|
|
General Discussion
Started by NickOtani at 12-31-2006 1:01 AM. Topic has 19 replies.
  
|
|
Sort Posts:
|
|
|
|
 12-31-2006, 1:01 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ed Thompson, one of the cowardly objectivists with whom I argued on the Rebirth of Reason forum and who seems unwilling to follow me here, made the statement that Rand was an intentional conceptualist, one who believes universals, like an entity’s nature or essence, are both man-made and reality based, that universals are man’s way of conceptualizing things. Here are his words on the subject:
| 4. Are universals merely the form in which humans conceptualize (ie. the "mode" of cognition)?
**If yes, congratulations! You're an "intentional conceptualist" - the type of thinker Rand was, though she never explicitly stated it in such sufficiently illustrative terms - you realize that "units are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships" and that "units do not exist qua units" either in your mind OR outside of it - you realize that units have existence by way of THE INTERACTION of a mind with reality (they're not in the mind or out in reality; they are in the relation of mind to reality; |
|
Well, I disagreed with this. I said “This is not Rand’s position. It is not Objectivism. Reality is objective if it exists prior to being known. Yes, you say existence is identity. This is just the existence exists principle which implies two corollaries 1.) that something exists which one perceives and 2.) that one exists possessing consciousness, the faculty of perceiving that which exists.’
“To exist, according to Rand, is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes “…Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.”’
“Reality is what it is. To know truth is simply to recognize reality for what it is, and this is done with reason, the faculty which perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality provided by man’s senses. So, there is that which is perceived, objective reality, and the perceiver, the consciousness which perceives that one objective reality, even though this sets up an operational dualism. Saying that consciousness and reality are part of each other and interact is what some of the Asian philosophies do by becoming one with the whole. Rand really objected to that."
After I said all that, Ed Thompson told me to “prove it.” I did. It was like explaining to the tortoise that the hare had won the race because he crossed the finish line first and then hearing the tortoise request a reason why the hare won the race.
I said, “I explained that reality is objective if it exists prior to being known. That is what “objective” means, independent of one’s wishes and whims. I explained that existence exists, according to Rand, implies two corollaries 1.) that something exists which one perceives and 2.) that one exists possessing consciousness, the faculty of perceiving that which exists. This is Rand’s position. It is not the same as your position, that units have existence by way of THE INTERACTION of a mind with reality.”
Another obstinate objectivist, Merlin Jetton, came into the discussion to support Ed. He asked me to present evidence in Rand’s own words that she said reality is objective if it exists prior to being known.
I said, “This can be derived from Rand’s statement, through Galt, which I quoted, “Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.”’
“It can also be derived from a statement she made, defining “Objectivity,” in The Objectivist Newsletter “Who Is the Final Authority in Ethics?” Feb. 1965, 7. “…Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness.”’
“It can also be derived from The Objectivist Newsletter “Introducing Objectivism,” Aug. 1962, 35. “Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.”’
“These quotes go on to talk about epistemology and how one perceives or comes to know this independent realty, through consciousness, reason and the laws of logic, but this indicates that reality exists, first, prior to being known.”
Several Objectivists mention that I am treating “essence” as metaphysical and not epistemological. Epistemological, to them, means, “in the mind.” So, this is their way refuting me. It actually makes Rand look more like a Platonist. And, she did say some things which sound a bit subjective, as if man is creating reality rather than discovering it. She said, “Man is the measure, epistemologically—not metaphysically. In regard to human knowledge, man has to be the measure, since he has to bring all things into the realm of the humanly knowable.” This makes Rand sound a lot like Sartre.
Still, I maintain that objectivism means that existence is primary. It would exist even if humans did not. Human nature would exist just as sound exists even when nobody is there to hear it. Gravity exists even if nothing falls. Objective things exist prior to the subjects which perceive them and act on them, but it seems many objectivists, perhaps even Rand, herself, don’t know this.
Robert Bedinotto came on to support these objectivists. He said:
It's abundantly clear that Nick won't actually read or cite the passages in Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (chapter on "Definitions") which resolve the issue of what she did and didn't believe. He continues to simply assert things about her views, or cite interpreters of her words, rather than her own WORDS.
It is also abundantly clear from his use of the term "objective" that he doesn't have a clue as to the distinctive way in which Rand used that term, why she did, and how she differentiated "objective" from "intrinsic" and "subjective." He keeps interpreting Rand's use of the term "objective" concepts in the conventional sense, i.e., as what she would call "intrinsic" -- a position she rejects. |
|
Well, I cited as many relevant passages as he and anyone else did. Since she did contradict herself a lot, quoting her doesn’t always help. She also provides her own loaded definitions of certain terms, like “nominalism,” and then disclaims any affiliation with them. And, she misrepresents Aristotle’s position. (He actually did mean for the law of identity to be epistemological, not metaphysical.)
Here is what Rand said about Aristotle in ITOE:
| The “moderate realists,” whose ancestor (unfortunately) is Aristotle, who hold that abstractions exist in reality, but they exist only in concretes, in the form of metaphysical essences, and that our concepts refer to these essences. |
|
Here is what more credible philosophers say:
| Ultimate knowledge may be derived from experience though the process of abstraction (as it is in Aristotle's philosophy). Such knowledge is only indirectly essential (absolute), because it is necessarily contingent upon the abstractive process itself which is, in turn, a secondary manifestation of prior sense-perceptual experience. Such knowledge is, then, necessarily mediated by personal awareness. |
|
Aristotle’s position, according to this, is actually a sophisticated nominalist position. Rand’s position seems more like Plato’s position, that knowledge pre-exists us and must be discovered, matched up with the facts of reality.
Again, let me repeat a paragraph which works well as a summary: I maintain that objectivism means that existence is primary. It would exist even if humans did not. Human nature would exist just as sound exists even when nobody is there to hear it. Gravity exists even if nothing falls. Objective things exist prior to the subjects which perceive them and act on them, but it seems many objectivists, perhaps even Rand, herself, don’t know this.
(Remember, this is what I contend “Objectivism” means. It is not my Neo-Objectivism.)
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
01-24-2007, 11:31 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Could I get some feedback on the post above? Do you agree with me or those with whom I disagree? Do you have any thoughts on the issue of what Objectivism means? Is it important?
Am I being a heretic for arguing with Mr. Bedinotto?
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2007, 3:24 PM
|
Mr Squiggle
Joined on 04-04-2007
Posts 35
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Nick
I agree with most of what you have said above. For existence to be objective, it must exist prior to man's knowledge of it.
Not having read all of the original discussions it is hard to follow the exact point of what the other objectivists were saying. It strikes me, however, that when they are referring to 'units' (which is a very bad choice of word on their part) they are actually referring to concepts rather than real entities in the world. If that is true, it might explain the disagreement between you because concepts (i.e. instances, referents, abstracts) are a product of consciousness but they are also dependent on the real world - accordingly they could be said to have existence in the way the mind interacts with the real world.
Does this make sense?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-02-2007, 9:32 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
Existence exists.
The axiom contains no conditions. The axiom contains no qualifications. The axiom does not relate existence to anything.
It certainly does not seem to me to suggest that existence is dependent on anything.
It seems to me that any formulation that says that sometimes existence does not exist is contrary to this axiom. If existence is created by perception, then sometimes it does not exist.
I'm not sure that is what your correspondents mean to say, Nick, but I agree that if they do mean that, their meaning is inconsistent with the core axiom of Rand.
In any case, I'm sure part of what they mean can be read as a meta-message: 'you are not part of our cool gang.' Since they deny that instinct-based motivations like that are operative in them, they have a hard time 'handling' them. ;)
I do think you mispoke regarding 'units,' though. Rand's 'units' are mental concepts. They tie to reality, and are not arbitrary, but they are concepts.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-06-2007, 10:43 PM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
I've been reading up a little on 'universals,' since they seemed at the heart of the contretemps, here. This page gives a sort of regular school philosophical treatment. The authors treatment of conceptualists comes last, and he seems rther dismissive of them, but I think that view, on the face of it, makes more sense than the others described. It does seem fair to call Rand a conceptualist.
Anyway Nick, at the beginning of message one here, you speak of "universals, like an entity’s nature or essence...." It seems to me that while universals may describe an entitie's nature or essence, that's not the important thing about them. The important thing is that they are commonalities that describe things about more than one entity, like the redness noted in lots and lots of apples. They are 'universals' because they can apply to an arbitrairily large number of entities.
There is argument about how things like 'redness' can be said to exist. Intuitively, they are as real as apples, but they don't seem to exist in the same way apples do. Realists say they simply (or not so simply, if you're Plato) exist, as much a part of reality as apples and cherries and rubies. Nominalists say they aren't part of reality, they are inventions of the mind. Conceptualists say they are mental creations that correspond to the reality of many entities, a third way that is unsatisfying to the other schools, of course, but seems to make sense to me.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2007, 12:52 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
As we know now, through science, color is not something that exists in objects. It is in the way our senses work in perceiving objects.
My interest in universals is included in my post on Abalard, that there is an essence of humaness such that a human in Asia is just as human as I am or any human in any other part of the world. Our essence is in the cookie dough, not just the form.
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-07-2007, 1:19 AM
|
DonQuixote99
Joined on 04-28-2007
sw Ohio
Posts 75
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
| As we know now, through science, color is not something that exists in
objects. It is in the way our senses work in perceiving objects. |
|
True enough, but if we drill down to universals treating the physics of surfaces and reflected light, the problems remain the same. I was keeping it simple.
I'll look for your other post.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2007, 4:04 AM
|
dv8nxs
Joined on 05-16-2007
Posts 12
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
...indeed. [pause...irony...continue]
For whatever it may be worth, I have been observing for the last 20 years that many attempt to employ "Objectivist rhetoric" for the express purpose of "sounding" rational. [whatever they think that means]
Though much hair splitting goes on regarding semantics few appear to actually hold "Objectivism" as their "actual" position.
Miss Rands works are:
MISS RANDS WORKS. PERIOD.
Not to be "added to" or "expanded on" by ANYONE.
Why?: OBJECTIVE FACT: OBJECTIVISM IS THE PRODUCT OF MISS RANDS MIND. [ca ching$$$ dig?]
Her philosophical work was a means to an end: She authored novels which required that she had some kind of system to create archetypal abstracted characters.
example of what happened the last time I stuck my toe in, ahem, "objectivist" turf:
Years ago I noticed that the foundation of most questions regarding the mind eventually get back to the "free will" issue.
[which subsumes/includes other problems having to do with "mindness", perception, interiority vs exteriority etc]
I brought this up on an "objectivist" board years ago by the question: if causality is "true" how can there be free will?
[yes, I know the arguments for and against in philosophical terms and they ALL have serious problems because the answer must be existential, NOT THEORETICAL/SYLLOGISTIC.]
Someone replied: "do you mean "strict causality"?..."[is there another kind?]
...in any-case, I have noticed that, um, "objectivists" sure do like to use terms including "it seems to me", "I believe", "we hold" etc and find it disturbing: people are co-opting a p.o.v that really isn't the one they live by: or think with.
Nothing else explains all of the fragmentation, or how folks can SELL INSTRUCTION TO MISS RANDS MINDSET with a straight face. [ca ching$$$] Or the folks playing games to "win a position" on the gravy train via suckin up or showing....um...superBADASS-HyperionicOrgazmatronikMondoBrainicJizzFizz.....please.....just stop it...all of you...just stop.
The amazing thing about miss rand: SHE LEFT A BODY OF WORK THAT SPEAKS FOR ITSELF AND SHE NAMED THE CONCEPTUAL BASIS OF HER POV: OBJECTIVISM.
Is it bad form to point at the [ahem] "second handers" and call them for what they are: Bootleggers and hangers on with delusions of grandeur?
Has a SINGLE ONE OF ANY OF THESE FOLKS CONTRIBUTED ANYTHING ORIGINAL THAT DID NOT START AS A CRUMB ON RANDS PLATE? [yes, I know: "the teleological non-concept yada yada, and then there is the brilliant, um "D.I.M." um "theory" by her, um, "intellectual heir" [doh!]...then meanwhile her pals [brandonettes] are runnin around kissin and telling all the way to the bank and the fans lick their chops and take sides.....yuk if ya ask me [even if ya don't]
For all of the pseudo intellectual word-smithing and factional drama I never see essays remarking on the likes of Tesla, John Lautner, Bruce Lee, Miles Davis, Michael Jackson, Plasma Cosmology, etc....but I sure do see a lot of pro govt @zz kissin and pro zionism? what's up wif dat az they would say in the, um, hood....
Objectivists don't seem to be willing refute the silliness of quantum physics etc....
REALLY FOLKS...Miss rand did her job: can everyone stop riding her jock and do something original and exemplary for a change....
so please: no, um, dudleys, or marys or yarons Neo-objectivism....really....just don't.
call it: MY OWN DAMN POINT OF VIEW: WRITE A BOOK, MAKE A WEBSITE, STAND ON THE CORNER--WHATEVER...leave the cool dead russian lady alone.....riding other folks jocks is....just tacky.....and beatin up dead old ladies while their former friends and lovers make $$$ off of her is BEYOND gross.....
yes...yes....i am a fool throwing rocks into the void...or was it casting pearls?
who is john galt? [bah da bump!]
sorry Ayn.....you and your work deserve better....it would seem you had gotten lost in a circle opportunistic fans pretending to be equals when they were only parasites of the worst kind.....
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2007, 5:46 AM
|
dv8nxs
Joined on 05-16-2007
Posts 12
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
 NickOtani wrote: | |
"we, Nick?"
| NickOtani wrote: | |
"we" claiming proofs "we" didn't do the work to discover?
| NickOtani wrote: | | color is not something that exists in objects. |
|
[you don't say? ]| NickOtani wrote: | | It is in the way our senses work in perceiving objects. |
|
[ok...i get it.....objects don't absorb certain wavelengths and reflect/refract others....and you are penalizing human vision for only having sensitivity to the most useful local ranges of the waveform called light and converting the sensation "waveform of a particular kind" into the concept/color orange]
| NickOtani wrote: | | My interest in universals is included in my post on Abalard, that there is an essence of humaness |
|
[show me show me...i want some human essence too....no 3]| NickOtani wrote: | | such that a human in Asia is just as human as I am or any human in any other part of the world. |
|
[what about the bronx?...or washington....would you could you with a fox? wow! just wow!!! that's deep man...blowin my mind...4 real yo!...wow...]
| NickOtani wrote: | | Our essence is in the cookie dough, |
|
[seriouslly, man....you didn't just say that....right? and when we bake up we becomes peoples nick? with human essences and stuff?]
| NickOtani wrote: | |
[for real yo?....nnnaaaww you jivin me right?...]
| NickOtani wrote: | |
dang...being clever sounds kinda silly sometimes....know what I mean?
bis spater
dv8nxs
[sorry...in time wasting mode for the moment and well, this was pretty silly so I couldn't help myself....I'll shut up and go away now.....sorry for, um, not taking this serious question, um, seriouslly....gotta go --seeyah!]
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2007, 10:02 AM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You put a lot of personality in your writing, dv8nxs. It's okay. We all have our unique styles of communicating.
I'd just like to clarify that I do not consider myself an Objectivist, but I use the word in my philosophy not to be a hanger-on but to honor what I like about Rand's philosophy, even though I don't accept all of it. "Objectivism" as a term, is older than Rand. It was used by Plato. Yes, she adopted the label and became associated with it, but she does not own it, just as Bentham and Mill do not own "Utilitarianism."
Rand's philosophy, according to her, is derived in many ways from her interpretation of Aristotle's philosophy. Does this mean she is a hanger-on to Aristotle's crumbs? Most philosophy's are derived from other philosophies. It doesn't mean there is something wrong with refering to those philosophies. It isn't bothering the origional author or trying to grab a little glory from him or her. It is just starting with a known and refining it.
BTW, if you can't find my post on Abelard, I don't think you are serious about really understanding what I was saying on universals. Your purpose here seems more to ridicule than contribute. Am I wrong?
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2007, 3:01 PM
|
dv8nxs
Joined on 05-16-2007
Posts 12
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
you are correct...I am here to ridicule....
yes, I saw your site.
yes I know she "used" pre-existing concepts.
When she finished there were some new objects....called: HER BOOKS....HER NOVELS
She did NOT GO to ACADEMIA and try to ride ARISTOTLE'S JOCK.
You annoy me....you have not solved the universals issue. [neither have her "heirs"...ahem]
The solution is found in an EXISTENTIAL BIO-ORGANIC DEFINITION OF "CONCEPT"...
The missing link bridge between philosophy and the mind sciences. [to be found in rands measurement omission premise that no one seems to get it seems]
You could EASILY parlay your erudition into one of respect and financial viability without riding the Rand gravy train.
.....jeet kun do?
modal playing in jazz
plasma cosmology in physics
hipping the youngsters to the joys of reason in your own voice, in your own way with you own methods?
meta-megaItellectualblabagge aimed at those who own the keys to the gate is pretty...[be nice] UNFLATTERING....
RAND IS DEAD: LONG LIVE NICK [EARN IT THE OLD FASHIONED WAY FIRST PUHLEEZE]
when ya do I'll be first in line for some of those cookies....til then, JUST STOP....
Don't make a bad thing worse....
get it?
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2007, 3:20 PM
|
TOCadmin
Joined on 08-22-2005
Posts 9
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
Take it easy dv8nxs and keep the personal insults to yourself.
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2007, 3:23 PM
|
dv8nxs
Joined on 05-16-2007
Posts 12
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2007, 3:32 PM
|
dv8nxs
Joined on 05-16-2007
Posts 12
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
last I sawI paid a potential future compliment to my opponent.
it's your house and your rules: i do not pretend otherwise.
reason is not the ethic here.
Apparentlly anyone can spout nonsense and as long as it retains a sense of randiose vernacular the game is fine...
Thanks, But I'll take the NO option...
2+2 is not 79
tolerance is a virtue yes?
dig?
beat it
or ditch me.
reality does not require referees
I have challenged bogus nonsense and suppose my challenge will be met with complete annulment or silence...[or my personal favorite: the tangent to change the subject and call the boss]
anyways....
thank you Ayn
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
05-16-2007, 4:17 PM
|
NickOtani
Joined on 04-21-2006
Posts 323
|
Re: Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|
|
|
I don't feel I've been insulted. I've been severly criticized, but that's okay. People have a right to disagree with me or even not to like me.
I'm not sure this TOCadmin is real. He or she could be another manifestation of you, for all I know. I don't think the TOCadmins are doing a great job here. It's not hard to block folks like humptidumpty and all his manifestations and lock down that thread on homosexuality and get rid of all the unproductive posts, yet this hasn't been done. It really doesn't seem like anyone from the TOC really monitors this board at all. When is the last time Ed Hudgins or Benidito have posted here? David Kelley has never posted here. William Thomas has never posted here. Why don't they care more?
bis bald,
Nick
|
|
|
|
|
Report
|
|
|
|
|
|
Page 1 of 2 (20 items)
|
1 2 > |
|
|
|
The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Objectivists who don't know what "Objectivism" means
|
|
|
|