geoff27

Yes, but that's a situation that seems specifically designed to trick someone into thinking there's no sound. Show someone a speaker (which they are used to being an object that produces sound), have it produce that inaudible-to-humans wave, and of course that person willl say there's no sound. It's like taking a piece of translucent, blue-colored film, laying it over something yellow, and then asking someone else, "Is this object green?" It appears green, but the object is actually blue, you're just fooling them based on what they think you mean. What I mean is, no one in their right mind would return a dog-whistle to the store where they bought it and demand a refund on the grounds that "It doesn't work-- I couldn't hear any sound come out of it!" I should probably bow out of this discussion by just saying what was suggested to me earlier: It's not important to me to make these distinctions.

Aha. With that, I think you got closer to the heart of the matter (for me, anyway). I suppose what I'm disagreeing with is the necessity for a definition of the concept of acoustic waves that can be sensed by human (or animal?) ears. There can certainly be acoustic waves that we can't hear. As far as a sound outside of our range of hearing, I would simply say that "it was a sound, but I couldn't hear it," like if someone blows a dog whistle. It might be convenient to say that a dog whistle is silent, that it makes no sound, but that's technically innaccurate, and I don't mind saying that there are sounds that I'm just incapable, as a human with functional ears, of hearing. In other words, is it just the characteristic of "being outside human hearing range" that makes a sound no longer a "sound?" That's what I would disagree with. I believe that "sounds" are any acoustic waves that are measurable or detectable by any means we have at our disposal, including scientific equipment. Someone might very well be able to prove that definition inaccurate or contradictory to something else I've said that was essential to that definition, but for now I'll stick with that.

The deaf person doesn't hear the sound because of a deficiency in his process/mechanism that would otherwise let him hear it. That doesn't change the fact that the sound was made, though. So yes, when we hear a sound, to us it's a sensation. But objectively, it's still a sound; the air still would've been pushed at a certain frequency even if we weren't there to have the sensation. I know very little about the nature of dreams, so I can't comment much on sensory stimuli within them... other than to say that I'd assume such stimuli is "all in your head." As in, right now I'm thinking of my favorite song, but the song isn't actually being played in my vicinity at the moment. I'm not actually "hearing" the notes, I'm just remembering them. Maybe sounds, sights, etc. in dreams work the same way? You said, "Because hearing is a process not a thing, and soundwaves (= sound in your defintion afaik) exist apart from humans. This leaves us without a term to describe the thing which we actually experience when we hear something." I would disagree. An event (a tree hitting the ground) pushes the air in waves towards our ears at a certain frequency, making a sound. Our ears then hear the sound, and we experience a sensation. It appears to me that there are already enough words to describe and define every step of the process of a human hearing a sound, and that there's no need for confusion over the word "sound" sometimes including a human's perception and sometimes not. Similarly, I don't understand the need for a single term to describe the process of hearing, if the term "heard" is for some reason inadequate. I "ate" some food, I "saw" or even "witnessed" a car accident, and I "heard" a sound. Those are all processes. Edited to add: Perhaps, rather than needing a specific word to describe hearing a sound that wasn't actually made, as in a dream, etc, the context can just be acknowledged instead. Like if you're telling a friend about a dream you had, and you say, "So then I heard a wolf howling in the distance," your friend (it can be assumed) understands that a wolf was not actually howling in the distance, making soundwaves that travelled to your ears while you slept in bed.

My answer to that question, assuming we can work from Dictionary.com's definition of phenomenological as "A philosophy or method of inquiry based on the premise that reality consists of objects and events as they are perceived or understood in human consciousness and not of anything independent of human consciousness.", would be that I don't describe phenomenological sound, as such a thing appears to be incompatible with my belief in the primacy of existence. I don't talk about "phenomenological sound" the same way I don't talk about the entire world disappearing every time I go to sleep. By "phenomenological sound," do you mean, "sound that I am hearing?" Why can't such a thing still simply be "sound," and what I'm doing is "hearing it," the same way I see light, and feel heat? In other words, how does my hearing the sound change anything about it? The sound can be made, and I can hear it, and I can even judge it based on my own values and experiences and decide if I like it (like music), or if it signals something important (like a fire alarm), etc., but I still haven't changed the nature of it simply by hearing it. I'll readly admit that it's certainly possible I'm missing some huge, important point here.

I think I agree with this. (Not that consciousness makes sound "sound," but that the answer to the question is often a good indicator of the answerer's epistemology.) I don't understand the point of the word/concept "sound" requiring a human ear hearing the vibrations, when the word/concept "hearing" already covers that nicely. Am I supposed to bow to those who define sound as "a human ear hearing vibrations" simply because there are more of them than people who define "round" as "dark purple?" When I hear a sound, I hear a sound. I don't simply "sound." I don't go to a concert and "sound" the music. Sound is the thing (vibrations in the air) that my sense of hearing experiences. Things can make sounds, and people, animals, etc, can hear the sounds. This is one of the oddest semantic arguments I've ever seen. Maybe I'm looking at it from an overly simplistic point of view, but... I have to admit I'm surprised to see a bunch of Objectivists actually debating the tree-falling question. Like TomL, I've never, ever had a need to define "sound" as requiring an ear to hear it. I love Nxixcxk's answer to the question, though.

When a tree falls in a forest and no one is there to hear it, does its impact with the ground produce vibrations in the air somewhere in the 20hz-20khz range? Yes; Absolutely everything we know about trees, the ground, and sounds indicates that it would. How is there even any debate over this? Your professor can say that it can be argued all day when people have different definitions for "sound," but then, by that standard, so can anything. Let's debate: Is the Earth round? I say no, because I define "round" as "dark purple." Discussion is then impossible. The only way for the tree-falling question to be debated is if one side of the debate insists that a falling tree's impact with the ground does not produce vibrations in the air with frequencies in the 20hz-20khz range... in which case the burden of proving so would be on that person, and good luck to them. I always thought that the "if a tree falls..." question was usually brought up in a philosophical context, rather than a scientific one, or as a way to deliberately trick/confuse people with semantics, as some of the responses here seem to indicate. By this I mean, when someone asks that question, their intention is usually to inspire a debate between the primacy of consciousness vs. the primacy of existence. As we know, primacy of existence wins.

Why do those comments necessarily constitute "bashing," as opposed to honest criticism? Is it necessarily impossible for a rational human being with enlightened self-interest in mind to criticise a philosopher for what might appear to be a deviation from the philosophy she's created and otherwise practices? Or is it just necessarily impossible to do so on these boards?

Me, neither! I was never aware of any such connection between the two. (I've also gotta agree that that picture is the only redeeming part of the article.)

Heh. The only that disappoints me in this case is when people add fuel to one or more negative Objectivist stereotypes. Right, but the specific instance we're talking about involves certain details (Rand being religious, canonized as a saint, etc.). It's easy to be ludicrous without being funny-- if the piece had described Rand as the seventeenth President of the United States, it would only have been ludicrous, because it's limited to simply being untrue. I admit that the piece is hardly a laugh riot... but it's also not just a collection of random, unrelated statements. The statements it contains are assembled deliberately to give a picture of her life that is utterly contrary to reality, very likely with the intention to amuse anyone familiar with the actual facts. If it said that she was the 17th President, as well as the inventory of the cotton mill, as well as the author of "Travels with Charley," it would simply be ludicrous, with even less potential for humor than it already has.

Given the quasi-dogmatic tone that seems to be creeping into these forums lately, this might get me banned (or at least scolded!), but I'd like to remark upon the strangely grim of the reactions to this piece. I'm with y_feldblum on this. I consider myself pretty sensitive when it comes to attacks on Ayn Rand's philosophy OR on her character, and usually pretty quick to defend either to the best of my knowledge and/or ability, but this piece did not strike the immediate, negative chord with me that it apparently did with many of you. I read it, chuckled to myself, and then dismissed it, confident that it was written by someone with at least a basic understanding of Rand's philosophy who wanted to write something absurd and silly, contrary to reality, the target audience of which would be people with a similar knowledge of Rand and her writing. Most importantly: Do I take ideas seriously? Certainly-- but only the ones that are based in reality! The ones that aren't, such as "elephants can fly, they just choose not to," are baseless, and so I don't pay attention to them unless they are presented in a context that is intended to be humorous (a joke, or satire, or parody). I believe that this piece was intended to be humorous, given the many references to Rand being heavily religious, etc. Things that, as y_feldblum has pointed out, are ludicrous to read if one has any knowledge of Rand at all. It's a far, far cry from something that misrepresents her ideas out of ignorance, or out of maliciousness (things I see much more often than I'd like, and are much more deserving of such indignation), and so I'm somewhat mystified and disappointed by the grave scorn being heaped upon this ultimately harmless (if silly) piece of writing.

I have to admit to being somewhat skeptical that a forced (or quasi-forced) sex act can be looked by any rational person under any circumstance at as an act of self-defense without severely perverting the meaning of the term "self-defense." Comparing it to the U.S. post-9/11 military action in Afghanistan is especially absurd, at least to my understanding.

I should have been clearer in my meaning, I apologize. Don't get me wrong, Tryptonique-- I'm with you 100% on the idea that mass production doesn't automatically equate to low quality. I used the term "mass production" in the same sense that I believed (though I could certainly be wrong) minorsevenflat5 used it, to mean something along the lines of a Britney/Xtina/Backstreet Boys kind of thing. I don't mean that even their music is completely devoid of any quality whatsoever, but my point is that I don't think it's unreasonable to posit that such music is made primarily to be consumed in mass quantities by people with money to spend, as opposed to break new musical ground, introduce new and challenging ideas, build on old ones, or even do much else of anything other then be "dance-able" to and/or to be used as marketing tools to sell products other than music (Pepsi, whatever). Not that I even have a problem with any of that! My only problem is people lumping ALL of the artists in a given genre into the lowest common denominator and making generalizations based on that. I'm not knocking the capitalist system, not at all. I'm knocking the idea that ALL rock/pop music is necessarily of the same quality as Britney, etc. For example, Brian Wilson/the Beach Boys made great, great, great pop music, AND it was mass produced, and I think that's absolutely swell in every way. That Ray Vernagus/Bowzer quote you provided is extremely eloquent, and I agree totally.

At first glance, it would appear you are ascribing an objective value to rock music (simple music for ass-chasing philistines) based on your own personal disinterest in it. Not all pop/rock/hiphop is mass produced. Perhaps the bit that you happen to be exposed to is, but for every empty-headed major-label plantinum-record-selling mega act, there are dozens of bands in bars, basements, and clubs playing rock music primarily because they enjoy doing it. They enjoy writing it, they enjoy working on it, and they enjoy playing it for themselves and for others. I've never had trouble acknowledging the skill, talent, and incredibly hard work that goes into composing classical music. I absolutely do acknowledge all of those things, and yet I am just about as indifferent to listening to classical music as one can be. It's just not my cup of tea. It doesn't stir my emotions the way you claim it stirs yours. Am I to understand that because I identify much more closely with rock music and derive a great deal of happiness from listening to and playing it, I am therefore a simpleminded philistine?

Fair enough, Thoyd Loki. If I came across as overly defensive or hostile, I apologise. I agree: it is certainly difficult to fully grasp a person's character through a few message board posts (not that that's news to anyone, but nevertheless, it's good to keep in mind... occasionally you'll run into people who are presumptuous enough to think they can figure you out from just a few paragraphs!). That said, "Back in Black" is a great record, and 'Hell's Bells' is a fantastic "Side one, track one" album-opener, as they would say in "High Fidelity."

It would seem that the point I failed to make clearly was that I don't use alcohol as a tool to get me through confrontations, or to do anything else for that matter but enjoy myself. That is, I don't purposefully say, "I'm gonna drain this glass, and then I'll be able to debate my wacky Democrat friend." It's simply something I noticed --a rather well-known and obvious effect of alcohol, actually-- that I tend to handle confrontations more easily when drinking. "Well, duh" would be a perfectly appropriate reply to that statement. In this particular case, I value maintaining a friendship (with someone who shares tons of my interests, political views being the exception) over confronting him and letting myself get angry or upset. I don't think that's terrible, or immoral, or worthy of psychological examination. I understand perfectly what you're saying about problems building up over time, etc. I just don't think this situation falls into that category. To put it bluntly... I've got my sh*t together, thanks in large part to Objectivism and the mental work I do in trying to integrate it into my life. That having been said, I agree with GoodOrigamiMan when he says that alcohol is "a healthy and enjoyable thing when done in moderation." As an aside, I'll mention that I also listen to quite a lot of loud rock and punk music, and enjoy watching violent horror movies... hobbies and interests that unfortunately confound many Objectivists. What can I say? Do such things automatically and axiomatically reflect in every instance a negative or disturbed sense of life? To some, the answer is unequivocally "yes." As far as I'm concerned, though, that's such a superficial application of Objectivist principles as to render worthless to me the opinions of those who denounce such hobbies on those grounds. Listening to classical music and watching science documentaries aren't prerequisites for having a healthy sense of life, and neither is abstaining completely from alcohol on the grounds that anything that impairs to any degree a person's otherwise lightning-quick mental processes is to be avoided at all costs. I'll quote GoodOrigamiMan again: "It's the life that makes the alcohol good - not the other way around." Beautifully said. (OK, so that was more of a tangent than an aside. I said it all as someone who in the past was very easily turned off by other students of Objectivism when they'd preach to others about what one can and can't enjoy if one wants to lead a rational life. I apologise for diverging somewhat from the topic.)