Logical Structure of Objectivism

[tjohnson]

I must say that Daniel seems to have an intense dislike of Objectivism and Rand. I feel similarly about general semantics as many here feel about objectivism but I am interested in translating ideas from one system to another, if possible. I see no value in attacking objectivism this way in such emotional terms - especially on an objectivism site!

[Daniel Barnes]

I don't think Christopher objected to your question so much as to your wrong assertion that he's your best example of an "utter waste of intelligent mind" on "trivial fool's errands."

Tsk, tsk. I didn't say that, Michael. You should know better than that.

Christopher's request that I define "definition" is what I was referring to as a "fool's errand". And it certainly is! That is what dictionaries were invented for.

Christoper is undoubtedly intelligent, but in this part of his intellectual endeavours at least I fear he has been scandalously misdirected.

He is far too intelligent and intependent in his thinking to succumb to intimidation or preaching.

Oh pshaw. If he's the fragile flower you make out, however did he make it through a typical Randian essay without fainting dead away? ;-) Don't be so patronising.

I don't think Christopher is like that for a moment. I'm sure he can look after himself. However, I do think he doesn't have an answer for the problem he's been presented with.

OL is a place for independent thinkers interested in Rand's ideas, not Randian lockstep followers.

Which is exactly why when I came across a lockstep-type claim about Rand...

Ralph Hertel:"What I have never found are examples of Ayn Rand being proved wrong and accepted being wrong."

...I took the trouble to debunk it. Happy to be of service!

Is that how you intend to forestall the dire consequences of wrong Aristotilean thinking you are intent on forestalling (as per your earlier declaration), and thus save mankind from himself?

Tsk, tsk, I didn't say that either. As I said earlier, I'm not trying to save the world, just picking up a few pieces of litter as I pass down the street.

Edited November 22, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[Daniel Barnes]

I must say that Daniel seems to have an intense dislike of Objectivism and Rand. I feel similarly about general semantics as many here feel about objectivism but I am interested in translating ideas from one system to another, if possible. I see no value in attacking objectivism this way in such emotional terms - especially on an objectivism site!

I confess: it is highly irritating to ask a simple question about an important topic and get nothing but requests for me to impersonate a dictionary!

Edited November 22, 2009 by Daniel Barnes

[jeffrey smith]

There are two standards about what can make a definition true invoked here.

1. The definition of a word is tied to reality, i.e. it successfully refers, a lot like the correspondence theory of truth.

2. All different users of the word must agree on the definition, a bit like the coherence theory of truth.

I align Ba'al, MSK, Ayn Rand and myself with #1 and Daniel Barnes with #2.

In my opinion Standard #2 can't even "reach first base" because it's easy to find two people who disagree about a word's definition or what the word refers to in reality.

Merlin--

I'm in general agreement with you here, but I think one more nuance needs to be added: that it must be, for the purpose of successful communication, comprehended by the audience. That means (unlike standard #2) they don't need to agree with the definition as proposed, but they must understand what the definition it.

And that is why Rand and Objectivism seem to many people to be "word games". Rand proposed several definitions of various terms which vary from the usual definitions, and if the reader has not happened to read the particular passage(s) in which Rand set forth her own definition, confusion is likely to result. ("Value" is a good example: as far as I know, only in Objectivism does one meet "value" as meaning a physical object (either produced or at least admired/focused on/etc. by human endeavour) as well as "spiritual values" like honesty, efficiency, etc. Outside of Objectivism, you will find such things called "valued [objects]" or "valuable", but not "value"; and until the reader realizes that the Empire State Building is, in Rand's view, as much a value as honesty is, the results will not be pretty.

I also think that by conflating physical objects and spiritual values under the single term, Rand was committing a logical subterfuge, but that's a whole different kettle of fish. She did give her definition of "value", and it can be understood once you know what it is, even if, like me, you don't agree with it.

Jeffrey S.

Edit to add: In fact, isn't Rand's definition of "value" the very sort of definition you can argue about as being true or false, and therefore just the sort of example Mr. Barnes had demanded?

Edited November 22, 2009 by jeffrey smith

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I don't think Christopher objected to your question so much as to your wrong assertion that he's your best example of an "utter waste of intelligent mind" on "trivial fool's errands."

Tsk, tsk. I didn't say that, Michael. You should know better than that.

Daniel,

You certainly did. Here you are speaking to Christopher about something he wrote:

Dear lord!

If ever I wanted to demonstrate the sterile, pedantic scholasticism that Objectivism breeds, and the utter waste of intelligent minds such as Christopher's on trivial fool's errands I couldn't ask for a better example.

Tsk, tsk, yourself.

You say clearly here that Christopher is utterly wasting his intelligent mind on trivial fool's errands. You just now explained the "best example" part as not referring to him. OK. But that is not all that clear from your original manner of writing. Even so, his "trivial" effort falls well within your "best example" umbrella. And who, pray tell, embarks on "trivial fool's errands" if not fools? And who pray tell is "bred" to do anything if not someone who is breedable? If you cannot grok that this comes off as condescending as all get out, you simply have a tin ear.

My point stands that you do not persuade anyone by mocking them.

(Tsk, tsk...)

Is that how you intend to forestall the dire consequences of wrong Aristotilean thinking you are intent on forestalling (as per your earlier declaration), and thus save mankind from himself?

Tsk, tsk, I didn't say that either. As I said earlier, I'm not trying to save the world, just picking up a few pieces of litter as I pass down the street.

And one doesn't mean the other in your mockery?

You have a monopoly on mocking all of a sudden?

If you can (wrongly) claim that "the consequences of the Aristotlean theory of knowledge are a great deal of rubbish lying around on the thoroughfare of human debate," surely you can see how a reader can think you imagine this to be something mankind needs to be saved against. You even make a fuss about chipping in to do your part and mention this with pride ("Someone has to!"), albeit more modestly that a full-blown fanatic would.

Tsk, tsk...

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I confess: it is highly irritating to ask a simple question about an important topic and get nothing but requests for me to impersonate a dictionary!

Daniel,

Does this mean "to those who understand, no explanation is needed and to those who do not, none is possible"?

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

GS,

Daniel speaks Popper-jargon and refuses to speak anything else. Popper denigrated definitions, so Daniel does the same and makes no attempt to understand what others mean.

I have noticed his antagonism for Objectivism as a primary value. He even runs a blog devoted to it.

That said, it actually is one of the better places for Rand criticism. You may not agree with what is written there (by him and others), but it does have the virtue of being thorough in touching all bases.

Michael

[Daniel Barnes]

Does this mean "to those who understand, no explanation is needed and to those who do not, none is possible"?

Er..no.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Sure sounds like it...

[tjohnson]

GS,

Daniel speaks Popper-jargon and refuses to speak anything else. Popper denigrated definitions, so Daniel does the same and makes no attempt to understand what others mean.

I have noticed his antagonism for Objectivism as a primary value. He even runs a blog devoted to it.

That said, it actually is one of the better places for Rand criticism. You may not agree with what is written there (by him and others), but it does have the virtue of being thorough in touching all bases.

Michael

Yes, I have been to Daniel's site. It's a funny thing, but no one has all the answers, Korzybski, Rand, Popper, etc.

[merjet]

There are two standards about what can make a definition true invoked here.

1. The definition of a word is tied to reality, i.e. it successfully refers, a lot like the correspondence theory of truth.

2. All different users of the word must agree on the definition, a bit like the coherence theory of truth.

Merlin, you're quite good at logic.

What do you think is the problem with what you've written above? (Leaving aside your use of "successfully refers" when "refers" would do, that is...)

When you've spotted it, you can then amend the following:

I align Ba'al, MSK, Ayn Rand and myself with #1 and Daniel Barnes with #2.

Really? I aligned you with standard #2 because you have invoked it as an argument against others. Do you expect anyone to believe you are aligned with MSK and Rand given what you have said on this thread (and elsewhere)? LOL.

I said "successfully refers" rather than "refers" for a reason. The referring is not one-dimensional, and all dimensions must be fine for the definition to "successfully refer". Look at my whale example.

We're talking about the supposedly vital importance of "true" and "false" definitions to the Objectivist theory of knowledge. I am waiting for someone - anyone! - to produce some actual examples of these legendary creatures, and explain how their "truth" and "falsehood" have been decided - without recourse to "mere convention" of course.

Did you read my whole post? It clearly says truth is decided by the definition being tied to reality. I gave the whale example. I asked you about rules of definition, and you didn't answer.

I didn't say convention has no role. However, it is much less important than standard #1 and it is not constitutive of a true definition.

Lastly, I seem to be hearing a recording that relentlessly repeats "doesn't pass, I'm still waiting" whatever I might do.

[tjohnson]

There are 2 different issues here. One is the issue of whether or not the definition accurately describes what it is defining. The other is, if that word is used for defining other things, which one is correct? Actually there is another issue that revolves around which one is normally used by the majority of people. We need to be careful not to confuse these in order to have a productive conversation.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

It's a funny thing, but no one has all the answers, Korzybski, Rand, Popper, etc.

GS,

This is 100% true.

This perfectly captures the spirit of what I envisioned for OL.

It's a great starting place for thinking for yourself, too. Especially for those who are just now getting their feet wet with these things.

Nothing and no one should ever replace the sanctity of an individual's own mind.

Michael

EDIT: To add to that thought, none of these authors are all wrong, either. I, personally, like to focus on the glass half-full instead of the glass half-empty. I can drink the full part. I can't drink the empty part.

[anthony]

Horning in on this discussion with my two Rands' worth (R2, S.African), I felt the need to say that without certainty and clarity, I for one would have no need of philosophy.

That's the beauty of Rand's work. However, some want it, many seem to thrive on the muddier the better, and slate her for being "too clear".

Also, once I got the concept of certainty under my belt, I have quite happily, and without contradiction, been able to entertain DEGREES of certainty, too.

Excuse the interruption; as you were, lady and gentlemen...

[Selene]

Horning in on this discussion with my two Rands' worth (R2, S.African), I felt the need to say that without certainty and clarity, I for one would have no need of philosophy.

That's the beauty of Rand's work. However, some want it, many seem to thrive on the muddier the better, and slate her for being "too clear".

Also, once I got the concept of certainty under my belt, I have quite happily, and without contradiction, been able to entertain DEGREES of certainty, too.

Excuse the interruption; as you were, lady and gentlemen...

Tony:

"...and slate her for being..."

I am not familiar with that phrase.

Adam

Edited November 22, 2009 by Selene

[anthony]

Sure, Adam.

'To Slate' - a. 'to submit to severe censure' b. 'to review harshly.'

It seems, too, I was a little unclear; to re-phrase: '...some want it (certainty,clarity), while many thrive on it (philosophy) being the muddier the better...'

Tony

[Selene]

Sure, Adam.

'To Slate' - a. 'to submit to severe censure' b. 'to review harshly.'

It seems, too, I was a little unclear; to re-phrase: '...some want it (certainty,clarity), while many thrive on it (philosophy) being the muddier the better...'

Tony

Damn Tony, nice one...Thanks.

to slate (third-person singular simple present slates, present participle slating, simple past and past participle slated)

1. To cover with slate. The old church ledgers show that the roof was slated in 1775.
2. (chiefly British) To criticise harshly. The play was slated by the critics.
3. (chiefly US) To schedule. The election was slated for November 2nd.
4. (chiefly US) To destine or strongly expect. The next version of our software is slated to be the best release ever.
5. To punish severely. The boy was slated by his own mom for disobeying her.

[Dragonfly]

There are two standards about what can make a definition true invoked here.

1. The definition of a word is tied to reality, i.e. it successfully refers, a lot like the correspondence theory of truth.

2. All different users of the word must agree on the definition, a bit like the coherence theory of truth.

So what definition of "true" is here the true definition? That's the problem in a nutshell: does the first definition refer successfully to reality? In a sense it does refer to "reality" as the word "reality" is part of its definition, but it is meaningless to say that it refers successfully to reality, as there is nothing to confirm or to falsify in that definition, it is in itself a convention.

Let us take now the whale example, and in particular the definition "a whale is a big fish with a blow-hole". According to the 1. followers this definition is false. But there is nothing false in the definition itself, only we have never found (yet) an animal in reality that corresponds to that definition. Now you can use an ostensive definition, pointing to the mammal we now call "whale": with "whale" I mean that animal. In that case the definition as a big fish would be wrong. But the point is that ostensive definitions may be fine for animals and other concrete objects, but not for abstract concepts, like "truth", "selfishness", "value" etc. So for these abstract concepts there is no way to choose one as the "true" definition and the other ones as "false" definitions, there are many different ways we can define such concepts and they may all refer to some aspects of reality and it's therefore meaningless to assign to some particular definition the term "the only true definition".

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I just don't get it. Nobody I know on this thread is proposing such a thing as "the only true definition" for anything.

Definitions, by nature, are shorthand descriptions of concepts. The more accurate the definition is in describing the concept (i.e., ultimately describing the existent), the more accurate the definition is.

Is there anyone on the "other side" who will claim that there is no such thing as a false definition? That it's OK and correct to define man as an insect instead of an animal?

If not, then they have to admit that true-and-false standards of definition do exist.

Michael

[Dragonfly]

Is there anyone on the "other side" who will claim that there is no such thing as a false definition? That it's OK and correct to define man as an insect instead of an animal?

If not, then they have to admit that true-and-false standards of definition do exist.

Uh-oh, defining man as an insect may be in contradiction with the common definition of "insect" when we point to "man" in an ostensive definition, but what about "truth", "egoism", "sacrifice", "value"? Which definitions of these concepts are true and which are false?

[merjet]

Uh-oh, defining man as an insect may be in contradiction with the common definition of "insect" when we point to "man" in an ostensive definition, but what about "truth", "egoism", "sacrifice", "value"? Which definitions of these concepts are true and which are false?

Of course, words for more abstract concepts are often harder to tie to reality. Also, I said standard #1 is not a "silver bullet". Do you have a "silver bullet" standard for us?

[Selene]

Is there anyone on the "other side" who will claim that there is no such thing as a false definition? That it's OK and correct to define man as an insect instead of an animal?

If not, then they have to admit that true-and-false standards of definition do exist.

Uh-oh, defining man as an insect may be in contradiction with the common definition of "insect" when we point to "man" in an ostensive definition, but what about "truth", "egoism", "sacrifice", "value"? Which definitions of these concepts are true and which are false?

OK. Maybe I am also missing something here.

Let us assume that the "best" definition of truth is that which is.

Now what?

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Let us assume that the "best" definition of truth is that which is.

Now what?

I don't understand that, what is the "best" definition of truth?

[Selene]

Let us assume that the "best" definition of truth is that which is.

Now what?

I don't understand that, what is the "best" definition of truth?

Skip that.

Person X defines truth as that which is.

Now what?

Adam

[Dragonfly]

Person X defines truth as that which is.

I think person X is confusing "truth" with "fact". Well, he may of course give his own definition, but I think it's not very useful.