Kant and Hume

[Xray]

A troll is someone who argues just for the sake of arguing, doesn't believe what they are saying, is doing it to sow discord. That has not been Xray on the two threads where I've interacted with her - Great Literature and Linguistics.

I can see she hasn't read the Oist canon and so is trying to parse the meaning of concepts like 'objective' line by line out of context...which, of course, you can't do. It's sort of an academic style to do a line by line reading. You can't do it with Rand, of course. And, just like most of us, when dealing with someone who is engaged in personalities or insulting, competitive instincts kick in to get in a defecating contest and not let your bad faith interlocutor have the last word.

But on those two threads where I've been involved a lot, Xray has shown thoughtfulness, erudition, and a desire to engage on the issues. Not getting sidetracked on putdowns or snarkiness or insults. Or "gotchas" and criticism of your personality postings, unlike a few self-indulgent others who don't seem to have gotten the IATIS principle -->

"It's About The Ideas, Stupid."

Thank you Phil for your fairness and kind words. I do believe it is possible to have a fair discussion or even a tough debate despite dissenting on major points, provided both sides constantly check their own premises and respect the rules of politeness.

"It's About The Ideas ..."

Precisely. My focus is not on "who" expresses the idea, but on what the idea is.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray is something of a troll here. I concede she's not a classical troll; she's much too smart to go that far. Go read her 1300 post thread, Phil, then give us your opinion. There's a reason Michael threw the whole thing into The Garbage Pile.

--Brant

stupid is as stupid does

Trolls have zero interest in any detailed discussion, Brant, but their goal is to jumble up a forum with mostly short inane, topic unrelated sentences or giving links to often graphic sites for shock effect.

Trolls vanish as fast as they have appeared, and are off to other sites where they do the same.

As for labeling a forum section 'garbage pile', this is a choice based on subjective value judgement.

Edited September 22, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Trolls have zero interest in any detailed discussion, Brant, but their goal is to jumble up a forum with mostly short inane, topic unrelated sentences or giving links to often graphic sites for shock effect.

Trolls vanish as fast as fast as they have appeared, and are off to other sites where they do the same.

As for labeling a forum section 'garbage pile', this is a choice based on subjective value judgement.

Along with ALL choices--right? I would say "personal value judgment." Your overuse and misuse of "subjective"--for you it's a redundancy--is like a drill boring into my skull. It's like you're insisting on a debate regardless if it's on a point of trivia or not. It might as well be an attack on my immune system; I can tell my white blood cells are going crazy. Thank God I'm not an observant Jew and you're not continually talking about how good pork is and how there really isn't anything Kosher about any meat no matter how handled and prepared--it's all a myth.

--Brant

Edited September 22, 2009 by Brant Gaede

[Xray]

It does not seem obvious to me at all [what the phrase "philosophically incorrect" might mean], that's why I asked the question. If something is labeled as "Philosophically Incorrect", then the person who coined that phrase must have had an idea in mind of what is "philosophically correct", right? If the meaning of "philosopically correct/philosophically incorrect" is obvious to you, could you explain it here? TIA for your help.

It is difficult to escape the suspicion that one is being toyed with. Surely such a question cannot be asked in good faith by anyone born earlier than a few days ago? Nevertheless, I shall answer the question just as though it had been asked in good faith.

(1) There is a phrase, "politically correct." It is, like such equally mysterious and ambiguous phrases as "fried chicken" and "abject stupidity," widely in use. To say that some idea or other is "politically correct" is to say that it is regarded as indisputably, unquestionably true by the members of some particular group or subculture - a group or subculture which is known for its stern intolerance of any deviation from the ideas and ideals its members regard as indisputably, unquestionably true.

(2) The phrase "politically incorrect," unsurprisingly, refers to persons who dispute or question what members of the "politically correct" group regard as indisputable and unquestionable. It refers also to the ideas promoted by these disputers and questioners. Some writers and speakers, eager to let it be known that they don't give a shit what members of the "politically correct" group think, proudly apply the label "politically incorrect" to themselves.

(3) Certain of these proudly "politically incorrect" types tend to take enormous pride in holding the exact opposite of whatever view(s) the members of the "politically correct" group hold on any subject. In this way, they unwittingly create a new strain of "political correctness" which characterizes their own group.

(4) Now, to the context at hand. I'm writing on a discussion forum run by Objectivists for the use of Objectivists. Objectivists make up a subculture which is extremely intolerant of any deviation from the ideas and ideals its members regard as indisputably, unquestionably true. Among Objectivists (with a handful of exceptions) the ideas of Kant and Hume are "philosophically incorrect."

Have you got the hang of it yet? Or do I need to be even more explicit?

JR

Jeffrey,

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your detailed reply which gives me something to hang my hat on. The more specific, the better. I always try to adhere to the same principle.

[All following quotes: Jeffrey Riggenbach].

"It is difficult to escape the suspicion that one is being toyed with. Surely such a question cannot be asked in good faith by anyone born earlier than a few days ago? Nevertheless, I shall answer the question just as

though it had been asked in good faith."

The problem with "everybody knows" is that what "everybody knows" is often in grievous error with the only support being consensus of opinion. The query is not toying. It's a genuine interest in getting at the truth often obscured by generally accepted word arrangements of connotations (subjective value judgments) treated as statements of fact.

"(1) There is a phrase, "politically correct." It is, like such equally mysterious and ambiguous phrases as "fried chicken" and "abject stupidity," widely in use. To say that some idea or other is "politically correct" is to

say that it is regarded as indisputably, unquestionably true by the members of some particular group or subculture - a group or subculture which is known for its stern intolerance of any deviation from the ideas and ideals

its members regard as indisputably, unquestionably true."

(2) The phrase "politically incorrect," unsurprisingly, refers to persons who dispute or question what members of the "politically correct" group regard as indisputable and unquestionable. It refers also to the ideas

promoted by these disputers and questioners. Some writers and speakers,eager to let it be known that they don't give a shit what members of the "politically correct" group think, proudly apply the label "politically incorrect" to themselves."

(3) Certain of these proudly "politically incorrect" types tend to take enormous pride in holding the exact opposite of whatever view(s) the members of the "politically correct" group hold on any subject. In this way, they

unwittingly create a new strain of "political correctness" which characterizes their own group.

I'm aware of the phrases "politically correct/incorrect, which is are terms used by groups arbitrarily labeleling their subejctive political choices as the 'correct' ones.

In short, a purely subjective issue.

"(4) Now, to the context at hand. I'm writing on a discussion forum run by

Objectivists for the use of Objectivists. Objectivists make up a subculture which is extremely intolerant of any deviation from the ideas and ideals its members regard as indisputably, unquestionably true. Among Objectivists

(with a handful of exceptions) the ideas of Kant and Hume are "philosophically incorrect."(JR)

You are certainly correct about the "extremely intolerant" part. It shows within the ranks of "Objectivist" as well as in the treatment of "outsiders".

The term "correctness", sets the condition of "right or wrong".

One may choose to pursue an attainable end, then choose means believed to be suited to the purpose. If the means chosen are appropriate to the end, then, a "correct" choice has been made. If the means chosen are not appropriate,

that is, will not bring about the end chosen, then, it's a "incorrect" choice.

If I want to cook spaghetti but don't heat the water in in the pot, the choice is incorrect i.e. it will not bring about the goal chosen.

This is purely a technical matter dealing with the objective relationships between ends and means. The choice of ends to pursue is a matter of subjective choice and goes to the philosophical. The personal preference, by

definition, is not subject to proof or disproof.

Now in the concept "philosophically incorrect", the question posed is right or wrong by reference to what? In the real world, each individual has a set of beliefs and values, hence, a philosophy. Yet, the idea of "philosophically incorrect" presupposes the premise of anti-individual via the expression, "philosophically correct" set as measuring stick for all beliefs and valuations.

Thus, do we see at the root, the familiar fallacy, objective value.

Although some beliefs and valuations may be held in common, the very notion of a universal set of beliefs and valuations as a "standard" is a direct contradiction of individual identity.

Every "one size fits all" set of beliefs, or "cardinal values and virtues" does not indicate individualism, but its opposite.

I'd be very interested in hearing your opinion on this point.

The notion of "philosophically correct" is derived from the notion of "universal value" with each individual treated as means to the alleged "universal goal"; which, of course, is nothing more than personal preference.

A statement made by Hume, Kant, or anyone else, is either true or false, that is, either conforms to some aspect of reality, or does not.

This is where correctness and/or incorrectness comes in. The individual determination of true or false is what is integrated and incorporated into an individual belief system and creates a philosophy. The phrase, "philosophically incorrect", dependent on the notion of "ultimate values" as a "standard", does not conform to reality.

On the assumption of "everybody knows", what you assumed to be "toying" is, in reality, an analytical inquiry designed to expose the underlying fallacy of "objective value" thinly veiled by terms such as "philosophically incorrect."

"Have you got the hang of it yet?

I believe the forgoing is evidence that I've "got the hang of it", but it does not mean that I accept word arrangements believed to validate the notion of "philosophically correct or incorrect"

And if I have understood you correctly, neither do you.

"Or do I need to be even more explicit?"

No, you were explicit enough. When you referred to the phrase, "philosophically" incorrect as "ambiguous", you indirectly identified it as nothing more that users of the phrase referencing their own personal preferences as basis of evaluation while pretending otherwise.

But should my conclusion regarding your stance on the issue political correctness/incorrectness have been in error, it would require some more explicitness on your part. So if you should believe there exists any such thing as real political correctness, imo it would contradict analysis given in your # post.

Again, thanks. You are outspoken and direct, which is much appreciated, since it makes it easier in return for the communication partner to directly address your points as well.

Bottom line:

"Philosophically incorrect" is just one more example of how a root premise directs thinking and language usage. Stripped to bare bones, "philosophically incorrect" is saying, "If valuations differ from my own, they are wrong."

Edited September 22, 2009 by Xray

[Selene]

"...a set of beliefs and values, hence, a philosophy." A set of beliefs does not a philosophy make. A dogma maybe...

Dogma is the established belief or doctrine held by a religion, ideology or any kind of organization: it is authoritative and not to be disputed, doubted or diverged from. The term derives from Greek δόγμα "that which seems to one, opinion or belief"^[1] and that from δοκέω (dokeo), "to think, to suppose, to imagine".^[2] The plural is either dogmas or dogmata , from Greek δόγματα.

[Xray]

So if you should believe there exists any such thing as real political correctness, imo it would contradict analysis given in your # post.

ETA - Correction of typos: "imo it would contradict the analysis given in your # 46 post."

Edited September 22, 2009 by Xray

[DavidMcK]

The difference between objective and subjective could be made by an analogy with diet: Having a subjective taste for or an aversion against vegetables might help you decide how to get a sufficient supply of vitamin A in your diet, but the need for vitamin A is objective, it transcends personal preferences and can be demonstrated that everyone shares this need. If the need is frustrated then there will be a deleterious effect on your health. No one would claim that being healthy is a personal preference to being painfully ill. (Good sources of vitamin A are: mango, broccoli, butternut squash, carrots, tomato juice, sweet potatoes, pumpkin, beef liver). So it is with moral values, some are personal preferences (my choice for a wife e.g.) and some can be demonstrated to have deleterious effects on your overall well being (not being in love e.g.).

Edited September 22, 2009 by DavidMcK

[Xray]

So it is with moral values, some are personal preferences (my choice for a wife e.g.) and some can be demonstrated to have deleterious effects on your overall well being (not being in love e.g.).

The first is an example of a subjective choice, the second the personal assessment of the result of a choice.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Xray

[DavidMcK]

The choice of health, life and well-being vs. illness, death and ill-being is a personal preference? Ridiculous, you just say the same thing over and over without trying to understand that Ayn Rand has discovered the basis for an objective standard of ethics.

[Xray]

The choice of health, life and well-being vs. illness, death and ill-being is a personal preference? Ridiculous, you just say the same thing over and over without trying to understand that Ayn Rand has discovered the basis for an objective standard of ethics.

As opposed to animals, humans can choose whether they want to go on living or not; i. e. they can decide to value death over life; from this simple fact it follows that Rand's "standard of ethics" is neither 'discovered' nor 'objective'.

As for standards in general, they can't be objective at all, but are subjectively created. That people agree upon a standard or are by law obliged to accept it does not make the standard "objective". It remains subjective. You need only look at the the different standards of "morality" in various societies for illustration.

Edited September 23, 2009 by Xray

[DavidMcK]

Just because they are subjectively created doesn't mean they aren't objective. It would be strange if morality was created as a kind of intellectual exercise or a chess game without being heavily invested in the outcome of the philosophical debate. There is such a thing as subjective/objective...a morality that was generated internally based on a concept of the requirements of maintaining and enhancing life. Just because human beings are complicated enough to have different codes of values doesn't annihilate the concept of a standard that is good for a human being qua human being. All your so called philosophizing consists of is saying no every time suggest that A is A , that concepts have meaning, that there are objective standards of values, that there is a superior political system; i.e. every time someone smacks of having a philosophy you just deny. You haven't offered a theory of concepts, of morality or anything else as an alternative to what we are discussing here.

[BaalChatzaf]

Ayn Rand described the philosophy of Immanuel Kant as "the exact opposite of Objectivism" and bigger evil than Hitler and Stalin because his philosophy set the stage for them. But under that standard, couldn't David Hume be considered a greater evil than all of them because he set the stage for Kant's philosophy? Based on what little I've read, Hume's skepticism and his rejection of the law of causality is more severe than Kant's. Could anyone try to clarify this for me?

Hume never denied causality. He did deny that necessary connection was inherent to the events connected in the cause-effect relation. He took so-called necessary connection as a mental construct.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Just because they are subjectively created doesn't mean they aren't objective. It would be strange if morality was created as a kind of intellectual exercise or a chess game without being heavily invested in the outcome of the philosophical debate. There is such a thing as subjective/objective...a morality that was generated internally based on a concept of the requirements of maintaining and enhancing life. Just because human beings are complicated enough to have different codes of values doesn't annihilate the concept of a standard that is good for a human being qua human being. All your so called philosophizing consists of is saying no every time suggest that A is A , that concepts have meaning, that there are objective standards of values, that there is a superior political system; i.e. every time someone smacks of having a philosophy you just deny. You haven't offered a theory of concepts, of morality or anything else as an alternative to what we are discussing here.

Pure objectivity is impossible. The closest we have to objective is demonstrated in science, not philosophy. I perceive Objectivism to be an attempt to make a science out philosophy which is admirable but doomed to failure.

[Xray]

David McK:"Just because human beings are complicated enough to have different codes of values doesn't annihilate the concept of a standard that is good for a human being qua human being."

Problem is, countless ideologists claim the same, be it priests or politicians: "It's for your own good."

"All your so called philosophizing consists of is saying no every time suggest that A is A , that concepts have meaning, that there are objective

standards of values, that there is a superior political system; i.e. every

time someone smacks of having a philosophy you just deny."

Imo philosophies are like heads: everbody has one. Therefore I can't deny something we all have.

"You haven't offered a theory of concepts, of morality or anything else as

an alternative to what we are discussing here."

Many times, I have posted about "concept" being "conceived idea of", not category only.

I have also posted about "morality", e.g. on the Cardianal Values thread.

Just because they are subjectively created doesn't mean they aren't objective."

How can "A" be derivative from its "B" opposite?

Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

The closest we have to objective is demonstrated in science, not philosophy. I perceive Objectivism to be an attempt to make a science out philosophy which is admirable but doomed to failure.

That pretty much sums it up, GS.

Edited September 24, 2009 by Xray

[Christopher]

Just because they are subjectively created doesn't mean they aren't objective. It would be strange if morality was created as a kind of intellectual exercise or a chess game without being heavily invested in the outcome of the philosophical debate. There is such a thing as subjective/objective...a morality that was generated internally based on a concept of the requirements of maintaining and enhancing life. Just because human beings are complicated enough to have different codes of values doesn't annihilate the concept of a standard that is good for a human being qua human being. All your so called philosophizing consists of is saying no every time suggest that A is A , that concepts have meaning, that there are objective standards of values, that there is a superior political system; i.e. every time someone smacks of having a philosophy you just deny. You haven't offered a theory of concepts, of morality or anything else as an alternative to what we are discussing here.

Pure objectivity is impossible. The closest we have to objective is demonstrated in science, not philosophy. I perceive Objectivism to be an attempt to make a science out philosophy which is admirable but doomed to failure.

You can't forget to make the equivalent but opposite statement given your take on the dependence of consciousness to the sensory world:

pure subjectivity is impossible.

[Selene]

Yep, it does, unfortunately the sum is zero.

[tjohnson]

You can't forget to make the equivalent but opposite statement given your take on the dependence of consciousness to the sensory world:

pure subjectivity is impossible.

Hmm..pure subjectivity, that's more difficult. One could say that pure mathematics represents pure subjectivity since the abstractions do not begin with perceived objects or events. probably a case could be made for extreme mental illness when the patient appears completely disconnected with objective level abstractions. Anyway, suffice to say that there exists a continuum between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity with neither one being absolutely attainable.

Edited September 25, 2009 by general semanticist

[Christopher]

Hmm..pure subjectivity, that's more difficult. One could say that pure mathematics represents pure subjectivity since the abstractions do not begin with perceived objects or events. probably a case could be made for extreme mental illness when the patient appears completely disconnected with objective level abstractions. Anyway, suffice to say that there exists a continuum between pure subjectivity and pure objectivity with neither one being absolutely attainable.

I suppose I am forced to say that your opinion on this matter appears somewhat subjective, albeit not wholly divorced from reality.

[tjohnson]

I suppose I am forced to say that your opinion on this matter appears somewhat subjective, albeit not wholly divorced from reality.

LOL.

[Christopher]

Given a spectrum, we can define a hierarchy between more objective and less objective. Even though all experiences of awareness are necessarily internal apprehensions, that's not to say that we can't assert something is more objective than something else. For example, here's a hierarchy that might qualify as accurate in Objectivism:

1. apprehensions of perception (through the 5 senses)

2. cognition based on perception (concept formation of perceived identities, abstracts from abstracts of perceptions)

3. apprehension of internal experiences (emotions)

4. cognition based on both perception and internal experience (I see spider, I feel afraid... ergo)

5. cognition based purely on internal experience (I feel like there's a monster in my closet)

I think Rand might assert #1 is definitively "objective" and #5 is definitively "subjective."

Chris

[tjohnson]

Given a spectrum, we can define a hierarchy between more objective and less objective. Even though all experiences of awareness are necessarily internal apprehensions, that's not to say that we can't assert something is more objective than something else. For example, here's a hierarchy that might qualify as accurate in Objectivism:

1. apprehensions of perception (through the 5 senses)

2. cognition based on perception (concept formation of perceived identities, abstracts from abstracts of perceptions)

3. apprehension of internal experiences (emotions)

4. cognition based on both perception and internal experience (I see spider, I feel afraid... ergo)

5. cognition based purely on internal experience (I feel like there's a monster in my closet)

I think Rand might assert #1 is definitively "objective" and #5 is definitively "subjective."

Chris

This is fine as far as it goes but it does not take into consideration repeated observations by independent observers. Science is a group activity because everything one individual does has to be repeatable in order to called 'objective'. So 'objective' has a local, personal meaning but it also has a global, scientific meaning which is much stronger. What you refer to above is the local objective, the kind where we silently observe and do not form preconceived ideas about what we are observing, which is a prerequisite to establishing objectiveness in a wider sense.

[Christopher]

This is fine as far as it goes but it does not take into consideration repeated observations by independent observers. Science is a group activity because everything one individual does has to be repeatable in order to called 'objective'. So 'objective' has a local, personal meaning but it also has a global, scientific meaning which is much stronger. What you refer to above is the local objective, the kind where we silently observe and do not form preconceived ideas about what we are observing, which is a prerequisite to establishing objectiveness in a wider sense.

Good point. One common method of validity is the following:

1. State an injunction (if you do this, that will occur)

2. Take the action (do it, observe results)

3. Confirm with others that the if-then is true

Borrowed example: I have cataracts. I look at the night sky, I see two moons (injunction + observation). I ask my girlfriend "do you see two moons when you look up?" She says no; I fail the validity test.

Of course, this form of validity can be used across all domains of apprehension -- when mediating, you will observe X (1). Meditate, observe X (2). Confirm with other meditators that X is observed after meditating (3). What then is the objective validity assigned to such a behavior/experience as this?

[tjohnson]

Good point. One common method of validity is the following:

1. State an injunction (if you do this, that will occur)

2. Take the action (do it, observe results)

3. Confirm with others that the if-then is true

Borrowed example: I have cataracts. I look at the night sky, I see two moons (injunction + observation). I ask my girlfriend "do you see two moons when you look up?" She says no; I fail the validity test.

Of course, this form of validity can be used across all domains of apprehension -- when mediating, you will observe X (1). Meditate, observe X (2). Confirm with other meditators that X is observed after meditating (3). What then is the objective validity assigned to such a behavior/experience as this?

This establishes that your nervous apparatus is functioning more or less the same. For example, if someone is color blind they may not be able to see certain objects in certain situations as most other people. But this is why we invented apparatus that measures the frequency/wavelength of light which is not susceptible to differences in individual nervous systems.