Objectivism and Christianity

[tjohnson]

You have to be pretty perverse to ignore the obvious, that I was using "laws of science" to mean "the way reality behaves" rather than "our formulation of our understanding of how reality behaves." So perverse, that you make the claim that the laws of nature vary, however wrong, simply trivial and empty.

A"law" is by definition some sort of statement and so indeed represents a formulation by man. These models are not trivial or empty in any sense of the word and are man's highest achievements.

Perversion is a term and concept describing those types of human behavior that are perceived to be a serious deviation from what is considered to be orthodox or normal

I don't think you are using 'perverse' properly.

[kiaer.ts]

I suggest you study Latin and Greek, rather than contemporary monolingual dictionaries. Etymology is the origin of semantics. I assume that you know most words have several senses. Per-verse literally means thouroughly twisted, and I stand by that sense here. Note, I did not say perverted, with its sexual connotation.

I am not interested in gotchas and nitpicking. But I would be happy to hear your thoughts on Korzybski.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

Perverse is an emotionally loaded adjective that, in present day usage and especially on Objectivist boards, has little to do with etymology. It is good to be aware of that. This word is emotionally associated with the term "snarky" in many people's minds when used to describe another poster who is obviously not a pervert. (btw - That last bit was rhetorical emphasis, not strict cognition. But it is not incorrect. According to your standard, a person can be a pervert without any sexual connotation. I don't expect this message to get across to many, though. )

GS has a funny habit. He often makes an observation coming out of left field and completely misunderstands what a person is saying, while bouncing back and forth seemingly at random between fact and observation of fact. Since he often couches his observations in the form of pronouncements of what exists or not, they come off as stolen concepts and posturing.

I think he is just applying a different system (Korzybski), is not motivated enough to learn the Objectivist system (I have asked him several times to do this and mentioned where the information is), and has the habit of blurting. So he makes humongous errors of understanding.

But his discourse has changed subtly over time for the better. He is starting to understand a bit about Objectivist epistemology just from reading and interacting on the forum.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

I definitely have to take exception. Clear thought is the essence of Objectivism. Concepts exist, and have different meanings, for the specific end of allowing us to make clear relevant distinctions. Clear thought is not about accepting standard - sloppy - usage because that's what other people do. If I have to dumb down what I say to avoid offending the willfully ignorant, then I'd rather not waste my time saying it.

I am sure, however, that many people who will read my posts will value the distinctions I make. I don't think I need to worry about the feelings of those who aren't interested in knowing what the tools they are pretrending to use mean, or where they originate.

Frankly, whether someone who insists on not making the proper distinctions between notions think I call him perverse or a pervert is of little consequence. How could such a one complain about distinctions that are supposedly subjective, or vary according to when and where they are expressed? The subjectivist or the relativist can hardly complain if he finds my terms subjective and my standards shoddy, can he? But I will continue to distinuish between perversity and perversion, between reverses and reversions, between the converse and the convert, between diversity and diversion. I will say what I mean and mean what I say.

English spoken and thought properly is the most subtle tool available to modern man. I won't communicate in that medium wearing mittens and a muffler.

[tjohnson]

I am sure, however, that many people who will read my posts will value the distinctions I make. I don't think I need to worry about the feelings of those who aren't interested in knowing what the tools they are pretrending to use mean, or where they originate.

OK, let's take a poll, who here values the distinctions Ted makes? Also I'm not "pretrending" anything

[william.scherk]

OK, let's take a poll, who here values the distinctions Ted makes? Also I'm not "pretrending" anything

Oh, quit pretrending that you are not pretrending, Thomas. It's pretrentious.

I think Ted is an excellent argumentator, well-educated, erudite, with a bag of strong, interesting opinions . . . but I sometimes get the impression that he speaks from yon high mountain.

The point being that he probably fundamentally agrees with Bob Kolker. Bob wrote (in answering my earlier post) that if I believe in the uniformity of physical laws I am exhibiting some kind of faith: "We operate on the happy assumptions that our most general laws hold in all places and for all times. This is why we hold on to our best conservation laws and symmetries. Without them, our knowledge of the world would be a crap shoot."

And you, Thomas, probably agree with both of them -- we believe in universal physical laws, with reason undergirding our belief.

But hey, nit-picking is fun.

Ted, I am glad you are not keeping yourself penned up at Rebirth of Reason.

[kiaer.ts]

Bob sometimes holds the correct view of things, so far as I can tell from up here on Olympus.

Thomas, I think a poll is "prematrure", but will be happy to go head to head with you, should you wish to submit one. Do so after you count and post all my mipsellings.

I don't hold the uniformity of physical laws as a matter of faith or an a priori assumption. I formulated that question in junior high, and answered it for myself when I learned of the spectral analysis of light and the knowledge of the spectra of distant galaxies. Observational evidence supports the claim. If one understands such things, the implications are "hrard to ingnrore."

[Dragonfly]

Of course the uniformity of physical laws is an assumption, it's just an assumption that seems to work well. But in a multiverse this assumption might no longer hold.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I definitely have to take exception.

Ted,

Take exception to what? Popular understanding of a term?

I don't. Not at all.

I think people use the language like people use the language and a good author takes that into account with his message. But I will take you at your word. Thus, can I presume that you don't think language used in public is for public communicating, just for being right on technicalities?

Hmmmm...

It's a policy, I suppose.

I personally think you are smart enough to know what your words are loaded with, but I have high regard for your intelligence.

Am I wrong?

(How's that for loaded? )

Michael

[Dragonfly]

I suggest you study Latin and Greek, rather than contemporary monolingual dictionaries. Etymology is the origin of semantics.

The meaning of a word is not the same as its etymology, it is determined by current usage, as reflected in contemporary dictionaries. The current meaning may be different from its etymological origin. So today few people would accept salt as payment, even if this is the etymological root of the word "salary" (Latin sal=salt). Pedantic insistence on using antiquated meanings of words can only lead to disaster, which btw has nothing to do with bad influence by the stars (dis-aster), while it cannot but corrupt communication between people.

[kiaer.ts]

"The second reason why trying to write an unanswerable article is a mistake is that the author is assuming his readers do not possess free will. People can evade this most obvious logical connections." (AoNF p9) "So do not psychologize. Do not make allowances for readers' mental weaknesses." (p22)

Rand, in The Art of Nonfiction, makes a great deal out of the fact that there is no perfect written argument. You have to assume that your audience has a certain level of education. You cannot, out of respect for your audience and for your self, talk to the lowest common denominator. A forum like this website is not intended to address high school dropouts (although most high school dropouts could be made to understand what is discussed here, if they wished) and neither is it intended for people who do not want to understand, who want to pick nits, pick fights, who put every possible effort into finding every possible exception, but who are unwilling to expend the least amount of effort to understand them or to extend the least bit of generosity toward their interlocutors. Given the effort I put into saying what I mean I expect people to try to understand what I am communicating before debating stylistics. But my use of the term perverse was not a rhetorical flourish meant to insult. (God knows I can insult, if I want, as you said.) My use of the term perverse was exactingly correct. Those who do what they can not to understand are perverse. This perversity is all too common among the self-styled skeptic and critic. And this perversity, like that of those who "take offense" at that not at all dirty word "niggard" is found in those who read perverse and hear pervert. It is not improper for me to use the word perverse. It would be perverse for me to assume that a reader with a high school diploma doesn't know what perverse means, or can't pick up a dictionary if he's not sure. By hitting F12 on my computer I get the definition: "awkward, contrary, difficult, unreasonable, uncooperative, unhelpful, obstructive..." On the web I get:

# marked by a disposition to oppose and contradict; "took perverse satisfaction in foiling her plans"

# contrary: resistant to guidance or discipline; "Mary Mary quite contrary"; "an obstinate child with a violent temper"; "a perverse mood"; "wayward behavior"

# depraved: deviating from what is considered moral or right or proper or good; "depraved criminals"; "a perverted sense of loyalty"; "the reprobate conduct of a gambling aristocrat"

Is my continuing this argument perverse? No. Conceptual exactitude is the indispensable guardian of clear thought. Just as a machine assembled with metric bolts and English nuts will vibrate apart when operated, and a symphony with untuned instruments will end as soon as it has started, a person who adopts an irreverent attitude toward concepts is not striking a blow against measurement of harmony, he's sabotaging his mind to spite his self. To aid in that process is worse than misguided altruism, it's the essence of malice.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

I'm going to leave this where it is at. But your expecting the forum member to imagine an etymology lesson instead of seeing an insult when you call a dude a pervert is quite a streatch.

I guess it's a problem of the gang of lowest common denominators and high school dropouts we have around here.

Do carry on. I'm done on this issue.

Michael

[tjohnson]

I don't hold the uniformity of physical laws as a matter of faith or an a priori assumption. I formulated that question in junior high, and answered it for myself when I learned of the spectral analysis of light and the knowledge of the spectra of distant galaxies. Observational evidence supports the claim. If one understands such things, the implications are "hrard to ingnrore."

'Physics' represents a model of the structure of events and models always contain assumptions. Models can be improved but they are never complete. Improvements lead to accuracy to more decimal places but not to absolute certainty. Only in mathematics is certainty possible.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Only in mathematics is certainty possible.

GS,

Is that a complete condition or can it be improved? Are you certain?

(Sorry. I couldn't resist...)

Michael

[BaalChatzaf]

English spoken and thought properly is the most subtle tool available to modern man. I won't communicate in that medium wearing mittens and a muffler.

The same could be said of French, German, Greek, Russian, Hebrew, Arabic, Japanese, Chinese or any other major language. English has no claim to superior exactitude, as a language, than any other major language.

None of these languages can match the exactness of mathematics.

Ba'alChatzaf

[BaalChatzaf]

That's just meaningless word play, a tautology.

Every true proposition is a tautology.

Regi

Not so. A tautology cannot be made false under any circumstance. Now consider the singular proposition "The United States has fifty states". First of all this was not always true. When I was born the U.S. has 48 states. If another state is admitted then the proposition becomes false. A tautology can never be false under any circumstance. Hence the proposition "the United States has fifty states or it does not" is a tautology.

Every tautology is true, but not every true proposition is a tautology.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[kiaer.ts]

Michael, I never used the word "pervert". For you to say so (apparently to save face, I think at first you innocently missed the distinction) is dishonest. I'd be quite happy to drop the matter, but you don't drop a subject by firing another shot in bad faith.

Lord Chutzpah, is that Bob? English is superior to all the other currently spoken languages of the world because of its uniquely large vocabulary and literature. This is a contingent superiority, other languages can be developed, and every language can potentially express any thought. But as of now, English allows an immediate exactitude and subtlety of thought and a range of allusion which is not readily found in other tongues.

[Dragonfly]

English is superior to all the other currently spoken languages of the world because of its uniquely large vocabulary and literature. This is a contingent superiority, other languages can be developed, and every language can potentially express any thought. But as of now, English allows an immediate exactitude and subtlety of thought and a range of allusion which is not readily found in other tongues.

That is complete balderdash.

[kiaer.ts]

That is complete balderdash.

No, "that" is a deictic pronoun. Perhaps you can be more specific?

And how do you sal balderdash in French? QED!

Every estimate I have read places the non-tecnical lexicon of English at about twice the size of other languages. There are about as many original books published each year in English as there are in all other languages combined.

English often has at least three synonyms or cognates for common concepts or roots. For example, Legal, loyal and lawful; regal, royal and kingly; deed, fact, thesis and fait accompli; red, rouge, ruby, rufous, and ruddy. This linguistic multiplication allows a writer to make fine distinctions of meaning and tone. Consider the difference between her red lips, her ruddy lips, and her ruby lips. Water can be haline, saline or salty. Most languages in the world make do with about 10,000 lexical items. Western European languages sometimes approach 30 or 50,000. English has an easy 100,00 non scientific terms. Just compare French and English. The French encore is translated by the English words still, yet, again - not to mention encore.

Of course, this is all a side issue. Even if English were a minor tongue, you are only harming yourself if you refuse to use the medium of your thought as well as you can.

Good luck with that.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, I never used the word "pervert". For you to say so (apparently to save face, I think at first you innocently missed the distinction) is dishonest. I'd be quite happy to drop the matter, but you don't drop a subject by firing another shot in bad faith.

Ted,

I do not debate competitively so there is no face to save. I find a habit in Objectivist discussions extremely unproductive. The discussions are often so caught up in hairsplitting and not being wrong that the people discussing do not see the obvious. Then things get boneheaded for outside observers.

I merely pointed out the obvious. (That's my particular approach.) I stand by what I wrote and it was in good faith. If someday you are interested in what I am getting at instead of winning an argument, I will be happy to explain it to you. (In fact, it's important.)

Also, that will be enough of the dishonest crap. There are other boards where this form of discourse is welcome. Not here. You are free to bitch about my honesty anywhere you wish. Not here.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

I agree with the nitpicking comment. It is hard to step back from something you take seriously. And I would rather leave my own comments up, however embarrassing, than delete them. I'd rather apologize than rewrite reality. But I must ask you one thing.

Did I or did I not say "pervert"?

If not, can you please admit your attribution was false? While I can refrain from accusing people of dishonesty when they make their own arguments, I cannot, in good conscience, allow myself to be criticized for something I did not say, especially if I take seriously the person making the criticism.

[Dragonfly]

And how do you sal balderdash in French? QED!

Balivernes, billevesées, calembredaines, faribole, sornette, to name a few.

Every estimate I have read places the non-tecnical lexicon of English at about twice the size of other languages.

The Dutch dictionary "Woordenboek der Nederlandse Taal" consists of 43 volumes with more than 45000 pages and more than 400000 entries.

There are about as many original books published each year in English as there are in all other languages combined.

That's completely irrelevant with regard to the qualities of the language.

English often has at least three synonyms or cognates for common concepts or roots. For example, Legal, loyal and lawful;

In Dutch: wettig, legaal, legitiem, wettelijk, gerechtelijk, rechtskundig, juridisch. In French: légal, régelementaire, juridique. In German: legal, gesetzlich, dem Gesetz gemäss

regal, royal and kingly;

In Dutch: regaal, koninklijk, vorstelijk.

deed, fact, thesis and fait accompli;

Too many words in Dutch to give them all here. And "fait accompli" is of course a French term.

red, rouge, ruby, rufous, and ruddy.

In Dutch: rood, roze, roodachtig, robijnrood, blozend, rossig, ros, vuurrood, knalrood.

In short, your claim that this is unique for the English language is completely false.

This linguistic multiplication allows a writer to make fine distinctions of meaning and tone. Consider the difference between her red lips, her ruddy lips, and her ruby lips. Water can be haline, saline or salty.

In Dutch: zout, zilt, salinisch.

Most languages in the world make do with about 10,000 lexical items. Western European languages sometimes approach 30 or 50,000. English has an easy 100,00 non scientific terms.

The German Duden contains 200000 lexical terms, the short version 120000 terms. The French Robert 100000 terms. The Dutch standard dictionary Van Dale: 268000 terms.

Just compare French and English. The French encore is translated by the English words still, yet, again - not to mention encore.

French: encore, jusqu'ici, jusqu'à présent, toujours, de nouveau, une fois de plus.

Don't judge another language if you're not familiar with it.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Ted,

People who do perverted things are perverts. That's the way people understand it. They don't care if you use the word pervert or perversion. One is so related to the other that claiming a difference is nitpicking. An insult is an insult and a HUGE insult is what you communicated to GS.

That is a horrible way to start any discussion.

The proper response on noticing the insult (if no insult was intended) is to say no insult was intended, not dig in and try to be right at all costs—even to the point of insinuating that whoever disagrees with the nitpick is a high school dropout. That escalates the insult to include others and leaves the original insult dangling to boot. (This is a HUGE issue in Objectivist discussions. No wonder outsiders think we are snarky boneheads.)

I admire your intellect, but it is your intellect, not mine. I also admire GS's intellect (despite the blurting and laziness on learning Objectivist concepts). He grew up in another body of thought and is here because he is interested in the ideas, not because he is seeking converts or is scratching a neurotic itch. So I take that into account on reading him. I have no doubt most everyone else does too. He is an honest thinker who uses his mind to the best of his ability and is not afraid to express himself. (He preaches a bit too much at times, but that is his manner of expression. I do not detect thirst for forming a clique or other tribal crap that usually accompanies blurted edicts.)

The tone of OL is for people to use their own minds. I loathe intimidating people into conformity. (That's one of the main purposes people insult others one-on-one on a discussion board.) We are united on OL by a common interest in a body of ideas, but that is simply a starting point. As a group, it stops there. Each person is responsible for his own thinking.

Believe me, GS's influence is nil around here if you are worried about poisoning the philosophy or whatever. That's the good thing about people who think for themselves. They think for themselves. They don't need to be told what to think about what someone posts.

There is only one manner of fostering an atmosphere that encourages independent thinking and that is to insist on civility and respect. There is no place for shoot-from-the-hip insults in one-on-one friendly discussions. That poisons the atmosphere I try to promote here.

I admit to a bit of flexibility on this. Flare-ups happen and too much rigidity is just as poisoning as excessive snarkiness. Let's say there is an 80-20 division as a rule of thumb. There is 80% civility and 20% flare-ups. That's not written in stone, though. What is written in stone for me is to accept the obvious and use common sense in judging poster behavior. (I have learned some harsh lessons regarding this.)

Civility is not an end in itself, either. I admit I bash tribal boneheads who fly the Objectivist banner. But they are inhabitants of other online real estate. And they are boneheads. And tribal.

Here you are Ted and only Ted. (And I think that's a good thing.) There is no movement or any stuff like that. Each person is an end in himself. If Ted wants to convince anyone of anything, the ideas Ted presents qua Ted will have to do that, not insults with others chiming in or things of that nature.

Michael

[kiaer.ts]

Michael, you have to go back and look what I said, not what you remeber. I said perverse. I never said pervert or perverted, but now you have me saying "perverted!" This is absolutely perverse, for definition of which, see the first sense given above. Believe me, as a man in a homosexual relationship, I know when I use that word. My objection is based on objective reality. I never said pervert or perverted, and am asking you only to admit that.

[kiaer.ts]

I said non-technical, Odontopter. How many words in your Dutch dictionary are non-technical? The OED still has more terms, but I did not need so desperately to prove my point that I would include scientific jargon and eponyms. Et je crois que toutes les phrases que tu m'as dit <<encore, jusqu'ici, jusqu'à présent, toujours, de nouveau, une fois de plus>> sauf que le mot <<encore>> soient phrases, et pas de mots.

I am not making any anglocentric statement of prejudice. Just as French was once the language of diplomacy and the Enlightenment, and Latin and Greek had their heydays, English is the language that currently has the largest lexicon - phrases excluded or included - and the largest extant literature.

My characterization of English, while correct, was a side issue. The necessity of using the proper words to express clear thoughts, and the inadvisability of dumbing down remain.

Para que sepas, hablo bien espanol y auch ein Bisschen Deutsch, kai possum pauculum graece et latine legein, ta ja znam malo "po-naszemu" hovoriti.

Satis dixi. Tacebo.