Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Bowzer

Regulars
  • Posts

    390
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Bowzer

  1. Man has no instincts--not even so much as a relic of one. But we do control our emotions. You choose your values and emotions are just automatic responses to the things that you value (see OPAR Emotions As A Product Of Ideas p. 153). You change your emotions by changing your value judgments. Yes, there is a lapse in time between when you consciously choose changes in your values and when your emotions respond according to these choices. I don't think that this means that we don't "fully control" our emotions. We do effect the change just not immediately so. Emotions don't "tell us" anything (see OPAR Reason As Man's Only Means Of Knowledge p. 159). The two facts that really separate us from machines are (1) we are alive and (2) we are conscious.
  2. Brian, I'm not going to make judgments about whether or not you have the disorders that you think you have. That is a matter between you and your own mind. I just want to make the observation that you seem to understand the link between the irrational ideas that you have automatized and your actions and thoughts. This is the first step to ridding your subconscious of the problems that you describe. Objectivism can add clarity to your life in so many ways but this is a great example. You should counter irrational thoughts with explicitly rational ones from philosophy. Whenever you think that dead people are watching you, recall that consciousness cannot exist without life. When you feel depressed, recognize that this is a benevolent world open to your actions and choices. When you feel the need to move your right arm with your left, ponder the purposefulness of living action and work to rid your life of blatantly fortuitous actions. I think that you would benefit from using philosophy in this manner.
  3. I was wrong when I said, "You weren't wrong! " The conclusion "all tables float" was not a valid induction for the reason that Betsy cites: you had not identified a causal connection. My point would stand if you had approached the issue more cautiously with a conclusion like, "the few tables that I have seen so far have all floated." This qualified induction would be the outcome of contextualizing your knowledge of tables with other things that float (tables being more unlike rubber duckies and boats than they are alike). I should have read the post that I was responding to more carefully, d'oh!
  4. One doesn't just "claim" a context as an addendum to one's conclusions. Dr. Peikoff's explanation holds true only when one's context of knowledge is actively held and plays a role in the inductive process. This translates mainly into relating (without contradiction) any new item of knowledge to every other relevant piece of knowledge in addition to reducing your conclusions, step by step through the hierarchy, to the facts that gave rise to the conclusion. This takes a significant amount of work but it is the reason why new knowledge does not contradict old knowledge. As to what can be said about induction in addition to the point that knowledge is contextual, I suggest Dr. Peikoff's outstanding courses on the subject of induction: (Objectivism through Induction and Induction in Physics and Philosophy.
  5. Knowledge is built in a progression from the implicit to the explicit. A child is thinking logically long before he learns the explicit rules guiding his thought during that time. The fact that an item of knowledge is implicit does not mean that it is useless or baseless. From IToE (p. 159) See the section "Implicit Concepts" in the Appendix to IToE for more discussion.
  6. You weren't wrong! That is the line that anti-inductivists take. Consider this from OPAR (pp. 172-3):
  7. I have read it and I just have a couple of things to say about it. 1) George Smith cites Ayn Rand in numerous places in that book but be aware that he has only a superficial understanding of Objectivism. I don't consider Atheism: The Case Against God to represent any part of Objectivism. 2) Smith misses all of the fundamental points that should be covered, e.g., the nature of the arbitrary, existence and only existence exists, etc. 3) Atheism is simply the denial of a certain idea--the idea that there is a god. There is no positive case to be made for atheism. Because of this, I don't think atheism is a ripe enough subject to warrant an entire book. Note that in Objectivist literature, atheism is treated only tangentially and as an outcome of positive aspects of the philosophy. If you have a particular interest in reading about atheism, then you will probably enjoy the book. Personally, I became bored after the first few pages.
  8. Sure, you convey what any philosopher would tell you. That does not change the fact that it is entirely incorrect. All knowledge is attained from experience and the truth or falsity of all knowledge rests on perception.
  9. mbd28, you're way off base. You do realize that this is a BBS for the discussion of Ayn Rand's philosophy of Objectivism? Have you heard of her?
  10. That term is itself one big misunderstanding about the nature of knowledge. Read Leonard Peikoff's "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy" in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology 2nd Ed.
  11. 5.5% of all the posts on this BBS are yours, Stephen. You account for a much greater percentage of what I find interesting here. Great job!
  12. John Cage had a "composition" called 4'35" (or something like that). It is just as Americo described. On one Cage tribute album, Frank Zappa chose this one as his "tribute."
  13. A compilation of ideas backed only by "believe it because I said it's true" differs fundamentally from a philosophy where every principle is backed by the facts that gave rise to them. I think you see this difference quite clearly, Michael. I suggest to you that your newfound excitement in discovering Objectivism is in large part due to finding ideas that are not part of a dogma.
  14. (The following is a short paraphrase of my notes from a class taught by Dr. Binswanger; I hope that you find it as illuminating as I do.) Objectivity (in the Objectivist sense) is a necessary but not a sufficient condition of truth. You can be objective and still err. "True" implies more than "objective." It implies not only that you have been objective but that you have been successful. There is a distinction between the merely false and the non-objective.
  15. Miss Rand's theory of concepts is thoroughly unique. Further, since the rest of philosophy is dependent on a theory of concepts, one could argue that her entire philosophy is thoroughly unique.
  16. And just how do they suggest that you go about attaining these things? O sure, some forms of meditation involve an "object" of meditation but really all they mean is to listen to your breath or to repeat a mantra. As far as I'm concerned, this type of activity is just one step removed from sleep. The essence of my analysis stands. I'm not saying that one shouldn't relax. One can be in complete focus while simply sitting on the floor cross-legged thinking of nothing at all. There is a time and a place to "quiet" your mind and to not think at all. This is only proper, however, in contrast to a much greater amount of productive mental activity. The naked, dreadlocked sadhu is not the model of a controlled mind. Dagney Taggert, laid slack on the couch thinking of nothing in particular, is. When you meditate, ask yourself which of these ideals you are emulating.
  17. (This is just an impersonal analysis of meditation, Release, it is not aimed directly at you.) The forms of meditation that I know about all seek one objective: a content less state of consciousness. If you understand the Objectivist principle of "the primacy of existence," you know that this is impossible. Consciousness is dependent on existence for its content. Every state of consciousness--both on the perceptual and on the conceptual levels--is an awareness of reality. This is a metaphysical fact and as such it cannot be changed or denied; it is part of your nature as a sentient being. There are no clear (i.e., content less) states of consciousness. The closest that one can get to this "ideal" is unconsciousness through, for example, sleep or a coma. Thus, seeking to "clear your mind" by reducing it to a zero is not a good idea (except at night when you're tired).
  18. I would recommend surrounding yourself with great art. Listen to great music and read great books. This will have a powerful impact on your subconscious mind and your sense of life. Another activity that has really helped me shape my sense of life has been listening to lectures from the Ayn Rand Bookstore. Aside from the obvious values in gaining knowledge it is always a powerful experience to listen to rational men speak with conviction. Even better, attend ARI lectures whenever you can. Seeing rational men speak with conviction is even more moving! Of course, as Stephen pointed out, your sense of life is ultimately your philosophy at work. My suggestions are supplementary to your philosophical understanding.
  19. My support of ARI has nothing to do with my judgment. That you would even bring this up supports my inclination (which is now a confirmed fact) that you are not someone to be reasoned with. "TOC and the like" do not progress Objectivism any more than conservatives progress capitalism.
  20. Every single bit of material that I have seen from "TOC and the like" has been anything but progress.
  21. "1700 page unorganized manuscript"!?!? Good god! That you would even take on such a monster says a lot about your curiosity. That you have already rejected it in error after just a month says a lot about your honesty. I know nothing about Frank Wallace but I doubt that much needs to be said about him. I just wanted to congratulate you on your discoveries and to welcome you to the rational side of town. At your current rate you will probably eliminate your interest in Mr. Wallace in another week or so. Good studies!
  22. I have to emphatically agree with Stephen on this. Hofstadter, Penrose, Eccles, Edelman, Crick, Koch, Damasio, Pinker, Minsky, et cetera, et cetera have flocked to cognitive science for a certain reason--the field is new and foundationless allowing them to say whatever they want to. Many of them have made substantial discoveries in mathematics, physics, computer science and biology but when it comes to consciousness they haven't a clue. They come to their theories of consciousness by whim, not by rigourous scientific methodology as they may in other fields. For whatever reason, they seem to indulge in theories of consciousness as if it were a sort of heroin, the injections being of quantum fluctuations and psychons or any other subjective concept that they can push through their needle. I haven't read the book either but I trust Stephen's review of it. I have surveyed the field extensively and have yet to find a single theory to be promising. It's my opinion that any substantial avenues to be carved into the science of the mind will come (and have come) only from Objectivist intellectuals. It is absolutely essential to get your metaphysics and epistemology correct before you can study consciousness.
  23. You bet it's true. What isn't true is that this is why philosophy students can't grasp Objectivism. First of all, Miss Rand didn't have a systematic presentation of her philosophy but you had better believe that she had it systematized in her own mind. It's my opinion that it would not have been possible for her to discover all that she did in addition to developing a comprehensive presentation of her entire system. There was simply too much discovering going on for her to convey all of this to her readers. Furthermore, Ayn Rand gave the essentials of her philosophy and she did make it clear how they were interconnected. It may be spread across several works but you cannot say that Objectivism the system cannot be found in her writings. It is there for those who care to discover it. Second, it's preposterous to say that Miss Rand didn't give "a full explanation of her beliefs." Who else in history has reduced an entire system of philosophy to the three axioms? If this doesn't count as a full explanation just because it isn't footnoted, then who wants explanations... Lastly, I think you have a very mistaken view of what philosophy is. Philosophy is not a pedagogical interaction between academics. It is a profoundly personal (and individual) activity; as far as each of us should be concerned, philosophy is only the set of ideas that each of us holds. Relating your ideas to someone else's is optional. The fact that Ayn Rand's books are not loaded with references to philosophers reflects this. Yes, philosophy students like to relate everything that they learn to some (usually) dead philosopher, but this is not a means to understanding and I have given the reasons why above. With respect to philosophy students, there isn't just a single factor behind their inability to understand Objectivism. What are not factors are the things that you cite.
  24. In perception as such, no. Perception is a physical process and is governed only by the laws of physics. You can directly introspect the fact that concepts do not alter your perception by looking at a green shirt. While doing this, think of the concept "red" and see if anything changes. An amputee's experience of phantom limbs is not an illusion at all. There is something real being sensed in these cases, i.e., a touch or a pain. My theory is that it just so happens that certain nerves used to connect to a part of the body that no longer exists. When these sensations are put in relation to the rest of your "body sense," it feels to the amputee like it is coming from outside of what they know to be their physical body. Whatever ultimately explains the "phantom limb" phenomenon, you need to separate the experience from the interpretation of that experience.
  25. I just want to make two points about how Objectivists write and why this is the right way to write. 1) Knowledge is objective; it is a matter between your mind and reality. One does not gain an understanding of an idea by answering objections and considering opposing viewpoints. This is pure second-handedness. Ayn Rand knew that she was right and this gave her the conviction to write directly to your understanding of reality. She gives the facts and nothing but the facts. I, for one, find this manner of writing to be extremely engaging for the simple fact that it sets my mind in focus and gets me asking questions. In the style of modern scholarship, you are taken by the hand and led step-by-step through each and every possible objection. Not only is this exhausting, it is pointless and it makes me feel like someone is trying to take over my mind. 2) A good writer must heed the crow (see IToE Chapter 7). Being fundamentally aware of this need, Objectivists condense a plethora of observations into a few simple sentences or--if they are exceptional--a single principle. There is so much information contained in a book like IToE that readers would be mentally drowned were they led to confront every minutiae of every little detail. Of course Ayn Rand considered all of these details in formulating her epistemology but she understood that it would be disastrous to present all of this background to you. Instead, she essentialized and compacted the enormous chain of thought that led her to what she wrote about. She is the supreme example of a cognitively observant writer. As an exercise/example, read the Tractatus and observe how it fundamentally violates each of my points and how this hinders your mind (not to mention the fact that it's total nonsense).
×
×
  • Create New...