Philosophy Who Needs It

[BaalChatzaf]

Wow it is getting less rare quickly...does that mean your stake in this argument is well done??

http://www.csmonitor...02s04-usgn.html

Thanks for the link! (emphasis mine)

"Quantum mechanics introduced another point of view, which consists essentially that the aim of science is not to describe ultimate reality as it really is," d'Espagnat recounted by phone Friday from Paris. "Rather, it is to make account of reality as it appears to us, accounting for the limitations of our own mind and our own sensibilities.

All we really have are the phenomena. Reality as it actually is, is removed by fifteen orders of magnitude of precision, from our very best equipment. Ultimately, what we have in hand is, at best, a fuzzy picture of reality. If there is a Rock Bottom to reality, we are not yet close to it.

From a practical point of view, our picture of reality, however fuzzy is sufficient not only for our survival, but for constructing useful technology. One does not have to know everything to know something.

Old saying: The Best is the enemy of the Good and the perfect is the enemy of the sufficient. The quest for perfection is laudable in motive, but futile in practice.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Jerry Biggers]

I would maintain that there is no similarity at all between General Semantics and Objectivism (and I believe that the founders of these two viewpoints would at least agree on that). And if that is the case, please tell me (maybe others here understand this, but I do not): why are you posting in OL? I do not own OL, and I would not presume to tell Michael who can post, and who cannot. Consider this a rhetorical question: what are you trying to accomplish in a forum devoted to the discussion and promotion of a philosophy with which you are profoundly in disagreement with?

Any system of philosophy which is published is fairly subject to analysis and criticism. Do you think Objectivism, the philosophy, should be shielded from analysis and criticism?

Ba'al Chatzaf

I did not say, or even imply, that GS should not post in OL. Nor did I say, or even imply, that Objectivism should be shielded from analysis or criticism (I leave that to the ARIans).

What I did say was that GS, by his posts, does not show any knowledge or grasp of Objectivism (How else would you describe someone who asserts that they read Philosophy Who Needs It and then expresses surprise that Rand believes philosophy is relevant to the world's problems and that she thinks her philosophical views are correct? Rand is hardly subtle about these matters!).

Is it too much to ask that a critic at least have a passing knowledge of having read Rand's books, and that he be able to demonstrate that he has at least a basic knowledge of what it is that he is opposing?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Jerry,

I used to wonder that about GS. Then I stopped and simply accepted him for who he was.

He's a good dude with a good heart and for some reason he likes it here.

If you filter out all the wrong stuff he writes about Objectivism, he sometimes comes up with some interesting things to think about.

Usually he's in live and let live mode. More recently he seems to be wondering more about Objectivism. From the forced certainty of his recent posts against Objectivism, I imagine the wondering is worrying him a bit in the back of his mind the middle of the night...

Michael

[tjohnson]

GS:

Apparently, many respondents to your postings have considerably more patience than I do. It is obvious that you disagree with practically every (all?) principle of Objectivism: metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics. You continue to make statements that sound like you have never read Rand or other Objectivists, to any extent, or simply do not understand them - since you continue to be amazed that they actually take moral stands. That they believe philosophy not only describes the world, but can be applied in it.

If I have misconstrued your position, please inform us as to what exactly what statement or component (if any) of Objectivism that you are in agreement with. Or, please illustrate on what topic that Korzybski and Rand have agreed on in their writings (other than writing their beliefs down on paper).

I would maintain that there is no similarity at all between General Semantics and Objectivism (and I believe that the founders of these two viewpoints would at least agree on that). And if that is the case, please tell me (maybe others here understand this, but I do not): why are you posting in OL? I do not own OL, and I would not presume to tell Michael who can post, and who cannot. Consider this a rhetorical question: what are you trying to accomplish in a forum devoted to the discussion and promotion of a philosophy with which you are profoundly in disagreement with?

Don't take this personally but ll think formal Philosophy in general is a waste of time or, possibly even worse, damaging to the mind. But that does not mean I disagree with everything Rand stood for. I do believe that man will have to learn to use his brain (rationality) much better than he has in the past and this is similar to the goals of general semantics. This is what initially attracted me to this site. I post here because I enjoy expressing myself (like everyone else here?) and now and then I learn things and sometimes people learn things from me. I appreciate that I am not kicked off the list like would probably happen on other Objectivist sites.

[Selene]

Don't take this personally but ll think formal Philosophy in general is a waste of time or, possibly even worse, damaging to the mind. But that does not mean I disagree with everything Rand stood for. I do believe that man will have to learn to use his brain (rationality) much better than he has in the past and this is similar to the goals of general semantics. This is what initially attracted me to this site. I post here because I enjoy expressing myself (like everyone else here?) and now and then I learn things and sometimes people learn things from me. I appreciate that I am not kicked off the list like would probably happen on other Objectivist sites.

I think that is a working basis to enjoy this forum. I am not sure that I agree with Jerry's statement that "there is no similarity at all between General Semantics and Objectivism (and I believe that the founders of these two viewpoints would at least agree on that)."

I am looking back on some points of general semantics that I used in my analysis of the objectivist movement.

Also, I am not sure that your disdain of Aristotle is valid and additionally, I am sure that Korzybski was consistently referred to as a neo-Aristotelian, but that may be a faulty memory.

Adam

[tjohnson]

I did not say, or even imply, that GS should not post in OL. Nor did I say, or even imply, that Objectivism should be shielded from analysis or criticism (I leave that to the ARIans).

What I did say was that GS, by his posts, does not show any knowledge or grasp of Objectivism (How else would you describe someone who asserts that they read Philosophy Who Needs It and then expresses surprise that Rand believes philosophy is relevant to the world's problems and that she thinks her philosophical views are correct? Rand is hardly subtle about these matters!).

Is it too much to ask that a critic at least have a passing knowledge of having read Rand's books, and that he be able to demonstrate that he has at least a basic knowledge of what it is that he is opposing?

In that lecture Rand refers to philosophy as a science which it is not. If philosophy was a science there wouldn't be thousands of volumes of the same crap written over and over again for centuries because in science there is actual progress - things actually get sorted out eventually. So although Rand has lofty motives she chose the wrong discipline to achieve her goals, as far as I am concerned. There is no "right" philosophy and there never will be. So don't take this as an attack on Rand take it as an attack on Philosophy.

[tjohnson]

I think that is a working basis to enjoy this forum. I am not sure that I agree with Jerry's statement that "there is no similarity at all between General Semantics and Objectivism (and I believe that the founders of these two viewpoints would at least agree on that)."

I am looking back on some points of general semantics that I used in my analysis of the objectivist movement.

Also, I am not sure that your disdain of Aristotle is valid and additionally, I am sure that Korzybski was consistently referred to as a neo-Aristotelian, but that may be a faulty memory.

Adam

LOL, his main work was published in Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Korzybski is often accused of being anti-Aristotelian which is total crap. The term 'non-aristotelian' simply refers to a rejection of 2-valued logic - along the lines of non-newtonian physics and non-euclidean geometry.

[Selene]

I think that is a working basis to enjoy this forum. I am not sure that I agree with Jerry's statement that "there is no similarity at all between General Semantics and Objectivism (and I believe that the founders of these two viewpoints would at least agree on that)."

I am looking back on some points of general semantics that I used in my analysis of the objectivist movement.

Also, I am not sure that your disdain of Aristotle is valid and additionally, I am sure that Korzybski was consistently referred to as a neo-Aristotelian, but that may be a faulty memory.

Adam

LOL, his main work was published in Science and Sanity: An Introduction to Non-Aristotelian Systems and General Semantics. Korzybski is often accused of being anti-Aristotelian which is total crap. The term 'non-aristotelian' simply refers to a rejection of 2-valued logic - along the lines of non-newtonian physics and non-euclidean geometry.

I agree. Now if we are permitted to still use Venn Diagrams, we have overlaps of Rand, Korzybski and Aristotle. My question to Jerry would be does he disagree with that or not?

Secondly, where do you see the overlaps GS?

Adam

[tjohnson]

I agree. Now if we are permitted to still use Venn Diagrams, we have overlaps of Rand, Korzybski and Aristotle. My question to Jerry would be does he disagree with that or not?

Secondly, where do you see the overlaps GS?

Adam

Well I already mentioned about Rand and Korzybski both interested in developing man's rationality. They both experienced totalitarian states and moved to the US and appreciated the freedom there. Korzybski rejected Aristotle's 2-valued logic for use in everyday life but recognized it's importance in mathematics. He had nothing against Aristotle but rather attempted to restrict his work much like Einstein restricted Newton's work.

[Christopher]

I cannot emphasize enough that 2-valued logic does not work, in general, in life - but it works very well in mathematics, as your example demonstrates. Probability and statistics offer a way to evaluate with 00-valued logic, for example, and has been shown to have very wide applicability in many fields. Anyway, as I said, science has a mechanism for ascertaining what constitutes "valid knowledge" whereas philosophy does not, in general. In this sense, all Philosophies (with a capital P) are equal.

Well then at least we can say that from a scientific viewpoint, certain Philosophies have more validity than other Philosophies. It doesn't seem reasonable for an individual to accept science and accept a philosophy that contradicts science.

[Selene]

GS:

Ever read A.E.?

From wiki

The concept of non-Aristotelian logic was used by A. E. van Vogt as the central theme in his The World of Null-A novels, based on his interest in Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics, stories tinged by van Vogt's reflections upon revelations of police state conditions enforced by totalitarian regimes after World War II.

Van Vogt generally shortened non-Aristotelian logic to null-A in his description of logic systems incorporating three or more values, to represent relatively 'subjective' conclusions from inductive logic, rather than relying strictly on the binary, deductive reasoning. The null-A concept as depicted by van Vogt is complementary to Aristotle's system of two-valued, true/false logic, i.e., "A is either B, or it is not B."

Van Vogt's portrayals of General Semantics in sci-fi stories (wherein heroic characters struggled against incrementally stem-winding tactics used by minions of authoritarian entities), was somewhat different from its originator's, as Korzybski developed and described General Semantics not as a 'logic', but as a non-Aristotelian system of evaluation. On the other hand, van Vogt also depicted General Semantics as a method of evaluation used to analyze the reasoning of others. Protagonists in van Vogt's science fiction novels typically used null-A reasoning in almost dream-like settings to outwit villains who relied almost exclusively upon decision-tree, algorithmic reasoning, akin to the use of Aristotelian logic.

Adam

[Jerry Biggers]

GS-

Perhaps somewhere in your voluminous 1,895-plus posts, you have stated issues on which General Semantics and Objectivism would agree. But, so far, in our brief exchange, you have not cited any of these. Nor the areas in which you personally agree with Objectivism (a mutual interest in "using our minds more rationally" is a little too general and vague).

Of course, you do not have to agree with any of Objectivism's basic concepts. This is not a test. I am not your "Grand Inquisitor." However, some ARIans might request that you complete each of the 400 essay questions contained in Gary Hull's "A Study Guide to Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." (aka, "The Objectivist Catechism") before you leave the room (Hint: they are really Zen koans).

Adam - Not sure what the Venn diagrams would prove. Overlapping areas of interest do not necessarily mean agreement within those areas. The following "schools of thought" are all generally considered by academia as outsiders, or even "outlaws: "Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Scientology, General Semantics, Objectivism, Psychoanalysis. All have been excluded. But just because they are outlaws, does not mean that they share agreement on any of their basic concepts, principles, or precepts. Some deserve outlaw status, others do not.

[Selene]

GS-

Perhaps somewhere in your voluminous 1,895-plus posts, you have stated issues on which General Semantics and Objectivism would agree. But, so far, in our brief exchange, you have not cited any of these. Nor the areas in which you personally agree with Objectivism (a mutual interest in "using our minds more rationally" is a little too general and vague).

Of course, you do not have to agree with any of Objectivism's basic concepts. This is not a test. I am not your "Grand Inquisitor." However, some ARIans might request that you complete each of the 400 essay questions contained in Gary Hull's "A Study Guide to Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand." (aka, "The Objectivist Catechism") before you leave the room (Hint: they are really Zen koans).

Adam - Not sure what the Venn diagrams would prove. Overlapping areas of interest do not necessarily mean agreement within those areas. The following "schools of thought" are all generally considered by academia as outsiders, or even "outlaws: "Neuro-Linguistic Programming, Scientology, General Semantics, Objectivism, Psychoanalysis. All have been excluded. But just because they are outlaws, does not mean that they share agreement on any of their basic concepts, principles, or precepts. Some deserve outlaw status, others do not.

Precisely. Thank you for clarifying because I was not sure what "angle" you were approaching what I wondered about also. Trust, but verify. lol

Adam

[tjohnson]

GS:

Ever read A.E.?

Yes. I was an avid sci-fi reader in my youth and A.E. Van Vogt was one of my favorites. It was after reading the Null-A series that I read an essay of his called "21st Century Semantics", I think. Anyway, in it he talked about Science and Sanity and the REAL Institute of General Semantics, which was in Lakeville, Connecticut then. I was astounded because I thought it was all fiction and so that is how I began my journey into GS.

Edited October 28, 2009 by general semanticist

[tjohnson]

GS-

Perhaps somewhere in your voluminous 1,895-plus posts, you have stated issues on which General Semantics and Objectivism would agree. But, so far, in our brief exchange, you have not cited any of these. Nor the areas in which you personally agree with Objectivism (a mutual interest in "using our minds more rationally" is a little too general and vague).

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would venture to say that Rand wanted to create a philosophy that could be used by the average person - not like the ones in the ivory towers, not connected to reality. Sort of like a philosophy for the people. I think she and Korzybski did have similar ideas in that they felt that the average person was in need of drastic re-education of their views of what it meant to be a human being. The difference is that Korzybski tried to start a science of man and Rand went the the philosophy of man route. Korzybski had extensive education in science and mathematics while Rand was much more into literature and art.

Edited October 29, 2009 by general semanticist

[BaalChatzaf]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I would venture to say that Rand wanted to create a philosophy that could be used by the average person - not like the ones in the ivory towers, not connected to reality. Sort of like a philosophy for the people. I think she and Korzybski did have similar ideas in that they felt that the average person was in need of drastic re-education of their views of what it meant to be a human being. The difference is that Korzybski tried to start a science of man and Rand went the the philosophy of man route. Korzybski had extensive education in science and mathematics while Rand was much more into literature and art.

The Count may have meant well but his grasp of neurophysiology was incorrect and obsolete even when he wrote. Both Rand and the Count suffered from the same defect: an incomplete and erroneous grasp of some of the subject matter. Rand was woeful in her grasp of physics and mathematics and the Count did not have the latest and greatest in neurophysiology and linguistics. Both exemplify the hazards that ensue when amateurs venture into the realm of science way out of their depth. Both had good intentions and high hopes. Both failed in their goals.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

..and the Count did not have the latest and greatest in neurophysiology and linguistics.

I would be interested in hearing about where modern neurophysiology contradicts what Korzybski wrote. Also don't confuse science (1933) with science (2009). This is something someone ignorant of general semantics would do.

[BaalChatzaf]

..and the Count did not have the latest and greatest in neurophysiology and linguistics.

I would be interested in hearing about where modern neurophysiology contradicts what Korzybski wrote. Also don't confuse science (1933) with science (2009). This is something someone ignorant of general semantics would do.

Just for starters, the Count knew nothing about the function of the glial tissue nor did he have a grasp of the function of the amygdala in the formation of memories, short and long term. That is because the research was just happening in the early 50's and was not general knowledge. Both the Count and Ayn Rand were educated in the best 19th century traditions which made their knowledge of biology and physics (respectively) obsolete.

More has been found out about brain function in the last 50 years (subsequent to the death of the Count) than in the previous 3000 years.

A day will come when theories and knowledge we consider cutting edge will be seen as quaint and antiquated.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Just for starters, the Count knew nothing about the function of the glial tissue nor did he have a grasp of the function of the amygdala in the formation of memories, short and long term.

Just for starters you have not shown why modern developments in neurophysiology have anything whatsoever to do with general semantics. You seem to be confusing general semantics with neurophysiology.

[Brant Gaede]

GS:

Ever read A.E.?

Yes. I was an avid sci-fi reader in my youth and A.E. Van Vogt was one of my favorites. It was after reading the Null-A series that I read an essay of his called "21st Century Semantics", I think. Anyway, in it he talked about Science and Sanity and the REAL Institute of General Semantics, which was in Lakeville, Connecticut then. I was astounded because I thought it was all fiction and so that is how I began my journey into GS.

Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.

--Brant

plagiarist

[BaalChatzaf]

Just for starters, the Count knew nothing about the function of the glial tissue nor did he have a grasp of the function of the amygdala in the formation of memories, short and long term.

Just for starters you have not shown why modern developments in neurophysiology have anything whatsoever to do with general semantics. You seem to be confusing general semantics with neurophysiology.

Not so.

See http://www.generalsemantics.org/learningctr/abs-mod.htm

In particular look at this excerpt:

First, a brief review of Korzybski's Structural Differential. Some key points to emphasize:

• The "
  differential
  " in
  Structural Differential
  refers to an
  operational
  difference between what humans
  do
  and what animals
  do
  .
• The difference between what humans
  do
  and what animals
  do
  is that, as the diagram reflects, an animal's ability to
  abstract
  is limited; a human's ability to
  abstract
  is virtually limitless.
• Abstracting
  , in the context of Korzybski's model, refers to physiological-neurological activities, or
  processes
  , that occur on
  non-verbal
  levels. Put another way,
  abstracting
  is something that your body-brain-nervous-system is continually
  doing
  , without respect to whether or not you're aware of it.
• The different
  levels
  that Korzybski defines in the diagram refer to aspects of the overall
  process
  which seem to consist of clearly-differentiated
  orders
  , or types, of activity.

Followed by his famous dingle dangle mandalla and the correspondence between it an non-verbal levels of functioning.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[tjohnson]

Yep, and this is NOT neurophysiology.

[tjohnson]

Perhaps an analogy will help. Let's suppose that 50 years ago someone wrote we should wash our hands often because we can spread germs by touching things. Maybe also that germs cause disease etc. Well now we may know considerably more about germs and disease but that does not contradict what was said then. Korzybski said our nervous system produces abstractions and maybe neurophysiology knows a great deal more about how this process works now but our nervous system still produces abstractions. General semantics is about the importance and method of differentiating orders of abstraction, not the actual mechanism of abstraction.

[Selene]

GS:

OK - this looks like a place of agreement.

"...our nervous system still produces abstractions. General semantics is about the importance and method of differentiating orders of abstraction, not the actual mechanism of abstraction."

An example or two of the bolded concepts above?

Adam

[tjohnson]

GS:

OK - this looks like a place of agreement.

"...our nervous system still produces abstractions. General semantics is about the importance and method of differentiating orders of abstraction, not the actual mechanism of abstraction."

An example or two of the bolded concepts above?

Adam

Korzybski called the problem "confusing orders of abstraction" however I think a modern word might be 'reification'. See here. He believed the indiscriminate use of the 'is of identity' so common in the subject-predicate syntax leads to this. Even a simple statement like "the grass is green" implies that "greeness" is a property of "grass" when actually 'green grass' is a label for a perception inside us, an abstraction. So we attribute properties of things inside our heads to something outside. This can be called projection, objectification, reification, etc.