Argument with a friend

[musenji]

Hi all! I'm Ben Hoffman. I've been in chat for a while, and have posted here, but only a few times in fringe areas (turns out I posted over a year ago in an anti-Objectivist video games thread). So this post will be my introduction.

So. I'm having an argument with a friend over e-mail. I don't know if this is an appropriate posting or not, but what I'm basically looking for is a review, and primarily of my final reply, because I have not yet sent it. In advance, I suspect some of you may say it is a hopeless cause, but I have had very little practice with philosophical arguments, so it is valuable to me. The first comment is hers:

>> I believe that as mere humans it is impossible for all of us to experience the same reality.

I think we may have different definitions for "reality". I define "reality" as "all that which exists", regardless of human knowledge or consciousness, so by that defintion, it is impossible for there to be more than one reality. Does your definition differ?

Do you believe that there is an existence out there, but we simply can't have accurate, trustworthy knowledge of it? Or that, because people have limited knowledge based on their own experiences, their "realities" are different? I know lots of people say things like "my reality is different from your reality". IMO, that is an incorrect use of the word, and they ought to replace "reality" with "perspective".

>>Yes, I'd agree that "perception" is a better use than "reality." And I think

>>people who say "my reality is different from your reality" are mostly right-minded

>>people. In those cases I think "perception" is much better. However, let's take,

>>for instance, schizophrenics. For them, there actually ARE people there they are

>>talking to. Delving into metaphysics, as I do (since I do believe in God), who's to

>>say there actually aren't beings there that they can see and talk to? We know very

>>little about schizophrenia and obviously less about God and metaphysics. In any

>>case, God or no god, I'd say this is an actual reality for them. And perhaps this is

>>all only searching for agreed-upon definitions, which is at least half of philosophy,

>>or at least the basic groundwork before you can begin to philosophize.

I actually said "perspective", not "perception". However, perception would be more correct when speaking of strictly sensory forms of knowledge, as opposed to worldviews.

When I say that existence exists, and things are what they are, apart from any viewpoint of these things, I mean that if Sammy and Betty are walking down the street, and Sammy starts hearing loud voices while Betty cannot, then there is a difference between these two people--not a difference in external reality. Either Betty is hard of hearing in the moment, or Sammy is hearing voices when there is nobody actually speaking. Which is to say that one of them is accurately perceiving reality, and the other is not. How do we find out who is correct? Look at the external reality. If there are soundwaves of voices, then Betty is hard of hearing. If there aren't, Sammy is hearing voices inside his head, not from an external source.

The key axiom this rests upon is Aristotle's axiom that A is A: a thing is what it is, and all things must act according to their nature. And the corollary law of non-contradiction: that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. This means that the voices either are, or are not, coming from an external source. There either are, or are not, sound waves that cause the voices in Sammy's head. It can't be both.

The reason that it's an --axiom-- is that it's a self-evident truth of reality. In any attempt to refute it, you have to accept that it is true. If one tries to argue that A can be non-A, at the same time and in the same respect, then language quite literally has no meaning, and therefore his argument is a sham. The concept "tree" can mean the same thing as the concept "jump" (ignoring the labels themselves, thinking of just their referents). Words would therefore have no meaning, because they would have no objective validity, because they're not describing things that are what they are, and are not something else entirely. If a thing can be both a rock and a human heart, simultaneously, then none of these words has any meaning at all.

If Sammy and Betty are walking in the desert, and Sammy sees a building where Betty does not, the physical reality outside their minds is the same. The difference is inside their heads, not outside. Reality, first and foremost, is that which physically exists. And a thing such as a building cannot both exist and not exist at the same time.

...That's what I have. Thoughts?

Edited September 14, 2007 by musenji

[softwareNerd]

Belated welcome to the forum.

...That's what I have. Thoughts?

You're doing just fine. Mostly this type of thing is conversational. Keep at it, why would it be a final (a.k.a. last) reply, unless you mean "no longer a draft" reply?

[musenji]

Thanks! By "final" I meant "the last one in this post".

[Inspector]

Looks good so far.

[Mammon]

Is she mad at you because you're an atheist?

[Tenure]

She's mad at him for his rugged good looks.

[musenji]

No, she's not angry with me at all. She actually said that her housemates aren't into philosophical discussion, so she appreciates the change of pace. And the letter actually included points on epistemology as well, but I'm leaving those alone for the moment.

Okay, so I showed this thread to another friend, who came up with the following:

>Nice. My first reaction is this:

>

>Yes. Of course, there is only one reality, external and physical, A

>is A, existence exists, and so forth. Now let's talk about

>perspective and definitions.

>

>We use our various senses to identify and integrate and define what

>reality we come into contact with. Since we all do not experience the

>entirety of reality all at once (or ever), we all have a different

>perspective on what reality is: we define it based on subjective

>experience (experience can only be subjective, because no 2

>experiences are exactly alike, no 2 people exactly the same). If

>defining something is to take a part of our experience and illustrate

>it verbally in objective terms, then definitions are an attempt to

>translate the subjective into the objective, the untranslatable into

>the understandable.

>

>If my experience of reality is void of sound (I am deaf), then I would

>not include sound in my definition of reality (though sound obviously

>exists physically). If I had never heard of the concept of sound, I

>would have every right, based on the evidence presented to me, to

>believe that no such thing as sound exists (though sound obviously

>exists physically). Because we cannot collectively define reality, we

>must maintain that reality is only what it is to us, and not what

>someone else defines it as. Therefore, MY reality CAN be different

>from YOUR reality.

>

>Eh?

It made me laugh, and I thought "oh, damn you, you always make it so difficult" (half humorous, half serious--it does seem sometimes like he just wants to tear ideas down). And actually later I got a little discouraged, not having come up with a reply, but then I read a bit of Tenure's facebook battles, which gave me some solidarity.

So, my reply:

"Of course, there is only one reality, external and physical, A is A, existence exists, and so forth."

Assuming you really do agree with me about the above, then:

"Because we cannot collectively define reality, we must maintain that reality is only what it is to us, and not what someone else defines it as. Therefore, MY reality CAN be different from YOUR reality."

No, it can't. If you accept, as definition of reality, "all that which exists", then to say "my reality" at all is a contradiction in terms, because the definition does not depend upon specific human awareness--does not rest on the particulars that any one person knows about reality.

For instance, I don't have to know Galaxy M-33 exists, to include it in my definition of reality. It's not even necessary that I've heard of it. I believe the reason for this lies in the way humans form concepts.

The process of concept-formation includes measurement-omission. When I form the concept "tree", I do this by separating the percepts of trees from other percepts by their differences, and grouping them with each other according to their similarities. When integrating the concept "tree", I ignore the differences between particular trees. This means that the concept does not only include the trees I have personally seen, but also all trees that exist, have ever existed, or will ever exist, regardless of my lack of having seen them personally.

So it is with existence/reality. My definition of reality does not only include all those aspects which I am aware of, but all aspects of reality. Think of the silliness of saying something like "My reality did not exist, before I was born." Reality existed long before I was born; I observe parts of it, now.

As to the deaf person, it's the same deal. Setting aside the fact that you can show deaf people that sound exists (because you said a person who had never encountered the idea of sound), it's still not a valid point...the definition of reality includes all that which exists, regardless of whether any particular person is capable of observing it. Yes, that person might not have any idea that sound exists, but sound still exists. The error is in saying "but it doesn't exist for HIM", because existence doesn't exist "for" anyone; it simply exists.

Okay, so before I fire away, is there anything to correct? Add? ......Is this something that is more the province of a blog? Or would it be okay for me to keep posting progress in this thread?

[Inspector]

Again, looks good. I've known people who say things like "my reality" and you've identified correctly that it's basically sloppy definitions. I'd be curious to hear the reply.

[softwareNerd]

Your friend seems to be mixing up external reality, and, our perception of it. For instance, light is something that happens in external reality; the same with sound. A deaf man can construct an experiment to prove the presence of sound.

It's true that, given the senses we have, some things seem obvious, while others can take centuries to discover. Suppose human beings were born with a third eye that saw things as if through a powerful microscope. Non man-made reality would not be different, but men might have discovered (say) microbes a long time ago.

Your friend also seems to think that perception is the end-point of knowledge. They aren't. We have to take our perceptions, and work on them a bit. A text-book example would be looking at a refracted pencil in a glass of water. Our sense of sight "tells" us it's bent, while our sense of touch tells us it is not. Finally, scientists were able to explain why our sight sees what it does, and we have a complete understanding. The input of our sense is only a starting point to knowledge.

In closing: A blind man is walking toward the edge of a cliff. Does the drop exist? Will he die? Should he be concerned only with the reality that he can sense?

Edited September 15, 2007 by softwareNerd

[musenji]

Hey, I've gotten an email back from friend 2. It read, simply,

"Would you agree that Unicorns exist, in reality? (I'm hoping your answer here is no.)"

I answered by saying "No, I would not agree that real unicorns exist. I have never seen, or even heard tell of, evidence for the existence of an actual unicorn."

I got a phone call from him, but asked that we keep it to writing. I'm not nearly as good at arguing orally, and the last few times we've had arguments in person, we just ended up angry at each other. He did say, over the phone, that he agrees that a thing is what it is, regardless of our specific awareness of it. He wondered if I had gotten his point and was moving on, or was sticking on that point. (Which scared me cause the arguments I absolutely HATE are the ones where both people end up saying: "No, YOU didn't listen to MY point!!") He then went through an explanation as to why, whenever we discuss "reality", we have to keep in mind that the definition is based on "subjective perspective". Actually I've forgotten how he got to that point, but it confused me a bit. Today, however, I came up with the following:

***

I think I have an important point to note.

What does it mean for knowledge to be objective? Does it simply mean that people agree about it? I don't think so. If all one person really has is a subjective whim, then adding someone else's subjective whim doesn't suddenly make it objective--simply because they agree. Which is to say billions of people can agree on a point, and that point can still be wrong.

No, if objective knowledge is possible at all, it has to be possible for a single man. And I think it is.

So. How can a single man know if his knowledge is objective? First, the definition of "objective" as it pertains to knowledge is "corresponding with reality". So, it either has to be based directly in observations that he has made, or based on a rational (often logical) process following from those observations. I'd better define logic, too, then: the process of non-contradictory identification.

And this is the crucial point: any new knowledge a man obtains has to be integrated into his system of current knowledge, without any contradictions. Since there are no contradictions in reality (A cannot be non-A at the same time and same respect), any knowledge that is objective must also necessarily contain no contradictions. If one arrives at what he believes to be a contradiction, then he must check his premises, or basic assumptions. He will have to re-evaluate the conclusions he has made.

And this is where we can introduce other people into the equation: if another person presents to me a conclusion that seems to contradict one of mine, it is essentially no different than if I suddenly realized two of my own conclusions were contradictory. So both people have to check their premises, see where they line up, where they disagree, and WHY they disagree. It may be that both of their knowledge was objective for the facts they had observed, and one of them simply had access to information that the other didn't. Or it may be that one of them retained a contradiction within his own heirarchy of knowledge, that he had not yet resolved.

Either way, the final arbiter of the dispute is reality. Not subjective whim or intrinsic revelation, but an objective outlining of the facts. Introduce wish or faith as a thing of primary importance in an argument, and that argument becomes a futile endeavor (if by success you mean eventual agreement), as probably most significant arguments between people unfortunately are.

***

..And I just sent that on over, so we'll see what happens.

Edited September 17, 2007 by musenji

[musenji]

AUGH AUGH AUGH....

So, I got a reply from friend 2. Now, if I'm correct, this will automatically merge into my last post. Either way, here is his reply:

*******************************************

Beautiful! We don't disagree! We just see the same things differently!

(It's interesting that I am saying this in the context of what we are

talking about - and I should note that I'm not trying to contradict

you or make a point or make a joke! I really do agree with what you

said in the last email! )

> No, if objective knowledge is possible at all, it has to be possible for a

> single man. And I think it is.

This statement sums it up. This is what I am talking about. As an

individual, what I say and believe is certainly objective: I have no

choice but to believe my beliefs: they are what I know. This is my

only option: to believe what I know. Objective knowledge is possible

only in terms of individuals: knowledge becomes subjective the minute

you bring other people into the mix, because you are dealing with

differences in perception/perspective – and each rational person has

no choice but to believe what they believe: to construct their

definition of "what is" in terms of their own experience (and no one

else's). How can knowledge be objective (to anyone but yourself) when

it is entirely based on and limited by an individual's

perspective/senses/physicality/experience? It is only possible in a

world where there is only one possible

perspective/sense/physicality/experience – which is not at all

possible.

To use the example I used earlier, but tweaked:

If my experience of reality is void of hearable sound (I am deaf),

then I would not include hearable sound in my definition of reality

(though sound obviously exists physically in the form of waves).

Having never heard sound, I would have every right, based on the

evidence presented to me, to believe that no such thing as hearable

sound exists (though sound obviously exists physically in the form of

waves). Let's say that I know sound exists in the form of waves, and

that I can "feel" sound in the form of vibrations. But, I cannot hear

it.

You can write me a letter and tell me that you "hear" sound waves with

your ears. You can tell me this, and I might re-arrange my definition

of reality to include your definition of sound, having been presented

with evidence to convince me it is true. However, this would not

change the fact that sound as I know it is different from sound as you

know it. You experience the reality of sound by hearing it, while I

experience the reality of sound by feeling it or seeing the waves on a

graph on a screen. Sound to you is not the same as sound to me, and

our "illustrations" or "definitions" of what reality is as it relates

to sound still differ.

What is more, if I decided that your rationale for believing in the

existence of hearable sound was (ahem) "unsound," then I would have

every right to say: "It is not possible to hear sound," based on my

experience of the world.

You could say: "I hear sound." But that's not good enough evidence.

You could say: millions of people hear sound. But that's not good

enough evidence. You could say: there is this thing called music, and

people listen to it. But that's not good enough evidence. You could

say: there is a record industry that makes millions of dollars a year

off of people listening to music. But that's not good enough evidence.

You could cite scientific research on the biology of hearing. But

why should I believe that which I have never experienced myself?

Scientific research is based on assumptions, predictions, and

occurrences: but I didn't do this research, so why should I believe

it?

MY reality (based on my definition of "what is") CAN be different from

YOUR reality (based on your definition of "what is").

* * *

What you seem to be talking about when you talk about "objective

knowledge" is what I would call the quest for truth. Truth is the

actual. To seek truth is to seek to know "what is" – independent of

perception.

Thus the question: is truth knowable?

Of course, the answer is no. Knowable truth is a contradiction.

Without perception, we cannot observe, and without observation, we

cannot know.

Truth is not something that exists independent of human thought and

definitions. Matter may exist without us, regardless of definitions

and perceptions, but truth does not. Truth is a construction of the

human intellect. Truth is an idea, not a physical thing. Truth

itself IS a definition.

Do you believe that any one person can know "what is" without the use

of perception?

Can a person step out of their body, lose their experience, forget all

they know, and step away from this existence? Can a person do this,

and see the universe, as if from above, clearly, and know that it is

true, that what they are seeing is REAL? Can we leave existence in

order to view it?

> Either way, the final arbiter of the dispute is reality.

Who is Reality? How is he/she going to tell me the truth?

>Not subjective whim or intrinsic revelation, but an objective

outlining of the facts.

Who is so arrogant that they claim to know the facts, without

perspective, without experience, without examples by which one can

compare? Who views this world but is apart from it? You must claim

to be a God, to do so. This is the definition of self-righteousness -

and the term is pejorative for a reason. To be right you must know

the truth, to know the truth (objectively, without perspective) is

impossible. You can only be "right" when within a system of

definitions and assumptions that are agreed-upon.

Something to note: not all knowledge deals directly in the existence

of matter. I suppose I'm arguing more about the nature of

objectivity, and not about the nature of existence, or of things in

existence. I don't disagree that a tree is what it is regardless of

human thought – the mass is what it is. I'm arguing that human

thought determines what defines "tree." So this isn't about matter.

It's about definitions.

Sorry so long. I don't know if that will be especially coherent or

not. Take from it what you will.

*********************************************

I'm banging my head on the wall, here... He thinks we agree, when we couldn't disagree more. I'm thinking of simply recommending that he read ItOE, but I feel somewhat like that's ducking and running, when I ought to be able to formulate a rebuttal. I'm going to read what he said a few times, and re-read ItOE myself...

I think concept-formation is the point at which this argument originates. He thinks that concepts are an arbitrary construct, and I think they are abstract integrations of concretes. Or maybe it lies at the validity of the senses--he thinks that because we have to utilize a means of perceiving reality (the senses), that necessarily means what we perceive is "distorted", not "real reality in itself".

I'm thinking of asking, "Do you mean that, even if I refuted what you just said, point by point, you would be justified in ignoring what I say because logic is really just an arbitrary creation of humans that has no actual bearing on reality as such?"

[Edit] Or maybe: "If no objective communication is possible between people, how do you account for the existence of computers?"

Edited September 17, 2007 by musenji

[softwareNerd]

Well, at least he agrees about existence. He also seems to go beyond that:he almost concedes that people can agree on first-level concretes. Now, he's questioning the objectivity of concepts. For instance, he seems to agree that people can point to an existent and say that it exists, has a certain mass, etc., but he's not convinced they can agree to call it a tree. So, perhaps this is the level to tackle now: the nature of concepts.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

It looks to my like his first hangup is the validity of the senses. You probably need to resolve that before you try to fix his ideas on concepts. Otherwise he will simply be thinking, while you are discussing concept formation, that the percepts are basically arbitrary because the senses are fallible. Arbitrary percepts will of course generate arbitrary concepts just as any arbitrary premise will lead you astray.

Remember the heirarchy--start with the low-level stuff (percepts being valid) and work your way up (abstract concepts being objective). At least you don't have to argue about Existence Exists.

[musenji]

Hi all.. I wanted to make absolutely sure, so: (the > statements are mine)

> I'll try to state your position accurately: the fact that I have to use my

> senses to know reality, means I can never really know it for what it is. I

> can't abandon my senses; I am stuck with them, and because they are limited,

> my perspective is limited. This means I can never have objective knowledge

> of anything (objective knowledge being knowledge that is not limited by my

> perspective). The only objective knowledge would be knowledge that involved

> no actual --means-- of knowing, and therefore objective knowledge is

> impossible. Correct?

That's a pretty good bit of feedback. That about sums it up, though

it's not comprehensive, and there's a lot more to it.

> I think if the discussion is going to get anywhere, we'll have to take it

> slowly, a piece at a time, and from the ground up.

Agreed.

> Existence exists.

Yes. Physical existence exists. Matter. Ideas exist, too, as

chemical reactions in the brain.

> To be, is to be something.

Yes. I am something. So is everything.

> A is A: a thing is itself.

To the person calling A "A," yes.

> Non-contradiction: A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same

> respect; there can be no contradictions in reality.

Yes and No. Now we are talking about definitions. Definitions are a

human invention. They are subjective, biased. A connot be non-A to

the person who has defined A as A. But A may not be A to me as it is

to you. Even the word contradiction implies "terms," and terms are

not something that exist independent of humans.

(I'm thinking....I'm thinking...I'm pretty new at this level of argument. I get the feeling, though, that no matter how rigorous my arguments are, he won't accept them. I don't think he is correct that we're dealing with "definitions and therefore subjective bias" yet. I think maybe I just need to re-word the last two points without variables.)

Okay, here's my reply.

****

> > To be, is to be something.

> Yes. I am something. So is everything.

Glad we agree. :-)

> > A is A: a thing is itself.

> To the person calling A "A," yes.

We're not bringing people or labels into it, yet. All this is saying is that an existent (an existing thing), this "something which exists", is what it is. Which is to say, it will have the same attributes, the same qualities, regardless of whether or not someone has defined them.

(That's all.)

Edit: typo, and for accuracy

Edited September 19, 2007 by musenji

[musenji]

The ">" statements are his:

> I agree that A is A in terms of existence: that a thing can only be

> itself. I also agree that no contradictions are possible when it

> comes to A being A, because the word contradiction implies that

> someone has defined it, and then we are dealing in definitions.

Actually, your --first-- sentence there includes the meaning of the law of non-contradiction.

A contradiction does not imply human definitions. It simply means for an existing thing (any thing) to be both what it is, and NOT what it is.

> I disagree. Look up contradiction in a dictionary.

So the law of non-contradiction means, first and foremost:

"a thing cannot be both itself and not itself".

> Of course I agree with this, so long as no sentient beings are involved.

> I disagree with the use of the term "contradiction." I also disagree that this

> point even needs to be made: if I agree that "what is is what it is" then "is

> not" does not exist, does it. To me, it is the same point as the previous: A is

> A. If A is A, then obviously (DUH!) it is not B.

So, guys, I think the crucial point here is that he thinks that if sentient beings are involved, a thing can somehow become itself AND not itself.

Edited September 20, 2007 by musenji

[softwareNerd]

So, guys, I think the crucial point here is that he thinks that if sentient beings are involved, a thing can somehow become itself AND not itself.

I don't think that is what he is saying. Rather, he's saying that thing can only be what it is, but people can "see" it differently, and even if they see more or less the same thing, they can interpret it differently. His main implicit idea is that knowledge is subjective. To counter this, one has to counter by showing that concepts can be objective. I guess one has to avoid controversial examples. Good examples might come from the domain of science: height, weight, volume, velocity, acceleration. You need to brush up on ITOE, and then give him a socratic tutorial

[aequalsa]

His main implicit idea is that knowledge is subjective.

When I have encountered this idea, usually the so called "subjective knowledge" is convoluted with subjective value as seems to be the case above.

What has helped me in such conversations is to break down "subjective knowledge" into contextual evaluation and objective knowledge. So the reality and facts are absolute, the value of the fact as it pertains to any particular individual may very with their particular context and relationship to the fact.

If they can get that reality is the constant and their values are the variable, they're pretty much there. This break down will help them see the error of thinking that knowledge is subjective and therefore impacted in any way by their beliefs.

[musenji]

He's picking up ItOE in a couple of days. We'll see how that goes! Meanwhile, onward I push:

> > "a thing cannot be both itself and not itself".

> Of course I agree with this, so long as no sentient beings are involved.

I assume you would agree that me merely seeing a thing does not change the actual physical nature of that thing. *ducks*

> I disagree with the use of the term "contradiction."

Wow, so I look it up, and almost all the dictionary definitions line up with what you've said--they relate to a proposition contradicting another proposition. However, wiki did have Aristotle's law:

"One cannot say of something that it is and that it is not in the same respect and at the same time." Okay, so that's worded differently than I worded it. I may have to hash through how the wordings really do mean the same thing.

> I also disagree that this point even needs to be made: if I agree

> that "what is is what it is" then "is not" does not exist, does it.

Metaphysically, no! :-) But this does turn out to be important, later. Some philosophers would argue that the idea of "is not" (the number zero!) is a metaphysical one--that "zero" actually corresponds with a kind of entity. I don't agree with that viewpoint. "Is not" doesn't exist except as an idea. The absence of an entity, is not an entity. The reason it can't be a metaphysical concept is that you have to specify a particular KIND of entity before you can say "zero"--before you can say something like, "A is not here: the amount of A here is zero."

Wow. "'Is not' is the meaning of the number zero." Isn't philosophy cool? However, this doesn't relate directly the current discussion. It's just fascinating to me.

> To me, it is the same point as the previous: A is A. If A is A, then obviously (DUH!) it is not B.

Right, it's actually the corollary law to the law of identity. I guess a corollary law is one of which you ought to think "duh!"

(Side note: are you getting the italics? This is cool! Windows Live Mail has italics. )

The law of non-contradiction actually isn't quite so "duh", however, because it also refers to attributes. So....to be is to be something, and to be something is to have a nature (even before we have defined what a thing's nature is, it has a nature, being that it is what it is). All existing things have attributes. And, in fact, all entities are the sum total of their attributes.

That an object cannot be A and non-A also means that it cannot have an attribute AND not have that attribute, at the same time and in the same respect. Which brings us to why that clause, "at the same time and in the same respect" is so important...

Buuut I'm very tired. Hope you enjoyed reading this!

('sall, OO folk)

Edited September 20, 2007 by musenji

[softwareNerd]

What has helped me in such conversations is to break down "subjective knowledge" into contextual evaluation and objective knowledge. ...

Yes, good way to do it.

His friend has picked up modern philosophy, which wants to prove that "oughts" are subjective. An older approach to the attack is to say we can agree on the various "is" (in math, and science, and even some parts of the humanities), but there is no way to get to "ought". His friend has been taught the more nihilist type where they deny the "is". If the "is" is subjective, then what hope do we have of finding any "oughts"?

The attack on the "is" also has layers: "we can't be sure of concepts, even if we can agree on sense data." And then, worse still, "we can't be sure of sense data." At the end of it all, you find his friend holding the idea: "Since we both see different shades of yellow, we don't know even agree on something we each consider "obvious"... how can we ever agree on the definition of 'good'"

Musenji seems to be making progress. Hope the loan of IToE is a success.

[Heresiarch]

I think you're using too much jargon.

For example, in the following bit:

For instance, I don't have to know Galaxy M-33 exists, to include it in my definition of reality. It's not even necessary that I've heard of it. I believe the reason for this lies in the way humans form concepts.

The process of concept-formation includes measurement-omission.

The important thing to communicate here is primacy of existence -- but I wouldn't use that phrase when talking to someone who hadn't studied Oism. Technical terms and complex, jargon-filled phrases make me think of Kant. You don't want to overwhelm your correspondent; I think it's best to focus on one subject at a time. I've found that giving them snippets of ethics and politics and epistemology is more confusing than helpful. It gives the impression that they have to know this giant, complex philosophy (like, say, studying all of Kant's writing) just to comment on this one little part.

But Objectivism isn't like that. It describes reality. It describes what you see in front of your face.

The names we give to concepts (the jargon) helps us communicate with each other, and places concepts aside other ideas in the history of philosophy. But to a new student, the goal should be to help them make the same observations; to come to the same conclusion.

I don't use the phrase "measurement-omission" because I read it in a book. I understand the process; I read the book, and introspected, and was able to match my observations and reasoning with what I read. I realized that the concept that I had arrived at matched.

You want to walk your target through the same process; get them to start asking themselves whether they really believe that reality is out there -- or if, instead, they would rather believe that they're a brain in a jar, or that every single one of us is in a different universe, or whatever.

[musenji]

For reference, I still have not received a reply from the original friend this thread was about. Everything beyond the first post involves another friend, a male friend. He has read the Fountainhead, a few chapters of Atlas Shrugged, almost all of the Romantic Manifesto, and various other bits and pieces.

Heresiarch: I agree completely that that was the wrong time to introduce the phrase "measurement-omission", and I should simply refer, instead, to what the phrase means before using it. Maybe I shouldn't have even brought that subject up (I did have reservations about it at the time, as well).

As you can see in post 14, I suggested that we have to build from the ground up, and he agreed. This means metaphysics. And even on the word "contradiction", we did not share a definition, but he still agreed to the content of the law of non-contradiction (even calling it a "DUH" statement). Remember, most of the reason I'm doing this is to make the thoughts my own, instead of just parrot-epistemology! So in the beginning, there will probably be some Rand-parroting, as I don't know what to do with his replies, but as I get more experience in dealing with the actual ideas, I understand how to put them in terms that the non-initiated will understand (and probably agree with).

Because he agrees that existence exists, to be is to be something, a thing is itself, and a thing cannot be "not itself", I think we're nearing the edge of the realm of metaphysics. What remains? Consciousness is Identification? Or in other words, he and I will have to agree on what consciousness is? That it is awareness of reality (or some aspect thereof)?

I believe SNerd is right: his main implicit idea is that knowledge is subjective. He agrees with the primacy of existence, that what is "out there" doesn't actually change as a result of what goes on "in here". His latest reply included the following:

> That an object cannot be A and non-A also means that it cannot have an

> attribute AND not have that attribute, at the same time and in the same

> respect. Which brings us to why that clause, "at the same time and in the

> same respect" is so important...

Again, true when it comes to existence. But not true when it comes to

us talking about it: we are using definitions in this conversation,

and each word may have a different connotation to each of us (just

look at what happened with the word "contradiction" earlier!). Clouds

have an attribute that is density: how concentrated is the water in

the cloud? But density is a relative term: how much is "a lot" of

density? A dense cloud, by your definition, may not be a dense cloud

by mine.

My response (I've edited it now, to the response I actually sent him, as I made amendments from what I posted here a few minutes ago):

I consider this to be a step forward, as this is EXACTLY the reason the clause "at the same time and in the same respect" is so important to the law of non-contradiction.

I believe it is for the sake of clarification when you bring possible objections into it, which must include definitions. In order to --illustrate-- the law, you have to choose a particular object. As in: "A caterpillar is not a butterfly."

It's possible to say "well, a caterpillar becomes a butterfly, so that's a contradiction, right?" (No, it is clearly not a caterpillar and a butterfly at the same time.)

Or regarding attributes: "The Eiffel Tower is tall, compared to my house, but short, compared to the Empire State Building. So it's both tall AND short, so that's a contradiction, right?" (No, because it is not both tall and short in the same respect.)

As to the cloud, it's the same deal: it is not both dense and not dense, in the same respect. "In the same respect" is the part of the clause that means: "Regardless of how you define an object's attributes in relative terms, it still is what it is, and has the qualities that it has, and not their opposite." The cloud remains the same cloud, regardless of what we compare it to. It still has the actual degree of density it has, no more and no less. And this degree of density will make it physically behave in a particular way, regardless of whether we say it is "dense" or "not dense". Us saying that a cloud is "not dense" will not change the fact that it is about to rain, if, in fact, it is about to rain.

(So, I think if he agrees to this, and he agrees that the definition of consciousness is "the faculty of being aware of that which exists", then reading ItOE is the next step.)

Edited September 20, 2007 by musenji