RoR: Forum

Jeremy, double thanks then.

No. 6, it's not that he's using the "evidence" to formulate his philosophy everytime he sees something. Once formed, he merely says "What does this mean (according to my understanding of the world)?" The question then is, does the new evidence contradict his view. Obviously interpreting the new evidence via an objective-world philosophy would give you knowledge that is inconsistent with a subjective view. But he's not doing that. He's interpreting it through a subjective view. He merely sees another mental construct that he doesn't seem to have full, conscious control over.

It's an entirely different question to ask how he accepted this bad philosophy in the first place. That people do hold bad philosophical ideas is unquestionable, though.

Rick, thanks. And you're welcome to pick some nits. There's always nits to pick For instance, you talk about people "seeking truth". But truth itself is only consistent with some philosophies, as is seeking the truth. This goal doesn't makes sense under subjectivism and skepticism.

Regi, I suggested you take your other problems of Objectivism to another thread, so there are less distractions here.

As for philosophy, I follow your thinking, but I disagree. And your view differs from the standard Objectivist literature (and the typical use of the term).

I also think that incorrect philosophy would be taught in a real philosophy class. It's by differentiating Objectivist ideas from others that we're able to clearly identify them. Just as physics classes sometimes teach the evolution of the theory of the structure of the atom. At each stage, you not only learn the new information, but you can see the importance of it. What wouldn't happen is teaching the incorrect philosophies as if they were correct or on equal footing.

Anyway, you use the term philosophy in a unique way, so you shouldn't get all pissed when someone uses it in a different way than you. Not to mention, the current use of the term is quite useful. As I showed in my article, the concept of these foundational beliefs is important because of the effect it has on people's interpretation of evidence. Rand also used the concept to explain the importance of philosophy, in that everyone has one and it permeates every aspect of your life. And culturally, the concept is very important because Objectivism is such a small percent of the people, and you need a way of discussing the other people's foundational views.

Post 21

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 2:54pm

Regi,

If you are planning an essay that to improve on Objectivism, then you may profit by dealing with all existing objections beforehand (knowing the likely rebuttals before solidifying your argument into permanent wording). As I am one to celebrate human excellence whenever I find it, I will make a benevolent attempt to assist in that process:

Regi, when you say that the difference between referents of a single concept is not found in the difference in their essential quality I am unimpressed. Rand talked about distinguishing white-wall (or name brand) tires from other tires of the same size, so this is not a valid objection (it appears that you have personally added to her thought and identified your addition as her position).

Also, when you say that the process of perception requires the brain to have a mystic ability to "know" ahead-of-time which sensory data to integrate, my answer is simple: natural selection "hard-wired" brains to integrate properly.

Also, when you say that processing information is bad, only to use Kant's objection to it as illustrative support, I question your mastery of the counterarguments marshaled: ie. Identity does not negate Consciousness (everything useful is processed - food, waves of light, etc - and that fact simply has to be identified, validated, and accepted as an aspect of reality).

Ed

Post 22

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 4:58pm

Joe,

Thanks for the comments.

I suggested you take your other problems of Objectivism to another thread

If you do not want to talk about something, do not ask me questions about it? I have mentioned nothing I was not asked specific questions about.

Anyway, you use the term philosophy in a unique way

I do a lot of things in a unique way. Its called individualism. I learned it from reading the Fountainhead.

Regi

Post 23

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 4:59pm

I hate to keep going back to the evidence, but I think this is fundamental.

Joe, you state that some philosophies are good and some bad, some more accurate than others. I agree. But the only way to know this is by repairing to the evidence. Measuring what our world view is by reality testing. Prediction validates our views. Subjectivists don't use evidence, as Regi says, it is a denial of evidence. So what I am saying is that good science and good philosophy share the same basic logic.

Post 24

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 5:27pm

Ed, Joe

Let me provide some history:

Joe said in a previous post: So Objectivism is the only philosophy?

To which I responded: Certainly not. ... there is an important mistake in both Rand's and Kelley's explication of concepts, and both, along with Peikoff, repeat a pretty basic mistake about the nature of perception ... Objectivism is a philosophy, but it is not all of philosophy, nor is it complete, nor is it without error.

To which Joe responded: As for your comments about Kelly, Peikoff, and Rand, we've seen this kind of thing before. Your paragraph conveyed no actual information, except maybe that you disagree with someone on something in someway (if you call that information!). I don't mind you criticizing any of their works, but at least have the decency to explain yourself ...

So I gave a very brief statement about the nature of some of the places I think Objectivism has more development to make. You asked me some questions about those comments and I responded.

Since then, Joe has said: I suggested you take your other problems of Objectivism to another thread, so there are less distractions here.

I certainly don't want to distract anyone. So that's that.

Regi

Post 25

Thursday, October 30, 2003 - 6:32pm

Regi,

The ... from my quote was "(on a different thread...or submit an article)." And I suggested these only so your ideas can get serious analysis, assuming you want that. Too many things going on at once in one thread leads to hopping around. So it was just advice.

As for doing things a unique way, that's not a virtue in itself, as I say here:

http://SoloHQ.com/Articles/Rowlands/Rational_Individualism.shtml

Generally, if you want to redefine a term, there's a few things you could keep in mind.

1.) Is the new concept useful.
2.) Is the old concept useful.
3.) Will the change in definition cause confusion?

I claim that 2 and 3 are true. 1 is probably useful as well, but is it worth it?

No. 6, certainly good science and good philosophy have some things in common (especially the use of reason). And it's fine to keep going back to evidence. But evidence is interpreted. The thread on addiction is a perfect example. Everyone sees the same things (a person keeps drinking, for instance). Some interpret it as proof that free-will is somehow blocked. Some interpret it as only proving that the addict hasn't really chosen to quit yet.

You said "Subjectivists don't use evidence, as Regi says, it is a denial of evidence." Even if it is, does it change things? Can we both agree that people have bad philosophies? If so, then it doesn't matter why they do, the effect is still the same. If they really believe we have no free-will, they'll analyze things that way. If they really believe altruism is the only ethical system, then they'll really judge actions that way. If they really believe this is all an illusion, then they'll see things that way. And on and on.

Now you've stepped into what I consider another discussion entirely, which is how do we compare philosophies. That might include the logical consistency of the philosophy (are there ideas actually compatible, or contradictory). It might include whether they practice the belief consistently. It might include, as you've focused on, whether their theories can account for all the facts. And the truth is, it probably needs a mix of them. If someone says you can't really know anything (say because they don't accept the validity of sense perception), pointing to evidence is going to be a tough way to convince him of anything. Certainly he's not going to look at the world and find anything that changes his mind.

Post 26

Friday, October 31, 2003 - 3:13am

As for doing things a unique way, that's not a virtue in itself ....

# The autonomist hates to explain and resents the implication that he must make anyone else understand anything he does. There is a temptation to say an autonomist is someone who goes through life doing things he knows will annoy and irritate others just to annoy and irritate them. An autonomist might do that if he gave rap about what anyone else thinks. He doesn't. That's why the things he does annoy and irritate others.

Post 27

Friday, October 31, 2003 - 5:59am

Can we both agree that people have bad philosophies? Absolutely.

"If so, then it doesn't matter why they do, the effect is still the same." Agreed.

"If they really believe" This is the point, it is faith based. No evidence required.

This is why, as you say, "pointing to evidence is going to be a tough way to convince him of anything". No evidence is required.

But philosophical ideas and morality can be based on evidence.

The ONLY thing that can define good science and good philosophy is a grounding in Evidence. I do accept however that evidence can be misinterpreted. This does lead to wrong conclusions. Thus the importance of logic. Reasoning, or logic, must follow certain, non-arbitrary rules (eg non-contradictory identification) which must be adhered to if we wish to reach valid conclusions. By applying the rules of logic consistently, we can achieve objectively valid knowledge about reality.

To this degree good science and valid philosophy are the same.

Post 28

Friday, October 31, 2003 - 6:49am

Regi, your personal definition of philosophy isn�t just inadequate, it�s harmful. You dismiss erroneous philosophies at the outset � and define philosophy as Objectivism (or something close to it). There is reason one needs to include �proposed� philosophies in general and �proposed� ethics in particular in the subject of philosophy. Correct philosophy is the result of an analysis. There is a need to respect the context of the student who is grappling with the material and has not yet been convinced. One does not start by saying: altruism is not ethical. That�s true, but it is a conclusion that is a result of a process.

Your approach degenerates into dogmatism. You put the conclusion first and exclude the questionable philosophies from the outset. Your arguments seem closer to the Pekovian position: that according any respect, even contextually, to the ideas and their advocates, is tantamount to subjectivism.

Rick

Post 29

Friday, October 31, 2003 - 7:47am

Joe, one of the problems is that your presentation suggests a notion of an �a priori� and �a posteriori�. I think that might be a point in need of clarification. Perhaps it is the contrast between science and philosophy that suggests this.

The axioms of Objectivism are not a priori. They are evident in all experience. Thus, one can grasp them early on and they are not subject to future testing. Science is a narrower endeavor, which deals with propositions that can be confirmed or contradicted by specific tests. The axioms are unavoidable in any knowledge while science depends on special experience. Thus, philosophy seems �a priori� because it becomes the accepted for all future knowledge (and as you point out seldom reconsidered). Science seems �a posteriori� because it is continually expanding into new contexts and continually tested. In actually, all knowledge comes from experience.

Objectivism rejects the arbitrary, which, since Descartes, has become acceptable if not rampant. If someone says � �it�s all a dream� � how can that be refuted? The arbitrary can�t be refuted (on this Peikoff is very good). If you say X, they will respond: �and that�s part of the dream�. So, Joe, you�re right. It is all encompassing and irrefutable in the sense that evidence doesn�t exist for or against it. The arbitrary is created so that it can�t be threatened by evidence.

The concept of God is usually presented in an arbitrary way. If someone said God was a guy on Mount Olympus, we could go there and check it out. Obviously, God is defined in such a way that God has no attributes that are subject to testing. If someone says that God insures causality and, in particular, two hydrogen atoms will combine with oxygen to form water only because God�s grace allows (that�s an actual example from a contemporary Islamic science text), what do you say? It will all be �explained away�.

If a person doesn�t want to admit the ridiculousness of arbitrary statements that only seemingly handle matters in what is obviously an impoverished way of reasoning, there is little one can do. Your main point is correct. I think you left a wrong impression: that any starting point can be just as good in explaining reality, which I don�t think you meant to imply. I think your main point is the power philosophy has for the person holding it. Bad assumptions will have the same power as valid axioms in the mind and scheme of the person holding these ideas. All subsequent facts will be fitted into the scheme.

Rick

Post 30

Friday, October 31, 2003 - 12:20pm

Rick, good points. Didn't mean to suggest philosophy is a priori at all.

We both agree that the arbitrary is just that. But looking at the history of philosophy, you can see a lot of honest thinkers who really got a whole lot wrong. Often this is trying to explain certain facts or behaviors.

Determinism vs. free will is an attempt to explain how ideas and external factors shape our lives. I wouldn't say either is arbitrary, meaning they didn't just pick it out of the air. They picked a theory because it seemed to best explain things.

Look at most of the bad ideas, and you can see that there are reasons why people might believe them. Subjectivism isn't a great example of that, but how about Platonic Dualism (based on the nature of concepts), Skepticism (based on the limits of epistemology), or Altruism(based on the ethics of emergencies, or the zero-sum view of the world where there is a fundamental conflict of interests between men). These all have some puzzle/question/set of facts they try to reconcile.

No. 6, we're in agreement on what constitutes a good philosophy. But that's because we probably share that philosophy. I've known others who dismissed logic as simply another way of thinking about things. There are rationalists who don't really accept induction as a means of gaining knowledge. And I've already mentioned to Rick that even bad philosophies are usually accepted because they answer some kind of question. Given this, you can't just assume everyone is on the same page as you. Seeing the world through an objective philosophy makes everything clearer for you and me, but the pitfalls and errors that we perceive aren't readily visible to those with another philosophy.

Post 31

Friday, October 31, 2003 - 1:41pm

I think you�re right that the advocates of many of the wrong ideas (including ideas involving arbitrary premises) are honestly mistaken. I�d still argue that there is an implicit advocacy of the arbitrary in many of the ideas you mention. Scratch a skeptic and you�ll usually find someone who has an arbitrary standard of knowledge that can�t be met. But this doesn�t contradict what you�re saying. Our honest opponent can�t imagine an alternative for the reasons you gave. They'll insist that their criteria has to be met. A false worldview doesn�t die easily. I�ve learned patience and respect.

Have a good Halloween, ya'll.
Rick

Post 32

Friday, October 31, 2003 - 5:18pm

If they were dishonestly mistaken, their philosophy would be the same as ours, just that they don't want you to know it!

Not all philosophies are equal. Most are purely false. We know this from the evidence of reality. I do accept however that for someone holding a false belief system finding reality can be a long journey. And yes they will explain things based on their world view.

Post 33

Saturday, November 1, 2003 - 8:38am

Joe, Rick, No 6

Of course you're right that a good philosophy incorporates all of the empirical facts. But what I'm saying is that bad philosophy "accounts" for the facts as well ....

If these words were from one of Ayn Rand's novels, and you were given a choice of which of the following characters spoke them, which would you suppose it would be: Dr. Simon Pritchett, Robert Stadler, or Hugh Akston.

In case you forgot,

Dr. Simon Pritchett is the prestigious head of the Department of Philosophy at Patrick Henry University and is considered the leading philosopher of the age. He is also a Looter. He is certainly representative of the philosophy of the age - he is a crude reductionist who believes man is nothing but a collection of chemicals; he believes there are no standards, that definitions are fluid, reason is a superstition, that it is futile to seek meaning in life, and that the duty of a philosopher is to show that nothing can be understood. He explains all this in his book The Metaphysical Contradictions of the Universe, and at cocktail parties.

Robert Stadler is a former professor at Patrick Henry University, mentor to Francisco d'Anconia, John Galt and Ragnar Danneskjold. He has since become a sell-out, one who had great promise but squandered it for social approval, to the detriment of the free.

Hugh Akston is identified as "One of the last great advocates of reason." He was a renowned philosopher and the head of the Department of Philosophy at Patrick Henry University, where he taught Francisco d'Anconia, John Galt, and Ragnar Danneskjold. He was, along with Robert Stadler, a father figure to these three.

(Descriptions are from Characters in Ayn Rand's novel, Atlas Shrugged, 4Reference.net.)

If you picked either Robert Stadler or Dr. Simon Pritchett, the quoted words would be totally believable from either of them. Ayn Rand could never have put such weasel-words in the mouth of Hugh Akston, her fictional philosopher hero.

Bad philosophy does not account for the facts. Bad philosophy obfuscates the facts and makes any understanding of their nature impossible.

Bad philosophy is the intentional distortion of the truth, and is produced and embraced by those who have a vested interest in denying or contradicting it. Bad philosophy is not just another viewpoint or opinion, bad philosophy is not a mistake. To quote Ayn Rand, "mistakes of that magnitude are not made."

Objectivists have forgotten their own essential principles. Human beings are volitional creatures, what they do, they do by choice, what they are, they are by choice, and what they believe, they believe by choice. Bad philosophy is not an innocent error, it is a chosen deliberate perversion of truth to excuse or cover up immorality.

What philosophy ought to do is what all pursuits of knowledge ought to do, provide us with the knowledge we need to live successfully in this world, and to enjoy it. Other pursuits of knowledge, most notably the sciences and technology, have been imminently successful in fulfilling their purpose. It is almost trite, today, to point out the benefits of the sciences, which enable us to live longer, healthier, more enjoyable, and more interesting lives of incredible luxury and comfort, unimaginable even 200 years ago. In contrast with the sciences, philosophy has been a complete failure.

During the 20th century, while the sciences were making their greatest advances, the product of bad philosophy gave us the torture and deaths of 169,000,000 people at the hand of governments while another 34,000,000 were killed as combatants in war. Today the world swells with the victims of tyranny while even those countries that came closest to true liberty grow more oppressive daily.

(Based on figures from Death by Government by R. J. Rummel, 1994)

What's the difference between science and philosophy. There is science. There is no philosophy, to speak of, and those who do speak of it, speak apologetically, patiently, equivocally, as though knowing the truth were something to be ashamed of.

Regi

Post 34

Sunday, November 2, 2003 - 3:32pm

Regi,

Definition of 'account': "A reason given for a particular action or event".

It has nothing to do with whether the reason is correct or not. Your only fooling yourself if you think the statement is supposed to mean anything else.

I have to concur with No. 6 here (never thought I'd say that!). "If they were dishonestly mistaken, their philosophy would be the same as ours, just that they don't want you to know it!"

You're falling into the old ARI trap of believing that now that you understand Objectivism and have integrated it (or at least you think so), you think it should be obvious to anyone, and only evasion explains why they don't get it. Well you're wrong. Objectivism is not obvious. It's radical. It's a slap in the face of thousands of years of ideas.

And you're also wrong about other philosophies. Not using the term philosophy doesn't change their nature. They're still world-views, by which you explain and interpret everything. They're still self-reinforcing because as they proceed to interpret the world, the world then becomes seen through that view.

As I said, you underestimate philosophy.

Post 35

Monday, November 3, 2003 - 6:27am

Joe,

Thanks for your thoughts.

Objectivism is not obvious. It's radical. It's a slap in the face of thousands of years of ideas.

In this, at least, we are in complete agreement.

For the record, almost all of my philsophical principles were developed before I ever discovered Ayn Rand or Objectivism, and just to give you an idea how long ago that was, my first introduction to Ayn Rand was one of her lectures at Boston�s Ford Hall. (I don't remember the year, probably intentionally forgotten.) I have never "converted" to Objectivism, but agree with all of the essential principles, and would rather be mistaken for an Objectivist than an adherent of any other 'ideology."

I have ignored your assertion that different "philosophies," fully embraced, will cause people to interpret evidence differently, because it is both obvious, and irrelevant. Of course people with the wrong premises will get the wrong answers to questions, philosophical or otherwise. So what?

I know you are familiar with Philosophy, Who Needs It. Do you agree with the premise of that book, that people really do need philosophy? How can you tell someone they need philosophy if by philosophy you mean anything anyone wants to call philosophy.

...you underestimate philosophy.

Could be, although I certainly do not underestimate the power of stupidity, and error, and the intentional obfuscation of the truth which you want me to call philosophy. "We are in a philosophical war." That war is not going to be won by the pusillanimous granting of equal status to the enemies of reason that we accord true philosophy.

In a real market, those who attempt to sell fake and phony products are called frauds. In the market of ideas, only truth is proper food for the mind. Those who buy philosophy in the market of ideas, believe they are buying truth. To pass off the fake and phony as philosophy is fraud, and those who do not speak against this fraud are complicit in it.

Regi

Post 36

Monday, November 3, 2003 - 11:51am

Regi,

I do agree with the premise of Philosophy, Who Needs It. But the premise is that everyone has a philosophy, whether you like it or not. You don't get to choose whether philosophy shapes your life. The only choice is whether you pick a philosophy that promotes your life, or not. That was the power of her argument. Philosophy is inescapable. You can choose to take control of it, or it will keep control of you.

If I accepted your definition of philosophy, I might agree with you. But I don't. All this talk about "granting equal status" has great emotional appeal to you, I'm sure. But for me, it means beliefs the status of 'ideas', we'll never win the war." Well, they are ideas. They are philosophies. Just because you'd like to give the term 'philosophy' a unique meaning doesn't make those that use the correct meaning guilty of fraud.

I think it's a mistake to redefine words in anyway you want, but you seem to think being an "autonomist" means doing whatever you feel like. Fine. But when everyone else uses the word philosophy (which is a valid concept), you're wrong to assume it means your definition. And judging people by that standard is a logical fallacy.

Post 37

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 10:49am

Sirs,

Thank you for the points you raised. At the end, maybe all the discussion is rooted in one question: can anyone defend that Objectivism has more consistent fundamental premises that the other philosophies?

I think there is still a couple huge problems for Ojectivism: (1) The problem of universals is not properly treated (and yet defined); and (2) How one can acquire a truly objective knowledge and morality without taking the laws of logic, mathematics and ethics as an a priori.

Regards to all the contributors.

Post 38

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 7:46pm

Jaume Folch,

As for your 1st point above, are you prepared to take the Randian challenge?:

... a concept is used as an algebraic symbol that stands for any of the arithmetical sequence of units it subsumes.

Let those who attempt to invalidate concepts by declaring that they cannot find "manness" in men, try to invalidate algebra by declaring that they cannot find "a-ness" in 5 or in 5,000,000.

http://www.peikoff.com/opar/universals.htm

And as for your 2nd point, how do you feel about the seemingly omnipotent coupling of the following 2 tasks: Discovery & Validation (or, more definitively, Identification followed by both External & Internal Validation)?

Do you have a rational argument that appears to cast doubt on the epistemological power of this coupling (an argument that does not degenerate into Intrinsicism or Subjectivism)?

Ed

Post 39

Tuesday, November 4, 2003 - 8:05pm