Logical Structure of Objectivism

[Steve Gagne]

In the O-ist rulebook....

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

Previously, you had asked if a murderer was "selfless" (within the context of O-ism). I showed that. You appear to be laboring under a mistaken impression, that I was engaging not just to describe, but to justify the O-ist appraisal.

[merjet]

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.

You obviously missed the point of my flour story.

You are entitled to your opinion.

[tjohnson]

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.

You obviously missed the point of my flour story.

You are entitled to your opinion.

I think the point of your flour story is to change the topic and so I am attempting to return to it.

[merjet]

I think the point of your flour story is to change the topic ...

Wrong. You missed the point again.

[Daniel Barnes]

Your credibility is blown in my book.

I thought it was rather obviously a joke, it's been cracked before by me and by others, apologies for any misunderstanding.

[Xray]

I thought it was rather obviously a joke, it's been cracked before by me and by others, apologies for any misunderstanding.

What made the joke so good was that Rand could have said exactly that.

Steve Gagne: Previously, you had asked if a murderer was "selfless" (within the context of O-ism). I showed that. You appear to be laboring under a mistaken impression, that I was engaging not just to describe, but to justify the O-ist appraisal.

I did have this impression, yes. Sorry if I was mistaken.

You had asked me in # 308:

And for that matter, how do you see yourself?

I answered it in # 325 and would like to ask you the same: And for that matter, how do you see yourself?

As for "selfless":

Imo why Rand came up with the strange construction "selfless" (for those not sharing her values) was because she needed an opposite expressed in language.

Since the "self-ish" guys were the good guys, the bad guys simply got the opposing label "self-less" from her.

Edited December 2, 2009 by Xray

[Daniel Barnes]

What made the joke so good was that Rand could have said exactly that.

Well, exactly...;-)

[Alfonso Jones]

As for "selfless":

Imo why Rand came up with the strange construction "selfless" (for those not sharing her values) was because she needed an opposite expressed in language.

Since the "self-ish" guys were the good guys, the bad guys simply got the opposing label "self-less" from her.

Xray -

Have you considered reading and checking out Rand's definition and use of the term as an alternative to just making this stuff up about her motives?

I'd suggest browsing to

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selflessness.html

and seeing what you find there. This will work more generally - use the lexicon to see uses of the term in Rand's writing. That way you can find out how she actually uses a term, and what definition she gives of the term - which is far preferable to just making up silly stuff, imputing it to Rand, and then arguing against it.

Bill P

[9thdoctor]

I thought it was rather obviously a joke, it's been cracked before by me and by others, apologies for any misunderstanding.

What made the joke so good was that Rand could have said exactly that.

Well, exactly...;-)

Oh great, so it's not even your own joke, you swiped it from someone else. At least this other (unnamed) writer gave correct attribution for the quote. In contrast, you tried to pull a fast one.

Your apology rings hollow, is tinged with mockery, and there’s no indication that you won’t be engaging in this practice in the future. So, henceforth the rest of us must be on the lookout for Barnesquoating®, which is the intentional misattribution of statements utterly opposite or alien to an author’s views, with at most a subtle indication that the poster is joking in some way; maybe the quote is made up, but there are myriad possibilities as to what the poster is laughing/winking about. Barnesquoating® is by definition done in bad faith and its practitioners earn/deserve no credibility or respect for practicing it.

The posts of a once prolific (now banned) writer on this forum now carry a warning label as plagiary contaminated, keep this up and you may just earn yourself a similar fate.

Do you dispute that what you did was wrong?

Edited December 2, 2009 by Ninth Doctor

[Xray]

As for "selfless":

Imo why Rand came up with the strange construction "selfless" (for those not sharing her values) was because she needed an opposite expressed in language.

Since the "self-ish" guys were the good guys, the bad guys simply got the opposing label "self-less" from her.

Xray -

Have you considered reading and checking out Rand's definition and use of the term as an alternative to just making this stuff up about her motives?

I'd suggest browsing to

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selflessness.html

and seeing what you find there. This will work more generally - use the lexicon to see uses of the term in Rand's writing. That way you can find out how she actually uses a term, and what definition she gives of the term - which is far preferable to just making up silly stuff, imputing it to Rand, and then arguing against it.

Bill P

Bill P -

I'm familiar with the AR lexicon, thanks.

I have also read both her non-fiction magna opera ITOE and TVOS.

I know what Rand's idea of "selflessness" is. Keep in mind that "selflessness", whether in Rand's "interpretation" or in common language usage (where the meaning is different) is a purely connotative term expressing a subjective value judgement.

Rand's interpretation of "selfless" does not denote anything, despite her suggesting the contrary by calling the "selfless man" "the one who does not think, feel judge or act".

Which is of course factually incorrect since every person thinks, feels, judges or acts.

In short, Rand's alleged definition is no definition at all.

It merely expresses her personal opinion, where she labels those as "selfless" who do not happen to "feel, judge or act" in a way she approves of. Simple as that.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Xray

[Daniel Barnes]

The posts of a once prolific (now banned) writer on this forum now carry a warning label as plagiary contaminated, keep this up and you may just earn yourself a similar fate.

Oh, really? Listen: It just so happens I was the first person to bust that legendary twit Victor Pross when he started re-offending. I spotted he'd pinched large chunks of Nicholas Dyke's essay "A Tangled Web of Guesses" and was passing it off as his own. My exposing his recidivism led to his banning.

So no: I'm not going to be earning myself a "similar fate" anytime soon. In fact I've never heard such hilarious drivel. Why don't you sue yourself for pretending to be Christopher Ecclestone?

Do you dispute that what you did was wrong?

LOL! Don't be such a nimrod.

[9thdoctor]

Do you dispute that what you did was wrong?

LOL! Don't be such a nimrod.

I take it this is as close as you will come to asserting that it is acceptable to deliberately misattribute quotations (Barnesquoating®). I’m not going to descend to name calling, I’m done with you.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object> Edited December 3, 2009 by Ninth Doctor

[jeffrey smith]

Do you dispute that what you did was wrong?

LOL! Don't be such a nimrod.

I take it this is as close as you will come to asserting that it is acceptable to deliberately misattribute quotations (Barnesquoating®). I’m not going to descend to name calling, I’m done with you.

Pace, signore!

Daniel made an extremely obvious allusion to Alicia in Terra Mirabilis.

You may think that it was a joke without much humor to it, but it was far from plagiarism.

Jeffrey S.

(whose high school library contained the Latin translations of both Alice books]

[Xray]

Oh great, so it's not even your own joke, you swiped it from someone else. At least this other (unnamed) writer gave correct attribution for the quote. In contrast, you tried to pull a fast one.

Your apology rings hollow, is tinged with mockery, and there’s no indication that you won’t be engaging in this practice in the future. So, henceforth the rest of us must be on the lookout for Barnesquoating®, which is the intentional misattribution of statements utterly opposite or alien to an author’s views, with at most a subtle indication that the poster is joking in some way; maybe the quote is made up, but there are myriad possibilities as to what the poster is laughing/winking about. Barnesquoating® is by definition done in bad faith and its practitioners earn/deserve no credibility or respect for practicing it.

The posts of a once prolific (now banned) writer on this forum now carry a warning label as plagiary contaminated, keep this up and you may just earn yourself a similar fate.

Do you dispute that what you did was wrong?

What are you talking about? A joke has no owner and therefore can't be 'stolen'. Same as with 'stolen' concept.

Edited December 3, 2009 by Xray

[Alfonso Jones]

As for "selfless":

Imo why Rand came up with the strange construction "selfless" (for those not sharing her values) was because she needed an opposite expressed in language.

Since the "self-ish" guys were the good guys, the bad guys simply got the opposing label "self-less" from her.

Xray -

Have you considered reading and checking out Rand's definition and use of the term as an alternative to just making this stuff up about her motives?

I'd suggest browsing to

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selflessness.html

and seeing what you find there. This will work more generally - use the lexicon to see uses of the term in Rand's writing. That way you can find out how she actually uses a term, and what definition she gives of the term - which is far preferable to just making up silly stuff, imputing it to Rand, and then arguing against it.

Bill P

Bill P -

I'm familiar with the AR lexicon, thanks.

I have also read both her non-fiction magna opera ITOE and TVOS.

I know what Rand's idea of "selflessness" is. Keep in mind that "selflessness", whether in Rand's "interpretation" or in common language usage (where the meaning is different) is a purely connotative term expressing a subjective value judgement.

Rand's interpretation of "selfless" does not denote anything, despite her suggesting the contrary by calling the "selfless man" "the one who does not think, feel judge or act".

Which is of course factually incorrect since every person thinks, feels, judges or acts.

In short, Rand's alleged definition is no definition at all.

It merely expresses her personal opinion, where she labels those as "selfless" who do not happen to "feel, judge or act" in a way she approves of. Simple as that.

Sad. If you had not "read" then it would be simpler to prescribe a way to attempt to reduce your confusion. As it is, by your own report you have read. The sad thing is that you continue to refuse to read Rand in context, and continue to attempt to play these verbal tricks.

It is useless to attempt discussion with you. I doubt any of this will ever make sense to you. To understand anything (Rand, Kant, physics, you name it...) you will need to concentrate, to endeavor to understand and to attempt to build understanding on understanding - starting with basics and progressing from there. If you just persist in playing word games you will never understand Rand, modern physics, or Kant. That's not the path of the learner.

Bill P

Edited December 3, 2009 by Bill P

[9thdoctor]

Pace, signore!

Daniel made an extremely obvious allusion to Alicia in Terra Mirabilis.

You may think that it was a joke without much humor to it, but it was far from plagiarism.

I didn’t call it plagiarism, it was misattribution with intent to deceive. You say it was extremely obvious, I beg to differ. I wouldn’t assume everyone visiting this forum shares your level of familiarity with Lewis Carroll. This is a matter of principle, and I say Barnesquoating® is not an acceptable practice. Even in the furtherance of a really good joke (this Humpty Dumpty one was marginal at best).

[Selene]

Ten little, nine little, eight little OL conversationalists,

Seven little, six little, five little OL conversationalists,

Four little, three little, two little OL conversationalists,

One little OL conversationalist ...and then there were...

Edited December 3, 2009 by Selene

[Daniel Barnes]

[

That, I believe, is called a note of sanity...;-)

[Dragonfly]

Jeez... the reference to Humpty Dumpty in Through the Looking Glass is soooooo obvious to any intellectual... Just as every intellectual will know the composer of the music example with "O Freunde, nicht diese Töne!", what work it is, as well as the author of those words.

[Ellen Stuttle]

Oh, really? Listen: It just so happens I was the first person to bust that legendary twit Victor Pross when he started re-offending. I spotted he'd pinched large chunks of Nicholas Dyke's essay "A Tangled Web of Guesses" and was passing it off as his own. My exposing his recidivism led to his banning.

A couple factual details: He'd been offending in between. And, no, it wasn't your "exposing his recidivism" that "led to his banning" -- not without quite a few other occurrences in process.

Re the substance of this thread, I do think, Daniel, that you miss the difference between a concept and a word. (Lest MSK says I've never said such a thing before, yes, I have, but it was lost in the then-current issue, which was whether or not AR was "essentialist" in her approach to definitions.)

Ellen

[Daniel Barnes]

A couple factual details: He'd been offending in between. And, no, it wasn't your "exposing his recidivism" that "led to his banning" -- not without quite a few other occurrences in process.

Well the way I remember it is: up till then he'd been keeping his nose pretty much clean, supposedly.

Then I spotted his pinching. As far as I recall it was this event that set people off on the hunt again uncovering other plagiarism. (In fact I even remember my post as saying words to the effect of: are you up to your old tricks again, Victor?) Obviously there were other subsequent events involved. I said it "led to". I'm not being self-aggrandising, I just wasn't about to write a potted history of the bloody incident.

Re the substance of this thread, I do think, Daniel, that you miss the difference between a concept and a word.

I think you're quite wrong about that. Yes, Rand ostensibly makes the distinction.

But in practice it results in the same problem. That's the point.

[Dragonfly]

Well the way I remember it is: up till then he'd been keeping his nose pretty much clean, supposedly.

Then I spotted his pinching. As far as I recall it was this event that set people off on the hunt again uncovering other plagiarism.

Yes, I remember it very well. When that happened I also became alert to plagiarism in his posts and found some nice examples myself. The rest is history, so you're fully justified in claiming that your exposing his plagiarism led to his banning from the forum.

[Xray]

Sad. If you had not "read" then it would be simpler to prescribe a way to attempt to reduce your confusion.

ITOE is so full of errors that discussing them all would fill a book. Is is the errors which cause confusion.

As it is, by your own report you have read. The sad thing is that you continue to refuse to read Rand in context, and continue to attempt to play these verbal tricks.

Does labeling as "verbal tricks" the exposure of errors in Rand's work distract from the errors being fact?

For example, when I tell you that the term "affection" is applicable only in regard to persons, would you say I'm correct or in error?

What do you think of sentences like "tiredness is tired", "humger is hungry", "consciousness is conscious"? Correct? Does any of them make sense to you? If yes, why? If not, why not?

It is useless to attempt discussion with you. I doubt any of this will ever make sense to you.

sDoes it make sense to you? If yes, then could you please explain waht e. g. a "contextual absolute" is? For the very meaning of absolute implies that it is independent of context.

Just some xape of Rand's word creations having no basis in fact.

To understand anything (Rand, Kant, physics, you name it...) you will need to concentrate, to endeavor to understand and to attempt to build understanding on understanding - starting with basics and progressing from there. If you just persist in playing word games you will never understand Rand, modern physics, or Kant. That's not the path of the learner.

Bill P

I always start at the basics. This is also essential in my work as a teacher where I work every day at helping learners to find their path.

As for "starting with the basics" in terms of Rand's work: if you like, we can analyze ITOE in detail here at OL. Interested?

[Alfonso Jones]

Sad. If you had not "read" then it would be simpler to prescribe a way to attempt to reduce your confusion.

ITOE is so full of errors that discussing them all would fill a book. Is is the errors which cause confusion.

As it is, by your own report you have read. The sad thing is that you continue to refuse to read Rand in context, and continue to attempt to play these verbal tricks.

Does labeling as "verbal tricks" the exposure of errors in Rand's work distract from the errors being fact?

For example, when I tell you that the term "affection" is applicable only in regard to persons, would you say I'm correct or in error?

What do you think of sentences like "tiredness is tired", "humger is hungry", "consciousness is conscious"? Correct? Does any of them make sense to you? If yes, why? If not, why not?

It is useless to attempt discussion with you. I doubt any of this will ever make sense to you.

sDoes it make sense to you? If yes, then could you please explain waht e. g. a "contextual absolute" is? For the very meaning of absolute implies that it is independent of context.

Just some xape of Rand's word creations having no basis in fact.

To understand anything (Rand, Kant, physics, you name it...) you will need to concentrate, to endeavor to understand and to attempt to build understanding on understanding - starting with basics and progressing from there. If you just persist in playing word games you will never understand Rand, modern physics, or Kant. That's not the path of the learner.

Bill P

I always start at the basics. This is also essential in my work as a teacher where I work every day at helping learners to find their path.

As for "starting with the basics" in terms of Rand's work: if you like, we can analyze ITOE in detail here at OL. Interested?

Xray -

Your inability or unwillingness to have a rational discussion has been repeatedly demonstrated in your interactions with many on OL. I do not believe that you would be able to analyze ITOE, or even some or Rand's more accessible writings.

You are seen through, Xray. And found to be lacking in substance.

Bill P

[Selene]

And this is why you should home school:

This mentally malicious individual that will subjectively infect these poor young minds with everything is subjective, there is no moral path, food is poison, air is a subjective choice.

Death is fine if you subjectively choose it.

"I always start at the basics. This is also essential in my work as a teacher where I work every day at helping learners to find their path."

I clearly remember Ayn's little story about the mother bird bringing her fledgelings to the end of the limb and before pushing them out into the world to survive, she breaks their wings.

Their wings are the key ability that enhances their survival, yet the mother bird damages that ability.

Ayn would ask what the person thought of that specific mother bird...and the answer is that that mother bird was a monster.

I present to you, Ms. Xray.

Would you want her teaching your five (5) year old?

Adam