Deleted Thread - The Mind-Body Dichotomy in David Kelley’s philosophy

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Victor Pross

Aug 20 2006, 07:25 AM

M,

My mind is all over the place on almost everything…and sometimes at the same time. My crow-epistemology runs over at the brim.

That's why I'm up at a Godless hour.

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Robert Campbell

Aug 20 2006, 12:25 PM

Victor,

What Leonard Peikoff says in "Fact and Value"

“There is only one basic issue in philosophy and in all judgment, cognitive and evaluation alike: does a man conform to reality or not? Whether an idea is true or false is one aspect of this question---which immediately implies the other aspects: the relationship to reality of the mental processes involved and of the actions that will result.”

is a classic example of totalizing (Dr. Peikoff himself would call it a species of misintegration).

Dr. Peikoff has strong Parmenidean tendencies:

On one side, there is what is. One great big ole solid slab of what is. A static, changeless whole. Ya can't get any more totalistic than that, pardner.

On the other side (speaking figuratively), there is what is not. Unreality, nonexistence, the zero. And that is nothing at all. As it is nothing at all, it isn't supposed to have any power whatsoever (though readers of OPAR and other such works would be pardoned for thinking otherwise, as Peikoff invokes it whenever he wants to scare the bejabbers out of them).

If you draw true conclusions, form goals and values that are good for you, and do the right thing, you are conforming to reality.

If you draw false conclusions, form goals or values that are bad for you, or do the wrong thing, you are not conforming to reality.

Not only does Peikoff's Parmenideanism put him in conflict with Rand's own distinction between cognitive and normative abstractions, it causes all kinds of other problems.

For instance, since drawing a false conclusion is already a failure to conform to reality, what makes drawing a conclusion that Dr. Peikoff deems arbitrary worse than drawing one that he merely deems false?

Since making an error is already failure to conform to reality, what makes non-thinking or deliberate copping out or the adoption of irrational procedures worse than making an error?

Since Dr. Peikoff obviously believes that to conform to reality, you must accept the truth of Peikovian Objectivism, what then is the status of the tiniest deviation from Peikovian Objectivism?

And on and on.

Robert Campbell

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Rich Engle

Aug 21 2006, 11:08 AM

Hey, Victor, happy Monday!

No sweat over here, dude.

You defined epistemology as "valid knowledge," I think I saw? I guess I can see what you're trying to hit with that, but I always have defined it simply as "theory of knowledge." Theory of thinking, maybe, if you want.

best,

r

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: R. Christian Ross

Aug 22 2006, 10:27 PM

I'm still in the process of masticating on the broader issues in this thread, but thought I'd throw a few tit-bits from Rand herself on the nature of "evil" into the stew for some simmerin'....

From *The Letters of Ayn Rand*

Ayn Rand:

I understood you [isabel Patterson] to mean that the [Catholic] Church can accept any other system consistently, because any other system is imperfect and does contain elements of evil and will require suffering and sacrifice; but the system which works to make men happy is the one which the Church cannot accept. To me, this seems to be a position of total evil. As you know, my fundamental definition of evil is the action of damning the good for being the good. (For example, a man who opposes the Capitalist system because he thinks that it is a bad system, is merely ignorant, not immoral. A man who opposes the Capitalist system because it is good, is truly evil.)

[snip]

Of course, I know that they could not arrive at anything else or at anything except evil, starting from the premise of man's original sin. Of all human conceptions, the conception of original sin is the most vicious and destructive one, much more so than the philosophical crimes committed by Hegel. If I were to select only one idea as the most depraved ever conceived by man, that is the one I would pick.

[all emphasis original]

From the Rand's next letter to Patterson...

Ayn Rand:

I am still more baffled by another paragraph of your letter: "There is an odd look about this sentence of yours: 'If I were to select one idea as the most depraved ever conceived by man, that (Original Sin) is the one I would pick.' You are sort of bringing in Original Sin by the back door while you throw it out the front, or vice versa, I don't know which, with the 'depraved idea conceived by man.'" This is where I just sit and stare at the words. As near as I can guess at what you mean, it seems to me that you are speaking of morality in some sort of deterministic terms. Did I mean that if man can conceive a depraved idea, he must be essentially depraved? I have always understood morality to apply only to the actions open to man's choice. I have always thought that morality cannot be divorced from free will. Therefore, man's essential nature is his ability to conceive a good idea or a depraved one. The nature of a being endowed with free will is that he is capable of both good and evil and must make the choice. If he is essentially incapable of evil, then he is good automatically, by predetermination, good without any choice about it---and if so, then he is outside the realm of morality. A robot, capable only of "good" (?) actions, is neither good nor evil. The fact that man can conceive a depraved idea does not make man depraved by nature. It merely leaves him what he is--free. He cannot be guilty by potentiality. He becomes guilty only by the choices he makes--if and when he chooses evil.

[snip]

Every man creates his own moral character by the choices he makes.

[all emphasis original]

Btw, I think Rand's discussion here makes it all the more clear why there is an ongoing debate with regard to whether or not ideas qua ideas can be considered "evil", within the Objectivist framework.

RCR

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Michael Stuart Kelly

Aug 23 2006, 12:00 AM

Christian,

Those are wonderful quotes.

Here is the crux of "idea is evil" within an Objectivist framework as I see it.

Of course an idea can be judged to be evil. However, this is a secondary judgment that is added to an essential one. This is a normative judgment added to a cognitive one. And it does not apply to all ideas. Also, "evil" means something slightly different when it is used as a judgment as opposed to an intrinsic characteristic.

Take the "Original Sin" idea. It is false because there is nothing rationally that shows this to have any relationship to reality. False. (Or, if your epistemological standard is faith, it is true because God said so in the Bible. But to a rational person, that method itself is false, so the conclusion obviously is, too.)

Only after the true-false judgment is made is the idea wedded to a bunch of other stuff, like how it was arrived at and what has been the result of it on man's life. This is the normative part. Notice that this even applies on one level to the man of faith. An idea will be good or evil because God said so, but you will be good or evil because you accept it on faith or not.

What Kelley has focused on is that there is a cognitive level where the normative does not apply. Thus it is possible for an idea to be outside of good/evil. Peikoff claims that the normative always applies to the cognitive level, so all ideas are either good or evil.

Kelley states that the cognitive always applies to ideas and the normative is sometimes added. Peikoff weds the two so that they are two faces of the same idea in all cases.

Kelley also claims that a person can hold an incorrect idea, even a destructive one, but not be evil. Much more information needs to be analyzed. Peikoff claims that if a person holds a rationally incorrect idea, regardless of the reason (except "honest error"), he is evading and is thus evil. No other information is needed for analysis. Kelley claims that a good man can take a false idea and not do evil with it, and an evil man can take a true idea and do evil with it. Peikoff claims that the nature of the idea determines the nature of the man. It doesn't matter what he does.

I think Peikoff is blasted out of the water with Rand's statement from your quote:

I have always understood morality to apply only to the actions open to man's choice. I have always thought that morality cannot be divorced from free will.

When she speaks of a "depraved idea," although not stated, it seems implicit that she is relying on both cognitive and normative levels in the proper order. Her phrase "man's essential nature is his ability to conceive a good idea or a depraved one" implies more than just concept formation. It implies choice and she even states it: "...he is capable of both good and evil and must make the choice". A choice is not a concept. The concept needs to exist before a choice about it can be made.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Victor Pross

Aug 25 2006, 01:52 PM

Michael,

I haven't picked up this thread because you have given me much to think about, that's all. I'm a big enough man to own up to this. So I didn't want you to think I was evading the subject or ignoring you in regards to it.

V

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: L W HALL

Aug 29 2006, 10:00 PM

Victor,

It seems you are being mentioned in conjunction with plagiarism once again, and from the looks of it they have a decent case.

http://www.solopassion.com/node/1496

L W

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Victor Pross

Aug 29 2006, 10:35 PM

And right after my caricature rendering, too. Wow. Kelley's philosophy has been identifed as sundering Objectivism's total mind-body integration...many times. But I'm not too concerned about it. It's a big yawn.

Read my take about the nature of the people at Solo:

"Adventures in the Cyber Objectivst World!" in the 'Meet and Greet' here.

This is key: "I saw mostly passion for heresy-hunting and endless nit-picking."

I wrote that last night, before the SLOP post.

If you agree with my conclusions found in there, don't write about it. It's mine. ;)

V

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Michael Russell

Aug 29 2006, 11:00 PM

"And right after my caricature rendering, too."

Yes, the "gallant Valliant" defends his dear leader against the evil caricature artist. Seems like you've hit a nerve Victor.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Victor Pross

Aug 29 2006, 11:13 PM

Hey Mike, you don’t know the half of it.

I don’t want to harp on this whole thing, but the SLOPPERS will find fault no matter what one does. If I jump in trying to defend myself it will constitute a “guilty conscious” and if I retreat into silence, it will “prove” a tacit admission of guilt. Either way, I’m guilty. In general philosophy, it's called 'rationalization.' [i hereby credit all philosophers who ever expounded on the concept of “rationalizations” including Ayn Rand.]

As for my caricature art getting under people’s skin, you better believe it. In Toronto, I’m famous for lampooning power-hungry, blubbering whale gut like Perigo, and the reactions have been explosive. It’s been in all the papers and articles--and TV. I kid you not! Yes, I’m a trouble maker. But I don't attack 'the good'--I use my powers to fight evil. ;)

Listen, if there is any interest in these articles--and the renderings that caused them—ask our very own MSK and Kat. I would be happy to have them posted here. They are a real fun hoot! Let your voice be heard.

Victor

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Michael Stuart Kelly

Aug 29 2006, 11:18 PM

I shouldn't say anything, but I can't resist.

I wonder if Valliant read the thread to this article where Hsieh's article and influence were discussed days ago. (Dayaamm! Did Valliant just now try to plagiarize me? Or even Victor?)

I see Hsieh still likes to publish private e-mails. At least it's her own this time. Remember, folks. If you ever send these dudes an e-mail, expect to see it publicly disclosed when they don't like you, if not quoted verbatim. They do that because they think it is correct to do that.

Now awaiting the next episode of

Victor Vented

btw - That was a wonderfully spot-on caricature, Victor. You sure got the natives riled.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Victor Pross

Aug 29 2006, 11:39 PM

When an ego-tist, that is the SLOP leader, is rendered in diapers, you better believe he’ll shit himself [wink-wink, I wrote that joke!]

I'm happy with the re-action. It shows the power of art...in this case, my art.

"That creature is lower than the lowest of the low." Lindsay Perigo, an other happy customer.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Victor Pross

Aug 30 2006, 01:05 AM

My, my, I have caused some drama here--perfect for a time when nothing is on TV but re-runs, and if any entertainment value is being derived, I'm happy. It is a value.

Here is an update: early tonight I edited the article in question as I didn't want to leave up material that could be understood as intent to plagiarize Hsieh. I emphatically do not consider it as such, but since there was a problem, I prefered to change it rather than bicker. [Yaaaaawn!]

Oh, you know what: It seems I have a little school-boy crush on Hsieh, and I do! But that was before her new posting photo went up--now she looks like a little school boy. [Oh, god...now I'm really in for it.] Hmmm, a caricature of Hsieh [my finger is arched across my chin in thinking mode.] B)

"That creature is lower than the lowest of the low." Lindsay Perigo, an other happy customer.

Ah, everybody is a critic! [must be the booze bottle in the picture].

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Posted by: Victor Pross

Aug 30 2006, 08:02 PM

Hello to all,

I am providing a link here to Hsieh's article for your convenience if anyone would care to see the issue for themselves. Take a look:

http://www.dianahsieh.com/blog/2006/03/dav...chotomy-in.html

If Hsieh feels she has been plagiarized in any manner, I request that she please contact me with the specific passages or specific complaints: artpross@hotmail.com.

I'll carefully analyze it and alter the article where I believe it is rationally justified. Thanks.

Victor