About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Post 20

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 10:55pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Bridget)There is no dualism in western thinking outside of Plato. I suggest you read Rand and similar-in-thought individuals instead of ASSuming otherwise...

 

(Nick)Sure there is. Aristotle is every bit the dualist that Plato is. Rand is also. Perhaps you should not assume you know how much I know about philosophy and Rand.

 

(Bridget) Please stop talking like you know them personally, because you don't even know them academically, and that is where I am speaking about them from... :-P

 

(Nick)There you go again. You assume I don’t know much about Asian philosophies and martial arts, academically or personally. Have you read any autobiographical information about me, or are you just assuming? Do an internet search the name, NickOtani, and see if you can find my website.

 

Bis bald,

 

Nick

 

 


Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 9, No Sanction: 0
Post 21

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 12:26amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Nick)Sure there is. Aristotle is every bit the dualist that Plato is. Rand is also. Perhaps you should not assume you know how much I know about philosophy and Rand.

(Me) No, Rand has never espoused in any form, dualism. Dualism is the belief that a human mind [or even an non-human mind] is not only seperate from Nature/Reality but that it exists in a realm apart from Nature/Reality. That is the textbook, cut and dry, definition of Dualism. Rand never espouses at such either in her fiction or non-fiction. She believed, as I do, that the mind is a property of rational beings but that a rational being cannot seperate one's actions from the consequences that follow. I can choose to drop a lead weight on my foot, but I can never ever stop the consequence of it falling on my foot or the possibility of it causing damage or even pain. I cannot stop the fact that my mind cannot occupy all mental states at once, and that in themselves, have a form of causality that I must obey to get from one step in reasoning to the next. Essentially, Rand was a 'naturalist' in that the mind is the natural element of our existence and it is PART OF NATURE BECAUSE WE HUMANS ARE PART OF NATURE.

So, until you got page and paragraph quotation where Rand states any form of dualism your supposition will be regarded as hearsay at best, and at worse, libel.

(Nick)There you go again. You assume I don’t know much about Asian philosophies and martial arts, academically or personally. Have you read any autobiographical information about me, or are you just assuming? Do an internet search the name, NickOtani, and see if you can find my website.

(Me) I don't have to, your specific over generalizations of the asian martial arts is clear enough that it's from the academic mindset rather than from a practitioner's mindset. Also, I've know a few folks that were above third rank in their blackbelt (Most people can easily earn three black belts, it's harder to get above it since the rank testing is stretched out further apart in years.) in a given martial art. In all aspects, none of them considered the philosophy that you claim their art has to be as important as the practical application of their art. To them, my friends in martial arts, what you would call the 'philosophy' of their art(s) they would call drivel since often it is the case what you think is important to their practice doesn't even apply at all, whether it's about proper mindset in combat or outside of it, or whether it's how to live at peace with others despite knowing how to fight a 'war.' All in all, your claims don't fit the bill of someone that is practiced in these arts. And I, for one, will not let you slide on it.

So, stand and deliver your credentials please. Or go away.

-- Bridget

Post 22

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 10:31amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

(Bridget)No, Rand has never espoused in any form, dualism. Dualism is the belief that a human mind [or even an non-human mind] is not only seperate from Nature/Reality but that it exists in a realm apart from Nature/Reality. That is the textbook, cut and dry, definition of Dualism. Rand never espouses at such either in her fiction or non-fiction.

 

(Nick)The very idea of an Objective reality existing independent of consciousness is a dualism. There is realty on one side and consciousness on the other.  

 

(Bridget)She believed, as I do, that the mind is a property of rational beings but that a rational being cannot seperate one's actions from the consequences that follow. I can choose to drop a lead weight on my foot, but I can never ever stop the consequence of it falling on my foot or the possibility of it causing damage or even pain.

 

(Nick)I told both you and Ed that I’m not arguing that people can escape consequences of their actions. You are creating a reality here that doesn’t objectively exist.

 

(Bridget)I cannot stop the fact that my mind cannot occupy all mental states at once, and that in themselves, have a form of causality that I must obey to get from one step in reasoning to the next. Essentially, Rand was a 'naturalist' in that the mind is the natural element of our existence and it is PART OF NATURE BECAUSE WE HUMANS ARE PART OF NATURE.

 

(Nick)No, objective reality exists independent of consciousness and is discovered by it. They are two separate entities. Ask a few other Objectivists.

 

(Nick)There you go again. You assume I don’t know much about Asian philosophies and martial arts, academically or personally. Have you read any autobiographical information about me, or are you just assuming? Do an internet search the name, NickOtani, and see if you can find my website.

 

(Bridget) I don't have to, your specific over generalizations of the asian martial arts is clear enough that it's from the academic mindset rather than from a practitioner's mindset. Also, I've know a few folks that were above third rank in their blackbelt (Most people can easily earn three black belts, it's harder to get above it since the rank testing is stretched out further apart in years.) in a given martial art. In all aspects, none of them considered the philosophy that you claim their art has to be as important as the practical application of their art. To them, my friends in martial arts, what you would call the 'philosophy' of their art(s) they would call drivel since often it is the case what you think is important to their practice doesn't even apply at all, whether it's about proper mindset in combat or outside of it, or whether it's how to live at peace with others despite knowing how to fight a 'war.' All in all, your claims don't fit the bill of someone that is practiced in these arts. And I, for one, will not let you slide on it.

So, stand and deliver your credentials please. Or go away.

 

(Nick)Well, I find you willfully ignorant and a little lazy. And, it’s a little rude to ask for my credentials after you already made assumptions about me. Had you searched for NickOtani and Judo, you may have found this paragraph:

 

I've admitted that I am not a Buddhist. I have read about Buddhism and been around Asian philosophies all of my life. My last name is Otani, a Japanese name, and I have taken Judo for more than thirty years. I think I understand some of the concepts of Buddhism, but I am an outsider. I cannot know Buddhism as a Buddhist would. Still, I think I can talk about it as well as anybody who is not a Buddhist, just as I can talk about various Christian religions from the perspective of an atheist. If this isn't good enough for you, so be it. It is not my life's goal to prove to you that I understand Buddhism.

 

If you had just looked for my personal information on my messageboard, you would have found the following:

 

First Name :: Nicholas

Last Name :: Otani

Age :: 57

Location :: Spokane, Washington

Occupation :: Student

Hobbies :: Jogging, Judo, and shooting baskets at outdoor parks and working on my tan during the summer.

Personal Bio :: I was born on January 9, 1949 to a woman of European ancestry and a man who is a second generation Japanese American, a proud member of the 442nd division during World War II. Although their families, the first generation Japanese Americans were relocated in American concentration camps on the West Coast, members of the 442nd Division lived up to their motto, "Go for broke!" I've had my own experiences as a high school drop-out, a Viet Nam veteran, a college graduate with an undergraduate degree in philosophy and an M.S. in education, twenty years as an educator in an adult education program for American military personnel stationed in Europe,

 

Further, Bridget, Kung Fu bagan as an exercise regimen for Buddhist monks in China. Your information about Asan artial arts and sports is incomplete and slanted.

 

Bis bald,

Nick

 

 

 

 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 12:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Nick)No, objective reality exists independent of consciousness and is discovered by it. They are two separate entities. Ask a few other Objectivists.

(Me) Nope, the mind is part of Nature just as my hand is part of it, or the building that houses my apartment. And so on. Nature is defined as the collection of all things; a collection in itself does not need to be classified as an entity thusly no duality can be assumed to be part of its interaction(s). It's sorta like saying a set of numbers that distinct, but share common attributes (Natural Numbers and what not), must be in 'dualism' with each other since each number is seperate from the set as a unique entity despite the fact that a set of numbers, the set itself, is not an entity, it is composed of entities. Thusly, your claim fails again. Stop assuming Nature is an entity, because it ain't kiddo.

(Nick)Further, Bridget, Kung Fu bagan as an exercise regimen for Buddhist monks in China. Your information about Asan artial arts and sports is incomplete and slanted.

(Me) Hardly, my data is actually from what most masters of the arts speak in the modern age. Most of them look back at the specific historical context of when their art evolved. For example, in Ancient China, the ownership of weapons were outlawed save for those who were soldiers/guards or swore fealty to the Emperor or his lords. As such, the martial arts became etched into the everyday life of the diverse peoples in the Chinese Empire of that day. For the Monks it was not an exercise regimen with regard to Kung Fu, your data is lacking in the origin of its formation. There are TWO Kung FUS, one the monks who were not assigned to guard the temple practiced as part of their exercise and meditation, and the other, which is the most commonly practiced, that was used by the temple guards to keep thugs away.

So, please stop trying to skew what is already known by historians. No more post-modern drivel trying to superimpose itself on ancient fighting styles. [Matrix Nazi] NO NEO FOR YOU! [/Matrix Nazi]

-- Bridget
(Edited by Bridget Armozel
on 7/09, 12:50pm)


Post 24

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 12:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Also, I would tell you that my credentials are not lacking either.

My primary studies are computer science, physics, philosophy, world history, and ethics. I also take interest in particular stratas of human history, notably pre-imperial China and pre-Doric Greece. :-P So there!

-- Bridget

Post 25

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 5:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Bridget) Nope, the mind is part of Nature just as my hand is part of it, or the building that houses my apartment. And so on. Nature is defined as the collection of all things; a collection in itself does not need to be classified as an entity thusly no duality can be assumed to be part of its interaction(s). It's sorta like saying a set of numbers that distinct, but share common attributes (Natural Numbers and what not), must be in 'dualism' with each other since each number is seperate from the set as a unique entity despite the fact that a set of numbers, the set itself, is not an entity, it is composed of entities. Thusly, your claim fails again. Stop assuming Nature is an entity, because it ain't kiddo.

(Nick)I found this by doing an internet search:

 

Perhaps the most in-depth discussion of philosophy of mind by a prominent Objectivist philosopher is found in Harry Binswanger's 1998 three-tape course The Metaphysics of Consciousness (Binswanger 1998). In it, he says:

 

Conscious experience is correlated with and does require a brain process, but there are still two irreducibly different things: the state of awareness and the brain process. Yes, man does have a mind and a body, but neither can be reduced to the other... Consciousness exists and matter exists. Each is what it is and neither is a form of the other.

 

In a question-answer period afterwards, he says:

 

Dualism is a dangerous term because of its being used for a strawman. But if you mean: Do we believe there are really two existents? Yes! The mind exists and the brain exists—and neither is the other.

 

Later he says:

 

So, yes, I'm a dualist. Or as Leonard [Peikoff] says in OPAR, because the term dualism is not one we have to fight to save and it's so associated with Descartes, the proper word for it is: Objectivism, not dualism.

 

We have our own distinct view here. But if you had to put it in the historical classification, yeah, we're not monists. We believe that both consciousness and matter exist and neither is reducible to the other.

 

Binswanger, Harry. 1998. The Metaphysics of Consciousness. Gaylordsville, CT: Second

 

bis bald,

 

Nick

 

 


Post 26

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 8:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peikoff and Binswanger are wrong, but I won't into why unless you want to open another thread about the nature of consciousness.

-- Bridget

Post 27

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 9:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
(Bridget)Peikoff and Binswanger are wrong, but I won't into why unless you want to open another thread about the nature of consciousness.

(Nick)Ed is complaining that I've opened too many threads already. I was going to start a few threads on Asian philosophies, but I'll start a thread on metaphysics from Descartes, okay? That gets into the mind/body problem and lets you talk about how Objectivism deals with the problem.

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 8:46amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There's a mind/body problem? Why is it a problem? And if it is a problem then mind/body/brain is also a problem, right? Then instead of dualism there's "triplism". So, why not look at the question and wonder why consider these things a problem in the first place.. i.e. re-ask the question so that it (monism, dualism, triplism, quadruplism, etc.) being a problem isn't assumed? Why not ask "What connections are missing or taken away?"

Post 29

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick, I agree that you need to know more of the philosophies and it is best to present their arguments in full context so as to better refute them - though it depends on your goal.  If your goal is to speak to people who have knowledge of those philosophies it is a very good idea, but it depends on the context.  

Now, the thing is, that you are speaking to people who have a very good knowledge of Objectivism, and I think you are doing the same thing here and mis-representing it with some of your assertions.


Post 30

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Now, the thing is, that you are speaking to people who have a very good knowledge of Objectivism, and I think you are doing the same thing here and mis-representing it with some of your assertions.

Please show me where I've given short shrift to Objectivism. I try to be fair. I use quotes and try to support my statements when challenged. I do not put down Objectivism the way some people here are putting down Existentialism, calling it crap etc.

I disagree with pure Objectivism, and I've come here to debate with people who know about it, as I think I do. I did not come here to have flame wars or piss people off. I would like, as we debate our differences, for us to have more respect for each other rather than less. It didn't happen on the OL. Do you think it is possible here?

bis bald,

Nick 

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 7/10, 10:37am)


Post 31

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 11:34amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is there a voice-throat problem, too?

Ed


Post 32

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Mr. Nick:
I would like, as we debate our differences, for us to have more respect for each other rather than less.
How do you expect anyone to respect you or your philosophy when you don't respect the truth?


Post 33

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 12:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How do you expect anyone to respect you or your philosophy when you don't respect the truth?
Is it your atttude that anyone who doesn't agree with you entirely doesn't respect the truth?

bis bald,

Nick



Post 34

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 1:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post 7 of the Theory of Value thread you deny an objective truth. Ergo, you don't respect the truth.

It has nothing to do with agreeing with me entirely or partially.


Post 35

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 1:57pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick, I feel that some of your statements are innacurate and/or simplifications - as I said, the same kind some use against other philosophies - but I have to sift through all your posts and can't do that now.  Others have pointed some of them out.  I will try to see if I can get back to you.  Have you read at least good portions of OPAR and Intro to Objectivisit Epistemology?


Post 36

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 2:05pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Is there a voice-throat problem, too?


LOL... well, if it's a problem for you, it's good that you can type, right?

What I try to do is to step into the shoes of the person asking this question (i.e. role play, pretending, acting) and try to figure out what questions they weren't asking that *I* would ask, and go behind, or dig into, what questions were asked, why, and how.

When I'm faced with bunches of dualities, i.e. voice vs. throat, mind vs. body, brain vs. mind, left vs. right, etc. vs. etc., I make a list:

1) both exist, but how do they exist? Can I describe each one?
2) What if one didn't exist at all? What happens to the other?

In regards to mind/body/brain, #2 is where I figured out that there wasn't a problem because if I set mind and body as 2 particulars. Each one affects the other if I answer #2. Particulars don't act in a vacuum. What's missing is the conceptualization of interaction, or dynamics. This is the starting point for the process of integration, and helps me understand why humans are neither monolithic nor compartmentalized, for starters. Sometimes the answer is within the question.

Post 37

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 2:35pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
One is a property of the other. I think Bill Dwyer has spoken about this on countless occasions. A defining property of an entity cannot exist independently of that entity.

So, a consciousness is a defining property of the human brain, or put more broadly man.

There can be no disembodied consciousness.

Similarly, a banana is yellow. Yellow is one defining property of a banana, but yellow does not exist independently of the banana. There is no such thing as yellowness. There is such a thing as a yellow banana.

So I agree with Jenna, what is the problem?





Post 38

Monday, July 10, 2006 - 10:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post 7 of the Theory of Value thread you deny an objective truth. Ergo, you don't respect the truth.

It has nothing to do with agreeing with me entirely or partially.

I explained that to you, Sam, in post number 14 of that thread. I admitted that I made a mistake. If this is the only thing you latch onto, after all my long winded posts, then you must be pretty intolerant.

bis bald,

Nick 


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.