Fred Weiss

I wonder if Betsy chuckled over that one as much as I did. If you ever want to start a brawl among Objectivists, start discussing what movies they like. I've even seen a somewhat similar range of disagreement over books, especially fiction - although there because there a number of "approved" books/authors people feel they have to tread carefully. Frankly, I'm surprised when I hear Objectivists tell me they don't like Victor Hugo -but then I don't particularly like Mickey Spillane, so who am I to talk. Fred Weiss

I'm still in mourning for a pet cat (of 10 years) who died over a year ago. Still think about her often and miss her, while I wrestle with the possibility of getting another one.

So? That's why we need laws governing fraud and force. I'll only add that corporations that do the sort of thing you are mentioning tend not to gain the trust of their customers. So whatever short term profit they may gain by the misrepresentation will be lost in the long term as customers become reluctant to purchase their product in the future. It's not good business practice and the vast majority of businesses grasp it. Take a mundane example, Ebay. That's why they introduced their "rating" system where customers can comment on their purchases. It is hardly infallible, but I know that I tend to bid with greater confidence when a seller has a high positive rating and few if any negative ratings. I use similar practices when I purchase almost anything. That's the power of word-of-mouth and people recommending certain products/businesses. It literally makes or breaks most businesses and any good businessman is aware of it. Fred Weiss

But I think that is exactly right, that there are certain ideas which, while we may consider ourselves certain of them (the evidence is strong and there is no contrary evidence), we don't quite yet fully trust them in all areas. Or in other words, the evidence may be strong, but it is not yet overwhelming. To use my "slam-dunk" definition of certainty, the evidence is not yet "massive and overwhelming, repeatedly confirmed and re-confirmed (with of course no contrary evidence)." So, to give a mundane example, I'm absolutely certain that cars start when you turn the key in the ignition...but I'm only pretty certain that mine will if I try it later today. To give a more serious example (assuming Bob Kolker was right), Newton would have been justified in considering his theory certain, but, given the magnitude of his discovery to science, it really required a considerable amount of confirmation, some of which didn't happen until some time after his death. If I recall correctly, AR comments on just this point in ITOE. (I should mention that some of the people referenced in my exchange with Don, e.g. Gordon Sollars, Bob Kolker, are adversaries we have debated on this and other issues for many years on another forum.) Fred Weiss

Apparently you don't realize what an emotionalist and unsubstantiated claim this is. And then you wonder why the people on this board, whom you are insulting, are "up in arms" about you - which you then have the audacity to claim is further evidence of their dogmatism! What did you expect, "Gee, thanks Hannibal, for pointing out what unthinking drones we are who think our convictions are based on solid reasoning, but which in fact they are not <which incidentally you haven't supported in any way by indicating any flaws in the reasoning> and, you add, it is based on "certain (invalid?)assumptions" <which assumptions you don't specify and indicate why they are mistaken>?" So, may I suggest a different, more fruitful stance. How about: "Here is a belief of Objectivism which you morons think 'cannot possibly be wrong' but it clearly is for the following reason. And since you persist in believing it, despite it being obviously wrong, that proves that you are dogmatists. " Just a suggestion. Fred Weiss

Since I was gracious enough to acknowledge my indebtedness to a number of people in regard to various aspects of this matter, including you, you could at least have the decency to reciprocate - in this instance that you undoubtedly learned how to be a butt-insky from me, especially since...err... more often than not I was doing it to you. <snip Mr. Buttinsky's appeal to authority - albeit a fairly respectable one> Now in this case the authority being yourself, I certainly want to accord it the utmost deference. But with all due respect to your authority on the subject, could you dang well ever legitimately say that you are more - or less - certain of something, in which case that would suggest a continuum of certainty - allowing I would assume some small degree of doubt in some instances on up to no doubt whatever in others? Could you also ever say, on the awareness of more evidence, that you are even more certain now about something than you were before? Fred Weiss

I disagree with this. If you are 99% certain of something, then there is room for doubt, small as it may be, and it is something you should factor into your thinking. And your example proves the point. The reason why you drive carefully, even though you know that you have gotten home safely 99 times out of the last 100 (or even 999 out of the last 1000), is that the other time raised your insurance premiums by 30% and nearly got you killed. Driving, or handling any dangerous instrument, has the potential to do you serious damage even as a result of one small momentary lapse in focus - not to mention how you must keep one eye also on others around you. While there is a great deal you can be certain of in driving - and you'd better be (such as knowing where the brake pedal is or how to signal left or right) - being certain that you will never have an accident is a very dangerous assumption to be on. In fact, that's a certainty. Fred Weiss

By way of example, this makes my point. In order to know that you are <insert whatever degree you want here> in love with someone, you have to *know* what love is. If you are not sure what love is or what constitutes evidence of it, you can't measure it or compare the different degrees of it. Or consider, if you want to say that you are more in love with Jane than Mary, wouldn't you have to be *certain* that you are experiencing certain emotions more intensely toward Jane than Mary. If you can't do that then you are just confused as between them and there is no basis for a comparison. The same thing applies to the degree or scaling of anything - including "probability" generally. This is why some such notion as "it's all probable" is a stolen concept. Unless you are certain of something, you wouldn't be able to judge the degrees of knowledge which lead you toward it and you...err...certainly wouldn't know when you are close to it, but didn't quite have it yet. If you are close to it, but don't yet have it, what is missing? And when you have what is missing, what do you have then? If you can't ever have what is missing, and therefore never be certain of anything, then you can't have *any* knowledge, not a shred of it. You'll always just have some, but never all - in an infinite regress leading to...zero. I'd like to acknowledge that it was something Don Watkins said on this subject in a different discussion setting - particularly in regard to the infinite regress problem - which helped me to grasp this point. Dave Odden has for some time had a good grasp of how scepticism ultimately devolves into nihilism. And I'm still pondering Steven Speicher's argument with me that certainty is a "singularity" not subject to degrees. Fred Weiss

Except that you can't relate it to anything if you are also uncertain about what you are relating it to, what your standard of measure is, and whether that relating is valid. If you say that you are more certain of X than Y, I assume that means that you have more evidence for X than Y. Well, are you certain of that evidence? You're not? So on what basis are you more certain? The general point is that the notion of more or less certainty presupposes the validity of evidence. However, if you question the validity of evidence - if it, too, is subject to doubt - then you have nothing. I am still of the opinion that "degrees of certainty" is a valid idea, though I acknowledge that it may not be in strict accord with the Objectivist view of it. However, if there are degrees of certainty it still presupposes conclusiveness, i.e. certainty, simple, i.e. that about which there is no basis for rational doubt. You know, one can always doubt but that doesn't mean there is any rational basis for it. And, that we don't know everything, or even in principle that we could know (literally) everything, doesn't mean we can't know something, in fact a great deal. Or, in other words, omniscience is not a prerequisite for knowledge. Or, the fact that we are fallible, that we might be in error, doesn't mean that we in fact are in error with regard to any specific bit of knowledge - and doesn't mean that we can't *know*, i.e be certain that we are not in error. Is there any rational basis for questioning whether the earth orbits the sun or that a cow can't jump over the moon? Fred Weiss

Where did said "safe working conditions" exist anywhere in the world, in any jobs, at that time? They certainly didn't exist in the era preceding the Industrial Revolution. You are applying current standards - made possible by that very revolution which you are condemning - to a period where the technology and wealth did not yet exist to make it possible. Life itself wasn't safe in that period. The average life expectancy was under 40 years! It is only the Industrial Revolution which made possible the changes in working conditions. And now that life expectancy has doubled and most working environments are immeasurably safer and more comfortable than in the past, still that's not enough. Now you want to complain about hydrogenated oils???!!! Fred Weiss

Well, of course the Indians lost. They were attempting to defend primitive savagery against civilization. It was simply no contest. As for our actions being indefensible, I don't agree. While there were certainly instances of injustice, even blatant and unjustifiable brutality, in general I think we were extraordinarily beneficent toward the Indians. Most cultures simply would have exterminated or enslaved them. We gave them vast tracts of land, reservations, where they could live in peace and do what they wanted. Incidentally, I think that was a mistake - and we are paying the price today with ridiculous Indian claims for the return of "their lands". They had no claims to lands. They were predominantly hunter/gatherers which doesn't constitute a rational basis for a land claim. Roaming through a forest and hunting deer doesn't constitute a basis for ownership of that forest. Their only basis is a primitive tribalistic argument of territory - which the Indians. well before our arrival, constantly fought over among themselves (so our taking it from them is hardly anything they could complain about.) Fred Weiss

To assume a range of certainty (or probability) in regard to something presupposes some certainty or you end up in an infinite regress. For example, if you were to say that you are 90% certain of something, how do you know it is 90% and not, say, 80%? If you are unsure about it being 90%, then you have added an additional layer of probability onto your probabilty. What do you say then? That you are 90% sure that it is 90% probable. And so on. If we can't be certain of anything, then we can't know *anything*. It totally demolishes knowledge down to its roots. There is no remnant of "probability" which can salvage it. If you just hold in mind some things you know to be certain, and toward which there is absolutely no doubt, it will help you to grasp this idea. My own favorites (but you could pick any of 1,000's of other examples) are: A cow cannot jump over the moon. The earth orbits the sun. The WTC was destroyed on 9/11. It is not enough to say, "Well, I can imagine a cow jumping over the moon" or "I can imagine the earth doing pirouettes around Jupiter, instead of orbiting the sun", so therefore it's possible. You can imagine anything you wish, but reality isn't a Walt Disney cartoon. You can imagine these things *only by dropping the context of all of human knowledge* and in these particular instances, all of our knowledge of physics. Fred Weiss

About Objectivism as it really is-in-itself? No one can do that anyway. It will just be a "construct" in your mind. Of course if he actually read it (or thought he did, since one cannot be sure if one is actually reading-in-itself), it might help him construct his construct, transcendentally speaking, that is. On the other hand...ummm...sorry, I got disconnected from reality and forgot where I was. Fred Weiss (Me. Kantian)

What do you mean by that? Can you give an example? That's interesting. Why do you think that is? Fred Weiss

You'll have to be more specific as to what you are referring to.

I don't know if the explanation is always simple, but I believe in most instances it is. A good deal of it I think is the result of just not being very aware of yourself and the nature of the choices you tend to make. As someone already mentioned, if you think you are "unlucky in love", odds are you are probably tending to pick the wrong romantic partners or you need to work on your own behavior in relationships. Or, if you tend to have a lot of car accidents maybe it has something to do with your being a careless driver. In other words, to a considerable extent you will "make your own luck". Other times, having nothing particularly to do with you, things will happen and it's just a matter of "statistical probability". So, you have the stories of the people who just happened to choose to go to (or not go to) the WTC on 9/11. Yeah, you can say they were lucky (or unlucky). But on any given day, there were *always* a certain number of people who did or didn't go to the WTC. There's certainly nothing mystical about it. It's similar to the people who claim to have had "premonitions" or "dreams" which turn out to be true. Well, hello, how many of these so-called "premonitions" or "dreams" *don't* turn out to be true. Those you don't hear about. The 1 in a million that do turn out to be true, those you hear about and they supposedly prove that there are mystical forces at work in such situations! One comment has always stuck in my mind to illustrate this issue of "statistical probability". I believe it was in a book on the subject the title of which I can't recall. Suppose you are at Disneyland and you run into someone you haven't seen in years. Your reaction might be, "Wow, what an amazing coincidence!". The author pointed out that it wasn't that amazing at all. Apparently there are so many people at Disneyland at any given time that the probability is much higher than in normal situations that you will run into someone you haven't seen in years. So, if you have a tendency to think you are lucky or unlucky in regard to something or that some particular occurence was lucky or unlucky, if you think about it along these lines, it makes more sense. (In any event there is certainly never anything mystical about). Fred Weiss

Hmmm...I think she may have intended more than that - that she trusted his judgement regarding what Objectivism was and his ability to speak on its behalf and that furthermore any additional ideas he may have regarding it likely would be consistent with it. That however is not the same thing as "carte blanche", nor has anyone ever said anything of the kind, including Leonard Peikoff. Fred Weiss

Yeah, well that was a mistake. The correct answer is: Because he saw a (humanitarian) chicken heading his way. Fred Weiss

Do you plan to stop eating and drinking? Let's talk specifically about caffeine and alcohol (we'll put aside cheeseburgers and french fries for the moment). You could say very many of the exactly the same things about them that have been said about smoking here. Or let's talk about "dulling the senses". Is anyone here prepared to give up sex, during which - assuming you are totally into it and granting that your tactile senses and awareness of your partner are greatly heightened - you are nonetheless virtually incapacitated in every other respect? Fred Weiss

I've never seen these before. Where ya been hidin' em? I particularly liked the Empiricist and David Kelley viruses. Harry Binswanger can be quite funny when he wants to be. But my personal favorite Objectivist funnyman of the moment is Charles Novins. You have to go to hpo to see him in full swing. Hpo, for those who don't know it, is a newsgroup which is, shall we say, a bit more free-wheeling than O-O and therefore attracts a number of anti-Objectivists some of whom are sometimes so incoherent or plain stupid that the only thing you can do is laugh at them. When Charles lets loose on one of them it is often utterly hilarious. Sometimes Dave Odden chimes in and then it's ROTFL. Fred Weiss

I just noticed another example on the Forum. "Ayn Rand said that one should not sanction evil. Taxation is evil. Therefore one shouldn't pay taxes." Fred Weiss

Could you give some examples? The most common thing I've noticed with rationalists is the inability to keep context. Every definition or principle must for them apply to *everything without exception* and one can therefore deduce all of one's conclusions with total absolutism, even in the face of absurd implications. This is typically combined with approaching Objectivism in an authoritarian or dogmatic manner. So by such a process one will start with, "Ayn Rand said...." and then proceed to deduce conclusions from it. An example: "Ayn Rand said: all property should be privately owned...and since "all" means "all", that means the gov't should be privately owned...hence, anarchism." Or: since Ayn Rand said no one may initiate force against anyone else, if your boat sinks on a lake and you are swimming to shore to save your life, you can't climb out anywhere before first asking permission of the owners. And if they deny the permission, tough, you'll just have to drown. The general answer to this approach is to grasp that principles arise from the facts of reality (which is how Ayn Rand did it) - not simply because Ayn Rand declared it - and that one cannot be expected to apply a principle in a situation where its application would defeat the very purpose of the principle. Fred Weiss

Appointed by whom - and who decides who gets to do the appointing? Fred Weiss

I read it. Interesting. You obviously have a lot of intellectual curiosity and a good ability to separate the rational from the irrational, You also make me realize how with the continued expansion of the Internet that more and more people worldwide will be able to discover Objectivism - even in the rather serendipitous way that you did. Fred Weiss

I had a similar experience contacting the publisher in regard to some reprint rights I wanted to pursue. I would imagine they are not very cooperative where they suspect that the financial pay-off will be small. However, I admit I wasn't very persistent which I suspect is what is needed in these cases. In effect send them the message that it might be worth it to them to give you what you want to just to get rid of you. You might also try contacting ARI to see if they can offer any assistance. Failing that contact Leonard Peikoff directly. (He has a web page). Good luck with that. I'm rather ashamed at our country's current policies on immigration and that we make it so difficult these days for good people to get in. I'll look forward to that. Let us know when you post it. As a more general point, I'd appreciate it if some of you from overseas would give us that information when you post here. I'm inclined to give people who live in certain culturals and are therefore subjected to much greater amounts of irrationality much more slack in regard to their understanding and questions about Objectivism. Fred Weiss