Our conception of man

[tjohnson]

No one need be told how indispensable it is to have true ideas-just concepts-correct notions-of the things with which we humans have to deal; everyone knows for example, that to mistake solids for surfaces or lines would wreck the science and art of geometry; anyone knows that to confuse fractions with whole numbers would wreck the science and art of arithmetic; everyone knows that to mistake vice for virtue would destroy the foundation of ethics; everyone knows that to mistake a desert mirage for a lake of fresh water does but lure the fainting traveler to dire disappointment or death. Now, it is perfectly clear that of all the things with which human beings have to deal, the most important by far is Man himself-humankind-men, women and children. It follows that for us human beings nothing else can be quite so important as a clear, true, just, scientific concept of Man-a right understanding of what we as human beings really are. For it requires no great wisdom, it needs only a little reflection, to see that, if we humans radically misconceive the nature of man-if we regard man as being something which he is not, whether it be something higher than man or lower-we thereby commit an error so fundamental and far reaching as to produce every manner of confusion and disaster in individual life, in community life and in the life of the race.

I can't help thinking that Korzybski and Rand has some things in common

[Christopher]

awesome quote

[syrakusos]

I can't help thinking that Korzybski and Rand has some things in common

Literally true: you cannot help it. The reason why you believe it is something you might explore. Why you feel compelled ("cannot help") is a different question entirely.

To me, both were educated in a 19th century European academic social ocntext which endowed each with a linguistic style that arrives in harmony.

Logically, they are speaking of different things entirely. For Ayn Rand, human society was an accident of birth.

For Ayn Rand, analysis of the human condition began with Robinson Crusoe.

... but I could be wrong ...

Mike M.

Michael E. Marotta

[Max Eichelberger]

"Man is important to man?" This guy was onto something.

I bet if you asked a pig, if pigs were important to him, he'd say the same thing.

The important concept is connecting why our concept of man is important to more than man.

[tjohnson]

I bet if you asked a pig, if pigs were important to him, he'd say the same thing.

I bet the pig wouldn't say anything - he might grunt or something.

[Max Eichelberger]

I bet if you asked a pig, if pigs were important to him, he'd say the same thing.

I bet the pig wouldn't say anything - he might grunt or something.

;) Point taken.

Of course, if you'd just take along your decoder ring...

[BaalChatzaf]

No one need be told how indispensable it is to have true ideas-just concepts-correct notions-of the things with which we humans have to deal; everyone knows for example, that to mistake solids for surfaces or lines would wreck the science and art of geometry; anyone knows that to confuse fractions with whole numbers would wreck the science and art of arithmetic; everyone knows that to mistake vice for virtue would destroy the foundation of ethics; everyone knows that to mistake a desert mirage for a lake of fresh water does but lure the fainting traveler to dire disappointment or death. Now, it is perfectly clear that of all the things with which human beings have to deal, the most important by far is Man himself-humankind-men, women and children. It follows that for us human beings nothing else can be quite so important as a clear, true, just, scientific concept of Man-a right understanding of what we as human beings really are. For it requires no great wisdom, it needs only a little reflection, to see that, if we humans radically misconceive the nature of man-if we regard man as being something which he is not, whether it be something higher than man or lower-we thereby commit an error so fundamental and far reaching as to produce every manner of confusion and disaster in individual life, in community life and in the life of the race.

I can't help thinking that Korzybski and Rand has some things in common

They did. They were both highly intelligent, both educated in an Eastern European social context and both thought they had The Answer to Everything.

The Count was my "Ayn Rand". I was very taken with his view point during my early teen age years. I even constructed one of the Count's Dingle Dangles. I later saw the limitations of his thesis, but I took away his main lesson, to wit, that misusing language can distort our thinking and lead us into error. I was in my mid twenties when I encountered -Atlas Shrugged-. I was very impressed and I value what Rand had to see to the extent that she help me clarify ideas I was developing about society and government. But I never took her on as a guru. That is why I am not an Objectivist. I sympathize with the messages of Objectivism (some of them, anyway), but I am not in the movement.

PS. The first mathematical paper I ever wrote was on a system of non-Aristotelian logic (freshman year in college).

Ba'al Chatzaf

Edited December 23, 2009 by BaalChatzaf

[tjohnson]

They did. They were both highly intelligent, both educated in an Eastern European social context and both thought they had The Answer to Everything.

I don't know about Rand, but Korzybski didn't, in fact he warned about not thinking that general semantics was a panacea for all our problems.

I am intimately acquainted with six languages, two Slavic, two Latin, and two

Teutonic, and also with the psycho-logical trends of these groups. I have been led to

suspect strongly that the finer differences in the structure of these languages and

their use are connected with the semantics of these national groups. An enquiry into

this problem, in my opinion, presents great semantic possibilities and might be the

foundation for the understanding of international psycho-logical differences. Once

formulated, this would lead us to a better mutual understanding, particularly if a [non-aristotelian]

semantic revision of these different languages is undertaken. To the best of my

knowledge, this field of enquiry is entirely new and very promising.

It must be obvious to the reader that such a vast program is beyond the power of

a single man to carry out, and the present author hopes for public interest in this

enterprise.

If the [non-aristotelian] -system has accomplished nothing more than to draw the attention of

mankind to some disregarded problems; if it has done nothing more than point the

way, not to panaceas, but to suggestions toward an expedient, constructive, and

unified scientific program whereby future disasters may be avoided or lessened—

the writer will be satisfied.