Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Jose

Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

32 minutes ago, Jose said:

If you want to get a discussion you need to address your opponents doubts 

Jose,

You have been evading a genuine discussion. This is evident whenever you answer a direct question with an other question considerably more vague. Even more so, this is evident when you make assertions that you contradict or amend in later responses. The reason no one is taking you seriously here is for the facts: 1) you're scatological continuity reveals mischief rather than mistaken conceptual clarity; 2) when offered an explanation, you claim that the explanation is poorly presented and that you need a teacher that sees from your "worldview"; and 3) please, don't take this personally, but your use of the English language appears to frustrate everyone on both sides. I informed you that there are Spanish translations of the very best Objectivist literature. Consistently, you show no interest in examining Objectivism from its fundamentals.

  If it is a discussion you want, exactly what is it you wish to discuss?

Share this post


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

You have been evading a genuine discussion. This is evident whenever you answer a direct question with an other question considerably more vague. Even more so, this is evident when you make assertions that you contradict or amend in later responses

Examples please...

Share this post


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

Examples please...

Here's an example: I ask you what it is that you wish to discuss, and you evade by directing me to look back at other earlier posts, as if I'm going to play your silly game of denial.

So, let's try this again: What is it that you wish to discuss?

You did the same thing with dream_weaver, when he asked for clarity as which one was "the pupil."

Jose, Objectivism isn't for everyone. Whenever I say that, I am struck with a tinge of sadness, and some people will disagree with me. Nonetheless, there are people who refuse to "let go" their beliefs they've lived with all of their lives, and something as truly radical as Objectivism seems to them to be alien. Now, your skills as a debater have serious shortcomings. If you see yourself as an opponent of Objectivism, you're approach to opposing it is not working, and yet, you ceaselessly follow the same pattern of evasion, confusion, and ultimately claiming victim status, by claiming that "you guys are poor teachers." We are not your teachers. No one is at fault for failing to educated anyone who is unwilling to learn. So far as I've read into this thread, no one has claimed to be a teacher. If you wish to be educated, as I've said before, educate yourself. 

Now, what exactly is it that you truly wish to discuss? (And you might consider starting a new thread, rather than continue this disaster.)

Share this post


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

Based on this is imposible to know if something is inside or outside your head.

Is that what you believe, or do you believe it's possible to know if something is inside or outside your head?

Share this post


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

So, let's try this again: What is it that you wish to discuss?

Look at the title

7 hours ago, Repairman said:

You did the same thing with dream_weaver, when he asked for clarity as which one was "the pupil."

I did ... the sameness he refers to.

Share this post


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

Is that what you believe, or do you believe it's possible to know if something is inside or outside your head?

What do you answer yes?

And no?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Jose said:

Look at the title

I did ... the sameness he refers to.

 

Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))

So, you're incapable of taking decisions. (taking decisions?) Ok, your problem, not mine. MisterSwigs has pointed out that there is no "objective criteria." And you support this claim with evidence. You're scenario lacks any criteria through your persistent inconsistencies.

The simple replies you respond with indicate a total lack of desire to arrive at any useful point. If you are quite certain you wish to discuss nothing, you are doing just fine.

Edited by Repairman
minor error

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Repairman said:

 

Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))

So, you're incapable of taking decisions. (taking decisions?) Ok, your problem, not mine. MisterSwigs has pointed out that there is no "objective criteria." And you support this claim with evidence. You're scenario lacks any criteria through your persistent inconsistencies.

The simple replies you respond with indicate a total lack of desire to arrive at any useful point. If you are quite certain you wish to discuss nothing, you are doing just fine.

As I said Rand’s philosophy like to sweep under the rug anything that do not fit. Why it is possible to don’t be an “objective criteria” but there is the only valid way to know the world.

Share this post


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

As I said Rand’s philosophy like to sweep under the rug anything that do not fit.

Jose, I don't know if this is progress, but at least you're admitting that your purpose to all of this nonsense is your objection to Objectivism. Or perhaps a dislike of Ayn Rand. Or is there any purpose? Have you read anything Ayn Rand has written?

 

The question you've posed seems to be related to perception and epistemology. Is this correct?

Edited by Repairman
Second question

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Jose said:

Yes self education.

Jose, self-education means that you friend study material independent of an instructor. We cannot spoon-feed philosophy to you. You must make the honest effort.

 

21 minutes ago, Jose said:

Like which one?

It would be best moving forward that you respond in complete sentences without any ambiguities. It would be senseless to re-cap the mistakes of the past.

What, if any Objectivist literature have you read?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"He repays a teacher badly who always remains a student." This curiously appeared on the Forum's front page as a Random Quote, author Unknown. I thought it was appropriate.

Share this post


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

Jose, self-education means that you friend study material independent of an instructor. We cannot spoon-feed philosophy to you. You must make the honest effort.

That is why I have a very pointed question ...

 

2 hours ago, Repairman said:

It would be best moving forward that you respond in complete sentences without any ambiguities.

Will You be so kind to point to me of one just one inconsistency on my scenario or my question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK Jose:

On 11/27/2019 at 1:58 PM, Jose said:

Yes, I’m denying it, because explanation is not changing

 

On 11/27/2019 at 2:36 PM, Jose said:

Yes clarification is change ... I think I need to clarify my question “how to make a decision when there is no objective way to do it.”

What you don’t want to understand is that, what you complain about is an example.

Does this settle the matter?

 

 

Edited by Repairman
addendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Jose said:

That is why I have a very pointed question ...

 

Will You be so kind to point to me of one just one inconsistency on my scenario or my question.

And your very pointed question is: ?????

Are sure it's not a very pointless question?

 

Edited by Repairman
addendum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, Jose said:
11 hours ago, MisterSwig said:

Is that what you believe, or do you believe it's possible to know if something is inside or outside your head?

What do you answer yes?

And no?

I don't know what you believe. That's why I asked you. Anyway, take care. I'm gonna climb into the peanut gallery for the rest of the show. 

Share this post


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

"He repays a teacher badly who always remains a student." This curiously appeared on the Forum's front page as a Random Quote, author Unknown. I thought it was appropriate.

Most returns on the quote as cited point to Friedrich Nietzsche —"One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil."

Sensei used to say something along the lines "One learns more as a teacher than as a student." That  doesn't get nearly as many Google nibbles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Jose said:
On 11/27/2019 at 6:32 PM, Jose said:
On 11/27/2019 at 5:34 PM, dream_weaver said:

Let's let this and the popcorn thread  serve as the basis for letting others draw an objective conclusion.

That is an ad hominem, you are evaluating an argument using completely irrelevant facts

From the other thread someone said that contradiction are possible and impossible at the same time. I try to know what he means and he start trolling. The solutions I give were that he was using a contradiction resistant logic, later I think that he is meaning a kind of Hegelian dialectic.

In this thread, people went out of there way to evade my concern and even said that subjective criteria, could be used but don’t give a guidelines of when.  Or when I explain the example said that I was moving the goal post. I really try to learn who Rand’s handle this scenario because is extremely simple so it was logical for me to look at what I’m missing.

After both threads my only way to understand what is going on is that you guys just ignore and sweep under the rug everything that do not fit in your worldview.

 

9 hours ago, Jose said:

As I said Rand’s philosophy like to sweep under the rug anything that do not fit. Why it is possible to don’t be an “objective criteria” but there is the only valid way to know the world.

Aside from the grammatical difference, there is the housekeeping similarity.

Rand offered some salient advice years ago that may still be relevant today. She was addressing herself to those who were genuinely interested in ideas, therefore having an authentic desire to understand Objectivism. Those whom she deemed were making an effort to fail to understand her were of no concern to her.

She went as step further and offered some criteria for disagreeing with her. Start, she said, by identifying her basic premises, and then refuting them.

She went another step further and identified her basic premises (in case the antagonist had difficulty in doing so, presumably.)

A.) Men must be guided exclusively by reason.
B.) That man has a right to exist for his own sake. And
C.) That no-one has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others.

As difficult as it may be to believe, she went yet another step further and outlined what would be required to admit and maintain in order to refute her on the aforementioned premises.

A.) Man ought to be irrational.
B.) That man is a sacrificial animal. And
C.) That you seek to impose your own ideas or wishes on others by means of physical force.

If this is what you are maintaining is being "swept under the rug", pull back a corner of the rug and look into the mirror strategically placed under that rug, and report what you see therein.

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Delving a bit deeper into Objectivity in this 121st post, a definition which was requested and provided as the 41st post in this thread, a complimentary passage can be found in Who Is The Final Authority In Ethics.

It is obvious that the root of such questions ["Is it intellectual plagiarism to accept and even to use philosophical principles and values discovered by someone else?"] is a certain kind of conceptual vacuum: the absence of the concept of objectivity in the questioner's mind.

Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final "authority" in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one's own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" is wrong. Nobody "decides." Nature does not decideit merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality.

This provides some rationale why volitional adherence to reality is prudent. It does not cover the fact that spectacular views of the Atlantic Ocean or of the Rocky Mountains exist. It does point out that in any given context, only one answer is true, thus trying to decide in a vacuum, i.e., trying to make a contextless decision, would be a departure from objectivity.

If you do lift the corner of the aforementioned rug, could you check to see if this was inadvertently swept under it as well?

"Do you cry that you find no answers? By what means did you hope to find them? You reject your tool of perception—your mind—then complain that the universe is a mystery. You discard your key, then wail that all doors are locked against you. You start out in pursuit of the irrational, then damn existence for making no sense.
— This is John Galt Speaking

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not that I disagree, just wanting some clarification

2 hours ago, dream_weaver said:

Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness.

I have historically had a problem with that statement as "Why is the specifically metaphysical, when we are talking about recognition and consciousness". I would see this fact as both metaphysical and epistemological. 

But I think what is meant here is that: There are multiple competing explanations of metaphysics by different philosophies. Accepting and applying this understanding means being objective.

In other words, you cannot be objective if you don't recognize the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver consciousness. An example of different understanding of metaphysics would be "whatever is out there is there because I am creating it". With that "recognition", you are not objective (and can't be objective).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Which came first? When dealing with knowledge, it is epistemologically derived. To go on, is to inquire what knowledge is derived from. Indeed, in this regard, the primacy of existence is an epistemological accomplishment. To separate the epistemological from the metaphysical, look to her theory of concepts. The first concepts grasped as children are those of entities or existents. The objects are metaphysical. The process of identifying the objects is epistemological in nature.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/23/2019 at 5:15 PM, Jose said:

Hi all,

I have the following scenario. Someone is deciding where to go for lunch, two places have the same objective pros and cons. But, one of the places really do not like one of the places. If we use just Objective there is no way to make a decision. But once we introduce fillings (an subjective criteria) the decision is trivial. What is the Objectivists way to see this scenario?

Objective does not mean, cannot mean, omitting all personal preferences when the action contemplated is essentially about what to do with your person, where to go, what to eat , etc.   That one dislikes one of the choices is a fact that should be included in the decision.  Whether or not one should dislike that choice (and not all dislikes are voluntary) is a different question to be taken up at a different time.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, Grames said:

Objective does not mean, cannot mean, omitting all personal preferences when the action contemplated is essentially about what to do with your person, where to go, what to eat , etc.   That one dislikes one of the choices is a fact that should be included in the decision.  Whether or not one should dislike that choice (and not all dislikes are voluntary) is a different question to be taken up at a different time.

 

Indeed. It is quite typical among some people to see objectivity being associated with the universal, impersonal, or "the view from nowhere." Notice how he characterized the deliberative process as unresolvable until these "fillings" are introduced, then it becomes trivial, by which I take it as being resolved. What exactly would be "reality without fillings" seems a lot like Nagel's "view from nowhere." Daston and Galison (2007) trace objectivity-as-impersonalism to the Kantian turn (although not without seeds already planted in the Scholastic version.) 

Of course you can't make a decision without the "fillings," all of the particular, personal, contingent things that characterize actual reality. Once you empty reality of that the things that actually make it up, what could end up guiding your thought process? Factors unique to each person is desperately needed for objectivity when trying to give a weighting or balancing between various goods and option. You need to take your circumstances, talents, endowments, interests, beliefs, and histories that descriptively characterize each individual precisely because reasoning about ends is done by real life individually situated people and not detached Cartesian egos or Kantian noumenal selves. 

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...