eva matthews

Peter Reidy wrote:

Eva is in her endgame. Shall we get up a pool as to which forum she hits on next?

end quote

Nah. It is odd that the people she cusses out are on the “smarter” or “pro Rand” side. We on the pro Rand side, discuss Rand’s perceived faults, both personal and philosophic, but it is just between friends who know her philosophy is the glue that can hold various pro reason ideas and schools of thought together. We want her small “o” objectivism to be contextual and true to the latest in science. But then we come across “a basher” and we notice the difference between criticizing while improving, and bashing.

I am in no way convinced she is, who she says she is. I imagine her story of early precociousness brings back memories of oneself to our brighter OL contributors. But like “the dean” she may not be worth the reading, if she evokes negative feelings and is so low class as to “type” foul cuss words in retaliation. If someone bumped into you and you spilled your coffee, I might react with a single, Oh F, but there is quite a lag time between reading, reacting negatively, typing, and hitting the send button, with arrows meant to hurt. If she does that, in person, every other word out of her mouth might be motherf@#$%^.

i suppose the moral of the story is that one should never intentionally bump into tsomeone carrying hot coffee.

Politics, in its broadest sense: the art and science of getting what we want from others using any means short of actual violence.

That would include lies, cheating, extortion, deceit, betrayal, blackmail... sounds about right.

Greg

It not only would, but does. Damn right. And the above also overlaps the application of the trader principle in some instances. Pure commerce is not always pure commerce, that is a given.

That is part of the deal with the restricted definition of politics as well (the art and science of ruling others.)

It can be thought of a kind of 'value for value' transaction. A peer tells you "Give me control over your life, enforceable at the point of a gun by your consent. In exchange, I will use that power only to enforce good things coming your way, like restrictions on cheating, extortion, deceit, betrayal blackmail." What he doesn't tell you: "You will provide all the means of my being able to do any of that. You will provide all the value on both sides of this transaction." Or maybe they promise free cheese and band aids, to payoff your mortgage, to arrange things so you never need to worry about filling up your gas tank or buying bread at the 7-11. Or maybe they promise to keep you from being eaten alive.

And, this all starts out by someone suggesting we hire painters to paint the double lines fairly down the middle of the road...then, plumbers to keep the plumbing of state clean and free flowing...and after 200+ years, the paint brushes and plungers have morphed into scepters, and it is time again to hang tyrants from trees.

In a democracy, you have only yourself to blame for having placed tyrants into power.

So if, for the sake of argument, the majority willed tyrants--which, regrettably, they sometimes do-- it's only yourself that will hang for having opposed them.

EM

So if this is what Rand is about, so much the worse for her. But mind you, i'm not pre-judging Rand as such, because i'd say the same thing about anyone else's philosophy that felt it was somehow entitled to direct science.

So basically, chalk this sad tendency up to ignorance of science as such--yours in particular.

I'll make no allowances for you that others may. Erudition, education and intelligence, and even flashes of charm, don't impress me much, without integrity. You are dishonest. Your empirical mindset isn't anything I have not seen, but such skepticism sickens me. I sense that whatever philosophy you are ruled by is fundamentally anti-consciousness, so, anti-life.

If you ever get your hands on power... And you will, by your nature, intellect and the zeitgeist of your time, you will. 'Scientism' is the nursery of tomorrow's intellectocrats.

This person writes as if i could give a fuck about his personal opinion of me. "Dishonest"? Only a moron would make that accusation without evidence. Ditto 'integrity'.

Skepticism, or doubt of truth-claims is what philosophy is all about. To be sickened by it means that the individual can't stand the heat--so get out of the kitchen.

The empiricists that he's met were likely scientists who have talked over his head. Reacting in frustration, he's become a 101 philosopher, unable to make the quantum leap to 202. Oopps...there I go again... with a metaphor taken directly from the confusing world of empirical science. Silly me.

EM

Philosophy fails because it does not produce quantifiable and testable predictions to test its underling assumptions.

Bob,

Heh.

Where would all your arguments be without deduction, induction and abduction?

They come from philosophy, dude.

Epistemology.

Are these thinking methods themselves, the rules of the game, "A Priori diseases"?

Michael

The issue, Michael, is whether or not terms such as these derive independently from philosophy as an origin, or rather, is philosophy only a retrospective reflection of what's been done?

In other words, we read Aristotle (as later edited) as having said that science just 'has' a metaphysics that's evinced in 'telos' or final cause. To this end, we cannot do science without said metaphysics.

Now regardless of whether this is the 'true' Aristotle or not (I vote 'no'!), it's what we live with in philo 101 prior to a more serious examination of his work. So said '101' has always insisted that Philo drives science because the statement makes philosophy feel important.

Now for a de-mystification of this view, from the inside, you might want to consult Rorty, Derrida, or Wittgenstein.

Suffice to say from the exterior that the point of reference is always Bacon's "New Method"; philosophy does its thing down at The Cheeta, we do ours here on the big stage...

Eva

This is precisely the point of attack of Bacon's New Method' on Aristotle. Science needs only a workable method to produce truth, via induction. OTH, philosophy produces false science because it relies upon deduction from principles.

The non-deductive blade in the sheave of science is abduction (inferring the likely cause), not Baconian induction (all swans are white etc). Without deduction physical science could never produce universally quantified hypothesis and theories, hence could not posit general laws.

Besides which without deduction, mathematical methods could not be deployed in the physical sciences.

Philosophy fails because it does not produce quantifiable and testable predictions to test its underling assumptions.

Philosophy suffers from the A Priori disease.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Abduction was made possible by the advent of probability/statistics, around 1840. Prior--back to the time of Bacon-- it was safe to argue that swans are generally white, and induction is mostly reliable.

Does deduction lead to hypotheses-building? Of course. Bacon's 'New Method' said that science is a means of testing hypotheses, and, moreover, that the number of deductions that might be tested as hypotheses is infinite.

The Greeks did not invent math. Rather they attempted to axiomitize it into a general deductive system--much to the displeasue of Euclid, I might add. Of course, the procedure of math is deductive; who ever aid that we need to choose it against induction? Again, the contribution of bacon was to describe deductions limits viv a viv a new method, hence the title.

More on math: Feynman saw Physics as employing a Babylonian method in which the science picks and chooses from a range of mutually-contradictory alternatives. OTH, a rational-deductyive 'Greek' scheme would have all potential methods subscribed under a singular system.

Eva

Eva,

You drink, don't you?

Two different posting styles--vastly different.

But only one Eva.

Michael

Michael,

Actually, my parents have permitted me a glass of wine with dinner since I turned 16. Otherwise, with high moderation in socials with my friends--having nothing to do with me turning the big 2-1 in 2 mths.

Now for a request and suggestion, please:

It's not that I cannot handle myself, which has, I spoze, become obvious by now. Rather, it's for the convenience of not having to wade thru personalized schlock and meaningless digressions in order to find the subject of a thread.

Might you kindly intervene once in a while to suggestively nudge the conversation back on track?

For example, here, the book in question slid over into Vermeer, which slid over into the realism of photography on a cheep postcard, which slid over into the realism of photography as such , wich slid over to a challenge that i knew nothing of optic physiology and/or the techniqes associated with image re-mastering.

I and perhaps others, too went to the thread to discuss the subject. Therefore, the only virtue to even a mild form of intervention on your part would be to insure readership per intent.

Thanks, Eva

Scientists direct science. I prefer "do science." Science directs nothing neither does any philosophy. I can't recall Rand ever doing a Peikoff with science the way he recently tried to do with physics.

--Brant

Brant,

Kindly refer me to this Peikhoff/Physics thing...

Thx, Eva

Peter Reidy wrote:

Could one have been mentor to the other? What are the chances that two such people could come about independent of each other?

end quote

There is always the possibility that someone is role playing. Is that morally wrong? Yes. I think a case can be made that an “assumed name” is a type of fraud. Yet, phony names are not always an infraction of etiquette. A phony name could be morally fine if the person is using it because they are in the witness protection program or for some other compelling reason, like fear of retaliation. Is Eva a man? Her sarcasm and hate for Rand is only excusable in a younger person, so if “she” is an older “he,” then I would pass moral judgment. Cruel remarks in a younger person are more forgivable to her readers, but why should Eva / Tom care? Well, is over defensiveness in any way a virtue? Is making enemies a virtue? Would doing those things in any way help her cause? NO.

Eva wrote about Peter Reidy:

Lastly, I'm flattered that I merit the attention of being 'investigated', if only by a dithering old fool who has nothing better to do--surely not a real contribution of content that might enhance the discussion.

And she wrote about me, Peter Taylor:

Peter was surely raised by a whore for a mother, and nad a herion-pushing farther whom he neve knew.

end quote

My reference to your upbringing by academic parents as analogous to Star Fleet Academy or to a science academy was not meant to hurt. Nor was it meant to insult your parents. Instead, it was to somewhat “glorify” your story – if you are not lying. I was willing to let your barbs slide, if you are indeed a bright 20 year old who is going to skip her masters and go straight for her doctorate. But somehow your story is not ringing true to me.

It would be intimidating to be investigated. But your slings and arrows do seem more probable coming from the mouth of an older man. Your language and slight of hand about “Tom” also supplies a supposition that you might be a con artist. I can imagine your language coming from the mouth of a barroom brawler but not from “little Eva.” And lastly, no one likes to be conned. It infuriates people, but I am not going to threaten any retaliation other than dislike.

Yet it would be interesting to see Eva’s identity verified. What if she is a 45 year old man with a Marquis de Sade goatee? Yuck.

Peter,

Within the context of nearly this entire thread being about me, any particular reference could easily have been misconstrued as a mocking insult and have put me over the top. This pathology is present on other threads, too.

Please, therefore, accept my sincere apology for having over-reacted.

At the same time, kindly refrain from any further mention of either my identity, youth, gender, or putative psychological profile.

I do appreciate your intellectual insights. Personal stuff, when excessive, occludes content.

Sincerely, Eva Matthews

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Greetings, whYNOT,

Altruism, selfishness, and independence are concepts derived from mental states, or 'faculties'. As such they're philosophy derived from science.

We all want to feel independent, or what Kant called 'freedom' in Crit#3. This, as well as altruism, and egoism, comes from within, and is given content by cultural forms.

There is no reason to believe, however, that reason favors the faculty of independence over that of either egoism or altruism. This, I believe, is Rand's fundamental blunder. Without offering any evidence as to why, she simply declares it true as a thought convenient to believe.

What;s obviously clear, moreover, are the number of times our own egoisms have clouded our good judgment, and how our independence of spirit has caused us far more problems than worth the effort.

Science knows no opposites. For example, in Biology, we grade downwards from Kingdom to Species in discreet steps of difference. Rather, 'opposites' define a sense of meaning within philosophy, and are therefore scrutinized as concept in two ways:

* ad hoc oppositions as a way of establishing a contrast. For example, in the formal sense of A not B, or 'ideal types' drawn up to help clarify a scientific problem.

** metaphysical in the Platonic-Hegelian sense. Observed scientific difference (ie non-oppositional) is a materialist illusion. In the higher spiritual realm, those who understand can clearly see the opposites in their true essence.

Rand's opposition of altruism versus egoism/independence--indirect or otherwise-- plays on a supposed either/or choice that the reader is supposedly obliged to make. Of course, the dice are loaded, but that's not the main point here.

Rather, to choose one faculty over the other is silly, because both are who we are, unless you're name is 'Rand', in which case one is probably missing. In other words, her notion of 'doing' philosophy is to take fundamental brain processes that have always been known to work together, and to convert them into 'oppositions' by virtue of an epistemo-metaphysical wand .

Nonsense.

Eva

"Philosophy derived from science"!!

ha!

Basic error: that science, biology, etc., precedes man's metaphysical nature. Contrarily, without man's metaphysical nature, there would be no science...etc.

Yeah?

Sorry, Eva but all above displays ignorance of the independent mind, rationality, egoism and altruism.

Whatever I've put to you has been rejected in advance by your fixed mindset.

Socio-anthropology is both your strength and your weakness, since you see existence only through that lens.

"Science knows no opposites".[EM] (Um, Life and death? Fact and fallacy? Existence, non-existence?)

Consciousness does.

If you haven't grasped Objectivism, as is clear, brush up before you rush up.

{But now looking at the more recent additions to this thread, it's too late for that - your mind was prejudicially made up long before.}

>>>>Contrarily, without man's metaphysical nature, there would be no science...etc.<<<<<

This is precisely the point of attack of Bacon's New Method' on Aristotle. Science needs only a workable method to produce truth, via induction. OTH, philosophy produces false science because it relies upon deduction from principles.

'Opposites' mean nothing but non-A in formal logic. Anything, then, can be said to be 'opposite'. Science says that the hows of difference are important. For example, having/not having gills is far more important than having fins or feet, thereby relating whales closer to humans than fish in the science we call 'Biology'.

So while 'death' is the end of life, it's just as much a non-A opposite of life as, say a rock. So accordingly, there's a science of dead animals that distinguishes itself form either biology or geology. For example, when you take living tissue for examination, it's called a biopsy, but dead tissue is called necropsy because it's subject to different scientific standards. Ditto with 'autopsy' and 'necropsy'.

So yes, i would say that my mind is 'made up' already to assess any particular philosophy's coherence by its ability to elicit meaning from science. I do, as well, reject the notion that philosophy directs science: it's a genre of nonsense that lost topical interest around 1300 AD.

So if this is what Rand is about, so much the worse for her. But mind you, i'm not pre-judging Rand as such, because i'd say the same thing about anyone else's philosophy that felt it was somehow entitled to direct science.

So basically, chalk this sad tendency up to ignorance of science as such--yours in particular.

EM

The physiology of optic depth-reception is interesting. A small part of the eye (macula, i believe) constantly makes micro-adjustments of focal length relative to the ontours of a rough surface, the result being a slightly-out-of focus 'shimmer'.

No camera can alter the focal length in this manner.

Who said that a camera would have to alter focal length in that manner? You seem to be very confused by your own limited knowledge of photography and your limited thinking abilities. A photograph is an image on a surface, and that surface can be "glossed" or rough or both, just as a painting can. The surface can be photo-texturally manipulated in ways that you can't imagine. So maybe you should stop pretending to be an expert who wants to tell everyone what is or is not possible?

Rather, depth is understood by the mind as shadowing that occurs with rough surfaces block light. And because the optic system is far more detailed and needs no shadow, it's far more precise--as anyne who's actually been in a museum can testify.

You're talking out of your ass.

Re glossing techniques of various artists who've worked in oil: feel free to do your own research, and then we'll discuss.

Hahaha. Just as I thought. I called your bluff, and you have nothing but more bluff to back it up.

And you're employing the Doubly Irrational Genius Pose, which is a tactic that I identified here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13569&p=191473

J

That means that my ass knows more human physiology than your brain.

The physiology of optic depth-reception is interesting. A small part of the eye (macula, i believe) constantly makes micro-adjustments of focal length relative to the ontours of a rough surface, the result being a slightly-out-of focus 'shimmer'.

No camera can alter the focal length in this manner.

Who said that a camera would have to alter focal length in that manner? You seem to be very confused by your own limited knowledge of photography and your limited thinking abilities. A photograph is an image on a surface, and that surface can be "glossed" or rough or both, just as a painting can. The surface can be photo-texturally manipulated in ways that you can't imagine. So maybe you should stop pretending to be an expert who wants to tell everyone what is or is not possible?

Rather, depth is understood by the mind as shadowing that occurs with rough surfaces block light. And because the optic system is far more detailed and needs no shadow, it's far more precise--as anyne who's actually been in a museum can testify.

You're talking out of your ass.

Re glossing techniques of various artists who've worked in oil: feel free to do your own research, and then we'll discuss.

Hahaha. Just as I thought. I called your bluff, and you have nothing but more bluff to back it up.

And you're employing the Doubly Irrational Genius Pose, which is a tactic that I identified here:

http://www.objectivistliving.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=13569&p=191473

J

You're free to consult Wiki on 'glossing oil painting' or its synonym, 'varnishing oil painting'. Ha Ha.

EM

On multiple occasions, I've shown that checkerboard illusion to people who are befuddled by it; "What are you talking about? The two squares are different shades of gray, clearly." To the point of being angry, like I was lying to them, or playing some word game.

I sympathize, because the first time I saw the image, it was nearly impossible for me to 'see' anything but a dark and light square, no matter how hard I tried.

And since seeing the 'proof' in more than one way, ever since, I find it now next to impossible to 'see' anything but identical shades of gray. I have to strain a bit to try and perceive them as different.

To some so predisposed, this is an indictment of perception as a limiting pathway to any objective reality. To others, the experience in total is exactly the opposite: it is objective evidence that we can rationally comprehend the world, as it is, via our understanding of our perception engines within that world. And in this specific readily accessible instance, actually run the experiment ourselves and experience our higher level comprehending mind actually re-weighting our lower level perception engines and allow us to correctly see the world, via new knowledge that was waiting for us to come to it, patiently, all along.

No matter how many millions see two shades of gray, and even, vote on it; no matter how many villagers in New Guinea have no idea what a checkerboard is. Mankind still landed on the Moon.

regards,

Fred

Fred,

Kindly consider the fact that you're agreeing with me. Rand and acolyte-Harry are wrong. But, please, don't admit it, as it will just get you moved to 'dissent' over at SoR!

Reason is an extra -special step possessed by all humans not associated with its Stillbirth. OTH, sensation-perception deceive; reason, again is its corrective.This roughly corresponds to Kahneman's two types of thought, your distrust of Psychology not withstanding.

Furthermore, thanks for having reverted the thread back to topic. Whenever the bozos feel outgunned by a mere 20-year old gurl who isn't even dikey, they use me as a convenient change-of- subject.

Sissy, btw, maintains that my association with Objectivite sites is intended to draw attention from 'right-wing loonies'. Little does she know how loony 'loony' is, unless she's cyberstalking.

Most guys on campus are leftish, and I refuse to discuss politics on anything resembling a 'date'. This she finds frustrating because she really liked my ex, thinks i'm far too demanding, and, frankly ,is kinda pissed at me for having dumped Jeff in May for Paris, herself, and the two Holland sisters ( 4 best buds all, and guys weren't invited along!).

The threesome knows you well. You've been written into Karen Holland's novel, mentioned as a shining exemplar of American Fredissimo in Andie's work in Madrid, and the subject of deep content analysis over at lit, where sissy reigns as resident diva-poet cum laude, sophomore that she is---the new Sylvia Plath.

Stasis in darkness

Then the insubstanceness of you.

Pour of more into wineglass!

Deconstructing Fred's prose--

How fun it's become.

Eva

Just discovered this thread. Used to be free of Joe Rowlands who's never posted here. Now we have a worthless altruism thread*. Altruism is the necessary morality of totalitarianism or anyone who has a need to rule others. Altruism, sacrifice, Rand blasted such, but the real problem is the practice of morality on others, for if you're free of religious and collectivist bs being practiced on you then you are free to be yourself respecting yourself. That's your morality, but you don't practice it on others you live it. By this I mean just be rational for being rational means rational self interest. To internalize the altruism foisted off on you is self enslavement through sanction. But free of that rational self interest can embrace many so called acts of altruism for they are actually selfish.

Rand never knew this duality of altruism, maybe because of communism and Nazism all about and around her 20th century life. Humans are social beings but that social being sits on top of the thinking being which ain't social but individualistic.

All four true basic principles of Objectivism are necessarily individualistic and primarily selfish all lived and out of and integrated philosophically by the natural individualism of the atomistic thinking human. Metaphysics, epistemology, ethics (morality), politics. But this is an intellectual philosophical construct albeit vertically and logically integrated one to another. On this foundation we put in the rest of the person so we can have a person to think about--a person and persons generally.

The more basic problem is the bifurcation of two disciplines, psychology and philosophy. If you want you can throw in the whole of what are called classical liberal arts, not even excluding science, except that would be too much food in the mouth.

--Brant

*problem solved

(why didn't you people send out the "B" signal? Like all real heroes I'm altruistically ready to go for that's part of my selfishness.)

I'll return to this missive tonite, as I'm pressed for time; one quick comment:

Yes, You've solved all of your 'problems' if you say that all of science, psychology, and classical liberal art should be directed by philosoophy. Just make a philosophy up, like Rand did, and away you go....facts cannt possibly get in the way!

EM

Eva impresses me as well on course to a "distinguished" academic career, and already skilled at academic schlick (take-off on "schtick").

Ellen

The academic schlick is all Rand's: 'epistemology, metaphysics, primacy of being, existence, axiom (gasp!)'....i'm just responding in her own language.

So the lack of content, by some, in this thread is due in great part to resentment. People use personal invective to the extent that they have nothing else to say.

EM

Peter was surely raised by a whore for a mother, and nad a herion-pushing farther whom he neve knew.

Eva,

The dozens?

Dayaamm!

Let's lower the bar, why don't we?

Sassy is one thing. Nasty, crude, and not very clever is another. That sounds more like middle school taunts on a first booze-up. It's not even good ghetto-talk.

One I enjoy. The other is just infantile crap I don't want around me.

Peter is a sweet guy if you let yourself get to know him. And he's great for banter.

Or wallow in cheap kiddy hate and become the very thing you affect to feel superior to.

Here I thought you were good at words...

Michael

Peter, 'sweet guy' that he is, can keep my familial upbringing out of his posts.

Michael wrote:

(btw - I agree with Ellen that Eva's loaded to the gills with academese,

end quote

After reading her brief bio she reminded me of being raised in the Statist academy in “Ender’s Game,” or perhaps more aptly “Starfleet Academy.” Ensign Eva Crusher report to the bridge. Perhaps we should require her to pledge to NOT meddle in the lives on alien planets.

After reading Taylor's reminders, I was myself reminded of all the disfunctional childern who were not raise with the same love and care as my sister and me. So If i resemble the outcome of a statist academy, Peter was surely raised by a whore for a mother, and nad a herion-pushing farther whom he neve knew.

Not only has Eva been popping up in several places on the O-web, she also has a confederate variously named "Tom" and "A former member"

(http://www.meetup.com/Ayn-Rand-Fan-Club-Meetup-Group/messages/boards/thread/39126532 - for some reason OL won't let me paste or link. Alternatively, go to Bing and look up stasi phanomen plato; at the moment it's the third result.).

They have a lot in common. Most salient is their penchant for supercilious name-dropping, but it doesn't stop there.

Their prose styles are similar, including a fondness for "rather" and a cavalier way with spelling.

They are the only two people to hold their odd theory of stasi phanomen in Plato. If Bing is to be believed they are the only two people ever to use the phrase.

They are the only two to espouse their equally odd theory of Aristotelian matter.

Eva identifies herself as living in Atlanta. Tom was posting to the Atlanta Objectivist Meetup board.

Could one have been mentor to the other? What are the chances that two such people could come about independent of each other?

Re Plato: the commonly known free translation is "Save the surface and you save all". It's used in Platonic circles as shorthand to illustrate the point that he and his student, Aristotle, shared far more similarities than differences. This, of course, runs counter to the 101 nonsense propagated by Rand that he was an 'idealist', while Aristotle was a 'materialist'.

Quine rather famously cited this expression as an introduction to his "Pursuit of truth". Now that funny troublemaker can go google up 'Quine', and become totally confused.

In any case, that someone who has yet to make a positive contribution to this site is unable to access this phrase is absolutely meaningless..

Another Platoism which might occupy is intrusively petty mind is: "'Back from Syracuse?" I'm just dying to see how this one googles up, as well.

Re Atlanta connection. A dear friend of mine, who's now in Spain, wrote into the site called 'Atlanta Meetup', but was banned for having disagreed with the site owner. I image that several of her friends got nasty...perhaps a 'Tom' whom I don't know.

Moreover, a real attendee of the Atlanta Rand fiasco was an elderly retired gentleman who used to teach philosophy full-time, and was our guest lecturer in Plato here on campus. on the firt day , he wrote the expression on the blackboard, in the attic.

He was the one, actually, who suggested to us that we look into Rand, as our political attitudes were 'right wing'. His stated reason for attending was to see whether or not there was any off-campus philosophy in town.

Lastly, i'm flattered that i merit the attention of being 'investigated', if only by a dithering old fool who has nothing better to do--surely not a real contribution of content that might enhance the discussion.

EM

No, the contempt that Rand felt for Hayek is part of what makes Rand...Rand,,,as every Objectivist can recite by heart, It's therefore part of the text--ostensibly far,far more imprrtant than the content as to their intellectual disagreement,

Why did Rand dislike Hayek?

Hayek, working within a European tradition of inquiry as to what holds societes together, responded that private ownership, by making everyone a stakeholder, was the best glue.

Rand, typically, could have cared less. Rather her concern was for advocationg freedom from coercion for the individual. Hence, a dasiy-chain sort of 'philosohy' that sees economics as an ethical system befitting individual liberties--not a social benefit.

Whatever.

The problem is that the Objectivist movement itself ascribes to the larger picture of 'Austrian' Economics, of which Hayek plays a cenntral figure. The basic principle, again, is that government interference is always bad.

EM

.

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Yes, whYNOT, I did cruse by 'independence'. I'll comment in full tonite, when I have more time.. For your part, kindly append additional fext & context for me to ponder.

Eva

Yes, well. I've only one central issue to raise, which is that it seems clear that both altruism and rational selfishness pivot around a single point: reason and mind-independence. (According to Rand). One is of course, to the latters' destruction, the other their champion.

Entirely different perspectives of altruism AND rational egoism emerge, given this approach, I've experienced.

Did she "re-work" altruism, as she did with selfishness? Outside its common use, it seems so. Although she openly slated it as unconsciously-accepted Virtue -- charity or helping others in trouble out, didn't seem to be any problem for Rand. A lot (as often) almost appeared self-evident to her, I think.

However, with both doctrines (and every other principle she ever tackled) she did not simply go by accepted definitions alone, she had to understand the whole package: what it is; where it comes from; where it leads to. For the individual. (Seems to me).

'Altruism' is not just 'giving and doing' for others, but also held up as a Platonic ideal. It is contra-reality. Let its proponents practise it unequivocally and honestly-and bear its full consequences - and that fact will become clear to all. It cannot be practised consistently without the spiritual demise of the organism, and in extremes, its physical death.

>>>>>'Altruism' is not just 'giving and doing' for others, but also held up as a Platonic ideal. It is contra-reality.<<<<<

If you or she is attacking Comte,then fine, he's fair game. Feel free to argue away in your own Platonic world of absolutes with others that do, too..

What's hilarious, however is how Rand, as an Anti-Platonist, can so easily be lured into a rather violent argument on Platonic grounds. Altruism versus independence: which will win? Platonists are dying to know!

In any case, as a real, functioning entity, 'independence is not linked any closer to reason than altruism. This is because the innate faculty of reason --possessed by all-- needs content, or knowledge.

To this end, by far the larger portion of what we know was accomplished in groups (eg see Feynmen) and without profit motive. Most scholars create and transmit knowledge precisely because they value the altruism of offering a contribution of knowledge, rather than hoarding it for personal gain.

That a handful of amerikan computer geeks, creating a commodity based upon the work of von Neuman, Turing, et al, can be considered 'geniuses' speaks volumes for the idiocy of middle amerikan thought.

Another example is the simultaneous discovery of HIV by Gallo, amerikan, and a collective at Institue Pasteur, Paris. Gallo obtained a patent by amerikan law for his process of duplication which, by today's constitutional understanding, he could not.

OTH, by French law, such work falls within the public domain, which is rather moot, anyway, since one has never in any truly civilized counry been able to patent a life form,

One of the story's themes is that while Gallo prifited enormously under an ideology that said selfishness was okay, Pasteur scientists worked under altruistic motive, with the same results--other than, of course, the proliferation of HIV duplication technique for free.

In this sense, altruism proved far more adaptive because it enabled the spread of important knowledge.

Eva

>>>>I was parroting Hayek, the Austrian-skool person loved and admired by Rand.>>>>>>

And this?

To put it mildly, Rand's admiration for Hayek was not shared. For her part, she seemed a bit confused as to why. poor girl!

Rather, Atlas was a big hit, made lots of money, so she simply ingored the hard questions.

Hmmm...

Let's see.

Does that sound like sarcasm with the real message being Rand hated Hayek?

Well, it sounds like sarcasm, but does it sound like you're pimping Rand to bait the posters (the sassiness I kinda like)? Or does it sound like Rand hated Hayek?

You say it sounds like Rand hated Hayek and the others were too stupid to see it.

(patting gently and paternally on your head) Sure it does, Ms. Eva... sure it does...

Michael

No, the contempt that Rand felt for Hayek is part of what makes Rand...Rand,,,as every Objectivist can recite by heart, It's therefore part of the text--ostensibly far,far more imprrtant than the content as to their intellectual disagreement,

I was trying to lure the ignorami over at SoR, as I still am over here among you, the intelligent, into a debate over the economics.

In other words, someone kindly inform me of the real value of her 'famous' marginalia to Roads, please.

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Greetings, whYNOT,

Altruism, selfishness, and independence are concepts derived from mental states, or 'faculties'. As such they're philosophy derived from science.

We all want to feel independent, or what Kant called 'freedom' in Crit#3. This, as well as altruism, and egoism, comes from within, and is given content by cultural forms.

There is no reason to believe, however, that reason favors the faculty of independence over that of either egoism or altruism. This, I believe, is Rand's fundamental blunder. Without offering any evidence as to why, she simply declares it true as a thought convenient to believe.

What;s obviously clear, moreover, are the number of times our own egoisms have clouded our good judgment, and how our independence of spirit has caused us far more problems than worth the effort.

Science knows no opposites. For example, in Biology, we grade downwards from Kingdom to Species in discreet steps of difference. Rather, 'opposites' define a sense of meaning within philosophy, and are therefore scrutinized as concept in two ways:

* ad hoc oppositions as a way of establishing a contrast. For example, in the formal sense of A not B, or 'ideal types' drawn up to help clarify a scientific problem.

** metaphysical in the Platonic-Hegelian sense. Observed scientific difference (ie non-oppositional) is a materialist illusion. In the higher spiritual realm, those who understand can clearly see the opposites in their true essence.

Rand's opposition of altruism versus egoism/independence--indirect or otherwise-- plays on a supposed either/or choice that the reader is supposedly obliged to make. Of course, the dice are loaded, but that's not the main point here.

Rather, to choose one faculty over the other is silly, because both are who we are, unless you're name is 'Rand', in which case one is probably missing. In other words, her notion of 'doing' philosophy is to take fundamental brain processes that have always been known to work together, and to convert them into 'oppositions' by virtue of an epistemo-metaphysical wand .

Nonsense.

Eva

Sadly, but typically, the fusiles at 'SoR failed to see my sarcasm in the Rand v Hayek affair.

I don't know, Eva.

I'm in your corner, but when I start reading here and continue, it looks more to me like you stepped in it, then researched and tried to clean it up once you smelled it.

Here's where I differ from most others about you. I don't see the poo as important. (It's great for teasing, though. ) I see the research.

You did what most don't.

Michael

>>>>I was parroting Hayek, the Austrian-skool person loved and admired by Rand.>>>>>>

whYNOT,

First of all, I do disagree with Comte's philosophical understanding of his own work.

Because he clearly saw society as an interactive network, he was more or less blinded by what we now agree to be personal accomplishment. Or to reverse the maxim popular in mid-19th century french intellectual life, "the individual exists".

Indeed, one is correct to state that Comte coined the word 'altruism' from "other-ness", or "Think of the other" as a cult phrase.

My point is that Rand does no one any favor by simply stating the opposite.

This, moreover, is the same tendency of 'false antinomy' that Kant had already denounced. It's a genre of bull-conversation left to late-night frat parties over the last bottle of Jack and cola, once the band has gone home.

Moreover, In terms of modern sociology, it's common to say that Comte does, indeed, see society far more as a real thing than a concept. To this end, his work fails to connect proposed social laws to real behavior, or what Elster called 'nuts and bolts'.

Yet to try to find the nuts and bolts is not to reduce it to a petty dualism of motive---altruism versus individualism. As a Comtian would say, 'Look at what they did for you!", a Randian would reply back, "Yes, all for the justifiably high status and commission that such grand architecture demands." Neither are correct.

Unstated motives are always somewhat moot, and even stated motives can be insincere. So if we're left referring to an interior state because of 'phenomenal ambiguity" (one of my research themes) what we find is...more ambiguity.

In short, the Randite preference for selfishness is matched by Comtian altruism. A curse on both of your houses. Neither is supported by evidence.

EM

Eva: (Greetings, btw.) You write of "altruism versus individualism" as though you didn't see my quote earlier ("The true opposite and enemy of altruism is not selfishness, it is independence").

Don't you see the significance of this conceptual 're-alignment'? Do you think - now you know it -that if Rand did not perceive, understand the threat it contains to the independent mind and reason, she would have cared a whit for altruism, one way or other?

You'd think I'd made the quotation up, or sumpin, the way you've cruised by it. Does it not sit well with your assumptions?

I know you know this, that everything Rand stood for, through politics and ethics, comes back to reason.

Rational egoism is its derivative, and egoism is NOT (to her) the direct opposite of altruism, as she said. Only indirect, I'd gather. Hierarchies, again.

This is one 'narrative' I feel Objectivists should be the first to dismiss, rather than accept the premise and get themselves tied in knots trying to soften and make more palatable, rational egoism - as we sometimes do.

Yes, whYNOT, I did cruse by 'independence'. I'll comment in full tonite, when I have more time.. For your part, kindly append additional fext & context for me to ponder.

Eva

For the record (and I hope I won't live to regret this ), I think Eva has a fine mind.

She's full of piss and vinegar and I resonate with that spirit. Not many of her conclusions, but I like her sass.

(I almost got my ass shot off in Paraguay once for being too sassy--long story, but ask me if I've learned. Hell no. I've merely refined it. )

I think she will get more careful as she goes along, so I see the growth of a beautiful mind as it matures and she calms down a little.

But I sure see some lumps in her future. Man I wince to think about it! I speak from experience as a kindred spirit.

(Oh God, I hope I don't regret saying this... )

Michael

Well, actually, i'm happy over here because i feel kindred spirits. So here's a little of my background:

I'm a 20 year old senior who will graduate this spring with a BS in Psych. Since 8, i've always been placed one year ahead of my 'normal' class, mainly because I tested high in math at a 'sweet pickle' age (family name). Small wonder--my dad researches and teaches theoretical (math-model ) Physics. Mom teaches & researches Psy, so i'm the quintessental campus brat.

Sissy defines herself as the next great poet. She lives on campus, I do not, preferring home, a five minute walk.

My hobbies are soccer, lit and philosophy. For some reason, i really don't care for film, but love plays. For music it's either opera, classic or the folk traditions of either Greece or Hungary. And don't forget Theodorakis!

Work-wise, I'm already involved in a project in reserach psy that will bypass my MA, encompass my PhD and post grad. As i might have mentioned, I've secured the funds.

My favorite philosopher is Deleuze, who seems to resemble Rand in many ways.

As for Rand, I absolutely adore her fiction because the characters exemplify strength and decisiveness. Yet I'm a bit skeptical as to how these characters have been transfigured into philosophical statements.

Politically, I'm a pragmatic libertarian in the manner of Hayek. Strange to tell, "Roads" is annotated on every page! The thrust of pragmaticiam is that some issues are far more important than others, and that causal relations--not metaphysics-- will determine where importance resides. I believ it's simply to drastically lower taxes with commensurate cuts in spending, and watch everything fall into place,

Eva

We are all low lifes "over there".

Parrots of Rand not able to think for ourselves never mind achieve anything of value!

In Eva's "Brave New World" we are all mere Gamma fissiles who must now bow down and accede Eva's Alpha great intellectual prowess or face a lifetime of scorn for ever having the audacity of asking her "To back up her assertions with actual facts" or at least stop regurgitating non sequiturs.

Never mind that Rand is the greatest philosopher of the 20th century. Eva feels she could go toe to toe with her and show her whats correct and how lacking Rand is in her metaphysics! She would probably then take the conversation to her Lit department for a good laugh!

Next she will lecture Jonathan on how to paint!

Speaking of facts, I've told those people time and time again that I'm over in 'Psy'. 'Lit' is where I take their stuff to be analyzed for content.

Mom, in Psy, thinks they're useful for personality profiling on the 'deep end'.. I, OTH, favor the biomedical approach, but have failed to obtain samples.

EM