One true philosophy or not

[john42t]

I factored this out from Phil's thread, the last comment being this one.

What I wrote in the above quote is independent of whether or not one defines a philosophy as the philosophy of its founder.

It is about what is stated in the primary primary text sources of a philosophy.

Which are written by its founder I presume? I can't see how that doesn't amount to the same thing.

That would be a definition by non-essentials. I define it as the one, true philosophy.

This is not a definition but a personal value judgement voicing what this philosophy means to you. It's bit like saying "Jane is my one, true love, the most wonderful woman on earth."

Not a bit. The analogy would be "I define the name Jane to refer to whomever is my one, true love." Which is a confusing and impractical definition, but perfectly valid.

When one speaks of "philosophy" without the indefinite article, it is used as a general term, as the general category When philosophy is used with an article or the genitive, it refers to a specific philosophy (like e. g. "The philosophy of Immanuel Kant", "William Occam's philosophy of nominalism").

The implicit assumption being that you do not need a word for the one that is actually true. Because you believe there is no such thing as the true philosophy.

Tell mathmaticians that you come to appreciate "Calculus, the mathematics of Issac Newton", and when they do calculus that go beyond Newton, you scold them that Newton never said such a thing, they are wrong in believing it to be calculus. When they point out to you, like I did with with philosophy, that they really don't give a thing about who invented it, only that it's true, you laugh at them: Do they really believe one is actually true? Oh, those silly absolutists.

[Selene]

John:

Nice job. Glad I tweaked you to stick around at OL.

Adam

[john42t]

John:

Nice job. Glad I tweaked you to stick around at OL.

Adam

My pleasure.

[Xray]

Also taken from Phi's thread because it fits better in this new one created by John42t:

Man's *rational faculty* is tabula rasa, I made a

about it.

If you disagree, name one *concept* (not instinct) that you believe is inate.

I hope your case is better than the "but I feel pain and I haven't learned that"-strawman, which is really cheap. As if Rand didn't know about that.

Your hope will be fulfilled. I'll offer you evidence conclusive enough to prove my case.

As always, I'll go straight for the premise to see if it contains an error. Always go for the premises first, for if error is discovered already in the premise, it spares you the effort to go after all the rest based on the false premise. (Which is why checking premises first, aside from being the correct epistemological approach, is also a very economical method).

Your premise: "Man's rational faculty is tabula rasa".

The premise contains a substantial error: A faculty cannot be tabula rasa.

Therefore to say that man's rational faculty is tabula rasa makes as little sense as to say that a newborn's faculty to walk is tabula rasa, or that a newborn's faculty to acquire language is tabula rasa.

For the above mentioned faculties (including man's rational faculty) will become active in step with the development and maturing of the human brain. Of course adequate stimulation is needed by an individual's surroundings, but unless the process is severely impaired, these faculties will be activated.

The evidence that this is the case: brain-impaired individuals cannot activate certain faculties because they don't possess them.

If you disagree, name one *concept* (not instinct) that you believe is inate.

It is irrelevant in that context what kind of concepts humans form. The point is that they do possess the rational faculty to form them, depending on a certain stage of their cognitive and linguistic development.

[john42t]

As always, I'll go straight for the premise to see if it contains an error. Always go for the premises first, for if error is discovered already in the premise, it spares you the effort to go after all the rest based on the false premise. (Which is why checking premises first, aside from being the correct epistemological approach, is also a very economical method).

True.

If you disagree, name one *concept* (not instinct) that you believe is inate.

It is irrelevant in that context what kind of concepts humans form. The point is that they do possess the rational faculty to form them, depending on a certain stage of their cognitive and linguistic development.

With this statement I conclude we're in perfect agreement and also very likely in perfect agreement with Rand. Nothing else was claimed to my knowledge.

If you disagree, name one *concept* (not instinct) that you believe is inate.

Your premise: "Man's rational faculty is tabula rasa".

The premise contains a substantial error: A faculty cannot be tabula rasa.

The faculty has some memory to store concepts. Either you consider that part of that faculty (like I did) or not (like you do).

That memory for concepts is empty, ie tabula rasa.

Rand's concern was only about this memory: If it is assumed not to be empty initially, it could contain concepts that can assist in establishing a moral imperative, such as "God" or "duty". Kant and many others assumed innate knowledge. It's often implied in the statement "There are things human beings just know." I don't think so. In terms of concepts, we learn it all from scratch.

[anthony]

"Man's rational faculty is tabula rasa".

If one takes "faculty" as potentiality, facility, or aptitude - then, sure, Man is not empty, (tabula rasa) of a cognitive "faculty" at birth.

But if John had phrased it as "Man's rationality is tabula rasa" , there could be no argument, could there?

This statement was clearly his purpose.

It is the basis of all of Rand's concept-formation hypothesis, that effort is required, and nothing is an automatic 'given'.

So all that is a quibble about a superfluous and imprecise word.

Tony

[Dglgmut]

Just curious, why is ants building an anthill any different than an innate sense of duty in humans?

If you say the ants have no concept of what they're doing, then building an ant hill is to ants, what forming concepts is to humans... because surely we have no concept of the formation of concepts.

[Selene]

Does this make sense to you?

"An infant opens its eyes to the world.

It senses a swirl of colors, and its mind begins the task of defining and ordering the random mess of sensual inputs.

Instinctually it concentrates its attention on the sound, smell, and feel of female existence nearby.

The sensual inputs, especially sights, are eventually placed in similar categories within the mind.

These similar categories are a special form of concept called a percept.

All future conceptualization, by the young mind, will be based upon these beginning concepts. The similar categories are known to most as characteristics of objects.

Eventually the young mind subsumes that colors and shapes are characteristics of a larger concept. The concept of an object."

[Dglgmut]

I'm just saying this blank slate theory does not explain why some concepts are preferred over others, or how someone can have any choice, or rationality, to his or her "value judgments".

I believe we are born blank slates as far as concepts go, but I think how we distinguish between good concepts and bad concepts is as innate as any less cognitive instinct.

What I meant by us not having a concept of the formation of concepts is that we are not aware of the process a thought goes through before it enters our mind-space. There is no first hand experience of the creation of a thought. We have the thought, and it may take us a second to interpret the thought, but it's not like we had any choice in whether we had the thought or not.

Obviously we can ignore the thought, but the initiative to ignore the thought comes from the same place as the thought itself, doesn't it? They may physically come from different parts of the brain, but they are received equally, by us in consciousness, and cannot be compared to any thought or impulse that we are not experiencing at that time. We make the decision, but how we decide which impulse we go with is impossible to explain. Unless someone here has an explanation?

In short: Intelligence is innate.

[Selene]

Interesting.

Way way above my pay grade though.

I know that a mental lesson I would give to my students was to go into the corner and not think of a red pony...I know I can't do it!

[anthony]

I'm just saying this blank slate theory does not explain why some concepts are preferred over others, or how someone can have any choice, or rationality, to his or her "value judgments". I believe we are born blank slates as far as concepts go, but I think how we distinguish between good concepts and bad concepts is as innate as any less cognitive instinct. What I meant by us not having a concept of the formation of concepts is that we are not aware of the process a thought goes through before it enters our mind-space. There is no first hand experience of the creation of a thought. We have the thought, and it may take us a second to interpret the thought, but it's not like we had any choice in whether we had the thought or not. Obviously we can ignore the thought, but the initiative to ignore the thought comes from the same place as the thought itself, doesn't it? They may physically come from different parts of the brain, but they are received equally, by us in consciousness, and cannot be compared to any thought or impulse that we are not experiencing at that time. We make the decision, but how we decide which impulse we go with is impossible to explain. Unless someone here has an explanation? In short: Intelligence is innate.

You make it sound as if your brain is happening to you.

Who's in charge here? as I think I have asked you before.

At the stage of forming concepts, there are no "good" concepts or "bad" ones, I think.

Once grasped however, the concept becomes a matter of ethics: one makes value judgments of it,

to act on, or not.

Here's one concept to test - determinism. (" Pre-determinsm", as I like to think of it) Is it valid, or not? Do instincts have a 'say', and if so, how much SHOULD they? Are emotions a reliable guide, or not? Or an essential barometer?

Determinism underlies a lot of what you write, so I think you should observe, introspect and make a value-judgment about that, once and for all.

Else we keep returning to the first questions you posted here, and go nowhere.

Tony

[john42t]

Just curious, why is ants building an anthill any different than an innate sense of duty in humans?

Xray:

See what I mean?

This kind of talk is what prompted Rand to talk about the issue at all.

[Reidy]

Getting back to the early part of the thread, some theories still carry their founders' name no matter who else has contributed; Platonism, Aristotelianism and Thomism are a few. Mathematical Platonism, I gather, deals in concepts Plato never imagined. If that were what Rand wanted she would have named her theory "Randism." I'm glad she didn't.

The original Rand / Branden policy was that eventually Objectivism would work its way into the philosophical mainstream, and from there into the wider culture, through the work of subsequent thinkers; reserving the name to them was temporary, a matter of how things stood in the 1960s.

[Dglgmut]

John,

With your diagram, sensory information goes through a process before it reaches the rational faculty, which explains why we don't have to consciously interpret every experience we have as good or bad.

However, the rational faculty itself is not explained at all; in fact, you even label it with a question mark.

The process that information goes through is unconscious, but at what point does consciousness take over, and in what way?

And I'm not saying people should be mindless in their actions... just that in order to be mindful, they must be aware of what is in their control, and what is not.

Tony:

Once again, the question is not about instincts, or anything else that happens unconsciously. We should look at conscious decisions, and how we make them.

I don't believe our conscious actions are determined by anything but us, or our consciousness. However, we are determined by something else. We are a part of the causal chain...

I've said before that our actions define us, and we have no choice but to constantly be defining ourselves.

We do not choose what we are, but our choices demonstrate what we are. Our intelligence and our ability to reason is not a choice--those things which guide all of our choices. Basically: We can't avoid our own intelligence.

Adam:

I guess the real exercise is to not remember the thought of the red pony. You put the thought in their heads, and they can't do much about that... Memory is very interesting to me, because they can't do much about that, either.

[BaalChatzaf]

In short: Intelligence is innate.

The capacity for intelligence is innate, but the extent to which it manifests itself is very much dependent on choices and experience.

The vast majority of humans are wired from birth to be blabbermouths, story tellers and song-singers. Very few of us are innately rational, wherein reason is the dominant factor. For most of us, reason is learned, being reasonable is learned and fairly rare. If we are lucky we will be tutored by reasonable folk and be reasonably reasonable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Dglgmut]

In short: Intelligence is innate.

The capacity for intelligence is innate, but the extent to which it manifests itself is very much dependent on choices and experience.

The vast majority of humans are wired from birth to be blabbermouths, story tellers and song-singers. Very few of us are innately rational, wherein reason is the dominant factor. For most of us, reason is learned, being reasonable is learned and fairly rare. If we are lucky we will be tutored by reasonable folk and be reasonably reasonable.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Fine, the capacity for intelligence is innate. Our capacity to reason is innate. How they "manifest" themselves is that in reaction to our experiences, our choices are resultant.

I won't argue that reason isn't reasonable, only that there is luck involved in being a reasonable person.

[BaalChatzaf]

I won't argue that reason isn't reasonable, only that there is luck involved in being a reasonable person.

Which is what I intended to say. We agree.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[anthony]

John, With your diagram, sensory information goes through a process before it reaches the rational faculty, which explains why we don't have to consciously interpret every experience we have as good or bad. However, the rational faculty itself is not explained at all; in fact, you even label it with a question mark. The process that information goes through is unconscious, but at what point does consciousness take over, and in what way? And I'm not saying people should be mindless in their actions...

John,

I do think you should correct "rational faculty", 'cos now it is springing up all over. Objectively it's a contradiction in terms.

Xray was right - I do agree with her sometimes - that a faculty can be innate. It is an 'aptitude' after all. But she somehow missed your central point that rationality is tabula rasa. This is 100% true.

Rand used "cognitive faculty", not ever as far as I know, "rational faculty".

ie, we are born with the aptitude to think, of consciousness - not with the aptitude to be rational.

Now, Calvin is further confusing the issue, by using your term.

Tony

[anthony]

I won't argue that reason isn't reasonable, only that there is luck involved in being a reasonable person.

Which is what I intended to say. We agree. Ba'al Chatzaf

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Bob: "Very few of us are innately rational..." [How about none?]

Calvin: ..."only that there is luck involved in being a reasonable person." [!]

I'm wasting my time.

[Dglgmut]

I won't argue that reason isn't reasonable, only that there is luck involved in being a reasonable person.

Which is what I intended to say. We agree. Ba'al Chatzaf

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Bob: "Very few of us are innately rational..." [How about none?]

Calvin: ..."only that there is luck involved in being a reasonable person." [!]

I'm wasting my time.

Look at the extreme of someone mentally handicapped... You don't think there is a spectrum of levels of mental capacity?

[anthony]

I won't argue that reason isn't reasonable, only that there is luck involved in being a reasonable person.

Which is what I intended to say. We agree. Ba'al Chatzaf

Talk about the blind leading the blind.

Bob: "Very few of us are innately rational..." [How about none?]

Calvin: ..."only that there is luck involved in being a reasonable person." [!]

I'm wasting my time.

Look at the extreme of someone mentally handicapped... You don't think there is a spectrum of levels of mental capacity?

And my mental capacity could be ended tomorrow in an auto accident.

What of it?

There are only two mental capacities, conscious and unconscious.

If you want to discuss luck, and comparative intelligence, open another thread.

Intelligence level doesn't directly correlate with rationality.

[Selene]

Tony:

This retreat into "luck," is, frankly, similar to the "fairness" crap that O'biwan is peddling to usher in his marxist utopia here in the US.

Life is not "fair!" Everyone should get a trophy! Life's lotery!

It is a collectivist Karmic argument that we should socially engineer outcomes because some folks are born "unlucky."

Adam

[BaalChatzaf]

Tony:

This retreat into "luck," is, frankly, similar to the "fairness" crap that O'biwan is peddling to usher in his marxist utopia here in the US.

Life is not "fair!" Everyone should get a trophy! Life's lotery!

It is a collectivist Karmic argument that we should socially engineer outcomes because some folks are born "unlucky."

Adam

I take it that you deny that chance events over which we have no control have an effect on our lives. Is that the case?

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Selene]

Bob:

Not at all. Chance is clearly part of the randomness of living.

If I get to a corner and make a left instead of a right and a safe drops from a window and crushes me, that is a random event, or chance event.

Adam

[john42t]

I do think you should correct "rational faculty", 'cos now it is springing up all over. Objectively it's a contradiction in terms.

Xray was right - I do agree with her sometimes - that a faculty can be innate. It is an 'aptitude' after all. But she somehow missed your central point that rationality is tabula rasa. This is 100% true.

Rand used "cognitive faculty", not ever as far as I know, "rational faculty".

Rationality isn't any better in my opinion. If it's an "aptitute", how can it be tabula rasa? Tabula rasa is the memory for the faculty.

I'm talking about the conceptual memory that is blank.

Rand used the term rational faculty, but I don't think she was *that* picky about words. It's clear what she meant anyway for anyone who uses the interpretation that makes sense rather than one that is so obviously wrong that you'd have to believe Rand was a moron to consider it.