Tomer
-
Posts
47 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Tomer
-
-
I used the terms 'Deals' and 'Studies'. You used the term 'View'. Do you see the difference?
After reading this, I found that it may not be as clear to you as it is to me. I'll explain -
the concept of 'View', epistemologicaly, may not be regarded always as metaphysicaly infalliable.
When one uses it in such a way as - "Mr. X's view on abortion", it doesn't neccecerily have to be consistent with reality or not. The sentence simply states Mr. X's opinion.
The concept 'Deals', pretains to one's reaction to the metaphysicaly given. I think that it is a psychological term that reflects how one relates to facts of reality - to knowledge that was already gained.
The concept 'Studies', on the other hand, is not psychological. To study means to gain knowledge about reality, which means to gain it through facts and only facts.
One may very well have A view on the fundamental nature of existence but until he STUDIES those fundamentals, it is not a philosophy because it is not yet KNOWLEDGE, ONLY OPNIONS.
-
ashleyisachild,
Have you read my posts in this thread? If so, what are your thoughts?
-
THIS is where you're getting "frozen."
You are quoting AYN RAND's view of the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man's relationship to existence. Kant has a DIFFERENT view, but it is A view of the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man's relationship to existence nonetheless.
You quoted me right and then referred to another concept which doesn't really fit here:
I wrote that a Philosopher is "a person who deals with, and studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man's relationship to existence."I used the terms 'Deals' and 'Studies'. You used the term 'View'. Do you see the difference?
-
The fallacy of the frozen abstraction? Not really.
It may be hard for some people to understand that fallacy without a proper example. Rand offered one:
(Rand, 'Collectivized Ethics', VOS, 94.)In this case, substituting a specific ethics (altruism) for the wider abstraction of "ethics." Thus, a man may reject the theory of altruism and assert that he has accepted a rational code - but, failing to integrate his ideas, he continues unthinkingly to approach ethical questions in terms established by altruism.The fallacy of the frozen abstraction can be easily identified by the best tool for any epistemological analysis - Rand's 'Theory of Concepts.'
Let's check Rand's example and later, mine.
The definition of the term 'Ethics':
Ethics is the third branch of philosophy that, in Ayn Rand's words, provides "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions - the choices which determine the purpose and the course of his life. It is a code by means of which he judges what is right or wrong, good or evil"(Rand, 'Faith and Force', PHNI, 61.)
'Altruism' is:
(Rand, 'The Objectivist Ethics', VOS 37-38.)The ethical theory which regards man as a sacrificial animal, which holds that man has no right to exist for his own sake, that service to others is the only justification of his existence, and that self-sacrifice is his highest moral duty, virtue and value.Now, it is clear that if one raises a question such as :"What will be done about the poor or the handicapped in a free society?", "he accepts thereby the collectivist premise that men's lives belong to society...". Why? Because the term 'Ethics' is not defind as 'the best (good, right, etc,) way to live' but as a code of values to guide his choices. Man is free to choose whether he wants to live or die. Ethics simply guides him after he makes that choice. If he chooses to die, the specific ethics of Altruism could guide his actions, but not if he chooses to live. Here, the fallacy of the frozen abstraction screams out.
Let us now check my alleged fallacy.
First, identifing the accusation: I was accused of using the fallacy of the frozen abstraction when I said that "Kant is not a philosopher because he doesn't deal with reality (even if it is only to some extent)."
The term that need to be investigate is: 'Philosopher'.
As I wrote before, the first thing that comes to mind when asking what is a philosopher is :"A Philosopher - A person who deals with philosophy."
But that is not enough. The following question would be: What is 'Philosophy'? Or better yet, what precisely is a philosopher (since the first definition uses the same concept in it)?
I wrote that a Philosopher is "a person who deals with, and studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man's relationship to existence."
If I were to prove that Kant didn't 'deal' with the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man's relationship to existence, would it still be right to accuse me of the fallacy? I'll assume that the answer is no, and proceed to prove my argument:
If one's concern is to deal with, and study the fundamental nature of existence and of man, he would have to start with the axiomatic concepts which are the base of our knowledge. It is in this point that Kant departs himself from the realm of reality (The axiomatic concepts are: Existence, Identity and Consiousness).
(Rand, 'Consciousness and Identity', IOE, 80.)The entire apparatus of Kant's system, like a hippopotamus engaged in belly-dancing, goes through its gyrations while resting on a single point: that man's knowledge is not valid because his consiousness possesses identity. "His argument, in essence, ran as follows: man is limited to a consciousness of a specific nature, which perceives by specific means and no others, therefore, his consciousness is not valid; man is blind, because he has eyes - deaf, because he has ears - deluded, because he has a mind - and the things he perceives do not exist, because he perceives them." (For the New Intellectual.)And, reffering to the 'philosophy' of Kant, as well as others like him, Rand writes:
(Rand, 'Consciousness and Identity', IOE, 79.)The motive of all the attacks on man's rational faculty - From any quarter, in any of the endless variations, under the verbal dust of all the murky volumes - is a single, hidden premise: the desire to exempt consciousness from the law of identity.Kant denies the axiomatic concepts (which are, of course, undeniable), therefore denies the base of human knowledge, thus does not deal with reality but rather evade it, not study the fundamental nature of existence but rather teach us that such a study is impossible, not search to discover the truth but hide it and make all that can be done in order for the truth never to be revealed.
-
Don, you've defeated your apponent eloquently. Nothing is left for anarchistic theory to speak-of once it is properly identified for what it really is, which is a theory that is "totally removed from reality."
Rand answered all of those rationalistic arguments in her essay "The Nature of Government".
One point I'd like to clarify which is the basis for Mr. Garner assumptions is his false definition for anarchy:
He writes that the term 'Anarchy' means the “absence of ruler". that is incorrect.
The right definition is : "The absence of organized government." (Oxford dic.)
It would have been reasonable to assume that Mr. Garner simply confused the term 'Government' with 'Ruler.' But, amazingly enough, he DOES KNOW the difference. To those who missed it, He actually quotes Ayn Rand on this issue (and left it as only a sideline issue):
The source of the government’s authority is “the consent of the governed.” This means that the government is not the ruler, but the servant or agent of the citizens; it means that the government has no rights except the rights delegated to it by the citizens for a specific purpose(Taken from Rand's VOS 129, 'The Nature of Goverment,' emphasis mine).
(Anarchist IllusionsThings did not exactly work out as planned. In place of the astonished but eager acceptance of my argument—and there was some minor hope on my part for that result—I received notice in my mailbox of the cancellation of my subscription to Ayn Rand's magazine, The Objectivist.by Roy A. Childs, Jr.)
Evil is impotent? I think so! -
How do you decide that "Ice is solid" is analytic and "Ice floats on water" is synthetic, and not the other way around? Is there a reason to make such a distinction (sometimes called a "dichotomy" when there are exactly two choices).
This is how I decide:
The definition of ice is: Solid water.
The proposition is: ice is solid.
Ice is water = ice is ice.
Try another example (also from IOE):
i) 2+2 = 4
ii)2 qts. of water mixed with 2 qts. of ethyl alchohol yeild 3.86 qts. of liquid, at 15.56 C.
The first is obviously analytic
(2+2 =4 => 1+1+1+1=1+1+1+1)
do you think the seconed is also analytic?
I see: so you were just jokingly using the term, without implying that it refers to a valid concept. I thought you were serious with that Kant example.Nol, I wasn't joking. What made you think that?
-
Objectivism does not recognize a dichotomy between Analytic and Synthetic truths. There is a whole chapter on this problem in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, by Leonard Peikoff.
Who said that a dichotomy exist?
-
Sorry, I've gotta interrupt. What's an "analytic truth"? Is that different from some other kind of truth?
An Analytic truth is a proposition that can be validated merely by an analysis of the meaning of its constituent concepts (also called "logical truths").
Example:
i)Ice is solid.
ii)Ice floats on water.
The first proposition is Analytic, the seconed synthetic.
"A 'Synthetic' proposition is defined as one which cannot be validated merely by an analysis of the meanings or definitions of its constituent concepts."
*Both definitions and the example were taken from Leonard Peikoff's 'The Analytic- Synthetic dichtomy' (IOE, 90-91).
-
A philosophy can be contradictory, and very many philosophies are.
Do you still see Kant (for example) as a philosopher, not from a layman's point of view but from yours?
Consider two definitions:
1) A Philosopher - A person who deals with philosophy.
2) A Philosopher - A person who deals with, and studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man's relationship to existence.
It is obvious that both are analitic truths but, as you see, the first depends on the other. Some people will accept only the first as a valid definition while failing to understand what philosophy is (as defined in the seconed).
I claim that Kant is not a philosopher because he doesn't deal with reality (even if it is only to some extent). He deals with his own fantasy world created out of his own pschological problems and failures.
It is all a matter of context. If I'm engaged in a conversation with a non-objectivist, I would treat other schools of thought as philosophies only until I've succeeded in proving otherwise.
For a man living 2500 years ago, the bible can assume the role of philosophy. For a priest living after Ayn Rand, the bible can only be used as a tool for evading reality (if he read AS).
After identifying any philosophical system's contradictions it makes no sense to keep treating it as a philosophy to those who know it.
Explain.No, this is a total error. They cannot be non-contradictorily integrated (duh!). Integration does not entail "non-contradictorily". It simply means that the individual elements all exist at the same time and are to be taken as a whole, and the evaluation of the system is in terms of the whole system. Some (many) of these systems are contradictory.And returning to the earlier statement that the US doesn't even have a constitution, for the love of Mike what do you think the US Supreme Court has been doing for the past 210 years?? What these guys do for a living is determing that Law X violates the constitution and thus the Constitution limits these other lawsI argue (as Rand did long before me) that the U.S. Constitution is incomplete.
"There were contradictions in the Constitution, which allowed the staists to gain an entering wedge, to enlarge the breach, and, gradually, to wreck the structure"
(A.R., CUI 47)
What do I think the US Supreme Court has been doing for the past 210 years??
Either working "to wreck the structure" or trying to fight the logical consequenses of an incomplete Constitution.
-
What concerns me is how often the Bill of Rights is simply ignored.
Look for the loopholes in your constitution.
Every effect has a cause.
-
You might as well say that a philosophy which isn't Objectivist isn't a philosophy or a law which is immoral isn't a law.
Dave Odden's post should have been the final word on this subject.
Fred Weiss
1)Philosophy is an integrated system. One which "studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence." (PWNI 2)
There can be no contradictions.
A 'philosophy' with contradictions fails to be an integrated system (since contradictions cannot exist, they cannot be integrated), fails to identify the fundamental nature of existence and of man.
Therefore any philosophy that contradicts itself. Is not really a philosophy.
For the best of my knowledge, Objectivism is the only truely integrated philosophy, therefore, the only philosophy that deserves its title.
2)An immoral law can exist, only that there is no justification for its existence.
constitution is a law which sets the limits to other laws (in this sense, a law that breaks or contradicts a constitutional law creates a non-sense meaning of the term constitution.)Meaning, that a constitution that doesn't set the limits to other laws, is a contradiction.
-
whatever, my argument will stay in this forum to all those who wish to think.
my work here is done!
REASON IS NOT AUTOMATIC. THOSE WHO DENY IT CANNOT BE CONQUERED BY IT. DON'T COUNT ON THEM. LEAVE THEM ALONE.
-A. R.
-
Yes, the physical differences.
I take it that you accept that there are physical differences between men and women, given that you can at least identify them as man and woman (grasping at least that their genitals differ), but that you challenge my claim that the differences are either significant, or biological, or both.
Which?
Not challenging. both.
-
Did you see any smilies or winkies?
ok, then.
-
From that perspective, I believe Stephen has defended his statements rather well.
VES
Are you serious?!
-
I think it is time to publicly ask the moderators to judge Tomer's actions, and publicly decide where the line between ignorance and dishonesty should be drawn.
For the first time I agree.
I am a visitor here and know that I'm here only with permission. If the owners wish that I won't be registered, I'll leave. I respect their rights.
-
You left my questions unanswered again. I'll make it simple so it will be clearer to you. Are you basing your opinion of Stephen's equality in comparison to you on this one thread of discussion?
VES
I base the opinion I posted of Stephen based on this one thread. And to be more clear, my opinion was that he was rude. I am not rude. I see rudness as a vice, therefore I concluded that we are not equal from THAT one perspective.
-
The fact is that there are significant physical, biological differences between men and women. I don't think that either of you take issue with that.
This is not true. Try to read my entire argument.
"If any," would be the first question. Notice that some use the fallacy of "begging the question" (borrowing Peikoff's words)when asking that question while leaving out the "if any", which means that they presuppose that psychological differences exist between men and women.The question is, what psychological (and therefore romantic) differences, if any, do those differences give rise to?Although I said that even young children are aware of these differences upon first seeing the naked bodies of the opposite gender, their understanding of these differences is only just beginning. But aware of the differences they certainly are.I assume you are speaking of physical differences. Am I right?
I can't see the logical connection here. "Couldn't" is a metaphysically given (in that context), "should't" is not. I hope that mistake was not made intentionally. In the way you said it, (if you ment that both assertions are acting against reality) with the mistake, I agree.The idea that gender differences wouldn't or couldn't or shouldn't give rise to psychological differences affecting how men and women relate to each other romantically makes as much sense as saying that being born, or becoming, blind makes no difference in how a person will relate to the world about him.Assuming that I give you two the benefit of the doubt, and that your contentions that the claim that there are significant differences in how the genders should relate to each other romantically due to their physical, biological differences, would lead to political persecutions, your own egalitarian view doesn't help you at all.What, on earth, made you think that??? Egalitarian views all individuals as equals.
I'm an extra-extra-extreme capitalist. I know that is not possible. But it is the mind and only the mind that is the subject of differentiation between individuals (my proof was that volition is possible).
would lead to political persecutionsI can't imagine what made you say that. it was never an issue here.
Again, try reading my entire argument.
-
How many threads have you been in discussion with Stephen? Just this one or have there been others? Is it on the basis of this one thread that you deem that Stephen is not your "equal"? Have you ever discussed anything in which you later found flaw in your reasoning, or have you reached perfect reasoning? I think you have a reached a premature conclusion, based on insufficient evidence, which you cannot prove.
VES
Have you read our entire correspondence? All through it, Stephen behaved in an uncivilized manner. THIS is unacceptable. I am open to reason, but not to slurs.
If the subject is of any interest to you, I ask you to take the time and read the whole thread. It'll be much clearer.
-
VES are my initials.
The question stands.
VES
You are taking two unrelated issues out of context.
I wrote that:
At the time, Natzis thought that "differing sizes in the cortex" and other physical differences can prove something about an individual's personality, claiming that a hierarchical order exists between races. A notion like the one I've just quoted reflects the same thinking with one execption: claiming that an hierarchical order between human genders exist.Do you consider yourself equal to those who spend their time trashing you without a shred of a reasonable argument? That would mean pure egalitarianism.
-
Is this what you called "an hierarchical order "?
VES
What does "VES" means?
I follow the best teacher I've ever had:
"Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone."
*Ayn Rand, The 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, pg. 3
-
Just because the "Godwin's Law" exist, doesn't mean every person addressing Nazism has nothing to say. This is a dubious fallacy.
You could also ask him whether Leonard Peikoff applied the Godwin's Law when writing "The Ominous Parallels".
Or is it only applicable on the internet forums?d180586, leave him be... he is not an equel (and knows it perfectly well) yet you treat him as one.
Leave him to his insults and cynisism. Try to focus on other rational individuals. There are many excellent users here... THEY ARE WORTH IT! but not him.
-
Stephen wrote:
Try to keep this in mind for the rest of this post (this, at least, is clear. Or is it?).the consciousness of a human being remains volitionald180586 wrote a while ago, reffering to the differences between men and women:
you will discover that the differences are strictly physical, and that all else is due to individual personalitiesI agreed then and I agree now...
Stephen wrote:
All of which proves that physical differences exist. Well... I already said they were self evident. Nothing new here.I study the neurophysiology of the brain and the biochemical mechanisms...There are signifcant structural differences between the male and female brain, differing sizes in the cortex and differing symmetries and asymmetries which lead to functional differences in brain operation.
At the time, Natzis thought that "differing sizes in the cortex" and other physical differences can prove something about an individual's personality, claiming that a hierarchical order exists between races. A notion like the one I've just quoted reflects the same thinking with one execption: claiming that an hierarchical order between human genders exist.
Stephen continues:
The hormonal structure between male and female is fundamentally different, and it is a scientific fact that estrogen plays a fundamental role in regulating both the neural structure and functional processing in the brain.Is he suggesting that those differences control our process of thinking?? That the process of consciousness is controled by "the hormonal structure"??
Let's define our terms:
CONSIOUSNESS
(IOE, 29)Consciousness is the faculty of awareness - the faculty of percieiving that which exist.Directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from one's awareness of the external world.(IOE, 29)
REASON
(VOS, 22)Reason is the faculty that idetifies and integrates the material provided by man's sensesIt is reason (and only reason) that gives us information about reality. Values, as a corollary are determined by the reality in which we live, but is guided by our volitional consciousness.
Claiming that there is a fundamental difference between a man's values (which are derived from a volitional process) and a woman's (which is, in the same manner, also derived from a volitional process), would have to mean that there is a fundamental difference in regard to their nature.
Ayn Rand devides the categories in the following way:
we first distinguish between existant and non-existant. Then, between living entities and inanimate matter. Then by the type of consiousness, i.e, between perceptual awarness and conceptual awarness. There is no necessity for farther distinguishing between the genders for any conclusion regarding those who possess a conceptual awareness, apart from physiological differences. The reason is that only among those possessing the conceptual awareness, volition is possible. POSSESSING VOLITION ENTAILS THE USE OF IT ON ANY PROCCESS OF THINKING AND EVALUATION, ANY ISSUE AND ANY VALUE JUDGMENT.
Sexual desires are derived from value judgements which are derived from a process of thinking which derives from a volitional, conceptual consiousness.
Volitional counsciousness, not any physiological similarities or differences between those possesing it.
Are you still keeping in mind what Stephen wrote? just to remind you:
the consciousness of a human being remains volitionalNow, Stephen actually says that:
(!)Males and females treated with differing hormonal balances exhibit a wide range of changed behavior. Even preoptic tissue from a male mammalian brain has been transplanted into the female counterpart and adult changes in behavior, associated with the male, have been observed.To soften the blow, Stephen returns again to what is actually, scientifically proveable, which is, that physical differences exist.
At the end, Stephen resorts to the old 'mind-body dichotomy':
We are neither flesh alone nor disconnected consciousness, and those who would obliterate the male-female difference, both physically and psychologically, are simply denying their very nature.No one is suggesting otherwise. We are neither flesh alone nor disconnected consciousness. putting this notion (despite its irrelevance) here was not an innocent mistake. It was done intentionally.
why? - Stephen writes in his following post that:
This is, at best, misleading, and, at worst, dishonest.I will end this post by paraphrasing him:
This is, at best, dishonest to one's self, and, at worst, misleading to others.
-
My point was that a non-objectivist constitution is a non-constitution.
In a very general way, constitution is a law which sets the limits to other laws (in this sense, a law that breaks or contradicts a constitutional law creates a non-sense meaning of the term constitution.)
Support for Israel
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
Could you explain?