Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

grosz

Regulars
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by grosz

  1. I am currently reading Brand Blanshard's "Reason & Analysis." This book is routinely touted by one Scott Ryan (a rationalist Ayn Rand critic who constantly "bumps up" his scathing reviews of Rand's books on Amazon.com, so that they appear at the top of each "review" section). I've only managed to read the first 4 chapters, which provided a history of philopsophy and rationalism, an analysis of the rise of Logical Positivism, and most importantly - the beginning of a series of impressive (albeit Rationalistic) refutations of Logical Positivism and of its exponents, primarily Russell and Wittgenstein. Blanshard attacks the rules of inference described in Russell's Principia Mathematica, specifically that of implication. For any two statements p and q, Russell asserts, p implies q according to the following "truth table": p q (p implies q: p==>q) ------------------------ F F T F T T T F F T T T He attacks this rule of implication on the grounds that it is impossible to assert implication by merely looking at the "truth-value" of the statements, i.e. by a total disregard to the contents of the statements. This is obvious, because according to the above truth-table, any false statement implies anything whatsoever. For example, if I were to say "I am naked at the moment," which is false, this would imply that I have green hair, or any other looney ideas I might come up with. Reading the section that dealt with this implication problem, I was transported a year back in time, to my "Introuction to Logic and Set Theory" class, where the professor proved that the empty set is a subset of any set, by using the above rule of implication: x is an element of the empty set ==> x is an element of arbitrary set S. Since x is clearly NOT a member of the empty set (by virtue of it being empty), the above implication is TRUE. It took me ages to come to terms with this outrageuos absurdity, and now Blanshard has re-opened a can of worms. Obviously, this logic does not apply to reality. One cannot arbitrarily state that something implies something else without knowing what those "somethings" actually are. So, finally, my questions: 1. Principia Mathematica was published in ~1910, but it must be that this "mathematical logic" is much older than Russell. Who originated it? 2. Since mathematics purports to give correct numerical descriptions of various facts of reality, how is it possible that the basic means of mathematical proof - logic - is so far removed from reality? 3. Obviously there are many applications of mathematics, for instance matrix theory, and these do in fact work. BUT WHY? I mean, mathematicians prove theorems, and they do so by means of mathematical logic, whose rules of implication are nothing but arbitrary, as I've shown above. So how can anything "mathematical" be true IN REALITY, when its truth was proven by illogical means? 4. Can someone recommend good books that cover these issues, specifically the relation of mathematics and logic to the facts of reality, and which are clearly written? Are there any Objectivist philosophers who deal with these issues and can give a clear explanation to a novice? Thank you -- Ori
  2. I know I would benefit if you decided to do that... As an exercise in "philosophical detection," I occasionally submit myself to the torture of reading these so-called refutations and anti-Objectivism arguments. They range from the hysterical-laughter-inducing through preposterously-unintellectual to requiring-a-coupla-minutes-thought-to-untangle-the-mess. (I hope no one is angered by my excessive hyphenation :-)) However, I have been unable to locate a copy of that Scott Ryan book - and I certainly do not want to pay for one. Of the critiques I have read, none can be classified as "good," in any respect. As my understanding of Objectivism grows, it becomes easier for me to see that these critics simply do not grasp the philosophy, particularly the epistemology. I guess it is a matter of intelligence... BTW: There is a certain practice among critics of Objectivism, namely that of denouncing ARI and Peikoff et. al. as "second-handers," or "amateur philosophers" or "unworthy heirs of Miss Rand" (they just say "Rand," of course). Nothing can be further from the truth: I recently read several articles by Dr. Binswanger (on www.capmag.com), and was completely shocked: the man is a genius. My emotional response was not unlike that which followed my first ever exposure to Miss Rand's writings. Of course this estimate might be old news to you guys, but I am fairly new to Objectivism and except OPAR (which I find somewhat boring, in terms of writing style) have read nothing but pure Miss Rand and one essay by Peter Schwartz (who is also an excellent philosopher and writer in my opinion).
  3. I have been studying Objectivism for almost a year now. My first book was VOS, and it immediately struck a chord, from page 1. My favorite Ayn Rand article is "Egalitarianism and Inflation" from PWNI. It is the most eloquently written, most inspiring piece I have ever had the pleasure of laying my eyes on (and understand, not just look at...). It almost brought me to tears once (I have read it about 5 times). I have been trying to do my share of activism for Reason, because the situation here in Israel is completely intolerable and "something needs to be done, NOW!" There's no need to be specific - nothing here is tolerable. I think you guys sometimes hear about Israel on TV. Well it's much worse than it seems. I am a student at Ben Gurion University, and have been active on a public student forum similar to this one, trying to spread the "gospel" and talk some sense into people, but to no avail. Can you guess what discussion forums they have on this student website? Some of the highlights are "Social Issues," "Religion," and - you guessed it - the "Green" forum, where people talk enthusiastically about the latest legislation banning construction on the beaches of Israel, and how this legislation is a victory against the tyranny of the "wealth owners." I constantly see real-life examples of Miss Rand's abstract theory, including hatred of the good for being the good, anti-reason and anti-life mentalities, you name it. I have been trying to point out the logical fallacies inherent in all these people's statements, have been trying to show them that compassion cannot be the true motive of their actions, but they have been evading and blanking out the facts. I've been thinking - how can anyone be so oblivious to facts? I, for one, have come to a stage where reading Ms Rand makes me wonder "why does it take a genius, someone of her caliber, to think of the obvious? Doesn't anyone care about truth?" One of Miss Rand's most difficult concepts for me to grasp, being a non-native English speaker (and her writing IS difficult to grasp, being highly abstract), was that of the "concrete-bound" or "anti-conceptual" mentality. Miss Rand gave some examples of these in her article "The Missing Link," but still I could not grasp, i.e. completely understand what she was talking about. But now I do. The problem with activism, at least when talking to students who are in their early 20s, here in Israel, is the fact that they are ANTI CONCEPTUAL, mindless brutes. It is absolutely amazing when people reply to me with remarks such as "You speak of justice as being absolute, but it is NOT," while completely ignoring the fact that they are claiming an absolute. When pointing out the contradictory nature of their remarks, I merely get more senseless drivel in response. And suddenly it hit me - these people HAVE NO CLUE what I am talking about!! Abstract concepts such as "truth," "fact," "objectivity," "rights," "definition" are SIMPLY INCOMMUNICABLE TO THEM!! They do not know what these mean! I can only assume that when reading my posts, the words flash through their eyes, go through zero processing inside their brains, and then they blurt out an automatic, default response full of rehashes and bromides. What good is activism when people DO NOT CHOOSE TO UNDERSTAND? I have been rationalizing to myself that I do not write for the sake of the brutes, but in the hope that some rational lurker is reading, someone who can see that reason is on my side and vice versa, and that he would pick up some of Ms Rand's work. But the truth is that I am disappointed, and would really like to get through to these concrete-bound students. What can one do? Your thoughts on the matter are appreciated. - Ori
  4. Hello all, Thank you for your comments. MinorityOfOne- I believe the example of Zeno's paradox has raised my understanding of Objectivism up a notch. It's all about reality, isn't it? I started with AR's nonfiction because that's what Yaniv gave me at the time. I knew absolutely nothing about philosophy or AR, I only knew I was unhappy and that everything was "wrong" and "improper." Will certainly read the fiction titles as soon as free time becomes available. Eran wrote: And how! The last few months have been a continues joyride for me, as I cruised from book to book, reading coherent, consistent arguments the likes of which I had never read or had thought of before. I felt like 'I've seen the light,' and confident in my knowledge that it was the light of reason, not that of mysticism and folly. Can someone please give me an example of Huemer's lack of understanding of Objectivism? Thank you - Ori
  5. Hi About two months ago, an unregistered user posted a message on the Ben Gurion University students' web site. He called out to all "caring" students and urged them to protest by not showing up on the first day of the spring semester. Protest against what, you ask? Well, against the scandalous "increase in the price of bread." I don't know what it's like in the rest of the world, but here in Israel the price of bread and several other food products are artifically fixed by the government. The reason is obvious: every man has a RIGHT to (reasonably priced) bread. But I digress. A friend of mine immediately responded, saying that bread did not grow on trees, and that since bread could not be baked by throwing communist poetry and socialist mantras into the oven, it had to be BOUGHT and paid for with money; if price controls made bread baking unprofitable, then bakeries would stop producing it. Bread baking had indeed become unprofitable here, because the price of wheat flour (also controlled by the government) was increased 14% a year ago. So an increase of the price of bread was inevitable. My friend's response attracted many a socialist and irrationalist, and they all took part in what has grown to a 13-page philosophical debate (I use that word in the loosest sense because the discussion was mainly a flame war, abundant in logical fallacies, incosistencies and self contradictions - not on our part of course...), going through all levels and subfields of philosophy. In the process my friend and I, advocating the Objectivist position, have weeded out all the non-thinkers, and are now left with one Buddhist who thinks "all property is an illusion," but is willing to listen and to argue, even logically to an extent I might add. (There is also a socialist who likes to add a bit of white noise occasionaly, but he is all but ignored - in a most condescending, pleasing way nah, I am kidding) My friend likes formalism, so everything is clearly defined, and every proposition is proved. We have hit a brick wall trying to define "ownership." My friend defined ownership as a mathematical object, a binary relation between man and an entity. The Buddhist, testing our consistency, asked "under this definition, what makes it an impossibility of a man to be owned by another?" The Objectivist Front's reply was that adistinction is made between men who are capable of rational thought and infants who only have the potential to become rational, which means they are not men, and can therefore be considered property of their parents (who created them). The Buddhist asked what was the difference between an irrational infant and an irrational 50 year old man, and, using an equivocation, proceeded to conclude that according to us, since socialists were irrational, they could be considered property. So basically the question is: can a human being, specifically newborn infants who are incapable of rationality, be the property of another? What is the Objectivist position regarding babies? If I understand correctly, the concept of 'right' comes from viewing man as a rational being whose consciousness is volitional, and is only applicable in the context of men. This means that if a baby turns out to be incapable of rationality, perhaps because of brain damage, he has no 'right' to life, or any 'rights' at all for that matter. Your thoughts on the matter are appreciated. - Ori
  6. Hi all, My name is Ori, I am 24 and live in Israel. I am a freshman at Ben Gurion University, majoring in Computer Science. In November, shortly after the school year had started, I complained to a friend of mine about the lack of purpose in my life, about my intellectual decay (I had just quit my programming job after 3 years, during which I did nothing but work work and buying vinyl records -- no reading, no life, no fun, nothing), any my general dissatisfaction with... well, everything. He handed me a copy of The Virtue of Selfishness and told me "read this, it's killer." So I did, and my life hasn't been the same since. During the fall semester, I read VOS, OPAR, ITOE, C the UI, PWNI. I was fascinated, and as a result I failed my differential calculus course (but who cares). My fascination with Objectivism probably stems from the fact that I have always had what is called "sense of life." I always knew it was wrong that I HAD to pay taxes (and my co-workers can attest to my periodic (monthly) outbursts of rage when I got my paycheck and saw 50% go to "society"). I always knew it was WRONG to FORCE ME to serve in the military. But when confronted with questions like "why do you think it's wrong to make you pay taxes?" all I could do was mutter some subjective nonsense in response. I now KNOW why all the above (and more) are wrong. AR's books were like a breath of fresh air to me. Her words were so refreshing, so eloquent, the books so well written, I was in complete awe, paragraph after paragraph. I read a post here regarding Michael Huemer's refutation of Objectivism. I too have read his article, and must admit that I am far too inexperienced to point out any/all logical fallacies in his essay. I am looking forward to user DPW's refutation of Huemer's so-called refutation, because I want and NEED my views to have a strong philosophical base. Looking forward to fruitful discussions - Ori
×
×
  • Create New...