Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 04/26/11 in all areas

  1. Eiuol

    The Process Of Deliberation

    Aristotle stated in Nicomachean Ethics that no one deliberates about facts. (Well, to be specific, he stated that no one inquires about what they already know. Aristostle thought of deliberation as a type of inquiry). As I’ve observed, this is true. I do not deliberate - reason out thoroughly and carefully- when I state that 2 + 2 is 4. More complex, I do not deliberate that the only way to violate rights is the through the initiation of force. It may take time to determine that both of these statements are facts, but once it is determined they are facts, no more deliberation occurs. Deliberation may occur again when some premise is called into question. If anyone gets to *thinking* about premises, that is deliberation, and the only time when truth is being considered. To deliberate, then, implies uncertainty about a conclusion. Really, it’s the process of induction. Deduction is reasoning with facts, so conclusions contain already known facts. Induction is deliberation, or consideration of new information of some entity. When deliberation stops, a concept has been formed. In a sense, Aristotle’s observation is this, which maybe he did not realize or know: concept formation is a volitional process of deliberation, and is an inductive process. Concepts consist of facts, and any formed concept is the final end of deliberation. Formed and valid concepts are not deliberated about. This further emphasizes how knowledge is contextual: what you know depends upon the facts you know, the objects being deliberated over. A knowledge base is made up of objects of non-deliberation, i.e. facts. When forming the concept “egoism,” it already consists of non-deliberated-over facts, namely that you are yourself, that there is not another entity controlling you. Deliberation occurs when those facts are put together in a way after noticing similarities and differences. If there is no process of integration, deliberation is not happening; you’d have facts and that’s it. And as has been shown, considering facts alone is not deliberation. Deliberation can only happen when some goal is sought after, particularly the formation of a concept. I should also throw in that deliberation might not always be about concept formation, but it still is thinking about facts which can, at that point, be integrated differently, dis-integrated, or even mis-integrated. What I'm thinking here is that this observation about deliberation can be used somehow to persuade people to think about new ideas, and get them to reconsider current ideas they hold. In order to change the minds of many people on particular subjects, already-formed concepts need to be deliberated about. Meaning that the facts which the concept/subject under consideration consists of need to be explained by the other party. That is the only way to get a person to think about what they understand to be a fact: have them re-form the concept. Argumentation might not be the method, but introducing a consideration is the first step in changing a person’s mind. Intellectual dishonesty, then, is not only refusal to acknowledge facts, but also a refusal to deliberate. In any case, destabilizing known “facts” rather than encouraging steadfastness of beliefs, even of one’s own beliefs, may be the best way of getting people to change their mind. However, that should only be done if teaching is the goal. Ideas can kill, so should be used as weapons when a destructive individual/group is involved; I don't mean to imply that all people should get an equal say. Fence-sitters -- even if not explicit ones -- can accept different ideas upon deliberation. But not before the concept in question is deliberated about. I'm going after something that is more than just activism in general, more than just going out and speaking of ideas. I'm thinking about very specific means to get people to unwittingly get to them to reconsider their beliefs. I'm wondering how to get the more resistant people to think about their ideas, not just fence-sitters. One way to lead a person to deliberate is present an argument. That way, they have to integrate their thoughts, present a conclusion. The issue with that is it is basically deduction. It would not be deliberation in the sense previously discussed. If I wanted to persuade others to agree with egoism (or any other concepts related to Objectivism), or any other “deep” concept, it may be better to figure out what facts the other person does not have. If I wanted to get an egalitarian to accept egoism instead, I couldn't talk about what they already knew. I'd have to present a fact that would have to be integrated that never had been previously. As a result, either the person fixes resulting contradictions, or outright evades/dis-integrates/mis-integrates the new fact. Of course, this all to some extent depends on a person being intellectually honest. Simply stating facts may be one way to entice people to think differently about an idea, without a great deal of mental effort on my own end. Or stating the existence of a concept previously unheard of by the other person. I would like to know what other people think about what I said about deliberation here, as well as any other ideas anyone has on how to get people to change their mind about something. And other ways to spread ideas other than activism. I’m personally not a fan of activism, but I do enjoy spreading ideas.
    1 point
  2. Tanaka

    Wabi Sabi

    None of these are true statements. Everything lasts (for various lengths of time), and I just finished my lunch. I'm positive about that. It wasn't a perfect lunch though, because the shops and markets around here are very poorly stocked and I can never find the right stuff. But, if I had found the right stuff, and cooked it the way it's supposed to be cooked, it would've been perfect (perfect by the standard I formulated when I first set out to make that meal). So the speaker is not really acknowledging reality, he's acknowledging a subjective perspective (things don't last long enough for his expectations, finished things aren't good enough for his expectations - so he calls them "unfinished", and his standard of perfection is intentionally formulated so that it would be physically impossible to attain). For instance the perfect speed for a car, for him, would probably be a million times the speed of light. The bottom line is, some things are perfect. They last for as long as they've been designed to last, they look the way they were meant to look, they perform the functionality they were expected to perform, etc. As long as one's idea of perfection is not meant to sabotage his own life by ignoring reality, but is instead formulated with reality taken as a primary, perfection is attainable.
    1 point
  3. My opinion is that the situation with your father is not analogous to the Bush=Hitler phenomena. It is useful to remember that what one gets from the left is more often their emotions, not their thoughts. In most cases (at least in my experience), "Bush is as bad as Hitler" is not the result of a thought process. It is, rather, a rationalization for an intense hatred of anyone that dares to pronounce moral judgment. What generates this hatred? Remember, many on the left are victims of the educational comprachico's campaign to cripple their conceptual ability. As Miss Rand explains in her article, “The Comprachicos”, many of them are, quite literally, unable to function on a conceptual level. Their arrested mental development induces a fundamental fear, because they realize, at least intuitively, that they have no way to deal with reality. Complementing this fear is an overwhelming hostility against anyone who does not seem to be as mentally impaired as they are, and especially toward anyone who presumes to pronounce judgment. (Of course, the degree of mental impairment varies tremendously from victim to victim; I am speaking of the extreme cases, the ones I believe are today’s hard-core leftists.) How do they deal with this fear and hostility? Many resort to the rationalizations provided by their professors. In her article, "Philosophical Detection", Miss Rand observes that evil philosophies are systems of rationalizations, and many popular catch-phrases are rationalizations for underlying emotions that one does not wish to face or acknowledge. Well, the comprachicos of the American educational system have turned out two generations of students who are unable to think and are brimming with ugly emotions that require cover. I believe this explains the bizarre phenomena, very common today, of the leftists who assert the most extreme, even outrageous notions with absolute certainty ( "Bush is Hitler" is but one example), but, when questioned, cannot summon any reasons to support or explain their position. They only know how to emote; they never developed the ability to think. When I question their positions, what I usually hear in response is a stream of insults, cheap smears and various forms of ad hominem. That is when I know I am not dealing with a mind, but rather its crippled remains. Whatever errors may exist in your father's thinking, I don't think it compares to these people.
    1 point
  4. Nope. You still don't understand. Consent has nothing to do with it at all. Neither implicitly or explicitly. This is inherent to the nature of government. If you are very very fortunate you live in a place that has a government whose role is properly restricted, or almost so. Ours is increasingly out of line, but it is still a government, and as a government it has the following characteristic: Your consent is neither sought, required, or quite frankly, given a good goddamn about. You are allowed in many parts of the world to vote but not to reject the result of the vote, whether you chose to vote or not--the vote is not implied consent, and not voting is not regarded as an act of withholding consent, it has nothing to do with consent, much as many politicians will try to fuzz that distinction. Allow me to mark up your articles to express how a government (either a proper one by Objectivist standards, or an improper one) truly functions, as part of the nature of government qua government. Hopefully someday, we will see a government with Article 4: ... but such does not exist, and may not ever exist. Note that even if it did, there'd be no implication of "consent". Government is force, applied without consent. With luck we will someday have government that doesn't habitually initiate that force. Edit: realized it could stand some clarification.
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...