Is Being Self-Interested the Same as Being Egoistic?

[Brant Gaede]

Epistemological fallacy: We can improve on nature with blather.

There is us and there is it. We have minds which if properly used will find out what it is and to act accordingly. The gift of nature if you will. Kep 'em alive until the kids grow up enough. Now, today, even if yesterday is history, instructive but maybe not needed, we have professional and amateur epistemologists who are, apart from reality, creating, they think, a non-real reality they can play in while implicitly if not explicitly, denigrating both the human brain and reality itself. I've no use for this crap. Who does but such? I couldn't have conceived Xray but that didn't stop her from showing up. Free education! Thx!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Ok going to the shed to get the BIG shovel.

Brant I do enjoy your posts, even when one comes flying my way.

LOL

I'm only standing on your shoulders.

--Brant

[tjohnson]

There are no objective criteria by which a category is constructed.

I think you mean there are objectively correct criteria? I could say that that an adult fish is x inches long, which is an objective criteria, but it is by no mean the only or proper criteria one could use for establishing "adultness".

[tjohnson]

However, to say "life proper to man", this is a personal value judgment, the fallacy lying in presenting one's subjective values as "objective". This mental invention is the source of fallacious concepts like "universal man" with subsequent "universal objective values."

Xray, do you believe it is possible to have a science of man such that we could say man should behave a certain way due to the structure of his nervous system?

[Xray]

In my understanding of this my percept of a dog is not the same every time. Do you mean to say that your dog looks exactly the same every time you see it? Doesn't it actually look different every time, even if it is only slightly? What doesn't change is the concept of postulation, ie. the imagined or remembered image of your dog.

This is like using calculus to evaluate perceptions. No?

Sometimes a dog is only a dog.

Woof!

--Brant

in spite of the "Woof!", not a dog

(just quoting my chocolate Lab, Saga)

We have a retriever dog too (not a Lab, but a Golden Retriever, Mira). But we had wavered whether to buy a Lab or a Golden - they are very similar in character. I love retriever dogs.

Every dog owner knows that man is not the only "rational" animal. ;)

Edited June 7, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

That was a subjective "woof" if I ever heard one!

(Actually I read it...)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

In my understanding of this my percept of a dog is not the same every time. Do you mean to say that your dog looks exactly the same every time you see it? Doesn't it actually look different every time, even if it is only slightly? What doesn't change is the concept of postulation, ie. the imagined or remembered image of your dog.

This is like using calculus to evaluate perceptions. No?

Sometimes a dog is only a dog.

Woof!

--Brant

in spite of the "Woof!", not a dog

(just quoting my chocolate Lab, Saga)

We have a retriever dog too (not a Lab, but a Golden Retriever, Mira. But we had wavered whether to buy a Lab or a Golden - they are very similar in character. I love retriever dogs.

Every dog owner knows that man is not the only "rational" animal. ;)

No German Short-Hair Pointer?

--Brant

[Xray]

That was a subjective "woof" if I ever heard one!

(Actually I read it...)

Michael

Ours "woofs" very little. We call her "our little lamb" because she is so sweet, getting along with everybody, dogs or people. Even greets the mailman with a friendly tail wag. Would not make a very good watchdog but then we didn't buy her as one.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

In my understanding of this my percept of a dog is not the same every time. Do you mean to say that your dog looks exactly the same every time you see it? Doesn't it actually look different every time, even if it is only slightly? What doesn't change is the concept of postulation, ie. the imagined or remembered image of your dog.

This is like using calculus to evaluate perceptions. No?

Sometimes a dog is only a dog.

Woof!

--Brant

in spite of the "Woof!", not a dog

(just quoting my chocolate Lab, Saga)

We have a retriever dog too (not a Lab, but a Golden Retriever, Mira. But we had wavered whether to buy a Lab or a Golden - they are very similar in character. I love retriever dogs.

Every dog owner knows that man is not the only "rational" animal. ;)

No German Short-Hair Pointer?

--Brant

No. No German Shepherd either.

Well, you could have gone for a Norwegian Elk Hound.

--Brant

[Xray]

Well, you could have gone for a Norwegian Elk Hound.

--Brant

You mean the Norwegian National dog?

Sure, we could have gone for countless other breeds, but the Golden Retriever just fits perfectly for us.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

[General Semanticist]:

Xray, do you believe it is possible to have a science of man such that we could say man should behave a certain way due to the structure of his nervous system?

GS, your question addresses a crucial issue touching the core of Rand's philosophy, which is about "should" and "ought to".

Imo one can't go from an "is" to an "ought to".

For example, breathing is a biological necessity for humans. We must breathe to stay alive. It is not we "ought to" breathe.

"Ought to" and "should" are subjective value judgements, so to answer your question: No, I don't think it is possible, because it can't be done.

What can be done is to research "if - then" cause and effect issues in that field.

To take a recent example for illustration purposes: when poster A gets so angry at what poster B wrote that he wants to get a virtual "gun from his drawer", it can be inferred that A is in an emotionally upset state which means his nervous system is very agitated, and brain imaging techniques would probably show the region of A's amygdala (or wherever emotion is located) as activated.

To feel that A "ought to" calm down or (go on) is an entirely subjective value judgement.

To feel that B "ought to" strike back (or not) is an entirely subjective value judgement as well.

The scientific approach is: IF B reacts as emotionally upset as A and retorts in the same way, THEN, given all we know about human behavior, an escalation is very likely.

So I'm really curious to see how B will react to A's post. ;)

Edited to add: I just saw in # 212 that poster A has not stopped, so it can be inferred that his nervous system is still in agitiation. Should really be quite interesting to see what B will do now. Judging from B' posts, imo this person is not the type to be easily provoked, so B will probably just laugh.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"No. No German Shepherd either."

Hmm, it must be lonely personing the guard tower late at night with only the machine gun and bright lights.

[Xray]

[Selene]:

Which drawer did I put my gun in....

Now, now Selene, calm down - there's no need to panic.

Hmm, it must be lonely personing the guard tower late at night with only the machine gun and bright lights.

Relax, Signore. All that angry agitazione only puts negative strain on your nervous system. (see # 211 ;) )

But if you absolutely insist on watchtowers, here is something for you - the Jimi Hendrix classic "All along The Watchtower". The original song is from Bob Dylan, but I personally prefer the more powerful Hendrix version - which imo suits the dramatic text better.

Here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BCwCBh0z3Hs

Edited June 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

I think you should take a fresh look at your interpretation of the statement on the gun and while you are at it, you should take a fresh look at Rand as in reading her works.

One of the greatest guitarist of all time...Jimmy not Ayn <<<I know how easily confused you become when you conflate your imaginary statements with the real statements of the author whose works gave rise to the forum you belong to.

And just for your submissive heart, my blood pressure is 118 over 72 and has been that way most all of my life.

You know you would miss the dominant reaction that I have to your naive statements on Rand and I would never disappoint a German...seems to have some nasty consequences...usually for the German.

[Xray]

I think you should take a fresh look at your interpretation of the statement on the gun and while you are at it, you should take a fresh look at Rand as in reading her works.

One of the greatest guitarist of all time...Jimmy not Ayn <<<I know how easily confused you become when you conflate your imaginary statements with the real statements of the author whose works gave rise to the forum you belong to.

And just for your submissive heart, my blood pressure is 118 over 72 and has been that way most all of my life.

You know you would miss the dominant reaction that I have to your naive statements on Rand and I would never disappoint a German...seems to have some nasty consequences...usually for the German.

Only 118 over 72? That's low for a sixty-two year-old. I'm sure your doctor will be delighted.

As for your apparent "Germanophobia", that's your problem, not mine.

And would you please quote my alleged "naive" statements on Rand, plus elaborating why you think they are naive.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Don't visit them, Doctors, similar to your not visiting Rand.

And No I will not my dear.

[Xray]

And No I will not my dear.

No surprise. The usual evasion from you when asked for direct quotes.

[Xray]

If the process of categorizing is selection and mentally grouping on similarities, wouldn't you first have to know of the existence of at least two entities before you can compare and select similarities? If you don't have knowledge of an entity (entities) as the primary, what is there to categorize? Ergo, the first question is how do you know an entity to exist?

What is the mental process by which you accomplish this? If not by mentally abstracting via a set of differentiating characteristic, what is it?

Automatic knowledge without process? Revealed truth? What?

I suppose xray has ruled perception out of court? Kelley explains the bridge of the perceptual judgment.

Would you please point out where in my post I disregarded perception.

Edited June 7, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Sonny & Cher)

CHORUS:

The beat goes on, the beat goes on

Drums keep pounding a rhythm to the brain

La de da de de, la de da de da

Charleston was once the rage, uh huh

History has turned the page, uh huh

The mini skirts the current thing, uh huh

Teenybopper is our newborn king, uh huh

Chorus

The grocery store's the super mart, uh huh

Little girls still break their hearts, uh huh

And men still keep on marching off to war

Electrically they keep a baseball score

Chorus

Grandmas sit in chairs and reminisce

Boys keep chasing girls to get a kiss

The cars keep going faster all the time

Bums still cry "hey buddy, have you got a dime"

Chorus

[Xray]

There are no objective criteria by which a category is constructed.

I think you mean there are objectively correct criteria? I could say that that an adult fish is x inches long, which is an objective criteria, but it is by no mean the only or proper criteria one could use for establishing "adultness".

The subjective element lies in the creation of the category itself - in the above example it is the arbitrary establishing of a category "adultness".

For instance, human individuals can arbitrarily be categorized under e. g. "bipedal", "sentient", "volitional"; or one could

categorize them under "organic compound". In the latter, pretty much all of differentiation is left out of the category (for all that remains is non organic).

This means the categorical term, organic, is unsuitable for most definitive thought and communication dealing with human individual since nearly all differentiation is omitted.

The value of a categorical term is its use value in communicating. This depends on subjective agreement and understanding among the users as to the general meaning. The key phrase is general agreement in categorizing.

When mother tells little Johnny: "Please shut the drawer with the forks", when Johnny hears this request, his mind accesses

the category and filed categorical information inferred by the terminology. In accessing this category, it automatically excludes the categories of knives and spoons which are in different mental "file folders". Again, it's a matter of accessing the information in the appropriate file folder.

In day to day operations of material things, categorizing and categorical terminology is usually not a problem. The reason for the rather long elaborations on the subject is because of the general practice of confusing the category with the actual in socio/economic and philosophical issues.

Underlying this is the absence of epistemological discipline based on finite entity identity.

Rand's life proper to "man" is a classic example.

Xray, do you believe it is possible to have a science of man such that we could say man should behave a certain way due to the structure of his nervous system?

There is no such identity as "man". "Man" refers to category.

Nor is there an objective "should".

Behavior goes to choosing of ends and selection and application of means which will either achieve the end or fail to achieve the end.

Behavior is derived from what one believes to be true in conjunction with volition and valuations.

GS, what are your thoughts on the issue?

Edited June 9, 2009 by Xray