Logical Structure of Objectivism

[merjet]

Does this make sense?

Adam

Sure does. Aristotle on the Common Sense. Review by yours truly.

[Christopher]

GS,

Close your eyes, try not to think of any words and imagine you are seeing an orange.

Bingo.

Visual concept.

And it was already there. You merely retrieved it from memory.

What you see internally will apply to all oranges you encounter. And if you think about it, even though it was not consciously explicit, the "idea" (not necessarily the vision) of a tree was in the background as a sort-of genus. In your internal image, you somehow knew the fruit came from trees (which can bear all kinds of fruit).

You can do this with the other senses as well with all kinds of other stuff, including all kinds of mixes and permutations.

Language just makes all this mental stuff easier by putting labels on things that we can manipulate with a great deal of flexibility. Language arises from the mental stuff and adds to it. Language does not replace it.

Michael

Jesus Christ, this is genius! Yes, in fact, the mind has two main short-term memory systems (roughly speaking): the phonological loop and the visuospatial sketchpad. Although for communications sake we often use words to direct conceptual thought, we could just as easily hold up plaques with pictures to communicate. We could input those communications through the visuospatial sketchpad, and those would be our working conceptual stuff. Words simply do not exist in the sketchpad, unless we discuss written words, and those writings are merely symbolic pictures rather than meanings (the way we might look at a Chinese symbol not being at all fluent in the language).

[Daniel Barnes]

And since when is criticism of ideas the same as throwing bricks?

What Dragonfly said.

I'm not saying, oh, Rand smelt funny or a crap haircut or had cooties.

I'm criticising the foundations of her theory of knowledge.

But Adam thinks this is attacking "greatness"!

Actually it's attacking wrongness!

[Selene]

And since when is criticism of ideas the same as throwing bricks?

What Dragonfly said.

I'm not saying, oh, Rand smelt funny or a crap haircut or had cooties.

I'm criticising the foundations of her theory of knowledge.

But Adam thinks this is attacking "greatness"!

Actually it's attacking wrongness!

Wow...you are so clever.

I am speechless before a half witty, banal attempt at humor.

Was Ms. Xray your school teacher also?

Adam

[Daniel Barnes]

And since when is criticism of ideas the same as throwing bricks?

This is a point perhaps worth briefly dwelling on.

The question I would also ask is where did Adam get the idea that criticising Rand's theories is somehow attacking "greatness"?

Further, what sort of intellectual system would try to promote the idea that criticism of its theories is attacking "greatness" - as if criticism was somehow immoral?

I suggest a particularly fragile one.

[tjohnson]

Since we did not have a common language, but we had a common conceptualization tool that exists within each human being. We would still be able to communicate though with an ability to conceptualize by categorization of similarities and differences. Was it this big? No it was that big. Point to your eyes to inquire whether you "saw" it? or Point to your ears and inquire as to whether you "heard" it?

What you are describing sounds like a rudimentary language I think communicating at this level would not be sophisticated enough to allow for concepts.

[Daniel Barnes]

Aways make backups when you're writing posts, especially if they're long!

Just as saving often in computer games...

Yes I usually do.

Usually...;-)

[Selene]

And since when is criticism of ideas the same as throwing bricks?

This is a point perhaps worth briefly dwelling on.

The question I would also ask is where did Adam get the idea that criticising Rand's theories is somehow attacking "greatness"?

Further, what sort of intellectual system would try to promote the idea that criticism of its theories is attacking "greatness" - as if criticism was somehow immoral?

I suggest a particularly fragile one.

I actually did not get the idea from the place wherein, a person, like yourself, who wishes to intentionally distort the context of a statement that they are attributing to a person obtained your "skill" at distortion.

"Is there some self aggrandizing pleasure that some folks get with a "gotcha" on a great person, be it Ayn or Aristotle or Kant or Marx?

I just do not get what they get out of throwing bricks at greatness..."

Gotcha would equal the Ayn smelled bad comment you divorced yourself from.

Additionally, if you chose to fully represent what I clearly stated, you would have included the fact that I mentioned others in my description of greatness [i have a much longer list]. Do I personally believe that Ayn achieved greatness?

Absolutely.

Adam

[Daniel Barnes]

I actually did not get the idea from the place wherein, a person, like yourself, who wishes to intentionally distort the context of a statement that they are attributing to a person obtained your "skill" at distortion.

"Is there some self aggrandizing pleasure that some folks get with a "gotcha" on a great person, be it Ayn or Aristotle or Kant or Marx?

I just do not get what they get out of throwing bricks at greatness..."

Gotcha would equal the Ayn smelled bad comment you divorced yourself from.

I genuinely do not understand what you trying to say here.

Additionally, if you chose to fully represent what I clearly stated, you would have included the fact that I mentioned others in my description of greatness [i have a much longer list].

What I said applied equally to Marxism, Aristotelianism etc. as to Objectivism. That I thought was the point.

Edited November 24, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Selene]

I actually did not get the idea from the place wherein, a person, like yourself, who wishes to intentionally distort the context of a statement that they are attributing to a person obtained your "skill" at distortion.

"Is there some self aggrandizing pleasure that some folks get with a "gotcha" on a great person, be it Ayn or Aristotle or Kant or Marx?

I just do not get what they get out of throwing bricks at greatness..."

Gotcha would equal the Ayn smelled bad comment you divorced yourself from.

I genuinely do not understand what you trying to say here.

Additionally, if you chose to fully represent what I clearly stated, you would have included the fact that I mentioned others in my description of greatness [i have a much longer list].

What I said applied equally to Marxism, Aristotelianism etc. as to Objectivism. That I thought was the point.

Maybe you should work a little harder to understand what a person is communicating.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Close your eyes, try not to think of any words and imagine you are seeing an orange.

Bingo.

Visual concept.

And it was already there. You merely retrieved it from memory.

But you had to use the word 'orange' in order for me to retrieve that image. The word and the concept go together, don't you think?

GS,

Of course words and concepts go together. A word that does not stand for a concept is a grunt. And even that could stand for the concept of an emotion.

We happen to be communicating in words right now. So I used words. That doesn't exclude the validity of the visual concept. All I did was simply provide a method for you to experience it.

My thinking differs a bit from Rand's on concepts, though. She claimed that a concept was not complete without a word to represent it. I hold that concepts can exist without words, although their referents are more limited than those for verbal concepts.

Think about a musical "vocabulary," for instance. A sour note does not need a word to be identified as not part of the musical concept of the moment. People say this is "felt," but it is much more than that. A "sense" of key is learned and integrated in the same manner verbal concepts are.

If I give you pictures with the writing, will that help?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jesus Christ, this is genius!

Christopher,

Absolutely.

Michael

[Selene]

Yep.

"A 'sense' of key is learned and integrated in the same manner verbal concepts are."

I love music, any kind of music, even the electric techno stuff. However, the 12 toned Sitar sounds just not right, but I can enjoy it.

Adam

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This is what happens when you imagine that observation cannot confirm or falsify stuff and that only word games can.

WTF?

Daniel.

This is about a principle regarding the establishment of validity based on observation alone.

We could call it...

... drum roll...

...

... more drum roll...

Without Tautological Falsification

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Maybe you should work a little harder to understand what a person is communicating.

I agree with Daniel, I can't make head or tail of your post. This is not the cryptogram forum.

[Selene]

Maybe you should work a little harder to understand what a person is communicating.

I agree with Daniel, I can't make head or tail of your post. This is not the cryptogram forum.

Not worth reconstructing.

Adam

[Daniel Barnes]

Without Tautological Falsification

Mike, your comments on this topic so far are completely hatstand. ;-)

Edited November 24, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Daniel,

Me?

Roger Irrelevant?

Is that falsifiable?

At lease, according to your standard, it can't be true...

Michael

[Dragonfly]

At lease, according to your standard, it can't be true...

At lease?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Dragonfly,

Dayamm!

Where did my anti-typo protection ring go?

And you mentioned the typo in a quip, so now I have to leave it for all eternity...

Michael

[merjet]

I'm criticising the foundations of her theory of knowledge.

Huh?

Although, chronologically, man's consciousness develops in three stages: the stage of sensations, the perceptual, the conceptual—epistemologically, the base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage. (ITOE2, 5)

To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions, one must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which they were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate their connection to their base in perceptual reality. (ITOE2, 51)

[Daniel Barnes]

I'm criticising the foundations of her theory of knowledge.

Huh?

Although, chronologically, man's consciousness develops in three stages: the stage of sensations, the perceptual, the conceptual—epistemologically, the base of all of man's knowledge is the perceptual stage. (ITOE2, 5)

To know the exact meaning of the concepts one is using, one must know their correct definitions, one must be able to retrace the specific (logical, not chronological) steps by which they were formed, and one must be able to demonstrate their connection to their base in perceptual reality. (ITOE2, 51)

Rand: "The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions." (My bold, italics in original).

Please don't tell me you want to have a debate about the meaning of the word "foundations"...;-)

Edited November 25, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Xray]

Of course sacrifice is always about a loss of something valuable, ...

Thank you for undercutting your earlier claim "in the common definition sacrifice is gain."

You still don't get it, do you? Let me spell it out then: sacrifice is a deliberate loss to gain something of more value.

Correct. There exists no act of sacrifice without the expectation on the sacrificer's part to gain something of higher value in return for what he/she gives. This principle applies without exception. Every sacrifice is basically a trade.

Edited November 25, 2009 by Xray

[merjet]

Rand: "The truth or falsehood of all of man’s conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions." (My bold, italics in original).

Please don't tell me you want to have a debate about the meaning of the word "foundations"...;-)

What do the definitions rest on? Nothing? See the 2nd quote again.

[merjet]

Correct. There exists no act of sacrifice without the expectation on the sacrificer's part to gain something of higher value in return for what he/she gives. This principle applies without exception. Every sacrifice is basically a trade.

Wrong, evasive hogwash repeated for umpteenth time.