KacyRay

Assuming you're referring to the "cat" sentence... Yes. That's what I said. It has truth value. That's another way of saying it's true or false. Were you intending to agree with me? Not sure where you were going with that.

By the way... I'm in the time zone GMT+2, which is why you see a flurry of posts. I'm not trying to appear obsessive... I was just going over this while the rest of you were probably sleeping.

"Such statements are so strong as to pose a metalogical problem. For if what Peikoff says is true, what is the status of a correct judgment that a claim is arbitrary? How does one arrive at that judgment?" According to my own formulation, the burden of truth-value demonstration lies with the person uttering the proposition. In other words, it is not for the listener to decide whether or not a statement is arbitrary, rather it is on the proponent of the statement to ensure that his or her proposition meets the criteria required for a statement to have truth value (verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to examination). Consider the proposition "There is a live cat in my desk drawer". Given that the proposition was made under the following conditions: - No indication has been made that there is a cat in my desk drawer. - No one has opened or looked in my desk drawer in the last 20 years. - I love cats and would be thrilled to find one in my desk drawer. According to Peikoff, this statement is arbitrary, as A) there are potential emotional reasons for make such a statement and B) There is no evidence whatsoever to support my contention. According to me, this statement has truth value. It is verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to examination. In this case, the statement would be false. But not arbitrary. This should sufficiently address the question posed by Mr. Campbell.

Now that I've been able to get to page 2, I am able to see with clarity that my argument is clearly distinguished from Piekoff's. "Peikoff has yet to present an example of an arbitrary claim or supply any instructions as to how to identify one." Since I've already done both, I trust that my own formulations merit consideration, for reasons that Piekoff's didn't.

Due to the garbage computer I am forced to use on this ship, I can't seem to get past page 1 of Campbell's article without it crashing. On page one, though, it seems to indicate that Piekoff's definition of "arbitrary assertion" is an emotional claim that is devoid of evidence (paraphrased). Contrast that to mine: A statement about reality which has no truth value (i.e. either unverifiable, unfalsifiable, or not subject to examination). This might be the key in understanding why his doctrine has the potential for moral implications whereas mine does not. Edit: I should point out that an emotional statement devoid of evidence CAN have truth value! If it is subject to examination, verifiable, and falsifiable... it has truth value. The truth value of a proposition *need not be known* in order for the proposition to possess truth value. Again, this is my position, not Piekoff's (as far as I know). By way of example - An ordinary Christian claim that Jesus is going to return "soon" is an arbitrary claim that should be rejected out of hand. Harold Camping's claim that Jesus was going to return on May 21st 2011 was not an arbitrary claim - it was, in fact, false. As an interesting aside... I have on several occasions pointed out to people that Camping claim (as crazy and silly as it sounded) actually possessed virtues that ordinary christian claims of "soon" do not possess, and his claims had the merit of courage behind them. He put his reputation on the line by offering a testable proposition - which, if nothing else, gives him the distinction of a courage that few christians (and mystics in general) possess. And on 21 May 2011 we found out why. At least his claim wasn't arbitrary. It was false, and as far as I'm concerned, that made it more useful.

I just read the first paragraph of Robert Campbells essay of the Peikovian Doctrine of the arbitrary assertion, and I feel compelled to point something out... In my first comment in this discussion, I made the statement "Peikoff was right". If I may, I'd like to retract that statement. I read Peikoff's doctrine many years ago and I only remember it vaguely. I do remember that my primary takeaway from it is that there does exist a category of propositions that do not qualify as true or false. I found that specific idea to be compelling, and from there I developed my own formulation that all propositions fit into two broad categories - those which have truth value, and those which don't. So where I'm going with this is - my conversation here and any argument I make is in favor of my own formulation and conclusions, not in favor of Peikoff's. I credit him with providing the foundation of where I went with these formulations, but I can't say I honestly remember one single sentence of his essay, let alone the conclusions it arrives at. I *categorically* reject any idea that you can judge the truth-value of any proposition based on who proposes it. I regard that idea as dishonest and (in Peikoff's case) a heaping helping of self-serving horseshit. So to be clear - I'm arguing in favor of my own formulations, not in defense of Peikoff's. My contention is that: - Any proposition about the nature of reality will fit into one of two broad categories: Those which have truth value and those which don't. - Those which do may have a truth value of true or false. (Whether or not that value is as-of-yet determined is irrelevant, so long as it is determinable). - Those which do not are arbitrary, and the only proper way to handle such statements is to reject them out-of-hand. Also: - There are specific features a proposition must possess in order to have truth value. It must be, at a minimum, verifiable, falsifiable, and subject to examination. For now, these are the only points I am arguing for. I also contend that an understand of the principles listed above is a vital component of polemic discourse, as the deliberation of arbitrary propositions only serves to credit them with value and merit that they do not possess.

Negative. In the context of this discussion, you are PROPOSING that 1 = x. Remember, this is a discussion of propositions. Not identifications. Substitute anything for x. Cat. Space. Laughter. 4 to the 4th power. Who knows what x equals? It's not defined. (For the sake of clarity - when an equation such as "x=1" is made in a mathematical context, it's generally understood that the truth of that equation is *given*, not *proposed* However, this is a discussion about propositions. My apologies for not having been more clear about that.) Again, take my hypothetical - God is all-knowing. God is all powerful. Those statement are ostensibly arbitrary, since they don't meet any criteria that would give them truth-value (when you drill down into it). Brant - I categorically reject any rationale that would lead one to reject a statement as arbitrary based on who spoke it, and I'd be interested to see you demonstrate some sort of logical progression from "1=x is arbitrary" to some sort of "implied morality". Keep going... how, exactly? How do you keep going from there? When someone says "God is all-knowing", how do you "keep going" from there? It's a conversation-stopper. There's nothing to be said about such a statement... at least not to anyone who understands it's arbitrary nature. It would be as useful as deliberating Russel's teapot. THAT is why it's a valuable polemic tool - it cuts the wheat from the chafe and prevents you from being sucked into rabbit holes or arbitrary assertions. Would you, Brant, ever spend time and energy discussing something such as what god does and does not know? Would you spend time and effort discussing whether there is a teapot orbiting the sun? If not, ask yourself why. And then ask yourself if there's a principle to be found in your answer. My contention is that the *principle* you would arrive at is: Arbitrary assertions merit arbitrary rejection. - Kacy

Obviously if you add more substance to an arbitrary statement you can render it true of false. I was deliberate with my x=1 formulation. We aren't solving for x, we are making an entirely arbitrary statement If I say x=1, the truth of that equation is not only unknown, it is *unknowable* (unless x is assigned a value). A statement that has no truth value is arbitrary.

Whether an argument merits examination is purely an individual choice for various reasons. The arbitrary is only one. You can export your explanation of the arbitrary if you want, but not logicaly impose it in the name of reason called "rational" wrapped up in high moral dudgeon. Take out Peikoff's assault on Barbara Branden's Rand biography would we even be discussing this? I don't see how it can be properly used respecting complex statements without twisting your mind through unnecessary labyrinths. --Brant I disagree, and I'll give you a couple examples... Consider the following statement, made (hypothetically) in the year 1000 A.D.: "The Earth is flat" It is a statement that is verifyable, falsifiable, and subject to examination. It makes an important proposition about reality and it objectively worthy of examination (as it would affect our ability to navigate and to understand other sciences better). It is objectively worthy of consideration. It also happens to be false. Now consider this statement, made countless times (in various forms) by my beloved uncle: "God is all-knowing" Is this statement worthy of consideration? Objectively? I don't think that saying this statement merits no consideration is wrapped up in "high moral dudgeon" or anything like that - I think it's prettty clearly an arbitrary statement that has no truth value whatsoever and merit's no consideration at all. To be able to distinguish between statements that have truth value and those which don't is a vital polemic tool. In fact, it's all the more important because to elevate an arbitrary statement up to the status of "false" is giving it more credit than it deserves, and implies that the proposition merits serious consideration. Note: I haven't read the in-depth discussion you linked me to yet, but I will. I recognize that I might be hitting on already-covered territory.

I'd welcome a new, dedicated thread for this topic. I think its pretty important.

Okay, obviously if you add information, you may render an arbitrary statement true or false. Then it is no longer arbitrary. But the fact remains, a statement cannot be simultaneously arbitrary and false (or true).

I'd caution anyone against failing to distinguish between a false statement and an arbitrary one. It's bad philosophy, and it's just plain wrong. As analogous to math - 1=1 is true, 1=2 is false, and 1=x is arbitrary. If you said 1=x is false, you'd be wrong in point of fact. Arbitrary and false are not the same. Arbitrary statements should be treated differently from true/false statements As (I think) Dawkins once pointed out - statements that can be arbitrarily made can safely be arbitrarily dismissed. They are unfalsifiable and unverifiable. One reason it's important is because it cuts the wheat from the chaff in terms of philosophical argumentation. It distinguishes between those statements which merit examination/consideration and those which don't.

(NOTE FROM MSK: This thread is split off from Selective timeline and links of the Kelley-Peikoff schism in the David Kelley Corner.) An arbitrary statement is one to which no truth value can be assigned. A true statement may be assigned a truth value of 1 A false statement may be assigned a truth value of 0 An arbitrary statement cannot be any truth value at all. So Peikoff is right on this one. Arbitrary statements are not true. They aren't even false.

I"ve read Truth and Toleration, Fact and Value, A Question of Sanction, On Sanctioning the Sanctioners, etc...I'm familiar with the schism. I was just wondering if anyone had asked these direct quetsions to any of the ARI elite at any point, and what their ansewrs were. I find it hard to imagine that no one has ever confronted them with the realities implied by the Rand/Branden affair. There are many - even more than I've listed - that are inescapable. Can it be true that no one has ever publicly asked those questions? No one has demanded answers?

I learned about the Objectivist schisms a long time ago, just after the David Kelley situation. I read about it with much interest at the time, and I remember deciding that I firmly agreed with Kelley and I planted my flag on that side of things. But after that, I pretty much quit keeping up with the issue. And I've often wondered a few things. Maybe someone here can help offer some clarity. Originally, BB was criticized for PAR, and her "gratuitous smears against Ayn Rand's character" with a resolute denial that the affair between AR and NB ever tool place. But it seems that since that time, Piekoff has admitted that it did happen. I saw that that video he put out a few years back (Don't remember the name of it). It was a brief, almost incidental admission "They were friends, and it appears they had abrief affair", spoken with an almost dismissive tone. But the implications of it are enormous, and one thing I've never heard is how orthodox Objectivists reconcile these implicaitons. Has anyone heard anyone from the ARI clan actually address these issues? The admission the Rand had an affair means: 1) That Ayn Rand lied 2) That Ayn Rand was in love with a man she denounced as evil 3) That BB was vindicated 4) That NB and BB were dealt a huge injustice by AR 5) That all of Rand's talk about how right she and her husband were for each other was dishonest and that she was involved in an unsatisfying marriage - an idea that flies in the face of her repeated contention that she could only ever respond romantically to men she found heroic These are just a few of the implications that the admission of the affair carry with it. There are many more, some very subtle, but there nonetheless. I realize that ARI elite take the "I've already repudiated them and I have nothing more to say about them" position. But at some point, they must have at least made a statement about this, and at some point, someone must have broached the subject of what this affair implies. Does anyone have any information on how they rationalize this away? What their answers to these sorts of questions were?

I read "Judgment Day" about 15-16 years ago, and I guess I figured there was no need to read PAR ... thinking that the two books described pretty much the same events from two different perspectives. I didn't realize PAR was a full-on bio of Rand's entire life. Heh.... whoops! I'm a bit more than halfway through PAR now... and I'm pretty hooked. Great biography. Hard to believe that, as long as I've been interested in Rand and as much as I know about her ideas and philosophy, that I've been missing out on so much of the context which helped produce those ideas. Suffice it to say... shit is starting to make a lot more sense now.

Childish. Blacks aren't more violent. Thugs are more violent. And before you start telling me that blacks are more likely to be thugs, I'd suggest you look around the world and not just in Detroit. Dude, just come out and say it - you believe that blacks possess some inherant more destitution. Don't be afraid - just own it. Don't softball us. You believe there's something in their genetic makeup that gives them a propensity toward violence and crime. Come on, you can say it. Own up to it and offer your evidence. At least that way we can weight the evidence and have a real conversation about it, without all the innuendo.

What does "three youths in hooded sweatshirts" who are hanging in downtown at night have to do with black people being dangerous? Oh... you meant three BLACK youths? That's right... I must've forgotten for a moment that three white youths in hooded sweatshirts lurking downtown at night would be perfctly safe. Three Asians... even safer... probably just out there to help protect naive progressives from all those black guys. Cause that's what white guys in hooded sweatshirts in downtown at night do.

In Manchan’s case (and really, in his defense), he appears to have miscalculated how much she would value his effort to spread her ideas. She clearly thought he was requesting her professional services free of charge, whereas he felt the promulgation of her ideas was worth her efforts. Taking his story at face value, he apparently communicated this to her, and IMHO it was quite freaking rude of her to ignore him outright. Her response paraphrased) was “Look, I’ve already declined this rude proposition, so for you to demand an explanation is not only rude but offensive”. But in reality, she hadn’t declined it, she had ignored it. And in an age of snail-mail, there’s no way to determine whether the lack of response is due to being deliberately ignored or to mail being lost along the way. Both are reasonable possibilities. (Rand’s assumption that Machan’s intent was anything other than naïve and well-intentioned [particularly in light of the kind things she had already said to-about him] stands in stark contrast to her claims of a benevolent worldview, but I digress. ) Now as far as your question of reconciliation – Guarding your self-regard and assaulting that of others are two different things. The former does not always require the latter. A judicious (and dare I say ‘rational) individual realizes this, and can distinguish between situations where it does and situations where it doesn’t. This is one case in which the Orthodox Objectivist approach closely resembles that of fanatical organizations such as the Westboro Baptist Church – no one can just be wrong, they can only be wrong and evil. There are no honest mistakes. There is only the willingness to see (that someone is 100% correct) or complete evasion. (Note: I’m taking it for granted that all of the accounts I’ve heard regarding these encounters with Rand are, for the most part, accurate and honest. I always leave room for the possibility that there are embellishments. In those cases where any fabrications or embellishments exist, obviously that would change my synopsis.) Therefore it is not the guarding of ones self-regard that I could criticize in her case – it is the apparent intellectual laziness one would be demonstrating when one lumps all comers into one of two categories - honest interlocutor or subversive, offense, evasive, irrational scoundrel. In short – one does not always need to attack in order to defend. There’s your reconciliation. And to go on the offense when one isn’t even being attacked to begin with is not only itself offensive, but indicative of a damaged psychology. But even that isn’t my point – it’s only an answer to your question. My point is that, when confronted with such a person – even when such a person has a tremendous amount of social or intellectual value – to willing continue to subject yourself to that behavior demonstrates a disgraceful lack of self-respect. And my question in the OP was intended to solicit resonses on what the proper response should be when confronted with such an individual.

I'd never confuse a value-judgment of a person with a value-judgment of their achievments. In fact, there are plenty of examples of people whose achievements I very much admire while recognizing that I'd likely have told them go go eff themselves if I had ever had ever spent any time around them. Rand is a tame example.A more extreme examples might be Jaco Pastorius. And the ultimate example is Bobby Fischer, may he rot in hell. If I had incurred (what I considered) undue disrespect from Rand, I very well may have cut off all material and social support to the Objectivist movement. But that doesn't mean I would abandon all principles I had learned from it. I wouldn't sabatoge my own happiness to spite anyone. I would simply go about my business (much the way I do these days).

I knew it was Peregrene... seen it used on other forums, as well as the "Rush 2112" posing on the Music board here. I figured he'd swoop down eventually. Heh...

What do the $$$$'s over people's handles signify?

So... can you give me a quick "Who's wh?" at OL? I gather that Michael Kelly is the forum owner. I assume no relation to David Kelley (last name spelled different, right?) Who are the admins? Is there already a pinned post that tells me all this?

Not at all. In fact, I havne't once referred to respect from others. Instead, I've been referring to seeking the approval of others". To seek someone elses approval by tolerating disrespect from them (aside from being self-defeating) is irrational and indicates a manifest lack of self-respect. And when one fails to achieve that approval, it erodes what self-respect one does have to begin with.