Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Objectivism and Psychology

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

"There are people who spend their entire lives incapable of realizing that other minds exist;"

He has said minds exist, his claim is just about what the content of those minds is.

How could you possibly know that an entity has a mind, without knowing something about its contents?  Any action whatsoever that requires a consciousness, also requires mental content; they aren't separable.  I realize full well that it's intention to distinguish between them (which can be done) but he's further attempting to assert that they operate by two entirely different rules, which is flat-out false.

And that's an assertion about his mental content which I'd wager my writing hand to be accurate.

---

 

Edit:  You're right; full blown autism isn't entirely relevant to his explicit statements.  But there's a principle he's gnawing at here. . .

Edited by Harrison Danneskjold
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh, I'm pretty sure I know where you are and were going with what you were saying/doing with your posts. I just think that as long as you keep being implicit rather than explicit with your point you won't be able to move forward with the discussion. Remaining implicit, I think he'll probably just keep thinking right away that you are misrepresenting him and dodging things. If somebody is arguing against a straw man, one really wouldn't need to give the posts any further thought. However, further thought would be needed to notice that you were actually attempting to make a point about what his arguments necessitate down the line logically. Hence you'd get stuck going in circles until he sees his exact statements being acknowledged and spoken to directly.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can debate with statements written by Ayn Rand. She no longer has mental contents. Her words stand alone to be agreed with or refuted.

 By this, you mean that words have no causal relation to mental content.

 If a person's statements were dictated by their beliefs then knowing one would allow you to infer the other.  By declaring that impossible, you are necessarily saying that its basis is false.

 

Not valid since you cannot read minds and you cannot know whether such people are thinking poorly, being dishonest, or whether it is you that is thinking poorly.

This takes that assertion one logical step further.

Since you say that words are not caused by ideas, any form of communication must logically be an exchange of empty noises, divorced from both content (since that would be mental content) and truth-value (since the determination of truth or falsehood also requires mental content).

 

Your arguments misrepresent my arguments. No fun.

This is the logical conclusion; attributing thoughts (such as 'representation,' true or otherwise) to words, instead of minds.  It also demonstrates your motive in the original assertion.

---

 

Now you say that my arguments "misrepresent" your arguments, what can I interpret that to mean?

If I consistently applied your standard, I could not infer the accusation of distortion; an accusation is a mental function which requires mental contents (I would be assuming that you believe that I misrepresented you, which I cannot apparently know).

How could you even say that I've misrepresented you, in the first place?  Representation is another mental process which cannot be performed in a vacuum; what content in my mind have I misrepresented?

 

Taken to its fullest conclusion, your premise would destroy any sort of debate because- as I originally pointed out- communication itself requires some amount of hypothesis about other people's minds.

That was the point of bringing up autism.  There are other, completely unrelated symptoms of the condition, but judging from my own experiences with such people (I've known some who've had it pretty badly) they cannot communicate because they absolutely cannot do what you want the rest of us to stop doing.

---

 

That's all I have to say about that.  And if you're sincerely interested in the 'quality of debate, itself' then you'll analyze it in fuller depth, for yourself.

 

Live long and prosper.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Harrison Danneskjold writes:

“By this, you mean that words have no causal relation to mental content.”

 

Really? That's what I mean? In spite of the fact that I have said exactly the opposite? Wow, Sigmund! You must know me better than I know myself. Impressive psychobabble, dude!

 

What I actually said:

Post 5: We can know they have minds, since they communicate.

Post 34: In obvious examples, you can say "I know he has a mind and it is capable of playing the piano because he is playing one now" or "I know he has a mind because he is conversing", but you cannot know a person's beliefs or motives or feelings, or methods of reasoning, only what they say about such matters.

Post 37: You argue that it is "simply true that human beings have motives and emotions, and these influence their actions." Perhaps so, but you do not have any way to know what their motives and emotions are, nor which of those are associated with which of their actions.

Post 42: What I said is that you cannot know their [minds'] contents. For instance I know you have a mind because you are communicating. I have no idea what you think or what your motives are. You may agree with me and are playing devil's advocate. Or perhaps you don't comprehend what you read very well, but love to argue anyway. I have no way of knowing what's going on in there and I don't pretend I do.

Post 46: My objection here in this forum has been to those debaters who argue as if they can know the contents of the minds of others. This is a lie, in my opinion (leaving aside the possibility that they really can). I think psychobabble is a form of rudeness and that it serves to wreck honest debate because it is irrelevant nonsense.

Post 49: We can know that we all have brains and we can know that we all are conscious, but you will never be able to see the contents of my brain, so you would be presumptuous to discuss them.

Post 55: I say they have a mind because they are debating with me.

 

Harrison Danneskjold writes:

“Since you say that words are not caused by ideas...”

 

Amazing! I have looked through all my posts and cannot find that quote nor anything that implies such a silly position. I have said that you do not know which ideas or motives caused those words.

 

Harrison Danneskjold writes:

“Firstly, the very act of debate necessitates some theorization about the mental contents of other participants.”

 

Not true. You debate only against a stated position. Your guesses about the mental origins of that position are irrelevant to the meaning of the words that make up that position. 

 

Psychobabble and Misrepresentation are the most common methods of debate wrecking.

Edited by howardofski
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, psychobabble is nothing but a rhetorical weapon.

 

The problem, however, lies on a deeper level than that of either Dr Phil's meaningless expostulations at a distance over 'responsibility' or internet responses.

 

Rather, with Rand herself in her aesthetic theory.

 

Rand presupposes the 'right' to assess the artist's mind by his/her production. This was acceptable 19th century lit theory, until radically overturned by Proust, in 'Contre St Breuve'.

 

Intent and mindedness aren't self-evidently reflected by observed behaviors, including speech. Furthermore, adding 'consciousness' into the rhetorical stew adds nothing but more starch.

 

It also leads to conundrums such as the one I witnessed back in October: a follower of Rand (Atlanta Meetup) 'lectured' the smallish group of attendees on how modern artists  such as Matisse and Picasso were 'sick', as evinced by their unnatural paintings! 

 

BH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rand presupposes the 'right' to assess the artist's mind by his/her production."

 

I fail to understand this statement.  Are you saying that an individual truly does not have a 'right' to assess the artist's mind?  Does he need some form of permission?

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Rand presupposes the 'right' to assess the artist's mind by his/her production."

 

I fail to understand this statement.  Are you saying that an individual truly does not have a 'right' to assess the artist's mind?  Does he need some form of permission?

So how can you fail to understand my statement, yet cleany repeat it back to me as a question?

 

Permission, of course not. Rather, anyone who makes up 'shoot form the hip' psychologismms should be held accountable as an inveterate psychobabbler.

 

In other words, having declared Rand's aesthetics as background does not legitimize some hopeless fool's 'Rand Atlanta Meetup' claim that Matisse and Picasso were insane by virtue of their canvasses.

 

BH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 ....should be held accountable as an inveterate psychobabbler.

Who should hold that person accountable?  And what exactly does that mean?  Should Society hold him accountable? 

 

The bigger point is why should you care what some nameless person at a "meet up" said about anything?  Or even what Rand said?  I personally think that many of the Fauvist paintings of Matisse, Derain, et al. are masterpieces, and that technically Picasso was unparalleled as an artist, but that some of his subjects were a little self-indulgent.  If someone from this blog disagrees with me, well, what do I care?

 

Below is added as an edit:

 

Your "Rand presupposes the 'right' " statement is every bit as dogmatic as whatever the person at the "meet up" in Atlanta said.  But you each have the 'right' to make them.

Edited by New Buddha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Who should hold that person accountable?  And what exactly does that mean?  Should Society hold him accountable? 

 

The bigger point is why should you care what some nameless person at a "meet up" said about anything?  Or even what Rand said?  I personally think that many of the Fauvist paintings of Matisse, Derain, et al. are masterpieces, and that technically Picasso was unparalleled as an artist, but that some of his subjects were a little self-indulgent.  If someone from this blog disagrees with me, well, what do I care?

 

Below is added as an edit:

 

Your "Rand presupposes the 'right' " statement is every bit as dogmatic as whatever the person at the "meet up" in Atlanta said.  But you each have the 'right' to make them.

You're saying that I'm being dogmatic against dogmatism. 

 

Furthermore, that i'm somehow wrong in calling out those who indulge in psychobabble.

 

So, okay, I admit--i have a 'critical attitude'!

 

Now let's move on....so do you think that psycho-analysis at a distance is appropriate?

 

Of course, the owner of the Atlanta Rand Meetup site only speaks for himself...or does he?

 

My readings on Rand's views of Modernism versus her own 'Romantic Realism are very clear in her abject hatred of the former.

 

As to whether she indulged in abusivs psychologisms is a matter for Google to decide...

 

BH

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Both of my responses were, somewhat, over-critical to what I perceive to be an passive-voice in your posts.  If you had said "I hold them accountable as being an inveterate psychobabbler" - it would have acknowledged that it was your assessment, and not some omniscient "they" that should do the accounting.

 

One problem that I personally have with Objectivist, is that some tend to interpret "objective" to mean "I'm rational so every one must agree with me about all things, otherwise they're being irrational".  While almost nobody would say they do this - the sad truth is that it happens all the time (I've done it myself).

 

Do I think psycho-analysis at a distance is appropriate?  In some instances, it might be the only data available to you.   But as long as you understand that, it can be appropriate.  However, that doesn't mean that you should expect others to agree with you.  In fact life is easier if you don't ever expect others to agree with you - instead, judge them by their actions.  Words are cheap.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...

One problem that I personally have with Objectivist, is that some tend to interpret "objective" to mean "I'm rational so every one must agree with me about all things, otherwise they're being irrational".  While almost nobody would say they do this - the sad truth is that it happens all the time (I've done it myself).

 

I admit I do this. And I don't see anything wrong with it.

 

If I am rational and you disagree with me wouldn't that imply you are being irrational? If not, can you please provide an example to a premise that is both true and false.

 

If I am not rational, but I think I am rational that would mean I am mistaken. Should I then never be certain?

 

If you make a logical case that I was wrong, I can see the error in my thinking and correct myself.

 

What I see most of the time is sort of the opposite of what you say; people rationalize and evade and become aggressive after their arguments are refuted by reason. While almost (?) nobody would say they do this - the sad truth is that they put their `ego` in front of `truth`.

 

If I think I am right and you don't agree with me, then I will think you are wrong. There is no getting around making mistakes. What matters, I think, is being able to deal with your mistakes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I am not rational, but I think I am rational that would mean I am mistaken.

If you are mistaken, that means the other person may in fact have a rational position. So their disagreement with you does not mean they are irrational. You can't know this based on their mere disagreement, you'd have to look into their reasons for disagreement. On top of that, if they know less about something than you, it may be rational for them to hold a different position than you - in which case you can educate them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you are mistaken, that means the other person may in fact have a rational position. So their disagreement with you does not mean they are irrational. You can't know this based on their mere disagreement, you'd have to look into their reasons for disagreement. On top of that, if they know less about something than you, it may be rational for them to hold a different position than you - in which case you can educate them.

 

I agree. If you are making a counterpoint I don't see it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. If you are making a counterpoint I don't see it.

You said you admit to seeing people as irrational if they disagree with you - admitting to the thing Buddha said is bad or disappointing. In that case, the disagreement was only over semantics, not content.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said you admit to seeing people as irrational if they disagree with you - admitting to the thing Buddha said is bad or disappointing. In that case, the disagreement was only over semantics, not content.

 

 

Here is what I said:

 

 

If I am rational and you disagree with me wouldn't that imply you are being irrational? If not, can you please provide an example to a premise that is both true and false.

 

 

Is it possible two people holding opposite views and both being rational? No. That would be a contradiction.

 

Is it possible for someone to realize that he/she is being irrational and still hold his position unchanged? No, not if she/he has genuinely seen his/her irrationality.

 

@Eiuol, not everyone holds onto their irrational views, no matter what. Some people have the intellectual depth to recognize when they are shown their views are invalid and have the maturity to acknowledge that they were mistaken.

 

Yes, I admit that I think I am rational. I feel no guilt or shame for that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, I admit that I think I am rational. I feel no guilt or shame for that.

Right, but that doesn't mean the other person is irrational if they disagree - you might be mistaken in the first place. That's what I disagreed about (am I irrational to disagree with you right now?). Two incorrect views can be rational, because rationality isn't about holding a belief that turns out to be true, it's about your methods of thinking. Is Aristotle irrational to believe that the brain's purpose is to cool your blood? Is a teenager in high school irrational to think Communism is generally right? The answer depends on the rationale.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eiuol, I like your premise "Two incorrect views can be rational, because rationality isn't about holding a belief that turns out to be true. It's about your methods of thinking."

 

The two concretes you provided may have become clearer while formulating this response. 

 

Aristotle was not irrational to believe that the brain's purpose is to cool your blood. Given the knowledge available to him at the time, and the evidence provided by his endeavors inducing the structures of logical syllogism, he was mistaken -  by later discoveries, of which he was unaware.

 

Is the teenager in high school irrational to think Communism is generally right? Given the indoctrination fed to him at the time, and the evidence available but not offered by his "teachers", the irrationality is more or less "baked in". Would it be fair to identify this as a "comprachico" effect rather than outright irrationality?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is the teenager in high school irrational to think Communism is generally right? Given the indoctrination fed to him at the time, and the evidence available but not offered by his "teachers", the irrationality is more or less "baked in". Would it be fair to identify this as a "comprachico" effect rather than outright irrationality?

No, even when I've had plenty of evidence, I thought in high school that Communism is generally right. I agree that sometimes it's a comprachico effect, but there are cases where a lack of knowledge goes with different conclusions. Rand mentioned of Victor Hugo was socialist essentially in several ways, except he wasn't irrational due to how he'd never see the total power of the industrial revolution, and the problems in later socialist and communist countries.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie claimed of Rand:

Rand mentioned of Victor Hugo was socialist essentially in several ways, except he wasn't irrational due to how he'd never see the total power of the industrial revolution, and the problems in later socialist and communist countries.

Do you know off hand where I can find this comment?

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...