Induction v.s. Deduction

[BaalChatzaf]

I know you don't care much about how you come across, but FYI, this makes you look like a braying, strutting ass. And I usually enjoy your posts, FWIW. Helpful feedback, I hope.

I am a braying ass who forgot more math and science than Rand ever knew. If it ain't math and it ain't science it is tiddly winks or utter nonsense. Philosophy does not impress me. Three thousand years and the same questions are asked again and again and never properly answered. In the hard sciences they got away from that nonsense which is why science succeeds and metaphysics (along with ethics, aesthetics and politics) fails.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Xray]

Imo there is no doubt that Rand did figure out her metaphysics and epistemology in order to support her ethics, an ethics she derived from her individual psychological structure - she was a hero worshipper ("Cyrus") - coupled with traumatic experiences she made with the political system in Russia.

This led her to reject any thought of serving others first as detrimental, and to uncritically advocate unbridled capitalism.

Xray,

So what?

Which came first, chicken, or egg?

I'm not valuing this in terms of what came first. What counts is if the premises of either are correct.

WhyNot However, you can be damned sure that she would have checked, and double-checked, the results; Ayn Rand did not enjoy being proven wrong, it's obvious - but above all else, she loved the truth.

I would put it like that: she was convinced of the truth of her propositions.

Her resultant Ethics stands as proof of that.

Her resultant ethics indicate that she was convinced of the truth of her propositions. Imo that's all one can say.

The ethics itself 'proves' nothing, but I will (as always) stand corrected if a discussion opponent convinces me of the contrary.

So if you disagree, would you give one or more specific examples of her ethics and demonstrate what exactly it proves.

Ba'al ,

I'm beginning to think that XRay, and now you, should concentrate on Rand's NON-fiction.

You do understand 'poetic licence' don't you?

Rand was clear as a bell in pointing out that her fiction was an illustration and demonstration of her philosophy. Just think of the numerous times when she makes references to Galt's speech.

Rand would not have permitted herself any poetic license if it contradicted the message she wanted to convey.

It isn't so much what her characters did and didn't do, it's their sense of life and uncompromising individualism that is best recalled by most readers, imo.

The characters serve as inspiration, not blueprints for one's life, or one's morality.

But their "sense of life" is reflected in what they do (and don't do).

Pardon me, but it gets a bit tiring seeing Rand constantly being set up as a 'strawman' by snippets from her fiction, or her personal life.

Sea above. Rand herself stressed the philosophical implications of her fiction. Nor is it a case of 'snippets'; actually one could provide a whole heap if needed.

As for strawmen, the so-called "subjectivist" in AS would fit the bill perfectly.

I know one thing: if she were alive, her intellect would blow all of us out of the water. B)

I'm not sure if AR would get a foot on the ground is she tried to convince Ba'al that the effect of the Second Law of Thermodynamics on the universe is a mere "story".

Or imagine an exchange in which Dragonfly introduces her to the world of quantum physics ...

It looks like Rand rarely discussed her theories with experts in the various fields. I have often asked myself whether she whose focus was so much on language, even knew about the work of e. g. Ferdindand de Saussure, the pioneer of modern linguistics.

Philosophy does not impress me. Three thousand years and the same questions are asked again and again and never properly answered.

Wasn't it you who even used the word "miracle" when you spoke of there being something instead of nothing? Isn't it there where the root of all philosophy and science is to be found? In pondering about unanswered questions?

Haven't you ever stood in awe before the star-spangled sky at night, asking yourself what is the sense all this? If not, do you think it has to do with you having Asperger's, and in that case, other 'Aspies' would feel the same (?). I'm merely speculating, so I apologize in case I wrote nonsense. I know so little about Asperger's.

Your position btw is a philosophical position as well.

For we all have a philosophy and therefore don't extra "need" it as Rand believed. But what she meant by "need" was quite obvious: that we need the "correct" philosophy (= her own).

In We The Living Kira is shown taking part in the family business, which at that point was stuffing sugar cubes into bottles. The labels say 100, and they intentionally put only 87 in. I want to know how anyone can claim to uphold honesty as a virtue while depicting their quasi-autobiographical fictional heroine doing that.

I would like to know that too.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Xray

[9thdoctor]

If it ain't math and it ain't science it is tiddly winks or utter nonsense. Philosophy does not impress me.

Yet according to this report, you spend quite a lot of time on discussion boards devoted to Ayn Rand. There’s quite a disconnect here. The two sides of the equation aren’t working out. Somewhere someone’s trying to divide by zero. “As h approachee zero the numerator increase without bound”, as my Chinese calculus teacher used to say.

[anthony]

Call me anything you want - but please, not Normal!

Tony

Are you aware that ADD is treatable? 99 percent of the world is neurotypical, hence my error. My apologies.

Even so, Rand is on the hook for every word she wrote, just as you and I are. Her notions of ethics leads to some peculiar results. To the extent that Rand transmitted her ethics to her followers in the Movement, one can conclude there is something a bit askew. Look at how the shi'ite Objectivists treat each other. Is that an example of their ethics?

Here are the facts: ethics is bottom up. One learns an ethical system by the effects of habit and experience. Principles are a result of experience, not the determiner of experience. One can learn to be an ethical person by following a simple guideline -- don't do anything to others you don't want them to do to you. On the other hand don't be a doormat. Everything else is in the details. One learns by doing. Aristotle believed that the Virtues are acquired by habit and doing, not by philosophical contemplation of principles. See Nichomachian Ethics by Mr. A.

R. Hillel summed it up very well in Perke Avot (sayings of the sages)

If I am not for myself, who is for me?

If I am only for myself, what am I?

If not now, then when?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ba'al,

No need to apologize - I was teasing you.

Yes, ADD is being treated effectively, though it can't be cured as yet. For me, being diagnosed at 55, it was not necessarily too late - but a lot of damage had already been done. Self-esteem was possibly the most hard hit.

As you have surely discovered, just having the knowledge is half the battle - we know what we are facing, at least.

I agree with what you say about an ethical system, with a crucial addition: I cannot deny my rational/cognitive faculty, and have found that the combination of ('topdown') "contemplation of principles", linked with the "effects of habit and experience" ('bottom-up'), together make for a strong foundation that I can't do without.

They go together, as I was attempting to say in the Character thread.

The 'Lord Chatzaf' is more than a grouping of molecular particles (teasing again), so don't give up on Philosophy just yet!

Tony