Visiting Leftists

[Eddie]

No. just the religous concept of god(s). Godless is just an adjective decribing people who accept this fact.

Agreed. But if the concept of god is arbitrary, arbitrary cannot be the omitted measurement for "godless". So what is the omitted measurement for "godless"?

Eddie

[EC]

Agreed. But if the concept of god is arbitrary, arbitrary cannot be the omitted measurement for "godless". So what is the omitted measurement for "godless"?

Eddie

Go back and look at my edit to my last post. Godless is an adjective like big or small. It is the measurement. It means not possessing the attribute of an arbitrary god(s).

[Tom Rexton]

...

Now, I ask that you answer the following, <b>and only the following</b>:

Is reality knowable?  If so, do you agree that existence consists of inanimate entities (things which exist) and living entities?  Do you agree that, if left alone, the continued existence of living entities is contingent on whether or not they engage in specific life-preserving actions, while the existence of inanimate entities is not?  Do you see then, specifically, that the existence of <i>man</i> is contingent on him engaging in specific life-preserving actions? 

Then, by man's nature, how is it that he acts?  <i>By volition</i>.  If so, do you see that he must <i>learn</i> what actions are life-preserving and which are not?

This, GWDS, is the <i>objective</i> basis of morality which you are too quick to discard.  To say that morality is meaningless is to say that the conditions and actions man must seek for his survival are arbitrary and meaningless; it is to say that man is an inanimate entity, since his continued existence isn't contingent on his actions.

That's probably the most succinct way of putting it! (In one paragraph!)

[edited for spelling error by TR]

Edited March 11, 2005 by Tom Rexton

[PoliticalJunkie]

I just wanted to add my 2 cents in about the tsunami victim situation and whether it is moral for us to send money to the victims. Like stated earlier, morality exists in the context of choice. If my goverment sends money to the victims of the tsunami, I was not given a choice. That money was not "my goverment's" money. It was mine, my family's, my neighbors, and every other citizen who was robbed of their earned money through coercive taxation. We do not have a direct say on specifically where our tax money goes, nor do we have a direct say on how much we actually pay. Therefore, the money is coercively obtained by the goverment and coercively distributed by the goverment. Now let's put this in the context of a very possible but hypothetical situation. Let's say that I have a parent who has a life threatening disease which has no cure. I would want every bit of money that I could spare in order to VOLUNTARILY donate to research that particular disease. This would be moral because #1 I was not coerced and #2 my parent's life is obviously of higher value to me (and rightly so) than any "unnecessary" material objects I would gain by spending my "extra money". However, in reality, a portion of that "extra money" that I have earned has already been coercively taken from me by the goverment. Therefore, the goverment has coercively made a decision for me (in this particular case) that giving money to the tsunami victims is more important (and thus a higher value) than donating to a cause that could potentially save my own parent from dying. Now, there may be situations where someone has "extra" money that would be spent only on pleasure, not on a crucial situation like I described above. But this does not warrant the government taking money coercively and donating it or using it for any "good cause" that it sees fit, ESPECIALLY in light of the fact that this good cause might overrride a good cause that the victim of the coercive taxation would have valued much more. The only fair and neutral and MORAL way to handle such a situation is to allow people to have all of their money and CHOOSE which causes they wish to donate to based on whether or not the cause is a value to their life. (Even if this means that some will not donate at all). If the goverment did not steal our money and use it for situations like the tsunami disaster that doesn't mean that America would not have helped the victims. There would no doubt be plenty of citizens who would willingly send money (which plenty did on top of the money that was immorally coercively sent by the government) and at least it would have been up to the choice and discretion of the individual to choose that cause as a value.

[Eddie]

Godless is no god, which presupposes a concept of god.  It could be any god, what are being omitted are the god's attributes (his powers, what he looks like, where he lives).

Take the example of weightless.  Would you agree that this is a valid concept meaning "no weight"?  It presupposes the concept of weight.

Yes, weightless is a valid concept, and if it means “no weight, it cannot have any measurements. Presumably, the same applies to “godless”, so at least some concepts cannot be formed by measurement omission.

Eddie

[Eddie]

Go back and look at my edit to my last post. Godless is an adjective like big or small. It is the measurement.

Godless is the measurement for what?

Eddie

[EC]

Godless is the measurement for what?

Eddie

For the lack of a person having a "god". I'm done with this rediculous line of questioning.

[Styles2112]

Styles2112 wrote -

Again, unjustified assumptions are being made, that being people who are moral relativists are simply cowards who don't make decisions. I'm going to answer that with an example, picture this conversation between a christian and an athiest -

Atheist - There is no God

Theist - Oh, so you're just to scared to follow God

A - No, I'm saying all that stuff you talk about isn't true

T - Oh, so you have faith in your beleif, like I do, so I guess you can't criticize

A - What? No, that's not what I'm saying

T - Yes it is, you may not know what you beleive, but I do.

See the Thiest? That's you.

I'm not entirely sure why you're attempting to slam me when I was merely enjoying the play on words. My advice; lighten up.

And actually, I'm the guy on the side of that conversation, laughing at both of them.

[Iakeo]

Godless is the measurement for what?

Eddie

What information are you trying to get, Eddie? You seem to be purposefully going

in circles. That MAY have a purpose, and I'd like to know what it is.

If you can't state your purpose, then your purpose is merely to annoy, which we

will judge by whether you can state your purpose or not.

Now to my response to your question:

Godless is a measurement of "god-holding-ness". It is holding NO god.

The standard is binary. You either hold some god, or none. Much as one can be

either pregnant or not pregnant. Or, dead or not dead.

Now,... what is your REAL question..? What are you REALLY trying to illuminate..?

-Iakeo

[Capitalism Forever]

When we form the concept "godless," we omit ALL the measurements that are not relevant for the concept: eye color, body height and weight, name, sex, place and time of birth, place of residence, occupation, income, <you name it>. The only measurement we RETAIN is the number of gods the person believes in, namely zero.

[dougclayton]

When we form the concept "godless," we omit ALL the measurements that are not relevant for the concept: eye color, body height and weight, name, sex, place and time of birth, place of residence, occupation, income, <you name it>. The only measurement we RETAIN is the number of gods the person believes in, namely zero.

Thank you. I can't believe I had to read through a page and a half to find the first valid answer to Eddie's question.

If I can elaborate, I would say this: the measurements omitted do not have to do with the god in question--it has to do with the thing or person that has no belief in or no use for a god. Thus you can have a "godless story," a "godless government," a "godless man," a "godless philosophy." "Godless" is an adjective that modifies a noun, and all (or nearly all) measurements of that noun are omitted. (Perhaps not all, since some things can't be said to be godless, like a cat.)

Does that answer your question, Eddie? If not, perhaps you could demonstrate that you understand the process as applied to simple concepts, and then we could move on to more complex examples. If it's "godless" in particular that is causing the problem, I don't mind discussing it, but if it has to do with measurement-omission in general, let's cover easy examples first.

[Eddie]

What information are you trying to get, Eddie? You seem to be purposefully going

in circles. That MAY have a purpose, and I'd like to know what it is.

If you can't state your purpose, then your purpose is merely to annoy, which we

will judge by whether you can state your purpose or not.

Now to my response to your question:

Godless is a measurement of "god-holding-ness". It is holding NO god.

The standard is binary. You either hold some god, or none. Much as one can be

either pregnant or not pregnant. Or, dead or not dead.

Now,... what is your REAL question..? What are you REALLY trying to illuminate..?

-Iakeo

I’m trying to get a handle on the way measurement omission works, or whether it works at all.

So how do you measure “either some god, or none”? That’s what I’m trying to find out.

Eddie

[Eddie]

When we form the concept "godless," we omit ALL the measurements that are not relevant for the concept: eye color, body height and weight, name, sex, place and time of birth, place of residence, occupation, income, <you name it>. The only measurement we RETAIN is the number of gods the person believes in, namely zero.

You can do the same for unicorns and other mythical creatures. So are unicorns gods? I don’t think so. Disregarding the Christian God – which is a singularity -- if there is any essential characteristic of gods it would be immortality. But like death, there are no degrees of immortality – you either are or are not. So measurement omission does not obviously apply to some concepts.

Eddie

[Eddie]

Does that answer your question, Eddie?  If not, perhaps you could demonstrate that you understand the process as applied to simple concepts, and then we could move on to more complex examples.  If it's "godless" in particular that is causing the problem, I don't mind discussing it, but if it has to do with measurement-omission in general, let's cover easy examples first.

That’s a good idea. A few posts back, Rational One mentioned “big” and “small”, concepts that we use on a regular basis. I think it’s reasonable to say that measurements of “big” would be size, amount, quantity, intensity etc of any attribute. But the measurements of “small” would also be size, amount, quantity, intensity etc of any attribute.

Let’s say we have – for simplicity’s sake – two babies. One weights 3 kg, the other 7 kg. The first baby would be regarded as small, the second as big. But once we omit the specific measurements, both are x kg – any measurement but some measurement.

But this procedure collapses the distinction between big and small – measurement omission renders them as the same concept, which they’re not. Things are big and small because of their specific measurements, not their generic measurements.

That’s why I question whether measurement omission is a sufficient basis for concept formation. In some cases – death, immortality -- there are no obvious measurements, in others the process of measurement obliterates the distinction between concepts.

Eddie

[Iakeo]

I’m trying to get a handle on the way measurement omission works, or whether it works at all.

So how do you measure “either some god, or none”? That’s what I’m trying to find out.

Eddie

What do you mean by "measurement ommision"..?

Do you mean disregarding the measurements of existents to "conceptualize" a

general "thing"? Such as "horses, regardless of their actual shoulder height above

the ground, are horses."

How do you measure "either some god or none"..?

The "either" means it's a binary measurement. There or not. Some or not.

Pregnant or not.

What is "some god" versus "none god"..?

The concept of god is rather like the concept of "pregnant" as to it's existence for

me. They are either "all there" or "not there at all".

A god, once again to me, like pregnacy has one standard (yardstick) of

measurement,.. there or not.

-Iakeo

[Capitalism Forever]

If I can elaborate, I would say this: the measurements omitted do not have to do with the god in question--it has to do with the thing or person that has no belief in or no use for a god.

Exactly. Since there is no god in question at all, there are no measurements of a god to omit or retain in the first place.

[Iakeo]

That’s a good idea. A few posts back, Rational One mentioned “big” and “small”, concepts that we use on a regular basis. I think it’s reasonable to say that measurements of “big” would be size, amount, quantity, intensity etc of any attribute. But the measurements of “small” would also be size, amount, quantity, intensity etc of any attribute.

Let’s say we have – for simplicity’s sake – two babies. One weights 3 kg, the other 7 kg. The first baby would be regarded as small, the second as big. But once we omit the specific measurements, both are x kg – any measurement but some measurement.

But this procedure collapses the distinction between big and small – measurement omission renders them as the same concept, which they’re not. Things are big and small because of their specific measurements, not their generic measurements.

The purpose of this "measurement omission" IS to collapse existents (correct me

on the use of "existents" if I've goofed with it) into a thing-type.

Such as collapsing all actual babies into the concept "a baby".

If the purpose is to create concepts, then it's irrational to complain that doing so

creates concepts.

That’s why I question whether measurement omission is a sufficient basis for concept formation. In some cases – death, immortality -- there are no obvious measurements, in others the process of measurement obliterates the distinction between concepts.

Eddie

The measure of death is "is that thing there alive, or not..?"

The measure of immortality is "is that thing immortal or not?", which of course

begs the question as to what immortal means.

I have no idea what you mean by "the process of measurement obliterates the

distinction between concepts."

You'll have to illustrate that one for me.

-Iakeo

[Eddie]

What do you mean by "measurement ommision"..?

Do you mean disregarding the measurements of existents to "conceptualize" a

general "thing"? Such as "horses, regardless of their actual shoulder height above

the ground, are horses."

How do you measure "either some god or none"..?

The "either" means it's a binary measurement. There or not. Some or not.

Pregnant or not.

What is "some god" versus "none god"..?

The concept of god is rather like the concept of "pregnant" as to it's existence for

me. They are either "all there" or "not there at all".

A god, once again to me, like pregnacy has one standard (yardstick) of

measurement,.. there or not.

-Iakeo

I understand measurement in the way that you describe: disregarding the measurements to conceptualise a general idea.

In the case of states such as pregnancy, the distinction is “some or not”. But this is not the distinction for measurement omission, which is “any but some”. You can’t measure an absence.

Eddie

[Edited to fix quote - CF]

Edited March 12, 2005 by Capitalism Forever

[Eddie]

The purpose of this "measurement omission" IS to collapse existents (correct me

on the use of "existents" if I've goofed with it) into a thing-type.

Such as collapsing all actual babies into the concept "a baby".

If the purpose is to create concepts, then it's irrational to complain that doing so

creates concepts.

The measure of death is "is that thing there alive, or not..?"

The measure of immortality is "is that thing immortal or not?", which of course

begs the question as to what immortal means.

I have no idea what you mean by "the process of measurement obliterates the

distinction between concepts."

You'll have to illustrate that one for me.

-Iakeo

I’m not complaining. I’m pointing out that “big” and “small” cannot be based on measurement omission.

You say that the measure of death is either life or death. But it’s obviously not life, so it must be death. Therefore, the measure of death is death. Yes, it does beg the question.

As for obliterating the distinction between concepts, I’ve already done that with the “big” and “small” example. Take away the specific measurements, and there’s no way of distinguishing between the concepts “big” and “small”.

Eddie

[Iakeo]

I understand measurement in the way that you describe: disregarding the measurements to conceptualise a general idea.

In the case of states such as pregnancy, the distinction is “some or not”. But this is not the distinction for measurement omission, which is “any but some”. You can’t measure an absence.

Eddie

You CAN measure an absence..!

'I have NO gold coins in my hand..!"

..and your "any but some" is meaningless to me. Do you mean "any but NOT ANY

PARTICULAR QUANTITY"..? Or, what..?!

If you generalize a collection of concretes by disregarding (omitting) any

measurements (trivial qualities not pertinent to the generalized concept) then,

even if there is only ONE (singular) concrete (thing) ("god"), you are still simply

disregarding whatever "trivial quality" you have chosen, and generalized that

concrete into a concept.

Of course, what is a "trivial qualitiy" of god..?!

-Iakeo

[Iakeo]

I’m not complaining. I’m pointing out that “big” and “small” cannot be based on measurement omission.

"Big" and "small" ARE measurement. For what purpose would one "base big"

or "base small"..?

Ommiting "bigness" and "smallness" IS measurement omission.

What are you REALLY trying to say..?

You say that the measure of death is either life or death. But it’s obviously not life, so it must be death. Therefore, the measure of death is death. Yes, it does beg the question.

Death is a non-scalar value. It either IS, or it ISN'T. What is your point?

As for obliterating the distinction between concepts, I’ve already done that with the “big” and “small” example. Take away the specific measurements, and there’s no way of distinguishing between the concepts “big” and “small”.

Eddie

Now I see you have a fundamental misunderstanding of the meaning of "concept".

There are no concretes of the concept "BIG" (or small), so there is no way to

generalize them FROM concretes. So why are you applying an "ommision of

measurements" procedure to a non-concrete (concept) to try to generalize

something you already have..? A concept.

A "big" is meaningless.

"Big" is very like "exists". It simply is. Existence exists. (Axiom)

Why would you choose to NOT distinguish between the concepts "big"

and "small"..?

It doesn't sound very useful to me.

-Iakeo

Edited March 12, 2005 by Iakeo

[Eddie]

There are no concretes of the concept "BIG" (or small), so there is no way to

generalize them FROM concretes. So why are you applying an "ommision of

measurements" procedure to a non-concrete (concept) to try to generalize

something you already have..? A concept.

Some objects are regarded as big, others as small, so there certainly seem to be concretes of the concepts “big” and “small”. In the same way that the concept “length” doesn’t specify any particular quantity, but rather a range, so the concepts “big” and “small” do not specify any particular quantity, rather a range.

Size, weight, volume etc are attributes of objects. When we refer to a big object, we are making a judgement about the object’s size, weight etc in relation to other, similar objects. So while “big” and “small” subsume ranges of measurement, our judgement as to which ranges fall under which category depends on the type of object we are referring to. A 7 kg baby is a big baby, but a 7 kg 1-year old is small.

My question is whether the concepts “big’ and “small” can be formed by the process of measurement omission. I don’t think they can, and you seem to agree with me, except that you deny that “big” and “small” subsume measurements.

So how do I think the concepts “big” and “small” are formed, if I think measurement omission is inadequate? As I mentioned above, these concepts are formed by making judgements about the size, weight etc of objects in relation to other, similar objects.

But one can’t make that sort of judgement by omitting the measurements to. In fact, it’s essential to retain the measurements, otherwise one could not make such a judgement.

Eddie

[Iakeo]

Some objects are regarded as big, others as small, so there certainly seem to be concretes of the concepts “big” and “small”. In the same way that the concept “length” doesn’t specify any particular quantity, but rather a range, so the concepts “big” and “small” do not specify any particular quantity, rather a range.

Size, weight, volume etc are attributes of objects. When we refer to a big object, we are making a judgement about the object’s size, weight etc in relation to other, similar objects. So while “big” and “small” subsume ranges of measurement, our judgement as to which ranges fall under which category depends on the type of object we are referring to. A 7 kg baby is a big baby, but a 7 kg 1-year old is small.

My question is whether the concepts “big’ and “small” can be formed by the process of measurement omission. I don’t think they can, and you seem to agree with me, except that you deny that “big” and “small” subsume measurements.

"Can the concepts “big’ and “small” be formed by the process of measurement

omission?" (from above)

No. No they can't. They are formed by the observation that some existents of a

concept are "bigger" (of greater measurement of something) or "smaller" (of

lesser measurement of something) than other existents of the same concept.

Now,.. why is it important that the fact that "big" and/or "small" (or "greener")

cannot be formed via measurement omission?

So how do I think the concepts “big” and “small” are formed, if I think measurement omission is inadequate? As I mentioned above, these concepts are formed by making judgements about the size, weight etc of objects in relation to other, similar objects.

But one can’t make that sort of judgement by omitting the measurements to. In fact, it’s essential to retain the measurements, otherwise one could not make such a judgement.

Eddie

We don't actually disagree. I just don't understand what you're trying to do.

So,.. you're trying to say that you can't have measurement without measurement

because omiting measurement makes measurement meaningless.

( You can't have "bigness" ['a relative measurement'=measurement] without

measuring the "bigness" of a thing relative to another thing [measurement]

because omiting a standard of measurement and the application of that standard

[measurement] makes "bigness" ['a relative measurement'=measurement]

meaningless. )

(( ALL measurement is "relative measurement" and "measuring". ))

Duh..!!

A = A.

A <> not-A.

NOT: A = not-A.

Omiting the salient quality of a concept renders the concept meaningless and unuseful TO THE PERSON WHO HAS PERFORMED THIS OMISSION.

"Big" is still a useful concept, for anyone who doesn't proclaim that bigness is

a "thoroughly disproven and discredited concept because it can't be derived by

measurement omission."

Back to your original question: "Can the concepts “big’ and “small” be formed by

the process of measurement omission?". This is asking if a concept can be formed

by being negated. No, no concept can be formed that way.

Is a "bigless big" useful to me? No.

-Iakeo

[Eddie]

Takeo, I’m pleased we agree that the concepts “big” and “small” cannot be formed via measurement omission, the reason being, as I mentioned, that these concepts depend on a specific range of measurements

Mind you, “big” and “small” seem to be relatively easy compared to the original concept we looked at: “godless”. Several people offered a smorgasbord of measurements for that concept: the universe, the arbitrary, the god's attributes, godless itself, and zero.

Interestingly, the person who began this thread by boasting he could verify his knowledge, struggled to verify how he would form the concept “godless” – even though he himself had used it -- and pretty quickly threw in the towel.

I think the answer is that like other concepts such as “pregnant” and “death”, it also can’t be formed via measurement omission, this time because no measurements exist. You’ve been claiming that these concepts are based on a binary measurement, “either”, eg: pregnant or not, alive or not.

But such a binary measurement contradicts Ayn Rand's understanding of measurement. As she points out in ITOE: “All conceptual differentiations are made in terms of commensurable characteristics (i.e., characteristics possessing a common unit of measurement).”

“Pregnant” is not commensurate with “not pregnant”. This can be easily tested by omitting the measurement “pregnant or not pregnant”. What is left? Nothing, since “pregnant or not" exhausts the options.

So it seems that a potentially large pool of everyday concepts are not amenable to measurement omission.

Eddie

[EC]

Interestingly, the person who began this thread by boasting he could verify his knowledge, struggled to verify how he would form the concept “godless” – even though he himself had used it -- and pretty quickly threw in the towel.

First I give you this proper definition given by Betsy Speicher at her forum.

"Godless" means "absence of a belief in god" and the omitted measurements are the various gods that are objects of belief and the various degrees and types of beliefs people may have in them.

Second I was not "boasting" I could immediately "verify" all my knowledge. What I meant and sorry the meaning wasn't clear to you is a person in principle can verify all of his proper knowledge via Objectivism. That I couldn't immediately give what you consider a proper definition for godless only implies that I normally don't define every common word without a reason to do so. In this case it was because you insist on annoying me for whatever reason. How about next time instead of playing a game of "gotcha" you just state your purpose right off the bat.