Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content count

    4342
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. Doesn't this simply mean that you are questioning their premises? If you reject a premise, or use different premises, or find new premises, you will end up somewhere different than either one. Your percentages are rather arbitrary, quantifying how a philosophy differs from another can't be done by adding up related concepts. You seem to be using Rand's theory of as a reason or basis to justify quantification. I think you get concept formation wrong and fail to see it as a creative process, making concept formation additive instead. The problem is, additive mixing doesn't get you anywhere new. Take this: " C (TC) = C (S + P + C) " This is missing something; a theory of concepts (or any concept) is more than the sum of its constituent concepts. The act of integration on C(S + P + C) is adding those together and -doing- something. Analogously, you don't bake a cake by mixing the ingredients in a bowl. You also need heat in order to chemically alter those ingredients, or get molecules to bond differently with different ways of mixing. A chocolate chip cookie and a chocolate chip scone have nearly identical ingredients. "Integrating" the ingredients includes other processes and methods of baking. So even if they are 10% different as far as initial ingredients, they are quite different (and arguably, they transcend the starting point). Back to concepts: You use something that wasn't there, then get a new concept. Essentially, then, you aren't looking to transcend, you are looking to create new ideas. Transcend is an okay word, as long as you remember that you can't get something new just by attempting new mixtures. TC(C) = I(CS + CP + CC) makes more sense to me. Then the attempt at quantification doesn't work anymore. Converging is fine, but if it's for the wrong reasons or wrong premises, no, there isn't enough room. That doesn't mean I won't talk to a Kantian, I just won't be tolerationist and say "Let's agree to disagree. :)" I'd find out what may be true or of value, or useless. I'm saying the meaning of the words he chose did not suggest a Kantian idea. Where in the video are you referring to? The time - it's a long video. Sorry, I wasn't using analytical as people often mean. I should've explained. By analytic, I mean philosophers that are typically European, mainly about ironing out the nitty-gritty, big on formalization, dry writing style, and largely work in a linear manner. Also, mostly from Kant until Russel. Frege would be a good example, too. My classification here isn't based on a genealogy - from where and/or when ideas arose. I am only looking at style and fundamental premises. I don't use continental as a category. Emerson and Nietzsche would go together for example in my thinking. Rand wouldn't be far from these two, but she'd get her own category as some sort of neo-Aristotelianism and aestheticism. Hegel had a direct and positive impact on Marx, so Marx goes close to Hegel, but his materialism was pretty new, and not much like any other ideas in the entire world before. That lets Marx get a category of his own, albeit close to Hegel. With that explanation, a web of philosophers can be quantified by "nearness" to other philosophers with many comparisons in between. This is far better than the quantification you attempted, which is additive and can only make direct comparisons. As a librarian by profession, I'm a fan of classifications, so it matters to me that you classify as well as possible. Your Kant to Rand comparison is too narrow to be so fruitful. A wider net helps to show what makes Rand unique. Example of a comparison, albeit focused on influence instead: http://dailynous.com/2017/01/11/visualization-influence-history-philosophy/ https://kumu.io/GOliveira/philosophers-web#map-b9Ts7W5r What's mat8? I mean, I like Nietzsche almost as much as Rand (I like Rand more), but I doubt it's for any reason you suspect.
  2. Couldn't we say that -meaning- here refers to an attitude and drive, an identification? This sense of the word meaning is a different concept than the purpose something serves or what something is - apart from one's awareness.
  3. You seem to be seeking a way to describe Rand and Kant in opposing terms and then transcend or synthesize those issues, or seeking to use dialectic method in order to find solutions to problems like Hegel did. But I don't think Kant and Rand are opposites or in a 100% opposing relationship. Their methods of doing philosophy are quite different. Internal and external are issues to Kant and replies Hume's inquiries towards them. For Rand, Hume's problems are non-issues or simple to answer - the important questions are rather concept formation and developing knowledge. Kant is in the analytic tradition (which has its value to be sure), Rand isn't. Rand vs. Plato is more directly comparable. There is no filter to Rand, period. That's the difference. Internal and external are simply different parts of the same process, where internal is either consciousness, or automatic and/or non-conscious. It's not separated or apart from external reality. Quote please - I don't know what grammarian means here. That's what I mean, this is more like Chomsky. I don't see how Kant is more similar to Chomsky. Where? I've seen the debate, I don't think he meant that in a Kantian way. Nah, Nietzsche was more about sense of life and actualization. Post-modernism is its own thing.
  4. Hi Ilya. This point is partly right. Objectivism does emphasize externalism as far as all knowledge, to be knowledge, must be linked to reality and be reduced (traced) to entities at the perceptual level. Objectivist is internalist to the extent that perceptual experience itself is valid to use, and one can make use of internal states. You might be better off avoiding that terminology and saying that internal and external can be linked without a filter in between. This would be like Greek philosophers, as well as some Vedic and Eastern philosophers. Regarding all that except the Copenhagen interpretation, Descartes and Locke probably impacted a lot more than Kant. Kant had some impact but that's just nativism. If anything, Chomsky matters more to all those fields than Kant and is on equal ground as Kant in those fields.
  5. I thought my prior response to you addressed this. The people that provide a real impact on you are people you know, and those that provide a historical contribution or impact. Anything else is mythology. Stories can be of great value and express great ideas, but this isn't genealogy. Perhaps this transitivity applies to people your parents knew but are dead now, there's just no reason to say that the impact on -you- is ancestors no one in your family knew. The bigger point is that each person has to single out values to adopt and evaluate, so the only impact on who one is, is what one chooses to think. That action is all on the individual - "impact" is often a personal evaluation that is subject to error, bias, and even proper recognition. For the factors to choose religion like Islam, the great-great-granddad converting to Islam only had an impact on the culture he was part of or people around him like his kids. That choice maybe led him to send his kids to a mosque. Going to the mosque may have rationally convinced those kids to be Muslim. Then they send their kids, and so on. What is actually having the impact is the philosophy, and the ideas a culture promotes and people accept. The transitivity only works if it includes some sort of deification, where mythology is reified AND the people involved believe that their ancestors had a special role by being ancestors. We can only speak of being a product of X in the sense of unchosen and genetic factors. My having brown eyes is a product of genetics. My existing is a product of an ancestor from Bohemia coming to the US. Who I choose to be is all me - my context of the particulars around is set by the unchosen and the people I learn from. That Bohemian ancestor cannot rationally be of more value than all other Bohemian immigrants - unless he was heroic as an individual.
  6. I mean comparatively, it (parents) isn't bigger than other factors, so it's not big, but it matters. (See my first reply to SL). But dead relatives you'll never meet? Their impact on you is not greater on you than a dead non-ancestor.
  7. It's not misconstrual if your position doesn't make sense. It's normal to say "your argument looks like X, is that what you mean?" If X is not your meaning, it usually means you were unclear. Anyway, I still wanna know how you'd respond to Don's questions.
  8. I'm afraid you make no sense about suggesting genealogy has no moral weight yet one may have rational reasons to feel pride in their genealogy, SL (meta point: it seems your premises about morality are at issue here, as Epist is getting at). Or do you mean to say there are values that exist besides life that require no rational reasons? Don asked you questions, feel free to answer those. They are the most pertinent. To your point... No, because each value has to be chosen again. The causal link is culture. There are still many links. This is disagreement, SL. Sometimes it makes little sense why someone disagrees, and it feels like common sense. Of course I'd "evade" your conclusion - because I deny your premise.
  9. " Family and the reality of it CAN have deep personal meaning and value " This IS moral weight. " Also in large part, what you are is by Nurture, who you are, what you think, has been formed and shaped by who they are, what they think and feel. " This too. Who you are is a moral issue. " Objectivism is NOT antithetical to Family or the idea that Family can have and provide special Meaning in one's life. " Special meaning is moral weight. Your posts show that genealogy is part of your concept of family and that genealogy matters to some people. That means some people -should- value their genealogy. But no person at all -should- find meaning in it is my claim. " Consider now a family rich in civility and tradition who provided great educational and philosophical instruction, inspired and demanded of their children high standing and achievement and the pattern repeated generation after generation for a statistically significant offspring " This is not genealogy anyway. Each generation has to establish values anew. You can only observe a continuation based on a person believing the people they know personally and culture. That a great grand parent taught your grandparent taught your parent egoism is not to be judged differently than Rand's great grand parent that perhaps taught egoistic ideas. If someone learned to be a racist and lynch black people, that's on them, and only brought on by accepting their culture, not linked to ancestors qua ancestors. The causative link is no different if there is also a genealogical link. Thus, no special meaning exists. " These to families did not become EXACTLY the same after ONE generation. " Each generation is wildly different than the last. No family will be the same. So we judge people as individuals or their values, with no consideration on lineage. If it does affect who I am, even a little (say, 5% of who I choose to be), if you had particularly admirable ancestors, then I can judge some of your moral worth based on your ancestry. But I say 0%. " It's almost as if you take my sense of family and meaning personally? Does it threaten you somehow? " I think you're wrong is all (weird to ask, I'm practically zen about it).
  10. And I deny that you can establish a causative link. The only link is genes. That's it. It has no bearing on pride, where virtue counts. The link is severed each generation. In other words, a rational person wouldn't feel pride in their ancestry, or even see a special meaning of unchosen family. The degree of nurturing by parents matters as does much else, but parents aren't ancestors. Who your great-grandpa is doesn't matter at all in that process. Anything that makes you who you are is important, and if choice is involved, that subject has moral worth by its nature - your ancestry harms or helps you and requires moral evaluation. "Important" is just to say: "this matters as fundamentally good or bad for me" as opposed to something like "it is important to salt your eggs before eating them". I don't mean it is the same as morally good. "I'm not some rationalist idiot saying all people must find family meaningful... of stating in some terms that some people do and why they do." But you are saying -some- people should, while I say -no one- should. Or you say that family ancestry has moral weight. I'm saying its value on a hierarchy should be low as what color your eyes are for the same reasons. All that you said implies a general importance to genealogy, an importance that has unique standing. Implication doesn't mean intended here.
  11. Rather than clicking report, I'll take this as a knee-jerk response made in haste. " Your parents likewise are to more or less of a degree, by nature and nurture who they are because of their parents. Although there are breaks in the chain of nurture - adoptions, or abandonments, ancestor parents being killed but a child surviving to be raised by others in the village or going back further raised by the pack - the vast majority of the effect of nurture is intact. (certainly one could argue that the injection of a State run school system, and babysitting systems such as radio, TV, and computer games, is an interruption in this process of Nurture... it is a very recent phenomenon, and limited in impact of parents are proactive). This goes backward and on to a multitude of ancestors back to the dawn of life itself. " -your first post here It was not a misquote or a change of what you meant. But you refuse to explain if or how I got your argument wrong. Looks right to me. You are saying the effects of one's genealogy is largely intact, and you are also saying it is morally important (i.e. it has a particular moral weight greater than non-ancestors) to value one's ancestors in a way different than other past people. I've tried to ask questions to discern your position or if I got it wrong - because apparently I got it wrong. All I got is attempts to shame me, telling me no one cares what I have to say, yelling at me, accusations of evasion, telling me to read AS, psychologizing, and more. Everything but a counter-argument.
  12. SL claimed that genealogy has a -morally- important aspect by its very nature (i.e. represents man's survival and your coming to exist, as far as I understand and as far as SL explained). I agree that values may be adopted by an unquestioned osmosis, but that's not at issue. Genealogy has no rational value as to who you have become - unless we're asking about medical history. sNerd, I grasp what you mean, but even the religion one adopts is a cultural thing and less about it being about one's parents. It matters, but not more than teachers or mentors. Besides, that isn't about genealogy, that is, ancestors.
  13. sNerd, by string impact, do you mean that parents instill values in their kids, and those kids instill values in their kids? If so, then I am saying this impact is minimal at best, and past the people you know personally, there is no impact at all (it's one reason 2nd generation kids of immigrants assimilate strongly). Your ancestors are as much a stranger to you as Aristotle. Of your direct family even, their impact doesn't eclipse the rest of society. It's rather amazing that despite needing to learn so much in the world with free will, knowledge and moral cognition doesn't depend on parents much besides physical protection. All a parent can do is provide a healthy and open environment. All this is to point out that people start from scratch. You cannot trace any of -your- virtues to your ancestors just as you can't trace any moral flaws to your ancestors. So one can be proud of learning some virtues from a parent, but learning something from an ancestor is no more special to who you are than being proud to learn some virtues from Rand. They're people you will never meet.
  14. I don't know, that's why I asked you. I can't come up with a rational reason - and merely opening up AS won't reveal a rational reason to me (or do you have specific pages to point me to?). I need arguments. I see no rational reason for Francisco to value his ancestors differently than non-ancestors. They are only different as far as traits that don't matter for moral judgment. Why? Because geneology has no more bearing on the person you voluntarily become than the books you read. Earlier on, you claimed that geneology does have a bearing on the person you become (" Your parents likewise are to more or less of a degree, by nature and nurture who they are because of their parents."). If your premise is true, that means my premise is false. If mine is true, then yours is false.
  15. How is it not just narrower than race? A race and ethnicity only consists of a geneology of multiple families. Is this wrong? I know no one asked if culture is important - I'm saying culture is what matters here and the concept that makes sense for your intention. Rather than saying I'm being sloppy, you should say what I got wrong. It's not a strawman to present an argument that you're wrong despite your intention for your argument to be right. So far, I have not seen counter-arguments about -why- I'm wrong - at least give me quotes of Francisco. My position is that Francisco valued a certain -culture- related to some ancestors, not geneology. Pride in family ancestry makes no sense, rationally speaking. One is not part of that past in any way as far as values. Suppose your ancestor was Andrew Carnegie. How or what about his being your ancestor makes some special value to you? How would his value differ if he wasn't your ancestor?
  16. For some extra ideas from Rand: "The acceptance of the achievements of an individual by other individuals does not represent “ethnicity”: it represents a cultural division of labor in a free market; it represents a conscious, individual choice on the part of all the men involved; the achievements may be scientific or technological or industrial or intellectual or esthetic—and the sum of such accepted achievements constitutes a free, civilized nation’s culture. Tradition has nothing to do with it; tradition is being challenged and blasted daily in a free, civilized society: its citizens accept ideas and products because they are true and/or good—not because they are old nor because their ancestors accepted them. In such a society, concretes change, but what remains immutable—by individual conviction, not by tradition—are those philosophical principles which correspond to reality, i.e., which are true. " http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/culture.html A race or ethnicity is essentially a more generalized geneology, so we can reasonably take this to be about geneology, too. So I bolded what is most important to the thread. Culture is what counts.
  17. He didn't care about ancestry qua ancestry. He cared about opting to be an individualist, and liked that he had to earn his name. Dagny didn't care about ancestry (except for one relative that was admirable anyway), Roark didn't, Rearden didn't. Looking at Francisco, he showed pride in being like a particular group of relatives he chooe to be like. Not because they were -geneological- ancestors of his, but because they were awesome at business. If Francisco did care about geneology as some special value to him, that was his error. The topic is geneology, connections in a family through offspriing, not through virtues. There is no big causal link between one's parents and the person they are and become, though. To see special status of one's blood, even of awesome ancestors, would be to downplay free will, or to ignore that survival of generations is not through survival of the most rational.
  18. Lots of people don't ask questions and go on doing something just because it seems normal and feels right. When in fact ancestry qua ancestry is rather meaningless to a person who is individualistiic; what counts are individuals. Any philosophical inquiry involves asking for reasons. Reason's fan club is a weird way to put it, at least because many people have explained numerous times to you how reason here isn't the Platonic/Kantian/a priori kind.
  19. Which post(s) are you referring to? I mean, it is good to wonder how or if something makes sense.
  20. You said that a lot of who you are is shaped by your parents, then traced that to their parents, and so on to establish a chain of nurture and taught values since the dawn of man. Thus it would be rational because it shows a long line of rational successes in many cases. But your premise is false, your blood family has no -special- effect on you or anyone else. As Nicky said, it's fine to value individual members of your ancestors, as individuals. Their being part of your family tree is irrelevant. Their being part of your (past) in-group is irrelevant. Family to me is more like the chosen variety that Don mentioned. But that's not geneology. Francisco's family, as the D'Anconias, were more chosen than not. He literally had to earn his name and all others before him. For all we know, even non-D'anconia's could become D'Anconias with an honorific or as adopted members. So, good reasons to explore geneology are: curiosity, medical history, legal reasons, and interest in history. Not anything to do with passing along values, because that barely happens except limited to one living generation.
  21. Settle down. If I misunderstood or you have a way to clarify the part I quoted (how can nurture possibly be passed down from generation to generation?) feel free. I don't think you intended that your idea carry bad implications. I didn't find the family part bad, the only part that is weird to me is that somehow that your geneology is worthwhile because one's ancestors must've been survivors or rational to some extent. One's family, their geneology, can't suggest any of that, precisely because one generation to the next differs wildly. Some family trees can go on for decades as barely at all egoistic. I mentioned tribalism only because I see the above as an interest of your in-group -because- it's the group you come from. I can understand your post as fine regarding all your immediate relatives, but past that, the only relation ancestors have to you is history. Sometimes your history is interesting as perhaps a cool story of immigration, sometimes it's boring and mundane.
  22. Depends on her reasons. "Liking" something can be for bad or good reasons. Mostly this thread is about what good and rational reasons might one have? I do not see, for example, how your reasons to explore your geneology were rational (i.e. made sense, were wise, aid your flourishing). I'm just pointing out that your reasons looked a tribalistic. But you're right that geneology can have meaning for rational people.
  23. I think you (improperly) combined two senses of the word "right" that should be left as two separate concepts. One is what people refer to as one's needs to flourish among others, needs that should never be denied. For Rand, this is based off of man's nature and his survival needs, and these needs are irrevocable lest we start living by the laws of the jungle. The other sense of "right" is an agreement or acknowledgment that within organizations or government operations, there are things you are promised or offered to keep it running well. Speech per se is not an irrevocable right, there are times when speech is making a threat, or means to incite violence. There are reasons to allow a -general- right to speech, if for no other reason than major regulation would in fact violate your means to live. It isn't unreasonable to ban possession of child pornography, but if the law to do so included a broad "whatever one deems to be offensive" that would impinge on all communication. Speech though has no special status, not any more than a right to vote - its purpose is maintaining a pro-individual country even if it isn't required by your nature. EDIT: See this act and its subsequent appeal to the Supreme Court: https://www.congress.gov/bill/104th-congress/senate-bill/314 http://www.emcp.com/intro_pc/reading18.htm
  24. History is interesting sometimes. Perhaps you wonder how you came to exist after so many generations. Maybe you are able to find original historical documents by your ancestors that otherwise you'd never see. For example, an immigrant family member of mine returned to Bohemia for legal property matters in the 20s, so this made me curious about what that part of Europe was going through. I read a Customs document detailing his info. I find my history of coming to be as interesting in some parts, much like how American history has interesting parts. On the other hand, a lot of it is boring. Curiosity is often plenty rational. SL, I get that you are talking about the possible value in knowing one's history, but I have major issue with one part: No, not really. You are shaped in part by an entire culture: your friends, your teachers, your parents, your school, the books your parents get you, the books you find at a library, etc. Your parents aren't able to have a greater impact on who you are than all the rest of those social and personal factors. A nurturing environment is best as when you are largely independent, both at home and at school. Altogether, very little about values are passed on from parent to child, and by the next generation, virtually none of it is passed on. The vast majority of nurture's effects won't go through your parents to you. It exists as culture, not as a family tree. For sure, families have cultures. The thing is, individual values start from scratch each generation.
  25. The main idea is that if an animal is used for an instrumental end, animal suffering should be disregarded. Instrumental here means for particular needs like food. Since morality is for human purposes, considering what to do when deciding how to use animals shouldn't include their suffering. Regarding food, there is no rational consideration other than economic viability, and taste (chickens raised in obscenely crowded environments won't taste as good). Pets and wild animals aren't used for instrumental ends, rather, they serve a spiritual end of comfort or perhaps curiosity. On a wider note, one shouldn't make decisions by taking into account suffering. What counts is flourishing as determined by what humans need by nature.