Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Daniel Barnes]

You want a false definition? Hell, that's easy. Point to a flock of swans and say, "The definition of a swan is a fish with three legs. Like those over there." That got both the genus and differentia wrong and proved it by pointing.

Here's a true definition (from the Free Online Dictionary): "Any of various large aquatic birds of the family Anatidae chiefly of the genera Cygnus and Olor, having webbed feet, a long slender neck, and usually white plumage."

Er...I specifically and repeatedly said that you can't use "mere conventions" (eg dictionary definitions) as your standard for truth or falsehood because Rand herself rejected them as such.

That leaves you with that amazing Objectivist truth-determining innovation you describe as "proving by pointing."

Which as my puppy example shows, "proves" nothing.

[Xray]

(bold type mine)

When we get to a higher concept like "selfish," which has several meanings in common usage, you have to be more careful. It's easy to do switch and bait, then conclude that this proves that definitions are useless. Or worse, as Rand's entire work shows, a switch and bait on meaning can confound a good person and lead him to accept toxic concepts as good for him, or good concepts as toxic, just because they come with the same name (label, tag) in his culture. The word "selfish" is one such example. Unfortunately, that word denotes several very different concepts.

Would you be so kind to list the 'several very different concepts' this 'higher concept' "selfish" denotes?

See also D. Barnes' # 281 post where he asked you to give your definition of "selfish":

D. Barnes:

View PostMichael Stuart Kelly, on 27 November 2009 - 11:33 AM, said:

"A true definition properly classifies stuff. A false definition incorrectly describes the category (or classification)."

DB: "Sounds terrific. So, just as I asked Merlin, let's see some actual examples of "true" vs "false" definitions that Rand identified, and the means by which she arrived at this determination.

After all, all our knowledge rests on this process!

I've given you a possible example in selfishness, but feel free to give us one of your own."

Michael, would you please also provide, for illustration purposes, an example of

a "good concept"

a "toxic concept".

Edited November 30, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

You want a false definition? Hell, that's easy. Point to a flock of swans and say, "The definition of a swan is a fish with three legs. Like those over there." That got both the genus and differentia wrong and proved it by pointing.

Here's a true definition (from the Free Online Dictionary): "Any of various large aquatic birds of the family Anatidae chiefly of the genera Cygnus and Olor, having webbed feet, a long slender neck, and usually white plumage."

Er...I specifically and repeatedly said that you can't use "mere conventions" (eg dictionary definitions) as your standard for truth or falsehood because Rand herself rejected them as such.

That leaves you with that amazing Objectivist truth-determining innovation you describe as "proving by pointing."

Which as my puppy example shows, "proves" nothing.

Rand called Peter Keating "A perfect example of a selfless man who is a ruthless, unprincipled egotist".

So per Rand, a murderer would be "selfless" too.

[Daniel Barnes]

Michael, would you please also provide, for illustration purposes, an example of

a "good concept"

a "toxic concept".

And perhaps walk us through the process by which their toxicity is determined?

[Daniel Barnes]

Rand called Peter Keating "A perfect example of a selfless man who is a ruthless, unprincipled egotist".

So per Rand, a murderer would be "selfless" too.

Yes, she pulls a similar move in "The Ethics of Emergencies" where she would have us believe that a psychopath who doesn't care about anyone else is a product of...altruism.

As Rand once famously remarked, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."...;-)

[jeffrey smith]

I would like to know what the referent of a concept is. IMO, there is no such thing. A concept is nothing more than an image produced in your brain, The image you imagine when I say 'chair' is your concept of a chair, period. One way we learn concepts is by observing examples chair₁, chair₂, chair₃, etc. and after we have seen enough we "get it", which means we can imagine "a chair" without seeing it. This imagined chair does not refer to specific "real" chair.

My own concept of "concept" (so to speak) makes it into a kind of Platonic Idea--but unlike Plato's version, it resides not in some supramundane world, but in the individual mind. A further implication of this is that concepts may differ from person to person because each has integrated the concept individually. Discussion and comparison to physical reality can of course ensure that no meaningful differences arise between individuals--so that all of us eventually understand "chair" to mean something which is used to sit upon, has legs and a backrest of some sort, and possibly arms to provide support to the human upper limbs--but how that understanding (definition, if you will) is presented to the individual may vary. This is complicated by the fact that humans think in different ways. Some of us thinking through sensory images, and others do no. I am a sensory thinker--that is, ideas arise in my mind represented by visual images or other data connected to the senses (a sound, a smell, a feeling through touch, a taste, etc.) and then are transposed, so to speak, into verbal formulations. So when I think of "chair", I actually see with my mind's eye a chair (usually either a Queen Anne chair or a modern office chair--and I have no idea of why these two particular forms are the images my mind prefers); more abstract concepts are carried by images, so that when the word "liberty" occurs, I immediately see in my mind that statue in New York Harbor (and again, I have no idea of why my mind uses that particular image in preference to other possibilities, such as a slave's chains being broken). This also means I have no real idea of how the process works in non-sensory thinkers. I've read that they think in words, but I never seen a description of the process to be sure of how that works.

Jeffrey S.

[9thdoctor]

As Rand once famously remarked, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."...;-)

I’m not familiar with this famous Rand quote, can you give a citation? It sounds more like Humpty-Dumpty to me.

[Steve Gagne]

Rand called Peter Keating "A perfect example of a selfless man who is a ruthless, unprincipled egotist".

So per Rand, a murderer would be "selfless" too.

In a sense, yes....maybe....

In the O-ist rulebook, there is a distinction drawn between those who deal with "concepts" (the "thinkers") vs. those who deal only with "concretes" (the "concrete-bound").

One who deals with concepts sees his $egoism (O-ist definition) -- his $selfishness (O-ist definition) -- as an ethical principle that applies not only to himself in the short run, but over the long run as well, not only to himself, but as a matter of consistency, projection, and empathy, to every other human being as well, as a human being ("man qua man"). Recognizing that each person, being a trader as it were, must give value for value to mutual benefit; reflecting a reciprocity and respect in all his dealings. BTW, the only people I have ever met who have actually practiced this consistently, without dissembling or subterfuge, identify themselves as Muslims. The rest have all shown themselves to be hypocrites, liars, and thieves.

One who deals with concretes sees his egoism (popular definition) -- his selfishness (popular definition) -- i.e., his egotism & bullying in his relationships / his narcissism & solipsism in orientation -- as a blanket permit to practice predatory, destructive actions against anyone with whom he deals, for his own short-term gain, whether it actually, objectively, aids himself or anyone else over the long run. This means that, although he may be acting for a short-term gain, he cannot conceive of acting for a long term benefit for himself, or for anyone else for that matter, which is an inherently self-destructive course of action. Since it is self-destructive, it is, by definition $selfless (O-ist definition). In Atlas Shrugged, this viewpoint was expressed by the character Cuffy Meigs, in his quasi-/pseudo-military persona, when he snapped, "In the long run, we'll all be dead."

So ask yourself, which category does the murderer fit in?

And for that matter, how do you see yourself?

Edited November 30, 2009 by Steve Gagne

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

And perhaps walk us through the process by which their toxicity is determined?

Daniel,

Health standards. Toxic stuff kills you or makes you sick.

I learned that when I was really young. I'm surprised you didn't learn that, yourself.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Er...I specifically and repeatedly said that you can't use "mere conventions" (eg dictionary definitions) as your standard for truth or falsehood because Rand herself rejected them as such.

Daniel,

This is incorrect. Rand, to my knowledge, never said a dictionary cannot have a proper definition using the genus-differentia model.

You're grasping, dude...

You're better than that.

Michael

EDIT: Rand even used dictionary definitions in some of her essays. (Admittedly, one has never been found, but that fudge is another issue...)

[Daniel Barnes]

As Rand once famously remarked, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."...;-)

I’m not familiar with this famous Rand quote, can you give a citation? It sounds more like Humpty-Dumpty to me.

It was a joke there, Ninth Doctor, hence the smiley with a wink...;-)

[Daniel Barnes]

And perhaps walk us through the process by which their toxicity is determined?

Health standards. Toxic stuff kills you or makes you sick.

I learned that when I was really young. I'm surprised you didn't learn that, yourself.

Well that's where you and I'd agree. Toxic ideas, when tested on people, kill them.

[BaalChatzaf]

Well that's where you and I'd agree. Toxic ideas, when tested on people, kill them.

Actions kill or injure. Bad ideas leave us defenseless.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Daniel Barnes]

This is incorrect. Rand, to my knowledge, never said a dictionary cannot have a proper definition using the genus-differentia model.

I wrote "eg", Mike. A dictionary is just an example of a convention. Further, I did not say that dictionaries mightn't contain definitions that Rand might agree with. I did say that she rejected convention as a standard for deciding a definition's truth or falsity.

Got that?

But once again, you could make your point so much more strongly if you just could come up with an actual example, preferably one of Rand's, of these amazingly important items.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

But once again, you could make your point so much more strongly if you just could come up with an actual example, preferably one of Rand's, of these amazingly important items.

Daniel,

How?

I just gave you an example and you ignored it.

How many amazing examples do you need to amazingly understand the amazing importance and amazing strength of the amazing point?

There's no sense in turning on the light for those who keep their eyes shut and demand you turn on the light.

Michael

[merjet]

But this is just exploiting a mere ambiguity in the word "decision", and nothing to do with the topic at hand.

You missed the point, despite my post #285 being very clear that my flour story was a counter-example to your alleged "well-known dichotomy between facts and decisions" and your claiming that a decision can't be derived from any set of facts. I showed an example of doing it, thus falsifying your alleged dichotomy.

There is a well known fact/value dichotomy. I had never heard of any fact/decision dichotomy.

I used "decision" in a standard way. When somebody takes a multiple choice or true-false test, he or she makes a decision about which answer is correct. My flour story gave a true-false question. I won't venture to guess what Xray means by "decision"; I'm no expert in Xray-speak, nor do I have any desire to be one.

One cup in a recipe is a well known standard amount. I find it ironic that such a devoted conventionalist can abuse conventional meanings so much.

I'm still waiting for your answers to:

1. the puppy multiple choice question;

2. what definitions rest on per Rand; and

3. how convention works when new words are invented.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[merjet]

Further, I did not say that dictionaries mightn't contain definitions that Rand might agree with. I did say that she rejected convention as a standard for deciding a definition's truth or falsity.

If you believe dictionaries might contain definitions with which Rand might agree, then why tell MSK he can't use them? LOL on the second sentence. Keep practicing. Some day you might be as good as Xray.

Er...I specifically and repeatedly said that you can't use "mere conventions" (eg dictionary definitions) as your standard for truth or falsehood because Rand herself rejected them as such.

Edited November 30, 2009 by Merlin Jetton

[tjohnson]

My own concept of "concept" (so to speak) makes it into a kind of Platonic Idea--but unlike Plato's version, it resides not in some supramundane world, but in the individual mind. A further implication of this is that concepts may differ from person to person because each has integrated the concept individually. Discussion and comparison to physical reality can of course ensure that no meaningful differences arise between individuals--so that all of us eventually understand "chair" to mean something which is used to sit upon, has legs and a backrest of some sort, and possibly arms to provide support to the human upper limbs--but how that understanding (definition, if you will) is presented to the individual may vary. This is complicated by the fact that humans think in different ways. Some of us thinking through sensory images, and others do no. I am a sensory thinker--that is, ideas arise in my mind represented by visual images or other data connected to the senses (a sound, a smell, a feeling through touch, a taste, etc.) and then are transposed, so to speak, into verbal formulations. So when I think of "chair", I actually see with my mind's eye a chair (usually either a Queen Anne chair or a modern office chair--and I have no idea of why these two particular forms are the images my mind prefers); more abstract concepts are carried by images, so that when the word "liberty" occurs, I immediately see in my mind that statue in New York Harbor (and again, I have no idea of why my mind uses that particular image in preference to other possibilities, such as a slave's chains being broken). This also means I have no real idea of how the process works in non-sensory thinkers. I've read that they think in words, but I never seen a description of the process to be sure of how that works.

Jeffrey S.

This is more or less is how I view concepts as well.

[Xray]

And perhaps walk us through the process by which their toxicity is determined?

Daniel,

Health standards. Toxic stuff kills you or makes you sick.

I learned that when I was really young. I'm surprised you didn't learn that, yourself.

Michael

Michael,

But the issue was toxic concepts, not "toxic stuff", like quicksilver or heroin whose effects on the body can be objectively analyzed.

The objective biological fact that the intake of these substances has a specific effect on the body exists independently of choice. Therefore a person cannot ingest quicksilver and choose it not to harm them - for it will.

Biological processes as such exist independently of a valuer; they are not subject to choice and therefore do not constitute value in and of themselves, i.e., do not constitute an "objective value/non-value."

Whether a person attributes value or not to a substance is entirely a matter of subjective choice. For example, someone planning to commit suicide with zyankali will value its biological effects.

A heroin addict will value the effect of the drug despite knowing of its toxic effects on the body.

Now with alleged "toxic" concepts, it is a whole different ball game.

While there exist objective criteria in determining the toxic effects of a chemical substance, there is no such objective frame of reference when it comes to terms like "toxic concept". For the use of the term "toxic" here is figurative speech; it is connotative use of language expressing nothing more than a subjective value judgement based on personal preferences.

So while the concepts of a certain ideology may be called "good" by the advocates of said ideology, its opponents may be call them "toxic".

Where do we take it from there?

Edited November 30, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

[Daniel Barnes]

I used "decision" in a standard way.

LOL! It is also quite "standard" to say, for example, that a game is decided by the roll of the dice. Are you going to tell us next that dice make decisions?

Dragonfly's right: your word-games are just a bit too transparent.

One cup in a recipe is a well known standard amount. I find it ironic that such a devoted conventionalist can abuse conventional meanings so much.

How much longer can you deliberately misunderstand the problem, I wonder?

[Selene]

Just for the record, this does not support your point because the decisions that you made prior to the dice roll put you in a poor position wherein the dice could, at that point in time, decide who wins the game.

"...a game is decided by the roll of the dice. Are you going to tell us next that dice make decisions?"

This is true of any game that has a degree of chance. For example, backgammon is considered by most to be a game of luck or dice. I love the game, It is almost pure math, but there is a degree of chance. However, as a wonderful book [i highly recommend to everyone who likes the game] Backgammon for Blood explains, if you understand math, there is almost no luck in the game.

One of the reasons that I love chess is that it is pure skill.

It is almost a winning mantra in any physical competitive sport where there is an umpire that you should never put yourself or your team mates in a position where an umpire's call could decide the game.

I think the Marines have a similar concept along the lines of "If a Marine finds himself in a fair fight, somebody fucked up!"

Adam

[9thdoctor]

As Rand once famously remarked, "When I use a word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less."...;-)

I’m not familiar with this famous Rand quote, can you give a citation? It sounds more like Humpty-Dumpty to me.

It was a joke there, Ninth Doctor, hence the smiley with a wink...;-)

Your credibility is blown in my book.

[tjohnson]

Suppose I'm following a recipe that calls for 4 cups of flour. There is some flour in my cupboard, but I can't tell whether or not there is at least 4 cups simply by looking in the bag. So, according to what you said, there is no logical way to decide if there is at least 4 cups of flour in the bag. Also, according to Xray, whether or not there is at least 4 cups is subjective and cannot be objectively discovered. This is another example of Xray holding that some truth is subjective.

The issue is not if there is a "logical way to decide if there is at least 4 cups of flour in the bag", the issue is if there there is a logical way to decide what the definition of a word is. The answer is ....no.

[Xray]

Rand called Peter Keating "A perfect example of a selfless man who is a ruthless, unprincipled egotist".

So per Rand, a murderer would be "selfless" too.

In a sense, yes....maybe....

In the O-ist rulebook, there is a distinction drawn between those who deal with "concepts" (the "thinkers") vs. those who deal only with "concretes" (the "concrete-bound").

If the first group are "the thinkers", then the second (opposing) group don't think?

But if they do think, how can one not think in concepts?

And what exactly are those "concretes" they deal with?

Jmo Rand's ballyhoo about "concept formation" makes it appear far more complicated than it is.

Young children can already categorize within their developmental capacity (for that's what Rand meant by "concept formation": classifying, i. e. forming linguistic categories in mind).

Every day, one of my kindergartners is chosen to announce what's for lunch, and a few days ago, the four- year-old seeing the apples, bananans and pears in a bowl, said: "And for dessert, we have fruit". Clearly an act of categorizing. So, where's the complicated mental feat in all that?

Recognizing that each person, being a trader as it were, must give value for value to mutual benefit; reflecting a reciprocity and respect in all his dealings. BTW, the only people I have ever met who have actually practiced this consistently, without dissembling or subterfuge, identify themselves as Muslims. The rest have all shown themselves to be hypocrites, liars, and thieves.

Steve, are you really serious about this?

One who deals with concretes sees his egoism (popular definition) -- his selfishness (popular definition) -- i.e., his egotism & bullying in his relationships / his narcissism & solipsism in orientation -- as a blanket permit to practice predatory, destructive actions against anyone with whom he deals, for his own short-term gain, whether it actually, objectively, aids himself or anyone else over the long run.

So the "concrete-bound" is the egotistic bullying, narcissisitic, solipsistic, predatory, destructive altruist? I suppose we can add the "mooching mystic" and the "looting thug" to the mix too?

In Atlas Shrugged, this viewpoint was expressed by the character Cuffy Meigs, in his quasi-/pseudo-military persona, when he snapped, "In the long run, we'll all be dead."

"In the long run, we'll all be dead" is a statement of fact which is clearly irrefutable, one has to give Cuffy Meigs that.

So ask yourself, which category does the murderer fit in?

Steve, imo all these moochers, looters, solipsists etc. populating Rand's subjectively invented categories are mere figments of her imagination - local residents in the mind of their creator.

And for that matter, how do you see yourself?

Since anyone can create their personal categories, I have decided to put me in "premise-checkers" here.

Edited December 1, 2009 by Xray