Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

UKObjectivist

Regulars
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by UKObjectivist

  1. Have you read Ayn Rand's introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? In the expanded Second Edition this question is dealt with by Rand towards the end of the book [p304 of the Meridian published copy]. I'm a new newbie poster so I don't know if this will help, but here is the text: Prof C: Some mathematicians claim that there is such a thing as an "imaginary number." How do you determine whether it is correct or not to include imaginary nubers within the same category as real numbers? Ayn Rand: By defining the essential characteristics of the units. After you define what a real number is, if you see from what you mean by those terms that there are essential differences, then you can't include them in the same concept. But this is really a question concerning theory-formation, not concept-formation. You are in the realm of epistemology of science. I will just say on this topic that you have to treat scientific concepts in exactly the same way, in principle, as you treat "table" and "chair." If somebody decided to put tales and chairs into one concept - on the grounds that you always see them together - but beds and automobiles in another because he can lie down in either, you would object to that. Why? Because you would say that he has organized his data by non-essentials. He has ignored essential similarities and essential differences abd arbitrarily coupled certain existents into certain groups. That error comes under the general category of definition by non-essentials. It is disastrous conceptually to try to integrate objects by non-essential characteristics. She goes on to say [and this is the crux of the matter] - If they serve that purpose [ie of measurement and method], then they have a valid meaning--only then they are not concepts of entities, they are concepts of method. If they have a use which you can apply to actual reality, but they do not correspond to any actual numbers, it is clearly a concept pertaining to method. It is an epistemological device to establish certain relationships. But then it has validity. All concepts of this kind are concepts of method and have to be clearly differentiated as such. Material is copyrighted and reproduced for fair use.
  2. Icosahedron, what would you say is the difference between information and data? There is an enormous quantity of data in the World - does it become information when it is in human consciousness? Are information and data the same thing and if they are different, what are the stages that data must transition to become information, and vice versa? For knowledge, Aristotle considers knowledge to exist on several levels, like a hierarchy. At the top of the hierarcy is scientific knowledge, which consists of all the information that can be believed in with complete confidence, because it is distinguished by virtue of having a proof. Therefore, the distinguishing feature separating information from knowledge, in my opinion, would be the proof. It is the proof that makes something knowledge as opposed to information. Just throwing some ideas out for discussion, I wonder what you think?
  3. Why are people saying she is selfish simply because she is advancing her career, gaining value from her interactions etc? Rand did not advocate selfishness in this form, but rational selfishness. The responsibilities of government should not extend into the social or economic sphere. If the social worker is simply rehabilitating offenders, then that can be classified as security work which is a proper function of the State. However, simply saying that someone is "selfish" because they gain is shallow and false. Being a looter or a moocher is "selfish" in this way - ie false selfishness. It is rational selfishness that Rand advocated, and I have difficulty believing that anyone who works as a social worker could truly possess rational selfishness. Interfering with the free will of others, and taking a payment from taxpayers who were parted from their money with force, is still a form of the altruist doctrine. The only way this woman can ethically justify her actions is by restricting herself to security work [the proper function of the State] or else conducting her work in the free market or private charity sector, assisting individuals who contract voluntarily and who pay her with their own money.
×
×
  • Create New...