RoR: Forum

Alec, if you're familiar with Objectivist epistemology, you know that a word represents a concept, but the word itself can be arbitrary. There's nothing magical about putting a few letters together that creates the meaning. The word is just the name we use for the concept. And because of that, it's the concept that is important, not the word. That's why if we're talking about validity of arguments, it's the concept used that's important, not the word itself. If you use a word in a strange way (i.e., you use a different concept), it doesn't invalidate the truth of the statement.

Logically, Regi goes wrong by switching concepts. That's where his statements become false, as I just went through in a detailed way.

Now you can argue that he shouldn't redefine terms (in fact, point to a different concept). You can argue that because it causes confusion, and is likely to be abused. In fact, I did argue that exact point with him. When he tried to use "normal" in his homosexuality discussion, I said that defining it as "appropriate", when it usually means "common" is just setting up for an equivocation. And he proceeded to make that equivocation anyway. So that's a problem only because it lends itself to mistakes...not because it's a mistake.

Whereas Daniel is saying something entirely different. He's claiming the act of having definitions for words is a problem in itself, because people are focusing on words and not reality. Something like that. I'm sure he'd love to explain it more for you.

As for your example of orthodox, I take this to be some kind of disagreement on the concept of "sense of life", and not on their word-play. But you're very vague.

Post 101

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 3:47pm

Joe writes:
>If you just focus on the words, then word-play is all you'll ever get.�

Yep.

>Your�big problem with Objectivism is that you�think that's what we do, no matter how often people�say it's not.�

It was actually Alec who very accurately outlined Regi's method of "wordplay", and who also said this method was "very ortho-Objectivist" - as in orthodox, as in commonly accepted practice.

And - quite contrary to what you're making out - several people *agreed* with Alec on this point. Including me.

- Daniel

Post 102

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 6:40pm

Joe, I agree with you, but to me wordplay and concept-play are essentially the same thing. Indeed, wordplay really is concept-play, since words are only the representatives. Of course.

With social concepts, there is the risk of narrowly defining them and then trying to squeeze all of reality into those concepts, even when some of it obviously doesn't fit.

What usually results from that is wordplay.

So the problem isn't the word "altruism", per se, but the fact that Ayn Rand tries to reduce everything to the concept of self-sacrifice. The same applies to sense-of-life. It's not just that I disagree with the concept; it's that I disagree with the way it is used to lead to a certain conclusion about art and its patrons.

Post 103

Tuesday, November 30, 2004 - 6:54pm

Alec, as far as I know, word-play is specifically not concept play. Word-play is when you try to sever the connection between the word and the concept (i.e., reality). Redefining words part way through an argument is one kind (equivocation). Taking two different definitions and conflating them is another. Or trying to use definitions to make your argument is another.

That latter case is best shown by someone who defines communism to be a moral system where there is no private property and everyone is prosperous. Instead of naming a concept, it tries to bundle the argument that prosperity comes from lack of private property, or that it's moral. But again, this is not "concept-play", whatever that would mean. It's the lack of connection between the word and a concept that allows this kind of action.

And I don't see the connection between word-play and the examples you give.

Post 104

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 12:12am

Joe, we're just thinking of slightly different things when we say "wordplay." I think I'm just applying it more loosely than you. For all I know, I can be wrong. Remember, I'm a little dumb.

You say "sever the connection between the word and the concept (i.e., reality)", but the concept, especially if it's a social concept, is not necessarily reality. It can be just as falsely defined, and henced used in the same fallacious way, as any particular word in a case of wordplay. (That's what I meant by that silly "concept-play").

That's what I think happened with the examples I gave above of ortho-Objectivist concepts.

Post 105

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 12:46am

These discussions are usually illustrative of epistemological stubbornness, especially Daniel's, which is why they're best avoided if one is rationally self-interested about one's blood pressure. Daniel ascribes to Objectivism the view that words have fixed-for-all-time, pre-ordained-by-God meanings, resolutely ignoring Objectivism's view of concepts - which words perceptualise - as open-ended. He then posits as the only alternative to such rationalistic nonsense that words can't have meaning - conceptualised referents in reality - *at all* (and then says that philosophy should concern itself more with propositions, which consist of words, which he says can't be assigned meaning - so how on earth can the propositions have meaning????). I simply can't be bothered making the effort to deal with such crap calmly, especially since I know from previous discussions that Daniel is irretrievably wedded to it, so will leave that to Joe, the good cop. :-) Daniel, if you think you're an improvement on Regi, think again - you're simply the other side of his coin! Grrrrrrrrr!!!!!!

And dear Alec, *your* position has become simply incoherent. What exactly is your point?

Grumpy Linz

Post 106

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 2:07am

Linz wrote:
>(Daniel) then posits as the only alternative to such rationalistic nonsense that words can't have meaning - conceptualised referents in reality - *at all*...

At the risk of further imperilling your blood pressure, L, you might at least read what I've written! To wit:

DB (post 90): "For words themselves are vague, inherited, borrowed, adapted, ambiguous creatures, layered in history and subjectivity..."

Tell me Linz, honestly: does the above say that words don't have any meaning *at all*? Well, does it? No. Of course not. Is what I have said untrue? Are words *not* reasonably described by the above? Of course they are. Words are content-*rich*, with many meanings and shades, soaked in the stew of nations and generations and stretched, twisted and changed often beyond recognition from century to century. And that's ONE of the MAIN reasons WHY you SHOULDN'T BOTHER getting into endless arguments over their MEANING!! (there are others - perhaps you might get around to actually reading those too sometime!) It's too easy to get sidetracked (and *be* sidetracked). However, once formulated into problems, and proposals for solving them, the situation is much improved, as the words are either a)forced to take on a clearer meaning in context or b) imply a range of possible actions, which makes the ideas testable. Thus, the prospect of wasting time over purely *verbal* problems gets greatly reduced, and you get a better class of argument. Geddit?

Linz, you find me one place - just one in any of my posts on this site - where I've said words "can't have meaning *at all*". You'll find I've NEVER said it, nor implied it.

So let's start there shall we? With what I'm *actually* saying, as opposed to what *you imagine* I am saying. If, on reflection, and examining what I've said, you find you've made a mistake, I think an apology would be fair. If not, well - geez, who's the stubborn one?!!

regards
Daniel

Post 107

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 2:42am

Daniel wrote:

"At the risk of further imperilling your blood pressure, L, you might at least read what I've written! To wit: DB (post 90): 'For words themselves are vague, inherited, borrowed, adapted, ambiguous creatures, layered in history and subjectivity...' Tell me Linz, honestly: does the above say that words don't have any meaning *at all*? Well, does it? No."

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!! What possible meaning could words have after all the above qualifiers have been superimposed on them? What possible meaning could propositions have when they're a *string* of vague, inherited, borrowed, adapted, ambiguous creatures, layered in history & subjectivity? If that's what they are, why would you respond to my question, since under the above constraints you couldn't possibly understand what I meant by it? We couldn't even agree about "agree" & "meaning."

What you say is just pomo rubbish, the subjectivist side of Regi's intrinsicist coin. If you want to trade in that currency, as you always have, go ahead - just do not *dare* to say that the other side of the coin is Objectivism in any way, shape or form. It's *you* in your intrinsicist guise.

So typical that you would demand that I apologise. The typical POMO's crybaby response to being disagreed with.

The End!

Linz

Post 108

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 3:02am

What's a POMO?

(Postmodernist????)

Post 109

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 8:41am

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!! What possible meaning could words have after all the above qualifiers have been superimposed on them? What possible meaning could propositions have when they're a *string* of vague, inherited, borrowed, adapted, ambiguous creatures, layered in history & subjectivity? If that's what they are, why would you respond to my question, since under the above constraints you couldn't possibly understand what I meant by it?
We couldn't even agree about "agree" & "meaning."

Linz,

This is probably the most uncharitable reading of a person's position that I've seen in a long time. However, the fact that I can read Dan's argument in a more nuanced way that you did says something for his thesis, IMO.

string: sentences
vague: what someone means when he uses a word might not capture the ideas he correlates, associates and intends to convey with that word fully
inherited: passed down from generation to generation
borrowed: taken from other languages
adapted: there are words taken from other languages and fitted into that particular language's syntax and semantics, as well as words which change meaning from generation to generation as they are applied and adapted to new contexts.
ambiguous: words can be interpreted differently based on subjective experiences with those words, as anyone who has ventured widely in British and American circles will testify to. "Lines" and "queues", "shops" and "stores", all have different connotations to the British and the Americans in everyday speech.

None of this means that we can't have similar ideas in mind when we use the same words, or dissimilar ideas when we use the same words. So understanding is not impossible - it is often inexact, and whether the degree of accuracy is sufficient must be tested. If you really think that the same ideas that come to your head when you think of "quantum physics" are the same as those that come to Stephen Hawking, I think that unless you are great mathematician or professional physicist, you are seriously deluded. In fact, contra Rand, some of your ideas on what the field is about may be so naive that they contradict what more advanced scholars think about the ideas in that field. It is only by narrowly defining "concepts" without realizing that any concept is bound up with other thoughts that you can make that kind of claim.

This is why in ideal discussion, it is best to try to explain someone's position to him in terms that you hope he will agree with so that it is clear what you are agreeing or disagreeing with. Often, this is best done by using scenario-specific hypothetical questions or thought experiments with concrete references or physical objects so that there is as little room for disagreement as possible. This is the testing of interpretation that I spoke of.

I find it hard to believe that anyone would deny that there is some truth in any of the above. The question is to what degree. But if the point of this discussion is to defend a position rather than look for the truth, I fully understand.

Post 110

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 1:00pm

You think you're grumpy, Lindsay? I have a Goddamn, stupid nasal cold, and it's the week before finals!

I ain't clearin' anything up, dammit. Take the words of my first post (written prior to the cold) and the beauty of my face, and find in that the power to interpret my elusive point in the posts that followed.

Or don't.

I need something stiff.

Alec

Post 111

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 1:02pm

"I need something stiff"

AAAAAAHHHHH, wait! I take that back! No, Lindsay....

Post 112

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 2:04pm

Too late.

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 4:15pm

HAHAHAHAHA!

(Who wants to bet Regi puts that hilarious exchange on his website for all the tongue-cluckers to shake their heads at?)

quote Words are content-*rich*, with many meanings and shades, soaked in the stew of nations and generations and stretched, twisted and changed often beyond recognition from century to century.

That's an unfair generalization. Okay, a word like "liberal" has certainly undergone these sorts of metamorphoses. But how does this apply to "river," "microwave oven," or, "The Incredibles"?

Post 114

Wednesday, December 1, 2004 - 9:28pm

Linz wrote:
>What possible meaning could propositions have when they're a *string* of vague, inherited, borrowed, adapted, ambiguous creatures, layered in history & subjectivity?

Umm...obviously you're well off form here, Linz . This is merely a false alternative ie: either words have absolutely precise, fixed meanings, or they have *no* meanings. Which is just silly. Words *are* vague, inherited, borrowed, adapted, ambiguous etc. Do you think they are not any of the above? That they just spring fully formed out of Zeus's forehead and attach themselves to things?

>If that's what they are, why would you respond to my question, since under the above constraints you couldn't possibly understand what I meant by it? We couldn't even agree about "agree" & "meaning."

Duh. Don't you see this is my whole point - that I wouldn't even *get into* such an argument? It would be Regi-esque, grist to his mill. Yknow, the old twit once even tried lure me into a debate over what the word "word" meant, as if it was some sort esoteric secret! But hey, if you want to go play in his playground, go right ahead, knock yourself out. It has roughly the same effect as a blow on the head...;-)

Andrew quoted me:
>"Words are content-*rich*, with many meanings and shades, soaked in the stew of nations and generations and stretched, twisted and changed often beyond recognition from century to century."

Then added:
>That's an unfair generalization.

Actually, it's a perfectly reasonable generalisation. You don't think words come about like that? Where do we get them from then?

>Okay, a word like "liberal" has certainly undergone these sorts of metamorphoses. But how does this apply to "river," "microwave oven," or, "The Incredibles"?

Are you saying the Greeks and the Medieval English, when they used "mikros" and "waven", foresaw that they would one day describe a microwave oven? Personally, I don't think so. And did you know it was called the "Radarange" when it first came out? Now, do you think it would make a damn bit of difference if it was still called the "Radarange" instead of a "microwave oven"? Personally, I don't think so either.

So, if that's the case - why oh why are *arguments over mere words* treated as though they were so all-fired important? And why should they take precedence over arguments about problems, statements, proposals etc??

Andrew, if you're sincerely interested in this, I recommend Chapter 11 of Popper's "The Open Society and Its Enemies", where he handily deals with the problems of Aristotle's methodology, and how it leads to pedantry and verbalism, as it did during the Scholastic era. It's a mini-tour de force on the subject, lucidly and wittly written, and far better than I am probably putting it. His footnotes alone are bettter than most people's essays. You may not end up agreeing,but it's a fine book anyway. To be honest, I actually sympathise with Linz's point of view to the extent that it seems very commonsensical. It's much as if he stuck his head out the window, saw the sun move across the sky, and issued a firey post denouncing the idea that the earth moved as "postmodern nonsense!". But the earth *does* move. You just have to look a bit harder to see it.

(Popper opens the chapter with an quote I can't quite remember off hand, but its something like: "Scholasticism...is treating as precise...something that ,in reality, is not". Something like that anyway.)

Next wrote:
>Linz, This is probably the most uncharitable reading of a person's position that I've seen in a long time.

Thanks Next. You're right, of course, but fortunately I don't take it personally. Wouldn't have minded a more interesting line of argument though!

- Daniel

Post 115

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 9:05am

HAHAHAHAHA!

Oh, my Goddess! Seconded... ROTFL!! An escort thanks Alec (I'm sorry, but single names are proper titles here) and his Majesty for some morning tiddlywink music (especially with my vivid and 'polymorphous' imagination).

Please shine on with my blessings. [bow]

Otherwise, Msr. Barnes. I don't recall Popper's discussion of Aristotle, but you greatly intrigue me with it. If I ever get my library back, I'll put chapter... er [divest!]... Popper's treatment of Aristotle on my list. Sounds fascinating.

my regards to Msr. Barnes, his majesty, and Alec {P.},

                          v
                          *
Jeanine Ring   )O(   - "not all those who wander are lost"

Post 116

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 11:25am

Daniel refers us to post #90, where he says:

As Objectivism is based on Aristotle's essentialism, it is prone to this verbalist problem, as is analytic philosophy.

Where did you come up with this? Why is Objectivism based on Aristotle's essentialism?

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 117

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 11:54am

Dan,

I was very wrong about the problems with Aristotleian essentialism being well known. I sometimes seem to think that what I know is well known.

The key lines showing the influence of Aristotleian essentialism on Objectivist thought:

Rand says:

"...The fundamental characteristic is the essential distinguishing characteristic of the existents involved and the proper defining characteristic of the concept.

Metaphysically, a fundamental characteristic is that distinctive characteristic which makes the greatest number of other ones possible; epistemologically, it is the one that explains the greatest number of others." (IOE, page 45, italics in original, emboldened part is what I draw attention to)

Then she criticizes Aristotle, whose views had a "radical difference" from hers:

"But Aristotle held that definitions held that definitions refer to metaphysical essences, which exist in concretes as a special element or formative power, and he held that the process of concept-formation depends on a kind of direct intiution by which man's mind grasps these essences and forms concepts accordingly.

Aristotle regarded "essence" as metaphysical; Objectivism regards it as epistemological." (IOE, page 52, italics in original)

Rand then goes on total about how the Objectivist view of essence is unique, probably forgetting that she gave the fundamental characteristic a *metaphysical* definition which her epistemological definition relies on.

My conclusion (probably that of others too): In the end, apart from trying to remove the parts of Aristotle's thought that rely on mystical sounding ideas like "direct intuition", Rand was just doing Aristotleian essentialism under a new name.

So what are the problems with Aristotleian essentialism? It encourages an epistemic and moral devaluation of what isn't considered an essence, the devaluations leading to a sometimes dangerous rationalism. I'm sure part of Popper's criticism must cover that - I probably received the ideas second hand.

Post 118

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 12:11pm

I continued a little on page 52 and I noticed that Rand gave a definition of metaphysical essence that comes close to a rejection of Aristotleian essentialism. However, since I'm about to head out, I'll leave that for later discussion. Cheers.

Post 119

Thursday, December 2, 2004 - 12:54pm