A Pre-emptive Dialectic (to weed out the weaker objections)

Ed,

My excuse is that I've been trying to make sense of the last 88 posts ;)

I'm puzzled as to why you think that Bayesian reasoning is : 'inherently nominalist'. This is the first I have heard that it implies nominalism. Exactly what is your defintion of nominalism? BTW It's not clear that Objectivism itself isn't nominalist. See:

4.2. THE (REAL) PROBLEM OF UNIVERSALS

Post 101

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 5:34am

Marc,

I plan to have a relevant article (addressing Objectivism's relationship to nominalism) in the cue by the end of next week.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/24, 5:36am)

Post 102

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 1:13pm

Cue the editor: that's queue, Ed! But Ayn sure ewe new that.

Seriously, I anticipate an engrossing and illuminating read. I am starting to warm to your staccato style. At times it seems to me that some nominalists are groping blindly toward Objectivism in efforts to merge it with realism.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 6/24, 2:51pm)

Post 103

Thursday, June 24, 2004 - 6:49pm

Marc, Ed, Rodney

I am not sure what this means. You have "actually" agreed with me, and now I am going to agree with you. At least I think I am agreeing with your implication that all is not right with Ayn Rand's epistemology.

I read Michael Huemer long ago and about the only thing I did agree with him about is that Ayn Rand did not solve the problem of universals. But Huemer is wrong about universals as well. There are no universals, there are only qualities (attributes, characteristics, and properties, including relationships) of existents. The fact that different existents can have the same attributes, characteristics, or properties does not require an additional concept, "universals," that philosophy then has to wrestle with. There is nothing mysterious about the fact that more than one thing is red, or new, or performs calculations.

Ayn Rand further confused the issue by equating concepts with universals; which is not entirely her fault since all of philosophy since Abelard has made the same mistake.

I am very eager to see your treatment of the question of nominalism and Objectivism, Ed. I do not agree with Rand's epistemology, but it is certainly not on the grounds it is nominalist. My disagreement mostly consists of refinements. I have also submitted an article related to epistemology addressing one of the most important and very basic refinements needed.

Regi

Post 104

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 2:18am

From the editor, having seen his queue/cue:

Ed - try to keep the article under about 2000 words, given that the guidelines state 800-1000. The piece to which Regi here alludes, which I've told him should go on the Dissent board, is longer even than the rationalist Stolyarov's verbose, masturbationary excesses. Or maybe not. Trying to find my bearings through Stoly's tortuous de facto totalitarian mazes may have confused me. :-)

As for the Neo-tech nutter who thinks we're about to be invaded by Androids & says it isn't clear that Objectivism doesn't embrace nominalism ... it's *perfectly* clear that it doesn't. Rand's intro *alone* to IOE makes it clear.

Linz

Post 105

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 5:15am

Hi Linz, Ed,

Ed - try to keep the article under about 2000 words, given that the guidelines state 800-1000. The piece to which Regi here alludes, which I've told him should go on the Dissent board, is longer even than the rationalist Stolyarov's verbose, masturbationary excesses.

Since both our articles have, evidently, already been submitted, I assume you are talking about future articles. I've noticed a paucity of communication from the administrators concerning submitted articles. After hitting the submit button the article disappears into the limbo of the SOLO article queue. There is never any acknowledge the article is received, no hint as to when it might show up, no questions, or even suggestions (such as, "maybe this article should go under, Dissent," which suggestion I never received if it was made).

So, a question: Does the Philosophy category only pertain to "philosophy" that is just a rehash of what Ayn Rand already wrote? ...while anything new in philosophy is automatically relegated to the category of Dissent?

When I submit an article, I choose the category that seems correct to me, assuming the administrators will tag it with whatever category they prefer.

By the way, Linz, you ought to be championing my article which strikes a blow at the authoritarian hubris of the Objectivist priesthood in both the ARI and TOC camps by exposing the embarrassingly simple mistake propagated by Rand, Peikoff, and Kelley, who even wrote a whole book about it.

Regi

Post 106

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 11:56am

First of all, Rodney: my "cue" was a simple Stolyarovian slip - I should've wrote "kyoo" (I'm sure that that woulda' turned some heads! But I'm not looking to stand out for merely being unique).

This slip has 2 reasons that explain its genesis, and perhaps neither one would be interpreted as excusing this radical foh-paw of mine (I know, I know; I need to work on my French).

1) my background is limited and this term is rarely used in the US (outside of ivory towers); though it may be in very common use across the Pond

2) the double "ue" in q-ue-ue is so repetitiously unfathomable that I failed to logically construct it analytically

Linz, I'm really shootin' high with this one (wanna' go pro- with it), so I'll do whatever you say (except for putting it in French). If you say that 2000 words are 1000 words too many ... well, then that is that, A is A - so count me on board this ship that you are sailing, Cap'n. Also, don't be surprised if I send you a copy before the official submission.

Thanks,

Ed

Post 107

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 12:10pm

the double "ue" in q-ue-ue is so repetitiously unfathomable

To me it's obvious--the vowels have queued up! They are waiting for your article, hoping nothing interesting will be cut and that it will be "consonant" with Objectivism.

Post 108

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 5:52pm

Marc, Ed, Rodney,

I want to apologize for promising an article I have just learned will not be made available. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, please let me know.

(It will only interest those familiar with the Objectivist view of perception, which is quite wrong.)

Regi

Post 109

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 6:11pm

Greetings.

Stolyarovian slip, eh?

I will offer the following compromise on the fonetically correct spelling of "queue:" since "cue" is already a word denoting something else (a signal or call), the spelling of "queue" shall be condensed by two entire letters to "kue," which I am certain shall be confused with nothing else.

When I produce Installment II of "An Objective Filosofy of Linguistics," this is sure to be part of it, though as an addend: I intend to be tackling the devious problem of the "ugh" combination (however ironic this may be for this particular sentence).

I am
G. Stolyarov II

Post 110

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 7:17pm

I thought this thread was winding down, but now I see we are only a bit more than halfway there. We started with A is A, and we are only up to queue is kue.

By the time it�s over, we will all be wanting to catch some Z�s.

Post 111

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 7:27pm

Regi said: "I want to apologize for promising an article I have just learned will not be made available. If anyone is interested in reviewing it, please let me know."

Regi can post it right here on this thread this instant if he wishes. It *won't* be published as an article, that's all. I would have thought that Regi would be pleased about that - means it doesn't have to wait its turn in the kyoo.

Linz

Post 112

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 8:10pm

Linz,

Thanks for making that clear. It is my decision not to post the article at this time.

I apologize if what I said made this unclear to anyone.

Regi

Post 113

Friday, June 25, 2004 - 11:40pm

Now I see all the trouble I've caused (if only I had minded my peez & queues).

Linzroids, Regroids, and Rodroids: may your unforgiving jesters haunt you for several near-intolerable minutes (that's the most resentment that I can summon upon you otherwise benevolent creatures).

Mr. Stolyarov, as you well know, I do personally fear your orthographic aspirations - but I'm paradoxically inspired by your passionate resolve. However, I must say (with clenched teeth) that I'm happy to have contributed in some manner to your grand (grandiose?) purpose.

Now I must catch some zeez.

Ed

Post 114

Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 12:02am

Regi,

Before retiring, I must note 2 failures of accuracy in my previous post:

1) I included you in my malevolent lashing-out regarding being haunted for minutes by uncomfortable thoughts and remorseful anguish. This is a gross error, as you have not taken part in the revolutionographic clamor that the others have so gleefully had a part in (I can't find within myself the reason or will to wish you even a single uncomfortable minute - sorry to have mis-judged you as guilty by association)

2) I am very much interested (and have been for a year now!) in your thoughts on perception. Please provide a way to share these anticipated insights with me.

Ed

Post 115

Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 1:01am

As for the Neo-tech nutter who thinks we're about to be invaded by Androids & says it isn't clear that Objectivism doesn't embrace nominalism ... it's *perfectly* clear that it doesn't. Rand's intro *alone* to IOE makes it clear.

Linz

Linz, I'm puzzled as to who you could be referring to here. I am not aware of any 'Neo-tech nutters' on the SOLO boards. Plenty of pseudo-Objectivist nutters here though ;) I checked up on the term 'Neo-tech' and it would appear that Neo-tech is some sort of bizarre Objectivist off-shoot. So I should make clear that I'm definitely not a Neo-tech. It's true I'm a Transhumanist. But be aware that Transhumanism is definitely not a cult (as you seemed to think), and it has no connection to things like scientology, Neo-tech etc (which are cults). From the Transhumanist FAQ:

"Transhumanism is a way of thinking about the future that is based on the premise that the human species in its current form does not represent the end of our development but rather a comparatively early phase. We formally define it as follows:

(1) The intellectual and cultural movement that affirms the possibility and desirability of fundamentally improving the human condition through applied reason, especially by developing and making widely available technologies to eliminate aging and to greatly enhance human intellectual, physical, and psychological capacities.

(2) The study of the ramifications, promises, and potential dangers of technologies that will enable us to overcome fundamental human limitations, and the related study of the ethical matters involved in developing and using such technologies.

....

Transhumanism is entering the mainstream culture today, as increasing numbers of scientists, scientifically literate philosophers, and social thinkers are beginning to take seriously the range of possibilities that transhumanism encompasses. A rapidly expanding family of transhumanist groups, differing somewhat in flavor and focus, and a plethora of discussion groups in many countries around the world, are gathered under the umbrella of the World Transhumanist Association, a non-profit democratic membership organization. "

Transhumanist FAQ

If Objectivist epistemology is not nominalist, then that's a relief to hear, because I don't think nominalism makes sense. Somebody prove to me that Ed's assertion is correct (he claims that my Bayesian epistemology is nominalist) and I'll finally be persuaded that my epistemology is wrong.

Regi said:

But Huemer is wrong about universals as well. There are no universals, there are only qualities (attributes, characteristics, and properties, including relationships) of existents. The fact that different existents can have the same attributes, characteristics, or properties does not require an additional concept, "universals," that philosophy then has to wrestle with. There is nothing mysterious about the fact that more than one thing is red, or new, or performs calculations.

But Regi, your position seems to be nominalist. If you think that there are no universals, then you're a nominalist aren't you?

Post 116

Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 4:25am

Isn't Max Moore some sort of transhumanist? Just asking because I once read an article of his that was very pro-Objectivist except on politics (if memory serves he took the view, which I've come across before, that anarcho-capitalism is more consistent with the rest of Objectivism than Rand's own Minarchist position). I know almost nothing about the ins and outs of transhumanism in general.

MH

Post 117

Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 5:56am

Marc,

If you think that there are no universals, then you're a nominalist aren't you?

No. Nominalism is an "explanation," of and one theory of universals. It doesn't deny them, it says they are only "names."

The whole questions of universals is very confusing because there are two distinctly different concepts, both called universals, and their difference is almost never noted. The Platonic version is ontological, and in some sense, never made explicit, they are thought of as actual ontological (metaphysical) real things. That is the basis of Platonic "realism." The other version of "universals" is epistemological. That is the version most people have in mind today, and the version Ayn Rand thought she was addressing. (Huemer, while explicitly denying Platonic realism, slips into it when saying things like qualities "actually being in more than one thing." Qualities aren't "in" things in that sense at all, they are "of" things.)

And that is the problem. The epistemological version is an attempt to make sense of the ontological mistake. It essentially says, "yes there are universals, but they are not actual metaphysical things, they are only concepts for [and this is the basis of all the different theories] something ...." But what? If you think they are only concepts which "name" the similarity in things you are a nominalist. (If you think they are only concepts for abstract ideas for similarities in things you are a conceptualist. If you went to a Catholic university, you probably believe universals do have ontological existence and are a realist. You might be surprised how prevalent this view still is.)

Both the nominalist and conceptualist, "solutions," however, are inadvertent denials of the reality of the very thing universals supposedly identify, the qualities (characteristics, attributes, and properties) of existents. But the concept is not needed at all. Things are whatever their qualities are. There is nothing else to know about anything except what their characteristics, attributes, and properties, that is, their qualities are.

There are qualities because there are existents. Qualities are "real" because existents are "real" and the identity of any existent is all it's qualities. Some existents have the same qualities as other existents. Period. No special concept is required by that fact. The concept of universals is just a mistake, and all attempts to explain them are exercises in futility. "Universals" is a pseudo-concept that needs to be purged, once-and-for-all, from philosophy.

Regi

Post 118

Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 8:26am

I would note here that AR, to my knowledge, only used the term "universals" because that was the accepted label for the issues involved. She never used it otherwise, except loosely perhaps, and her theory from then on is free of the invalid implications Regi cites, in my opinion.

Note the very significant fact that the term does not appear as an entry in The Ayn Rand Lexicon.

(Edited by Rodney Rawlings on 6/26, 8:31am)

Post 119

Saturday, June 26, 2004 - 9:28am