CriticalThinker2000

What? What does this have to do with my question?

How come no one ever looks things up in the lexicon, which is available for free online? "Every truth about a given existent(s) reduces, in basic pattern, to: “X is: one or more of the things which it is.” The predicate in such a case states some characteristic(s) of the subject; but since it is a characteristic of the subject, the concept(s) designating the subject in fact includes the predicate from the outset. If one wishes to use the term “tautology” in this context, then all truths are “tautological.” (And, by the same reasoning, all falsehoods are self-contradictions.)" Rand's point is that all propositions contain a subject and predicate and are of the form: S is P. Since a concept refers to units, and the predicate is a description of the units to which the subject refers, the concept used as the subject already contains the information in the predicate. If that's what you mean by tautological than as Harrison said, every proposition is a tautology. But that doesn't mean that the implicit information is explicit knowledge.

Don't you think the vagueness of application stems from the rule's lack of ethical content (as sNerd was saying) rather than an improper application? The golden rule is most certainly not fundamental to justice but I don't really follow your reasoning here. What do you mean it's a measurement of justice?

This isn't directed at anyone specific but I find it truly bizarre that one could see the clashes going on and side with the violent mob which is generally made up of people who subscribe to a completely bankrupt culture that idolizes ignorance and thuggery. Goes to show how deep the libertarian hatred of government runs in some folks.

If I try to essentialize your position I get the following: People should not be able to make choices for themselves and their kids because they'll choose things that are irrational. Is that a correct interpretation? The fact that schools are severed from market forces at the root is a fundamental cause of the poor state of public education.

The concept 'table' does not only refer to tables that exist but every table that ever existed and any table that will ever exist. It's universal... Aaaaand this was my sneaky way of subscribing to the thread.

How does that thing make a turn?

Yes, I agree that would be helpful. It's not so much her use of it that was confusing me but rather that the two words were basically synonymous in my mind. I think that's right but switched! The essential characteristic is the distinguishing fundamental characteristic and the one used as the differentia in a definition.

OK this was very helpful, thank you. Particularly the example of life/death being fundamental but not essential to the concept man. It seems like I often become confused on an issue that I had no problem with previously. Does it sound right to say that 'fundamentality' denotes a hierarchical connection between two or more attributes and 'essentiality' references only a specific fundamental characteristic which is defined contextually (by the need to distinguish from other existents)?

What exactly is the difference between the two concepts? I've looked in ITOE and OPAR and am still confused. From ITOE: Directly after is this explanation: So is man's conceptual faculty metaphysically fundamental (because it makes those other characteristics possible) or epistemologically fundamental (because it explains those other characteristics) or is it both? Can anyone think of a characteristic that is metaphysically fundamental but not epistemologically (or vice versa)? I'm having a hard time coming up with examples to concretize her point. And where does the concept 'essential' fit into all of this? From ITOE: So something is only essential when it is both fundamental and distinguishing? What could be an example of a characteristic that is fundamental but non-distinguishing?

I have to reiterate my first post in this thread. Why are you looking to gain an understanding of Rand's theory of concepts from an online message board and not from the actual text where she lays out her theory of concepts? ITOE is NOT a long book. Am I wrong to assume that you have not read it? If my assumption is correct, I think it's silly to look for answers from secondary sources who almost always have an incomplete understanding of the issues. Why would an objectivist be forced to deny that proposition? Wood is flammable. The concepts 'table' and 'flammable' are valid concepts, I don't understand the problem? Concepts are a tool of cognition, meaning that so long as the concept is valid, your purpose defines which tool you should use. Read Eiuol's post again because I think you're misinterpreting his point.

I'm surprised no one has mentioned it yet but the concept you're missing is 'intrinsicism'. You've confused objectivity with intrinsicism. The intrinsic view holds that knowledge is out there in reality independent of the observer (as you describe objectivity). For example, Plato's world of forms or Aristotle's epistemology of metaphysical essences. Subjectivity is the idea that you just make concepts up as you go along. They do not refer to anything in reality and knowledge boils down to personal preference. Objectivity in epistemology, on the other hand, is the idea that there exists an external reality and our knowledge comes from applying our human method of cognition to these objective facts. I don't think you will have a clear answer to your problem until you understand the three following concepts in relation to epistemology: Intrinsicism, Subjectivism, and Objectivism. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/objectivity.html

I think reading Intro to Objectivist Epistemology is a much more effective way of gaining an understanding of Rand's theory than reading a critique of the work.

Although I've almost always agreed with you, your sarcasm and rudeness get old. Fast.

I think Rand's use of the immortal robot metaphor in The Objectivist Ethics is a perfect example of this. Of course the robot is not real but the lessons drawn from the thought experiment are useful. 'Infinity' does not exist anywhere in reality but it too is a useful concept. I think we need to be very precise about what we classify as arbitrary. Rand's metaphor was not arbitrary- there are clear connections between it and reality (which is the point of a metaphor in the first place). However, if Rand had claimed that the robot existed, that specific claim is neither true nor false but is arbitrary. I agree with StrictlyLogical that arbitrary assertions have no cognitive value. This follows from the fact that an arbitrary assertion is not even an attempt at cognition. I just think one has to be careful about what is labeled arbitrary.

This is the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. It says that certain propositions are true by definition and are therefore a logical necessity whereas other propositions are only 'coincidentally' true and could be otherwise in an alternate universe. Please see Peikoff's article, The Analytic Synthetic Dichotomy, for a thorough debunking of the dichotomy (found it on Google) The fallacy you're committing is the assertion of the arbitrary: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html The fallacy results from placing cognitive value on propositions which are not grounded in a connection to reality.

I think, if you are a proponent of Oist epistemology, it makes sense to begin with Rand's question, 'what fact or facts of reality give rise to the need for a concept consciousness?'. I would say that the major fact is our observations (including introspection) of entities which are aware of their surroundings. This faculty of awareness which is only present in certain entities requires a concept to denote it: consciousness. That being said, you do not need to know everything about an existent to form a concept for it. Actually, I'm sure a large percentage of concepts are initially formed with an incomplete understanding of the existent to which it refers. A child does not need to understand everything about tables to form the concept 'table'. Similarly, the concept of consciousness has been around for a long time prior to our modern scientific understanding of consciousness. Is that your definition of the concept? If so, that seems to be a really confusing one. Is the genus 'thing'? And the differentia is 'independent of the view by which one observes it'? Remember that the point of a definition is to distinguish the concept from other concepts and also to establish where in the hierarchy of knowledge the concept lies. I think a better definition would be: Consciousness is the faculty of awareness. The genus is 'faculty' and the differentia is 'awareness'.

I don't want to derail the thread here but could you post something of his you disagree with? We don't have to discuss it here (or ever). Thanks!

Hi Kierkegaard, Welcome to the forum. There is plenty of room in Objectivism for optional values. For example, the virtue of productivity simply says that man must provide himself with the material values necessary for existence. It doesn't say, you have to create value by being an architect (Roark) or by being an industrialist (Rearden) or by being an artist (Halley). The choice of a career is an optional one based upon your specific, objective, experiences and preferences. I, unlike you, prefer cake to ice cream. I prefer cake for objective reasons- the texture in my mouth is more enjoyable to me- but ultimately it comes down to the context of my own life. Both are desserts and we both have individually acquired tastes for different desserts. The same is true for many many other things, like preferring tennis to soccer. Both are sports. Which one you prefer depends on your individual experiences and value judgements in the context of your specific life (which sport you grew up watching, etc). This second question is a point of much misunderstanding, especially among people that are new to Rand. When Ms. Rand refers to 'life' she refers to the full meaning of the concept 'life'. She doesn't just refer to a beating heart or open eyes but to the entire meaning of the concept. Thus, the goal of the Objectivist morality is not merely to extend your life for as long as possible. If this were the goal, I agree that you could argue that eating any dessert is immoral. You could probably even argue that leaving your house is immoral because of the probability you get run over crossing the street. But what Rand means by 'life' is a full life specific to man. In other words, man is a certain entity with a specific identity. He is rational, experiences emotions, has two arms, etc. Living, for a human being, means living in accordance with your nature. Which means living a rational, fulfilling life, with deep emotions, relationships, and all of the wonderful values that are distinctly human. Merely existing in a miserable state is not living in the true sense. Yes, you are alive in that you are fulfilling the minimum requirements to continue the process of being alive- but you are not living in the full sense of the concept. Existing as a slave may be the kind of life proper to an animal but you would not be living a flourishing life in accordance with your identity as a man.

Well how is someone supposed to guess that by 'nonexistence' you meant 'space'? And what is the point of using 'nonexistence' as 'space' when the two concepts are not interchangeable and the resultant conclusions you reach are necessarily contradictory? Again, how is someone supposed to know that you're using your concepts to mean things that they do not mean? Consciousness is not the integration of percepts into concepts. Such a meaning of consciousness would imply that animals are not conscious because they cannot perform at the conceptual level. But of course animals are conscious. Defining consciousness as one aspect of an advanced consciousness (conceptualization) wipes out the real concept- and it is a concept that is very necessary. Especially if you're going to think rationally about the problems of epistemology.

What do you mean here by 'context'? Here is what Peikoff means: "By “context” we mean the sum of cognitive elements conditioning the acquisition, validity or application of any item of human knowledge." It's an epistemological concept. What facts of reality do you think make the concept necessary? Space is not an entity. It is not a 'thing'. It's a relationship between entities. By treating space as an entity you arrive at silly conclusions such as "we exist in nonexistence" which is itself a contradictory statement. Concretize what it would mean to exist in nonexistence. Where would you be? Nonexistence is not an entity- you cannot be inside it. It's the absence of entities. Where do you think the concept of space comes from? It arises because entities exist in relatable locations. Space is a concept that designates this relationship. Previously, you drew a distinction between consciousness and awareness. But if you again investigate why we need the concept 'consciousness' you can see that it's because we observe certain entities in reality (including ourselves) that are aware of things. We create a concept that refers to this faculty of awareness: consciousness. It therefore make no sense to say that awareness is separate from consciousness. Consciousness IS awareness- that's where we get the concept to begin with. Your mistakes in these three areas (context, consciousness, space) are a result of not having a clear idea of what you mean by the concepts you're using and what specifically they refer to in reality. I think this is a problem that runs through a lot of your theories.

I think this is quite unfair as it doesn't seem like anyone is arguing we apply rights to man-made simulations.

The speaker is the president of the Ayn Rand Institute. That's right, he answers the question: "Is it ethical to perform a preemptive attack?" His point in the podcast, which you don't seem to have even addressed in your response, is that hostility can be initiated prior to the first strike. Like when a country expresses its desire to wipe you off of the face of the earth. You don't have to wait until they start to do it. Yes it has, but the original question was: "The question here is then, by Objectivism standard under these circumstances, would this AI not be morally sanctioned to act in self-defence and pre-emptive strikes?" I think Dr. Brook's view on preemptive strikes is relevant to the discussion.

http://www.peikoff.com/2014/06/09/to-yb-is-it-ethical-or-moral-to-perform-preemptive-attacks/

I meant for you to take my question literally, what is it in reality that you observe which gives rise to the need for a concept, 'consciousness'? In any event, you claim consciousness is not awareness but consciousness is identification. How does a consciousness identify something of which it is not aware? Do you mean 'sensations'? Objectivism holds that percepts are automatic integrations of sensations. They are not lost by integrating them, as evidenced by the fact that we have the concept in the first place. Again, how is a consciousness conscious of something of which it is not aware?