Tossing Around A Tautology

Ethan wrote:

The irrational will never succumb to reason. :-)

Ethan

The truth remains Ethan, that much what you might believe to be rational and real could very well be wrong. The history of science fully supports this statement. It is a fool who dismisses this possibility, even more foolish than one who thinks truth can never be discovered.

I agree with your statement though. The difficult part is determining who is irrational and why. I'll give you a hint - it's not me.

Bob

Post 101

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 9:44am

Science is a process for theorizing about reality and testing reality. It is based on observation of reality. The humna imagination is capable of conceiving things which will never be possible in reality. Things that were believed as real in the past (flat earth lets say,) and then proven false are not proof that anything you conceive can exist. Reality and truth are not subjective. While everyone at that time may have believed the earth was flat, it wasn't. Thats the difference between reality and belief.

Ethan

Post 102

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 9:53am

Glenn, I should have taken your advice. ;-)

- Bill

Post 103

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:27am

Ethan Wrote:

Science is a process for theorizing about reality and testing reality. It is based on observation of reality. The humna imagination is capable of conceiving things which will never be possible in reality. Things that were believed as real in the past (flat earth lets say,) and then proven false are not proof that anything you conceive can exist. Reality and truth are not subjective. While everyone at that time may have believed the earth was flat, it wasn't. Thats the difference between reality and belief.

Well put, and I don't disagree with anything you say. What's missing is that reality is simply not usually what we think it is.

"The humna imagination is capable of conceiving things which will never be possible in reality."

Yes, and the reverse has been true in the past and is true right now as well. Reality is something that we do not fully understand now, and perhaps are incapable of understanding - I mean I hope not, but...

Mathematically, for example, n-dimensional space is as logically sound as the three we perceive. I cannot even begin to think what 4 dimensions feels or looks like, but is this a reason to completely dismiss it? Maybe, maybe not. Carl Sagan put it well when he said something like "The universe is not bound by eeuuman ambition."

The difference between reality and belief is exactly what I am trying to encourage others to think about. I am convinced, for very solid reasons, that what I believe is reality is not the whole truth, and there's much more to the story.

Bob

Post 104

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 10:52am

William Wrote:

Glenn, I should have taken your advice. ;-)

Well, this is a dissent thread. If you can't take the heat, then you can leave, or respond with something that doesn't display a close-minded ignorance and denial of all concepts of reality formulated after the close of the 19th century.

Bob

Post 105

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 11:15am

Joel,

I haven't read through most of this thread, I just skimmed the highlights. But there is an issue I do want to raise with you - the issue of atheism versus theism.

What gets misrepresented a lot is that Objectivism is an atheistic philosophy. When Rand was asked about this in an interview, I remember her saying something to the effect that she did not define it that way, since she did not define her thinking in terms of negatives.

She stated that Objectivism was a philosophy of reason, so as a secondary issue, atheism was a conclusion because there was no reason-based evidence to support the existence of God.

To understand that correctly, the purpose of fundamental axioms needs to be made clear. A fundamental axiom (or fundamental "axiomatic concept" in ITOE) is a characteristic that is observable in all things (through the senses), but in logic, needs to be used to refute itself. Thus, to refute the axiom "existence exists," a state of non-existence would need to be postulated and a state is something that exists. You need to use consciousness to refute the idea that consciousness exists, and so on. I repeat, all of this is using logic.

An axiom does not have the purpose of setting the terms of reality. It has the purpose of validating logic-based reason.

In Objectivism, as the concept of God has no sensory basis like light, sound, etc., so the existence of God is seen to be baseless - but I repeat, baseless in logic (which is based on the senses).

Thus the correct Objectivist position, from Rand's statements, is not that God does not exist (stated as a positive fact), but that there is no evidence for His existence based on reason. This seems like a nitpick, but it is important. If, during Rand's lifetime, God had made an appearance to her sensory awareness, like other aspects of reality do (things you can see, touch, smell, etc.), I am sure she would have acknowledged such existence.

I already know your position that the Creator created reason. But the bottom line is that reason itself (using sense perception and integration) does not validate His existence on its own terms. The idea of a Creator - as a positive fact - must be accepted on faith.

I am not stating this to get you to agree, since I know you are committed to Judaism. However, I think that it is important you understand the thinking behind why Objectivism is atheistic without the traditional hostility and sneering. I believe several Objectivists have not thought this issue through deeply enough, so unfortunately atheism is more of a dogma to them than a reasoned conclusion.

But just as Objectivists (both reasoned and dogmatic) will not convert you, I seriously doubt you will convert them. I see insistence on this point on both sides as an exercise in futility. And it's funny how all issues discussed end up going back to this.

Michael

Post 106

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:21pm

Finally, I can unfold my critique to Branden's attempted rebuttal of the necessary origin of the universe.

Backed by William, Nathaniel Branden said:

To posit God as the creator of the universe is only to push the problem back one step farther: Who then created God? Was there a still earlier God who created the God in question? We are thus led to an infinite regress--the very dilemma that the positing of a "God" was intended to solve. But if it is argued that no one created God, that God does not require a cause, that God has existed eternally--then on what grounds is it denied that the universe has existed eternally?

Both on scientific and philosophical grounds. But I will leave my rational unfolding for the end of the message.

Firstly, for comparison (and leaving apart Branden�s poor definition of the concept of �time�), let me show you examples where Branden put a cart of dogma before (and amid) the horses of his attempted deductive process:

- �The universe is the total of that which exists�. [This was supposed to be part of the conclusion.]

- �Existence --not "God"-- is the First Cause.� [But, why all existence, and not a certain type of Existence, must be the Fist Cause?]

- �[Just as] the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole [...]�. [How does he know?]

- �[...] the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole.� [Not true. Quite a different thing is that time is not absolute.]

- �The universe did not "begin"--it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being."� [Again, this was supposed to be part of the conclusion.]

- �If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?"--recognize that you are asking: "What's outside of existence?"� [This inquisitorial request for �confession� actually includes what he was supposed to demonstrate.]

- �Existence exists; you cannot go outside it [...]� [Finally, this �confirms� that if I exist, my existing �I� is eternal...]

Now I will point you out scientific and philosophical grounds for the denial that the universe has existed eternally, and in defense of a created universe.

A first experimental support for a origin of the universe were the findings of Hubble, theoretically formulated as the Big Bang theory. A second �pro-creation� scientific argument that can be built consists in applying the Second Law of thermodynamics to cosmology. Scientists already estimated the age of our little baby: it is typically placed around 15 billion years. I can provide you sourced quotes, if you whish.

Now, my guess is that you prefer philosophical arguments.

A fundamental philosophical question about the universe is if the universe is a necessary being, or a contingent being �namely, dependent on a necessary Being. (If there would be no necessary being, logically nothing would exist.) If the universe is a contingent being, it was created by a necessary Being.

So let�s quit from this last possibility, and go for the former one: that the universe is a necessary being.

If the universe is a necessary being, it must be an eternal being. If the universe is an eternal being, it is an actual infinite. If the universe is an actual infinite, the infinite actuality of the universe must include actual absurdity (in example: having the cake and eating it must be a fact). Here, I don�t buy that last, because reality is non-contradictory.

So the universe may be a potential infinite but it is not actually infinite. So �voil��: the universe has an origin in time... thanks to the necessary Being.

That's my try.

Post 107

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:38pm

I wrote that Rand's "is a biocentric view of morality rather than a theocentric view." Joel replied,

I must disagree: rather than biocentric, her view is "happycentric". And I don't see happiness as the best standard for morality: happiness is subjective -- and fleeting -- while the true standard of morality must be absolute, in the sense of universal --valid for all volitional beings, wherever they may be, whatever their mood is -- eternally.

Rand would say that happiness is the purpose of morality but not the standard. The standard is a guide for determining what will make you happy. Happiness is not subjective in the sense that it has no objective foundation in man's biological nature. Happiness is a consequence of life-serving actions -- actions that are beneficial to the organism. So, for example, if one is suffering from a toothache, the cause of one's suffering is a decaying tooth, which is harmful to one's health and well-being. If one is suffering from cancer or some other debilitating disease, the cause of one's suffering is one's ill-health. If one is suffering from anxiety or depression, the cause is once again a malfunction of some life-serving biological process, whether physical or psychological. If you want to achieve happiness, you cannot achieve it simply by indulging your whims. Drug addicts and alcoholics are not happy people. So the Objectivist standard of morality -- namely, what is appropriate to the health and well-being of the organism -- is indeed "absolute, universal and applicable to all volitional beings."

I wrote, "According to this view, the good is simply a means to end." Joel replied,

Notice that this is a rewrite of: "[according to this view] the end justifies the means"... a view that I find unacceptable, as it makes morality contingent on the ends.

There are two different senses in which this popular catchphrase can be understood. In common parlance, it refers to the use of an expedient, unprincipled means to achieve a desirable end. For example, we typically say that it is wrong to rob people if you can get away with it, because the end -- e.g., the acquisition of wealth or money -- does not justify the means -- the violation of people's rights. That's true, but only because violating people's rights subverts their ultimate end or goal by preventing them from achieving their happiness and well-being. So, in one sense, the end does not justify the means, but in another sense it does, because a means to an end is worth pursuing only if it does in fact achieve the end.

I wrote that what Rand's "view of morality also requires are moral principles." Joel replied,

Then this view does not make sense. Morality means moral principles.
Morality includes moral principles, but it also involves a standard on which those principles are based and a goal that they are intended to achieve. Moral principles are not ends in themselves. As Rand observes, a moral value presupposes an answer to the question: "of value to whom and for what? I.e., for what end or purpose?
Morality is the highest set of principles a volitional being can adopt.
I agree.
Two examples related to what you raised, William:

1.- "individual rights" --and for that matter, all sort of rights-- are only valid if deduced from morality.
2.- A virtue can only be defined as "virtue" if is in accordance with morality.
I agree.
William adds: "Are the commandments right, because God wills them, or does he will them because they are right?" I don't see the two options as contradictory. In fact, I see both options as correct. To be consistent, I must say here that morality exists because it is His will.

Morality exists, because human needs and values require it. Those values would still exist, even in the absence of a God. Morality has nothing to do with God's commandments. In fact, a commandment would make morality impossible, because it would force people to act against their moral judgment by preventing them from choosing what they believe to be morally right. For example, if I force you to rob a bank by threatening you with harm unless you do it, then you are not morally responsible for your action. Similarly, if God forces you to behave a certain way by threatening you with punishment unless you do it, then you are not morally responsible for behaving that way.

I wrote, "If [the commandments] are right, because he wills them, then anything that God wills would be morally right, even murder." Joel replied,

Murder is never condoned by Him. The exact commandment (in Hebrew) means not to slay an innocent person.

Even if that were true, it wouldn't alter the fact that since God is omnipotent, he can issue whatever commandments he chooses, including the commandment to commit murder. To make morality dependent on God's commandments is a form of subjectivism. It makes morality dependent on God's arbitrary will, such that whatever he decides is right because he decides it. A truly objective standard of morality would be independent of God's commandments. It would be a standard that he had no power to change or negate.

I noted that In the Old Testament, God commanded Moses to stone a man to death for working on the Sabbath. Joel replied,

You apparently did the literalist interpretation, which is wrong. Your error (probably) comes from the fact that the Five Books of Moses are about a 5% of the Sinaitic message, lacking of the remaining 95% to be complete. Indeed, rabbinical Judaism says that the Written Torah --the Books of Moses-- alone lack of foundation.

Look, I'm no biblical scholar, but why is it so difficult to imagine God giving such a commandment, when he would torture someone forever simply because the person disobeyed him? Besides, there's no reason to assume that everything that I judge to be moral is also something that God says is moral. Suppose that I regard an act as moral that God doesn't, such as working on the Sabbath to support my family. Must I not regard God's commandments as immoral by that very fact?

I wrote, "On the other hand, if God wills the commandments because they are right, then God is adhering to a moral standard that exists independently of his will, and is simply following the standard, not determining it." Joel replied,

My position is that the Creator of everything (visible and invisible, material and immaterial) created the moral standard. And I don't see why morality must necessarily exist independently of the will of the Creator. I think it's just the opposite.

Well, if God is omnipotent, he can will anything he chooses. So he could, if he chose, command his followers to murder the infidels. If he did, would you say that it was right for his followers to murder the infidels, just because he commanded it? I wouldn't.

- Bill

Post 108

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:46pm

Michael, you said:

I haven't read through most of this thread, I just skimmed the highlights.

I would recommend you to do it thoroughly.

In Objectivism, as the concept of God has no sensory basis like light, sound, etc., so the existence of God is seen to be baseless - but I repeat, baseless in logic (which is based on the senses).

I don't agree. Logic is not based on the senses, but sometimes supported by sensory data. I will give an reverse example: where is your sensory evidence of goodness? You won't find any sensory data or measurable amount of goodness: you need to ponder about it.

Thus the correct Objectivist position, from Rand's statements, is not that God does not exist (stated as a positive fact), but that there is no evidence for His existence based on reason.

I don't agree with the Objectivist position on this issue. (To me, no big deal.)

This seems like a nitpick, but it is important. If, during Rand's lifetime, God had made an appearance to her sensory awareness, like other aspects of reality do (things you can see, touch, smell, etc.), I am sure she would have acknowledged such existence.

Do you mean that Ayn Rand saw, touched, smell, or heard her Objectivist ideals, and then acknowledged their existence? Notice that that would be a huge self-delusion.

[...] I know you are committed to Judaism.

Notice that you have no evidence to make that statement.

It's a question of degree: actually, I am not commited to Judaism, I am interested in it.

I believe several Objectivists have not thought this issue through deeply enough, so unfortunately atheism is more of a dogma to them than a reasoned conclusion.

I agree with you, here.

But just as Objectivists (both reasoned and dogmatic) will not convert you, I seriously doubt you will convert them.

Again, you have no evidence (sensory or whatever) to make that statement.

I see insistence on this point on both sides as an exercise in futility.

I don't agree. I think some of us are learning a lot and having fun. What would you want from a discussion, if not this?

I you don't mind, I would settle it here, Michael. :-)

Post 109

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 12:49pm

Joel, while I cannot share your view, the Rand/Branden one is certainly not on solid ground.

I dug around to try to find a more formalized version of my objections and so far, the argument below seems accurate and appropriate as well as a little more formal. It is a refutation of the Randian view, not an endorsement of a Creationist position.
________________________

Let�s not worry about Big Bang cosmology according to which the universe precisely did come into existence some 15 billion years ago. Instead, let us ask ourselves how one can validly infer a statement about the nature of the existence of existing things, namely, that they cannot come into or pass out of existence, from a mere law of logic. Suppose we construct an argument on Rand�s behalf:

1. Necessarily, every x is self-identical.
2. To exist = to be self-identical
Therefore
3. Necessarily, every x exists
Therefore
4. Every x exists necessarily.
Therefore
5. No x exists contingently.
Therefore
6. No x can come into existence or pass out of existence.

The problem with this argument lies with premise (2). Rand needs (2), but (2) does not follow from (1). (2) must be brought in as a separate premise. But, unlike (1), (2) is scarcely self-evident. For even if it is true that x exists iff x = x, it does not follow from this that the existing of x consists in x�s being self-identical. It is conceivable that there be a nonexistent object such as Pegasus that is self-identical but does not exist. This shows that the biconditional given is circular: x exists iff x = x & x exists. There is more to existence than self-identity.

Post 110

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 1:35pm

William Wrote:
Glenn, I should have taken your advice. ;-)
Well, this is a dissent thread. If you can't take the heat, then you can leave, or respond with something that doesn't display a close-minded ignorance and denial of all concepts of reality formulated after the close of the 19th century.

Bob, do you think this is a fair characterization of my position? And if, upon further reflection, you do not, then can you understand why I might not have wanted to continue our discussion?

One of the biggest problems I had is not so much with your conclusions as with your manner of arguing for them. Half the time, you simply neglected to address the arguments I was making, preferring instead to restate your original conclusions. So, I didn't see how it was possible to make any progress towards a resolution of our differences. Not that we would necessarily have done that anyway, but at least we might have come a little closer to an understanding. I don't mind dissent; indeed I have dissented from the Objectivist canon myself at times. But you seem to have a very negative view of Objectivists in general, which makes me wonder why you are participant on the RoR forums. What is it about Objectivism that you agree with?

- Bill

Post 111

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 2:26pm

Joel,

I am suspecting something. Here is where you get into conflicts with Objectivists:

I don't agree. Logic is not based on the senses, but sometimes supported by sensory data.

Are you familiar with the Objectivist theory of knowledge, especially concept formation? As you ask questions about higher concepts like virtues being based on sensory data, I suspect you do not know it. (Basically integrations of integrations of integrations of integrations of integrations, etc., but ultimately all concepts can be boiled down to a sensory level if the integrations are traced.)

You will find the standard exposition in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand. There are some short versions around, but I suggest you at least become familiar with one of them so you can say where you don't agree with Rand, not just the person you are talking to. The Objectivist definition of logic is extremely precise and if you are using another definition, you will always be talking past the other people on an Objectivist forum.

You might find it interesting, too. (Frankly, I would be interested to see a theological approach to that.)

Michael

Post 112

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 4:33pm

Mr. Bob is getting back on track, so I'd like to add that you can write the "common sense" or everyday notion of identity in second-order logic, which reads like, "For all x and all y, x is equal to y and vice versa given that all properties of x are properties of y." But, again, this maps x to y, not x to x, and the bigger problem is that second-order logic is incomplete thanks to Godel (who you can apparently blame for everything that isn't complete these days).

UK

Post 113

Thursday, March 23, 2006 - 8:04pm

In his answer to Branden's refutation of the first-cause argument, Joel states:

Firstly, for comparison (and leaving apart Branden�s poor definition of the concept of �time�), let me show you examples where Branden put a cart of dogma before (and amid) the horses of his attempted deductive process: - �The universe is the total of that which exists�. [This was supposed to be part of the conclusion.]
No, it's a premise. Branden defines the universe as the totality of existence. The term "universe" like the adjective "universal" refers to everything -- in this case, everything that exists.
- �Existence --not "God"-- is the First Cause.� [But, why all existence, and not a certain type of Existence, must be the First Cause?]
He doesn't mean that all of existence is the first cause; only the fundamental constituents of existence out of which everything is formed and composed. In other words, the forms of existence comprising these fundamental elements can change and evolve, but the elements themselves (whatever they are) are the primary causal agents determining the course and the direction of this change and evolution.
- �[Just as] the concept of causality applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole [...]�. [How does he know?]
Well, it can't apply to the universe as a whole, because there is nothing outside the universe to act as a cause. By definition, the universe is everything that exists; it is universal.
- �[...] the concept of time applies to events and entities within the universe, but not to the universe as a whole.� [Not true. Quite a different thing is that time is not absolute.]
I don't think he's saying that time is absolute any more than he would say that motion is absolute, just that time depends on entities that move. Without motion, there would be no time; time is a measurement of the motion of one thing relative to another. Time cannot apply to the universe as a whole, because time is a relational concept, and there is nothing outside the universe to form any such relation. The concept of motion on which time depends makes no sense with respect to the universe as whole. Motion is relative to the observer, and the observer is part of the universe.
- �The universe did not "begin"--it did not, at some point in time, "spring into being."� [Again, this was supposed to be part of the conclusion.]
Well, if nothing existed, there would be no time, and if there were no time, then the universe could not have come into existence at some point in time. Nor could there have been anything to cause its emergence. Nihilo ex nihilo -- from nothing comes nothing.
- �If you are tempted to ask: "What's outside the universe?"--recognize that you are asking: "What's outside of existence?"� [This inquisitorial request for �confession� actually includes what he was supposed to demonstrate.]
Again, the "universe" by definition is universal; it means and includes everything.
- �Existence exists; you cannot go outside it [...]� [Finally, this �confirms� that if I exist, my existing �I� is eternal...]
I don't follow you. How would this statement imply that if you exist, then you're eternal? All Branden is saying here is that there is nothing outside of existence -- nothing beyond it -- that existence is all that exists.

Now I will point you out scientific and philosophical grounds for the denial that the universe has existed eternally, and in defense of a created universe.
For whatever it's worth, the original meaning of "eternal" was "out of time." It did not mean temporal infinity.
A first experimental support for an origin of the universe were the findings of Hubble, theoretically formulated as the Big Bang theory.
I have no problem with the Big Bang; it's a well-established cosmological theory. But it wasn't that prior to the Big Bang nothing existed in the literal sense of "nothing." Something existed -- call it a "vacuum fluctuation" or whatever -- which gave rise to the very small amount of dense matter that produced the Big Bang.

A second �pro-creation� scientific argument that can be built consists in applying the Second Law of thermodynamics to cosmology.

Right. As I understand it, that's the entropy argument, according to which the universe is gradually losing energy and moving towards a state of thermodynamic equilibrium. Rudolph Clausius who formulated this view, believed that it applied to the universe as a whole, but another scientist, E. A. Milne, pointed out that whereas you can apply the concept of entropy to closed systems within the universe, you cannot apply it to the universe as a whole -- that although we can calculate changes of entropy for closed systems with something outside them, the universe has nothing physical outside it, so it is impossible to calculate entropy for the universe itself.

Scientists already estimated the age of our little baby: it is typically placed around 15 billion years. I can provide you sourced quotes, if you wish.

Why? I would have no reason to dispute this.

Now, my guess is that you prefer philosophical arguments. A fundamental philosophical question about the universe is if the universe is a necessary being, or a contingent being �namely, dependent on a necessary Being. (If there would be no necessary being, logically nothing would exist.) If the universe is a contingent being, it was created by a necessary Being.

So let�s quit from this last possibility, and go for the former one: that the universe is a necessary being.

If the universe is a necessary being, it must be an eternal being. If the universe is an eternal being, it is an actual infinite. If the universe is an actual infinite, the infinite actuality of the universe must include actual absurdity (in example: having the cake and eating it must be a fact). Here, I don�t buy that last, because reality is non-contradictory.

Well, would you then say that God is "an actual infinite." Or would you reject him as contradictory too? And if you would not, then why would say that a temporally infinite universe is contradictory? Actually, it doesn't make sense to talk about the universe (qua existence) as being eternal (unless by "eternal" you mean "out of time"), because the concept of time applies only to events within the universe, not to the universe as a whole.

So the universe may be a potentially infinite but it is not actually infinite. So �voil��: the universe has an origin in time... thanks to the necessary Being.

And the necessary being is itself actually infinite? Or did it too have an origin in time? And if you say that it did not, then why, by the same token, don't you regard that idea as an absurdity -- as "having your cake and eating it too"?

- Bill

(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/23, 8:13pm)

Post 114

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 7:52am

Ok, let me respond to this now that I have a minute.

William wrote:

One of the biggest problems I had is not so much with your conclusions as with your manner of arguing for them.

I can understand that, so be it. This doesn't come from out of the blue though. I do get frustrated and angry but I'm usually justified.

Half the time, you simply neglected to address the arguments I was making, preferring instead to restate your original conclusions.

You've accused me of this wrongly. Your first objection to my infinite regress point was to call it an infinite "thought process". I wasn't happy about this but I gave you the benefit of the doubt (ie I assumed it was I who was not clear). I clarified this stating it was the MODEL I was talking about, not the thought process. You made no acknowlegement of the important difference, and accused me again of just restating my position. You accused me even AFTER I offered more formal symbolic version of my argument that indeed fully supports my stance. You no longer get the benefit of the doubt, I'm pissed because I think you're dishonest.

Now, all of this is happenning between idiotic posts from Ed (and others), that are cleary only meant to insult. Ed doesn't understand the implication of a logically sound argument based on weak premise(s), but that's another argument. So there's a lot of venom thrown in my direction, but I'm not the one whining about it am I? I can take it, bring it on.

It is you who have engaged in thinly veiled insults, thinking that you're more "civilized" perhaps. I don't need to outline these, you know what they are. Now you're telling me I'm not playing nice and you might not want to play anymore. I don't do that. I'll tell you what I think and why. Even if I insult, I justify and provide evidence (or at least I try to do that).

On the other hand, I have written things like - "well put", or "I agree with you up to this point". How many times have YOU written something like that in this discussion?

But you seem to have a very negative view of Objectivists in general, which makes me wonder why you are participant on the RoR forums. What is it about Objectivism that you agree with?

Last question first: I agree with and admire the central position reason occupies in Objectivism. I think this is deeply admirable and valuable. My negative view is developing because it seems so clearly apparent to me that one's dedication should only be to reason and that's not what happens. Objectivists will argue that reason leads them to the conclusions Rand and others espouse. Some of these are dead wrong. I feel it should be clear to anyone with even a basic grasp of logic that many "official" postions are at best logically porous as swiss cheese and sometimes are even contradictory.

Objectivism is a noble and laudable effort, but philosophically weak. When it's largely dismissed in the acadamic community, then it's either bunk for the most part, or the community is foolish. I made my own decision after reading Rand. I cannot hardly bear to read any more of Rand's work. When you combine obvious errors with a condescending, authoritative and belligerent tone, getting through the nonsense to find the kernels of truth becomes very difficult for me.

Why are these positions so vehemently defended? Well I think because the investment people make is into the "movement of Objectivism" and not REASON.

I participate here because there is at least some good, reason-based, thought-provoking discussion here. I don't participate here because I have a need to belong to some "ism" or want to be called some type of "ist".

Bob

Post 115

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 9:27am

Bob,

It's true that I was condescending toward you (actually, toward your ideas), and I do not apologize for that. Perhaps, with just a little bit more patience for opposing ideas, I could have continued in a long, fruitful, and pleasant debate with you, and we could have reached an even higher level of mutual understanding -- perhaps.

Instead, I parodied our debate and, with dialectical analogy, made fun of your ideas (the implication being that they're absurd). That shows little patience on my part, and I do not apologize for that. I make a judgment call about investing my time and energy, everytime I interact with another, and I do not apologize for that. Call me idiotic then, if you will, but I'll still go to sleep knowing that you couldn't answer my debating points.

The ideas are more important to me than "getting along" with every interlocuter.

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/24, 9:28am)

Post 116

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:29am

Excellent post, Bob. You're a voice of sanity on this forum.

Post 117

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 10:38am

Bob, I'd like to put this discussion back on an even keel, because I want to understand your argument better, so I can address it in a manner that you find acceptable. I wrote:

"Half the time, you simply neglected to address the arguments I was making, preferring instead to restate your original conclusions." You replied:

You've accused me of this wrongly. Your first objection to my infinite regress point was to call it an infinite "thought process". I wasn't happy about this but I gave you the benefit of the doubt (ie I assumed it was I who was not clear). I clarified this stating it was the MODEL I was talking about, not the thought process.

Okay, my understanding was that the thought process was essential to the model. What am I missing here? I know this is a lot to ask, but would you mind restating your argument for the model in a way that you think might be clearer, because I just don't get it.

You made no acknowledgement of the important difference, and accused me again of just restating my position. You accused me even AFTER I offered more formal symbolic version of my argument that indeed fully supports my stance.

Is the formal argument you're referring to the one that's in Post 109? I must tell you that I didn't read that until after I posted my last reply to you. But I will address it, if you wish; however, it does not relate directly to your model argument, which I'm still confused about. So, if you wouldn't mind restating that one, it would be a big help.

You no longer get the benefit of the doubt, I'm pissed because I think you're dishonest.

Fair enough; you're entitled to your opinion, but I can tell you that I'm not being dishonest. Apparently, I didn't understand what you were saying, at least with respect to your model argument.

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 3/24, 1:19pm)

Post 118

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:03am

I appreciate that response (William). I'm running out of time right now, but I will return and respond to what you've asked as soon as I possibly can.

Bob

Post 119

Friday, March 24, 2006 - 11:17am