All Activity

Really, how so?

Completely arbitrary assertion (and an example of smearing).

Ayn Rand "Philosophy studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence. In the realm of cognition, the special sciences are the trees, but philosophy is the soil which makes the forest possible." Quote right from this forum.

Robert Campbell, an academic psychologist who used to be active on the O-web, wrote about the Skinner / Chomsky wars. One of his points was that Rand was unduly pessimistic, thinking that behaviorism was the leading position as of the early 70s. He also said that Skinner wrote Beyond Freedom and Dignity for a lay audience because he was by then a has-been, no longer taken seriously in his field. (One might say the same of John Kenneth Galbraith.) Ayn Rand and the Cognitive Revolution in Psychology (clemson.edu)

The poster evaluated an individual's self described self observation as an example of a proper result flowing from a proper application of principle, I was suggesting the poster more closely evaluate the source of the report of having achieved a paragon status of rationality.

Once we discover the deductions, yes. But they can be complicated and/or subtle, and difficult to find.

There is a famous refutation of behaviorism, “A Review of B. F. Skinner’s Verbal Behavior” (Language 35: 26-58, 1959) which appeared in what was at the time the premier scientific journal for linguistics, written by Noam Chomsky. What is relevant to the present issue is that the refutation is not based on advanced technical training and specialized investigations, it is not a scientific refutation, it is a philosophical refutation that the theory is not even wrong. True, there are also footnotes with references to technical scientific literature, but the review is entirely composed of a logical dissection. The essence of the review is a philosophical explication of how the book and the underlying theory is meaningless and unsupported gibberish. Usually, a professional attack on a scientific theory is based on competing science, occasionally as in the review of Verbal behavior, it is based on a philosophical determination that the emperor has no clothes. Being the target of a well-reasoned philosophical attack is shameful for a scientist, which is why such refutations are usually not required. Sometimes, though, they are required yet lacking, and that is when you know that a particular science has devolved into meaningless blather.

So volitional consciousness is the acme or apex of naturally occurring phenomenon, not 'outside' of nature? Your wording seems to leave open the possibility that cancer is evil, but I don't think that is what you intended to express.

Theory is applied philosophy, science is a method to test a theory against reality. Premises are context, they may be incorrect against wider contexts, incongruent when integrated into a wider , or the widest context, but premises aren't/can't be 'out of context'.

First, the Bhopal accident was in 1984, what happens in 2014 is totally irrelevant. Second, the accident was at a Union Carbide plant, and Dow acquired UC only in 2001. Third, UC paid the contemporary equivalent of 100,000,000,000 cents for this. Fourth, the number of deaths in the immediate aftermath was 2,000, not your hallucinated 20,000. Finally, Paul Orrefice had no connection to the accident, at most Warren Anderson might, and in fact Keshub Mahindra, the chairman of the Indian company that was actually responsible, was arrested, tried and convicted for various crimes connected to the accident. Did someone pay you to write this fictitious denouncement of an American hero?

A couple of headlines this morning reminded me of the logical fallacy named above, which Wikipedia reminds us:... refers to several types of arguments that are . Typically this term refers to a rhetorical strategy where the speaker attacks the character, motive, or some other attribute of the person making an argument rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself. This avoids genuine debate by creating a personal attack as a diversion often using a totally irrelevant, but often highly charged attribute of the opponent's character or background. The most common form of this fallacy is "A" makes a claim of "fact," to which "B" asserts that "A" has a personal trait, quality or physical attribute that is repugnant thereby going entirely off-topic, and hence "B" concludes that "A" has their "fact" wrong - without ever addressing the point of the debate. Many contemporary politicians routinely use ad hominem attacks, which can be encapsulated to a derogatory nickname for a political opponent.The first headline this reminded me of was "Trump: 'Hannibal Lecter Is a Wonderful Man'" at The Hill. Other outlets jumping on the story -- in an attempt to make news out of a word salad/feeble attempt at humor -- added such things as in apparent praise of the cannibal. I am no fan of Donald Trump, but I'm pretty sure he wasn't advocating cannibalism. Just a hunch. My quick read of one was that the above impression on my part is correct, and that this is just another of many hysterical reactions by some of the leftish people who let Trump live rent-free in their brains. I wouldn't put it past Trump to have deliberately done this to provoke such stories so he can go back and smear all such stories as hysterical nonsense, not that Trump hasn't said and done things that merit condemnation. So -- although with Trump, He did it randomly on a whim is an equally likely explanation -- Trump now has a new example of what he can call Trump derangement syndrome in the news media in order to discount more substantial attacks from opponents, if they ever get serious enough to raise them. Trump is an awful officeholder, but a grade-A politician: Whether or not he meant to stir up a hornet's nest, he will not waste a good opportunity to recycle this new ad hominem into one for his own use. People may make outlandish charges in order to discredit what Trump has to say. The fact that they do so does not mean that we should jump to condemn Trump nor does it mean there aren't good reasons to do so. I don't care what he says: I'm taking a walk today. (Image captured from video by United States Senate, via Wikipedia, public domain.)The second time I thought of ad hominem was when I spotted a link to the following headline at the tail end of another news item: "Dr. Oz discusses the many benefits of walking." Having resumed my walking regimen a couple of months ago after our time-consuming interstate move, benefits of walking caught my eye. And then it landed on Dr. Oz. Considering my well-founded low opinion of Mehmet Oz as a medical expert, its should be obvious I have no interest in what he might say on the matter. All the same, just because this quack recommends walking doesn't mean it's snake oil. Realizing that a mindless rejection of walking would be to succumb to that fallacy caused me to make a connection regarding many of Trump's followers, whose approach seems to be trust Trump, regardless of what he says or any past evidence. While ad hominem is usually used to discount an argument because of who is saying it, it can be useful to consider the perils of making a similar error: Taking the source of an argument (alone) as reason to accept it. Just because Dr. Oz says walking is beneficial doesn't mean it isn't. And just because someone you might trust claims to have an answer doesn't mean he does. Leftists do this all the time when they treat the advice of government-sanctioned experts like marching orders (See the last pandemic.) and Trumpists are doing the same thing with regard to their orange savior. To use someone's else's judgement categorically as a guide to action is foolish, and yet accounts for quite a bit of what's going wrong nowadays. -- CAVLink to Original

My guess is that this was done purposely and like not by Gus.

What is wrong with you? What is good for the life of man qua man is the good and what is opposed to the life of man qua man is the evil, and this directly follows from man's nature as a rational being. Why are you even on this forum, let alone the mass of anti-Objectivists also posting. You are lucky that I was demodded for enforcing the forums (appropriate) rules as written and in context.

Science is applied philosophy such as physics or ethics in the same way engineering is applied science. Areas of ideas don't exist as random separated islands, there is a hierarchy of knowledge. What is it with this forum being bombarded from a million different directions by false irrational ideas and strange random assertions all based of floating concepts, out of context premises, etc?

The strike-through text of this post can be corrected by one with editing access. The problem is caused by a keystroke that can be undone.

In 2014, Dow gave $4.5 billion to its shareholders - but has not contributed ¢1 cent to clean up Bhopal. 20,000 deaths in the immediate aftermath. Paul Orrefice should be tried for crimes against humanity. And your proud of this guy? LOL - Only In Amerca.

Orrefice, a name he fully deserves... This man and his company Dow - - perhaps most famous for developing Agent Orange and killing 20,000 people in Bhopal - - polluted America and the world, tested toxic chemicals (including Dioxin, one of the most carcinogenic chemicals known to man) on unwitting American prisoners, while denying it all, for profit and status. He truly is the anus of a company that evacuated its bowels all over the world. How you can celebrate such a man is beyond me. Did someone pay you to write this fictitious hagiography of such a disgusting man? All my love, abc x

The realization that the life of a common cockroach is also "an end in itself", may be disconcerting at first. Rand's "organism" relates to all living things - "man", included. "On the *physical* level, the functions of all living organisms, from the simplest to the most complex...- are actions generated by the organism itself and directed to a single goal: the maintenance of the organism's life"

Good and evil pertain to choices by a rational consciousness, given a fundamental goal such as “to exist, qua man”. This uniquely refers to man, at least on Earth. Morality is a code guiding a rational consciousness, whereby one can reach one’s fundamental goal. Nature, i.e. “the universe”, is not a consciousness and does not make choices, so nature does not have a moral code. Morality derives from nature, specifically, the identity of a consciousness. The concept of “supranatural”, meaning “above the laws of nature”, is not even applicable to morality for humans. Gravity is a law of nature, you cannot chose to disobey it. Morality is clearly a choice, not a law of nature, and is not absolutely and instantly enforced as laws of nature are.

I guess I can't shake the "downstream" model. I have this image in my mind of data going through a premise machine and coming out as rational or irrational conclusions based on how the machine has been programmed. When you say she needed to reinforce her rational judgment on a deeper level, you mean the subconscious level. But hasn't she programmed it already? This issue seems to me to be related to something Piekoff said about needing to constantly be in contact with the world when "chewing" Objectivism. I totally sympathize with the idea that, after a few decades of life, I've got enough data to lock myself in a room and figure out all the answers to the deep questions Plato or Descartes-style. Similarly, why should my motivations have to continually catch up with my reason once they've been programmed? I'm curious about what you mean by "static knowledge". I've never though about knowledge in those terms, but it does jibe with the idea of consciousness as a process, which is an idea that I've recently realized I don't understand. I'd say that's probably the sticking point: thinking of consciousness as a mirror. That and the fact that my subconscious premises seem pretty darn static. I'd happily try and drop them if I thought I was holding onto them actively. There's also the notion in Objectivism that one can postpone certain mental processes if one's mood isn't conducive to rational thought. I've always been conflicted about notions like these. Isn't rational thought simply a choice? It occurs to me that I've possibly been repressing and then calling it "self-control". Here are some more example I thought of that might explain my confusion: - Why are scary movies scary? We all know the monster isn't real - How is mathematical research a thing? Can't we just deduce all of math from just the concept of numbers? - I prefer to wait and post comments after I've been able to read them with fresh eyes some hours later. But why should waiting be better? Maybe I was right the first time around It's possible I'm not ready to be asking this question at the moment, but it's certainly a sign of something important, namely being unfamiliar with the identity of consciousness. I think I'm putting my ideas ahead of my experience. Anyway, here's the exact clip of Binswanger in case anyone wants some context: I don't follow.

When you take good and evil to stand for life and death, for all organisms/animals. "An organism's life is its ~standard of value~; that which furthers its life is the *good*, that which threatens it is the *evil*." ... "It is only an ultimate goal, an ~end in itself~, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically *life* is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself; a value gained and kept by a constant process of action..." p17 --- A critical footnote to allay concerns that these organisms, animals, etc, evidently do NOT have consciousness of life/death, good/evil, values, morality, goal-directed purpose, and so on (apart from sensations, pain/pleasure, for many forms) - on p16: AR: "When applied to physical phenomena, such as the automatic functions of an organism, the term “goal-directed” is not to be taken to mean “purposive” (a concept applicable only to the actions of a consciousness) and is not to imply the existence of any teleological principle operating in insentient nature. I use the term “goal-directed,” in this context, to designate the fact that the automatic functions of living organisms are actions whose nature is such that they result in the preservation of an organism’s life". “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 16

Nature has no good or evil , therefore morality is supranatural?

Most certainly underscoring "man". VoS: “That which is required for the survival of man qua man” is an abstract principle that applies to every individual man. The task of applying this principle to a concrete, specific purpose—the purpose of living a life proper to a rational being—belongs to every individual man, and the life he has to live is his own". "Man must choose his actions, values and goals by the standard of that which is proper to man—in order to achieve, maintain, fulfill and enjoy that ultimate value, that end in itself, which is his own life". AR All life, down to every living organism, is "an end in itself": Self-generating, self-directing. When it comes to "value", inseparable from "life", each organism->animal's own physical life(/death) is its own "standard" of value, the good(/evil). By Rand, man has, I'd put it, an 'elevated' standard of value to achieve and sustain, one proper to man, beyond the reach of animal - etc.. etc. "Survival" qua man then, is on a greatly extended range, inclusive of his (biological) life, of course. I'd not fault anyone's uncertainty and confusion, there is a huge amount to unpack and flesh out above from Rand, "an abstract principle" leading back to each individual's life.

Science is science and philosophy is philosophy. Scientists are guided/constrained by their metaphysics. Philosophers should be happy just being Kings, lol.