Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Are Objectivists victims to the Psychology of the common-sensical?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The above is full of errors. Edit: The impossible in it is the idea that meaning can be transferred to higher level concepts while denying their source and context in perception. That induction or deduction somehow allow us to bypass the foundation of perception to ALL HUMAN knowledge.

What's wrong about it? What you quoted from SL seems exactly what a supporter of Oist epistemology would say. While intuitive understanding is useful to attain, trying to *make* everything intuitive is just a bad process of reason. To me, it's saying "understand reality as best you can, don't make assumptions based solely on intuition". It's necessary to use abstractions to get past being concrete-bound. Get past, not bypass.

 

SL, the only thing I might disagree in is "with our limitations". Do you mean some things will never be understood, or do you only mean there is always more to learn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison: your comments look interesting but I am focused on an exchange with Plasmatic right now.  Please forgive me if I address them later.

 

Plasmatic:

 

You stated: 

"The impossible in it is the idea that meaning can be transferred to higher level concepts while denying their source and context in perception. That induction or deduction somehow allow us to bypass the foundation of perception to ALL HUMAN knowledge"

 

This is the very misunderstanding I thought you may have had.  I will be clear:

1   induction or deduction CANNOT bypass the foundation of knowledge which at its base is perception... the only link to reality.  I am not a rationalist, and as an objectivist reject all forms of mysticism, religion, Platonism, communism, primacy of consciousness...etc.  Induction and deduction ... are my tools I use to make sense of my perceptions, conceptually in an integrated, noncontradictory fashion.

2   I do not deny that perception and our perceptual apparatus are fundamental to obtaining information from reality.  They are fundamental, in fact they are the ONLY tie a consciousness has to reality no many how many or few (blind deaf.. etc.) or how weakly that consciousness is able to get input from reality, that input IS all it has (inner self-knowledge, intuition, "remembering" platonic forms... are NOT sources of knowledge of existents.. these are introspective musings, delusions, and imaginings only).

 

 

These two things I state above ARE my philosophy.  The question arises: what have I said that could have been misconstrued to mean the exact opposite?

 

 

 

I think perhaps it may be due to my identifying (attempting?) concepts not commonly referred to, or perhaps I have referred to something known in special circles according to some specific jargon which I have not used.

 

 

What is the hypothetically flawed objectivist (and by no means do I mean every objectivist) doing which I identify as a mistake?  Certainly, relying on perceptual input is NOT a mistake.  The pencil appearing bent in a glass of water is in no way "wrong" it is the way the light refracts through the water, enters the eye and is processed by the visual cortex.  The possible problem which can arise is the prescientific instantaneous judgement that the pencil must itself be bent.  It is in this sense only that I refer to "common sense intuitions" which can be erroneous if the whole of knowledge, experiments, analysis etc, is not integrated with the process of assessing the appearance of the pencil.  As an objectivist, maximal integration is my voluntarily chosen "duty" (not the best word but you get my meaning)

 

In a sense the error I am thinking of is focusing too much on or giving too much weight to common-sense "feelings" and intuitions  humans (including unwary objectivists) have, which interferes with proper cognition.  Feelings and intuition cannot form a  basis of knowledge... this is precisely my point. 

 

E.g.  We all know from specialized knowledge of the science of physics that atoms, nuclei and their surrounding electrons, exist and form all forms of everyday solid, gaseous, and liquid matter.  I know of no objectivist who rejects the concept of atoms, but we should recognise that there is an accomplishment involved in the acceptance of this fact.  We have had to forego the application of concepts such as solidity and "continuity of entity" as applicable to our interaction with "a ball of steel" and "a rock" at our time and length scales, when dealing with electrons, nuclei and atoms.  This is not trivial.  I note we used our rationality and our perceptual faculty to imagine, construct, conduct  an experiment and analyse the results to arrive at this state of counterintuitive knowledge. 

 

Perhaps it is only my intuition, but when I imagine things, entities in reality, something which is solid and continuous tends to appear in my mind: not something mostly empty, made of pointlike (if not actual point) particles interacting in a manner which gives rise to an arrangement which is static and yet utterly discontinuous and full of space.  

[[[As an aside: when writing this, my common-sense intuition is screaming "point particle... nothing is a point.. a point has no length, no area, no volume such a thing is impossible because ... all things have volume are solid and are continuous...." I note this is circular and unsupported, then I have an infinite regression type argument with myself INVENTING spherical particles which are solid...for which there is no evidence whatsoever that they exist... soon I realise my intuition is simply not applicable and is simply not based on any data relevant to that which I am trying to apply it]]]  

This intuition (solidity and continuity) about the way the universe is, does work at the level of everyday objects we interact with and operationally makes perfect sense and in that sense is true.  I cannot pass my hand through a block of steel, and I can (on a macroscopic scale) divide it to my heart's content.  This is useful knowledge and solidity is valid.  The concept of solidity, however, is simply inapplicable to electrons and nuclei which make up all solid matter. 

 

These things give rise to solidity but they do not themselves possess it.

 

To me this is an accomplishment in abstract conceptual thinking, knowledge of atoms as they are requires rationality and careful experimentation.  This does not involve the denial of the perceptual faculty but does in some sense require close examination and vigilance with respect to "intuitive common sense" so as not to permit it to lead us astray.

 

My open question was whether certain prescientific, non specialized knowledge or experience based "common sense intuitions" may influence judgements about science in the absence of the full body of knowledge which should be integrated to make a decision about it.

 

This kind of mistake may not in fact be a phenomenon attributable to Objectivists in general... my sample is very small.

 

I hope this resolves the misunderstanding of my meaning.

 

 

SL

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What's wrong about it? What you quoted from SL seems exactly what a supporter of Oist epistemology would say. While intuitive understanding is useful to attain, trying to *make* everything intuitive is just a bad process of reason. To me, it's saying "understand reality as best you can, don't make assumptions based solely on intuition". It's necessary to use abstractions to get past being concrete-bound. Get past, not bypass.

 

SL, the only thing I might disagree in is "with our limitations". Do you mean some things will never be understood, or do you only mean there is always more to learn?

Thanks Eiuol for getting what I was trying to say.

 

The kinds of limitations I am alluding to are not conceptual, I generally assume we have no limit to abstraction (although there may be a limit to how many things we can have in our mind at any one time). 

 

There are many ways in which we are limited... one that comes to mind is visualization which I think is a big part of how we think, and this is limited by our internal visualizing apparatus which deals easily with one and two dimensions, reasonably well with three (because we live in it), but for example, if we need to visualize four or more dimensional data, without some sort of specialized training, we need to take a cross section (three dimensional cross section so to speak) in order to "see" a bit of the whole thing.... Immediate and autonomous pattern recognition also is something which is limited by our cognitive capacity... we are much better than more primitive animals.. but we have limits. 

 

Again due to our ability to abstract and with use of mathematics and such we can solve these sorts of complex problems which we cannot instantaneously and automatically process just by looking at them.  

 

I am not a psychologist so the above is speculation...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That which is random is out-of-bounds to human knowledge; you cannot predict or understand it. 

For instance, you could tell me that there's a 1/6 chance of a die landing on any given side or a 1/2 chance of a coin flip landing heads or tails; I assert that this doesn't count as functional knowledge.

If you had to build cars or skyscrapers that way, we would end up "knowing" that only 1/6th of people who use them will die horribly.  If you planted crops with statistical and probabilistic knowledge, you would starve one year in six.

 

For something to "truly" be random is for it to be causeless (because there's supposedly no reason for any one outcome, instead of another) which ultimately defies the law of identity.  Truly random particles would behave illogically.

 

That which has no identity is beyond the scope of human understanding; that which is out-of-bounds to reason, for all intents and purposes, doesn't exist.

It's semantically null to debate over the nature of things we cannot understand; it is as futile as debating how many angels could dance on the head of a pin.  So if there are parts of the universe which we can never understand, there is no reason whatsoever to discuss or even think about them.

 

If you can't understand it then it's a waste of time to try- if you cannot think about something then it "exists" in exactly the same way that unicorns do.

 

But, again, this isn't metaphysical but epistemological.  Note that nowhere in here did I assert whether or not the Copenhagen Interpretation is true; all I'm saying is that even IF it's true, it renders itself irrelevant to the whole of humanity and utterly meaningless.

 

I agree with pretty much everything you are saying.

 

 

You stated: "For something to "truly" be random is for it to be causeless (because there's supposedly no reason for any one outcome, instead of another) which ultimately defies the law of identity.  Truly random particles would behave illogically."

 

Agree: the particular result of a "truly" random outcome or choice must be causeless (at least insofar as the randomness goes).

 

Any outcome that is causeless "ultimately defies the law of identity".  This conclusion I am not sure I agree with... although the logical part of my brain says I should agree with it.  The problem is that if I do, free will may be threatened.

 

 

Here is my reasoning which I borrow from an argument about free will and determinism put forth by a friend (he advocates that free will exists and choices are first causes in reality):

 

1.  A person is an entity in reality. (non mysticism)

2.  A person has consciousness and volition (denial of determinism) and although made up of ultimately constituent elements of reality (denial of mysticism) is not determined by the ultimate constituents of reality (material) making up the person.(assertion of nonmaterialism)

3.  All entities A in reality are such that A is A and A acts in accordance with A's nature, hence a person is that person and will act in accordance with that person's nature.

4.  Volition and denial of determinism implies not only that a person not be determined by the constituent elements of reality making up that person, not be determined by external existents, but also (in order to assert that the person always "could have chosen otherwise") that a person's choice not be determined completely based upon the particular nature of the person at the time of the choice (the exact same person after all is not compelled to make only one choice because  they could have chosen otherwise),

5. Freewill requires therefore that the person's choices, although perhaps limited, are ultimately not determined by anything, i.e. volitional actions/choices are first causes.

6. By definition first causes, are not determined, and are therefore in one sense causeless (as between the at least two choices the person could have chosen "otherwise").

 

Looking at this defence of free will I see the same conflict with the law of identity.  The same kind of problem you identify with random outcomes from a single state.  Something A, changes state or form in accordance with it's nature to a set of outcomes/choices which are not caused (determined) by the nature of the something A at the time the change occurred.  The range of possible choices may be determined by the nature of A but the specific (random) outcome is not.

 

If I am to accept the idea an entity such as a human can be a first cause or make a truly causeless choice, then why in principle can't an electron undergo a causeless outcome out of a set of possibilities?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In #27 Strictly Logical said

2   I do not deny that perception and our perceptual apparatus are fundamental to obtaining information from reality.  They are fundamental, in fact they are the ONLY tie a consciousness has to reality

 

 

 

Does this not suggest a separation between self(consciousness) and 'reality'?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

SL, first let me say that I should have had you define intuitions, as I never use that term and I think it has a host of negative uses. However I was NOT focused on it but your use of common sense. I'll leave it be but you seem to have used intuition now in a couple of different senses. I used the context of your post to surmise what you meant which amounts exactly to:

 

We have had to forego the application of concepts such as solidity and "continuity of entity" as applicable to our interaction with "a ball of steel" and "a rock" at our time and length scales, when dealing with electrons, nuclei and atoms. This is not trivial. I note we used our rationality and our perceptual faculty to imagine, construct, conduct an experiment and analyse the results to arrive at this state of counterintuitive knowledge.

Perhaps it is only my intuition, but when I imagine things, entities in reality, something which is solid and continuous tends to appear in my mind: not something mostly empty, made of pointlike (if not actual point) particles interacting in a manner which gives rise to an arrangement which is static and yet utterly discontinuous and full of space.  

[[[As an aside: when writing this, my common-sense intuition is screaming "point particle... nothing is a point.. a point has no length, no area, no volume such a thing is impossible because ... all things have volume are solid and are continuous...." I note this is circular and unsupported, then I have an infinite regression type argument with myself INVENTING spherical particles which are solid...for which there is no evidence whatsoever that they exist... soon I realise my intuition is simply not applicable and is simply not based on any data relevant to that which I am trying to apply it]]]  

This intuition (solidity and continuity) about the way the universe is, does work at the level of everyday objects we interact with and operationally makes perfect sense and in that sense is true.  I cannot pass my hand through a block of steel, and I can (on a macroscopic scale) divide it to my heart's content.  This is useful knowledge and solidity is valid.  The concept of solidity, however, is simply inapplicable to electrons and nuclei which make up all solid matter.

 

The above is exactly what I understood you to be claiming/arguing for. This is a description of trying to use concepts from one context and dropping that meaning while imputing it to another one. Here, as in your description I quoted before, you want to discard the perceptually gained meaning and impute the concept to hypotheticals in a way that the previous meaning will not transfer.

 

To paraphrase a physicist I know: "The first job of the scientist is do decide what concepts to apply to his observations".

 

I have understood you and I reject the notion of particles having zero extension.

 

edit: I should have just quoted this first:

 

Acceptance and subsequent integration of knowledge gained by science here requires that we do NOT abandon reason, deductive and inductive logic, careful experimentation, but DOES require that we abandon day to day human "PERCEPTION" level assumptions about the universe, some which SEEM like "common sense".  This is a fine distinction with which perhaps layperson objectivists are somewhat challenged

Your use of "assumptions" noted Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are Objectivists victims to the Psychology of the common-sensical?

Some, probably. I doubt everyone going around arguing against various QM theories is qualified to form an opinion on the subject. 

 

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the Objectivists who are qualified, and have spoken on this in a well reasoned manner, are right or wrong. Why not just focus on their arguments? People's psychology is irrelevant to scientific debates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In #27 Strictly Logical said

2   I do not deny that perception and our perceptual apparatus are fundamental to obtaining information from reality.  They are fundamental, in fact they are the ONLY tie a consciousness has to reality

 

 

 

Does this not suggest a separation between self(consciousness) and 'reality'?

 

In this context I use "reality" to refer to existence as independent of the perceiver or thinker.  So I guess I am excluding introspection.  Don't get me wrong mental contents are not outside of reality but they are not to be confused with the external existents which exist in reality.  The map is NOT the territory.  Consciousness is a part of reality but is of course located within a tiny subset of existence whether you measure in constituents, space weight etc.   I am using integration here... we know consciousness exists within the confines of the skull.  Or at least the nervous system.  We have not observed human consciousness, in relation to reality, matter, substance,... elsewhere.  So "separation" is at least by localisation.  BUT I am not saying mind and body are separable, the mind and body are not separable (other than on death... when the body continues and consciousness ceases to exist).

 

I am also assuming for example that a potentiality for human consciousness (a baby's nervous system), IF devoid ENTIRELY of any senses, sight, hearing, touch, smell, taste, will NOT have any knowledge of reality.  Whatever activity occurs in that system might in fact not EVEN amount to consciousness until it is given the chance to experience through the senses reality and develop into a consciousness. 

OR Take the case of a fully conscious objectivist adult.  If all those senses were cut off that adult is no longer in touch with reality.  He or she remembers and knows certain facts of reality, has introspection, imagination, feelings, and thoughts, and some of the facts he or she knows will not have changed, and perhaps that person could even think of something new (relying on memory) which would correspond to reality (an invention or a new principle of science) but informationally they are still severed from reality.  So consciousness can also be separated in terms of information.

 

 

It is in this way that I mean the senses are the only tie (this might be the word which is misleading... would "window" be better?) on reality (external reality independent of the conscious mind perceiving/conceiving it)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Some, probably. I doubt everyone going around arguing against various QM theories is qualified to form an opinion on the subject. 

 

That doesn't have anything to do with whether the Objectivists who are qualified, and have spoken on this in a well reasoned manner, are right or wrong. Why not just focus on their arguments? People's psychology is irrelevant to scientific debates.

 

I tend to notice things... some observables of which are at the limits of my capacity for observation.. "subtle patterns in groups of people" are a type of category of observable which I am often unsure of and would like to know other people's opinions.  I generally have a burning need to understand (this is intensely personal, afterall it is MY life, my knowledge, my guide to action etc), part of that need, valid or not, is wanting to understand how other people think and why... the "principle of the dean" applied widely.

 

I agree that the general population of Objectivists are likely no better or worse a representation of those objectivists "who are qualified", than those in the nonobjectivist general public are a representation of those nonobjectivists "who are qualified".

 

What I think I am "observing" is that Objectivists who are not qualified, seem to tend they think they know more than they do or at least that they overestimate what they can conclude from the little knowledge (specialised) that they have.  A sort of epistemological overconfidence?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am to accept the idea an entity such as a human can be a first cause or make a truly causeless choice, then why in principle can't an electron undergo a causeless outcome out of a set of possibilities?

A human being a "first cause" means the human mind would be causeless. It's basically a form of dualism. So, yes, free will as you described it is threatened. But that description is untenable with anything about how reality works. If one is capable of making *any choice at all* and even a first cause, it has no identity at all - capable of everything and anything without any particular identifiable attribute. The "causeless" mind is something Rand often addressed quite vociferously, so finding more on the Objectivist perspective is easy. To take some more modern philosophical arguments, free will describes a level of abstraction on something like an information processing level (similar to how one describes processes of a computer). Particle physics is a totally separate level of abstraction, there is no free will there, it doesn't need to be to describe how particles work. That's a lot like what you were saying about solidity in the first post. It doesn't make sense to talk about solidity with regard to particle physics, but it does at a level of whole entities.

 

This is getting a little off-topic, so if you want, I'll discuss this in another thread. There is a thread like this side-topic already, but I don't recall the title of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A human being a "first cause" means the human mind would be causeless. It's basically a form of dualism. So, yes, free will as you described it is threatened. But that description is untenable with anything about how reality works. If one is capable of making *any choice at all* and even a first cause, it has no identity at all - capable of everything and anything without any particular identifiable attribute. The "causeless" mind is something Rand often addressed quite vociferously, so finding more on the Objectivist perspective is easy. To take some more modern philosophical arguments, free will describes a level of abstraction on something like an information processing level (similar to how one describes processes of a computer). Particle physics is a totally separate level of abstraction, there is no free will there, it doesn't need to be to describe how particles work. That's a lot like what you were saying about solidity in the first post. It doesn't make sense to talk about solidity with regard to particle physics, but it does at a level of whole entities.

 

This is getting a little off-topic, so if you want, I'll discuss this in another thread. There is a thread like this side-topic already, but I don't recall the title of it.

 

Very interesting.  If you started a thread about free will I would be very interested in participating although I would have limited ability to contribute.  I've done some reading on consciousness and how a nonreductive fundamental science might emerge on the subject but "free will" itself is not something I read much about.  To my mind, we will have developed an understanding of consciousness and free will and thereby solved both "puzzles" only when we reach a point in time at which we could create an artificial system which we would know, because of the way we have "configured" it, that it has consciousness and free will. i.e. we could with confidence answer "how do you know that it has"/"why does it have" both consciousness and free will.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

edit: I should have just quoted this first:

 

Quote

Your use of "assumptions" noted          

 

My wording has an ERROR.  I do not mean we must abandon "ALL" day to day human perception level assumptions in ALL contexts.  This would be disastrous and implies throwing out far too much.  We of course must retain day to day understanding of percepts in order to deal with the world and deal with our, let me call it, "extended perceptual apparatus" which is our scientific instrumentation. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 Plasmatic:

 

You stated:

 
The above is exactly what I understood you to be claiming/arguing for. This is a description of trying to use concepts from one context and dropping that meaning while imputing it to another one. Here, as in your description I quoted before, you want to discard the perceptually gained meaning and impute the concept to hypotheticals in a way that the previous meaning will not transfer.
 
To paraphrase a physicist I know: "The first job of the scientist is do decide what concepts to apply to his observations".
 
I have understood you and I reject the notion of particles having zero extension

 

If I understand you correctly, you are asserting that I have done the following:

 

1.  With knowledge of the experiment I "want" to discard the perceptually gained meaning of solidity

2  I imagine a hypothetical to which solidity does not apply, point like particle

3. I foist this point like particle  as proof that the concept "solidity" is not universally applicable to all existents in all contexts

 

Does this capture your take on my words?

 

 

Let me summarize what I think I actually was doing:

 

1. assessing what the results of the Rutherford experiment say about the nature of every day existents (mostly space, made of an arrangement of discrete entities rather than being a single extended continuous entity) 

2. observing that our perceptual level intuition about solidity of every day objects (no holes, continuous) is not compatible with reality as it is (insofar as objects actually do have holes and are not continuous)

3. observing that the only basis for both the perceptual level intuition of solidity and the concept of solidity is our everyday perception of everyday objects and our interactions with them at our length and time scales.

4. identifying that given the new understanding why and how "solidity" as a property of objects arises from its constituents, it would be a mistake to attempt to impose upon those constituents themselves which cause solidity, the property of solidity because this begs the further question "what causes that kind of solidity?"

5. identifying that point like particles are consistent with the mechanisms giving rise to solidity of everyday objects at our time and length scales and need not be solid (extended, no holes, continuous) themselves. i.e. point like particles are completely consistent with a complete integration of the Rutherford experiment and our everyday interactions with reality and require no infinite regress of kinds of solidity and their mechanisms.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I tend to notice things... some observables of which are at the limits of my capacity for observation.. "subtle patterns in groups of people" are a type of category of observable which I am often unsure of and would like to know other people's opinions.  I generally have a burning need to understand (this is intensely personal, afterall it is MY life, my knowledge, my guide to action etc), part of that need, valid or not, is wanting to understand how other people think and why... the "principle of the dean" applied widely.

The "principle behind the Dean" is that the Dean is a second-hander. I don't see the connection with the thread's subject (which, correct me if I'm wrong, is about the fallacy of appealing to common sense).

 

I also still think it's pointless to have a conversation about what percentage of a vaguely identified group of strangers is committing this fallacy.

I agree that the general population of Objectivists are likely no better or worse a representation of those objectivists "who are qualified", than those in the nonobjectivist general public are a representation of those nonobjectivists "who are qualified".

Objectivists who don't understand the Physics of this DON'T represent Objectivists who do. Period.That's what I said. If that's what you're agreeing with, it really shouldn't take that many words to say it.

 

What I think I am "observing" is that Objectivists who are not qualified, seem to tend they think they know more than they do or at least that they overestimate what they can conclude from the little knowledge (specialised) that they have. A sort of epistemological overconfidence?

It's not over-confidence, it's lack of confidence in one's ability to actually figure things out, which causes people to take shortcuts instead. It has nothing to do with Objectivism. Quite the opposite, I find that Objectivism tempers this inclination to refuse to think things through logically, by teaching Epistemology.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Nicky:

 

I did not mean that I was searching for the same principle (i.e. that behind the dean) in this context, but that my motivation behind asking these questions is similar to the motivation behind the search for "the principle behind the Dean".  I deal (and want to deal) with people who are coming to grips with Objectivism and this tenuous observation of the tiny sample I had was something I wanted to investigate.

 

I agree in some sense it is pointless to talk about what, how and why, other people tend to think certain things, but I deal with them... and I am trying to decide if I will in a semi-permanent manner participate online, exchanging thoughts, improving my philosophy, with just such a "vaguely identified group of strangers".  I do get your point though.

 

I agree with the rest of your points... I suppose I am overly sensitive to overconfidence but yes Objectivists are likely on average to be better than non objectivists in this respect.

 

Once again, my sample was SMALL.

 

SL

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I reject the notion of particles having zero extension.

 

 

Plasmatic:

 

 

I am not asking you to try to convince me. 

 

I am, however, interested in your specific thought process here.

 

 

 

Given the totality of the integration of your knowledge, including your present knowledge of science and experimental evidence, and including your knowledge of how your perception and conception of extended solid objects arose in your early (in a sense prescientific) development as a child, how do you arrive at, i.e. what is your basis for, your rejection of the notion of particles having zero extension?

 

 

StrictlyLogical

Link to comment
Share on other sites

One of the logical fallacies being addressed in this thread is vericundiam. Listening to prominent representatives of Objectivism provide information on the sciences, such as Binswanger and Harriman, and accepting the conclusions presented on the basis of the speakers credentials is vericundiam.

 

The same error would apply by anyone accepting the conclusions of scientists on the basis of their scientific credentials.

 

This, of course, must be balanced with the fact that we do not have time to become experts in every field. In these areas, certainty may not be achievable, but various degrees of probability can be arrived at.

 

Taking the notion of particles having zero extension, for instance, I would think that zero of anything speaks quite well for itself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie, see my above post. Just to clear up something, what I'm describing is not anti conceptual (concrete bound) but affirming the absolute need to preserve conceptual hierarchy and abstract in a way that is valid.

Okay, I thought it was something like that. Some people may use folk physics/psychology/etc (what just "feels" right and obvious without particular specialized knowledge), but as Nicky suggested, I doubt Objectivists are any more prone to reasoning with what's "obvious" than anyone else. Perhaps the type of direct perception for Objectivism leads some to misinterpret a whole lot and just go by what looks obvious, perhaps resulting in too easily rejecting abstractions. That type of error would be empiricism, as suggested by Peikoff in Understanding Objectivism. Not empiricism as in starting point, but empiricism as in an overly skeptical attitude towards abstraction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I thought it was something like that. Some people may use folk physics/psychology/etc (what just "feels" right and obvious without particular specialized knowledge), but as Nicky suggested, I doubt Objectivists are any more prone to reasoning with what's "obvious" than anyone else. Perhaps the type of direct perception for Objectivism leads some to misinterpret a whole lot and just go by what looks obvious, perhaps resulting in too easily rejecting abstractions. That type of error would be empiricism, as suggested by Peikoff in Understanding Objectivism. Not empiricism as in starting point, but empiricism as in an overly skeptical attitude towards abstraction.

 

I love that book.  Understanding Objectivism is like a sequel to OPAR, best read years afterward... like partaking of a nice port ... a little time after digestion of the main course is best. 

 

Overly skeptical attitudes toward abstraction is a form of self imposed ignorance.  A rejection of an abstraction which is consistent with the sum of all knowledge (a rejection for NO reason) is almost as insane as an acceptance of an abstraction which is inconsistent with the sum of knowledge (an acceptance for NO reason or in spite of it).

 

Peikoff's description of Rationalism in that book is also particularly brilliant.  On reading his analysis I was immediately reminded of so many arguments I have had in the past with people coming from a rationalist slant.  That sort of rationalism always reminds me of prescientific children playing in a sandbox bragging and trying to "outwit" each other ... playing with words ... all posturing and parading.. all meaningless.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Plasmatic:

 

 

I have the audio version of AR's Q&A sessions, as well as the collection TVOS, which together with Understanding O, and OPAR are the closest materials (nonfiction) I have to ITOE (I presume), but I have not read ITOE itself.

 

 

Even though I am unfamiliar with what it says exactly, I am quite OK with having a discussion based on a fresh analysis of ideas on their own merit, completely blind to what has been said by whom in the past, or WHO in particular was the author of WHAT. 

 

In fact I must admit (proudly?) I prefer to dispense with "ownership", "authorship" altogether when dealing with, analysing and integrating ideas themselves.  After all, deciding what I think, what my guide to action - my philosophy IS (of which I am sole beneficiary), is a very selfish (and rightly so) undertaking!!

 

 

I myself am actually quite busy packing for a move to a new house... and I may be less "chatty" in the next few weeks, but I think I may be more of a regular in the future.

 

cheers

 

SL

 

BTW: I am completely unfamiliar with Kant's works.  Although I plan to see what the fuss is about someday, all I currently know of what he said/thought comes from Objectivists.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Any outcome that is causeless "ultimately defies the law of identity".  This conclusion I am not sure I agree with... although the logical part of my brain says I should agree with it.  The problem is that if I do, free will may be threatened.

 Well first of all, I never have understood why [if A then B; not B so not A] isn't considered logically valid; there's no need to justify that bit.  =]  And I actually know exactly what the problem is!

 

So free will is usually taken to mean self-control; right?  You control your own actions and you have the power to do whatever you choose to ergo volition is causeless and arbitrary; this idea is everywhere nowadays.

But let's examine that empirically, shall we?

 

Imagine a highway.  Now, each driver in each car is a human being, ergo has free will; yes?  Therefore each driver could, at any given moment, decide to swerve off of the road and die horribly.  In theory.

But we never see that happening (or, when we do, it isn't intentional); why?  Well nobody wants to crash and so everyone usually obeys the driving laws, even though they don't strictly HAVE to.

 

The same applies all over the place, to every single action human beings perform.  And if you think about it, there are very specific patterns of behavior in which people engage, day in and day out, all around us; they're very predictable.  So there is a pattern.

What's the pattern?  Everyone does whatever they think is best to do [even when they sacrifice their happiness for altruism's sake, it's because they truly think it would be better].  So volition isn't causeless or arbitrary, it has a very specific identity! . . .

 

. . . And, if you think about it, the very premise of this thread (are O'ists victims of the common-sensical?) implies that very pattern.  ;D

 

So people do not act randomly, either.  [What's the pattern behind human actions?  I only have vague ideas about it, here or there; but I would absolutely love to see a thread about it!]

 

As for the principle behind "true" randomness, I've been thinking about it some more because I was very vague in my last post.  I can't be much more specific, but I've broken it down into this:

 

Human beings are pattern-finders.  There have actually been experiments conducted, before, which showed people finding all sorts of patterns in a randomized computer program.  We can't help it [nor should we!]; we need to understand.

When a child has learned to speak and is truly beginning to explore and UNDERSTAND the world, they're likely to ask all sorts of questions about cars and why they do what they do.  Later, when their car breaks down, they'll ask all sorts of questions again- with a slightly different tone.

 

Now, if you saw a car levitating in midair, you'd likely have many questions as well- and if I told you that it "just did that for no reason" you wouldn't take me seriously.  And if I did manage to convince you that it was truly arbitrary and causeless- how would that impact your driving habits [will your car fly off of the road and collide with a 747?]?

If I told you that internal combustion was causeless, that concept would cease to be functional; if I did the same with any other thing in existence, the same would result.

 

Therefore (and this is where it gets vague again)- the fact that we are human beings with human minds necessitates that ALL things can be understood (conversely, NOTHING is arbitrary), not for any physical law or fact, but because if this were not so then we could not learn anything and, accordingly, couldn't survive.

 

And since everything can be understood, we cannot accept anything as truly random- if for nothing other than psychological self-preservation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...