Is Being Self-Interested the Same as Being Egoistic?

[Brant Gaede]

Brant,

I have no issue with your thinking or intent. I am starting to suspect the other.

I just looked up Xray's IP and there are 6 pages of different IP numbers used for her 200+ posts. This happens with dynamic IP's like AOL (usually not to that extent), but it also happens with proxy users who wish to remain anonymous.

Michael

Maybe she's going to different Internet cafes.

In any case, I'm going with my original evaluation of her as a troll. Preacher-troll.

I don't see any point in continuing with her. If it's not sophistical it's rhetoric.

--Brant

[Selene]

Brant:

Sophistry yes.

It is not rhetoric Brant.

Angela German <<< this always struck me as "awkward". I think I welcomed her by her first name.

Adam

[Xray]

I just looked up Xray's IP and there are 6 pages of different IP numbers used for her 200+ posts. This happens with dynamic IP's like AOL (usually not to that extent), but it also happens with proxy users who wish to remain anonymous.

Michael

I don't even know what a proxy user is. I'm totally clueless about this technical stuff.

[Selene]:

Angela German <<< this always struck me as "awkward". I think I welcomed her by her first name.

That's my name. The "G" in German is not pronounced as in the English word "German", it is prounounced as "g" in "get".

Edited May 28, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I have to be careful with people who have unverifiable presence elsewhere due to several previous attacks.

Nobody's a fool here and I suspect you are playing games. Even so, just play nice and you can talk bad about Rand on OL to your little heart's content.

Michael

[Selene]

Even nags about pronunciation!

[thomtg]

Xray,

4 things to discuss:

1 Selflessness as defined conventionally and otherwise

2 Whether Ivy Starnes spoke for Rand

3 Whether Keating, Taggart were selfless

4 Whether Roark was selfish in blowing up Cortlandt Homes

Edited May 29, 2009 by Thom T G

[Xray]

Xray,

I have to be careful with people who have unverifiable presence elsewhere due to several previous attacks.

Nobody's a fool here and I suspect you are playing games. Even so, just play nice and you can talk bad about Rand on OL to your little heart's content.

I'm not playing games. The current discussion here is about self-interest and whether objective values exist.

I wrote:

"As for "moral" and "immoral", "morally right" and "morally wrong" - a short look through history will make it instantly clear

that there simply exist no objective criteria for what is "morally right/wrong ", "ethical/unethical" etc. It is ALWAYS subjective, despite attempts by people (i. e. ideologists, polticians, religious leaders, philosophers and many others) to sell their subjective values as "objective". (end quote)

The tragedies which have occurred as a result of such fallacious belief are often beyond description." (end quote)

If you disagree with any point, please quote the area of disagreement and say why you disagree. TIA.

Edited May 29, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Put it this way: There is perceived self interest and self interest. One's in your head and the other is out there.

Could you give an example of self-interest which is "out there"?

Edited June 1, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

If you disagree with any point, please quote the area of disagreement and say why you disagree. TIA.

Xray,

Thanks, but no thanks.

I gave up discussing things with you because there is an unnecessarily complicated terminology problem and I detect an anti-Rand subtext that outweighs facts in your writing.

But I do intend to keep my eye on your posts to assure that you do not get overly disruptive.

Like I said, play nice and you can talk bad about Rand here.

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Put it this way: There is perceived self interest and self interest. One's in your head and the other is out there.

Could you give an example of self- interest which is "out there"?

Sure. The air you breathe, the food you eat. The roof over your head. The water you drink. The people you associate with. Your moral, intellectual and physical health.

Did Bernie Madoff act in his self interest? He destroyed himself and many others.

Don't you get it? There is no ought-to-do in your cosmology. There is no ought-not-to-do either.

--Brant

[Xray]

Put it this way: There is perceived self interest and self interest. One's in your head and the other is out there.

Could you give an example of self-interest which is "out there"?

Sure. The air you breathe, the food you eat. The roof over your head. The water you drink. The people you associate with. Your moral, intellectual and physical health.

Did Bernie Madoff act in his self interest? He destroyed himself and many others.

Don't you get it? There is no ought-to-do in your cosmology. There is no ought-not-to-do either.

--Brant

The air breathed is a mere biological necessity for survival (of no value btw for someone who wants to commit suicide).

As for "one's moral health", "the people one associates with" etc, they are subjecvie value judgements. Can you give an example of "moral behavior" which is not a subjective value judgment?

Edited May 29, 2009 by Xray

[thomtg]

Xray,

I do believe you are a reasonable person; for otherwise, I would not have entered into conversation with you. I don't think you are playing games, nor do I think you are vindictive in your remarks. But I think you are in error and don't know that you are. Until I find evidence otherwise, I consider your errors to be innocent errors of knowledge.

With that as preliminaries, let us review:

It is fair to say that we have dealt with the difficulties you had in Post #5 about why Ayn Rand wrote in her pre-writing journal:

Peter Keating

--The exact opposite of Howard Roark, and everything a man should not be. A perfect example of a selfless man who is a ruthless unprincipled egotist--in the accepted meaning of the word. A tremendous vanity and greed, which lead him to sacrifice all for the sake of "a brilliant career." A mob man at heart, of the mob and for the mob. His triumph is his disaster. Left as an empty, bitter wreck, his "second-hand life" takes the form of sacrificing all for the sake of a victory which has no meaning and gives him no satisfaction. Because his means becomes his end. He shows that a selfless man cannot be ethical. He has no self and, therefore, cannot have any ethics. A man who never could be man as he should be. And doesn't know it. [

The Fountainhead

, pb, annex p. 696]

You did not realize that there are two meanings to "egoist"--a commonly accepted meaning and a meaning that Rand defined specifically within The Fountainhead--and that when Rand described Peter Keating as an egoist, she had used the commonly accepted meaning.

I discussed this error in Post #12 and in Post #26. To repeat from the latter:

Observe how careful Ayn Rand was and how respectful she was to herself when she wrote in her journal about the character Peter Keating prior to the writing of Second-Hand Lives. Even to herself, and knowing that she was writing in the journal strictly for her eyes only, Rand was careful to say that Peter was an egoist "in the accepted meaning of the word." She was acknowledging the term to herself that there existed a meaning to the word that was accepted widely at the time. But she was not endorsing it to be true, to be correct, in her own mind. She merely recorded the fact of the existence of this meaning.

In publishing the novel The Fountainhead, Rand developed a brand new conception of an "egoist," a man who values his mind and who considers reason as his sole means of knowledge, as his sole guide to action. This was her projection of the ideal man. Howard Roark was this ideal man in this fictional world, not Peter Keating. Roark was the egoist. And in the writing of the novel, the reader is left no doubt which meaning Rand was using. Roark's courtroom speech and all the background facts about him leave no doubt to the discriminating reader about Rand's unequivocal meaning to "egoist." And even to forestall the possibility of a contextual error, Rand noted her usage of the word in the Introduction to the 25th anniversary edition, to make sure the reader to pay attention to her specific use and meaning of the word, and not to be mistaken ever that she was referring to the "accepted meaning of the word."

And because of having this error in your mind, you never did understand my root post Post #1, for you immediately asked in your Post #3:

On Rand's conception, a rational man acts selfishly. An irrational man acts unselfishly.

So per Rand, Keating asking Roark to do his work for him was an "unselfish" act?

When a person chooses to value his mind and respects its volitional nature, he is an egoist.

How is it that Rand called Keating an egoist then?

[...]

It showed me that you did not understand a conclusion in that root post: A rational man acts selfishly, and an irrational man acts unselfishly OR a.k.a. selflessly. It showed me that you were still unsure of the premises for that conclusion. It showed me that you had misunderstood the term "selflessness."

One evidence of that was in the very excerpt about Peter Keating in Rand's pre-writing journal. Rand described Keating as selfless. This did not compute for you. You were stuck on a different notion of "selflessness" that clashed with your certain knowledge that everyone acts to his self-interest.

So rather than trying to understand my post, you stood your ground and denied that anyone could act selflessly. Thus, having never understood the premises, you rejected my conclusion.

And rather than checking your own premise--the premise that selflessness cannot exist in any human action, which is motivated ipso facto by self-interest--you rejected any statement from anybody, living or dead, who would deign to put the two words together. Thus, you cited the same Keating excerpt again, accusing Ayn Rand of contradicting herself, of saying about Keating "a perfect example of a selfless man who is a ruthless unprincipled egotist." (Post #10)

I tried to stop you from making too many hasty conclusions, but I failed. I tried to slow down the cascading errors coming from you by my refraining from discussing altruism with you. "Altruism," I thought, was a concept that required understanding antecedent concepts, such as "duty," "sacrifice," "selfishness" and "selflessness." But you went ahead anyway.

You blasted Rand: "She arbitrarily calls people like Keating who want to profit from others' work 'altruists', while at the same time lambasting 'altruism' as an ideology propagating the exact contrary (putting other people's wishes first) --in short, the semantic chaos Rands creates is evident, but she is not aware of it." (Post #17 and Post #25)

Ironically for me, in the post where I thought you understood me, you actually used my own words to refute me, and I did not realize it at the time. In Post #17, you wrote:

2. So, yes, I think that Keating's asking Roark to design the Cortlandt homes for him was an unselfish act. Why? Because Keating well knew that a man's achievement is his own, and that any fame that follows is always derivative of that which one has achieved. Keating knew he could not achieve, but he wanted the fame. He desired a consequence contra to its cause. It was a desire for unreality that motivated him--the knowledge of the facts be damned. Since the act was motivated by this irrational desire, against the consent of his mind's rational judgments of causality; therefore, his asking Roark to do the work was an unselfish act.

Going by this definition, every thief, and robber and murderer would be unselfish too. But I suppose not even their defense lawyer would refer to them as unselfish, even if the lawyer were a Randist.

The problem with Rand is that she created her own linguistic universe, [...]

So thinking that you understood me, I focused my reply (Post #26)on the linguistic problem. Little did I know that your rebuttal was hidden in that smiley emoticon. For you had rejected my "why" argument in toto and continued on about the contradiction of any action that could be unselfish.

----

So the erroneous conclusions piled on and accumulated. Proving that you did not understand the root post and Post #12, you asked other readers several times whether there was anything "rational" in "a subjective value judgement." (Post #25, Post #29, post #33) You maintained that " 'rational self interest', or 'irrational self interest' is simply a matter of personal preference, i.e., subjective value judgment." (Ibid.)

You blasted others for believing that a selfless man could exist. You offered a challenge (Post #36):

[...] I'm afraid Ayn Rand's theory of the "selfless man" has no epistemological leg to stand on at all. For such a man does not exist - not even in her own fiction.

If you believe a selfless man exists, feel free present this human being to the posters here. We'll then do some litmus test on the alleged selflessess and see what remains of it.

Rand's theory is not only in blatant contradiction to obvious facts (i. e. it is based on a fallacy: the false premise of "objective values existing) - it is also in itself contradictory.

Want an an example? Ask and ya shall receive:

Rand verbatim calls Peter Keating "a perfect example of a selfless man".

Not let's look at Rand's definition of "selflessness" [altruism]

Atlas Shrugged, p. 323: Ivy Starnes to Dagny.

"That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness [i. e. "altruism"] . It required men to be motivated not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers." (end quote)

Now with Keating being identified as "selfless" [i e. an "altruist"] , it logically follows that (again, according to Rand) he is motivated not by personal gain, but by love for his brothers." Right?

Seriously, Brant, do you really believe Keating was motivated by love of his "brother" (= fellow human being) Howard Roark and not by personal gain, when he asked him to do his work for him?

He was motivated by personal gain, wasn't he, Brant? It sticks out a mile.

So without realizing it, Rand herself, in her character Keating, has provided the illustration that altruistic human beings don't exist. She herself neutralizes the very opposition she created: which places the "altruist "group on one one side if the trench, and the "selfish" group on the other.

I'll use the term "collapsing opposition" for what happened here.

[...]

Bottom line: both Keating and Roark were motivated by 100 per cent self interest.

That Rand approved of Roark's self interest while disapproving of Keating's self interest is of no relevance here. It was an entirely personal choice on her part, i. e. a subjective value judgement.

What a fiery blast! It took my breath away. My "Shield of Truth" was nearly blown off.

An error, if not checked, grows and grows. Every accumulated error hinged on your understanding of "selflessness" and its incompatibility with "self-interest": Oh no, there is no such man who is selfless/unselfish. "There is no such thing as an altruistic human being." (Post #36 in bold) There is no such thing as an "objective value." (Post #38) All values are subjective to each person. (Post #68)

----

When I had a chance to comment on your quotation from Ivy Starnes, I decided to address head-on on by showing you that in fact there were different conceptions of "selflessness"--one from the commonly accepted theory; the other, derivative from Rand's theory of egoism. (Post #64)

[...]

You have found a great definition of "selflesness" from Atlas Shrugged, as defined by the character Ivy Starnes. However, Ivy Starnes did not speak for Ayn Rand in the novel. Only through the characters John Galt and other heroes did Rand speak to her readers directly.

Ivy Starnes, by contrast, represented the commonly accepted philosophy of the time period. And her definition of "selflessness," as Rand reported to us in the story, accurately reflected the commonly accepted meaning of the term, "to be motivated not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers." As you have surmised, this is utterly impossible--a contradiction in the very essence of not only human action but any animal action. (See my latest reformulation of the classification of "self-interest" in Post #61.) But Ayn Rand did not endorse this definition; she merely told the readers about it through the voice of the Starnes heiress.

Though you have found a contradiction, the contradiction was not in Ayn Rand's Objectivist ethics. In fact it was she who first identified the very contradiction you are now attributing to her system. It was she who identified the contradiction inherent in any ethical system that disregards the facts of reality, including the reality of human nature, such as self-interest, volition, reason.

If anything is accurate in your assessment, I would say you have identified a big flaw in a great number of moral codes, but the flaw is definitely 100-percent not in egoism. (See the definitions here.)

[...]

But I was mistaken to think you would take back your fiery blast. Instead you innocently misunderstood my post and went on, not noticing distinction between a commonly accepted definition and an endorsed definition, not noticing the existence of two concepts of "selflessness" (and their definitions), which I presented for the third time in a post to Michelle R (Post #61). Thinking that I was merely deflecting an oppositional/opponential definition of "selflessness," you wanted instead to prove three things:

1. "The actions of every [villain] character in the book (EVERY character!) [show] that they are every bit as motivated by self-interest, that is, by believing what is best for themselves, as their [heroic] opponents."

2. "Rand still seems to believe the altruists are not motivated by self-interest. Why she needs to keep up this illusion is quite clear: to promote her philosophy, the altruists are built up as strawmen to be thrashed."

3. "Taggart was no altruist. [Altruists] don't exist, which is why not even Rand was able to present one in a novel, despite her belief that she did. Rand's own artifically constructed opposition between the "altruists" and the "selfish" group collapses right in front of the reader's eyes."

----

So here we are. I stated at the beginning that I think your errors are innocent errors of knowledge. These can be corrected, provided you are willing to help yourself. Of course, you need to be convinced that you are in error. Others have tried and given up.

The source of all your present errors is your misunderstanding of "selflessness." Once you correct this error, I think you will see that the villain characters Keating and Jim Taggart in a totally new light, and you will see Roark as the Randian hero he should be. But the first task is getting to "selflessness" exclusively, totally, without distraction, without side conclusions, without jumping ahead.

Edited June 3, 2009 by Thom T G

[Xray]

[Thom T G]:

It showed me that you did not understand a conclusion in that root post: A

rational man acts selfishly, and an irrational man acts unselfishly OR

a.k.a. selflessly. It showed me that you were still unsure of the premises

for that conclusion. It showed me that you had misunderstood the term

"selflessness."

...So rather than trying to understand my post, you stood your ground and

denied that anyone could act selflessly. Thus, having never understood the

premises, you rejected my conclusion.

....The source of your error is your misunderstanding of "selflessness."

....When I had a chance to comment on your quotation from Ivy Starnes, I

decided to address head-on on by showing you that in fact there were

different conceptions of "selflessness"--one from the commonly accepted

theory; the other, derivative from Rand's theory of egoism. (Post #64)

I believe the above quotes are an accurate summary of your post and position.

If not, please let me know.

You are correct in saying that I rejected your conclusions. You are

incorrect in saying I did not understand your premises. I did understand,

but did not and do not accept. Hence, the rejection of conclusions derived

from premises with which I disagree.

The pivotal statement is: "I decided to address head-on on by showing you

that in fact there were different conceptions of "selflessness"

I am aware there are different conceptions of selflessness. There are many

different conceptions of many things. I am also aware that on the principle

of a consistent reality, all but one of these premises must be

in error. Opposing ideas cannot both conform to the same consistent reality.

This all rests upon the issue of alleged multiple definitions. I reject the

notion of multiple definition.

Let's take a look at "truth":

truth - 1a :archaic : fidelity, constancy b: sincerity in action, character,

and utterance2 a (1): the state of being the case : fact (2): the body of

real things, events, and facts : actuality (3)often capitalized : a

transcendent fundamental or spiritual reality b: a judgment, proposition, or

idea that is true or accepted as true <truths of thermodynamics> c: the body

of true statements and propositions3 a: the property (as of a statement) of

being in accord with fact or reality b. chiefly British : true 2 c: fidelity

to an original or to a standard4capitalized Christian Science : god; — in

truth : in accordance with fact : actually." (Webster's)

Here we have as "multiple definitions" "the state of being the case: fact

(2): the body of real things, events, and facts" AND "a transcendent

fundamental or spiritual reality " - "Christian Science : god"

By the rationale of multiple definitions, or assorted conceptions, that I am

obliged to accept your concept of selfish and selflessness, are you not

likewise obliged to accept the notion of a transcendent and spiritual

reality, i.e. god? Do you do that? Can you do that? Or do you reject the

notion (this "definition") of "god" on the grounds that the idea does not

conform to reality? Is this not the same as saying that the god idea has no

objective correspondence, (no objective referent) therefore, is not a

defined, is not a definition of truth?

Can you have it both ways? Can you pick and choose what is a definition as

suits the argument of the moment without regard for the element of objective

referent as the basis for an actual definition? What arguments can you

muster against those devoutly religious who say that your non-theistic

"definition" of truth is wrong? Is not the same argument (not conforming to

reality) valid against all offerings of "multiple definitions?"

What is illustrated by this example is that although the dictionary does

contain many valid definitions, it also contains many alleged definitions

which are only a reflection of prevailing beliefs. But these "multiple

definitions" do not attest to the veracity of the "multiple definitions."

In fact, it is impossible since quite often the "multiple definitions" are

diametrically opposed; meaning, only one can be true.

"Multiple definitions" are to emotionally accommodate varying beliefs. They

are philosophical concepts which may or may not rest upon truth.

Definitively, most certainly, they are not all definitions.

The "multiple definitions" of truth is the root hydra source for the concept

of multiple definitions in all its manifestations. The dichotomy shown in

the "multiple definitions" of truth is also found in all its usages. The

implications of reality are simply ignored (example: in the expression divine "truth"),

while the illusion of multiple definitions garners many believers via emotional appeal.

In literally every instance of "multiple definition", you will find objective

referent missing; mentally displaced and replaced by a subjective value

judgement.

The objective referent in question is each human individual. Each is a

finite entity with a specific set of characteristics.

"Identity - To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing

of non-existence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of

specific attributes." - "A thing is—what it is; its characteristics

constitute its identity. ""... a thing cannot act in contradiction to its

nature." (Rand)

The nature of an individual is synonymous with the set of characteristics by

which an individual is identified. These characteristics are fixed in and by

nature. They are not variable. There is no Column A and Column B implying a

"sometimes characteristic."

Each individual is a volitional, valuing, goal-seeking entity. There is no

sometimes volitional. There is no sometimes valuing (attributing value).

There is no sometimes goal-seeking. These are constants.

There is no "discovering value" in contradiction to "attributing value".

Discovering value presupposes a "value" existing independently of a valuer.

"Discovering value" is contradiction of the nature of an individual.

Value is always attributed

in correspondence with personal preferences. It makes no difference what is

valued. It makes no difference whether that valued is life oriented, or

death oriented, reality or illusion, the valuation is always value

subjectively attributed. This is entity identity independent of a value

judgment. It is what it is whether you or I like or dislike a particular

individual choice. All the "multiple definitions" in the world will never

change this fact.

To say that one's values are based on the "facts of reality" does not

address the issue. The claim is a tautological circle. Everyone claims to

believe and act upon the "facts of reality." Sometimes facts are known as

facts, and sometime fallacy is believed to be fact. Even if two or more

individuals agree upon certain facts of an entity identity and/or a

relationship, the agreement upon the identity does not assure a common

valuation.

Whatever the fact, or facts, the value attributed is infinitely variable

between individuals, or within an individual. Indeed, the facts are

objective, but individual valuations in correspondence with personal

preference are always subjective. Ergo, via identity, subjective value is

objective fact ("objective" being redundant here of course).

To speak of objective values, or values being objective, is to confuse

the valuer with what is being valued.

In an obtuse, overland route, the claim of objective values is an alleged

differentiation implying "superior values" by virtue of being based on the

"facts of reality." At radical level, it is merely disagreement over what is

or is not fact. The "multiple definition" of objective is a word game, a

contradiction in alleged support of the implied "superiority" of the

philosophy.

In one instance, the term, objective, is connected to reality as exists

independently of mind. In the next instance, the term, objective, (via

"multiple definitions") is connected to a value judgment which is mind

dependent. The same word is applied to opposites at the same time it is

claimed both correspond to reality. This calls for a dual reality; which, in

turn, negates the very basis of fact.

The same applies to the notion of selfish and selflessness and the idea of

"multiple definitions." A "selfless" individual is a dead individual. Self

interest is no less an inherent, (100%) entity-identifying characteristic

than volition and attributing value. Different conceptions (different

"definitions") do not make "selfless", or "degrees of self interest" true

any more than "multiple definitions" of truth create a dual reality to

validate the "multiple definitions" of the term, objective.

The essence of my arguments are that an alleged definition either connects

to an aspect of reality independent of mind, or it doesn't. If it doesn't,

it is not a definition. It is a subjective value judgment falsely claimed to

be objective discovery. In support of the foregoing arguments is the fact

that no one can come up with an example of action not motivated by

unqualified self interest.

You base your declaration of error upon refusal to accept the idea of

selflessness, or two kinds of self interest. I have explained (again) why I

do not accept the premises. If you still believe I am in error on this,

please quote what and why you believe I am obliged to accept your idea of

"multiple definitions?" In an exchange of questions and answers, perhaps, we

can find out where error lies.

Edited May 31, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ9VZixY7-0

[Xray]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nJ9VZixY7-0

Ah, "Il Silenzio" ('Silence'). Wonderful and very moving piece of music. An all-time favorite of mine.

Did you mean it as a message? "Silenzio!" ;)

No problem if you want to take a little respite from reading, Selene. Philosophical discussions can be arduous, no question.

I've got something for you too. Wanna "take five", see some trains and hear some nice music? Would fit well into the discussion, since the philosopher's magnum opus Atlas Shrugged deals with railroads.

One has to give Rand that, she gets the technical part about the trains across very well, and also succeeds in making the reader interested in the topic, at least she did with me.

I commute to and from work by a suburban train, and due to the reading of AS, recently have found myself looking with interest at tracks, sidelines, switches, etc.

Now before we get back on track (pun intended), enjoy the song "Wreckof the Old 97" and the pics from the early railroad days.

(The depicted trains are clearly NOT the Taggart Comet. )

Here ya go:

Edited May 31, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray,

4 things to discuss:

1 Selflessness as defined conventionally and otherwise

2 Whether Ivy Starnes spoke for Rand

3 Whether Keating, Taggart were selfless

4 Whether Roark was selfish in blowing up Cortlandt Homes

Agreed.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This all rests upon the issue of alleged multiple definitions. I reject the notion of multiple definition.

Xray,

I am going to give this a try again and hope I don't regret it. (I am taking you at your word that you seek the truth.)

There is a HUGE difference between WORD and CONCEPT.

A WORD can have multiple definitions. A CONCEPT does not.

There are many languages in the world, all using different WORDS to express the same CONCEPTS.

Dictionaries attribute different CONCEPTS to the same WORD (through different definitions). That's because people use WORDS that way.

"Define you terms" means make clear which CONCEPT you are attributing to the WORD you use during a discussion, not which definition you are giving a CONCEPT. (That happens sometimes, but it is rare in the discussions I have observed. Defining CONCEPTS is more present in educational settings, especially when people acquire specialized knowledge and new skills.)

A CONCEPT is usually expressed by a WORD, but it also can be expressed by other means, like pointing, creating an image, making onomatopoetic sounds, etc.

Another issue is man's limitations at processing knowledge. Everything he knows is limited to what he is capable of knowing and one fact is certain: he is not capable of being everywhere for all time in the same instant. But he is capable of learning new stuff that he didn't or couldn't know earlier. So even the CONCEPTS man holds must take this limitation into account and they are open to correction with new discoveries. (This is called contextual knowledge in Objectivism.)

FACT (reality) does not change. Our KNOWLEDGE of it changes constantly. This is the only thing that permits growth of knowledge.

You may not like the way human beings process information, but if you seek the truth, you will acknowledge it and stop preaching—essentially—that a WORD must express only one CONCEPT and a CONCEPT can be expressed only by one WORD. And stop preaching that the person you are discussing matters with is using "multiple definitions" for the CONCEPT he is discussing just because he acknowledges that the WORD being used has multiple definitions. You are constantly making a tossed salad between WORDS and CONCEPTS when you comment on what someone else is saying.

Physician, heal theyself.

Then you can preach your manner of health to others.

But let's take your premise to the example level. Since you are good at asking for examples, I have a request for one. Please cite an example of one WORD that has only one meaning (CONCEPT)—one definition—in all languages on earth. The same WORD expressing the same CONCEPT in French, German, English, Portuguese, Chinese, Swahili, etc.

Shall we start with "truth"? The WORD "truth" doesn't even exist in Chinese, for a quick example, so there that goes. But the CONCEPT does.

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Wow, that was good, maestro...

rde

Word Up

[Xray]

Dictionaries attribute different CONCEPTS to the same WORD (through different definitions). That's because people use WORDS that way.

The problem with those lexicon entries is that they list all possible

contexts in which a term is factually applied by users of the language, who themselves often disregard the laws of entity identity when speaking

of things like "divine/spiritual reality", thereby denying the very definition of reality.

So the dictionaries are often records of the imprecise language employed by its users.

From which it follows that dictionaries are naturally riddled with contradictions.

As a foreign language learner, for example, of course I have to know that e. g.

"truth" in English is also referring to an alleged "spiritual reality", even if this use violates the laws of clear thinking. It is the same in German ("göttliche Wahrheit")

But the only necessity is to recognize that the "truth" as in "spiritual reality" is just plain fallacy. This does not define truth at all. It evades it.

"Multiple definitions" are not to be found in what is usually regarded as the technical area. No one claims multiple definitions of an electron,

proton, and a long list of other items.

Another issue factors in: language use does not follow the strict laws of logic.

Example: Mom to her son Johnny: " But you can't bury your litte brother's cap in the sand!"

Of course Johnny "can". The dirty cap retrieved from the sand is the evidence of it.

In linguistics, the field of "pragmatics" covers these issues.

There is a HUGE difference between WORD and CONCEPT.

A WORD can have multiple definitions. A CONCEPT does not.

But isn't that precisely what Rand is doing?

Let's look at Rand (via Ivy Starnes) explaining the principle of "selflessness" [altruism]:

Atlas Shrugged, p. 323: Ivy Starnes to Dagny.

"That was our plan. It was based on the principle of selflessness [i. e. "altruism"]. It required men to be motivated not by personal gain, but by love for their brothers." (end quote)

Now with Keating being identified as "selfless" [i e. an "altruist"], it logically follows that (again, according to Rand) he is motivated not by personal gain, but by love for his brothers. Right?

Now no one would believe Keating was motivated by love of his "brother" (= fellow human being) Howard Roark and not by personal gain, when he asked him to do his work for him

He was motivated by personal gain of course. It sticks out a mile.

So there is an obvious cotradiction within Rand's own writings: her "selfless" (she verbatim called him that) character Keating does not fit the profile she herself outlined in her definition of "selflessness". So we have a definition, and an example (Keating) allegedly illustrating the definition but which blatantly contradicts it 100 percent. That's what I meant when speaking about rejecting the idea of multiple definitions: when they lead to contradictions. A thing can't be A and its opposite B.

The assumption of a "divine reality" for example denies the very definiton of reality, and Rand would have the first one to point out such a contradticiton.

Whn Albert Einstein got to read some esoteric stuff of Rudolf Steiner about "extrasensory experience", his comment was: "Huh? Just think about that nonsense: "extrasensory experience". How on earth can I experience something without at least using one of my senses??"

A WORD is a sound chain/chain of letters evoking a mental image referring to an identity/relatinship.

It is elementary that if an audio/visual symbol is to serve as

tool of communication, the symbol must mean the same to both speaker and listener. Of course, it must remain constant as well.

The only way to accomplish this is to connect the audio/visual symbol to something outside of self; outside of variable personal preference. That

something is entity identity known to exist by its set of differentiating characteristics. It if from this identity that all relationships, potential or realized, are known.

More later.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Xray

[Michelle]

Germany, better examples might include Keating blackmailing Lucius Heyer, manipulating other employees to take their positions, etc.

[Brant Gaede]

It's better to say not that some words have multiple definitions but multiple concepts hence definitions. Which is which is revealed by how a word is used.

--Brant

[Xray]

[shall we start with "truth"? The WORD "truth" doesn't even exist in Chinese, for a quick example, so there that goes. But the CONCEPT does.

The word "truth" does exist in Chinese. I just googled the sign for it:

http://goodcharacters.com/truth.html

Edited May 31, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

[shall we start with "truth"? The WORD "truth" doesn't even exist in Chinese, for a quick example, so there that goes. But the CONCEPT does.

The word "truth" does exist in Chinese. I just googled the sign for it:

http://goodcharacters.com/truth.html

Xray,

I was sincerely hoping you would not make that mistake, but suspected you would.

There is a Chinese symbol for the CONCEPT of truth (and a verbal utterance that likewise corresponds to the concept), but the WORD "truth" as written in English does not appear in the Chinese language.

I specifically mentioned "the word" "truth," not "a word standing for truth" or a word that can be translated as the same concept.

If that error is any indication, you have a ways to go yet to properly understand. Until you understand this, your more sophisticated arguments will constantly fall into a logical mishmash.

I wouldn't mind focusing on the simple stuff before moving on just so this problem will go away and we can actually discuss the ideas. (You have some great observations, but they are mixed with primary mistakes and all preached as one message. Apropos, why not even give up the preaching before understanding? You appear to have a good mind that doesn't need that kind of stuff.)

As to your more complicated arguments per se, they are and will continue to be nothing but word games until the difference between word (or even expression) and concept becomes clear.

Brant nailed it here, and presented a correct link that is normally not mentioned in the conceptual daisy chain:

It's better to say not that some words have multiple definitions but multiple concepts hence definitions. Which is which is revealed by how a word is used.

You can even apply this to a total change in language.

Michael

[Xray]

[Thom]:

You have identifed a major problem in discussing philosophy in general. This is not a problem specific to Rand, but it does happen that Rand brought into the world many new ideas about the nature of reality--much more than other philosophers--such that in order to discuss the Objectivist philosophy, we have to discern the conventional meaning of a word versus its Objectivist meaning.

This is the problem with many philosophers: they often create their own linguistic universe with a terminology more likely to confuse than clarify.

The terminology and language Heidegger used has been lambasted as "balderdash" and "confused ramblings" by Analytical Philosophers.

When Jaspers sent Einstein his work "Psychologie der Weltanschauung", Einstein said it reads "like the chaotic drivel of someone who has had a few too many".

As for Rand, she often presented mere subjective value judgements as objective "definition".

[Thom]:

This does not presume that we, you or me in particular, have to accept the Objectivist meaning of a word to be true.

You have zeroed in on THE issue, Thom. Doing the litmus test on the truth of Rand's statements is going to be the focus of our analysis.

I have only one dog in that fight and its name is truth seeker. In order to find out the truth, every philosophical thought system which is presented as being true has be subjected to epistemological litmus tests. As for Rand's claim that "objective" values and non-self interest exist, it has not passed the test. This is also the weakest point of her philosophy imo, which, while it does contain certain truths, is based on false premises here.

I have no problem with recommending kindness, honesty etc., but I don't accept the claim that these are objective values that can be scientifically proved.

[Thom]:

Nor does it presume that Ayn Rand has to accept the conventional meaning of a word to be true. Of course, if a word does have two meanings that are complete inversions of each other, then the two meanings cannot both be true. That is, at least one must be false.

Correct.

Rand always admonished people to check their premises. Let's take her advice and check hers.

Edited June 1, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Of course, if a word does have two meanings that are complete inversions of each other, then the two meanings cannot both be true. That is, at least one must be false.

Thom,

This had escaped me.

This is incorrect. Once concept cannot be the opposite concept, but the same word can legitimately stand for both, depending on how and where it is used.

Here is a very good example. The word "bad."

It normally has a negative meaning until Michael Jackson uses it.

Would you call Michael Jackson's song "false"? That doesn't make any sense.

One concept means the opposite of the other, yet both use the same word.

If you use the meaning of "bad" as Michael Jackson does when a preacher says, "Murdering innocent people is bad," I agree that that meaning would be false. But it is also false to think that Michael Jackson is singing that he is actually evil just because he uses the word "bad" in the phrase "I'm bad."

This is a premise that sorely needs checking.

I believe the world would be far better off if people started thinking and communicating conceptually and stopped hiding their true intentions behind words that sound similar. I believe this because I believe that the goodness in people outweighs the bad (in the original meaning of "bad").

When faced with clear concepts, people usually do the right thing. The problem is being faced with clear concepts. I once mentioned an excellent example of this as I believe it.

... Rand's thought ties in with a gem of wisdom that has stayed with me for years from a movie called The Confession. Ben Kingsley's character, Harry Fertig, says it (and it was originally written by Sol Yurick).

It's not hard to do the right thing. It's hard to know what the right thing is. But once you know what the right thing is, it's hard not to do it.

This is an example of thinking in concepts, not just words.

Michael