Serious Students vs. Degenerate Objectivists

[Jonathan]

Phil, I found an image online that you should use as your avatar:

J

[caroljane]

Phil, I found an image online that you should use as your avatar:

J, I did not need to see that. Your views on Phil have been quite, indeed over-adequately expressed in words already.

Yuck.

J

[caroljane]

Great, just great. I managed to put my comment in the middle of the vomitous graphic I was commenting on. My gag reflex is never going to recover from this.

[Jonathan]

Great, just great. I managed to put my comment in the middle of the vomitous graphic I was commenting on. My gag reflex is never going to recover from this.

Well, then, now you know how most of us feel about Phil!

J

[Brant Gaede]

Too much by half.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

"Unstated presupposition", my ass!!!

What sense would it make for anyone to think that everything a philosopher said was 100% right (and on top of that nobody else had anything right) in order to argue that one should not slide away from the key principles.

For Christ sake, George even said in a prior post he didn't know what I meant when I spoke of "key principles" I was including and -- to add greater clarity -- I gave a full paragraph of them.

Un-Fucking-Believable!!!!!!

I will try to explain this as simply as possible.....

You confirmed that your approach is basically the same as that of Aquinas -- except for his irrational content -- and you are absolutely correct. Whatever your material disagreements with Aquinas may be, you use the same method (or form) of analysis when dealing with those who disagree with you. And by "disagree," in this context, I mean disagreement with orthodox Christianity for Aquinas and disagreement with orthodox Objectivism for you.

You don't use the word "heretic"; you prefer "degenerate Objectivist" instead, but these mean essentially the same thing. You also analyzed people who don't accept Objectivism, because they don't know about it, in essentially the same way that Aquinas analyzed "infidels." "Heretics" and "infidels" are convenient labels, so I will use them here, without suggesting any religious connotations.

Okay, down to the nitty-gritty.

Suppose I develop a comprehensive philosophy, and suppose someone says, I agree with a lot of what you say, but not with everything. I have some significant disagreements. Or suppose someone says, I used to agree with all your philosophical principles, but I no longer do. I now disagree with some of them. How would I respond to these statements?

Well, if I couldn't persuade this person, I would simply say that we disagree on some issues. I obviously regard the person as mistaken on some points, as he regards me as mistaken on some points, but I would not say -- no rational person would ever say -- You disagree with me because you have willfully refused to examine my philosophy with the care it deserves. Or: You disagree with me because you have failed to apply my principles consistently.

Now, suppose my interlocutor replies: Lots of people disagree with you. Lots of people know nothing about your philosophy. Again, I would not say -- no rational person would ever say -- That's true, but those people are not guilty of heresy, as you are. They are ignorant of the truth, having never heard of or studied my philosophy before, so they are infidels, not heretics. You, in contrast, are familiar with my philosophy, but you reject parts of it nonetheless. And since my philosophy is true, you are willfully rejecting the truth. You have degenerated from true principles, in other words.

All we need do now is substitute Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, for "my" philosophy in this hypothetical, and we can easily see the presupposition you are working from.

Aquinas was able to speak of heretics and infidels, and distinguish between them, because he worked from the presupposition (explicit, in his case) that the fundamental doctrines of Catholicism are completely and absolutely true. He further believed that this truth will be evident to any rational person who takes the time and makes the effort to study Catholic doctrine. This is why heretics cannot be excused, as infidels can. Heretics know the truth but refuse to accept it nonetheless.

Suppose Aquinas did not believe this. Suppose he believed instead that the evidence for Catholicism is not absolutely conclusive and that some of its doctrines are doubtful and problematic. In this case, Aquinas would have no basis for condemning heretics, because they may be justified in questioning those very doctrines that are doubtful and problematic, and skeptics might even have sound reasons for rejecting them altogether.

The concept of heresy makes no sense in this context. You cannot condemn someone as a heretic (i.e., as someone who willfully rejects the truth) unless you are first sure that the "truth" in question is beyond reasonable doubt. Nor can you say that infidels don't accept the "truth" because they are unaware of it, for if the truth in question is doubtful or problematic, these infidels might very well reject the "truth" even after they know about it.

Do I need to apply this reasoning to your case, or can you figure it out on your own from here? Probably not, so I will explain a little more....

Unless you first assume that Objectivist principles are completely and absolutely true -- i.e., true beyond reasonable doubt -- such that no rational person who has studied those principle would reject them, then you have no basis for talking about "degenerate Objectivists." The same goes for your notion of "infidels." Your "heretics" are simply people who disagree with Rand, for whatever reason.

If Rand was wrong about something, then to disagree with her might very well be a correction -- an improvement, not a degeneration. To speak of "degenerating" from an error that Rand made would be a strange and inaccurate way to put the matter, so whenever you talk about degenerating from the principles of Objectivism, you necessarily presuppose that those principles are absolutely true, i.e., true beyond a reasonable doubt. This is and must be your starting point.

If you were to concede that some of Rand's principles might be wrong, then there is nothing to degenerate from. A person who rejects those principles might be moving uphill toward the truth, not downhill into error, and we cannot slide uphill.

To conclude: Yes, Phil -- "unstated presuppostion," your ass.

Ghs

[Xray]

You will need to define what you mean by a "hard science." Philosophy is not a "hard science" as that term is commonly understood today.

True, it's only hard science as understood by Rand. Philosophy as understood by philosophy professors is (neo-)mysticism.

This in itself is one of the core tenets of Objectivism: That a philosophy can be correct or not. That it's a science rather than a flavor.

If that's true, and if Objectivism is true to a large extent, then it will survive like boolean logic and for the same reason.

If not, it was a religion and cult like any other.

I don't think an "all or nothing" approch is necessary when it comes to philosophy. For does there exist any philosophy that has been correct about facts in all cases? Or any philosophy that thas been correct in all its premises?

Imo the "all or nothing" approch goes against the cosmic principle of permanent transformation, so that to adhere to it can result in vainly wanting to preserve what cannot be preserved.

It can also lead to the opposite, a total (and often unnecessary) condemnation of the whole philosophy, if errors contained in it become too obvious to ignore them.

Fervent adherents can thus turn into ex-adherents who, often out of personal dissapointment that applying the complete philosophy to their lives has not worked, now fiercely attack that in which they had believed so much.

I'm more comfortable with an eclectic, patchwork philosophy approach. Every philosophy has some golden nuggets of insight, which I'm trying to gather and weave into my own 'philosophical quilt' so to speak.

And should errors on my part have lead to 'weaving mistakes', I will have to correct them.

But but like anything in existence, this is a work in progress. I will never say "This is my finished quilt". It cannot become complete, nor would I wish it to be.

[9thdoctor]

To conclude: Yes, Phil -- "unstated presuppostion," your ass.

This is from the same Phil who accused me of “smuggling in” an evaluation by naming a thread “Peikoff flip-flops”.

[Brant Gaede]

You will need to define what you mean by a "hard science." Philosophy is not a "hard science" as that term is commonly understood today.

True, it's only hard science as understood by Rand. Philosophy as understood by philosophy professors is (neo-)mysticism.

This in itself is one of the core tenets of Objectivism: That a philosophy can be correct or not. That it's a science rather than a flavor.

If that's true, and if Objectivism is true to a large extent, then it will survive like boolean logic and for the same reason.

If not, it was a religion and cult like any other.

I don't think an "all or nothing" approch is necessary when it comes to philosophy. For does there exist any philosophy that has been correct about facts in all cases? Or any philosophy that thas been correct in all its premises?

Imo the "all or nothing" approch goes against the cosmic principle of permanent transformation, so that to adhere to it can result in vainly wanting to preserve what cannot be preserved.

It can also lead to the opposite, a total (and often unnecessary) condemnation of the whole philosophy, if errors contained in it become too obvious to ignore them.

Fervent adherents can thus turn into ex-adherents who, often out of personal dissapointment that applying the complete philosophy to their lives has not worked, now fiercely attack that in which they had believed so much.

I'm more comfortable with an eclectic, patchwork philosophy approach. Every philosophy has some golden nuggets of insight, which I'm trying to gather and weave into my own 'philosophical quilt' so to speak.

And should errors on my part have lead to 'weaving mistakes', I will have to correct them.

But but like anything in existence, this is a work in progress. I will never say "This is my finished quilt". It cannot become complete, nor would I wish it to be.

Let's consider Objectivism as if it were a baseball constructed of layers of material around a hard core. That core is its axiomatic principles--shared with science--which I consider non-controversial in that any attempt to refute them means implicitly affirming them. We are not talking about detailed metaphysical and epistemological discussions, which, BTW, I have little or no interest in, but only those principles. In regard to this, practically speaking, epistemology is validated in its details insofar as they better inform or improve scientific methodology or I, for one, don't see the point. If the motivation is to do that, that's one thing. If its to churn and burn words, have fun.

Now the first layer about this core is ethics and politics. As far as I know the ethics are based on reason (logic and facts kneaded together) and therefore valid.That's all I remember about Ortho-Objectivism here. As I see it, though, that's a weak logical tie in for one man's "reason" is another man's irrationality with many facts available for disputation and they can argue forever. However, it's an individualistic ethics and that comes with the logical and implicit epistemological tie in: thinking is purely an individual thing; there is no group think. Even twenty people sitting around a round table, epistemological knights all, yammering away only logically agree on anything by reference to evidence considered inside each brain. It is this epistemological individualism that justifies the ethical individualism that justifies the political (and economic) individualism--BUT, these hold true only at the most basic levels where basic principles reside. The individualism of thinking can't be collectivized or socialized, but people are deeply social animals for reasons of physical and psychological survival and flourishing, to say nothing of finding a juicy or hunky mate and having wonderful children some of whom may help out mom and dad in their dodderage. So that finishes the first layer and the four basic principles of this philosophy.

To recap: the core is the first two principles which are axiomatic. The first layer is the remaining two principles or ethics and politics.

Now, the outer layer, the last layer, is where we have all the fun. This is where we apply Liberal Arts, properly understood, as they concern human activity and existence. Four questions: what are we and what should we be and how do we get there from here and is it the getting there or the journey?

There is no need for great detail here regarding all the brilliant things I've already said in this post. Take the ethics: we are all individuals and that should be honored, but we are also part of a social collective with social needs which feedback in a back and forth with this individualism and all that informs and deals with that is part of liberal arts. This doesn't even exclude science. Scientists doing scientific work have their own bailiwick, but the rest of us, at least, need to know in a general way what they are about and properly respect that to the extent that even a sociologist can know when a scientist or a group of them come with a bunch of shit like, for instance, AGW, nuclear winter, we are the elite and you aren't so agree with us, etc.--if he cares.

So the farther from the core the more we can argue about and investigate in a sensible way and we can do it in the name of Objectivism. Culturally, though, generally speaking, "Absolutely!" is less and less absolute and knowledge more and more tentative the farther from that core we go. The last layer, furthermore, has inside itself a great multiplicity of layers, but I am too lazy and ignorant to go any further with this exposition.

--Brant

all this while cooking and eating breakfast--damn, I'm good!--(at least it tasted good)

[Philip Coates]

> suppose someone says, I agree with a lot of what you say, but not with everything. I have some significant disagreements. Or suppose someone says, I used to agree with all your philosophical principles, but I no longer do....I would not say -- no rational person would ever say -- You disagree with me because you have willfully refused to examine my philosophy with the care it deserves. [GHS, #306]

Your positing a case where some individual just walks in that you know nothing about. So of course you wouldn't psychologize about the individual or attack his motives that way.

That's different from when you know a particular person who has been evasive or dodging or 'slippery' repeatedly in a way that suggest he is willfully refusing to engage with you in proper form or who distorts or closes his ears and does the equivalent of "nyah, nyah, nyah" and is clearly intelligent but doesn't want to acknowledge even the clearest points.

It's also different from talking about a vast group of millions who have 'backed away from Rand' and you know (even though you may not know about a specific person you have only casually encountered once) that many of them have not proved in false but simply don't want the social ostracism, the hassle, or who find it -easier- to lie, to not have integrity, to use government to coerce...or any of a million ways to willfully refuse to either examine the philosophy or live by the key principles.

Even though they know they should.

[Peter]

Brant wrote:

Let's consider Objectivism as if it were a baseball constructed of layers of material around a hard core. That core is its axiomatic principles--shared with science--which I consider non-controversial . . .

end quote

*We* agree.

At the sales conference at Random House, preceding the publication of “Atlas Shrugged”, Rand recited the essence of her philosophy "while standing on one foot" which seems to follow your core approach:

1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality ("Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" or "Wishing won't make it so.")

2. Epistemology: Reason ("You can't have your cake and eat it, too.")

3. Ethics: Self-Interest ("Man is an end in himself.")

4. Politics: Capitalism ("Give me liberty or give me death.")

end quote

While following your core approach, Brant, Rand places Politics last. However, She did not always follow your approach. In the "About the Author" section to “Atlas Shrugged”, Rand began at the outer layer:

"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."

end quote

Later, in her 1962 column "Introducing Objectivism," Ayn Rand gave "the briefest summary" of her philosophy using your core approach once again:

1. Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

2. Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

3. Man -- every man--is an end in himself, not the means t the ends of others. He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own *rational* self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of his life.

4. The ideal political-economic system is “laissez-faire” capitalism. It is a system where men deal with one another, not as victims and executioners, nor as masters and slaves, but as *traders*, by free, voluntary exchange to mutual benefit. It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others. The government acts only as a policeman that protects man's rights; it uses physical force ONLY in retaliation and ONLY against those who initiate its use, such as criminals or foreign invaders. In a system of full capitalism, there should be (but, historically, has not yet been) a complete separation of state and economics, in the same way and for the same reasons as the separation of state and church.

end quote

I agree with this summary. To reiterate, “It is a system where no man may obtain any values from others by resorting to physical force, and no man may initiate the use of physical force against others.”

And lastly, in "Brief Summary" (1971), Rand said:

If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest [e.g., capitalism and egoism] follows. This -- the supremacy of reason -- was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism.

end quote

Is that a core approach? Not really. Still, I agree with Rand’s essence of Objectivism. I am an Objectivist.

I like your approach Brant. It is brilliant. The core would need to be the axioms intertwined with human essence and epistemology.

Next layer anyone?

Philip, what layer are you talking about when you say some people have backed away from Rand, or willfully refuse to either examine the philosophy or live by the key principles?

Atheism is what I think of when some fans of Rand are not fully supportive. They don’t want the notoriety or do not consider themselves as “godless,” OR both. So they are not fully supportive of her Epistemology: Reason

And her Ethics: Self-Interest. Some like Xray cannot renounce Christian charity and altruism even though they agree that what they really mean is Objectivist *benevolence.*

And many conservatives cannot fully embrace her laissez-faire Politics: Capitalism because they do think a strong military and coercive taxation are needed to keep America viable.

Anyway, I hope others can expound on Brant’s core idea with science and math and logic at its core.

Peter Taylor

[George H. Smith]

> suppose someone says, I agree with a lot of what you say, but not with everything. I have some significant disagreements. Or suppose someone says, I used to agree with all your philosophical principles, but I no longer do....I would not say -- no rational person would ever say -- You disagree with me because you have willfully refused to examine my philosophy with the care it deserves. [GHS, #306]

Your positing a case where some individual just walks in that you know nothing about. So of course you wouldn't psychologize about the individual or attack his motives that way.

That's different from when you know a particular person who has been evasive or dodging or 'slippery' repeatedly in a way that suggest he is willfully refusing to engage with you in proper form or who distorts or closes his ears and does the equivalent of "nyah, nyah, nyah" and is clearly intelligent but doesn't want to acknowledge even the clearest points.

I happen to believe that you do this all the time. I have lost count of the times that I thought you evaded major issues and gone off on some tangent, often focusing on a minor point or on a remark that you construed as an insult.

So where does that leave us? Shall we argue about whether or not you are evasive -- not just occasionally but routinely? I will argue that you frequently evade, whereas you will vehemently deny this allegation and probably accuse me of the same thing.

The primary problem with this approach is that it confuses the psychological issue of motives with the epistemological issue of reasons. Motives are not reasons in the cognitive sense. If a person gives reason for his beliefs, or for his dissent from the beliefs of someone else, then his motives are irrelevant.

If you look at my history on OL, you will see that no one has argued more vigorously against people who misrepresent Rand's ideas. I have also argued against those who have misrepresented Kant's ideas and the ideas of other philosophers. There is nothing wrong with arguing in this manner.

Now, it is true that I believe that many of these people are willfully ignorant in the sense that they refuse to take the time to understand the philosopher in question -- whether Rand or Kant -- but this refusal is ultimately a psychological issue, not an epistemological one. I have advised people to educate themselves before making sweeping pronouncements, but the proper epistemological method is to demonstrate how they are wrong in particular cases.

When we speak of "Objectivism," we basically mean the philosophical ideas of Ayn Rand, just as "Kantianism" refers to the philosophical ideas of Kant. Neither philosopher enjoys a privileged status. We can no more begin with the assumption that Rand was right than we can begin with the assumption that Kant was right. To misunderstand the ideas of Kant does not differ, in principle, from misunderstanding the ideas of Ayn Rand.

As I said, many O'ists refuse to take the effort required to understand Kant, so they condemn him unfairly (in some instances). But these people are not "degenerate Kantians." This label would apply only if presuppose that Kant was right.

I will pick this up later.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Around an hour ago, and quite by coincidence, I happened across this passage from Samuel Pufendorf's highly influential book, On the Duty of Man and Citizen (1673, Cambridge University Press). Pufendorf (p. 39) writes:

Of all the notions which everyone must hold about God, the first is a settled conviction that God exists, that is, that there really is a supreme and first being on whom this universe depends. This has been most plainly demonstrated by philosophers from the subordination of causes which must find an end in some first thing, from motion, from reflection on the fabric of the universe, and by similar arguments. Claiming not to understand these arguments is no excuse for atheism. (My italics.)

This was a common form of argument until the Enlightenment. The proofs for the existence of God, according to many philosophers, are so evidently valid that rational dissent is impossible. The only alternative is a failure to understand the arguments, but, as Pufendorf puts it, there is no excuse for such ignorance.

I have been familiar with this style of argument since my early high school days, when I first became interested in freethought, and I detest it. And as I noted in a previous post, Enlightenment philosophers and freethinkers fought tooth and nail against it. Indeed, the term "freethought," which became popular during the early 18th century, meant the moral freedom to question and criticize any belief, no matter how evident or even self-evident it may appear, and to use one's own judgment to arrive at the best conclusion one can.

Of course Phil will protest that he agrees with all this. He does on a nominal level, of course, but Phil knows zilch about the history of ideas, so he doesn't appreciate the profound differences between his heretic/infidel way of looking at things and the perspective of freethinkers. It was with good reason that I wrote the first version of "Objectivism as a Relgion" while I was in college, delivering it as a lecture for the UA Students of Objectivism.

The basic problem here is illustrated in my earlier discussions of Aquinas. There is some truth in what Aquinas says, e.g., that our fundamental act of choice is the decision "to consider or not consider" the evidence and arguments for a belief. Locke said essentially the same thing when he claimed that we have the power to think or not to think. All this is true; in fact, these statements are virtually identical to Rand's statements about our choice to focus. The problem arises when we attribute a failure to consider or think or focus -- take your pick -- to a person who disagrees with us. This is the basic tactic that frequently leads to the heretic/infidel mentality.

What Phils needs to explain is how reasonable people can disagree. How is it that a person who is as rational as Phil claims to be can disagree with principles that Phil believes to be true beyond a reasonable doubt? If Phil's only two options are heretic and infidel, then he is exhibiting a religious mentality of the first order.

Ghs

[Peter]

Ghs wrote to Phil:

So where does that leave us? Shall we argue about whether or not you are evasive -- not just occasionally but routinely? I will argue that you frequently evade, whereas you will vehemently deny this allegation and probably accuse me of the same thing.

end quote

Perhaps *evasion* would be the ultimate degeneration. Is disagreement with a particular aspect of Objectivism, evasion because Objectivism is an indivisible whole? I do not think so. Its ultimate purity must be that it is contextually true, with all that we know today, this very moment.

That is why I do not extend the degenerate epitaph to many folks – though I do abhor people like Timothy Leary (and Steve Jobs: his last words as reported by his sister were, “Oh Wow. Oh Wow. Oh wow.”) who advocate taking LSD trips to leave reason and reality behind. That is just not right, especially if young people pick up on it.

Ghs wrote to everyone:

When we speak of "Objectivism," we basically mean the philosophical ideas of Ayn Rand, just as "Kantianism" refers to the philosophical ideas of Kant. Neither philosopher enjoys a privileged status. We can no more begin with the assumption that Rand was right than we can begin with the assumption that Kant was right . . . and he quoted Pufendorf, “Of all the notions which everyone must hold about God, the first is a settled conviction that God exists, that is, that there really is a supreme and first being on whom this universe depends.”

end quote

Well said. Pit all the religious “good books” against each other and you will have a real head bangers ball. Rand’s works can NEVER be treated like religious good books – that is explicitly against her philosophy.

I have heard some say Quantum Mechanics invalidates Aristotle’s maxim that A is A. Prove it. The answer must be self evident to be an axiom. Would QM’s axiom be “Chaos exists therefore A is NOT A”?

Free Thinker,

Peter

Notes:

Galt’s Speech,

For the New Intellectual, 127

Thinking is man’s only basic virtue, from which all the others proceed. And his basic vice, the source of all his evils, is that nameless act which all of you practice, but struggle never to admit: the act of blanking out, the willful suspension of one’s consciousness, the refusal to think—not blindness, but the refusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgment—on the unstated premise that a thing will not exist if only you refuse to identify it, that A will not be A so long as you do not pronounce the verdict “It is.” Non-thinking is an act of annihilation, a wish to negate existence, an attempt to wipe out reality. But existence exists; reality is not to be wiped out, it will merely wipe out the wiper. By refusing to say “It is,”you are refusing to say “I am.” By suspending your judgment, you are negating your person. When a man declares: “Who am I to know?” he is declaring: “Who am I to live?”

Galt’s Speech,

For the New Intellectual, 154

Dropping below the level of a savage, who believes that the magic words he utters have the power to alter reality, they believe that reality can be altered by the power of the words they do not utter—and their magic tool is the blank-out, the pretense that nothing can come into existence past the voodoo of their refusal to identify it.

Galt’s Speech,

For the New Intellectual, 176

It is not any crime you have ever committed that infects your soul with permanent guilt, it is none of your failures, errors or flaws, but the blank-out by which you attempt to evade them—it is not any sort of Original Sin or unknown prenatal deficiency, but the knowledge and fact of your basic default, of suspending your mind, of refusing to think. Fear and guilt are your chronic emotions, they are real and you do deserve them, but they don’t come from the superficial reasons you invent to disguise their cause, not from your “selfishness,” weakness or ignorance, but from a real and basic threat to your existence: fear, because you have abandoned your weapon of survival, guilt, because you know you have done it volitionally.

end quotes

[George H. Smith]

Ghs wrote to Phil:

So where does that leave us? Shall we argue about whether or not you are evasive -- not just occasionally but routinely? I will argue that you frequently evade, whereas you will vehemently deny this allegation and probably accuse me of the same thing.

end quote

Perhaps *evasion* would be the ultimate degeneration. Is disagreement with a particular aspect of Objectivism, evasion because Objectivism is an indivisible whole? I do not think so. Its ultimate purity must be that it is contextually true, with all that we know today, this very moment.

Who is the we" to whom you refer? I must not have been assimilated into the Borg Collective, because I know no such thing.

The fact that you would use a phrase like "ultimate purity" when referring to a philosophy speaks volumes.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Ghs wrote to Phil:

So where does that leave us? Shall we argue about whether or not you are evasive -- not just occasionally but routinely? I will argue that you frequently evade, whereas you will vehemently deny this allegation and probably accuse me of the same thing.

end quote

Perhaps *evasion* would be the ultimate degeneration. Is disagreement with a particular aspect of Objectivism, evasion because Objectivism is an indivisible whole? I do not think so. Its ultimate purity must be that it is contextually true, with all that we know today, this very moment.

Who is the we" to whom you refer? I must not have been assimilated into the Borg Collective, because I know no such thing.

The fact that you would use a phrase like "ultimate purity" when referring to a philosophy speaks volumes.

Ghs

It is futile to resist.

--Brant

[Peter]

Ghs wrote:

Who is the we" to whom you refer? I must not have been assimilated into the Borg Collective, because I know no such thing . . . . The fact that you would use a phrase like "ultimate purity" when referring to a philosophy speaks volumes.

end quote

Imagine a person with a mild form of Tourette’s Syndrome, (from Wiki) an inherited neuropsychiatric disorder with its onset in childhood, characterized by multiple physical (motor) tics and at least one vocal (phonic) tic; these tics characteristically wax and wane. Tourette's is defined as part of a spectrum of tic disorders, which includes transient and chronic tics.

Except this imagined person doesn’t have a moving, bodily tic, or the palsy. They don’t say cuss words. They just *tic* people off. It does not matter where they are or who they are with, they say and do things, that bother everyone around them. What a curse that would be but what a weapon that Could be.

Hello, this is The AAA Social Sabotage Network. You sound like a wuss. What do you want?

OK. A new restaurant just opened up down the block from your restaurant, and you want us to decrease their business? Of course we guarantee our work, you idiot.

Price? We will disrupt their morning breakfast for a hundred bucks and you pay for the breakfast. Cheapskate. Lunch and dinner disruptions, with different “afflicted” actors go up accordingly.

No, we don’t let mice or cockroaches loose in their restaurant. No, we don’t get violent or trip waiters - nothing to get us arrested. Our AAA Tourette’s actors will complain loudly, spit, food out, and pretend to gag. They will loudly discuss subjects that should not be brought up while others are eating. We rotate three different actors every day for a week, and then we wear disguises. Yup. It’s guaranteed to work.

Fine. I will send a contract over.

Peter

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Refusing to Acknowledge a Clarification. Beating a Straw Man Instead.

> There is some truth in what Aquinas says, e.g., that our fundamental act of choice is the decision "to consider or not consider" the evidence and arguments for a belief. ...The problem arises when we attribute a failure to consider or think or focus -- take your pick -- to a person who disagrees with us. [GHS, Post #313]

But I had just answered that in Post #310: "[if] positing a case where some individual just walks in that you know nothing about..of course you wouldn't psychologize about the individual or attack his motives that way. That's different from when you know a particular person who has been evasive or dodging or 'slippery' repeatedly in a way that suggests he is willfully refusing to engage with you in proper form or who distorts or closes his ears and does the equivalent of "nyah, nyah, nyah" and is clearly intelligent but doesn't want to acknowledge even the clearest points. It's also different from talking about a vast group of millions who have 'backed away from Rand' and you know (even though you may not know about a specific person you have only casually encountered once) that many of them have not proved it false but simply don't want the social ostracism, the hassle, or who find it -easier- to lie, to not have integrity, to use government to coerce...or any of a million ways to willfully refuse to either examine the philosophy or live by the key principles. Even though they know they should. "

[Emphasis added: I've gone back and underlined key words and phrases to make it easier for George to acknowledge that I had made it clear I wasn't simply referring to any "person who disagrees with us".]

What's the point in debating someone who doesn't acknowledge what you've actually said even in the same thread, even two or three posts earlier and continues to misstate or misrepresent it?

[Brant Gaede]

Now, imagine this is the Internet--no wait, this is the Internet!

--Brant

roast and toast I am the host you bring the long pig

[Peter]

I wrote:

Perhaps *evasion* would be the ultimate degeneration. Is disagreement with a particular aspect of Objectivism evasion because Objectivism is an indivisible whole? I do not think so. Its ultimate purity must be that it is contextually true, with all that we know today, this very moment.

end quote

George took exception to the word “purity’ and my use of the imperial, “We.” By “We” I meant Rand and me.

Purity is an odd word. Historically it conjures up to us old timers scratchy black and white films of goose stepping zealots and burning crosses. Or excessive hand washing.

Is integrity a better word? The Integrity of a System or hypothesis will aid in judging its correspondence to reality.

sci·en·tif·ic method (s n-t f k) n.

The principles and empirical processes of discovery and demonstration considered characteristic of or necessary for scientific investigation, generally involving the observation of phenomena, the formulation of a hypothesis concerning the phenomena, experimentation to demonstrate the truth or falseness of the hypothesis, and a conclusion that validates or modifies the hypothesis.

end quote

Validating a Philosophy IS a better way of putting it. What was the term used in Objectivist circles where a good student of Objectivism could trace each concept back to the axioms?

Can a system of thought start with Brant’s irreducible, incontrovertibly true core such as A is A and be scientifically proven as each layer is laid upon it? Certainty needs a bedrock with no wobble.

Religions begin with axioms they call “the word” but that is patently false, since every other religion begins with a different “word.”

Peter

Notes

“The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made,”

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24

Primacy of Existence vs. Primacy of Consciousness

The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, anidentity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).

The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.

Axiomatic Concepts

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 55

Axiomatic Concepts

Axioms are usually considered to be propositions identifying a fundamental, self-evident truth. But explicit propositions as such are not primaries: they are made of concepts. The base of man’s knowledge—of all other concepts, all axioms, propositions and thought—consists of axiomatic concepts.

An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to“prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)

“Concepts of Consciousness,”

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 32

Hierarchy of Knowledge

Concepts have a hierarchical structure, i.e., . . . the higher, more complex abstractions are derived from the simpler, basic ones (starting with the concepts of perceptually given concretes).

“The Psycho-Epistemology of Art,”

The Romantic Manfesto, 18

[There is a] long conceptual chain that starts from simple, ostensive definitions and rises to higher and still higher concepts, forming a hierarchical structure of knowledge so complex that no electronic computer could approach it. It is by means of such chains that man has to acquire and retain his knowledge of reality.

“Abstraction from Abstractions,”

Introduction

Leonard Peikoff,

The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 6

Starting from the base of conceptual development—from the concepts that identify perceptual concretes—the process of cognition moves in two interacting directions: toward more extensive and more intensive knowledge, toward wider integrations and more precise differentiations. Following the process and in accordance with cognitive evidence, earlier-formed concepts are integrated into wider ones or subdivided into narrower ones.

Leonard Peikoff,

The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 6

Certainty

“Certain” represents an assessment of the evidence for a conclusion; it is usually contrasted with two other broad types of assessment: “possible” and “probable.” . . .

Idea X is “certain” if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X isconclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative . . . .

You cannot challenge a claim to certainty by means of an arbitrary declaration of a counter-possibility, . . . you cannot manufacture possibilities without evidence . . . .

All the main attacks on certainty depend on evading its contextual character . . . .

The alternative is not to feign omniscience, erecting every discovery into an out-of-context absolute, or to embrace skepticism and claim that knowledge is impossible. Both these policies accept omniscience as the standard: the dogmatists pretend to have it, the skeptics bemoan their lack of it. The rational policy is to discard the very notion of omniscience. Knowledge is contextual—it is knowledge, it is valid, contextually.

Leonard Peikoff,

The Philosophy of Objectivism lecture series, Lecture 3

Validation

“Validation” in the broad sense includes any process of relating mental contents to the facts of reality. Direct perception, the method of validating axioms, is one such process. “Proof” designates another type of validation. Proof is the process of deriving a conclusion logically from antecedent knowledge.

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Refusing to Acknowledge a Clarification. Beating a Straw Man Instead.

> There is some truth in what Aquinas says, e.g., that our fundamental act of choice is the decision "to consider or not consider" the evidence and arguments for a belief. ...The problem arises when we attribute a failure to consider or think or focus -- take your pick -- to a person who disagrees with us. [GHS, Post #313]

But I had just answered that in Post #310: "[if] positing a case where some individual just walks in that you know nothing about..of course you wouldn't psychologize about the individual or attack his motives that way. That's different from when you know a particular person who has been evasive or dodging or 'slippery' repeatedly in a way that suggests he is willfully refusing to engage with you in proper form or who distorts or closes his ears and does the equivalent of "nyah, nyah, nyah" and is clearly intelligent but doesn't want to acknowledge even the clearest points. It's also different from talking about a vast group of millions who have 'backed away from Rand' and you know (even though you may not know about a specific person you have only casually encountered once) that many of them have not proved it false but simply don't want the social ostracism, the hassle, or who find it -easier- to lie, to not have integrity, to use government to coerce...or any of a million ways to willfully refuse to either examine the philosophy or live by the key principles. Even though they know they should. "

[Emphasis added: I've gone back and underlined key words and phrases to make it easier for George to acknowledge that I had made it clear I wasn't simply referring to any "person who disagrees with us".]

What's the point in debating someone who doesn't acknowledge what you've actually said even in the same thread, even two or three posts earlier and continues to misstate or misrepresent it?

You haven't answered anything. As usual, you have cherry-picked one point and concentrated on that. Whether or not you know a particular person has no relevance to the points I made. This contingency was irrelevant to Aquinas's approach, and it is irrelevant to yours.

I should have known better than to take you seriously. In Randian terms, you have a concrete-bound mentality.

Would you like me to quote from my recent posts to illustrate how you are not dealing with this issue in a serious way? Or perchance would you be willing to read them again, beginning with the lengthy post I wrote early this morning, and pay more attention this time?

Focus, Phil. Focus!

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George took exception to the word “purity’ and my use of the imperial, “We.” By “We” I meant Rand and me.

Rand and you, eh? That is like pairing Einstein with Professor Irwin Corey:

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Slippery Little George, Dodging, Weaving, Playing Rope-A-Dope

Phil: What's the point in debating someone who doesn't acknowledge what you've actually said even in the same thread, even two or three posts earlier and continues to misstate or misrepresent it?

George: You have cherry-picked one point...you have a concrete-bound mentality...you are not dealing with this issue...the lengthy post I wrote...pay more attention...Focus!

What GHS is saying here is he is unwilling to admit that he misrepresented what I said and, when caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he wants to shift the discussion to:

Why didn't you answer my OTHER points.

[Selene]

George:

Amazing life story. Grew up in a Jewish Orphanage home. Rode the rails. Boxer. Avowed Communist. He is quoted as saying that "When I tried to join the Communist Party, they called me an anarchist."

See article below...at 97, he has been panhandling for the last 17 years outside the Midtown Tunnel...

"And disregard that homeless appearance. Mr. Corey lives in a cozy 1840 carriage house on East 36th Street between Lexington and Third Avenues that he estimates he could sell for $3.5 million. He returns there each afternoon and empties half a dozen pockets bulging with small change and dollar bills. On a recent day, he spread the money on his dining room table and counted it slowly: $106.19. He wrote down the amount on a carefully kept list of his daily takes and then added the money to desk drawers loaded with hundreds of rolls of coins and long rows of bundled dollar bills.

Mr. Corey said he gathers his daily take — usually about $100, though there have been $250 days — every few months and donates the money to a charity that buys medical supplies for children in Cuba."

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/11/a-familiar-figure-begs-on-the-street-but-not-for-himself/

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Slippery Little George, Dodging, Weaving, Playing Rope-A-Dope

Phil: What's the point in debating someone who doesn't acknowledge what you've actually said even in the same thread, even two or three posts earlier and continues to misstate or misrepresent it?

George: You have cherry-picked one point...you have a concrete-bound mentality...you are not dealing with this issue...the lengthy post I wrote...pay more attention...Focus!

What GHS is saying here is he is unwilling to admit that he misrepresented what I said and, when caught with his hand in the cookie jar, he wants to shift the discussion to:

Why didn't you answer my OTHER points.

Okay, Phil, I give up. You belong with the worst of the ARI crowd. Very few people on this list take you seriously. Ever wonder why? Oh, I know! It must be because because they willfully reject the truth!

What I especially dislike is how you twist and distort the spirit of O'ism, thereby ruining its appeal to many bright young people. If you had never heard of Rand, you would probably be a Scientologist or the member of some other cult.

You seem to have a defender in Peter Taylor. Beavis and Butthead ride again!

Ghs