Why does an Epistemology of reason necessarily lead to an ethics of self-interest and egoism?

[Selene]

Folks:

Some observations. As to the primacy of "woman and children first," in terms of a species/survival choice, it makes rational sense because at the hard wired level, the female is capable of bearing the offspring and therefore receives what I refer to as "primal primacy" in the lifeboat scenario.

At a certain level that does extend to the non-family female also.

This is the biological root of it, yes. While the male is able to sire offspring with many different females at the same time, the female can only bear one child (twins, triplets etc. being the exception) in a nine-month span. Therefore the loss of a female of childbearing age - is strictly from a biological standpoint - considered to be more detrimental regarding the "survial of the species".

There are of course other elements factoring in as well, like females usually being physically weaker than men, etc.

I just did another test and asked my husband out of the blue if he would protect me. He played dumb a little and asked: "What's the matter? You need protection now?"

Then he said: "You know, we men have it difficult nowadays. Suppose I answer "Yes", one could call me a as stuck in the tradtional male role. If I answer "No", one could call me a weakling. Women somehow never seem to be satisfied with our answers." ;)

Angela:

Your husband correctly identified the new "wife-beating" question.

As an individualist, my answer would be, generally yes because women are generally physically weaker than men. However, if the woman has been trained in self defense, and/or, is weapons trained, the answer might be yes, depending on the actual physical situation. She might be injured, pregnant, old, infirm, etc., or be outnumbered.

I could care less about a politically correct answer.

Adam

[Xray]

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.

Edited May 1, 2011 by Xray

[IamBalSimon]

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

[anthony]

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

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

Edited May 2, 2011 by whYNOT

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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

[Guyau]

. . .

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? . . .

. . .

- Bal

None of the hundreds of non-Objectivists I have spoken to in person about ethics, political philosophy, or politics have thought I was a nut. They became focused and engaged.

Kat recently posted a presentation by Yaron Brook to an audience of political activists.* It concerned the Objectivist view of the proper extent of government. On the face of it, all is in regular terminology. But to reach more specifically which and why certain operations of government should be or not be, key terminology such as rights and justice would have to be disambiguated. They would have to be set out in Rand’s definitions of them, with further explication of the exact concepts meant by the terms in those definitions.

Expositions of Rand's philosophy by Leonard Peikoff * and by Tara Smith * often begin by stating ordinary meanings of a term, then unity or difference of those meanings with meaning of the same term (term of art) in Rand's philosophy. . . .

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.

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”).

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

PS

. . .

Are we good?

- Bal

We’re good.

Edited May 2, 2011 by Stephen Boydstun

[Peter]

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

[IamBalSimon]

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

[IamBalSimon]

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

[IamBalSimon]

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

[IamBalSimon]

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

[anthony]

With virtually any "rule" I can think of, "details" matter greatly.

- Bal

Bal,

Yeah, that goes for Objectivism also - except O'ists call it 'context.'

Come to think of it, the great thing about the philosophy is the lack of "rules":

There's reality; here's your conscious mind; this is the morality derived from the first two; - and all the rest is up to you.

I've always shyed away from rules, which is one reason I've never been a 'joiner', either.

Tony

[IamBalSimon]

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

Edited May 2, 2011 by IamBalSimon

[anthony]

Bal,

Wide-ranging as usual. I suspect I don't have the ability to satisfy your doubts, but I'll try to outline them.

(How do we know what we know, and when did we know it?)

1. Rand's theory of concept formation, standing on one leg: You can't know anything more, til' you already know something less. (We build new concepts by fitting them without contradiction upon previous, non-contradictory, concepts.)

2. the determinism of "culture/nurture". I have seen volition vs. determinist debates go on for months on O'ist forums.

3. how fallible is our knowledge, and can we proceed with certainty to expose new knowledge? Man's non-omniscience also comes up a lot.

4. the "self-evident", I would contrast with the empirical, and would lead to a discussion on induction/deduction in thought.

5. and of course you have picked up on the one semi-flippant remark I made - that "details" are synonomous with "context."

"The devil is in the contexts", doesn't have the same ring, somehow. ;) No, they aren't the same, and "context" isn't exclusive to Objectivism.

Whew!

Slow down, old chap.

Tony

[IamBalSimon]

Whew!

Slow down, old chap.

Tony

Thanks for the laugh!

Kind Regards,

Bal

[IamBalSimon]

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

Edited May 2, 2011 by IamBalSimon

[Peter]

Bal wrote:

Quote

I say reasonable because I come at context from a kind of "general semantics/gestalt psychology/taoist" mutt-mix of understanding.

End quote

Those are not the words, I would use though Ghs, who is quoted below once used the word Tao.

George H. Smith wrote:

Quote

A contextual theory of knowledge, in my judgment, must strike a delicate balance between relativism and absolutism. And this is precisely why we should retain the traditional view that knowledge is justified *and* true belief. Justification is relative, whereas truth is absolute. That is to say, what counts as adequate justification for a belief may be relative to the available evidence and one’s context of knowledge, whereas the truth of a belief is absolute. A proposition either corresponds to a fact or it does not, and this matter has nothing to do with the relative justification for a belief . . . ."

page 77 of "WHY ATHEISM?"

end quote

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.

Peter Taylor

[IamBalSimon]

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

[anthony]

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.".

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.

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. Who determines the fidelity of the correspondence of belief to facts? You do.

Tony

[IamBalSimon]

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

[anthony]

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

Bal,

Too true. I believed I missed out on an era: I was supposed to be a Gitane-puffing Parisien, B) back in the 50's or 60's, hanging out at coffee houses having impassioned intellectual battles with Existentialists and Bolsheviks.

Where did all that go? The intellectuals turned into their bourgeois parents, and settled down, probably.

I gather that philosophy is rarely seen as essential or fun or cool any longer, and a luxury in hard times. Such a mistake. Mention the word, and eyes glaze over; maybe we should call it 'Idea-namics' or something, instead.

As you can tell, I don't get much chance for stimulating debate, either.

Tony

(That period of Rand and Branden in New York must have been quite exciting, though.)

[Xray]

The parasite example shows how problematic it is to base an ethics on an organism's need for survival and to claim "that which furthers its [an organism's] life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 17).

For going by this premise, this applies to all organisms. So if I remove a tick from my dog's coat, from the perspective of the tick's organism, this would be an 'evil' action.

Also, parasites are also perfectly equipped by nature for survival just as we are. All animal life feeds on other life in some form or other.

How do Objectivists reconcile this "life living on other life" principle with the idea of a "benevolent" universe and the Objectivist "life as the ultimate value" premise?

Edited May 5, 2011 by Xray

[merjet]

The parasite example shows how problematic it is to base an ethics on an organism's need for survival and to claim "that which furthers its [an organism's] life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil" (Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness, p. 17).

For going by this premise, this applies to all organisms. So if I remove a tick from my dog's coat, from the perspective of the tick's organism, this would be an 'evil' action.

Wrong again based on your own misunderstanding. Ayn Rand did not claim that what is good for a particular organism is ipso facto good for every organism. Removing the tick is good for the dog but not the tick. It's amazing that you are such a proponent of subjective values and a critic of objective values -- in your own bizarre meaning of the latter -- but don't understand this.

[Peter]

Xray wrote:

How do Objectivists reconcile this "life living on other life" principle with the idea of a "benevolent" universe and the Objectivist "life as the ultimate value" premise?

end quote

Strip Christianity of its mysticism, pacifism, and altruism, and there are some interesting doctrines remaining. Volition / Free Will, and the idea that the earth, its minerals, location and animals were put here for humanity's sake, Amen.

Peter

[psychoanaleesis]

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.