Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Posts

    7059
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. Um, you haven't argued against Rand's sense of induction. As in you've never really dealt with assertions that have been made in Objectivist literature about induction and concept formation. Once, you posted some Peikoff quotes. That's good, and we talked about that. I talked about why I think you were mis-reading Peikoff. The topic wasn't induction, though. One of these days I'll post on induction, I just don't have the motivation to do that right now.
  2. I also edited after I posted. No, I'm not trolling. You said they are the same, you didn't qualify the statement. Evolution in the biological sense depends upon its physical realization, not just replication or variation, etc. And most of all, ideas have intentionality (they are about something due to the mind's ability to represent something) while evolutionary factors do not have intentionality. If you still insist idea evolution and biological evolution are the same, I have nothing else to say. All you established at all is that the evolution you are talking about is in the same category of "long term change" as biological evolution.
  3. Then let's hear what is contradicted.
  4. They are the same thing? I didn't know ideas were developed out of genes, DNA, epigenetics, and other biological materials and phenomena! If you mean they have similar principles, sure, but that's trivial - ideas change, yup. And indeed there are probably also mathematical principles involved, or principles more abstract than biology. But it's wrong to say they are the *same*. Evolution of ideas is *not* the same as evolution of *biological entities*. The fact that that ideas are cognitive while biological characteristics are noncognitive would say that there is a notable difference. Acting like they are the same is thinking in metaphors, and ignoring that therefore the means of ideas evolving will differ. I think your post is fine to explain thoughts or to teach others "epistemology in short", but don't start saying that as an epistemological principle. That's what "Objectivism standing in one foot" is like. The point isn't to make a rock-solid case, but how to answer "what is Objectivism" to people who have never heard of Objectivism and not well-versed in philosophy.
  5. While there are indeed similarities between biological evolution and how ideas evolve, to take it to the level to say that ideas evolve in the same way and in the same sense is equivocation. Better concepts for discussing how ideas evolve/change across time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_evolution http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conceptual_change
  6. You seem to be saying that unless someone argues against Popper directly and successfully, then any other proposed epistemology must be worse. At least, you actually haven't criticized Rand's epistemology on this forum, "Popper hasn't been disproven to my satisfaction, therefore I am right" doesn't cut it as an argument. If you want to establish which is better, then you'd also need to say what specifically about Objectivist epistemology is wrong and is improved by Popper. Arguing against induction in general (and the kinds of induction you usually talk about I agree are indeed bad) is not even addressing Objectivist epistemology except through guilt by association, which is not a good argument.
  7. Acknowledged that we disagree about there being a revolutionary situation in Russia. You can say military coup, but I'm saying the political situation was the revolutionary situation Lenin was talking about. That doesn't mean a military coup prevents that, perhaps we can say Lenin was further building a revolutionary situation rather than saying "the revolution happened". I'm afraid this is going way off topic, so I'll leave this as a point on electoral politics versus political activism. By electoral politics, I mean discussion within a context that action must be done while there is possibly disagreement. By political activism, I mean advocating for specific changes so that things like irrationality don't become valid. There is a place for both, but solely one or the other I believe electoral politics moves towards inefficiency, while political activism moves towards harsh moral judgment against dissenters. Striking a proper balance or eliminating the distinction would be great. Parties as they are traditionally known can make discussion for government action just a matter of getting the most "points" from split opinion through distinct affiliations. Parties can also make it so that anyone opposing raising minimum wage hates the poor and deserves no fair hearing, thus dissenters are utterly demonized. "Single party rule" is like that in a more extreme way, as in "In Cambodia in the 70's, if you're not a Communist, you'll be shot." Single issue "parties" would make sense to me, and a good way to maintain activist effort while also trying to act in the face of disagreement. For the record, it seems that this is what the US has tried to do. The issue is that now, things have seemed to have fallen so deep into electoral politics that nothing happens, while activists completely demonize dissenters. I'm not sure how to nominate/vote for government officials to bring about 'single issue' politics, I suppose bicameral legistlature is important for that, with only one directly elected. That's my thinking for now.
  8. ...no, "shooting bullets" is vague. The essential point of shooting bullets is to kill people. Shooting a rope is no more essential than using a gun as a paperweight. "Essential" doesn't mean "only feature that a gun can be used for". I mean essential in an epistemological sense where a particular feature makes a concept distinguishable from others. That includes how to distinguish ballpoint pens from guns. Both can be held in one's hand, both are utiltarian tools, and so on. With both being tools, what they are used to accomplish matters. So, guns shoot bullets in a way intended to cause severe harm to people. You can kill animals for protection, but that's mostly incidental and a borderline case of the purpose of guns. If someone made a James Bond-style ballpoint pen that fires bullets, then I think it should be categorized as a gun. By the way, I wasn't talking about banning guns, I was talking about regulation. As pertaining to Zimmerman, this would mean determining if he was responsible with his gun anyway. Going off into "protection from dictatorship" territory is dropping the context of individuals interacting with individuals. If you're preparing for The Revolution, well, I can't reason with that.
  9. Who is Dykes, and what does he have to do with Objectivist epistemology? I scanned it a bit, I don't see any particular use of or criticism of Objectivist epistemology. I mean, you are making a new thread, so presumably there is some reason you're posting this here? I read the article before though that you were criticizing, but it was a while ago, so I don't know what it is you want to talk about exactly.
  10. "Gun culture" is a vague term to me because American culture is so diverse - where I live I don't think there is a "gun culture" except perhaps some guns in households, but nothing so far as there is a lot of talk about guns. I'm not opposed to regulation on gun ownership, provided that there is a means to judge a responsible gun owner versus an irresponsible gun owner. I'd even like such regulation because guns are weapons for killing, which no one has a right to do at all except in limited circumstances like self-defense. When it comes to Zimmerman, I'm undecided if he is an example of an irresponsible gun owner. "First of all, there are other purposes for guns" There is an essential purpose to guns, which is killing or causing severe bodily harm. You could use a gun as a paperweight, but that is nonessential. In fact, the whole point of gun ownership is about a right to self-defense, so bringing up anything besides killing or harm is dodging the main issue of contention. I do not understand how anyone could claim the purpose of a gun is anything but the use of force, which I think deserves regulation. "Second of all, if the government has all of the guns and regular citizens have none, what happens if the government decides to hurt its citizens?" Doesn't matter either way, there are tanks, jet planes, drones (!), armies, etc. The government is made of its people, so that threat is only sensible to be concerned over when there is actually totalitarianism. You can just as well ask "what if someone decides to hurt you with a gun that they acquired legally?" You're dead unless you have a gun. That's where regulation comes in - make it so that it's highly unlikely that any gun owner would be so irrational to go blasting people. When only responsible people have guns, I wouldn't be worried.
  11. Leonid, nothing in there says anything about the Russian revolution, because Lenin wrote that before the Russian revolution even happened! What Lenin did was turn the revolutionary situation into a revolution. You could construe what later happened to be a "coup d'etat followed by a bloody civil war", but I still call that a revolution because the result was a fundamental shift, a revolution in the sense of turning around considerably. The kind of revolutionary situation Lenin was speaking of eventually leads (with the "correct" leader) to the destructive revolution I was speaking about. Even one of the elements of a revolutionary situation is basically what aleph_0 stated: "that governments 'are afraid of a proletarian revolution'". Proletarian is non-essential, the main idea is that "we" (the people) should be feared by "them" (the government). I'm not sure if this looks offtopic, but at least if people in general don't compartmentalize government as separate from its people (as should be the case), then multiparty government has no reason to exist. The whole political spectrum in terms of left-right comes from the French Revolution, which turned out horribly. And now, that's how political parties are thought of - tribalistically. So, I really doubt multiparties would be part of any laissez faire government, by nature of what multiparty systems require.
  12. When I read the whole op-ed in the NYT, I simply could not comprehend that he would say it's "not a big deal" as an economist. All I see Krugman now as is that he is simply a liar rather than merely wrong. I misread it as him handwaving $1 trillion too as $25 billion, like aleph_0 did. Look carefully enough, and it looks like Krugman threw in the $25 billion number in as a distraction within a larger sentence, presumably so he can get away with what he writes. In a separate NYT op-ed, someone else did the same sort of bait and switch that hopes you're angered or emotional enough to miss what *actually* was said.
  13. But you didn't start reading Rand's stuff specifically to refute what she wrote, did you? If you for some reason wonder just why someone could sound so wrong, you might be curious about where the ideas come from. You can go to the source and either discover it's not so bad, or see that it's misunderstood, or have questions, or figure out why it is wrong. For instance, I don't have much curiosity about Kant except some super basic things, just not enough to go read "Critique of Pure Reason". I'm not going to waste my time on something that I'm not even curious about. I'll read Nietzsche or perhaps Aristotle because I like their style, so I'm interested. Plato isn't a hard read, and I like Socrates as portrayed, I find the incessant questions interesting. Hegel or Kant just seem like... a tome of endless sentences that never get to the point. I don't "need" to formally refute Kant, and I enjoy myself when I read what I enjoy and benefit from. I actually liked a lot of Objectivist books, so I read a lot of those in the span of about 4 months - go to a library to save money. You might like doing the same. After that I read some Ariistotle because I like Greek thinkers, plus Rand mentioned Aristotle so highly that I was curious. If you want some general philosophy education, take classes at your college, perhaps talk to the professor before registering to see if you'd be interested. I had a great philosophy teacher that kept all the students engaged, but some professors exist that just go towards philosophy at an analytical angle that I simply find boring.
  14. Please give a date and source for that quote. In a general sense, whatever Lenin said, there was a revolution in Russia, which was politicized by Lenin, then turned violent due to that politicization. Still feeds into my reply about the "us vs them" tribalistic sense of the government as some nefarious entity that must fear it's people. If "the people" are that scary, then bad things happen. For the most part, the "people" were basically a small portion from industrial labor, and those people were scary enough as Communists! From that, I say it follows that any capitalistic society would tend away from a party system, if the government operates in such away that people are incorporated in a realistic way, not some kind of government that exists "above" or separate from its people. I have to think about your post more, 2046, but I agree that revolution isn't inherently violent. There are economic revolutions, scientific revolutions, etc, and each impact society in different ways, including political change. Overthrowing the government is political revolution, and almost all the time it ends badly. I wouldn't characterize most revolutions as trying to control others through state power, they just really use the state to act against rights violations. Except of course, if owning property is a rights violation, then it would look like just a power grab to those of us who see property as a right.
  15. Nietzsche, Plato, and Hume don't write huge books really. You could find summaries to start, but eventually you'll want to read their actual work eventually. Personally I find Kant uninteresting, I barely studied anything about him. I wouldn't read philosophy just to refute ideas. I like reading philosophy because I gain insights into ideas. Plato has been valuable, and with his style of using Socrates, most of it consists of useful questions, and less about Plato's own beliefs. Nietzsche writes mostly with aphorisms, so you can read him in small pieces even.
  16. I don't quite think that's what Rand was doing. There are differences when someone says quality versus attribute even if they are synonyms. You could say "the quality of that meat is good" but that's different than "the attribute of that meat is good". I wouldn't say quality is more general, it seems more like quality gives off a different connotation. It's more like she said entity, then also anything about entities. I don't think anything more needs to be read into the definition of concept. Personally, I tend to use quality like a scale of measurement, and attribute as discrete. To me, "the attribute of this meat is good" gives off an intrinsicist vibe, probably because thinking of "good" as discrete implies a thing either "has" good or doesn't. That's fine for something like "the attribute of that meat is red". If you use the terms differently than me, it still wouldn't change what Rand talks about regarding epistemology. Looking at a thesaurus now, you seem to be right, Nelli, but I still would say the two have quite different connotations, so I think it makes sense then to use both in the definition of concept even if one is technically more broad.
  17. What does "small" even mean in this context? You seem to be suggesting that the government should be made impotent. The government power should essentially be infinite with regard to acting against initiation of force. "Constrained" only applies to the idea that the government can't do anything it wants, which isn't unique to even a Progressive's frame of mind. I think I'd agree that there would be single issue groups, but not for any of the reasons you gave. "Small" or not is nonessential. "If enough of the citizenry have a culture opposing government violence, then revolution is always an option in case of oppression rearing its ugly head in any form. The government should fear the people, not the other way around. " Ah, Leninist-style political action! I'm not being facetious, it really does remind me of what Communist/Marxist approach to maintaining the ideal. First off, you are considering government as a separate thing from you made up of bad people that need to be prevented from acting, as though it is not made up of citizens and a separate "tribe" so to speak. To be more clear, I'm saying that to really establish a "good" government, you need a government of and by the people. If a government must fear its people, then you are already saying that the government's modus operandi is going further than it should. So, what *about* people are you saying the government would fear? If you mean "losing power", that would contradict your whole point about "small enough" where there is hardly power over people in the first place. There is nothing else I can come up with as an explanation to make both your paragraphs consistent. Secondly, the Leninist-style political action. Revolution is not an option and doesn't work. Rather, I should say an overt and forceful imitation of revolution does not work. The American Revolution wasn't forceful initiation, and you could even argue that the British tried to kill their own people and considered colonists to be the "other" and not worth basic respect. You seem to be referring to the sense of revolution popularized by Lenin and in general more common (even the French Revolution). It's not that Lenin did revolution wrong, but forceful revolution is by nature unstable except for some particular circumstances like in the American revolution and some others I can't think of right now. For the most part, scientific and economic revolutions create change for the better by providing economic well-being as well as rational progress so the whole concern of government violating rights slowly goes away because intellectual progress includes what a good political philosophy is in the first place. The thing with Lenin is that he was opposing an already terrible government, and wanted to use revolution to stop the tsar and government from being able to do anything. His idea for revolution though revolves around a lot of Marxism, which ultimately aims for the smallest government of all - none. But that's not what makes it bad. The bad part is that revolution is *the* way to achieve a better government first - by socialism to destroy the power of capitalists, then by overthrowing the socialist government once that is done (presumably when oppression rules its ugly head at worst). Lenin skipped the socialist stage almost right away, went straight to revolution - he was itching to just get rid of the Russian government once and for all. And of course, revolution worked. At least, initially. I don't need to go into the reasons the new government failed to accomplish any of Lenin's ideals in terms of economics. But in terms of revolution, the Leninists went for all out political and forceful change, without any scientific or economic revolution. That is, economics turned political in Russia. Even *Marx* understood that revolution would need a economically robust capitalist economy first (under his meaning). My point is that political dissatisfaction, even if severe and justified, does not warrant political, forceful revolution. It ends up bad, unstable, and opening up to even worse rights violations. Bottom line, most proposals of revolution, even when just abstract, is closer to a child throwing a temper tantrum to get an ice cream instead of being reasonable and realistic with politeness. Working with reason to establish a solid foundation to get the changes you want works better than any revolution ever would. The industrial "revolution" worked well, without any true politically overt revolution. This doesn't directly answer the OP, but I think it follows well after 2046's post.
  18. Jeez, he sounds more than a little paranoid, at least in conjunction with the video of himself loading a shotgun on the street practically implying some sort of violent activity with his statements (I linked it earlier). Very shady guy, even if he didn't mean to imply it. I saw some of Adam vs. The Man before, he seemed alright on the show, but not anymore.
  19. Okay, but how are you concluding that you know that you had the concept "goldfish" before "life"? Grames was approaching it from an angle of life being axiomatic, while earlier I was talking about ways that you have it backwards. Although I mentioned animacy, I'm thinking that the concept animacy is being too specific for a child's conceptual hierarchy and it actually comes from a need to distinguish further within the concept life what can and cannot move. You seem to be focusing on conceptual hierarchy in terms of how you categorize after a considerable amount of knowledge, while I was thinking it in terms of conceptual development as lineage implies.
  20. You have to be more explicit. Is the issue that I said movement? I didn't mean the concept movement, I meant just noting that a living thing moves on its own - you only need to see limbs to do that. Your quotes refer to the order of concept development, not anything to do with how life is *dependent* upon prior concepts being formed. Again, giving me quotes doesn't say how I'm wrong, I need the argument to go with it.
  21. If you mean me, I don't know what I'm missing. Giving me quotes isn't helping, because I've read all that before and thought about it. I didn't say that life is even an action, I'm just pointing out that there are perceptual ways to think of life, even if later you incorporate concepts like "goal" and other essentials by inductive means. But you can at least create the concept. Looking at limbs, for instance, can be just as reasonable as looking at the legs of a chair. To be clear, I'm not talking about the process and function of life, I'm talking about things that are alive. To know that a dog is alive, you don't even have to know that that it is goal-oriented. You can argue that "life" requires forming the concept dog, cat, and other animals first. On the other hand, I can argue that forming the concept of dog requires the concept of life. There are options available to the order, so we could make a fine-grained hierarchy, but I don't think that's important. I'll put it another way: in a conceptual skyscraper (how Peikoff describes conceptual hierarchy), life and dog are on the same floor, but life and dog are on different shelves on that first floor. You can start with either one, but they're still first-level because they are perceptual and ostensively defined when starting out.
  22. Actually, there are a great deal of perceptual characteristics of "life" just as much as "rolling ball". Children are able to figure out what is alive or not at a very young age, and this can be done by just looking at limbs or movement. Basically anything alive moves, while non-living things do not move. So, yes, you can point at rabbits and rocks to get it across! No complex abstraction is necessary to develop the concept "life", and it can even be defined ostensively. Like any concept though, you could specify better over time what is alive or not, but the referent isn't changing or abstract in this case.
  23. You could wonder if the two may be connected, but it doesn't even imply a causal relationship. Causality makes more sense in terms of essentials - events won't say much on their own. Correlation is weak, and weak for induction, as Hume even acknowledged centuries ago (but he took it as the *way* people reason). You'd have to think about the nature of the restaurant, like the food it serves or the quality. You'd also have to think about the nature of your sickness, like your symptoms. The decision to suspect a causal relationship at least depends on the two entities being related in some manner. All you said is two events happen near each other in time. Of course you could reason that way if you want, but not even rats do that. I know of an experiment that is about your example - rats drank from some water which had a mild poisoning that causes sickness a long while later, sometimes combined with electric shocks or loud noises right after drinking. Getting to the point (I summarized it in another thread, I'll repost this part), rats are able to figure out that poison causes the sickness, although the only thing that happened was the shock. Of course, events must occur to point out causal relationships, but correlation or association doesn't work well.
  24. The concept of metacognition might be useful here.
  25. I actually realized that Curi is arguing against associationism, which is basically the idea that learning only comes from repeated experiences. That's wrong, to be sure, and isn't at all the position Objectivism takes on induction. So to it doesn't follow that induction is wrong a lot, just a particular form is wrong a lot.
×
×
  • Create New...