Gabriel_S

Stalin was a complete paranoid. The descriptions and history that I've read, don't indicate that he lived comfortably at all, and certainly don't support the notion that he experienced happiness (I realize you didn't maintain that he did).

Final Post For the record, I strongly disagree with JMeganSnow's latest characterizations of me. I think she is mistaken in many of her arguments (including the recent one collapsing lying into dishonesty), and her general approach is not conducive to a collegial atmosphere. I'd also like to state that I will not be responding in detail to her latest litany of accusations, a few of which are: that I'm a "claimed" Objectivist; I attack Objectivist principles; I'm fighting the onslaught of reason; I'm a pragmatist; etc. However, please don't take my non-response as agreement with her or as a sign that I am incapable of answering her: I don't and I most certainly can. The bottom line is that it's becoming apparent to me that she has endless time and energy to wage a back and forth war. I, however, have neither the time nor interest in such an enterprise. If anyone is interested in discussing my reasons for disagreeing with her, they can send me a PM. I'd just like to finish by saying that I'm a little saddened that a well-intentioned example introduced for discussion has been twisted into something diabolical. I honestly thought it was an interesting case. If someone wanted to know why I raised it and where I was planning to go with it, they simply had to ask. It was also clear from the onset that I hadn't come down squarely on one side of the issue or the other. But, this was conveniently ignored and I was subsequently villified. ******* A little friendly advice: we shouldn't be afraid of or feel threatened by examples. Rather, we should embrace and endeavour to apply our philosophy to reality; even if certain cases, at times, prove difficult. This isn't a call for pragmatism but a warning to guard against rationalism. I'm not here directing this at anyone in particular. If the shoe fits wear it.

That really depends upon what precisely you mean by "God". It very well might change what is moral and valuable.

Would you mind reciting what you take to be the full Objectivist argument you refer to?

In certain circumstances, doctors may lie to post-op patients about their tenuous condition. They may tell them that they are doing much better than they are. Allegedly, lying to them about their condition increases the chances that they'll recover. The thought may be that if you tell a person how bad off they really are, they may give up, stop fighting and shutdown. On the other hand, if they're given some hope, they may be optimistic and struggle to live. And this, it is claimed, actually translates to either a better or worse prognosis (depending upon whether the doctor lies to his patient or not). If the above is accurate (i.e., lying to a patient leads to a better prognosis), is it proper for a doctor to lie to a patient in this type of situation? Note: I may not be recalling with complete accuracy the facts and rationale behind this scenario. It was discussed and debated in a Medical Ethics course I took over a decade ago.

- Terminally ill child/heaven case - http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.p...indpost&p=78934

I just noticed that I have a 20% warn level associated with my account: *********** "Wow! Let me put this as delicately as I can: you're coming across as a little nuts." Possible ban candidate - needs further investigation. *********** So now I may be banned?! I'm under investigation?! What the heck does that entail? Huh, banned for simply defending myself from attacks on my character. Banned for responding to attacks stemming solely from raising an issue. I really can't see how this is a just policy. (Reminds me of the Jr. High policy of suspending both participants in a fight - the attacker and the defender.) So, is that how it works? If you defend yourself in kind (actually much more mildly than the attack), you'll be warned and possibly banned? Am I just supposed to take my lumps?

Well, let me ask again: why does it look like he's doing that? I think your initial error was to think that Dr. Peikoff was offering a formal definition in that passage. He wasn't, and so there really isn't a problem.

Wow! Let me put this as delicately as I can: you're coming across as a little nuts. First, for the record, I utterly disagree with you "argument," as presented. But, I'm not going to waste any more of my time and energy trying to communicate with someone of your demeanor. Whether something salvageable may be gleaned from your screed is really irrelevant because it's apparent that you aren't anchoring your abstractions very securely to reality. Perhaps, when you grow up, you'll learn to be a less bizarre caricature of the rationalism (and simultaneous emotionalism) that Dr. Peikoff warned against in his Understanding Objectivism course (a word of advice: you need to listen to it). Hmmm...rationalistic in method, and emotionalistic in tone; what a winning combination. Second, young lady, you are being patently offensive and rude. If that's what you intended, congratulations - you've succeeded masterfully. As for me, I'm quickly tiring of this puerile banter and dogmatic moralism. Maybe this is the kids Objectivist hangout for the new and confused. Frankly, I'm a bit shocked that the other rational posters here are putting up with this sort of distasteful behavior (at least one did say something to counter your mischaracterizations). I wonder if this is the sort of thing that drove the Speicher's away? Is this why other good grad students and professors no longer post here? I'm beginning to see why. I hope I'm not being too harsh in return. I really hate these sort of posts. Unfortunately, they are occasionally necessary. I think given the unprovoked bile aimed my way, in this case it's warranted.

Why do you assume that Dr. Peikoff is offering a definition of "existent" in the passage you quoted?

Thank you. I feel that I've been mischaracterized by Jennifer. I don't quite understand the caustic hostility she's exhibiting towards me. It seems way out of proportion and misplaced. She's arguing against something I'm not saying, and then making a number of deductions from her strawman, and boatload of other errors to boot. I was thinking of answering her but she seems quite unpleasant to deal with. Might not be worth my time and effort. I thought this forum wouldn't have such personality issues. Perhaps, I've misjudged it. My time might be better spent doing something else. Anyway, thanks again for sticking up for my position.

Why would you want to reduce "computer," if may ask? Why not, for instance, ethical or political concepts, the sort of concepts that a normal person is going to be quite confused about (and which will really make a difference in their life)? I'm sorry, but I don't really understand what you are saying here. The best I can gather is that you are really mixed up on this subject and it's a little more than I can tackle at this point in the day. I think your last sentence is a good clue as to why you are having such a difficult time reducing even very simple concepts. Perhaps this question will help get you to see where you are mixed up: what do you think it means for a concept to depend upon another concept? Give me an answer from your own understanding, in your own words, with a few clear examples.

This stripping away of crucial distinctions ("abstracting" as S. puts it) reminds me of the old liberal bromide (said in order to equate the productive and non-productive, the West and the East, etc.), "We're all people."

Surely you can't be saying that you must reduce every concept? That doesn't seem possible (nor is it actually necessary).

Yes, but what it comes down to is that conceptual dependency itself means what must be learned before what. Conceptual hierarchy is a product of the order by which we learn concepts. There are sometimes options in the order of learning, but where there aren't any, there is a necessary logical dependence of one concept upon another. In those cases, using a concept while denying or ignoring the more basic concept upon which it depends, is what Objectivism refers to as the fallacy of the stolen concept.

I.e., what facts of reality give rise to the need for such a concept as X?

I think part of your confusion stems from a certain misapprehension regarding the purpose of conceptual reduction in a normal person's life. I don't think the sort of concepts you should be aiming to reduce to the perceptual level, are lower level items, such as running or furniture. That won't be very rewarding. Are you going to reduce thousands of near-perceptual level concepts? Reducing these low level concepts are what you should have already done, assuming you are a speaking adult, as a child. If you can use the concept running in the following sentence and understand it, you've already done your reduction (years ago): Bob is running across the street. I'll assume you can clearly understand that sentence. If so, skip trying to reduce running because your running down a dead-end street. What the average person (i.e., one who is not validating knowledge in some specialized field of study) needs to reduce is, basically a handful of concepts. I'm referring, here, to abstract, philosophic concepts, such as freedom, justice, egoism, art, and so on. Try to reduce these kind of concepts, and I think you'll find it much more fruitful.

No, I don't.

No doubt that BB is using this story for nefarious purposes. Despite the distasteful source, even a broken clock...

Precisely! How can you reduce your opponent to absurdity when they revel in the absurd?

I was mostly responding to the following sort of reaction as provided by JMeganSnow. and And while it is true, as you say, that there's a difference between a child and an adult, in these cases the difference is not (I think) the fundamental one. What is relevant here is that the person (of whatever age) is facing an impending and unavoidable death, and that a lie might ease suffering or actually make the dying person's last days/moments happy (or as close to that as is possible). And, if that person's happiness is of concern to you at all, then such a lie might be in the name of one of your highest values. The categorical quotes I've included from JMeganSnow above, would apply equally to the case of the terminally ill child. If that reasoning is accepted, then I don't see how it makes a difference whether we are dealing with a dying child or a dying adult.

Hell, if we abstract enough away, we're all just "matter in motion."

Hehe...haven't heard that one in about 13 years (Contemporary Ethics course). It was under the heading of "Kantian ethics," and was one of a number of examples used to confound and confuse students (to the apparent amusement of the professor). Actually, the version I heard was a little more telling: A train is heading towards your entire family who are tied to the railroad tracks. You can pull a handle to activate a switch which will direct the train onto a sidetrack before it hits your wife, but in doing so it will necessarily run over Adolf Hitler (fill in the blank with the appopriate bad guy; or you can use "a stranger," for a different angle). What is the moral thing to do? The professor then explained how according to Kantian ethics it would be immoral to take a positive action that would lead to the death of the villain (or stranger), even at the expense of sacrificing your family. The reason as I recall (or a significant part at least) is that by activating the switch, thereby saving your family and killing Hitler, you were treating another human being as a means and not as an end-in-itself. There were similar arguments given as to why killing enemy troops in a war was immoral (yes, the professor deduced pacificism from Kantian ethics too). This, in part, had to do with notion that enemy soldiers were simply following orders from their superiors, which they allegedly had no choice over. Therefore, it was immoral to shoot them (even if that meant that they would shoot you, which was perfectly moral). Other "funny" hypotheticals: You and several others are exploring a cave near the ocean. The tide starts rising and soon the cave will fill completely with water killing everyone. While making your escape, the person in the front of the line, who happens to be obese, gets stuck in the narrow cave walls (assume for this that you cannot get him unstuck). This blocks escape for the other members of your party. The water is rising fast, you only have a few minutes to do something. You have a stick of dynamite. Would it be moral to blow up the fat man, so that everyone else can escape? (I know, you have to assume a lot in this, but you are supposed to accept that you could blow him up without collapsing the cave, etc.) Again, it was claimed by the Kantian professor that it would be immoral to kill the fat man (ever at the cost of your life and the lives of the others) because it was taking an affirmative action to treat his life as a means rather than as a end-in-itself. Let's see, one more because these are just so delightful. We'll raise the stakes a bit: A mad scientist is building a doomsday device in his underground laboratory. He's informed the world that once completed he will detonate the device and destroy the world. Unfortunately for us, he built his laboratory directly underneath a garment factory teaming with poor Third World peasants slaving away making shirts for greedy Americans (yes, this was his actual example; how could I forget). The government only has minutes before the scientist will detonate the device killing us all. The only way to stop the mad scientist is to fire missiles into the garment factory which will destroy his laboratory. Unfortunately, this would kill the poor garment workers. According to the professor, it would be immoral (again treating the factory workers as means rather than as ends-in-themselves) to fire the missiles and save the world. The moral thing to do would be to let everyone die. I kid you not. These were (some of ) his actual examples and positions. So yes, there is a world of non-A - that's the world as it exists in the minds of certain professors and the fantastic scenarios and moral commandments that they devise.

A similiar scenario (and perhaps more compelling; more difficult for the don't-ever-tell-a-lie camp): ****** You have a young a child who's been diagnosed with a terminal illness. He will die soon, and knows this is going to happen to him. He is absolutely terrified, miserable, depressed and unhappy. He wants to know if he'll go to heaven when he dies. What do you tell him? ****** I've been told that some psychologists (can't vouch for the veracity of this but it makes sense) say that terminally ill children are helped considerably, if they are told they'll go to heaven (and soon see their parents) when they die. If they are not told they'll go to heaven and be with loved ones, they will be in utter fear and misery until their death. Now we can debate whether in fact this lie would ease their fear (again, I would tend to think it would). Instead, I'd like to concentrate on the moral issue given the assumption that it would alleviate their fears. Should we or should we not tell them this myth? As for me, without having given it a tremendous amount of thought, my "gut reaction " is: it would be simply monstrous to tell your dying child that he isn't going to heaven and will simply "disappear" when he dies (or some other similiar "truth"). I can think of a few reasons why it would be moral and appropriate to take such a course, but I'll open it up for comments from others before I dive in. Any thoughts? ps, I'll just add that we should guard against being rationalistic in morally deducing the meaning, nature, and application of honesty. I fear that Objectivists can exhibit such tendencies quite frequently; especially when they are relatively new to the philosophy.

This argument is really just a gussied up version of Plato's Myth of the Cave. The inhabitants of Abbott's Flatland are really just the poor shackled men starring at shadowy reflections on the wall in Plato's cave. Abbott merely updates the metaphor with scientific sounding terminology (argument from authority among others). If you can answer Plato then you should have no problem with Abbott. If you can't, well, then that's a whole 'nother story. Some of the follow-up posts pretty much just recount threads of Plato once again, Descartes' evil demon, Kant's dual world, and some modern thought experiments, such as Hilary Putnams' Brains in a Vat (in Reason, Truth and History), and so on. For the most part, they are all themes on a few basic ideas. Nothing really new here. Certainly nothing that hasn't already been addressed, and fully answered or discredited by Objectivism.