Rand Critics

[Xray]

[Brant Gaede]:

"But I have already pointed out that bottom line your epistemological excuse

for a philosophy logically end up with anything goes, from Hitler to one's

sainted mother."

Brant,

Your conclusion that "no objective values existing" imply that anything goes,

and that everyone stating that there exist no objective values condones an

"anything goes" attitude is wrong.

For the exact opposite is the case: It is the idea of a superior being

and the illusion of objective value that sets the stage for "anything goes".

It's "mandated and justified" by belief in a "standard of values" discovered

independently of individual creating, hence, "superior."

It makes no difference whether you call it "God's will", for the "good of

the country", or "life proper to man", real finite individual is left out of

the thinking equation except to be regarded as the means to some "universal

value."

"That's because there is no metaphysical tie in on the one side or an

ethical and political tie in on the other." (Ibid)

One can see a vaguely expressed psychological tie to an imaginary set

of "ethical values" - as if they are apart from individual creating.

You seem to see this as necessary for "proper behavior", i.e., the "good," and therefore

imagine the opposite to be the "bad", "anything goes".

I have the feeling that you still subscribe to the idea of "evil nature of man" and seek "security"

via a "universal set of value" applicable to all.

Of course, instead of peace and harmony, the end result is the exact opposite.

It is actually the denying of subjective value, which does not allow to present ideas and actions opposed, which winds up in hostile conflict.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

You asked about when you did not present your mode of thinking. That's easy.

It was with what you mean by "objective."

The best I can gather from your former statements is that objective is not a bunch of stuff you deem subjective and it is established by a consensus of experts.

Yet when I ask you if this is it, you imply it isn't and repeat a lot of stuff that basically says that objective is not a bunch of stuff you deem subjective and it is established by a consensus of experts.

So I'll ask again, is this your meaning of "objective"?

btw - I am curious. Since you think that existence doesn't exist, do you believe that you exist? Or do you think you don't?

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

You asked about when you did not present your mode of thinking. That's easy.

It was with what you mean by "objective."

The best I can gather from your former statements is that objective is not a bunch of stuff you deem subjective and it is established by a consensus of experts.

Yet when I ask you if this is it, you imply it isn't and repeat a lot of stuff that basically says that objective is not a bunch of stuff you deem subjective and it is established by a consensus of experts.

So I'll ask again, is this your meaning of "objective"?

btw - I am curious. Since you think that existence doesn't exist, do you believe that you exist? Or do you think you don't?

Michael

Michael,

you agreed with the definition of objective I gave you way back when but failed to present yours when asked.

Let's not get sidetracked now but stay focused on "existence exists".

In my # 151 post to you, I asked you:

Could it be that she simply meant by the oddly worded statement "existence exists", that one is to accept as a "given" that we exist; that the world, that the universe actually exist? And that she wanted to take it from there?

btw - I am curious. Since you think that existence doesn't exist, do you believe that you exist? Or do you think you don't?

Existence can't "exist", the same as love can't "love", hatred can't "hate" etc. Imo Rand simply applied language wrongly when wording it like that. What do you think?

Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

x-ray [teacher of what? please tell me not grammar/usage]:

Have you noticed that existence is a noun and that love is:

1) a noun; or

2) a verb; or

3) a verb used with an object; or

4) various idiomatic "spins".

by the way hate suffers from the same usage modifications.

Maybe that's why "existence exists" is such an "oddly worded statement".

Hmm, above your pay grade...yes.

Adam

[Xray]

[Michael Stuart Kelly]:

"Rand is a bit fuzzy on the meaning of entity......This is one of the points

in Objectivist epistemology that really needs a lot of work."

That's quite an understatement.

An entity is a finite physical quantity. It may be larger than the earth, or

smaller than an electron, but finite quantity mentally abstracted by a set

of differentiating characteristics is the root of identity and root of all

knowledge. That's all there is to it.

"btw - Because of all the interrelationships, I like the idea of "holon" to

describe entities. A holon is a whole made up of parts, but at the same time

it is a part of an even larger whole governed by a broader level of

organization." (Michael)

What you are talking about is entities within entities.

Assuming no absolute vacuum, all that exists is a continuum. Since

mind cannot grasp infinity, knowledge comes about by mentally abstracting

the parts.

An example is a tree. The mental abstracting starts with the

whole tree, to abstracting branches, leaves, section of leaves, a leaf,

section of a leaf, etc., right on through abstracting to a degree to grasp

molecular construction.

"For example, when you have a chair with a cushion attached by Velcro, what

is the cushion? Part of the chair, thus not an entity? And what is the

cushion when you remove it from the chair? Still not an entity? That gets

silly after a while." (Michael)

Michael, not only the cushion, but each upholstering tack and each piece of thread, etc., is an entity.

You have looked straight and demonstatred the root principle of epistemology, but call it silly? :question:

Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

What do you think?

Xray,

I think you didn't answer my questions. That's what I think.

btw - I have already given you two supports for constructing the concept of objective, but apparently you ignored them in your anti-Rand crusade.

And you sidestep giving your own meaning of objective, other than, obviously "not subjective" and "consensus of experts." The problem is that this is not very usable to construct any argument, much less a critique. And the other problem is that you don't seem to have anything else.

Not good...

Here's some advice for you. Since you are having difficulty with all this and I understand that it is hard to digest a body of work all at once, here are two very good reference sites you can use as short-cuts. This is not the same as reading the works, but at least you will get more stuff right than you have been doing.

It's tedious to argue against primary errors (Rand said/meant this or that when she didn't, or XXX is an Objectivist concept when it isn't). If you want to bash Rand as your goal in life, I suggest you correctly present what she said and meant instead of incorrectly presenting it all the time like you are doing. That would be an objective value and you apparently don't believe in that, but give it a try anyway.

Objectivism Reference Center

Ayn Rand Lexicon

This last has a defect in that the works of Nathaniel Branden that Rand considered to be an official part of Objectivism are not included. But at least you can get some Rand (and Peikoff is inserted at times).

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Michael, not only the cushion, but each upholstering tack and each piece of thread, etc., is an entity.

Xray,

We agree here.

You have looked straight and demonstatred the root principle of epistemology, but call it silly? :question:

Why no. I didn't call any principle of epistemology at all silly.

This is why it is difficult to discuss with you and I get a bit reluctant to agree with you. You made this error right on the tail end of the statement I agreed with. You don't read very carefully and you misinterpret so much that it seems like misinterpretation is a principle of Xray epistemology.

Michael

[Xray]

What do you think?

Xray,

I think you didn't answer my questions. That's what I think.

btw - I have already given you two supports for constructing the concept of objective, but apparently you ignored them in your anti-Rand crusade.

And you sidestep giving your own meaning of objective, other than, obviously "not subjective" and "consensus of experts." The problem is that this is not very usable to construct any argument, much less a critique. And the other problem is that you don't seem to have anything else.

Not good...

Here's some advice for you. Since you are having difficulty with all this and I understand that it is hard to digest a body of work all at once, here are two very good reference sites you can use as short-cuts. This is not the same as reading the works, but at least you will get more stuff right than you have been doing.

It's tedious to argue against primary errors (Rand said/meant this or that when she didn't, or XXX is an Objectivist concept when it isn't). If you want to bash Rand as your goal in life, I suggest you correctly present what she said and meant instead of incorrectly presenting it all the time like you are doing. That would be an objective value and you apparently don't believe in that, but give it a try anyway.

Objectivism Reference Center

Ayn Rand Lexicon

This last has a defect in that the works of Nathaniel Branden that Rand considered to be an official part of Objectivism are not included. But at least you can get some Rand (and Peikoff is inserted at times).

Michael

I have both ITOE and Peikoff's book, thanks, and also know about the Ayn Rand lexicon.

I took a look and found this fom Peikoff on entity:

"An entity is a solid thing open to human perception and capable of independent action." (LP)

"Capable of independent action? Did Peikoff speak with one of Rand's valuing plants?

Hmm, but maybe it was a typo and he meant incapable of independent action?

But then this definition excludes entities like human beings.

A bit chaotic, that stuff in the lexicon entry, isn't it , Michael?

Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

A bit chaotic, that stuff in the lexicon entry, isn't it , Michael?

Xray,

Oh no you don't.

Just because I have the intellectual and emotional balance to appreciate Rand's marvelous contributions to humanity and also see her errors and scope issues, this does not make me one of your collaborators in your crusade to bash Rand.

I am nowhere near there.

There are other people around here you can play those games with.

Michael

[Xray]

Have you noticed that existence is a noun and that love is:

1) a noun; or

2) a verb; or

3) a verb used with an object; or

4) various idiomatic "spins".

Of course I know that "love" can be used as a noun and verb.

The linguistic term for it is "conversion", meaning that words can change categories (noun/verb) without altering their chain of sounds and chain of letters. The English language is particularly rich in those conversions.

Examples are: eye/to eye, smell/to smell, fool/to fool, taste/to taste, love/to love, hate /to hate, value/to value, to name but a few.

3) is self-evident.

4) the same as 3.

Maybe that's why "existence exists" is such an "oddly worded statement".

No, for neither conversion nor points 3 and 4 are of relevance here, Selene.

"Existence" can't "exist" just as e. g. "values" can't "value" and "categories" can't "categorize".

My guess is Rand used the (oddly worded) statement "existence exists" in the sense that one is to accept as a "given" that we exist; that the world, that the universe actually exist. And that she wanted to take it from there.

Do you think that's how she used it? I'm interested in yours and others' opinion on it.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

Are you one of the "ones" who "...accept as a 'given' that we exist; that the world, that the universe actually exist."?

[Xray]

A bit chaotic, that stuff in the lexicon entry, isn't it , Michael?

Xray,

Oh no you don't.

Just because I have the intellectual and emotional balance to appreciate Rand's marvelous contributions to humanity and also see her errors and scope issues, this does not make me one of your collaborators in your crusade to bash Rand.

I am nowhere near there.

There are other people around here you can play those games with.

Michael

I'm not playing games, Michael.

A few posts ago (# 139), you wrote that the meaning of entity "is one of the points

in Objectivist epistemology that really needs a lot of work".

I completely agree with you on that.

Then I quoted a statement by Peikoff re entity from that same lexicon entry which actually illustrates YOUR point.

"An entity is a solid thing open to human perception and capable of independent action." (LP)

What do you think of this statement by Peikoff? How can it be applied to e. g. the entity "sofa cushion"? How can the entity sofa cushion be capable of independent action? :question:

Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Are you one of the "ones" who "...accept as a 'given' that we exist; that the world, that the universe actually exist."?

As long as I'm not confronted with evidence indicating the contrary, the answer is "Yes".

Now that I have answered your question, would you please also answer mine which I asked you in # 160.

"My guess is Rand used the (oddly worded) statement "existence exists" in the sense that one is to accept as a "given" that we exist; that the world, that the universe actually exist. And that she wanted to take it from there.

Do you think that's how she used it? I'm interested in yours and others' opinion on it.

Your turn now, Selene.

Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm not playing games, Michael.

Xray,

Prove it.

Do you have a meaning for "objective" that goes beyone "not subjective" and "consensus by experts" or is that all you have?

It's not a difficult question or IQ test.

Michael

[Selene]

Are you one of the "ones" who "...accept as a 'given' that we exist; that the world, that the universe actually exist."?

As long as I'm not confronted with evidence indicating the contrary, the answer is "Yes".

Now that I have answered your queston, would you please also answer mine which I asked you in # 160.

"My guess is Rand used the (oddly worded) statement "existence exists" in the sense that one is to accept as a "given" that we exist; that the world, that the universe actually exist. And that she wanted to take it from there.

Do you think that's how she used it? I'm interested in yours and others' opinion on it.

Your turn now, Selene.

Yes.

[Xray]

I'm not playing games, Michael.

Xray,

Prove it.

Isn't the boot on the other foot? Since it was you claimed that I'm "playing games", imo the burden of proof is on you.

So please quote from my posts where you think I'm "playing games". I like my ducks in a row. We'll then go through it here point per point to clear up possible misunderstandings. Blanket indictments lead nowhere, so please be specific with the quotes. TIA.

Do you have a meaning for "objective" that goes beyond "not subjective" and "consensus by experts" or is that all you have?

I quoted dictionary entries re "objective" with which you agreed. Please explain what you don't understand about it.

Want some more?

From the free online dictonary:

Adjective

1. not distorted by personal feelings or bias: "I have tried to be as objective as possible in my presentation."

2. of or relating to actual facts as opposed to thoughts or feelings: stand back and try to take a more objective view of your life as a whole

3. existing independently of the mind; real

So where do you have difficulty with the term "objective"?

Edited June 27, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

He's not going to dance with you until you show him your feet aren't nailed to the floor.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

I have no idea what you mean in the copy/paste you did by things like "actual fact" and "independently of the mind."

How do you know something is an "actual fact" or that something exists "independently of the mind"? In other words, if this is objective, how do you know it?

If you don't really know something is objective, that's not very objective, now is it?

Sounds like you just copy/paste words and that sounds pretty subjective to me so far. I, for instance, can copy/paste other words. Knowing what they mean is the rub.

See? Games...

Gotta bow out again for a while since this is tedious.

Please don't bore me with too many errors dressed in anti-Rand rhetoric. Try to get at least a few things right...

Brant,

I'm not going to play.

She hasn't a clue about what I meant in my question and she hasn't a clue about the two big honking explanations I gave her recently. Total blank-out.

This is the problem with people who do not think in conceptual terms but get on a crusade (especially a Rand-bash crusade).

The humorous part is that they go around saying you didn't tell them from your end what you asked them and pretending they are all superior and stuff...

Maybe she's lonely... 'cause that's a helluva way to spend the precious hours of one's life...

Michael

[Xray]

Xray,

I have no idea what you mean in the copy/paste you did by things like "actual fact" and "independently of the mind."

How do you know something is an "actual fact" or that something exists "independently of the mind"? In other words, if this is objective, how do you know it?

If you don't really know something is objective, that's not very objective, now is it?

Lexicon entries are not perfect, Michael, and I pointed out many times that words like "actual" and "objective" in connection with "facts" are logically redundant, but can be used for emphasis.

We can now go and on endlessly discussing what is a "fact", which would merely land us in a sideshow distracting from the issue: that there no objective values.

You had agreed to the definition given btw.

Sounds like you just copy/paste words and that sounds pretty subjective to me so far. I, for instance, can copy/paste other words. Knowing what they mean is the rub.

Yes please give your definition of objerctive and fact. I have asked you time and again to do so. If you are so convinced mine is wrong, then why don't you counter and correct it?

Gotta bow out again for a while since this is tedious.

It would be far less tedious if you became more specific instead of telling "me you dont think in conceptual terms" without explaining what exactly you mean. Rand used "concep"t in the sense of "category"; so one explained example of my allegedlky not thinking in "conceptual terms" woud have sufficed and believe me, that ensuing discussion would have been anything but tedious.

Please don't bore me with too many errors dressed in anti-Rand rhetoric. Try to get at least a few things right...

Please point out the errors. Whenever asked to do so you becoome vague "You don't understand without explaning what and why.

I'm not going to play.

Nor am I. So there's a common ground.

She hasn't a clue about what I meant in my question and she hasn't a clue about the two big honking explanations I gave her recently. Total blank-out.

Could you please give a link to those "two big honking explanations". TIA.

This is the problem with people who do not think in conceptual terms but get on a crusade (especially a Rand-bash crusade).

Let leave crusades to fanatic believers.

I'm neither a fanatic nor a believer (in any ideology), and it was actually a discussion on atheism I was having elsewehre which got me interested in Rand's work.

I don't want to "bash" Rand. I want to study and analyze her philosophy.

It does contain several truths, and her advice "check your premises" is excellent. I consider it as a veritable treasure.

But are her own premises correct? Do there exist "objective" values? - after all, that's one of the pillars her philosophy rests on. If those values and virtues are merely subjective - what consequences does this have for the philosophy?

What is "individualistic" in a philosophy which presents one size fits all "cardinal objective values and virtues"?

These are the questions which interest me.

Edited July 4, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Entity is a whole in itself. Existent can be merely a part or even a background. The color red for instance is an existent, but not an entity. A red apple is an entity.

What would you call a fairy tale figure like e. g. Little Red Riding Hood which is not a finite physical quantity but a mere fantasy product of the mind?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Entity is a whole in itself. Existent can be merely a part or even a background. The color red for instance is an existent, but not an entity. A red apple is an entity.

What would you call a fairy tale figure like e. g. Little Red Riding Hood which is not a finite physical quantity but a mere fantasy product of the mind?

Good Lord, she found one.

That's a start...

Michael

[Xray]

Entity is a whole in itself. Existent can be merely a part or even a background. The color red for instance is an existent, but not an entity. A red apple is an entity.

What would you call a fairy tale figure like e. g. Little Red Riding Hood which is not a finite physical quantity but a mere fantasy product of the mind?

Good Lord, she found one.

That's a start...

Michael

Found what exactly?

What is the fairy tale figure "Little Red Riding Hood" then in Rand's epistemological terminology?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"...a fairy tale figure..." is "...a fairy tale figure..." A is A.

[Xray]

"...a fairy tale figure..." is "...a fairy tale figure..." A is A.

Anything else to offer aside from a tautology?

Edited June 28, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

No.

When is a no not a no or when is a know not a know...yes.

Feeling quite taut today.

Adam