RoR: Forum

Post 40

Monday, November 18, 2002 - 6:25pm

Link

Edit

Response to Anthony Teets;

Teets said:
"Remember some of our readers don't know that a metaphor is not an argument against an objective reality. "

Well that depends on what you consider "objective reality" to be and I thought Glenn had clear that up.

Glenn argued, that "objective reality" was (merely) a metaphor in his article, to which you added by saying
"A metaphor is a literary device". (Thank you for clarifying that one for me Teets)

Glenn however, realising the faux pas (to a degree) he'd conceded, he withdrew (or at least qualified) to some extent with this;

"Although I refer to the *terms* as "metaphors" I very much hold that the *concepts* they relate to are consistent with the Objectivist ideas of existence and identity. " I'm cool with that lads.

However given that a metaphor is a literary device (as you say Teets) and that according to Glenn, objective reality is a metaphor, then it follows clearly that "objective reality" is merely a literary device.

Modus Ponens
p -> q
q -> r
therefore p -> r

This all sounds pretty post-modern Teets. Well done on refuting your own argument. ;-)

As Willie deVille said, "it's a mixed up shook up world..."

Peace and Love
Steve

Post 41

Monday, November 18, 2002 - 8:30pm

Link

Edit

"Once again you contradict yourself. Are you saying that causality applies to the entire contents of the universe EXCEPT, our choices, because our choices are not causally effected (according to free-will)."

1. Free will is not "our choices are not causally effected". Free will means that we make choices. Period.

2. The brain exists. It is part of the universe. Primacy of existence - basic principle of Objectivism. Therefore it is determined as well (unless science finds that there is an exception).

"So then isn't "rationality" the cause(?) of our choices?"

Only for rational people, obviously.

"Once again objectivists completely bunk receieved wisdom in neuroscience, cognitive science and philosophy of mind!"

Actually, it is basic epistemology. Nothing to do with science.

Science is based on free will. If free will did not exist, reason would not exist, and neither would science. Rats do not have science.

"The general belief is that mental characteristics are supervenient on physical characteristics."

I agree.

"Disagree with this and it starts looking like you are prescribing dualism. And that doesn't look like Randian philosophy to me?"

I thought we were talking about Objectivism. Or are you insulting us ?

"Alternatively then, tell me what does "CAUSE" mental events like thoughts, beliefs, desires, etc. You are both saying nothing causes them - where do they come from then? Do they just arise spontaneously from nothing (ab initio)"

What are you talking about ? They are caused by numerous neurological, environmental and cognitive factors. Metaphysically, of course, they are caused by the prior state of the brain.

".. how do physical brain events (firings of neurons, etc) effect mental or psychological events and/or vice-versa? You're making no sense!"

A common complaint. If I'm making no sense, at least try to indicate why you think that.

Post 42

Monday, November 18, 2002 - 9:29pm

Link

Edit

Steve,

You obviously forgot to add:

"Steve is drowning in his own cognitive nihilism"

Cognitive nihilism may claim you as an activist Steve. You consistently try to baffle everyone with your inane comments and then insist that we are all lads and boys, etc. Your efforts to put words in my mouth and confuse an observation that I made about a metaphor with your larger programme of disproving objective reality is a tired old trick. Your own insistence that objective reality does not exist is only a demonstration of your own banality Steve. The fact that you try to prove a point by blending a scrap from Glenn and one from me shows that you have no understanding of contextuality or relationality. You can't even understand the context in which a statement is made. You are not being taken serious.

Your cardboard philosophy may be fun to play games on, but you have no substance on which to build a life. I suppose that is why you continue to feed off of us for your thrills.

Post 43

Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 7:28am

Link

Edit

Anthony, I suspect that Steve might not possess the cognitive tools necessary to realize that he's drowning in his his own cognitive nihilism.

Post 44

Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 12:55pm

Link

Edit

"You are not being taken serious. "

Quite the contrary it is actually "objectivism" that internationally has no credence amongst academic philosophy (aside from a interesting curio), nor anyone with any degree of scientific or mathematical background.

I'm merely trying to point out why.

So the fact that no one HERE, might take me seriously doesn't concern me in the slightest. What should concern those amongst you that really think, is this question,

Why is it that the international scientific, mathematical and philosophic communities are completely unimpressed with objectivism?

steve.
ps: if your smart you'll know the answer to the question - the reasons are scattered through my posts of the previous few weeks.

Look as Glenn clearly pointed out in his article to which this thread is attached, and I quote;

"Ayn Rand's works integrated fiction with philosophy, so it's not surprising that some of Objectivism's philosophic terms have a little creative color to them. "Benevolent universe" and "objective reality" are two metaphors I hope we keep"

Rand confused fiction with philosophy, (so have a few other marginalised philosophers), obviously she had the best intentions at heart. But the philosophy has little if any explanatory value whatsoever. Hence it is left as a cultish kind of "fan" dedication to Rand, just as we still see punks wandering around the streets wearing the fashion and listening to the music of another generation - as if it were valid today, we see Objectivists, clinging to the false hopes Rand espoused when the rest of philosophy has long since moved on.

Post 45

Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 1:08pm

Link

Edit

"Why is it that the international scientific, mathematical and philosophic communities are completely unimpressed with objectivism?"

How would they know about Objectivism in the first place ?

BTW, what are you doing here ? You don't seem to be interested in Objectivism at all. Do you agree that you are a troll ?

Post 46

Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 2:20pm

Link

Edit

Just so we're clear, I hope no-one besides Steve read that Ayn Rand �confused� fiction with philosophy in my article. I specifically used �integrated.� Steve, I'd really appreciate it if you didn�t use my article as some kind of chink to leverage your crowbar in to. I explained up front (quite clearly, I thought) the context I used the term �metaphor.� It was certainly *not* to say that the concepts were merely colorful descriptions and that they had less philosophical validity.

Anthony, Francois: I have to apologize. I really believed Steve was honestly curious about Objectivism. And those are the people we should be trying to reach. But I *did* have a bet with you guys that he'd use the word "paradigm" before this exchange was over. Pay up, boys! :)

G.

Post 47

Tuesday, November 19, 2002 - 8:37pm

Link

Edit

Steve says, Quite the contrary it is actually "objectivism" that internationally has no credence amongst academic philosophy (aside from a interesting curio), nor anyone with any degree of scientific or mathematical background.

Am I one of the exceptions that prove the rule, being a computer programmer who decided that objectivism makes more sense than the other crap out there? Or am I irrelevant because I learned at RTFM University instead of MIT?

I'm probably not the only one. How many of you SOLOists have a scientific/mathematical background?

Post 48

Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 5:23am

Link

Edit

Matthew,

Can I borrow your BFG-80386* for a minute? :)

Steve: The reason WHY people are unimpressed with Objectivism is because it is the only philosophy that still adheres to a systematic approach and does not abandon fundamental principles. Academic philosophers usually don't approach philosophy as anything other than a toy, a game, or a puzzle...so, it does not surprise me that they would regard Objectivism as "a interesting curio". Objectivists DO take philosophy seriously. There are quite a few working within academia with VERY positive results. Our own Chris Sciabarra is but one great example of what I am talking about.

Mathematicians and scientists don't like Objectivism? As what? As mathematics or science? Objectivism is a philosophy, not an applied science or a mathematical system. You are doing exactly as I said you were previously- you are interpreting Objectivism through the lenses of some other philosophy but not understanding it from within. Perhaps the philosophy you ascribe to tries to be a mathematics or a science. If so, it is denying the true nature of philosophy.

As I said, Objectivism is a systematic philosophy. It is very broad and may be applied to a person's entire life. I am not at all surprised nor am I especially upset that contemporary philosophers, mathematicians, and scientists don't like it. I don't think your Moorean philosophy can make any claims at all. BTW have you seen E.O. Wilson's full critique of Moore's "naturalistic fallacy"? That is about the only thing Moore is celebrated for--and it was easily refuted.

Post 49

Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 7:22am

Link

Edit

Here you go, Anthony. Just watch the recoil.

Post 50

Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 11:28am

Link

Edit

This is a good and interesting article in a number of ways, as witness the multitudinous response to it. I especially liked the title, altho' I doubted it a bit at first. In many ways I tend to see the universe as cold, indifferent, neutral and ambivalent. But the article rather convinces me.

One additional reason why the universe is necessarily benevolent to humans is because we are all intimately, totally part of it. People are made up of absolutely the same stuff as stars, rocks, frogs, etc. and often experience the exact same things like time and space, birth and death, change, causality, etc.

None of us are aliens dropped down into an odd and inexplicable place. The universe can't be against us because it is us, and we are it. In order to truly understand and (hopefully) dominate the universe, you have to spend a large minority of your time understanding and dominating yourself.

Personal reality and physical/metaphysical reality overlap heavily and are often identical.

Post 51

Wednesday, November 20, 2002 - 12:37pm

Link

Edit

Hi Andre!

Yes, yes, yes, that is how I understand it as well. We are part of it all. That is why I was trying to explain to Steve, that Objectivism accepts existence, identity, and consciousness. These are the factors that determine us and also make us unique as human beings.

There is an element in Objectivism that people often misunderstand. They misinterpret the rational, ego, self-interested individualism as one sided Romanticism. It would seem that we stand outside of reality and determine its nature from our consciousness. Many Romantics turned the awe and the wonder into fear and loathing. But I tend to think that we don't just stand there in mere wonder awe-struck, but that we begin to understand it by applying reason and the knowledge and experience that humankind has collected and passed on over the centuries.

Some only see the Romantic silhouette and define Objectivists as standing outside of reality. That is what Steve implied in a prior post when he said our axiomatic approach is "cartesian". But it is not cartesian because Descartes would never have accepted the axiom of existence. Objectivism brings multiple aspects to bear on the discussion of philosophy and thus accounts for much that is lost in the myopic tendencies of most philosophies.

Yes we are made of the same stuff! But stuff can't splice an atom or engage in genetic de-coding. Stuff can't write a novel or paint a Newberry. We grow and we are nurtured in a human context that makes us different, and I tend to think that there is something benevolent about this context as well.

Post 52

Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 5:12am

Link

Edit

http://www.scoop.co.nz/mason/stories/HL0210/S00167.htm

dedicated to the fans of metaphor...

...those that swallow (rhetoric) and of course Glenn.

Post 53

Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 6:53am

Link

Edit

Another troll? How delightful; he came just in time for me to try out this new shoulder-mounter railgun I made. >^..^<

Post 54

Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 12:43pm

Link

Edit

OOPS! Didn't I give you back your BFG-80386* Matthew? HA I'll just keep it in case I need it again, how's bout that?

Post 55

Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 12:51pm

Link

Edit

There once was a troll named Evets Yalnikcm...

Uh-oh, sorry I can't go there, my usual furor poeticus is quite strained at the moment...:)

Post 56

Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 3:27pm

Link

Edit

Evets Yalnikcm? or STEVE MCKINLAY! The plot thickens (and is subsequently thrown from my refrigerator w/leftover troll steak gone bad. ewww)

Seriously, Steve could you just try to be a little bit more creative with your aliases? Who are you fooling?

Post 57

Thursday, November 21, 2002 - 5:58pm

Link

Edit

Keep the BFG, Anthony. I like my railgun better; I don't have to worry about collateral damage when I let daylight into a troll with a depleted uranium slug rotating at .69 c.

Post 58

Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 3:26am

Link

Edit

Hi, Folks!
First, I gotta congratulate on the article, and discussion thread. It's really good. Sadly enough, it's also shown me how pathetic some of these anti-Objectivists can be.
People have such a vested interest in the idea that there's no Reality, or that their mind can create reality, or that they have no choices (AKA "soft" determinism), that they're willing to go to any lengths to defend it.
This also highlights exactly why Objectivism is on the WRONG track with trying to get "academia" in our court. "Philosophy has moved on", as Steve said -- to the realm of idiocy. Rand (for all her quirks), really DID do something extraordinary, and the "academics" (IE poseurs like Steve) are desperate to try to eradicate it.
Now, I want everybody to pay attention to a few things that probably should have tipped you alll off, as to where Steve was going to go with this:

1. In his first post, he says he is intrigued with Objectivism "in a dark sort of way".
My question to that is: just what exactly is so "dark" about a philosophy neccesitating Individual freedom, consious involvement in your own life, etc? The reasons Objectivism usually gets considered 'dark" is because it recognizes Reality, understands that Individuals actually DO have choices -- WITHIN the realm of the POSSIBLE -- (IE, alternatives), and champions Free Markets. You all must have realized by now, that people are TERRIFIED of all of those things. Kind of pathetic, isn't it?

2. When Steve gets the explanation he supposedly wanted, he accuses Glenn of being "defensive". Then he proceeds to just get more and more and more insulting, incoherent, and sneery through the subsequent exchanges.
Now, if psychological/behavioral determinism is true (and we in fact can NOT make choices), then our good pal Stevie there cannot be held responsible for the fact that he made a complete ass out of himself, and spewed insults at every opportunity.
(Interestingly enough, nobody could be held responsible for punching him in the face repeatedly) maybe psychological determinism has it's advantages! (grin)

Do you guys have to deal with a lot of those type of people? I noticed a large amount of the same thing over on the Objectivist Center's "ask a question" pages.
Well, good article, in any case.

Post 59

Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 3:37am

Link

Edit

Another clarification for our pal Stevie, if he's still bothering to log in:

"Causal determinism" is essentially what is meant by the term "inevitability".
the whole premise of Inevitability (or "fate","destiny" etc.), is that a specific outcome WILL and MUST occur, in spite of (and without reference to) any particular sequence of events which would LEAD UP to that outcome.
In other words, if I'm "fated" to be a rock star, then learning how to play music and sing and record and such makes no difference whatsoever. "Que Sera, Sera", as the old Debbie Reynolds song says (was that Debbie Reynolds -- I dunno! good song tho!) :)
As you can plainly see, 'causal determinism' (inevitability), is in fact COMPLETELY A-causal, in that it effectively isolates events from their inter-relation to OTHER events.
(Gee, maybe Stevie was "fated" to come onto the board, and get smacked upside the head by some REAL THINKING!) (grin!!!!)
have fun, Y'all!