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 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 60

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 1:56pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Luke:




Sanction: 2, No Sanction: 0
Post 61

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 5:20pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linda,

You said, "To say "it is certain" is not the same as to say "I am certain". I feel as if I've typed that a dozen times now."

I'm glad you were so persistent. You have convinced me you are right. "Certainty" makes no sense outside of the context of human awareness, but there can be an understanding about something other than our confidence level that we are talking about. For example: "It is certain that the sun will rise tomorrow." I can't make a statement like that without also implying that I am confident in this fact which I say is certain. But that use of word has a primary purpose of saying something about the sun rising, not about my confidence in that event.

You asked what I meant by 'word-smithing'... It was a very minor point. I was just saying that people sometimes use 'certain' applied not to their confidence but to the alledged fact for the purpose of strengthening an argument, like, "It is certain, that if you read my posts carefully, you will agree with them." :-)

Because you love words and logic (and seeing how you have applied logic in this thread), I suspect that you would also enjoy Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology."

p.s., Welcome :-)

Post 62

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 6:03pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Bill...
But don't you see that there's a difference between my saying, "He's certain that there's an afterlife, but he doesn't know that there is (which, of course, is true) and my saying "I'm certain that there isn't an afterlife, but I don't know that there isn't." If I say that I'm certain that there isn't an afterlife, I'm implicitly claiming to know that there isn't. If I didn't think I knew that there isn't one, I wouldn't say that I'm certain that there isn't one. Of course, I can say that I'm certain that a proposition is true without knowing that it's true, if I don't have enough evidence to properly believe it, or if what I believe is false. But I cannot logically claim to be certain that a proposition is true without implicitly claiming to know that it's true.

Thank you for the effort.  :-)   What you are saying seems to boil down to this:

If I am saying that I'm certain, I'm claiming to know.  Whether I actually do know or not, the claim to knowledge is there simply by virtue of my assertion of certainty.

Is that at all close? 


Post 63

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 6:09pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linda,

Exactly! :-)

Teresa, thanks for the kudos!! Would that that were true! -- "getting all the chicks." Yeah, right . . . I woo them philosophy! ;-)

- Bill

Post 64

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 6:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"I woo them philosophy"

You can do that? Why didn't anybody tell me that?!#$!?:-)

Post 65

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 6:23pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi, Steve!  :-)
Your post warmed my heart after a pretty crappy day.  Thanks.
Because you love words and logic (and seeing how you have applied logic in this thread), I suspect that you would also enjoy Ayn Rand's "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology."
Since Atlas Shrugged is such a tome (or so I've heard), do you think I would do well to try the epistemology book first?  Is it also a tome?


Post 66

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 6:26pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Exactly! :-)
OK!  Now we're getting somewhere. :-)  But I have to chew that over for a while, because I suspect that I still don't agree with it.

Wish me luck... ;-)


Post 67

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 6:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You asked what I meant by 'word-smithing'... It was a very minor point. I was just saying that people sometimes use 'certain' applied not to their confidence but to the alledged fact for the purpose of strengthening an argument, like, "It is certain, that if you read my posts carefully, you will agree with them."
Oh that.  I'd call that "being a weasel".  :-D


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 68

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 6:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Hi Linda,

I'm glad I warmed your heart! Thanks for letting me know.

Those are two very different kinds of books. Atlas Shrugged is a massive novel - I absolutely love it. I wish it went on and on and on... But if it strikes you wrong, stylistically, and it does some people, you might not enjoy it as a novel. In that case you would be reading it to parse out the philosophy. Up to you - because there are other avenues for exploring her views on ethics, politics, etc. Atlas Shrugged should be in every bookstore. Take it off the self, sit down, and read for 10 minutes to see if you like her writing.

The Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology is a short, non-fiction work. It is a very densely packed exploration of a tough subject area. It is beautifully written and is aimed at the intelligent lay person - not a philosopher or academic. I read from it now and then, not only to raise my game (thinking, discussing, understanding), but out of the sheer joy of watching her mind at work parsing sentences (thoughts). Be sure you get the 2nd edition because it has a transcript of some question and answer sessions she conducted for a group of philosophers (and a physics guy and a biologist). The meat of the book occupies about 80 pages, and the appendix, with the transcripts take it to a little over 300 pages.

Post 69

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 7:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Linda, I will strongly second Steve's analysis and advice. I (strangely) read all of Rand's non-fiction first. That's not usual for me. I also had to reread ItOE after a month to fully get it. That is very unusual for me. But the book is very well worth the reward. Atlas is just plain fun.

Sorry, I found this certainty discussion a bit dry for my taste. You might like my site, Radicals for Happiness.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/18, 11:23am)


Post 70

Monday, November 17, 2008 - 8:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Atlas Shrugged should be in every bookstore. Take it off the self, sit down, and read for 10 minutes to see if you like her writing.
That's an excellent suggestion.  It has the advantage of allowing me to get a taste of the book without having to bring it into my house.  My husband, you see, is unimpressed with her style (to put it mildly).  When I mentioned that I was interested in reading Atlas Shrugged, he wailed and gnashed his teeth.  It was pretty funny.  :-)


Post 71

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 9:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linda,

Just curious. What does your husband think of The Fountainhead, which is thought by some literary critics to be a better novel? I'm also wondering if he disagrees with Rand's philosophy, which is sometimes behind people's objections to her style.

In any case, I would start with Anthem and The Fountainhead before I read Atlas Shrugged. Anthem is a short novelette, but stylistically unique and, I think, quite powerful. And, in my opinion, The Fountainhead is a truly great novel. I've talked to socialists who enjoyed it and who admired Roark's character and independence.

- Bill

Post 72

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 6:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Just curious. What does your husband think of The Fountainhead, which is thought by some literary critics to be a better novel? I'm also wondering if he disagrees with Rand's philosophy, which is sometimes behind people's objections to her style.
He's not here right now, so this is just my recollection of the gist of what little he said.  I think what he said was that he found the main characters in The Fountainhead to be completely unlikable, so much so that he couldn't finish the book.

(Edited by Linda Velasquez on 11/18, 6:03pm)


Post 73

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 8:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Wow - a man of integrity unlikeable... interesting...

Post 74

Tuesday, November 18, 2008 - 10:49pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

So, Robert, do you think Linda made a mistake? She should have married...you?

Liking The Fountainhead is no proof of virtue.

(Edited by Ted Keer on 11/18, 10:50pm)


Post 75

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 7:29amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
OK.  This clinches it.  I'll have to read The Fountainhead and see if I agree with hubby's comments. 
Could be dangerous! :-D


Post 76

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 9:28amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If I am saying that I'm certain, I'm claiming to know.  Whether I actually do know or not, the claim to knowledge is there simply by virtue of my assertion of certainty.
 
Nnnnnnnah.  I just can't go with it.  It ignores a key difference between saying that one is certain and saying that one knows.  The difference is that saying that one is certain is making a statement about one's own state of mind alone.  Saying that one knows is making a statement about one's own state of mind plus making a statement about the way things are.  When I say that I'm certain, I'm not saying that I couldn't be mistaken, but when I say that I know, I am. 


Post 77

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 11:00amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Linda wrote:

When I say that I'm certain, I'm not saying that I couldn't be mistaken, but when I say that I know, I am.

I would say "pretty sure" in the first case and "certain" in the second one.

Much of this argument appears centered on the meanings of key terms like "certain" and "know."

I will voice my own support in favor of the idea that you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.

Post 78

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 11:09amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
In post #76, Linda claims to be certain that she knows the way things are insofar as those words go. And she is right that 'certain' makes a statement about ones state of mind and that can be a complete statement. But the state of mind being referred to must have content that in critical to that assertion. If I came into the room and announced, "Tom is certain," I've made a grammatically complete sentence, but no one will really be happy with it unless, in their own mind they have an understanding of what he is certain of. One could never be 'certain' in general - one must always be 'certain' in response to some belief or knowledge. It is always, "You're certain? About what?"

You can get tricky and talk about the certainty itself: "Tom wore his certainty like bullet-proof vest." But Tom's certainty, at any given instance, will still be a certainty about something.

Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 79

Wednesday, November 19, 2008 - 11:32amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Fountainhead may be the better first choice. It is much more of a character portrait. It is a richer character study. It was where Rand perfected her ability to portray individuals, their actions, and their psychology as expressions of their most deeply held beliefs. The story shows this in primarily in the arenas of love and career. Her focus was particularly on integrated premises, the sense of life that arise from them - and the ideal man.

When she went on to Atlas Shrugged she was painting on a much broader canvas and showed how the full range of philosophical principles expressed themselves across the full range of human action. We create the world around us (our art, our loves, the economy, politics, business, the economy) based upon our beliefs (held implicitly or explicitly - from metaphysics to aesthetics). But she didn't just show that ideas matter in all areas, she had created a new set of ideas - an entire philosophy - and presented it, contrasted it, and all, integrated as a novel with a fast paced plot. It is an extraordinary achievement, but one that by its nature makes it harder to have as rich of a character study. (However, having said that, the characters in Atlas Shrugged each have deep, distinct personalities that have stayed with me for decades). Your mileage may vary.

Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2Page 3Page 4Page 5Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.