in-betweeners" so that they could save money by having the main writers only write real dialogue. (For those who don't know, you can find out about inbetweening here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inbetweening.)
But - if my effort is to be deeply understood, I find it important to make sure that my meanings are clearer and that my tweaking is done only in the service of being better understood. If I have no deeper desire to be understood, then tweaking for the "aha!" moment is very enjoyable.
- Bal
-
I think the Golden Rule is great--once you add a good context instead of a bad one.
I certainly don't want a bipolar masochist on a massive guilt trip who is committed to the Golden Rule anywhere near me.
Look at what he wants others to do to him!
Michael
I couldn't agree with you more, Michael.
Not quite on point, but related - the old show, The Twilight Zone had episodes where someone sold his soul to the Devil, only to find out that the details of the deal weren't covered. With virtually any "rule" I can think of, "details" matter greatly.
- Bal
-
Bal,
Yes, you make sense.
Except that the premise your argument is based upon appears to be The Golden Rule - in those exchanges by people and of goods you mention, you appear to be saying it is in our self-interest to 'encourage' (have I got that right?) others to do as they would be done by.
The GR is a good rough-and-ready guide for one's daily actions, I think, but not a philosophy.
What might eventuate in such a society, could be fairly good for all, but it has no epistemological grounding. It would lack foundation, and surely be short-lived.
Ultimately, to be precise, I think this is a doctrine of altruism - ie, based on 'other-ness'.
The forlorn hope that you will always be treated well by others, IF you treat THEM ethically, first.
Objectivism begins much further back, with the absolute value of Man's life; which means an individual's life, my life, is the highest value. To be simple, there are acts it would be impossible for me to commit,(eg 'looting') and acts I would definitely commit (except in the most extreme contexts) :- all for my own sake, only - and first and foremost. That's the primary.
Everything that follows, as a knock-on effect on other people, would be of secondary value.
Aristotle's words are quite relevant: "I have gained this from philosophy, that I do without being commanded what others do from fear of the law."
The communication of O'ism is something else, worth exploring deeper.
BTW, seeing that you catch on so fast, I believe you will gain great benefit from reading The Virtue of Selfishness!
(Hint, hint.
) Tony
Hey Tony - I just purchased Virtue from Amazon. It's now high in my stack of stuff to read. Thanks.
What I would find helpful, if you're up for it, are either commonly experienced examples or counter-examples to those I have provided that demonstrate the choices we have from your point of view.
- Bal
-
I should perhaps mention also, in case you are not aware of it already, that the primary function of Rand’s philosophy and of her fictional works Fountainhead and Atlas is not reformation of the culture or the political system. The primary function is liberation of the mind of the reader for best leading and enjoying his or her own life.
No - I have a sort of confused understanding of this because of the way that the movie Atlas was discussed on various message boards, etc. That movie has largely been presented as an antidote to Obama-ism and to many other isms as well. I guess I sort of conflated the more intellectually casual discussions outside this forum with the more intense discussions within it. Also, I have now realized that there is no stated relationship between the movie and this forum other than to the extent of whether the movie met O-ist's expectations or not. So - to the extent I didn't make these differentiations before... apologies.
I hope you do not think that Objectivist persons not joining your approach to political advocacy or not engaging in political advocacy at all are sterile dirt (“precious high-school clique”).Perish the thought. I would hope that NO ONE ever "joins me" or my approach to anything. I'm not a "joiner." I would find it very disheartening indeed for others to join me other than to discuss things from his or her (hir) own point of view. How else do I have any opportunity to learn. And just as I don't quote Rand (Korzybski or the Bible for that matter) chapter and verse as the authority for what I believe, I would find it even more disheartening for anyone to say something like, "As Bal Simon said..." Ugh - I can think of little that would be more intellectually hideous. This is not false pride. This is avoidance of boredom.
Are we good?
- Bal
-
Oops! Thanks for the correction.
- Bal
-
Which lands us at a question: are Objectivists close enough to the general populace in their language usage to make a Rosetta stone kind of effort, or are they like the scientist who simply doesn't have the bandwidth, the ability, or the time to bring laypeople up to speed? Stated more prosaically, if an Objectivist walks into a coffee house and strikes up a conversation with a non-Objectivist, is there enough commonality of language for a decent philosophical discussion to take place?
Probably not. For the Objectivist interpretation clashes with the usual, accepted meanings of terms like 'selfishness', 'selflessness', 'sacrifice'.
Therefore a person not familiar with Objectivism would not understand why an Objectivist would e. g. call a looter a 'selfless' individual.
If what you say is true, or even mostly true, there would seem to be a problem, or perhaps a contradiction that should be acknowledged and perhaps addressed.
The problem is that most people, not being Objectivists, must think O-ists to be loons since they don't understand that they're not hearing Standard American English when they believe that they are. Yet O-ists seem to pride themselves on being able to communicate. So is it merely within-group that such heightened communication takes place, as in some kind of precious high-school clique, or is it with the world at large with which O-ists (in general) desire to communicate? If the latter, how will this be done if you use homonymous words that mean something different, and perhaps even opposite of what the usual meanings are?
Presumably, O-ists would like to live in the kind of world that that they envision Objectivism would bring if more widely understood and accepted. (If not, what's the point?) But how will this be done if ways are not found to express at least the basics in language that others might understand, consider and perhaps even agree with? Consider, for example this:
You say a looter is selfless in O-language, yes? I take that to mean (correct me if I'm mistaken) that the looter, not having any real understanding of himself/herself (hirself) cannot act in hir own self-interest, which if s/he could, would ethically self-force hir to act in ways that stopped hir from looting again.
Yet this could be expressed in common English with a little effort: namely: looters are people who don't understand that their self-interest goes far beyond their immediate desire for ill-gotten gains. A person wants to go to nice places with hir money. A person wants the people s/he loves to be seen by competent doctors. But how can any of that exist if looting is the method everyone uses? If your doctor is a looter, same as you, does it not follow that s/he will give your child bogus medicine to make an ill-gotten "profit?" Your child will not improve from such pills. And you might say that the doctor got the better of you. But did s/he really? Now s/he has money to buy food. So s/he goes to the grocer - who cheats as well. The grocer finds ways to cut corners and to make sure that the food you get is as cheap as possible without care about its value to your health. So the grocer gets more money, but what will s/he spend it on? If you want a society of value, you cannot be party to a society that has looting as its basic value.
Assuming that I'm somewhat close to Objectivist meanings in my example, I would say that my language is more accessible to the layperson. If that is true, and I come to this game as one of the least versed in O-ism here, then surely people who've made this their life's work can do better than me. And if so, then the question is one of whether anyone wants the world at large to understand O-ism.
I don't know if this makes any sense to you or anyone else reading my words. But I'm sure I will be told.
- Bal
-
There exist data that I can't process very well into my overall viewpoint. For example: One of my tenets is that Nature follows the past of least resistance.
I watched the video, and I have to say that Dawkins comes off kind of Prichettesque, as in Dr. Prichett at the party in Chapter 4 of Atlas. I'm not saying that Dawkins is or isn't correct. I'm saying he has the same smarmy attitude of Dr. Pritchett, an attitude that makes me want to push him into the shallow end of a pool and maybe soak his money. What a pompous windbag Dawkins seemed to me!
Mount Improbable - well there are lots of things that are improbable. And I dare say that "why" questions (even if Dawkins thinks them meaningless) have led to scientific inquiries that might otherwise not have been made.
But since the man is not here to defend himself, and since I'm probably not even "worthy of a flea's fart" to someone in his vaunted position, let's leave him at the side of our road and just continue the discussion directly.
There are issues like abiogenesis and how (never mind why) did the universe “begin” that may never be answered, likely not in our lifetimes in any event. Does this rule out developing an integrated philosophy?I would differentiate the questions about abiogenesis from that of "why is there anything at all?".
I would say that "how" questions - and abiogenesis is almost certainly of that type - are almost always within the purview of science. If a process happens in Nature, it ought to be describable and perhaps even capable of simulation with some degree of accuracy and justified confidence. We describe hurricanes, but not yet with sufficient precision to see where they start "at the butterfly level" so that we can rather easily stop them before they start.
The why is there a universe at all question seems to me a different kind of animal. When I ask it, I am suggesting a source of wonder that is currently incapable of being rendered mundane by our scientific knowledge. When I ask this question, I am not suggesting that there is a God. That would simply push things back to the question, why is there a God? Wouldn't it have been simpler if there was nothing at all?
Maybe this is indicative of a mental disease on my part.
But I just can't drop that question and call it meaningless. There is something about the very presence of a universe in the first place that just amazes me, that I find truly astonishing. If there is magic, it is in the very existence of something rather than nothing.Usually this kind of thing comes up in the context of a god discussion, as in: since you don't have all the answers you must believe in god. Oh brother.I hope I've put this to rest. I neither believe nor don't believe in God. I have no data upon which to form a belief. The astonishment caused by my "why a universe" question forces upon me the possibility of this: "the answer could be - could be - simply fantastic!" In that possibility I find room for the possibility of the existence of God. And since that's at least as inaccessible to me as what preceded the Big Bang, I have no idea what such a God would be like. Call me an extreme agnostic.
As for me, I don't connote 'lack of integration' with patchwork, for when you think of a patchwork quilt, it is an integrated whole composed of different elements:
Very well, your interpretation of the image is different, there’s little point belaboring it. When I pictured a patchwork, my thinking was of the possiblility that one patch will clash with the others.
But yes - the patches in my patchwork philosophy/understanding CAN conceivably conflict with one another. When that happens, I have to make a choice about which way to proceed. This need not be as "bad" a situation as you seem to be making it out to be. Physicists have dealt with incomplete models of light. In some situations light behaves like a particle. In other experiments it behaves like a wave. To my knowledge, no one has developed an "integrated theory of light" that explains how this can be. Why should a person's understanding of life, which is likely at least as complex as an understanding of light, be given an unfavorable status just because it is "patchy."
I think that the goal of integration is a fine one. I think for me to declare my philosophy integrated before it is would be a big mistake. So, since I don't know everything; since my philosophies (plural) haven't been acid tested in ways that demand testing (not that I want them tested as the tests would likely be extremely unpleasant), I cannot declare victory on the integration front.
I do the best I can and make do with a less than ideal situation. Think of it as a kind of philosophical/epistemological MacGyverism. Using what tools one has at his or her disposal to reach a goal.
- Bal
-
I don’t like the term “patchwork”, it implies being aware and accepting of your own lack of integration. What I think you’re rejecting is what I’ll call guru-ism, that is, swallowing another thinker’s system whole.
Yes and no. I am aware of my own lack of integration. And I do accept it as current status; not as the ideal situation.
<....>
And yes, of course, I don't like guru-ism.
Something stands or falls on the merits; ideally, it shouldn't matter who the personality is behind it. This isn't always true, of course, but in terms of guru-ism, I think it nearly always is.As for me, I don't connote 'lack of integration' with patchwork, for when you think of a patchwork quilt, it is an integrated whole composed of different elements:
Example:
But patchworking also connotes 'work in progress', so the philosophical quilt is continually being worked on.
So while it may never be finished, the effort to integrate the elements is defitinely there.
As for the 'rejecting guru-ism' issue, practicing patchwork philosophy can indeed be pretty resistent to guru-ism because the focus is on working out one's own philosophy.
That was very good - you get very close to my meanings here! Your articulation of this is much appreciated.
- Bal
-
If that's the case, I suggest that a Rosetta stone is needed between Objectivists and people - Bal
That's a 'biggie' - well remarked, Bal. The connotation of these words has proved a stumbling-block for communication (translation?) from Objectivist to non-O'ist.
Though it's not exactly a foreign language, it becomes essential to accept on good faith that Rand's meaning of altruism, sacrifice, selfishness, and egoism, are the classical definitions - not the mainstream ones; confusing, sure. Objectivists continue to debate this very thing, with substitute words like 'self-fulness' being suggested.
In the end, for various reasons, I think the originals will stand.
Whatever the names, it is the concept that matters, don't you think?
Rosetta stone - nice one!
Tony
Cool - so now maybe we can make an effort at Rosetta-ing some of the words. Let's try "altruism."
My colloquial definition - one I've used for years - is that of an action done for the benefit of someone else, whether or not I materially benefit from the action. I have always known that I cannot act such that I don't "emotionally" benefit - even in my most giving of actions. That is, there is a huge benefit I gain by being able to say, "I'm one of the good guys." Or that even if my life is hell (as it has been on occasion) I can "at least help someone else out." This was the kind of benefit I gained when I put my immediate material needs for money aside after 911. I chose the emotions associated with patriotism over the emotions of narrow "but what about me-ism" (what would you call "what about me-ism"?). That I materially benefited as a result was most unexpected; almost like when you throw a "Hail Mary" ball at a basket, don't expect it to go in, but it does and you win the game.
TheFreeDictionary.com provides several definitions of altruism (http://www.thefreedictionary.com/altruism):
1. Unselfish concern for the welfare of others; selflessness.
2. Zoology Instinctive behavior that is detrimental to the individual but favors the survival or spread of that individual's genes, as by benefiting its relatives.
-------------------------
1. the principle or practice of unselfish concern for the welfare of others
2. (Philosophy) the philosophical doctrine that right action is that which produces the greatest benefit to others. Compare egoism See also utilitarianism
-------------------------
Instinctive cooperative behavior that is detrimental or without reproductive benefit to the individual but that contributes to the survival of the group to which the individual belongs. The willingness of a subordinate member of a wolf pack to forgo mating and help care for the dominant pair's pups is an example of altruistic behavior. While the individual may not reproduce, or may reproduce less often, its behavior helps ensure that a close relative does successfully reproduce, thus passing on a large share of the altruistic individual's genetic material.
-------------------------
a concern or regard for the needs of others, entirely without ulterior motive.
The definition that seems closest to my usage is the last: a concern or regard for others without ulterior motive. Ulterior meaning hidden, even fraudulent; not really for the benefit of someone else.
When I "sacrifice" the short-term pleasure I might get out of using money for some immediate desire in order to help my son with his college career, I DO emotionally benefit from this. I get a long-term, long-lasting emotional satisfaction from knowing my son is climbing the next rung on a ladder of his choice. That makes the use of this money a no-brainer.
I see no contradiction in the last definition of altruism listed above and the way I benefit. Are any of these equivalent to what you would call the classical definition of altruism? Do we have the makings for beginning a Rosetta-translation from Objectivist to Non-O?
- Bal
-
So it seems clear to me that I am not well enough versed to understand the Objectivist point of view. I've some reading to do at some point.
I'm prepared to let this drop and accept that there is much for me to learn about Objectivist tenets and language before I can carry on an discussion in this field. I guess it's sort of like trying to have a discussion with a scientist who's been studying quantum mechanics for 10 years and I want a 10 minute explanation of this and that. At some point s/he's going to say to me, "Sorry - you need training. I don't have time for this sort of discussion. Good day to you." (I actually had that happen to me once, except the scientist was a cancer researcher.)
It appears that there are terms of art being used here that, while homonyms with lay terms, they actually have specialized meanings. Words like "freedom" and "egoism." They sound like good old standard English words, but in this forum, maybe they aren't.
For example, the word freedom would seem to include as part of its meaning, the ability to act in barbaric fashion if that's what one chooses. In the days of wilder times, like those of the wild west, the scratch up from "wild" to "civilized" was turbulent indeed. My understanding is that it was not uncommon for people to settle things with a gun. Sometimes in a duel. Sometimes as a coward, from behind someone's back.
In American society, we have another custom, yes? Your freedom ends where my nose begins; meaning you can swing your arms all you want; just don't connect with my face. This is a metaphor for all kinds of behaviors.
The louts in the theater? My guess is that you and I would both not like their behavior. But perhaps we would describe it differently. I would call them absolutely selfish, though not in the sense of a Galt or Reardon. They are selfish in the way an toddler is selfish. The "It's all about me" mentality. Are you telling me that the Objectivist term for this is "selfless?" Would that be as in having no self? (Which would seem almost Gurdjieffian.)
If that's the case, I suggest that a Rosetta stone is needed between Objectivists and people who have neither the time or the inclination to steep themselves in this philosophy. I say this because of the movie Atlas Shrugged and the political hopes that I believe lie behind the making of that movie.
I believe that the reason it came out now was because of the pain caused by the Obama administration and the Democrats in Congress. The political headlines of today feel like they could be derived straight out of Atlas. If I am correct in this, then there are many Objectivists who hope - who want for millions of voters (far more than the number of people calling themselves Objectivists, I'd wager) to get a sense of the destructive results that logically must happen if Obama is the last word. A hope that millions of voters would gain a sense of Rand's political interpretations, and vote Obama out in 2012.
If I am correct in this, then there is a desire by at least some Objectivists to reach beyond their own hallowed halls and find a way to communicate with others who, like me, are not well-versed in Objectivism.
I have seen a similar desire in the discussions among people who are steeped in General Semantics.
Which lands us at a question: are Objectivists close enough to the general populace in their language usage to make a Rosetta stone kind of effort, or are they like the scientist who simply doesn't have the bandwidth, the ability, or the time to bring laypeople up to speed? Stated more prosaically, if an Objectivist walks into a coffee house and strikes up a conversation with a non-Objectivist, is there enough commonality of language for a decent philosophical discussion to take place?
- Bal
-
Free from any "musts", it is quite amazing what is possible between human beings - without systemized and 'enforced compassion' or dutiful 'helping hands', (by Church or State or personal choice) - people would be liberated to help others, when they choose.
Not only will they do so, they will do so completely consciously and happily, without sacrifice - and the recipient, I assure you, will know the difference, and appreciate it.
Rational egoism, practised assiduously over time, has the effect of not only elevating the egoist's value of self, but of pulling up other people in his hierarchy, with all life.
It stands to reason, doesn't it? The more deeply one knows and appreciates one's own values, the more one empathizes with the struggles, and acknowledges the values, of others.
Categorically,imo, this can only be reached by way of individual liberty, and personal egoism.
Preaching compassion as an advocacy, and attempting the "ideal" of brotherly love that way, only brings about contempt, resentment, and guilt for everyone concerned.
Tony
I'm not positive about what the context of your comments are, Tony. So bear with me if I've misunderstood.
From what I have seen people who are ignorant and "free" can act as atrocious barbarians. (I guess the ignorance component isn't required, but it helps). So I'm thinking that can't be the kind of "freedom" you're talking about. So let's take up a couple more examples to break down the abstract.
Example: I go to a movie theater and there are a couple of people who's subculture says that it's just grand to talk loudly in a theater. Their subculture also says that if someone complains - especially someone who is recognizably not part of said subculture, it is perfectly OK to threaten them with bodily harm if they don't mind their own business. And if I go to complain to the theater manager, then after the show, it is perfectly acceptable in this subculture for these people (animals really) to cause me bodily harm up to the point of killing me.
There have been news articles about this, and I have personally experienced it up to the point of agreeing that I should mind my own business and then leaving the theater.
Are you saying that they are free to be barbarians and I'm free to avoid them? Are you saying that they are free to be barbarians and I'm free to bring my gun and turn it into a shootout at the OK Coral? Since I don't yet know you well, I suppose that's possible, but I'm guessing you'll say that I'm seeing it wrong somehow. Please explain where I am erring.
Example: I want to be a doctor. But I don't want to go to medical school. The State says that I'd better not set up shop unless I'm degreed and have a license in the state in which I will be practicing. As an egoist I say that this doesn't suit me and that I am "free." So I can set up shop if I want to. The State says, no I can't, and is ready to enforce this by putting me in jail. Knowing this, I choose to not set up shop after all, and live my life as a very poor and inept forum poster.
So what is your evaluation of this example?
Thanks!
- Bal
Far from it. My questions are under Metaphysics - Epistemology - Ethics and would suffice for Nate's query (context). Oh, please do not be generalsemanticist in another name. I found that guy similar to a spambot.
) 
definitions of _force_, etc.
in Objectivist Living Room
Posted
The way I would respond is to step back a bit and ask the "socialist" if there is any difference between a privately funded charity and a government welfare program that gets its money by forcible extraction from producers, aimed (one hopes) for the common welfare of the populace. If s/he says yes, I'd see if I could get a sensible differentiation from this person. If not, I'd end the conversation as quickly as possible and walk away. Some people are so blind by ideology that there truly is no way to reason with them.
If s/he can provide a decent differentiation, I'd start asking about the things that it's OK for a charity to do (without any reference to the government).
- Would it be OK to require charity recipients to do anything in return for the money? If no, end the conversation and walk away.
Drilling down just a little, I'm guessing that the socialists would say that it's "wrong" to "force" (but it's not force since it's a privately funded charity) someone to do something s/he would not do if she had the means to support hirself. But in reality, all you're doing is offering a very intense choice. The question is whether you have a legal and more importantly an ethical "right" to make such an offer. With some boundaries (see below), I think we do have such a right.
I'd ask the following queries follow only if you haven't walked away:
Would it be OK to require the recipient to:
- learn how to cook?
- take a bath?
- learn the principles of hygiene?
- follow principles of hygiene to a certain charity-established standard?
- provide web design for the charity website?
- stand outside with a placard that tells about the charity?
- agree to have dentistry to fix hir (his/her) teeth?
- agree to have diseases treated?
- agree to face humiliation? (e.g., wear a clown's nose on Main Street)
- be temporarily sterilized?
-------------------------
- be permanently sterilized?
- have an operation to donate a kidney?
- put up a child for adoption?
- put up the child for drug research?
- get a divorce?
- marry someone in the charity?
- submit to sadomasochistic sex that might end up in maiming or death?
- submit to torture?
Are there any items on this list that anyone here would consider unethical and perhaps make illegal? I would be thinking seriously about all of the items below the red line. For instance, I think it is reasonable that there are laws that forbid auctioning of organs on Ebay.
Everything above the line would be OK in my view. But I know enough to know that we draw our lines differently. Where would people here put the line - if anywhere? Between adults would you say it's totally anything goes - including what you do with "your" children?
- Bal