Rand-like quote

[Dragonfly]

'I am ready,' said Gilda Farren, 'to forgive-'

'Never do that,' said Wimsey. 'Forgiveness is the one unpardonable sin.'

Dorothy L. Sayers, Five Red Herrings, (1931)

Compare with:

'I can forgive all those others [...]

'It is against the sin of forgiveness that I wanted to warn you.'

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, (1957)

[George H. Smith]

Here is one of my favorite parallels:

Ayn Rand: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something."

The Thomistic philosopher Celestine Bittle, in The Whole Man (1945): "Consciousness has a content. In order to be conscious, we must be conscious of something."

Ghs

[Guyau]

Ayn Rand: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something."

The Thomistic philosopher Celestine Bittle, in The Whole Man (1945): "Consciousness has a content. In order to be conscious, we must be conscious of something."

.

Cf. Sartre quotes (1936–37, 1943, 1948). Also Plato.

.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Stephen Boydstun

[George H. Smith]

Ayn Rand: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something."

The Thomistic philosopher Celestine Bittle, in The Whole Man (1945): "Consciousness has a content. In order to be conscious, we must be conscious of something."

.

Cf. Sartre quotes (1936–37, 1943, 1948). Also Plato.

.

Interesting. I wasn't aware of the passage by Sartre.

The position stated by Bittle is standard Thomistic fare. Aquinas defended a similar position as follows:

"No one perceives that he understands except from this, that he understands something: because he must first know something before he knows that he knows; and the consequence is that the mind comes to actually know itself though that which it understands or senses." (Quoted in John Peifer, The Mystery of Knowledge (1964).

Ghs

[tjohnson]

Here is one of my favorite parallels:

Ayn Rand: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something."

The Thomistic philosopher Celestine Bittle, in The Whole Man (1945): "Consciousness has a content. In order to be conscious, we must be conscious of something."

Ghs

The term 'consciousness', taken separately, is not a complete symbol; it lacks content,

and one of the characteristics of 'consciousness' is to have some content. Usually,

the term 'consciousness' is taken as undefined and undefinable, because of its

immediate character for every one of us. Such a situation is not desirable, as it is

always semantically useful to try to define a complex term by simpler terms. We

may limit the general and undefined term 'consciousness' and make it a definite

symbol by the deliberate ascribing of some content to this term. For this

'consciousness of something' I take 'consciousness of abstracting' as fundamental.

[dan2100]

Here is one of my favorite parallels:

Ayn Rand: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something."

The Thomistic philosopher Celestine Bittle, in The Whole Man (1945): "Consciousness has a content. In order to be conscious, we must be conscious of something."

Ghs

The term 'consciousness', taken separately, is not a complete symbol; it lacks content,

and one of the characteristics of 'consciousness' is to have some content. Usually,

the term 'consciousness' is taken as undefined and undefinable, because of its

immediate character for every one of us. Such a situation is not desirable, as it is

always semantically useful to try to define a complex term by simpler terms. We

may limit the general and undefined term 'consciousness' and make it a definite

symbol by the deliberate ascribing of some content to this term. For this

'consciousness of something' I take 'consciousness of abstracting' as fundamental.

Korzybski, from my reading, is kind of following Brentano's lead here. Have you studied much of where, intellectually, Korzybski came from?

[tjohnson]

Korzybski, from my reading, is kind of following Brentano's lead here. Have you studied much of where, intellectually, Korzybski came from?

Of the 619 titles in the bibliography of Science & Sanity there is no mention of Brentano. This is from his foreword.

TO THE WORKS OF:

CASSIUS J. KEYSER

ARISTOTLE

G. W. LEIBNITZ

ERIC T. BELL

J. LOCKE

EUGEN BLEULER

JACQUES LOEB

NIELS BOHR

H. A. LORENTZ

GEORGE BOOLE

ERNST MACH

MAX BORN

J. C. MAXWELL

LOUIS DE BROGLIE

ADOLF MEYER

GEORG CANTOR

HERMANN MINKOWSKI

ERNST CASSIRER

ISAAC NEWTON

CHARLES M. CHILD

IVAN PAVLOV

C. DARWIN

GIUSEPPE PEANO

RENE DESCARTES

MAX PLANCK

P. A. M. DIRAC

PLATO

A. S. EDDINGTON

H. POINCARÉ

ALBERT EINSTEIN

G. Y. RAINICH

EUCLID

G. F. B. RIEMANN

M. FARADAY

JOSIAH ROYCE

SIGMUND FREUD

BERTRAND RUSSELL

KARL F. GAUSS

ERNEST RUTHERFORD

THOMAS GRAHAM

E. SCHRODINGER

ARTHUR HAAS

C. S. SHERRINGTON

WM. R. HAMILTON

SOCRATES

HENRY HEAD

WERNER HEISENBERG ARNOLD SOMMERFELD

C. JUDSON HERRICK

OSWALD VEBLEN

WILLIAM A. WHITE

E. V. HUNTINGTON

ALFRED N. WHITEHEAD

SMITH ELY JELLIFFE

LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN

WHICH HAVE GREATLY INFLUENCED MY ENQUIRY, THIS SYSTEM IS DEDICATED

[dan2100]

Korzybski, from my reading, is kind of following Brentano's lead here. Have you studied much of where, intellectually, Korzybski came from?

Of the 619 titles in the bibliography of Science & Sanity there is no mention of Brentano. This is from his foreword.

TO THE WORKS OF:

CASSIUS J. KEYSER

ARISTOTLE

G. W. LEIBNITZ

ERIC T. BELL

J. LOCKE

EUGEN BLEULER

JACQUES LOEB

NIELS BOHR

H. A. LORENTZ

GEORGE BOOLE

ERNST MACH

MAX BORN

J. C. MAXWELL

LOUIS DE BROGLIE

ADOLF MEYER

GEORG CANTOR

HERMANN MINKOWSKI

ERNST CASSIRER

ISAAC NEWTON

CHARLES M. CHILD

IVAN PAVLOV

C. DARWIN

GIUSEPPE PEANO

RENE DESCARTES

MAX PLANCK

P. A. M. DIRAC

PLATO

A. S. EDDINGTON

H. POINCARÉ

ALBERT EINSTEIN

G. Y. RAINICH

EUCLID

G. F. B. RIEMANN

M. FARADAY

JOSIAH ROYCE

SIGMUND FREUD

BERTRAND RUSSELL

KARL F. GAUSS

ERNEST RUTHERFORD

THOMAS GRAHAM

E. SCHRODINGER

ARTHUR HAAS

C. S. SHERRINGTON

WM. R. HAMILTON

SOCRATES

HENRY HEAD

WERNER HEISENBERG ARNOLD SOMMERFELD

C. JUDSON HERRICK

OSWALD VEBLEN

WILLIAM A. WHITE

E. V. HUNTINGTON

ALFRED N. WHITEHEAD

SMITH ELY JELLIFFE

LUDWIG WITTGENSTEIN

WHICH HAVE GREATLY INFLUENCED MY ENQUIRY, THIS SYSTEM IS DEDICATED

I'm not surprised, but have you studied where, intellectually, Korzybski came from? Consulting the bibliography of one book is, at best, a starting point for this. Don't you agree?

To give more substance to why I think there's a Franz Brentano influence here, there are two things. One, the intentionalist view of consciousness in 20^th centuries seems to all come from Brentano. Of course, this doesn't mean any particular thinker holding this view studied with or read Brentano or his students. Two, Brentano had a big influence on Polish philosophy and Korzybski might have gotten his dose of Brentano via Polish thinkers influenced by Brentano or his seconds.

[tjohnson]

'm not surprised, but have you studied where, intellectually, Korzybski came from? Consulting the bibliography of one book is, at best, a starting point for this. Don't you agree?

To give more substance to why I think there's a Franz Brentano influence here, there are two things. One, the intentionalist view of consciousness in 20^th centuries seems to all come from Brentano. Of course, this doesn't mean any particular thinker holding this view studied with or read Brentano or his students. Two, Brentano had a big influence on Polish philosophy and Korzybski might have gotten his dose of Brentano via Polish thinkers influenced by Brentano or his seconds.

No, I haven't studied where, intellectually, Korzybski came from, I have my hands full trying to understand where he was going to.

[Xray]

'I am ready,' said Gilda Farren, 'to forgive-'

'Never do that,' said Wimsey. 'Forgiveness is the one unpardonable sin.'

Dorothy L. Sayers, Five Red Herrings, (1931)

Compare with:

'I can forgive all those others [...]

'It is against the sin of forgiveness that I wanted to warn you.'

Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged, (1957)

Forgiveness is called a "sin" in AS. Looks like Objectivism has more in common with a religion than its followers would like to admit. My personal favorite so far is the Objecivist couple who made their marriage vows using Atlas Shrugged instead of the Bible ....

Question to George H. Smith: where has your article Is Objectivism a Religion been published?

Here is one of my favorite parallels:

Ayn Rand: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something."

The Thomistic philosopher Celestine Bittle, in The Whole Man (1945): "Consciousness has a content. In order to be conscious, we must be conscious of something."

Ghs

In ITOE Rand wrote: "Consciousness is conscious". But "consciousness" can be no more conscious than e.g. hunger can be hungry or coma can be comatose. Certain living entities can be all that, but not the abstract noun.

Edited April 21, 2010 by Xray

[dan2100]

Question to George H. Smith: where has your article Is Objectivism a Religion been published?

Didn't Albert Ellis write a book with that title? I'm unaware of George writing an article with the same title...

[Xray]

Question to George H. Smith: where has your article Is Objectivism a Religion been published?

Didn't Albert Ellis write a book with that title? I'm unaware of George writing an article with the same title...

Correction: G. H. Smith's essay has the title: Objectivism as a Religion:

I just found this link: http://web.archive.org/web/20041217041217/http://www.dailyobjectivist.com/Spir/ObjectivismasaReligion.asp

Edited April 21, 2010 by Xray

[Chris Grieb]

'm not surprised, but have you studied where, intellectually, Korzybski came from? Consulting the bibliography of one book is, at best, a starting point for this. Don't you agree?

To give more substance to why I think there's a Franz Brentano influence here, there are two things. One, the intentionalist view of consciousness in 20^th centuries seems to all come from Brentano. Of course, this doesn't mean any particular thinker holding this view studied with or read Brentano or his students. Two, Brentano had a big influence on Polish philosophy and Korzybski might have gotten his dose of Brentano via Polish thinkers influenced by Brentano or his seconds.

No, I haven't studied where, intellectually, Korzybski came from, I have my hands full trying to understand where he was going to.

Sounds to me that Korzybski is a bit of a name dropper.

[tjohnson]

Sounds to me that Korzybski is a bit of a name dropper.

Now why would you say that??

[dan2100]

Sounds to me that Korzybski is a bit of a name dropper.

Now why would you say that??

Because of that huge list of names of people whose works "greatly influenced" him? I don't really have much of a problem with that, though some -- Chris, obviously -- might seeing it as crossing the line from citing sources to dropping names.

Also, I wonder how "greatly" 54 different people can influence anyone. I mean some of these influences were probably greater than others -- and some of them must have been minor, no? Perhaps he was being charitable...

This, of course, does little to reveal the actual influences on Korzybski. My stab at Brentano influencing him was based on similarity of his view of consciousness with Brentano's -- and also that Brentano and his students had a big influence on Polish thinkers, including ones Korzybski was probably familiar with.

There is also the problem with self-reporting that a given thinker might not be aware of her or his influences and might even try to "bury" ones she or he is aware of. The latter claim, of course, has to be approached with caution and I'm not saying this is at all the case with Korzybski. (In fact, I believe it's best to default to anything but burying influences unless there's strong evidence for it.)

Edited April 22, 2010 by Dan Ust

[tjohnson]

Because of that huge list of names of people whose works "greatly influenced" him? I don't really have much of a problem with that, though some -- Chris, obviously -- might seeing it as crossing the line from citing sources to dropping names.

Also, I wonder how "greatly" 54 different people can influence anyone. I mean some of these influences were probably greater than others -- and some of them must have been minor, no? Perhaps he was being charitable...

This, of course, does little to reveal the actual influences on Korzybski. My stab at Brentano influencing him was based on similarity of his view of consciousness with Brentano's -- and also that Brentano and his students had a big influence on Polish thinkers, including ones Korzybski was probably familiar with.

There is also the problem with self-reporting that a given thinker might not be aware of her or his influences and might even try to "bury" ones she or he is aware of. The latter claim, of course, has to be approached with caution and I'm not saying this is at all the case with Korzybski. (In fact, I believe it's best to default to anything but burying influences unless there's strong evidence for it.)

I would venture that Korzybski put those names in because he referred to their work often during the researching and writing of his book. In some cases he may have been negatively influenced and others positively, but influenced never the less. If he was aware of Brentano in any significant way I see no reason why he would not mention it. After all, he has some 619 titles in the bibliography, whats a few more?

[dan2100]

Because of that huge list of names of people whose works "greatly influenced" him? I don't really have much of a problem with that, though some -- Chris, obviously -- might seeing it as crossing the line from citing sources to dropping names.

Also, I wonder how "greatly" 54 different people can influence anyone. I mean some of these influences were probably greater than others -- and some of them must have been minor, no? Perhaps he was being charitable...

This, of course, does little to reveal the actual influences on Korzybski. My stab at Brentano influencing him was based on similarity of his view of consciousness with Brentano's -- and also that Brentano and his students had a big influence on Polish thinkers, including ones Korzybski was probably familiar with.

There is also the problem with self-reporting that a given thinker might not be aware of her or his influences and might even try to "bury" ones she or he is aware of. The latter claim, of course, has to be approached with caution and I'm not saying this is at all the case with Korzybski. (In fact, I believe it's best to default to anything but burying influences unless there's strong evidence for it.)

I would venture that Korzybski put those names in because he referred to their work often during the researching and writing of his book. In some cases he may have been negatively influenced and others positively, but influenced never the less.

I'm not sure which statement of mine you're referring directly to. If the one on "greatly," I mean it's a bit hard for me to imagine all of them greatly influencing -- as opposed to just mildly or somewhat influencing him. Greatly influencing someone to me means that one would, if one were well acquainted with both the influenced thinker and the influencing thinker, be able to easily trace a path from one to the other and would also be able to reasonably make the case, "where it not for this influence, the influenced person's thought would be radically different." (This goes for both positive and negative influences.)

If he was aware of Brentano in any significant way I see no reason why he would not mention it. After all, he has some 619 titles in the bibliography, whats a few more?

I don't know enough about Korzybski to know why he would not mention him. I can speculate that the influence might have been indirect -- as in Korzybski absorbing some of Brentano's ideas because of the latter's influence on Polish philosophy at that time. It could also be that he read some works by Brentano or his students and merely forgot he did so. And, of course, it could just be that there's no influence -- that Korzybski mere came to similar ideas independently.

But your scholarship in this area, so far, has been little more than quoting from Korzybski and listing a few names from his book. I imagine were I a big fan of Korzybski, thought his ideas were extremely important and helpful, I'd want to know where they came from and their similarity to previous thinkers. No offense, but it surprises me that you seem to lack this curiosity.

[tjohnson]

But your scholarship in this area, so far, has been little more than quoting from Korzybski and listing a few names from his book. I imagine were I a big fan of Korzybski, thought his ideas were extremely important and helpful, I'd want to know where they came from and their similarity to previous thinkers. No offense, but it surprises me that you seem to lack this curiosity.

Really, you don't see any difference between science and the history of science? Is it necessary to follow the evolution of science in order to understand current science? While I agree it may enhance your understanding it's by no mean necessary to appreciate it.

[dan2100]

But your scholarship in this area, so far, has been little more than quoting from Korzybski and listing a few names from his book. I imagine were I a big fan of Korzybski, thought his ideas were extremely important and helpful, I'd want to know where they came from and their similarity to previous thinkers. No offense, but it surprises me that you seem to lack this curiosity.

Really, you don't see any difference between science and the history of science? Is it necessary to follow the evolution of science in order to understand current science? While I agree it may enhance your understanding it's by no mean necessary to appreciate it.

Such a difference is not as important, I feel, as you believe. What I mean is that if you want to evaluate any science (and I'm using this term in a wide sense here), you'll probably need to know how those particular conclusions -- the current state of theory and knowledge -- was arrived at -- in other words, something of the history of the science.

You might also find that current views are mistaken and might even be the result of losing or missing some aspects of previously held views. I think this has happened in economics -- at least, in certain parts of it in my understanding. For instance, business cycle theory and capital theory seems to have gone down the wrong path for decades now. (And if you think I'm only saying this because I don't know much about economics and am partisan, think of how all the mainstream economists, both in academia and outside of it, to a man didn't even see the 2008 meltdown coming. Even their policy recommnedations when they did admit the crisis was real seems to have had more the whiff of "do something, anything" than of science.)

[tjohnson]

But your scholarship in this area, so far, has been little more than quoting from Korzybski and listing a few names from his book. I imagine were I a big fan of Korzybski, thought his ideas were extremely important and helpful, I'd want to know where they came from and their similarity to previous thinkers. No offense, but it surprises me that you seem to lack this curiosity.

Really, you don't see any difference between science and the history of science? Is it necessary to follow the evolution of science in order to understand current science? While I agree it may enhance your understanding it's by no mean necessary to appreciate it.

Such a difference is not as important, I feel, as you believe. What I mean is that if you want to evaluate any science (and I'm using this term in a wide sense here), you'll probably need to know how those particular conclusions -- the current state of theory and knowledge -- was arrived at -- in other words, something of the history of the science.

You might also find that current views are mistaken and might even be the result of losing or missing some aspects of previously held views. I think this has happened in economics -- at least, in certain parts of it in my understanding. For instance, business cycle theory and capital theory seems to have gone down the wrong path for decades now. (And if you think I'm only saying this because I don't know much about economics and am partisan, think of how all the mainstream economists, both in academia and outside of it, to a man didn't even see the 2008 meltdown coming. Even their policy recommnedations when they did admit the crisis was real seems to have had more the whiff of "do something, anything" than of science.)

The problem is Korzybski more or less started a science - a science of man, which he called general semantics. He chose that name in the same tradition of general vs. special relativity. There were some earlier fields like semantics, semiotics and semiology but general semantics is more widely applicable, "The discipline of Semantics is distinct from Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics, which is a system for looking at the semantic reactions of the whole human organism in its environment to some event, symbolic or otherwise."

[dan2100]

Such a difference is not as important, I feel, as you believe. What I mean is that if you want to evaluate any science (and I'm using this term in a wide sense here), you'll probably need to know how those particular conclusions -- the current state of theory and knowledge -- was arrived at -- in other words, something of the history of the science.

You might also find that current views are mistaken and might even be the result of losing or missing some aspects of previously held views. I think this has happened in economics -- at least, in certain parts of it in my understanding. For instance, business cycle theory and capital theory seems to have gone down the wrong path for decades now. (And if you think I'm only saying this because I don't know much about economics and am partisan, think of how all the mainstream economists, both in academia and outside of it, to a man didn't even see the 2008 meltdown coming. Even their policy recommnedations when they did admit the crisis was real seems to have had more the whiff of "do something, anything" than of science.)

The problem is Korzybski more or less started a science - a science of man, which he called general semantics. He chose that name in the same tradition of general vs. special relativity. There were some earlier fields like semantics, semiotics and semiology but general semantics is more widely applicable, "The discipline of Semantics is distinct from Alfred Korzybski's General Semantics, which is a system for looking at the semantic reactions of the whole human organism in its environment to some event, symbolic or otherwise."

Without knowing a whole lot of history and philosophy, how would you know what Korzybski started? Also, one doesn't evaluate science by itself. When someone says he believes this or that is a science, his view of just what constitutes a science didn't come from nowhere and is not innate. Chances are, he might not have even thought of the question What is a science? or, if he has, that he's accepting a particular view of what qualifies and is unaware of the history of the question or the various problems and controversies in trying to answer it.

Your cavalier attitude toward this surprises me.

[tjohnson]

Your cavalier attitude toward this surprises me.

Life is full of surprises

[dan2100]

Your cavalier attitude toward this surprises me.

Life is full of surprises

But why do I have the feeling you might be less cavaliar were we talking about a thinking or set of ideas you disagreed with?

[tjohnson]

Your cavalier attitude toward this surprises me.

Life is full of surprises

But why do I have the feeling you might be less cavaliar were we talking about a thinking or set of ideas you disagreed with?

LOL, I don't know, why do you? Why don't you just say what's on your mind instead of beating around the bush?

Korzybski created the first (and only AFAIK) theory of sanity. No matter what his intellectual influences were none of them were in the sanity theory business.

[dan2100]

Your cavalier attitude toward this surprises me.

Life is full of surprises

But why do I have the feeling you might be less cavaliar were we talking about a thinking or set of ideas you disagreed with?

LOL, I don't know, why do you? Why don't you just say what's on your mind instead of beating around the bush?

I told you what I felt. I thought that was clear.

Korzybski created the first (and only AFAIK) theory of sanity. No matter what his intellectual influences were none of them were in the sanity theory business.

But you've already admitted to being ignorant of the history here. You don't even know who his intellectual influences are and haven't, from your many other comments, demonstrated a familiarity with intellectual history here. So, how do you know?

And, by the way, a familiarity with the history of philosophy might reveal to you that thinkers who think they've solved it all -- including transcended philosophy by showing all its concerns are the results of mistakes or are even insane -- are peppered throughout history.

This doesn't mean Korzybski is merely another pretender -- though, from you admissions, you're in no position to judge. But doesn't it strike you as rather funny that you believe all the things you do -- Korzybski has built a science, his is the first, etc. -- yet haven't really, it seems, done much work to approach this scientifically -- i.e., looking at where it came from, having some skepticism, and testing your beliefs about it rigorously?