Hodges'sPodges

I didn't use nested quote formatting. Nested quote formatting is quote within quote. As far as I can tell, what irritates you is that I don't add a blank line between the quote and my reply, though my reply is well demarcated by the fact that it is outside the box of the quoted matter. Anyway, I mentioned that this is a method used by certain other posters too (among them at least one veteran at this site of many years) and I have never previously seen any complaints about this. My posts are perfectly readable. You see what I've quoted in a box and then my comment immediately below that quote box. (I departed from that in my previous post only because the situation is somewhat different.)

The follwing quotes do have surrounding explanation by you. I assure you that I'm not attempting to take you out of context, but rather I'm trying to be concise in presenting my re-asking of my question" "Power seekers give orders, and if that order is completed, then they'll just reverse themselves to exercise their power again." "I never did attempt to relate the idea of "power for power's sake" to any actual events because I understood the idea without a concrete illustration." "Quite likely some concrete examples were included with the concept when I formed it but I didn't retain them, only the concept." So, you made a pretty wide generalization about power seekers and their thoughts (their reasons) - particularly that they reverse themselves for the purpose of exercising their power again. That claim (by the way, it seems to me to be not a mere concept but also an expression of a proposition, indeed a claim) struck me as especially interesting. So, I asked what empirical evidence you have for the claim. However, your response indicated that you weren't making the claim yourself, but rather reporting a claim made by Rand. So I accepted that. But then you went on to explain your own concept formation about this particular subject. Part of your explanation included that it is "quite likely" that your concept was formed from concretes but that you don't recall them. That led to my comment: "There are many claims (even broad generalizations) that people may make though they are unsure whether they know of even a single (not just imagined, fictional, or hypothetical) instance to support the claim. Perhaps that is a legitimate basis for making such claims, especially when bolstered by the ability to cite hypothetical examples. I'm not inclined to argue for or against such a view. I was just wondering how it squares with Objectivism." And that was pretty much my question, just as I posted it. I was wondering how your description of your concept formation that leads to your assertion of a generalization about power seekers squares with Objectivist epistemology. And, of course, this is a question that may be addressed by whomever wishes to address it.

Perhaps my posts are not appearing in your browser as they appear to me. What is your specific complaint? At least as my posts appear in my own browser, they do conform to the suggestions you quoted above. Is your complaint that I don't insert a blank line between formatted quotes and my following comment? If so, that is to tighten wasted space and is a formatting that certain other posters use as well; and I have never seen a complaint regarding their formatting, nor, for that matter, regarding my own.

What hostility? Again, whatever the merits of that analysis, my question regarded something more specific you claimed. Whether there is an error in the way you've made any particular claims depends on one's notion of error. But my question was not really as to error but rather as to how the formation of your claim squares with Objectivist epistemology. But if 'error' in your view means 'contradicts Objectivist epistemology' then my question does regard error per se. But I didn't say that. To begin, I'd wish to understand whatever distinction Objectivism makes between concepts and propositions, then to see whether the remark of yours that interested me expresses a proposition or a concept, though, of course, this is not to say that propositions are unrelated to concepts.

But, whatever my thoughts about what you just mentioned, I did not undertake to argue it. Rather, I was interested in a particular claim you made, as I mentioned it. I thought you might have been making a claim that you personally support as well as merely reporting what Objectivists in general hold. If on the other hand, you were merely reporting something that Rand said somewhere, of course, I wouldn't ask you to explain her epistemological context for her. Then as long as that is acceptable epistemology, quite fine. There are many claims (even broad generalizations) that people may make though they are unsure whether they know of even a single (not just imagined, fictional, or hypothetical) instance to support the claim. Perhaps that is a legitimate basis for making such claims, especially when bolstered by the ability to cite hypothetical examples. I'm not inclined to argue for or against such a view. I was just wondering how it squares with Objectivism. Whatever my views on your earlier posts, I did not claim to refute them; merely I was interested in the particular claim that I mentioned.

Whatever the merits of those assertions, his original assertion that I asked about was more a more specific one; then I had questions about how his followup relates to Objectivist epistemology.

Okay, so not a claim that you were prepared to substantiate yourself. Such a method of drawing conclusions from what one can imagine as opposed to what one has observed is pretty non-Objectivist, no? Sure, we can all imagine various things. So the point you were making is as to what you can imagine. Of course, if that is the standard, then lots of claims by many people about a lot of things may be admitted (perhaps properly so, but does that conform to Objectivist epistemology?).

Would you give an example from well known events in public affairs or history?

As opposed to what you ought to pursue in life while you're not alive? Sorry, just ribbing; I'm not really that pedantic in life (not in life though, who knows how pedantic I might be?).

Why is that? Did you stop reading 'Atlas Shrugged' when you got to the chapter "The Utopia Of Greed"? Or, you wouldn't consider reading a book titled 'A Utopia of Greed: Ayn Rand's Moral Defense of Capitalism' sold by ARI?

But, as you said, those are two polar ends of a particular spectrum. One does not expect to find a doctor who is described as being one of those two polar ends. And, as to my hypothetical, now you're changing it and thus addressing a different hypothetical. Yes, that is all as much as made clear enough in my skit. No, this is not different from my skit. I explicitly mentioned just what you said in my skit. I sure wouldn't if, as in the skit, it were a followup to a doctor telling me that my recovery is expected but only valued in terms of benchmarks of your medical skill. Sure, of course that immediately occurs to one as soon as one hears the hypothetical. But the point of the hypothetical is that I would venture that even given the reasoning just mentioned, most people would not tolerate being told (notwithstanding appreciation of the honesty) by their doctor or surgeon that the person's well being is merely an expected result and only a goal to the extent that the doctor wishes to meet and exceed certain medical-scientific benchmarks. So are people merely irrational in that respect, or, possibly, is there some reasonable underlying basis to prefer not to have such a person operating on your brain? Here's another skit: Scott Scout (he's a baseball scout): Well, boss, I found two guys who I think could really do a great job for us at third base next year. Their stats are virtually identical! Amazing as that is. Their both equally skilled and healthy ball players, as far as I can tell. And they're both highly motivated. I really can't see any difference; might as well just toss a coin to decide which one to sign. Oh, except one difference. They have somewhat different philosophy of sports. I'll let them tell you, boss. Issac Intrinsic: I play ball for the purpose of playing the best I can play. I expect to win, but that is only because winning is a function of my playing at my best. What motivates me is the development of my skills, developing new techniques of hitting and fielding, and their application in competition against other skilled players. I mean that's about it. I think you'll win the championship this year with me, but, as I said, that's only a distant, secondary motivation for me. Wally Winner: I play ball for all the reasons that Issac plays, but also a main motivation for me is winning. I want to win not just because it indexes my athletic skill, but also because it just makes me feel good to win and also it makes me feel good knowing that I've contributed to the joy of my teammates and the fans through our victory. I'll play my very best for you, because that is a goal onto itself and because I want to help bring a championship to this team. Ozzie Owner: Well, thank you gentlemen for sharing your interesting perspectives. Mr. Intrinsic, my secretary will validate your parking, thanks for stopping by, and good luck. Now, Wally, what we had in mind is a signing bonus to go with your starting salary....

That is not necessarily true. The doctor whose motivation includes the well-being of others may be just as motivated to learn the scientific aspect (moreover, he too may have his own intrinsic interest in the scientific aspect): or, in a particular case, the well-being motivated doctor might be more talented naturally while the solely scientific minded doctor had to study harder to catch up so that they wind up equally skilled. The hypothetical is that they are both equally skilled but one happens to care about the well being of the patients. That is not impossible. Again, that doesn't necessarily follow. The person who cares about well being may be very good at thinking clearly. Just because he cares about the well being of his patients doesn't entail that he can't reason just as clearly as any other doctor. Doctor Williams: Hello, Mr. Patient. You have brain cancer. This requires a highly skilled operation. It is a very difficult operation. You could die or be left with severe brain damage. Let me introduce to you two surgeons so that you can choose for yourself. They're both equally skilled; in fact, their records of success in surgery are virtually identical. But they have somewhat different views of medicine. I'll let them speak for themselves: Doctor Jones: Thank you. As Doctor Williams mentioned, even though this is a very complicated operation, my own success rate in such surgeries is quite high. My motivation for being a doctor includes two different aspects: I am interested in the human body and in the knowledge and technology that works to affect changes on the human body, and I wish to alleviate human suffering and promote the well being of people. Hard for me to say which is the more important motivation, or even whether I can separate them. The point though is that my success in medicine has been a function of those two basic interests. By the way, since I do very much care about the suffering of people, I clearly recognize the importance of being calm headed, objective, and scientific about their treatment. That is, compassion should not interfere with clear thinking, while still compassion is a motivation. Doctor Smith. Thank you. As Doctor Williams mentioned, I too am highly successful in such surgeries. My motivation for being a doctor is virtually all scientific; I am interested in the human body and in the knowledge and technology that works to affect changes on the body. As to alleviating human suffering and promoting well being, I basically don't care about that, except to the extent that it is a measure of scientific success. Don't get me wrong, if you survive this surgery and come out healthy, that's okay with me, but my main interest in performing this surgery is not in whether your suffering is alleviated or your life extended, but rather in seeing another live human brain and working on it as part of my scientific goals. So, to be candid with you, I really barely care about you - as another colleague of mine said, if your well being is improved by this surgery, then so be it, but my real stake in this is basically all as scientific endeavor. Mr. Patient: You're joking, right? Please tell me that you're joking...some kind of weird sense of humor. Doctor Smith: No, I assure you I am not joking. Ever hear the story of Howard Roark and Peter Keating? I'm your Howard Roark here. Mr. Patient: Nurse! Get me my clothes and belongings! I'm checking out of this place!

Suppose you were introduced to two doctors who had the same skill in diagnosis, but one had the view you just described while the other had the view that his or her purpose is not just to enjoy the scientific aspect but also, or even primarily, to alleviate suffering and promote well being. All other things being equal, which doctor would you choose to be your own doctor?

Objectivism provides for a distinction between formal and symbolic definitions? Where can I read about that? (I am familiar with the discussion of definitions in ITOE - and I don't dispute that the definition just cited might not conform to the method of definition given in ITOE - but I don't recall mention of a distinction between formal and symbolic definitions.) What is the Objectivist distinction between formal and symbolic definitions such that the concept of existence defined by "A is A; a thing is itself; existence is identity" is a symbolic definition?

It seems that Objectivism does hold that there is a definition of the concept of existence: "Centuries ago, the man who was—no matter what his errors— the greatest of your philosophers, has stated the formula defining the concept of existence and the rule of all knowledge: A is A. A thing is itself. You have never grasped the meaning of his statement. I am here to complete it: Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification." - Ayn Rand

Perhaps a mistake to attempt to define existence itself (whatever it even would mean to "define existence itself"); but do you think it is a mistake to attempt to define the CONCEPT 'existence'?

As to the legal or civil matter I think it would depend on whatever the law (or lack of one) is in a given jurisdiction. But again, I just posted that the legal or civil or even buyer/seller transaction issue is not what I'm referring to. Questions about existence of god come also with their own problems. To begin with, there is the problem of whether (or possibly in what sense) a meaningful proposition is even at hand. I mean, such questions as to what empirical, deductive, or other grounds would be considered adequate to settle the proposition. My own "standard response" to assertions of the existence of god is along the lines of, "I don't deny that you may have whatever personal spiritual experiences you have, but I won't get caught up in a debate over a proposition that you can't tell me the means, empirical or deductive, or even some broad sense, by which it could be settled." Then, supposing we do have some basis upon which to argue the matter, it is up to whomever says "God exists" to prove it and (again assuming, which is a stretch anyway, that there is a basis for determination of the question) it is up to whomever says "God does not exist" to prove it. But of course, I would heartily agree that lack of a submitted disproof of existence is NOT proof of existence. I only disagree that lack of proof of existence is proof of non-existence (again, given the caveat that it's been established in just what sense the proposition 'God exists' is meaningful in terms of public enquiry). The point about caveat emptor and fool's game is beside the point. I'm not asking what is a wise policy to have in buying a house or a used car. Rather, my concern is epistemological and as to methodology in inquiry, whether as informal an inquiry. Again, whoever says there are no termites (whether buyer, seller, disinterested third party, whatever) has the burden of proof, and if there's no evidence yet given, then I don't conclude that I have knowledge that there are no termites, but rather I take it that I don't have knowledge that there are and I don't have knowledge that there are not.

That may depend on the jurisdiction. (If I recall correctly, I've seen instances in which it is part of the seller's disclosure to attest that there are no termites.) Anyway, I wasn't referring to whatever the particular disclosure laws or conventions are in real estate . Rather, I'm just referring to a situation in which a person claims that there do not exist termites on the property, no matter the relationship of seller or buyer or whatever laws or conventions exist regarding real estate transactions. Even if there is no buying or selling involved, if a termite inspector claims that there are no termites on the property, it is not my onus to prove that there are termites on the property; and I don't regard as false the claim that there are termites on the property based only on lack of proof that there are not termites on the property, but rather, I regard it as undetermined, which again does not contradict the law of excluded middle that it is either true or false that there are termites on the property, since I recognize it is either true or false while also recognizing that I don't know which it is until one or the other is proven (in whatever sense of 'proof' - empirical, in this case, which may include the modus tollens argument about lack of evidence mentioned by another poster earlier). If the inspector asserts that there are no termites, then he needs to prove that there are no termites; he can't just say, "Well, it's a negative statement, so you need to prove that there ARE termites."

My impression is that that is the Objectivist position. And it surely is a good convention to have in the law in the sense of presumed innocence. However, other than in the legal context of presumed innocence, I've given reasons why I don't think it holds as a universal generalization. I wrote: "Moreover, another context is mathematics. In that field, if one asserts a denial, then it is one's burden to prove it. There is no sense that one may say, for example, "there does not exist an even number greater than two that is not the sum of two primes" by merely resting on a challenge for it to be proven that there does exist an even number greater than two that is not the sum of two primes." Dnials are commonly asserted in mathematics. That is, one commonly asserts certain negations of propositions, including negations of existence claims. One commonly asserts things of the form "there does not exist a number having such and such a property". And the burden of proof is on one who makes that claim. It is not the case that a proposition such as "there exists a number having such a such property" is "treated as false" unless proven. Rather, it is treated as unproven, and a burden of proof goes to whomever asserts it AND to whomever asserts its negation. In mathematics, at least since about the last hundred years, ordinarily, a theorem, by definition, is a sentence provable from some given set of formulas. Consistency is a related but different matter. Propositions of mathematics may come as either negations or not negations (and in constructive mathematics, by the way, it is not the case that every proposition has an equivalent in negation form), and no matter whether one is asserting a proposition that is not a negation or one that is a negation, the burden or proof is on the one who makes the assertion. When a proposition has no known proof nor known proof of its negation, then it is "treated" as "unknown as to its provability", or "unsolved", or "an open problem", and it is not "treated" as false merely for lack of proof. Of course, in classical mathematics, this does not contradict the law of excluded middle: every sentence is either true or false (in a given structure, if more formal); but until we've proven the sentence or proven its negation we don't just "treat" the sentence as false merely for our lack of a proof of it. Also, contrary to you claim, mathematics may easily distinguish between negations of existence statements and existence statements. An existence statement is of the form "there exists an object having such and such property". The negation of an existence statement is of the form "There does not exist an object having such and such property".

Currently it stands as a centuries old unsolved problem in mathematics known as 'Goldbach's Conjecture'.

I'm not picturing anything specific at all. Indeed, I'm asking what specifically Binswanger is referring to. Perhaps that is what Binswanger does mean, and nothing more. Or, perhaps he means there was an actual deal - a specific communication between the two groups, moreover not just as to a commitment to exclude additional groups but also to define themselves as the opposite of the other. I'm only asking what specifically he does mean.

Just to be clear, I didn't opine one way or the other as to whether "bad ideas eventually kill" or in what sense I even take that notion. Rather, I was granting the notion fo the sake of argument.

Of course I read the rest of your post. The point of my response was merely to be clear that my own question about GANG division was as to the specific matter of some deal between them (and I didn't claim that you had ignored that). You also noted that you don't know about a deal regarding their self-definitions; my reply was not about that particular matter but about whether that deal extended to a common strategy in actual mutual gang warring.

The question is specifically as to a "deal" between German communists and Nazis. Immediately following the quote about a deal to define themselves, Binswanger continues: "You see the percentage in that. You define my gang and your gang and rule out of court any other possibility, such as freedom without any gang war, so it's actually a strategy adopted in Germany in the the Weimar Republic in the '30s.

I don't know whehter that is intended as a reply to my question. If it is, then I just note that I'm not opining as to the wider concept, but rather I'm asking about a specific matter of history.