Cardinal Value(s) in the Objectivist Ethics

[Selene]

Therefore, condescension, patronization and continuing to ask, "Why is the sky blue daddy?" is the manner you have consciously chosen to invite a person back into an open intellectual discussion.

You are not in your little classroom.

Adam

[Xray]

You do not understand Objectivism as postulated by Ayn.

Adam,

That is obvious.

I don't think it is her fault though.

I have not seen any evidence of her understanding cognitive priority and hierarchy in concept formation. It's one stolen concept after another in her explanations and questions. The jargon term is concrete-bound thinking, although I dislike that term for a variety of reason.

I get the sense that she was never encouraged to create a concept from the ground up, or trace a concept down one level after another in terms of fundamentals until she gets to the axioms.

In a sense, I feel bad for her. A lifetime of refusing (or being unable) to use any muscle will atrophy it. I suspect the abstracting capacity is the same since it is organic.

(I'm not joking or trying to flame, either. I see this as a damn shame...)

Michael

Michael, we wanted to get into a discussion, with me offering you definitions of 'fact' and 'objective' with which you agreed.

So where's the problem?

If I were a 'Randite' and convinced of her philosophy, you bet I'd fire on all cylinders to supply my discussion partners with quotes, detailed explanations, etc. instead of simply saying "You don't understand", which imo is evasive.

Edited June 21, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Call it what you wish.

It's simple to me. You wish to teach what you do not know to people who do, and you want to do it in Xray-speak, which you never really define.

That will never work.

Sorry.

Here is a story from Leonard Peikoff that reminds me of your approach (Voice of Reason, "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir," pp. 341-342). Please excuse his "people she was doomed to talk" Rand-worship crap. It's not important to the point I am making, but it does distract.

Ayn Rand started thinking in terms of principles, she told me once, at the age of twelve. To her, it was a normal part of the process of growing up, and she never dropped the method thereafter. Nor, I believe, did she ever entirely comprehend the fact that the approach which was second nature to her was not practiced by other people. Much of the time, she was baffled by or indignant at the people she was doomed to talk to, people like the man we heard about in the early 1950s, who was calling for the nationalization of the steel industry. The man was told by an Objectivist why government seizure of the steel industry was immoral and impractical, and he was impressed by the argument.

His comeback was: "Okay, I see that. But what about the coal industry?"

Do you see humor in that or do you think the man's question was logical?

Michael

[Selene]

Michael:

"...people like the man we heard about in the early 1950s, who was calling for the nationalization of the steel industry."

Peikoff talking about a conversation that took place in the early 1950 with an Objectivist??? A philosophy that did not have a name?

Or, is it just awkward writing?

However, it is hilarious. Reminds me of the bear and the hunter joke...

A hunter gets in trouble when a bear attacks him mauls him, sodomizes him and he is in the hospital for a week.

Immediately after his release - same spot same bear again surprised the hapless happens and the bear mauls him and sodomizes him again, only worse, and he is in the hospital for a month.

Again he is released by the hospital after counseling etc. Again, he goes back to the same spot where the prior two assaults occurred.

The bear shakes his head and walks up to the hunter and says...............[ready]

This isn't about hunting is it!!!!

Adam

[Xray]

Xray,

Call it what you wish.

It's simple to me. You wish to teach what you do not know to people who do, and you want to do it in Xray-speak, which you never really define.

That will never work.

We would see what works and what doesn't if you decided to get into a real discussion with me.

Edited June 16, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

We would see what works and what doesn't if you decided to get into a real discussion with me.

Xray,

Discussion is the key word. Not preaching. Nor playing rhetorical games.

Give it time.

Study and learn. There's plenty of time. Understanding a set of ideas doesn't strike like lightening. Only specific insights do.

I'm not going anywhere soon.

Michael

[Xray]

"I have not seen any evidence of her understanding cognitive priority and

hierarchy in concept formation. It's one stolen concept after another in her

explanations and questions. The jargon term is concrete-bound thinking,

although I dislike that term for a variety of reason." [Michael SK]

"Cognitive priority"..."hierarchy in concept formation"..."stolen

concept." I take it you're talking about categorizing.

Would you please explain with examples?

" Concept -1 : something conceived in the mind : thought, notion

(Webster's)

"Conceived idea of" encompasses all ideas, thoughts, notions, etc.

Do you have something against this Webster's definition of concept? If so,

what? If not, what about the concept of entity identity as in mentally

abstracting by set of differences? Just because concept "means" category in

Rand speak, in the real world, category, is just one of many concepts, not

concept per se.

In your "hierarchy in concept formation", which comes first, the concept of

entity identity via mentally abstracting by a differentiating set of

characteristics, or the category, "Man", which is a mental grouping on

similar characteristics of the entity identities by mentally abstracting by

difference?

Which is the objectively real? Each finite entity? Or, the infinite

category, "Man?" With which do you have a relationship in the

physical/mental world?

Speaking of understanding, do you understand the above about the concept,

entity identity, being the actual real? If not, why not? If you do

understand, do you see error in my explanation of entity identity? If so,

what and why? Do you understand that I understand concept of entity identity

as is apart from Rand think in "valuing abstracts?" Do you understand why I

reject "Man" as an entity with "life proper to man?"

"I get the sense that she was never encouraged to create a concept from the

ground up, or trace a concept down one level after another in terms of

fundamentals until she gets to the axioms." (Michael)

What's all the hoopla over categories?

Categorizing is not some great intellectual feat. Dogs, cats, horses,

lions, tigers, etc. categorize instinctively. How else could they survive?

If dog has an unpleasant encounter with a skunk, you can bet the dog will

know better the next time he/she encounters an entity of similar

characteristics. If a toddler accidentally gets too close to a flame and

suffers a painful burn, that toddler with respond to avoid when he\she

encounters another flame.

Here's the "hierarchy" and how it works in the real world. First, is entity

identity by mentally abstracting via a differentiating set of

characteristics. This is not arbitrary. The identity is by the set of

objectively existing characteristics.

AFTER entity identity comes categorizing. Since similar characteristics

indicate similar entities (similar, not identical), a similar relationship

is implied. Thus, in categorizing, one is relieved of the burden of a

detailed analysis of every entity every time an entity is encountered.

However, in literally every instance, entity identity by difference

necessarily precedes categorization in establishing a category, or applying

to a category after the category has been formed.

If you live alone on a desert island, you would still categorize whether you

used a word symbol or not. What similarities you choose for the category is

purely arbitrary. The only criteria needed is general subjective agreement

as to what symbol represents what category. Most if not all agree that the

term, house, symbolizes a type of structure usually used for living space as

opposed to the term, car, usually, understood to be a movable vehicle used

for transportation. Keep in mind that you do not live in "house", the

category, but in A specific house with a specific set of differentiating

characteristics. This is epistemological principle, therefore, is

universally applicable.

You cannot prove, nor disprove, a category as right or wrong by any

objective criteria. The criteria is purely subjective agreement as pertains

to use value in thinking and communicating. In a department store, where

will you find an electric carving knife to carve a turkey? Power tools?

Kitchen ware? Electrical appliances? Where? Why? What is the "proper

department? Established by what "objective criteria?"

Categories and subcategories are utilized by a large number of non human

animals as well as human beings. In the human category, the concept of

categorizing is utilized in thinking and speaking daily by billions without

any serious problems; and without making a lot of "intellectual hoopla"

about it.

So would you care to tell me in detail about your "cognitive

priority"..."hierarchy in concept formation", "stolen concept" etc. TIA.

Edited June 19, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Lecturing and asking questions making sure the material is well covered. There will be a test. Michael, how much did you pay for this course? Is the credit transferable? Will you have to submit a term paper?

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

Xray has a good heart.

She just needs time.

She makes primary mistakes, right beside good observations, right beside dogmatic-sounding statements which are actually ideas presented in Objectivist epistemology, but she states them as if this were proof Objectivism is wrong, right beside truly dogmatic statements, right beside incorrect presumptions about what other posters mean, all peppered with countless quiz-like questions that lack an intellectual center. That's just for starters.

I get the impression of a wet big dog with muddy paws jumping nonstop all over a clean room decorated in white and happily barking up a storm.

It's hard to know where to start.

I am going to give it time. I'm not eternal...

Michael

[Xray]

starters.

I get the impression of a wet big dog with muddy paws jumping nonstop all over a clean room decorated in white and happily barking up a storm.

Oh, I get the metaphor! The muddy paws represent my commentary and questions that destroy the illusion of "Objectivism" as an immaculate philosophy clean of contradictions. You do have a poetic streak I must say.

Edited June 17, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

It neutralizes your authoritarian anti-poetic sense.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Actually it means a non-conceptual mentality, but a fairly happy being with a good heart, albeit a bit conceited (that's no great sin), jumping all over concepts she hasn't learned how to form yet.

I actually am a good poet. I fear I will never be a great one because I am investing my energies in other pursuits. But if I did the time, my life would rhyme 24/7.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

starters.

I get the impression of a wet big dog with muddy paws jumping nonstop all over a clean room decorated in white and happily barking up a storm.

Oh, I get the metaphor! The muddy paws represent my commentary and questions that destroy the illusion of "Objectivism" as an immaculate philosophy clean of contradictions. You do have a poetic streak I must say.

Well, here's Objectivism for you: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics plus how these depend on and are integrated with and proceed from each other. So far you've displayed zip understanding of what I've just written with your commentary and questions. For instance, why do the Objectivist Ethics come out of the epistemology qua individualism and why and how do we thus get individualism into politics? There is nothing "immaculate" about Objectivism, especially when you get into actual ethics and politics, but for now I'm only talking about basic principles. Politics, btw, is also economics as a sub-category.

Note: I am not a teacher of the Objectivist philosophy.

--Brant

[Xray]

It neutralizes your authoritarian anti-poetic sense.

Oh, I do have a poetic sense, Selene. For example, I'm currently composing a ballad, already have the title: "The Shadow Dancers" where people resembling you guys figure in major roles as having rented the hall for their shadow dance around the truth, instead of putting the lights on to take look at it.

Then there's a short story I'm working on: "The Stolen Concept". Contains some fantasy elements, like e. g. Ayn Rand's first (but alas, far too belated!) genuine meeting with "Entity Identity".

And should I once get the idea of writing a whole novel figuring truth evaders, do you think "Truth Shrugged" would be good title?

My greatest love in that field is the genre of satire though. ;)

Edited June 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray has a good heart.

Good guess. My cardiologist's opinion is the same as yours. ;)

But kidding aside, thanks for your kind words.

But the skeptic that I am, maybe you used "good heart" with the connotation of "naive"? I that case, the shoe would not fit.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant it sincerely and myself think (subjective value judgement as always in such cases ) that you have good heart too. I really do.

Being a moderator for this motley crew here is certainly no easy task, I'm fully aware oft that.

I do want to get in a discussion with you all, but can't shake the feeling that something stops you from taking the plunge. It is like - figuratively speaking - we had agreed to go on a mental journey to explore Rand's philosophy, and now that we are ready for take-off, with the plane already waiting, you don't want to go aboard but cancel the trip.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Well, here's Objectivism for you: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics plus how these depend on and are integrated with and proceed from each other. So far you've displayed zip understanding of what I've just written with your commentary and questions.

What exactly is it you think I don't understand? All I see is some vague declaration about epistemology, etc., I'm all for epistemology; the epistemology of entity identity by mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics.

This is the whole foundation of my thinking. Can you find something wrong with it?

How about you reciprocating and explaining step by step YOUR epistemology so that we can compare notes and perhaps find out where the "not understanding" lies?

Each time I issued that invitation before, it was evaded.

(Brant)"For instance, why do the Objectivist Ethics come out of the epistemology

qua individualism and why and how do we thus get individualism into

politics? There is nothing "immaculate" about Objectivism, especially when

you get into actual ethics and politics, but for now I'm only talking about

basic principles.

If you want to convince me, jettison the generalities and please answer my questions.

Quote from my posts and explain the what and why of alleged error. If you can refute, so be it. I will say thank you and stand corrected. Of course, if you won't even give it a try, you give me no reason to change my stance.

"Politics, btw, is also economics as a sub-category." (Ibid)

Would you like me to put politics in another dozen categories? No problem. Since a category is

derived from arbitrarily selected similarities, it would be a cinch.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

This was addressed to Brant:

"If you want to convince me, jettison the generalities and please answer my questions."

If it were addressed to me, my answer would be ... I don't want to convince you.

See Roark's much debated answer to Ellsworth...

Adam

[Xray]

Actually it means a non-conceptual mentality, but a fairly happy being with a good heart, albeit a bit conceited (that's no great sin), jumping all over concepts she hasn't learned how to form yet.Actually it means a non-conceptual mentality, but a fairly happy being with a good heart, albeit a bit conceited (that's no great sin), jumping all over concepts she hasn't learned how to form yet.l

I'm afraid that doesn't compute. Help me out here. Since a concept is a "conceived idea of", hence, all thinking involves concepts, (entity identity and\or category) - what on earth is a "non-conceptual mentality"?

I actually am a good poet. I fear I will never be a great one because I am investing my energies in other pursuits. But if I did the time, my life would rhyme 24/7.

I can imagine you are a good poet. I would say you generally have an artistic streak, judging from what I have read of your

posts.

But, to repeat: what do you mean by "conceptual mentality"? I sure would like to see some examples of this in rhyme, OR prose.

Another question, how do I jump all over concepts if I haven't learned to form them? Doesn't make a lot of sense, does it?

How about defining the term, concept. Show me how YOU go about forming "concepts"; THEN show me the "error of my ways."

TIA.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

This was addressed to Brant:

"If you want to convince me, jettison the generalities and please answer my questions."

If it were addressed to me, my answer would be ... I don't want to convince you.

See Roark's much debated answer to Ellsworth...

Adam

Is someone like Roark a role model for you?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... what on earth is a "non-conceptual mentality"?

. . .

... what do you men by "conceptual mentality"?

Xray,

Great questions!

Give it time for all the other prejudgmental stuff to fall away with only the questions remaining.

Then we can discuss the answers.

Socrates gave the formula for the correct attitude to assume in asking a question: "I only know that I do not know."

When you ask already knowing, you are not really asking.

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

... what on earth is a "non-conceptual mentality"?

. . .

... what do you men by "conceptual mentality"?

Xray,

Great questions!

Give it time for all the other prejudgmental stuff to fall away with only the questions remaining.

Then we can discuss the answers.

Socrates gave the formula for the correct attitude to assume in asking a question: "I only know that I do not know."

When you ask already knowing, you are not really asking.

Michael

Socrates subtext was "I don't know and neither do you"

He was a 105 mm. smart ass but never a bore. The dialog of Plato that best captures Socrates at his cheeky best is Apology

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited June 18, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[Brant Gaede]

Xray has a good heart.

Good guess. My cardiologist's opinion is the same as yours. ;)

But kidding aside, thanks for your kind words.

But the skeptic that I am, maybe you used "good heart" with the connotation of "naive"? I that case, the shoe would not fit.

But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt that you meant it sincerely and myself think (subjective value judgement as always in such cases ) that you have good heart too. I really do.

Being a moderator for this motley crew here is certainly no easy task, I'm fully aware oft that.

I do want to get in a discussion with you all, but can't shake the feeling that something stops you from taking the plunge. It is like - figuratively speaking - we had agreed to go on a mental journey to explore Rand's philosophy, and now that we are ready for take-off, with the plane already waiting, you don't want to go aboard but cancel the trip.

Flight 447?

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Well, here's Objectivism for you: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics and politics plus how these depend on and are integrated with and proceed from each other. So far you've displayed zip understanding of what I've just written with your commentary and questions.

What exactly is it you think I don't understand? All I see is some vague declaration about epistemology, etc., I'm all for epistemology; the epistemology of entity identity by mentally abstracting by a set of differentiating characteristics.

Objectivism. You don't even get to the plate, much less first base. The rock bottom basis for Objectivism is the same as for science: there are things out there and there are things in your head. It is the job of your head to get as much congruence as possible so you don't get run over by a bus instead of getting on a rocketship and making a round-trip to the moon followed by parties and celebrations and marrying that pretty thing and having a lot of children before departing for Mars and the moons of Jupiter.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Socrates subtext was "I don't know and neither do you"

Bob,

The context of that subtext was introspection, not asking a question to someone else. There was no "you" in that subtext. There was a "he," or better, many "hes (others)." Socrates was speaking of people who think they know what they don't and that he never thought he knew what he didn't.

I was looking this up to be precise and I came across a passage on Yahoo! Answers that says it much better than I was going to:

Resolved Question

by Universe Lover

"I only know one thing that i know Nothing " what is meaning of this Quoation by Greek Philosopher Socrates ?

Best Answer - Chosen by Asker

by elenchuskb

You have a misquote of Socrates, above.

Socrates actually said that he never thought that he knew something, which he actually did not know. And to that small extent his merely human wisdom exceeded many people who actually thought they knew things that they truly did not know.

He was aware of his ignorance but also aware of having the same knowledge as those who had taught him what he knew, whether in geometry, or weighing, or horse training, or wrestling, etc.

In sum there is a huge difference between saying "I know nothing.", per your quote above and saying, as Socrates actually said (per Plato's Apology), quote "I never think that I know something that I do not know. LIterally:

SOCRATES:

"At any rate it seems that I am wiser than he is to this small extent, that I do not think that I know what I do not know." [Apology 21d]

Your quote makes Socrates look like he is glorifying ignorance as some kind of "wisdom". Socrates actual quote indicates that he knew when others were ignorant, but merely thought they were knowledgable. He simply never made the mistakes of either (1) overestimating his limited knowledge, or (2) underestimating his actual knowledge. That made him a lifelong learner and wiser than those who thought they knew what they did not know.

When you think you know something that you do not know, you rest content in your ignorance --- learning stops. And it is much harder to teach a person when he thinks he knows what he does not know than to teach a person who realizes his ignorance in a subject.

Socrates was a great teacher of people who realized their own ignorance. But it was impossible for him to teach anyone who was ignorant but falsely believed himself to be knowledgeable.

In conclusion:- Socrates knew many things, which he candidly admitted to knowing. He did not glorify ignorance as your misquote interrogatively suggests.

Kevin

Source(s):

Plato's Apology; Plato's Meno --- read it sometime, even though I didn't quote it. In the Meno, Socrates teaches fairly sophisticated geometry ("squaring") to Meno's slave --- who knows absolutely nothing of Geometry. Socrates builds upon the slave's knowledge of Greek Arithmetic to teach him geometry.

This person Kevin said to the questioner: "Your quote makes Socrates look like he is glorifying ignorance as some kind of "wisdom"."

Your observation insinuated the same.

I stand by my understanding of the meaning of Socrates's quote. (btw - I was translating this from Portuguese in my mind, "só sei que nada sei," which is why it is different that the normal English forms.)

The Orientals use the image of a glass that is full to transmit the same idea. If the glass is empty, it can receive liquid. If it is already full, it is folly to pour more, both for the person holding the glass and for the person pouring, since the liquid will only overflow and fall on ground.

The basic problem with Xray is that she always asks people to pour liquid into her full glass.

Michael

[Xray]

... what on earth is a "non-conceptual mentality"?

. . .

... what do you men by "conceptual mentality"?

Xray,

Great questions!

Give it time for all the other prejudgmental stuff to fall away with only the questions remaining.

Then we can discuss the answers.

Socrates gave the formula for the correct attitude to assume in asking a question: "I only know that I do not know."

When you ask already knowing, you are not really asking.

Michael

I am not asking already knowing. For I have no idea what you mean by a "non-conceptual mentality" which is why I asked you "What on earth is a "non-conceptual mentality" and to please explain "conceptual mentality". I only know that I do not know.

Your turn now. Would you please answer my "great questions" as you called them, and enlighten me what it is.

Edited June 18, 2009 by Xray