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

[IamBalSimon]

First, I would just like to say that SJW had one of the best answer before this thread caught fire.

Nate, answer these questions: Who owns your life, how do you know it and for whom do you live for?

If, in your answer, the word "I" ever appears, then you've just answered your question. These questions involve metaphysics - epistemology - ethics which are objective, observable and practicable. I think I have formulated it correctly and should suffice. However, feel free to ask or object.

OK - I'll ask...

So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics?

Really?

- Bal

[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.

OK - I'll ask...

So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics?

Really?

- Bal

Far from it. My questions are under Metaphysics - Epistemology - Ethics and would suffice for Nate's query (context). Oh, please do not be generalsemanticist in another name. I found that guy similar to a spambot.

[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.

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.

Read what it verbatim says in the quote: "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).

"An organism" does not refer only to the human organism, does it.

George H. Smith addressed this problem too when he wrote:

George H. Smith: "Ayn Rand's derivation of man's inalienable right to his own Life rests implicitly on a moral sanction of life as such, and, if she is to be consistent, Rand must apply her rights concept to all life forms. A sanction of all life, however, is inconsistent with man's survival. To live, man must kill other life - he cannot survive on inorganic matter."

Source: George H. Smith, Ayn Rand and the Right to Life: A Critical Evaluation, Invictus 17, p. 8 (quoted from L. A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights, p. 16).

Not only must every living organism kill other Life in order to exist - life killing other life is essential for our ecological system to preserve itself.

Edited May 6, 2011 by Xray

[merjet]

Read what it verbatim says in the quote: "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).

"An organism" does not refer only to the human organism, does it.

Read it verbatim yourself. It does not say that what is good for a particular organism is ipso facto good for every organism, which is how you have interpreted it.

You are wrong again based on your own misunderstanding. It's amazing that you are such a proponent of subjective values and a critic of objective values -- with your own bizarre meaning of the latter -- but don't understand this.

[anthony]

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?

Xray,

It's hard to tell if you're initiating an argument for animal rights, or trying to build a strawman out of Rand's statement.

First, the 'benevolent universe' premise is a 'sense of life' conviction that the universe is a fitting place for humans to inhabit. It is NOT the principle, or the virtue, of treating all other life "benevolently" - though that would be a highly likely conscious choice for a rational being.

You are confusing two applications of benevolence.

But you knew that, didn't you?

From the general sense that Rand used evil, are you suggesting that she meant the evil for organism-Man, and the 'evil' for organism-tick, are synonomous?

Tony

[Xray]

Read what it verbatim says in the quote: "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).

"An organism" does not refer only to the human organism, does it.

Read it verbatim yourself. It does not say that what is good for a particular organism is ipso facto good for every organism, which is how you have interpreted it.

I actually pointed out the exact opposite:

That what is good for one organism (e. g. the woodpecker eating ladybugs), is, per Rand, "evil" for another organism (the ladybug).

So going strictly by Objectivist terminology, one would have to call the woodpecker's act "evil". For the woodpecker commits an act threatening the life of another organism.

See how problematic it is to insert a moral term like 'evil' into this issue?

Edited May 6, 2011 by Xray

[Selene]

It is like trying to flatten liquid mercury with a slatted spatula arguing Rand with Angela.

[IamBalSimon]

First, I would just like to say that SJW had one of the best answer before this thread caught fire.

Nate, answer these questions: Who owns your life, how do you know it and for whom do you live for?

If, in your answer, the word "I" ever appears, then you've just answered your question. These questions involve metaphysics - epistemology - ethics which are objective, observable and practicable. I think I have formulated it correctly and should suffice. However, feel free to ask or object.

OK - I'll ask...

So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics?

Really?

- Bal

Far from it. My questions are under Metaphysics - Epistemology - Ethics and would suffice for Nate's query (context). Oh, please do not be generalsemanticist in another name. I found that guy similar to a spambot.

I am just an egg, with much to learn... So you're saying that your answer here was sufficient to answer Nate's original thread question? Let's go with that. But I'm still not getting it unless this is another term of art that O-ists use that I wasn't familiar with: Epistemology of reason. Is that a term of art for a subject related to, but different from the general subject of epistemology?

I ask because I use the word epistemology to label my explorations of what I know; the processes (physical, physiological, sociological, psychological, linguistic, etc.) by which I come to know various things; the constraints that exist as I try to understand these things; my very real and unfortunate predilection to make mistakes (generally recoverable, but sometimes not) - etc.

This leaves the discussion of "self-interest" and "egoism" (si&e) miles away. I'm not saying si&e are not relevant. Just miles away from a current focus that wanders around the universe in ways that sometimes astonish me. (My wife calls my mind "ping-ballish" because it jumps hither and yon in ways that she can't fathom. Call it a quirk.)

Oh - and I think you are the first person in my life to ask me if I was akin to a spambot. I'm not sure how I feel about that. B)

- Bal

[George H. Smith]

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.

Read what it verbatim says in the quote: "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).

"An organism" does not refer only to the human organism, does it.

George H. Smith addressed this problem too when he wrote:

George H. Smith: "Ayn Rand's derivation of man's inalienable right to his own Life rests implicitly on a moral sanction of life as such, and, if she is to be consistent, Rand must apply her rights concept to all life forms. A sanction of all life, however, is inconsistent with man's survival. To live, man must kill other life - he cannot survive on inorganic matter."

Source: George H. Smith, Ayn Rand and the Right to Life: A Critical Evaluation, Invictus 17, p. 8 (quoted from L. A. Rollins, The Myth of Natural Rights, p. 16).

Not only must every living organism kill other Life in order to exist - life killing other life is essential for our ecological system to preserve itself.

For the record: I no longer agree with the basic argument presented in that article, and I haven't agreed with it for nearly 40 years.

The article was originally written at age 18, while I was a student at the University of Arizona. It should be noted that my article was never intended to be a defense of animal rights. Rather, I presented a reductio; I argued that Rand's argument for rights, consistently applied, would require that we grant rights to every living organism -- from microbes to plants to animals -- and since this was obviously absurd, we should try to figure out where Rand went wrong.

I later expanded the original article into two parts, which I published in Invictus c. 1971. I had planned to write a third part, in which I would present a modified version of Rand's theory of rights that would avoid the spillover of rights to other life forms, but Roy Childs convinced me that my basic understanding of Rand's approach to rights was misguided. After that a third part seemed unnecessary, and I dropped the subject.

Unfortunately, my two-part article, flawed as it was, played an important role in convincing Lou Rollins (editor of Invictus and pretty much a Randian at the time) that rights are a "myth." As I indicated before, it was never my intention to defend this position. Rather, I was attempting to point out what I thought was a problem in Rand's approach to rights that needed to be fixed.

Ghs

[Xray]

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.

David Lee,

Where do you get the idea that you 'own' your life? How do you claim "ownership" from the mere fact of existing?

And how do you deal with the fact that you are inevitably going to lose what you claim to own?

Edited May 6, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

For the record: I no longer agree with the basic argument presented in that article, and I haven't agreed with it for nearly 40 years.

Where exactly do you disagree with your basic argument presented back then, and why?

I later expanded the original article into two parts, which I published in Invictus c. 1971. I had planned to write a third part, in which I would present a modified version of Rand's theory of rights that would avoid the spillover of rights to other life forms, but Roy Childs convinced me that my basic understanding of Rand's approach to rights was misguided. After that a third part seemed unnecessary, and I dropped the subject.

What were Roy Child's objections to your understanding of Rand's approach?

Edited May 6, 2011 by Xray

[George H. Smith]

For the record: I no longer agree with the basic argument presented in that article, and I haven't agreed with it for nearly 40 years.

Where exactly do you disagree with your basic argument presented back then, and why?

I couldn't give details without rereading the article. I haven't seen a copy in many years.

I later expanded the original article into two parts, which I published in Invictus c. 1971. I had planned to write a third part, in which I would present a modified version of Rand's theory of rights that would avoid the spillover of rights to other life forms, but Roy Childs convinced me that my basic understanding of Rand's approach to rights was misguided. After that a third part seemed unnecessary, and I dropped the subject.

What were Roy Child's objections to your understanding of Rand's approach?

Roy persuaded me that I was interpreting Rand's theory of rights in a deontological framework, rather than viewing it from an egoistic perspective. I put a lot of stress on Rand's metaethics, while not paying sufficient attention to her theory of egoism.

Ghs

[IamBalSimon]

Roy persuaded me that I was interpreting Rand's theory of rights in a deontological framework, rather than viewing it from an egoistic perspective. I put a lot of stress on Rand's metaethics, while not paying sufficient attention to her theory of egoism.

Ghs

(emphasis added)

Wow! I really do have some jargon/concepts to learn if I'm going to participate here in a way that lets me hobnob with the cognoscenti.

Indeed, I am an egg.

- Bal

Edited May 6, 2011 by IamBalSimon

[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.

OK - I'll ask...

So by "suffice," do you really mean to say that your remarks are truly the last, final and sufficient word on everything there is to know and discuss about metaphysics, epistemology and ethics?

Really?

- Bal

Far from it. My questions are under Metaphysics - Epistemology - Ethics and would suffice for Nate's query (context). Oh, please do not be generalsemanticist in another name. I found that guy similar to a spambot.

I am just an egg, with much to learn... So you're saying that your answer here was sufficient to answer Nate's original thread question? Let's go with that. But I'm still not getting it unless this is another term of art that O-ists use that I wasn't familiar with: Epistemology of reason. Is that a term of art for a subject related to, but different from the general subject of epistemology?

I ask because I use the word epistemology to label my explorations of what I know; the processes (physical, physiological, sociological, psychological, linguistic, etc.) by which I come to know various things; the constraints that exist as I try to understand these things; my very real and unfortunate predilection to make mistakes (generally recoverable, but sometimes not) - etc.

This leaves the discussion of "self-interest" and "egoism" (si&e) miles away. I'm not saying si&e are not relevant. Just miles away from a current focus that wanders around the universe in ways that sometimes astonish me. (My wife calls my mind "ping-ballish" because it jumps hither and yon in ways that she can't fathom. Call it a quirk.)

Oh - and I think you are the first person in my life to ask me if I was akin to a spambot. I'm not sure how I feel about that. B)

- Bal

Bal:

First, I never asked if you were a spambot and I apologize if you felt I was asking. That guy "GS", as he is called around here tends to get too intense with his proofreading and his arguments fail to see implications -- I think he's really trying to pull my leg and as Rand put it, "package-deal" by luring me to fight him using non-essentials. I don't know if he's still around but I've already placed him on my ignore list (so I guess I can't see his replies anymore?).

Well, Epistemology is the study of science so it is fair to say that you may or may not use reason to arrive at your conclusions about how you get to know things. A scientist and a voodoo priest may both know, for example, that certain plants cure certain illnesses but the former relies on science i.e. putting his knowledge in a system (using logic and reason) while the latter simply follows tradition/relies on luck/accident/god(s) or (if he is bright) use reason to some extent but ultimately gives up because of the irrationality in his culture. The priest could become a scientist had he not succumb to the abject thinking of his fellows mind you. In conclusion, Epistemology of reason/Objective epistemology is different from Epistemology in itself. By the way, what you do know is called knowledge and please do not confuse it with the subject of getting to know it.

Very real and unfortunate predilection to commit mistakes? If you mean that you are fallible, well, so is everyone else. The highlighted words above are quite contradicting: Are you unable to influence your environment/variables and that is why it's unfortunate? OR Are you unwilling to try and are the type who likes to botch his work for its sake? I'm hoping for the former. Mistakes, as long as you are alive and acknowledge it can be corrected: check our premises please.

If you take it from an eagle's vantage point, akin to seeing a branching road from high above, you'd be surprised to find out how close is Ethics from Epistemology. Meanwhile, if you start walking down that road rationality, self-interest and egoism are the kinds of precious stones that you'd be able to see but must have the proper tools and perspective to recognize.

Hope this helps.

[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.

David Lee,

Where do you get the idea that you 'own' your life? How do you claim "ownership" from the mere fact of existing?

And how do you deal with the fact that you are inevitably going to lose what you claim to own?

Xray:

Go ahead. Answer my questions using the correct context. See if I am wrong and then object.

Where do I get that idea? The mere fact that I am and I fend for myself by avoiding to beg/plead/threaten (random) people to come in and barge into my business i.e. transaction with reality. I might ask and they may help but that would be consensual and considered a trade.

How am I going to deal with the fact that I am to lose it? You mean, upon my death? The biological clock may be ticking but leaving my knowledge or mark in this world in places like this means I am never going to lose my claim. In that sense, I am immortal (or my ideals are immune to change). You see, I can pass my essence as apart from my being... even without blood heirs, I can formally teach someday and have a hundred others who might carry on my legacy - for which, in that particular, I am yet to know how effective it will be.

[IamBalSimon]

Bal:

First, I never asked if you were a spambot and I apologize if you felt I was asking.

David - Please - no apologies needed. It usually takes a lot to irritate me in a forum like this, let alone offend me. I try my darndest to not be a pompous windbag who worries about needles doing a nice puncture job. And if I ever become a pompous windbag, then needles are what I deserve. Simple perspective: I've had a lot worse than anyone here can possibly throw at me and still, my wife laughs at things I come up with. How can my life be anything other than glorious overall? So I shake your hand in the middle of a delightful, if challenging discussion.

My spirit in these discussions could be labeled "earnest playfulness" or perhaps better, "playful earnest inquiry and discussion." Please take my conversations in that mode, and not in the mode of trying to pull anyone's leg; other than perhaps as a good-natured ribbing. And I expect to get as good as I give.

Don't know the GS guy; my experience with General Semanticists has been that they seem very similar to the conversants in this forum. The subjectmatter and the jargon differ somewhat, but the spirit of inquiry seems very similar as do the range of personalities. Indeed, I think I could map different personalities I've seen here to those I've encountered in one of the GS forums some time ago.

Well, Epistemology is the study of science so it is fair to say that you may or may not use reason to arrive at your conclusions about how you get to know things. A scientist and a voodoo priest may both know, for example, that certain plants cure certain illnesses but the former relies on science i.e. putting his knowledge in a system (using logic and reason) while the latter simply follows tradition/relies on luck/accident/god(s) or (if he is bright) use reason to some extent but ultimately gives up because of the irrationality in his culture. The priest could become a scientist had he not succumb to the abject thinking of his fellows mind you. In conclusion, Epistemology of reason/Objective epistemology is different from Epistemology in itself. By the way, what you do know is called knowledge and please do not confuse it with the subject of getting to know it.

So - I'm looking at the Rand Lexicon (http://aynrandlexicon.com) and there is some discussion about epistemology and a little about knowledge. Nothing on the word "belief."

I prefer to call what I have "information-beliefs." IF they happen to correspond to facts, then these have the special status of knowledge.

Let's look at a different example. The scientific method, as described in the late 19th century forward has not changed all that much between then and now. But a physicist in the early 20th century would have a mere glimmer of the information-belief structure of a 21st century physicist. I don't know if Scientific American still publishes this column, but they used to reprint stories from "50 years ago" and "100 years ago." It is quite instructive to see what information scientists had access to and what they believed about it. I'll wager that some of the scientists weren't so far removed from your voodoo priest in terms of the validity of their information-beliefs.

Very real and unfortunate predilection to commit mistakes? If you mean that you are fallible, well, so is everyone else.

I'm not sure what the point of this comment is. Misery loves company? I don't believe that's what you want me to take away from it. But how does the fact that other people are fallible or not figure into this discussion?

The highlighted words above are quite contradicting: Are you unable to influence your environment/variables and that is why it's unfortunate?

Sometimes.

OR Are you unwilling to try and are the type who likes to botch his work for its sake?

Not usually.

I'm hoping for the former. Mistakes, as long as you are alive and acknowledge it can be corrected: check our premises please.

I guess that depends on what you mean by "corrected." Do you mean that the knowledge itself can be corrected, or that the actual consequences of mistakes can be undone?

In any case; I was once working at a company as a tech writer, on contract. One day, while there at my desk, someone from the HR department told me to pack up my things and escorted me out the door. I asked why, and she said she was not at liberty to tell me. To this day, I have no idea why I was escorted out the door. There are situations in life where you can't peal back and see what's behind the curtain. Sometimes, the information you need to make a proper evaluation is not forthcoming.

If you take it from an eagle's vantage point, akin to seeing a branching road from high above, you'd be surprised to find out how close is Ethics from Epistemology. Meanwhile, if you start walking down that road rationality, self-interest and egoism are the kinds of precious stones that you'd be able to see but must have the proper tools and perspective to recognize.

Hope this helps.

Well, I read the words, but I'm not sure of what you mean. In my view, epistemology underlies and informs ethics; assuming one takes the time (when life is flowing at a significantly reduced pace) to explore his or her information-belief structures in order to understand hirself. I see ethics emerging as a realtime application of the evaluation of right-and-wrong; and this evaluation will be influenced by one's epistemological underpinnings. Forget the same page... am I in the right library?

- Bal

Edited May 7, 2011 by IamBalSimon

[Xray]

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

'Put here' by whom?

In this context, here's an interesting quote from Nathaniel Branden's article The Benefits and Hazards of the Philosophy of Ayn Rand:

"I remember being astonished to hear her say one day, “After all, the theory of evolution is only a hypothesis.” I asked her, “You mean you seriously doubt that more complex life forms—including humans—evolved from less complex life forms?” She shrugged and responded, “I’m really not prepared to say,” or words to that effect. I do not mean to imply that she wanted to substitute for the theory of evolution the religious belief that we are all God’s creation; but there was definitely something about the concept of evolution that made her uncomfortable." (NB)

http://nathanielbran...nd_hazards.html

What could it be that made Rand uncomfortable about the concept of evolution?

Edited May 7, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

[To Bal]:

Oh, please do not be generalsemanticist in another name. I found that guy similar to a spambot.

David,

How you could get the impression of poster General Semanticist being a spambot is beyond me. (??)

I really miss GS's contributions. He always remained civil and polite even in the most heated debates, and also has a good sense of humor.

Imo GS was too uncritical toward Korzybski, but his questions often offered valuable food for thought.

Where do you get the idea that you 'own' your life? How do you claim "ownership" from the mere fact of existing?

And how do you deal with the fact that you are inevitably going to lose what you claim to own?

Xray:

Go ahead. Answer my questions using the correct context. See if I am wrong and then object.

I'm not sure which questions exactly you are referring to here, so TIA for clarifying.

Where do I get that idea? The mere fact that I am and I fend for myself by avoiding to beg/plead/threaten (random) people to come in and barge into my business i.e. transaction with reality. I might ask and they may help but that would be consensual and considered a trade.

Ah, I get the picture. So that's you mean by "owning" your life.

How am I going to deal with the fact that I am to lose it? You mean, upon my death?

Yes.

The biological clock may be ticking but leaving my knowledge or mark in this world in places like this means I am never going to lose my claim. In that sense, I am immortal (or my ideals are immune to change). You see, I can pass my essence as apart from my being... even without blood heirs, I can formally teach someday and have a hundred others who might carry on my legacy - for which, in that particular, I am yet to know how effective it will be.

Your wish for some form of immortality can be felt strongly.

It looks like that the frequent human wish for immortality (in some form or other) has its roots in biology. For the "life" program is so strongly anchored in our genes that we, the only animals having consciousnes of our finiteness resulting in death, try to fill this gap in some way.

As for your ideals being immune to change - at 22, you still have so many years ahead of you, David.

Also, and this an epistemological issue: one cannot "know" in advance if one's ideals are going to change.

When you think that permanent transformation is one of the principles the whole cosmos operates on - doesn't one always have to be prepared for revolutionary new scientific research possibly exposing one's own premises as false?

So suppose you were confronted with such research results affecting the validitiy of your premises, premises on which you have based your ethics on - which consequences would this have for you?

Just think of what a bombshell e. g. Evolution was for the doctrine of certain religions. Even today, Creationists refuse to accept it.

Edited May 7, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

A scientist and a voodoo priest may both know, for example, that certain plants cure certain illnesses but the former relies on science i.e. putting his knowledge in a system (using logic and reason) while the latter simply follows tradition/relies on luck/accident/god(s) or (if he is bright) use reason to some extent but ultimately gives up because of the irrationality in his culture.

In the case of plants curing illnesses, science has often confirmed later what people had learned from direct experience.

Our human ancestors did a lot of 'testing' here via trial and error, like e. g. finding out that certain leaves placed on a wound speeded up the healing process, etc.

In conclusion, Epistemology of reason/Objective epistemology is different from Epistemology in itself.

"Epistemology of reason"? What do you mean by that?

And what is "Objective" epistemology?

Or do you mean Objectivist epistemology?

But whatever it is that you mean (please clarify) - in what way is this "Epistemology of reason/Objective Epistemology" "different from Epistemology in itself"?

Edited May 7, 2011 by Xray

[Xray]

For the record: I no longer agree with the basic argument presented in that article, and I haven't agreed with it for nearly 40 years.

Where exactly do you disagree with your basic argument presented back then, and why?

I couldn't give details without rereading the article. I haven't seen a copy in many years.

I later expanded the original article into two parts, which I published in Invictus c. 1971. I had planned to write a third part, in which I would present a modified version of Rand's theory of rights that would avoid the spillover of rights to other life forms, but Roy Childs convinced me that my basic understanding of Rand's approach to rights was misguided. After that a third part seemed unnecessary, and I dropped the subject.

What were Roy Child's objections to your understanding of Rand's approach?

Roy persuaded me that I was interpreting Rand's theory of rights in a deontological framework, rather than viewing it from an egoistic perspective. I put a lot of stress on Rand's metaethics, while not paying sufficient attention to her theory of egoism.

Ghs

Thanks for the info on this, George.

[IamBalSimon]

How am I going to deal with the fact that I am to lose it? You mean, upon my death? The biological clock may be ticking but leaving my knowledge or mark in this world in places like this means I am never going to lose my claim. In that sense, I am immortal (or my ideals are immune to change). You see, I can pass my essence as apart from my being... even without blood heirs, I can formally teach someday and have a hundred others who might carry on my legacy - for which, in that particular, I am yet to know how effective it will be.

David, I don't mean to be in any way pejorative in my criticism, but you seem to be expressing a kind of absolutism that I find interesting and perhaps charming. No - charming's not the right word, though it comes close... I'm not sure what the word is that I'm looking for here.

Do you really and truly believe that you can leave an indelible mark on this world that will be recognizable as your mark? AND are you really and truly using this forum "and places like it" as a way to leave permanent marks?

There are currently 6 billion+ people on planet Earth in 2011. Billions more have died today going backwards through antiquity. There have been trillions (way to small a number) more animals, plants and microbes that live and have lived on this rock for the past several billion years. Every one of them leaves and has left one or more (probably more) "marks." Add to this the "brownian noise" of time.

About 50,000 years ago, long after humans began walking upright and thinking that fire, wheels and language were cool, a meteor slammed into Arizona, the result being Meteor Crater (source: Wikipedia). Now imagine that some "David" who lived there thought about immortality and decided to paint some really cool murals on adobe walls. His marks are GONE. (Added after original post: I think I got my history wrong... Humans have been around this long; civilization not. But it doesn't change the main thrust of my argument.)

OK - that's extreme, I'll admit. So let's take one that is less extreme. Have you ever heard of a painter named Robert W. Vonnoh? Until this moment, I did not. But as an experiment, I did a bit of Googling on the query painter bob, and he turned up. Turns out he was a decent enough painter in mid to late 1800s Philadelphia. Now, I acknowledge that I'm no bellwether about how well less than famous painters are known, but I never heard of him. And I dare say that there were painters named Bob (as well as Philip, Barbara, and Larry, etc.) who have never made a public mark in any way shape or form. And then there are the millions of us (I include myself so far in this) who live very private lives; who live decently enough, have friends, family, enjoy living. Nothing bad; but nothing special, either.

But even for the special ones (and who knows, maybe you are and/or will be one who is incredibly important in the course of human affairs), I will now nail the coffin shut: one good supernova in our local neighborhood (say within 16 lightyears from us) will wipe out any kind of immortality you're likely able to implement. I can say this with near certainty because I am willing to be every penny I own that humanity will not reach the stars in my lifetime, and probably not your lifetime either. Meaning that if that supernova did happen, that would about wrap it up for humanity.

We don't "own" our own lives. We control very little that goes on in them. We are susceptible to unanticipated events, and there is literally NOTHING you or anyone else can do about it other than to prepare in advance as best you can. But sometimes events can be so overwhelming that there truly is nothing you can do. Did you see the aerial footage of the Japanese tsunami; I watched it live and was just amazed and horrified at how easily 10,000+ lives could be snuffed out (the ethical and depraved; the smart and the dumb; the Objectivists, the General Semanticists, the Kantians, the Taoists, the Shintoists, and the solipsists; the family man and the hermit; the professor and the prostitute; the Epicurian and the hit man - all dead in "an instant." Did they "own" their lives? Did they leave a permanent mark that is recognizable as theirs? Maybe a very few; but I daresay not most. Not by a long shot.

I find that I am happiest when I don't try to "own" things; including my life. I just live. I try to do good in the ways that I understand good. I try to be a source of pleasure and help for others in my life. Not out of some kind of selflessness; but because I find myself happiest when I do so. Call it a quirk.

I don't mind that you try for immortality. Go for it if it is important to you. Just understand that at least one man doesn't give a rip about it and has other things he considers more fun, more entertaining, and more useful.

But I tip my cap to you, sir. Sincerely I do. May you live happily and productively forever. The true owner of your life.

- Bal

Edited May 7, 2011 by IamBalSimon

[IamBalSimon]

How am I going to deal with the fact that I am to lose it? You mean, upon my death? The biological clock may be ticking but leaving my knowledge or mark in this world in places like this means I am never going to lose my claim. In that sense, I am immortal (or my ideals are immune to change). You see, I can pass my essence as apart from my being... even without blood heirs, I can formally teach someday and have a hundred others who might carry on my legacy - for which, in that particular, I am yet to know how effective it will be.

David, I don't mean to be in any way pejorative in my criticism, but you seem to be expressing a kind of absolutism that I find interesting and perhaps charming. No - charming's not the right word, though it comes close... I'm not sure what the word is that I'm looking for here.

etc...

David,

I've been thinking about what I wrote above. I stand by it, but I need to be extremely clear that it was not meant in any way as a dig. I think what you are interested in doing - in leaving a mark on the world is an admirable thing. I think I reacted to the word "immortality."

If we can substitute the word "legacy" instead of immortality, that seems closer to what you are after. If we can go with that word, then I acknowledge that I too would like the world to be a better place as a result of my having been in it. I'd like people, if and when they remember me, that they do so with justified affection. I don't need to wait till I die for wanting this. When people I love or who are my friends are not with me, if and when they turn a thought in my direction, I'd like it to be with justified affection.

Regardless - I need you - and everyone else reading this - to get the message that my intent in writing the above post, while written in earnest and playfully, was not intended to be caustic, derisive, or the like. Whether you believe it or not is up to you and none of my business. But I have now done what I can to clarify what may have been less than clear.

- Bal

Edited May 8, 2011 by IamBalSimon

[psychoanaleesis]

David,

I've been thinking about what I wrote above. I stand by it, but I need to be extremely clear that it was not meant in any way as a dig. I think what you are interested in doing - in leaving a mark on the world is an admirable thing. I think I reacted to the word "immortality."

If we can substitute the word "legacy" instead of immortality, that seems closer to what you are after. If we can go with that word, then I acknowledge that I too would like the world to be a better place as a result of my having been in it. I'd like people, if and when they remember me, that they do so with justified affection. I don't need to wait till I die for wanting this. When people I love or who are my friends are not with me, if and when they turn a thought in my direction, I'd like it to be with justified affection.

Regardless - I need you - and everyone else reading this - to get the message that my intent in writing the above post, while written in earnest and playfully, was not intended to be caustic, derisive, or the like. Whether you believe it or not is up to you and none of my business. But I have now done what I can to clarify what may have been less than clear.

- Bal

Bal,

Well, yes, "legacy" would be alright metaphysically but that would not even be the issue. Even if no one ever utters my name or quotes my words or thoughts, I'd still have achieved what I am after because there would never be another me. Even you copied my configuration to the atomic level. The mere fact that this other person was a copy would entail that the events that caused him was different from mine and therefore, he would only become 'similar' or 'David-esque'. Also, I'll never ask anyone to remember me but I would ensure that I'll be damn worth remembering by doing whatever is right and true and it should be significant or worthwhile to me and the world as I see it.

You said in the previous post, "Have you ever heard of a painter named Robert W. Vonnoh? Until this moment, I did not..."

Interesting that you brought up art. The same principle applies - when a copy has been made, it is always considered to be of lesser value - as art. The caveman example you used would not do because he and I have relatively different faculties and abilities or that he could project no farther than drawings in a cave or an offspring. That said, in his way, he could have still passed on his genes via a bloodline somewhere but enough of that, I do not want to mind his life anymore. I care not for the "public". I live and work and create for my own selfish need.

I would like immortality in the epistemological sense of the word (ideals being eternal) especially in the correct context. The vision changes, the concept of and my actual destination remains the same. To paraphrase Rand, I am not perfect - but perfectible. I am checking my premises to project further and further.

You said, "We don't "own" our own lives. We control very little that goes on in them. We are susceptible to unanticipated events, and there is literally NOTHING you or anyone else can do about it other than to prepare in advance as best you can.

-I like what Bear Grylls said on his show, "Nature is neither for nor against us..." I love what my friend said, "Our job (Man) is to eliminate accidents." Why would I wait or simply prepare to be killed by nature? I'd try to understand it and control it within the best of my abilities. If I did die due to an accident, do I have time to complain anymore?

You said, "I find that I am happiest when I don't try to "own" things; including my life. I just live. I try to do good in the ways that I understand good. I try to be a source of pleasure and help for others in my life. Not out of some kind of selflessness; but because I find myself happiest when I do so. Call it a quirk.

I don't mind that you try for immortality. Go for it if it is important to you. Just understand that at least one man doesn't give a rip about it and has other things he considers more fun, more entertaining, and more useful."

I find that I am happiest when I have true and full control of things. I am happy to know/grasp/understand how and why I am living. Awe would be the proper emotion every time I have that moment of lucid identification, an, "Ah, this is what it is..." because then, I can use it as an anchor to say, "Ah, that's the way things ought to be." so to speak.

I never expected anyone to give me a break or care or pity me. I want to afford their help and companionship. Way back, my boss offered to help me get into a prestigious university around here, I declined it on the count that I cannot afford her help. She said that at last I showed humility, I said I was just honest.

"But I tip my cap to you, sir. Sincerely I do. May you live happily and productively forever. The true owner of your life. "

And I, to you sir.

PS: At first, I thought you were indeed trying to be caustic and cynical and that is why I likened you to GS. I am glad that you've identified yourself as a friendly. That was a kind of warning shot that I would not tolerate the behavior that he continually showed me - regardless of what his apologists say. I've learned to do it since I committed the mistake of engaging him when I first came around here.

I find Peter here to be good, I believe it was him who put in a good word for you and I'm happy that he did.

[psychoanaleesis]

A scientist and a voodoo priest may both know, for example, that certain plants cure certain illnesses but the former relies on science i.e. putting his knowledge in a system (using logic and reason) while the latter simply follows tradition/relies on luck/accident/god(s) or (if he is bright) use reason to some extent but ultimately gives up because of the irrationality in his culture.

In the case of plants curing illnesses, science has often confirmed later what people had learned from direct experience.

Our human ancestors did a lot of 'testing' here via trial and error, like e. g. finding out that certain leaves placed on a wound speeded up the healing process, etc.

In conclusion, Epistemology of reason/Objective epistemology is different from Epistemology in itself.

"Epistemology of reason"? What do you mean by that?

And what is "Objective" epistemology?

Or do you mean Objectivist epistemology?

But whatever it is that you mean (please clarify) - in what way is this "Epistemology of reason/Objective Epistemology" "different from Epistemology in itself"?

Were you asserting that the scientific method is "trial and error" method wrapped fancily in foil? Human ancestors should be likened to children and since Man has matured quite a bit, that method will simply not do anymore. We'd show them greater gratitude by taking it a step further than by emulating them.

Epistemology - theory of how one gets to understand existence

Objectivist epistemology - uses reality as a basis to explain how he understood an existent

Mystical epistemology - uses supernatural BS to explain how he understood an existent

P.S. Answering on the fly i.e. not sharp enough. Oh, Shayne answered this fully see first response on this topic.

Sadly, it seems that the original query already got lost. Unless he replies to me, I'm out of this topic.

Edited May 9, 2011 by David Lee

[IamBalSimon]

David -

I know you said that you were done with this topic, but on the chance that your curiosity brings you back to see my response, and on the chance that my response is a sufficient motivator to get you reply, maybe you're not quite done. We'll see.

I'll keep it somewhat brief... ;)

-I like what Bear Grylls said on his show, "Nature is neither for nor against us..." I love what my friend said, "Our job (Man) is to eliminate accidents." Why would I wait or simply prepare to be killed by nature? I'd try to understand it and control it within the best of my abilities. If I did die due to an accident, do I have time to complain anymore?

You said, "I find that I am happiest when I don't try to "own" things; including my life. I just live. I try to do good in the ways that I understand good. I try to be a source of pleasure and help for others in my life. Not out of some kind of selflessness; but because I find myself happiest when I do so. Call it a quirk.

I don't mind that you try for immortality. Go for it if it is important to you. Just understand that at least one man doesn't give a rip about it and has other things he considers more fun, more entertaining, and more useful."

I find that I am happiest when I have true and full control of things. I am happy to know/grasp/understand how and why I am living. Awe would be the proper emotion every time I have that moment of lucid identification, an, "Ah, this is what it is..." because then, I can use it as an anchor to say, "Ah, that's the way things ought to be." so to speak.

What if you don't die, but are rather seriously injured? Then, yes, you do have time to complain. This aspect of your argument doesn't hold much water with me. I never said you should "wait" for Nature to come along and kill you. I am saying that there are times when "life happens" in ways totally outside your control, and OK - maybe you don't die, you become someone who wants to communicate but has no means to do so. My dad suffered a severe stroke at the end of his life. One of the most challenging things my mother ever had to do was get past wondering if "he was still in there - but unable to communicate" before she could finally stop torturing herself and agree to pull the plug, at which point he was truly gone. What would you have said to her during her moments of agony; before she made her decision? Let me make the picture just a little more vivid: my dad, lying there silent, seemed to respond when I would hum the Ode to Joy from Beethoven's 9th. I took this to mean that my dad "was still in there," perhaps silently screaming to let me know. (Wow - surprisingly, I'm get tears right now just remembering that time. Who'd think grief would show up 16 years later with such force?) The doctor insisted it was just reflex to his ears registering the sound waves. It took me a long, long time (relatively speaking - more tears as I write these words) to get to "maybe the doctor is right" and then to "dad wouldn't want to live like this, even if he is in there." It took my mom a lot longer than me, and I think to the day she died some 10 years later, she was never at peace about her decision.

So - I'm definitely not saying you should "wait" for harsh circumstances to befall you. And I certainly don't wish any upon you. And I go farther and hope you figure it all out in time to avoid all such circumstances.

What I am saying is that, sad to say, I don't believe you will.

Perhaps we can find common ground in our thinking (I don't think we have any kind of difficulty in actually living our lives) if we look at events such as the Japanese tsunami (many thousands were injured who have not yet died) as "new starting points." They become the new reality for those who were affected. Indeed every second of our lives are "new starting points," but things like a tsunami can be more easily distinguished as such.

If someone was injured in something like that, I would expect that a rational response, after experiencing grief, anger, etc. associated with changes outside hir control, would emerge. A rational person would establish new control as best s/he could, given the new circumstances.

However, the way you write, I would anticipate you never grieve; maybe you have never grieved and see no point to grief; you simply adapt. Do you simply register new circumstances and move forward? Do feel any kind of anguish if something happens that wrenches at your soul? (When I watched footage of the mass graves in Nazi death camps, that was soul wrenching for me.) These are most definitely emotions associated with not starting over. For most people, the word "yet" is included, as in "not starting over yet," and "needing time to grieve" and other such phrases. But maybe you are above it all, or at least outside it all?

I don't know you, David. So I definitely am not asserting; I'm just wondering and thus asking.

I find Peter here to be good, I believe it was him who put in a good word for you and I'm happy that he did.

I like that someone put in a good word for me. That's just the kind of thing I hope people do if and when they happen to think in my general direction. It means that my impact on the world leaves it slightly more pleasant than before I got here. Good enough for me.

Cheers,

- Bal