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


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Friday, September 18, 2009 - 4:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Okay, Phil.
People simply do not realize that it is possible to apply such rigor to areas such as politics or ethics - and they don't.

And that is the point that I was making, despite Ed's jumping the gun on me. Rand, I'm sure, would agree that most people survive epistemologically by approximations and fuzzy logic. However, that kind of thought won't get you to the moon, and the failure of the intellectual community to realize that a similar rigor is required in the soft sciences is as limiting as if we had to use fuzzy approximations - pre-Newton physics to design our machines.

It's more clear to me that you recognize not that their is one right answer (as a rationalist-intrinsicist might claim) -- but that there is one right way to the answer, which is nothing other than the use of human reason. Reading you before made me think that you think that humans cannot help but to use all sorts of extra-logical intuitions and revelations. Reading you now makes me think that you are simply saying that folks don't overwhelmingly exercise the capacity to reason which they, being human, harbor within themselves.

For whatever reasons, a lot of folks run on auto-pilot and passively absorb cultural norms, etc. I agree with that (which makes this a moral issue, not a purely epistemological one).

Ed

(Edited by Ed Thompson on 9/18, 4:54am)


Post 21

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 11:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Geez, Ed, I hope you got some sleep eventually.

I think that most people are simply overwhelmed epistemologicaly.  There aren't enough hours in the day - even for those who stay up until 5AM!, and what exposure they have had to philosophy has more often than not been of the form "well, everyone has all kinds of neat ideas, but nobody really has any solutions," or, worse, "anyone who claims to have the Truth is dangerous."  It's all relative, right?

There are those, also, who are carrying around massive contradictions that they dare not try to resolve, like the German family men whose workday consisted of murdering Jewish children.  (And Himmler testified at Nuremburg that he had to set up psychological counselling for them - just to show what a great guy he was...)

Someone carrying around that kind of cognitive load is generally not going to want to attend values clarification sessions.

However, people generally are only able to hold so much in conscious focus, and, lacking the philosophical tools to efficiently integrate the issues of their daily lives into a broader picture, they naturally compartmentalize and do what comes to their plate next.

Take out the trash OR make a decision about the underwater mortgage OR study world politics and how it might effect the value of the dollar and whether that mortgage money might better be used to purchase gold OR deal with Johny's bad grades, etc., etc.  I have a large box of life-planning books that a woman threw out about a decade ago, along with her notes, which at a glance indicated that she REALLY needed something.  And I could open virtually any of these books at random to any random page, and it usually made reasonable sense.  But it clearly wasn't working.

I was thinking earlier that perhaps a new thread or a new forum section might be devoted to Efficient Thinking or Applied Philosophy or some kind of unifying idea that tackles this problem of priorities.  As an introductory discussion point, I suggest Pirsig's "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance," not because I agree with Pirsig's metaphysics (especially the issue of "Quality" as some kind of metaphysical principle in itself), but rather because he throws the problem into a sharp and detailed focus.  How DO we choose what to do next?  And, can we improve on it?


Post 22

Saturday, September 19, 2009 - 11:08pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re:

I was thinking earlier that perhaps a new thread or a new forum section might be devoted to Efficient Thinking or Applied Philosophy or some kind of unifying idea that tackles this problem of priorities.

Start such a thread, Phil, and I'll follow it as Theseus followed Ariadne's.
After I send this, I'll sanction you.

Post 23

Monday, September 21, 2009 - 7:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow, Kate! 

Seriously, I think that an examination of decisions and the way to maintain an optimal focus would be handy and might attract some new people who are looking for answers to how to organize their heads and both choose and pursue values efficiently.

We could almost borrow Pirsig's outline of the Aristotelien conceptual heirarchy as a start, although I'm sure that it's been done much more thoroughly and systematically by others.  However, I'd like to see objectivists take on Pirsig's more serious issues with Aristotle and his heritage as well.  So, killing two birds, etc.

And of course I could start a thread and may very well do so.  However, it seems like such a broad topic that a single thread would get bogged down if people started seriously participating.

Which is why I suggested a new Forum heading.


Post 24

Monday, September 21, 2009 - 9:31pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Well, Phil, I'll follow such a new Forum heading just as closely: I simply couldn't think of a cool enough way of saying so. (As closely as KIrk had the ENTERPRISE follow Chekov's navigational headings? Too wordy ... )

Post 25

Monday, October 26, 2009 - 9:52amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

"I think that most people are simply overwhelmed epistemologicaly. There aren't enough hours in the day - even for those who stay up until 5AM!, and what exposure they have had to philosophy has more often than not been of the form "well, everyone has all kinds of neat ideas, but nobody really has any solutions," or, worse, "anyone who claims to have the Truth is dangerous." It's all relative, right?"

People are overwhelmed epistemologically because sometime in elementary school they stopped integrating and started approximating. As the errors build up, you spend all your time fixing glitches. Too high a level of focus becomes painful. You start resenting the requirement to think. Compartmentalization becomes a survival mechanism.

I once casually, without mentioning the implications, explained the proof to someone that for any A and any B (A & ~A) > (B & ~B). I was greeted with a viciously growled response "You are making me very uncomfortable." I bet.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 10/26, 1:04pm)


Post 26

Monday, October 26, 2009 - 12:28pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
How would such a person have come to invent social metaphysics?

An attempt to figure out a way to ride the back of the rest of the herd that was struggling to survive?

This has evolved to 'crime is easier than calculus.'

Not all carny hucksters reverted to appeals to unseen magic tribal spirits, like 'society.' Some carny hucksters reverted to inventing unseen magic spirits in the sky.

A current irony is, the modern unseen magic tribal spirit variants regard themselves as doing something fundamentally different than the unseen magic spirits in the sky variants.

'Why' is not really a total mystery.

regards,
Fred

Post 27

Monday, October 26, 2009 - 9:44pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Re Ted, who "explained the proof to someone that for any A and any B (A & ~A) > (B & ~B)" --

I'd value the explanation of that proof. Seeing things proven leaves me comfortable, not the opposite. Please?

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 28

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 5:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Phil:

However, that kind of thought won't get you to the moon, and the failure of the intellectual community to realize that a similar rigor is required in the soft sciences is as limiting as if we had to use fuzzy approximations - pre-Newton physics to design our machines.

It is precisely that lack of rigor which enables the 'soft' sciences; the last thing in the world a religious zealot carny huckster wants is for his targets to be focused, alert, aware, and thinking.

"soft," as in, "not really a", as in, "nowhere near, but we're still going to wear the white lab coats, carry clipboards, fill up Excel spreadsheets, and take on the veneer of "science" in order to sell our religiosity, the various incarnations of Social Scientology."

"soft," as in what Feynman referred to as 'Cargo Cult Science.'

At some point in their lives, some folks look in the mirror and conclude that they're either going to be the drivers or the driven. They sum up the game as either 'have or be had.' Political 'science' -- the art of getting others to hand something over to you, be it, their vote, their sanction, their lives, their property, or even just validation for the parking of their soul -- is what the driver wannabes flee to when they realize they haven't a clue how to build beast. It is our culturally institutionalized parasitism.

The only mystery in any of this is, why the beast builders tolerate pure parasitism. In their dark crevices and under their rocks, the parasites laugh at that, and enjoy the same old, same old blood rush that has always accompanied the lout's thought, "That's not parasitism, that's slavery, you fool."

And, that is exactly when they are lost, forever, as a potential human being, retreating back to their tribal/herdist instincts, way before even homo erectus, like moths to a nihilistic flame. Not up to modernity, so damn it all, they are not going to leave the jungle, they are not going to leave the tribe, the safety of the herd. Totalitarians, collectivists, tribalists, herdists fear freedom like the plague, because freedom means ultimately, 'from each other via force.' Freedom is mankind;s death knoll to our atavistic herdist tendencies. Freedom is the end of not only tribes, but The Tribe. The 'soft sciences' -- all of them, are the spearhead of the collectivists frantic religious efforts to herd mankind back into the jungle, to maintain The Tribe. The biggest beast in the jungle was never an individual, the biggest slobbering beast in the jungle is and always was The Tribe.

It is a survival instinct of the weakest among us, the fear that their dependency on the strongest among us to provide for them that which they merely want and couldn't have otherwise might not be voluntarily provided for them. And so, these parasites sell out freedom and an honest existence in the universe, as it is, for the mere attempt at the mob's slavery, and blink away the reality of what they advocate, and in so doing, guarantee Hell on earth, because those that can always will, including, avoid the clumsy fork aimed at them by those who can't.








Post 29

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 2:27pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Kate, I am rusty with symbolic logic so I'll give the proof that any contradiction implies every contradiction explicitly.

1) Assume a contradiction, that both A and not A ... (A & ~A)
2) If it is true that A, then it is true that either A or B for any arbitrary B ... A > (A v B)
3) But A is not true (from 1 by disjunction), and since either A or B must be true, if A is false then B must be true ... (A v B) & ~A > B
4) Likewise, if A is true, then It is true that either A or not B for any arbitrary B ... A > (A v ~B)
4) But if A is not true (from 1 by disjunction) and since either A or not B must be true, then if it is not the case that A, then it must be the case that not B (A v ~B) & ~A > ~B
5) Hence, B is trrue (from 3) and B is not true (from 5) ... (B & ~B)

Perhaps someone can do this a bit more rigorously in pure symbolic logic.

Post 30

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 2:32pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fred, while I know what you kinda wanna say, your position as stated amounts to skepticism. I am currious if you have read God of the Machine, which is pure historical sociology. If so, can you please comment on your opinion of Paterson. If not, can you please read her first and then comment.

PDF Download available here.

Post 31

Wednesday, October 28, 2009 - 3:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks!

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.