Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Jose

Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction.

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

7 minutes ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

What?!¬†ūü§£¬†Prove it - how???

Exactly!  

This is the starting point for a journey toward self-refutation... it is the only way to usefully engage with an intellectually honest person claiming a contradiction was observed in reality... it was futile with Dishonest Jose but it would have worked with HonestJoe.

Now that Jose is gone don’t bother trying to bait him to engage.  It was always a pointless exercise with him.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:

Now that Jose is gone don’t bother trying to bait him to engage.  It was always a pointless exercise with him.

I dunno. This probably isn't rational but part of me still hopes he'll just admit that A is A in some fit of rage, or something. And then there's always the 'popcorn value'. ;) But yeah; as far as real, pro-life values go, you're probably right; I probably shouldn't be poking a dead mind with a stick.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I probably shouldn't be poking a dead mind with a stick.

What should you do when a zombie walks into your neighborhood? Some people try to ignore it. Some investigate and experiment. Others know that if they don't chop off its head and burn the corpse, it'll create more zombies in the neighborhood.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As a quick aside, I tried to give several of your explanations a "laugh" response (particularly the one about how Objectivism only applies to noncontradictory realities - which is true!) but have already used up my daily responses. But they did make me actually laugh.

 

1 hour ago, MisterSwig said:

What should you do when a zombie walks into your neighborhood? Some people try to ignore it. Some investigate and experiment. Others know that if they don't chop off its head and burn the corpse, it'll create more zombies in the neighborhood.  

I'm not completely sure what you mean. I have a few strong hunches (some of which I'd have some remarks about) but if I'm gonna give unsolicited advice out to strangers then I'd like a bit more elaboration, please? If you're up for unsolicited advice at this hour.

 

 

do not share.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

I'm not completely sure what you mean.

I'm thinking out loud: how should we deal with critics like Jose? He ignored objections to his example of a contradiction. Then, on the logic front, he gave SL the "what do you mean?" runaround. I couldn't take him seriously after that and just started goofing around. Then he started projecting hard because I guess my tactic frustrated him. But I'm not sure even that little effort was worth it, because he was beyond recognizing his own projections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most exchanges in life, when something is not understood, it's something specific, that can be indicated or isolated for clarification. In this exercise, nothing was ever indicated directly.

After pointing out the spelling and grammar, there was no effort to improve it. Those that tried to whitewash what he said by ascribing their own rationality to him were rewarded with more twisted verbiage to turn what was said into something it wasn't.

I was looking for a town of Contradiction somewhere in the world when I stumbled on Contradiction Dance studio in Washington D.C. The parallels and ironies that might be drawn from it was too much to pass up sharing it.

I admired StrictlyLogical's stance on what I've heard put: say what you mean, mean what you say. Even that was met with accusations of evasion. I found myself thinking, your looking in a mirror, Jose, what you are seeing is your own reflection.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

But I'm not sure even that little effort was worth it, because he was beyond recognizing his own projections.

You know, the more I reread this comment

23 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

But yeah; as far as real, pro-life values go, you're probably right; I probably shouldn't be poking a dead mind with a stick.

The more I regret it. It was something I typed and posted in under 60 seconds, because it conveyed a certain feeling (which seems vaguely relevant even though it's yet-unidentified) in a cutesy way. And in retrospect it implies some stuff I would've dropped like a hot potato if I'd stopped to actually think about what I was saying.

 

Yesterday I wrote this whole thing out about the honing of your philosophical detection skills and how laughter really does make you live longer and all the reasons why such "goofing off" is actually a good and healthy thing. All of which I do believe and none of which would need to be said if I hadn't just blurted that out little gem, there.

 

I really wish I could delete that one.

 

18 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

I'm thinking out loud: how should we deal with critics like Jose?

I think the way everybody else in this thread handled him was basically right. We were originally open, serious and as helpful as we could be, and we remained so until WELL after his dishonesty became obvious. Nobody was out to save his soul nor damn him (except for the implications of 1 or 2 of MY OWN statements) and we all stopped taking him seriously before he could get anyone too wound up.

As long as Jose wants to be this way we should not give him anything more than "goofing off" for the SOLE the purpose of OUR OWN fun (because laughter is good for you). Never take him more seriously than he takes us and if you get bored with it just walk away until/unless you feel like returning.

 

Seriously. You guys have all been on point so far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

People seem to be very dense in this entire thread. I don't mean that as an insult to anyone, I mean that to say I think a lot of this is a waste of time.

Jose has mediocre English, so that's a problem. I actually don't think it's anything else (it can make a difference for complicated grammar using complicated sentences, which especially applies to philosophy). Then it also gets into the point of the original thread. I don't think anyone pointed out the irony yet. That original thread was saying that arguing by formal logic is not going to do very good to support Rand. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, Jose said:

"I'm feeling like we've just begun
Nothing's ever good enough
Tenderness is all I've got"

 

I fully mean everything I just said about not taking you more seriously than you're gonna take me.

If you want to try this over again then I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and I will do my best to help you understand. And if you try playing these kinds of games again then I might join in a bit (although I'm not sure you'd like that).

Objectivists don't usually demand anything more from people than honesty and a tiny bit of effort - but we do demand that much. That's what would be "good enough": your honesty and your effort. I don't give a damn about your "tenderness".

 

Ball's in your court.

 

 

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Just changed my soundtrack a bit.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Jose has mediocre English, so that's a problem. I actually don't think it's anything else ...

Dude pointed out to MisterSwig that the occasional possibility of a contradiction would mean "suspending the Law of Identity" and that it would necessarily lead to epistemological subjectivism. Those are the words he picked out, all by himself, to express those points (which he also figured out for himself).

He can keep up just fine (and even express himself coherently) when he thinks he's not gonna accidentally demolish his own house of cards.

 

And those are a few of the reasons why I really don't agree.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Ah, you want to communicate through music? Well, at this point I'm willing to try anything.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish he had tried to ‚Äúidentify‚ÄĚ a contradiction in reality. ¬†Whatever he would have pointed to would have been what it is and not what it is not... and anything he could identify would have identity and would automatically destroy¬†his efforts. ¬†

To the extent he could not identify a contradiction in reality he would fail at showing one exists in reality.... which means, he would have failed utterly and miserably.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I wish he had tried to ‚Äúidentify‚ÄĚ a contradiction in reality. ¬†Whatever he would have pointed to would have been what it is and not what it is not... and anything he could identify would have identity and would automatically destroy¬†his efforts. ¬†

To the extent he could not identify a contradiction in reality he would fail at showing one exists in reality.... which means, he would have failed utterly and miserably.

This compliments Harrison's point about "suspending the Law of Identity" or introducing a "level of subjectivity on the philosophy".

If there was no familiarity with Objectivism on his behalf, then I must be ascribing my rationality to several of Jose's responses throughout these exchanges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

This compliments Harrison's point about "suspending the Law of Identity" or introducing a "level of subjectivity on the philosophy".

If there was no familiarity with Objectivism on his behalf, then I must be ascribing my rationality to several of Jose's responses throughout these exchanges.

There are levels of evasion.

A person can say to himself ‚ÄúI‚Äôve heard that a thing can be what it is but why can‚Äôt a thing be what it is not?‚ÄĚ

Note that In the second part of that utterance he is not forming a new thought he is only forming a new string of words... he is able to suspend his mind, his conceptual faculty, by shifting to validating the grammar, how ‚Äúwell formed‚ÄĚ the syntax... does it sound like a meaningful phrase... without having to think about whether it has meaning and what that meaning is.

This is form over substance, to avoid the substance, and is exactly the level Jose was working on.

Both his hiding behind form and his avoidance of substance are clear for all (sorry... most all) to see.

Now Honest Joe also would have started out suspending his mind, forming the phrase¬†‚Äúcontradictions in reality are possible‚ÄĚ as a well formed string of words, feeling it must correspond to something because it ‚Äúsounds‚ÄĚ like something coherent... but when confronted with its actual meaning, and the impossibility of really finding a referent for it... he would have realized the error.

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

I wish he had tried to ‚Äúidentify‚ÄĚ a contradiction in reality. ¬†Whatever he would have pointed to would have been what it is and not what it is not... and anything he could identify would have identity and would automatically destroy¬†his efforts.¬†¬†

Now you've gone and got me curious.

Say I claimed that an electron is simultaneously both a particle and a wave, which is obviously seems like a contradiction. I don't see any way to prove it actually IS a contradiction, and I do see how the mere attempt to do so would blow itself up. The best I can imagine would be to flatly assert "there isn't any missing information or alternative conceptions; that's just the end of the story" which wouldn't withstand a single "nuh-uh".

But didn't I just identify an apparent contradiction ... ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/21/2019 at 8:00 PM, Jose said:

"Falsifiablity" is not about proving something wrong. Is about the possibility for the profe to exist. If it is not possible to prove that something is wrong there is an article of faith and not science.

Perhaps "falsifiability" is being used as a stolen concept. It depends on the impossibility of contradictions, yet it's being used to challenge that fact.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Harrison Danneskjold said:

Now you've gone and got me curious.

Say I claimed that an electron is simultaneously both a particle and a wave, which is obviously seems like a contradiction. I don't see any way to prove it actually IS a contradiction, and I do see how the mere attempt to do so would blow itself up. The best I can imagine would be to flatly assert "there isn't any missing information or alternative conceptions; that's just the end of the story" which wouldn't withstand a single "nuh-uh".

But didn't I just identify an apparent contradiction ... ?

Not in a sufficiently concrete way.  You said something like Goats are Apples... that is when I ask you to point at one.  You either point at a Goat or an Apple (or maybe a GoatApple) but you can’t find anything that is what it is and what it is not   at the time and in the same respect.

Things which are counter intuitive for a macroscopic observer, one who gained a sense of things from a particular context, will come up again and again in the sciences of the very big and very small.

Whatever you think of wave-particle duality, no existent including the electron is ever at any one time and in the same respect, measured as X and as non X.  That measurement is impossible. 

If you interpret your measurement as X and non X you have made an error.  Most likely you have really measured Y and your assumptions about X are simply wrong.

 

Edited by StrictlyLogical

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:

There are levels of evasion.

The last time I recall you writing something similar, it was with regard to 'levels of rationality'.

I skimmed over an article this morning about a new property of gold discovered when subjecting it to pressure greater than determined to be applied near the center of the earth.

What we've discovered about the elements periodically get augmented with new properties, most often, if not always, a contextual observation previously unexplored.

Ayn Rand is not the only individual who has pondered about human nature. In fact, it is human nature to have some notions about human nature.

I'm thinking of this from The Romantic Manifesto.

Quote

One of the distinguishing characteristics of a work of art (including literature) is that it serves no practical, material end, but is an end in itself; it serves no purpose other than contemplation‚ÄĒand the pleasure of that contemplation is so intense, so deeply personal that a man experiences it as a self-sufficient, self-justifying primary and, often, resists or resents any suggestion to analyze it: the suggestion, to him, has the quality of an attack on his identity, on his deepest, essential self.

The parallel is, once a conclusion about human nature is ascribed, the concluder defends that conclusion as if his identity depends on it. And since the only experiential data he has to draw conclusions about human nature is introspective, any challenge to an erroneous conclusion almost has to be perceived as an attack on his identity.

I'm musing that this may have something to do with a tendency to ascribe one's own rationality onto situations that don't quite square with our own conclusions. After many decades of adhering to such practice subconsciously practicing this, altering it at this stage of the game requires keeping abulia at bay until it is more or less automatized..

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, StrictlyLogical said:

You either point at a Goat or an Apple (or maybe a GoatApple) but you can’t find anything that is what it is and what it is not   at the time and in the same respect.

Wouldn't a GoatApple be a real contradiction? It would be both animal and not animal, fruit and not fruit, etc.

Share this post


Link to post
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...