Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content count

    4840
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    89

Eiuol last won the day on July 10

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location
    NJ

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewJersey
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Recent Profile Visitors

21873 profile views
  1. Eiuol

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    Just some ideas to consider. You can can cause injustices by acting improperly towards people. This can easily occur voluntarily. Sure, there are obvious breaches when you initiate force. But there are subtle ones with our day-to-day actions. A breach may go on when you do negative self talk (i.e. "I'm the worst writer ever, I should just about every short story I've ever written"; "I'm born bad and nothing can ever fix that"), or if you voluntarily do something like go to Thanksgiving with family members that are actually pretty bad people. In these cases, you are often the breach to yourself. But at the very least, there is not always a breach if other people gain (approximately equal in terms of their personal perspectives) benefit. A breach would occur if you ignore or avoid the idea that an actor should be the beneficiary.
  2. Eiuol

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    I don't think there's a diplomatic way to say this: given the nature of the discussion and the types of things Merlin decided to focus on, no, it doesn't sound like it's worth my money to get a hold of the complete paper. But I could be wrong - the outline could demonstrate that there are good points that really makes me inclined to go out and read his full argument. That's why I suggested it - he could make the rest of us inclined to take his points seriously. I'm glad you mentioned though that it's odd I wouldn't subscribe to any related journal. I don't have any excuse for that. Since we're speaking so much about values, it is important to me to understand various academic-level discussions about Objectivism. I should at least subscribe to JARS. That's a matter of style. I don't think that type of rigor is necessary for discussion forums. I am quite able to provide exact quotes for others to see, making a case that would satisfy academic counterarguments. But I'm not trying to do that here. It's important to me to speak in a conversational manner on forums and anything else public. To do this, I rely on my memory of what I've read, and I reread things periodically to make sure I'm not misremembering things. This is how the ancient Romans did it before there were books you could cite whenever you want. I'm fine that you call the style beer talk (I'd call it conversational), but I think you underestimate the value or purpose of it. When and if I write papers, I'm careful to include citations and quotes. EDIT: I forgot to add. Rand herself rarely quotes. On occasion she will. But for the most part I think she relies on her memory of what she has read (and at times she will make mistakes because of this when criticizing other philosophers). For her audience and the type of person she wants to talk to, I think this is a very good thing.
  3. Eiuol

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    You usually can share something about your manuscript, no? If not, why don't you outline the paper if you want to talk about it? We could grant you that maybe this is an instance where (as absurd as your claim about "literalness", and that you've ignored all arguments that you are the one adding more than is already there) Rand has contradicted herself compared to the rest of her writing. But you do seem to have a dramatic misunderstanding of things she has written. Even if we discard that quote completely as if she never said it, you seem to be saying that Rand in her written words (as opposed to what we would like the words to me) says that other people should gain *no* benefit. This doesn't make much sense.
  4. Eiuol

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    ... By reading comprehension? I don't know what you are expecting me to say. No one seems to understand why you think that in one quote that the meaning of the sentence actively excluded the benefit of other people rather than simply not mentioning the benefit of other people that may go on. And throughout this whole thread I even talked about how you could maintain that you as an individual must gain the most benefit without also implying that the benefit of others must be minimized or zero. If you think 2046 was attempting an ad hominem argument and failed, it's probably because he wasn't even attempting one. The point he was making is that not mentioning something doesn't mean someone was saying anything about the excluded stuff. If you want a complete literal explanation, you should not introduce added subjects... Anyway, if you link your paper here, maybe I would take the time to look over and offer a more complete criticism of you. I'm hoping that your criticism of Rand's egoism isn't based on this one quote.
  5. Eiuol

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    You've been asked in several different ways how that quote excludes other people from gaining *any* benefit. You still haven't answered that. Your "literal" interpretation wasn't literal at all. Just because other people are excluded from the subject of a sentence doesn't mean the sentence is saying anything about those excluded people.
  6. Eiuol

    What is 'reason'?

    Why not? Would you be more specific? You'd be right to say that it's incomplete, or that a fully fledged theory needs more to it, but this doesn't invalidate what is there. I would like to see a detailed step-by-step account from an Objectivist academic as well, but the lack of one doesn't mean that the sketch given by Rand in ITOE can't be used. On top of that, not even Rand thought her theory of concepts was complete. Take this quote from Peikoff: "Ayn Rand regarded her theory of concepts as proved, but not as completed. There are, she thought, important similarities between concepts and mathematics still to be identified; and there is much to be learned about man’s mind by a proper study of man’s brain and nervous system. In her last years, Miss Rand was interested in following up on these ideas—in relating the field of conceptualization to two others: higher mathematics and neurology. Her ultimate goal was to integrate in one theory the branch of philosophy that studies man’s cognitive faculty with the science that reveals its essential method and the science that studies its physical organs. (109)" [My secondary source: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?/topic/24356-from-integrity-to-calculus/) I don't really see how your reply has much to do with the OP's question anyway. These aren't epistemological theories per se. You can't say "they are the way to go", especially because they aren't excluded from Objectivist epistemology. Or any theory that takes advantage of reason for that matter. If you say it as if these are the only valid options, it makes a sound like you will not have any knowledge until you learn formal logic and probability theory. They aren't things people do naturally. You would still need to explain basic concepts like 'dog', and how children can have knowledge of that concept without using formal logic.
  7. Eiuol

    What does 'valid' mean?

    It's just a very bad explanation of why the natives didn't make a huge deal about noticing the ships on the horizon. It is not a postmodern thing either, the explorers themselves thought that. I doubt anyone believes it though. It is possible for something to pass by and you fail to notice completely as if it were invisible. It can happen when your attention is consumed by one activity and you subconsciously filter out excess information. It has nothing to do with having knowledge about the thing you didn't notice. I think the point that matters is that anyone can notice anything as long as they are focusing their attention.
  8. Eiuol

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    I didn't mean to make it seem like you were interfering with anything. You could argue about short-term actions benefiting another person more than yourself. But the type of self we are thinking about is the entirety of life, not just portions of it. That's not a problem though, since the concern for Rand is life in a biological sense. We don't want to talk about benefit separate from who actually reaps the benefits. In terms of only consequences, sure, there isn't anything "wrong" with that. I want to emphasize the psychological benefits though. The intentions and objectives of your actions. Should you smile at people with no intent to affect their mood? Should you not keep in mind that one positive interaction brings about more positive interactions, which would help your life overall? I'm saying that you ought to be aware and mindful of all your actions. You should especially be mindful of how your actions affect people positively. And more than that, since the reason you even think about it is how your life would be better off. If you keep that mentality, you put yourself first. You are of your own top importance, and all things you do involves being mindful of how your life will be affected. I don't mean you have to be a utility calculator and every moment in your life. Even still, your mind must be self-oriented at all times, including where the lion's share of value goes. Not necessarily in words, but with the sense that everything is going well. (To emphasize, value in terms of your own perspective and angle.) No, Rand never really used the word mindful. But she did speak a great deal about reason. Reason helps us recognize how things are, and even how things could be. We should use reason to be aware of anything pertaining to our lives. Reason helps to assure that you gain benefits rather than leaving it up to chance events you can't plan for like earthquakes and volcanoes, or serial killers, or injustices.
  9. Eiuol

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    SL, I don't understand why you click "Like" on a comment that just says he doesn't think I provided him with a good reason. The vendetta you have against me is very strange. I agree. I wasn't arguing about the meaning of the quote in the first page though. We were discussing what it means to be the primary beneficiary (and if our respective benefits can be measured objectively).
  10. Eiuol

    OCON 2018

    Not exactly. I didn't have any particular issue with him in the earlier portions. He wasn't trying to be a philosopher, mostly just discussing ideas relevant to his professional expertise. But when he was getting into a discussion of objectivity, notions of truth, it turned into a lot of jargon that wouldn't even resemble day-to-day discussion, and not even the jargon a philosopher uses. Brook isn't a philosopher himself either, and offered some ideas, but he doesn't try to talk beyond his expertise. You're right, it should be a discussion, not some kind of lecture. But that's how Peterson talked. He was talking as if it were a lecture. There are plenty of people available who are part of ongoing intellectual trends. Why Peterson specifically? Forget if he's right or wrong, his importance has been vastly inflated. From what I can tell, it's just because Rubin asked to bring Peterson. I don't know if it's true, but they already know each other.
  11. Eiuol

    OCON 2018

    It's fine if he disagrees. But there are much better options than a psychologist trying to talk as if he were a philosopher and ends up saying a whole lot of nothing. He was basically talking to himself the whole time - a very opaque way of speaking that requires having already studied other things he has said. I'm fine when he talks about his knowledge gained as a practicing therapist, as he did with his recent book, but past that... If he had good counter arguments, or spoke clearly, I'd have a different opinion. In other words, I don't know what he was supposed to bring to the table.
  12. Eiuol

    OCON 2018

    When he talks about philosophy, he says a whole lot in order to say nothing at all. "They're some other form of truth". 1:04:00 - 1:05:35. It sounds like he's trying to be profound, but doesn't have a point. It's unfortunate he was there. He only muddied the discussion. Salmieri was very articulate and brought clarity.
  13. It can be anything, even the old belief. That's not evasion. To be exact, it's probably not repression, but acknowledging the fact they were shot but then focusing on more important things at the moment. The fallacy of logical omniscience is not a type of evasion. It's accusing someone of evasion or bad reasoning, but wrongly. Just because we both know that Socrates is a man, doesn't mean we both know that Socrates is mortal. The fallacy would be that I say you're evading because you claim you don't know that Socrates is mortal, despite knowing Socrates is a man. It might make more sense actually to call it a cognitive bias. Logical omniscience is the idea that if you know A, it also implies that you know everything that follows from A.
  14. Should know, in the sense that they deny knowing despite knowing, or refuse to integrate their knowledge despite the knowledge that they could. I don't mean should, as in "you should know how to do calculus, it's too bad no one taught you ". What you should take the time to learn is a separate issue. Fair enough. I fixed up my explanation to reflect my agreement. I think that happens because a lot of people still think in Freudian terms. There is no reason to think that there is a type of hidden denial, hiding away from our awareness. You could have muddled thinking, or don't take the time to focus, but neither is hidden. Or it means they have doubts because they don't know how you integrated that into a new idea. There's a reason that professors teach classes even in PhD programs. It's one thing to learn a whole lot of facts from a lot of books on your own, but you need to go to school to learn the standards necessary to be an expert. If someone has doubts, it's safe to say that they really do. You might just need to elaborate, or ask them what they're confused about.
  15. Based on the OP that I wrote, I'm saying that failing to make a logical connection does not always mean the cause is evasion. Evasion is a deliberate action, by the way, I don't mean that overlooking some facts counts. I mean the denial of facts after having already come to the conclusion that "Socrates is mortal". There is no such thing as accidental evasion.
×