From "A Brief on the Definition of Philosophy for the Purpose of A

[Sean O'Connor]

From "A Brief On The Definition of Philosophy for the Purpose of Advancing Philosophy"

The nature of philosophy as you can see, is not to be left as a trivial debate between bored, evil obscurantists, but rather, is essential to correctly judging and evaluating perceptions, and choosing the correct actions to take, for the purpose of thriving. You must identify philosophy as a science, otherwise, your judgement will be tainted, you will fail to identify contradictions, you will fail to define “identity”, i.e., you will fail to properly conceptualize, and thus your self-preservation will be endangered. Speaking figuratively, your actions will be guided by a blurry, poisonous vision; a mental fog, which you constantly regenerate.

There is another essential distinction which the postmodern communists purposely obscure, and which in fact, most good people innocently fail to realize: the distinction between “philosophy” with “ideology”. Philosophy, as I have said, is the field of science which studies existence. In contrast, an ideology is a system of theories and beliefs in themselves, regardless of their validity. (Validation or invalidation of such theories and beliefs being the function of philosophers) All too often people are taught theories but are being told they’re being taught philosophy; e.g, when a mystic says that what we see is an illusion, and that his or her claim his philosophical. Such a claim is not philosophical. It is ideological and fraudulent. Many of Ayn Rand’s essays reveal instances of this type of fraudulence. Her essay “Philosophical Detection” is in fact a perfect guide for detecting counterfeit philosophy. She writes “The Best way to study philosophy is to approach it as one approaches a detective story. A detective seeks to discover the truth about a crime. A philosophical detective must seek to determine the truth or falsehood of an abstract system and thus discover whether he is dealing with a great achievement or an intellectual crime.” So deeply rooted is the confusion between philosophy and ideology, that even Ayn Rand made this error. This is why, in all my reverence for Ayn Rand, I do not refer to myself as an “Objectivist.” (Before I elaborate, I wish to make a brief personal aside out of respect for Ayn Rand, for she is my idol, and without her rare genius, philosophy would be frighteningly obscured, and primitively defined. If a person fails to improve upon the genius work of his or her idol with devotional ingenuity, the person never idolized and meanwhile a rich resource is yet to yield its best elements. Additionally, as Ayn Rand wrote in her notes: “A man of unbreached consciousness is one who has never allowed the opinions of others to become an epistemological issue, that is, to shake his confidence in the validity of his own perception and of his rational judgement”. (Journals of Ayn Rand; p.670))

Ayn Rand contradicts the definition of “philosophy”, as well as her own definition of “concept”-“a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to specific characteristics and united by a specific definition” (“Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology”; p.10) and her perfect definition of logic -the art of non-contradictory identification- when she refers to the concept “objectivism” as “a philosophy”, or “her philosophy”. To be precise, her use of the word “Objectivism” is purely ideological, i.e., it refers to her system of beliefs based the principles of objectivism. The specific definition of an ideology, as I have said, is an identified system of fundamental beliefs; the uniting characteristic is being: “systemized beliefs”. A belief is the acceptance of idea- whether it is true or false.

Keeping in mind that philosophy is a field of science, observe that in any other field of science, for example meteorology, one does not say: “my meteorology, x-ism”. That is because a person cannot hold a “personal version” of meteorology, only a personal discovery, i.e, science is not subjective. It is objective. It is the theories, and discovered principles, as well as ideologies, which an individual claims as his or hers and names, e.g, Einstein’s theory of relativity, et cetera… There are two general uses of the concept “objectivism” that are logical: 1) “Ayn Rand’s principles of objectivism” and/or 2)”the ideology of objectivism”.

It is with the understanding of these definitions and clarifications which I have just provided, which one must keep in mind, when judging the nature of the threats against our freedom, and as I explain in my essay “In Condemnation of Apathy”, the perpetuation of the economic- and furthermore cultural- depression we’re suffering from.

Far too many people refuse to think rationally and far too many people condone it. This is because our culture is polluted with botched, gaping, indiscriminate, atrophied, flimsy and fantastical beliefs which are bound together by one major ideology: postmodern communism. “What’s true for you is true for you, and what’s true for me is true for me”: this is the postmodern communistic device brilliantly disguised in the name of “tolerance”. What it really means is “Regardless of what you think, it is neither true nor false, and it is no more or less valuable than what I or anybody else thinks, for it is based on nothing, thus what you produce is no more valuable than what anybody else produces. Why? Because I say so!”. It is an attempt to lull people away from the absolutism of reality so that they are intellectually defenseless against communism and mediocrity. It is quite ironic to me that a philosophy professor I once had explained post-modernism as a rejection of the power claims of the dogmatically scientific modernists. Note how contradictory that is! Postmodernism, i.e., postmodern communism, is, in essence, antiscientific, subjective, chaotic collective hedonism and culturally imposes its power on every objective mind by insulting it, and politically imposes its power on every objective mind by imprisoning it and stealing from it. As Karl Marx says, they the communists direct their attacks “against the instruments of production themselves”. (“The Communist Manifesto”)The basic instrument of production is reason, and it is reason which postmodern communism seeks to destroy. I will demonstrate for you, precisely how this is being done today, and how cleverly this method is being advanced, in the universities and through mainstream media, with the hope that we cannot and purposely will not keep up with it. It is a two-part mental trick. The first part of the trick is complex. The postmodern communists attempt to convince you that no word can be objectively defined and that therefore, words you associate with determining the truth, such as “logical analysis” and “conceptual”, must mean “that which in truth cannot be defined”, then they tell you that via “logical reasoning”, i.e, in their sense, rationalizing how a given thing can not be defined, they have determined that philosophy is not a science, capitalism is absurd and foolish, and that nobody knows what a proper aspiration is. The second part of the trick is to continue playing the word game you’ve accepted, and use it to convince you, that above all, capitalism, i.e., economic freedom, is evil, that the collective is the sacred sanctuary of your atrophied, oblivious mind.....

(you may read the entire essay at http://seanoconnorli...m-and-thriving/ )

Edited January 5, 2013 by Sean O'Connor

[Sean O'Connor]

Please forgive me, whilst typing the title I either accidentally pressed delete and thus lost half the title, or it was too long for the space.

[Dormin111]

I don't see any explanation as to why Objectivism doesn't count as a philosophy (by your definitions of ideology and philosophy). Rand would say that Objectivism is a scientific, metaphysical fact just like chemistry or physicals. Its status as an "ism" is purely semantics. Modern science could be described as "rationalism" and in the past it was. These days trust in the scientific method is so ubiquitous that almost all people accept it as fact and therefore don't assign it the label of "ideology" which generally implies subjective bias. The philosophy of Objectivism is still extremely marginal and therefore is not treated as the same category as modern science.

[Sean O'Connor]

Dormin, The fundamental issue here is the definition of philosophy and propper application of the term. Philosophy is a field of science. You can't have a "version" of a feild of science, that is by fact 1) subjectivism and 2) misuse of the term. That means you can't say, of any feild of science, that you have a private version of it and the example I provided was meteorology. It would be illogical to say "my meteorlogy, xism". You would say, "the following meteological principles...." and you may name those principles. As regards your comment on those who describe science as rationalism- that is 1) a waste of time (obviously science is rational) and 2) in this case doesn't apply to the same issue as the one I have raised, since you would not say "my science, rationalism". You would just say "rationalism" which again is more or less an extraneous word since you can just say "rationality", "reason", "logic". And this is not mere semantics, it is epistemology and crisp communication. Thank you by the way, for your comment.

[bluecherry]

I was writing this a day or so ago as part of a reply to your introductory post, but my browser crashed and I lost everything I was typing.

phi·los·o·phy [fi lóssəfee]

(plural phi·los·o·phies)

n

1. examination of basic concepts: the branch of knowledge or academic study devoted to the systematic examination of basic concepts such as truth, existence, reality, causality, and freedom

2. school of thought: a particular system of thought or doctrine

3. guiding or underlying principles: a set of basic principles or concepts underlying a particular sphere of knowledge

4. set of beliefs or aims: a precept, or set of precepts, beliefs, principles, or aims, underlying somebody's practice or conduct

Encarta ® World English Dictionary © & (P) 1998-2005 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.

Meaning number one listed above is the closest one listed in this dictionary to the proper definition of philosophy as a field of study. However, definitions numbers 2-4 are more like what is being refered to when Rand or pretty much anybody else refers to "a philosophy" or "their philosophy" and such. There exists a variety of different sets of ideas on the subject of philosophy much like there exists a variety of theories in other sciences for things such as how to reconcile gravity and quantum mechnics. Rand mentioning "her philosophy" is pointing to the set of ideas that she espouses on the general subject of philosophy as opposed to those sets of ideas on the subject espoused by others which often differ from her own. None of this is meant to mean though that more than one of these sets of ideas may be correct just the same as the existence of multiple theories in physics doesn't mean more than one of them may be correct. It is useful to have ways to refer to one set or another set specifically of ideas about philosophy because even though no more than one set may be correct on the whole, that doesn't mean there won't be plenty of people who believe different ones are correct anyway. It would be really troublesome to have to rely solely on refering to things as "the truth" when talking about philosophy with others because one of you may think that is refering to something like living in the matrix while another does not and 40 minutes later you both are all confused things don't seem to be adding up. One of you believes you are both talking about living in the matrix and doesn't get what the other means about sensory data or something like that and the other doesn't get why the first one seems so confused. Now, perhaps you may wish to object to using the word "philosophy" in particular for both of these meanings even if having a word for each is useful. If you do, feel free. Multiple meanings for a single word is pretty normal in the English language though, so if multiple meanings for one word is unaceptable then you'd probably have to just about demolish the English language and start over from scratch to follow the one-meaning-per-word thing to its logical conclusion.

[ruveyn1]

Dormin, The fundamental issue here is the definition of philosophy and propper application of the term. Philosophy is a field of science. You can't have a "version" of a feild of science,

Examples. classical physics, quantum physics, thermodynamics, solid state physics ... etc.

These are versions in the sense that there are differences in the underlying assumptions made in these fields...

[Reidy]

First, philosophy is not a branch of science, so any conclusions you spin out from this assumption are moot. The differences you point out in #4 are evidence of this. Philosophy has something to say about science, but not vice-versa. If you try to distinguish the two (as genus and species, or in any other way) you are using philosophical techniques, not scientific, which is further evidence that philosophy is distinct from science.

Second, I don't think "rationalism" is the right word for what the posters here are getting at. It means an overemphasis of deduction over investigation and a policy that theory comes first and the facts had better fit. "Rationality" is a better word in this thread. Contemporary Objectivists, including Peikoff, recognize the distinction, though it isn't in Rand's writings.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Reidy

[dream_weaver]

Examples. classical physics, quantum physics, thermodynamics, solid state physics ... etc.

These are versions in the sense that there are differences in the underlying assumptions made in these fields...

These are versions in the sense of specialization. Consider the science of medicine with the specializations therein; cardiologists, osteologists, endocrinologists, geriatrics, etc.

[Sean O'Connor]

Bluecherry, thank you for your response. Regarding the dictionary definitions, I wish to refer you to Ayn Rand's theory of concept formation, which essentially says "to hell with the present dictionaries as epistemological gospel!" You wrote: "so if multiple meanings for one word is unaceptable then you'd probably have to just about demolish the English language and start over from scratch to follow the one-meaning-per-word thing to its logical conclusion." I do not believe the English language has to be demolished (it is such a beautiful language) but indeed it must be refined. Obviously definitions, throughout history have in some instances been refined/clarified, and in other instances they have been severely muddled. Clarity for the purpose of allowing ideal reasoning...perfect identification and integration (or as best as possible) is essential! I want to be emphatic about a particular example about why this is so. Here is another short passage from my essay that sheds light on this issue: "postmodern communism is deceptive, for the anti-concept “postmodernism”-which is the belief that anything could be temporarily true- is deceptively taught as “a philosophy” that promotes freedom and tolerance for contrasting ideologies. But here in essence, is the nature of the deception: postmodernism holds that there are no absolutes, not even in the definitions of words, for what means “word” to you, can mean “zebra” to me, if I want it to, and that is all that matters. This means, even the word “freedom”, which denotes the concept of “self determination”, can be made to mean, “communism” or, “servitude to the collective”, and can be taught as such via public education, and reiterated via mainstream media thus postmodernism and freedom are incompatible. You can observe this crusade in action by noting that people disguise their political identities under labels such as “Liberal”, “Leftist”, “Democrat”, “moderate Republican” or “Progressive”. (Glenn Beck, Ron Paul, and Ayn Rand, among others, have consistently pointed this out) These deceivers are relentless in their attempts to stifle us, communize America, and ever so subtly silence us, not by repealing the first amendment- which would be too obvious (one should hope)- but by disabling our reason." And this actually leads to my final point: in response to your comments on truth. If you want to be clear, when you speak to somebody, about what you mean about truth: you have to begin by saying "reality exists as an objectivie absolute" as this is the most fundamental fact about existence. There can be no "matrix confusion" if somebody understands this fundamental metaphysical principle. I want to thank you again for your comment; it was polite, intellectual, etc and I quite appreciate such comments.

[bluecherry]

I don't mean to imply that dictionary definitions, especially regular ones based purely on common usage, are unquestionably right. They aren't. In fact I have long planned on eventually making an entire new dictionary based around proper concept formation. I brought up the dictionary definition here just to first point out that I'm not pulling something out of thin air when I say why I think this is what Ayn meant when she used the phrase "her philosophy." There's widespread precedent for the word being used the way I (and that dictionary) said, so it isn't a stretch to think Ayn could have used it that way. I went on later to explain why such an alternative meaning may be used in some cases, what the reasoning and benefits behind it are that are the justification for that definition. I also then pointed out that you may not object to the definition per se so much as using a word with another definition available already to denote this other definition. Further though I brought up that if that was the case then it is hardly isolated to just the word "philosophy." I didn't say demolish English entirely either. I said "just about." The point is you would have to make such HUGE and numerous changes the task would be monumental. You'd end up with about as much difference between current English and that new English as there is between Old English and current English. Not only creating that language change, but then having everybody speaking current English learn the new English would also be a staggering feet to pull off. Overall, I think the cost of implementing that is greater than the value gained. I think there are other, smaller things that can be done to try to help keep the language clear and clean. I could give an example I had in mind if need be.

As for the matrix thing, let me try to clarify this example a bit better by making it more specific perhaps.

John thinks we live in the matrix. George does not think we live in the matrix. George is right and John is wrong, but John still doesn't realize this. George says to John that he's fed up with people's stupid ideas about reality. John nods in agreement and adds that people seem to invent such torturedly twisted attempts at explanations to justify said stupid ideas. George concurs with this statement by John. George says that the truth is really much simpler than so many people seem to want to make it out to be. John agrees with this too. John says something about it maybe being "the controlers" who are trying to spread these wacky falsehoods. George has no idea what "the controlers" are, but guesses maybe John means something like people in academics. George says these people need to be selected more carefully and that many of them are paid far too much. John then seems surprised and asks George if he actually thinks he knows how much they are paid. George says the few he's met who have told him how much they were paid were paid and they got some [X] amount of money. John is more surprised and asks if George has really met some and finds it hard to believe. George finds John's incredulity that he could have met some college professors ridiculous and even perhaps a bit insulting. George thinks to himself that John may be implying that he thinks George is too stupid to have gone to college. George gets angry and reasserts that he has met plenty of "them". John still doesn't believe it. The two part ways angrily. It never occured to George that John may have actually believed in some sort of brain in a vat thing, he assumed John must have known how ridiculous such things were. John assumed similarly that if George seemed to know how fed up and such he felt about this subject that he must "know" about the matrix too.

Often the problem may come up in discussion where people get confused because they never even thought of the possibility that the other party might have some different premises on some subject and so they don't think to try to ask questions ahead of time about things to make sure they're on the same page first. Without any particular seperate ways to refer to sets of ideas it woud take a long time having to go through every subject one can think of first possibly before having a conversation so they can try to make sure there are no places they have different ideas they are starting the discussion with. Having seperate ways to refer to sets quickly conveys a lot of information without leaving ambiguity.

[Eiuol]

I am wondering, who are the "postmodern communists" you speak of? Can you mention specific people? I'd argue that Marx's philosophy isn't postmodernism at all, as postmodernism goes as far as to say *everything* about existence is subjective. It's totally absurd. Postmodernism is influenced by Marx, I am sure, just like most of the Hegelian philosophers, but I don't see why you throw in "communists". But still, I don't know the type of person you're talking about. I've had one teacher that's a postmodernist, and he had no particular special position.

You must identify philosophy as a science, otherwise, your judgement will be tainted, you will fail to identify contradictions, you will fail to define “identity”, i.e., you will fail to properly conceptualize, and thus your self-preservation will be endangered. Speaking figuratively, your actions will be guided by a blurry, poisonous vision; a mental fog, which you constantly regenerate.

How do you know this is the case? You stated it like an axiom. Why should I buy into your specific definition?

Edited January 6, 2013 by Eiuol

[Sean O'Connor]

Ruveyn, "classical physics, quantum physics, thermodynamics, solid state physics ... etc. "- because I am not an expert on the organization of physics as a discipline I do not know specifically what is being reffered to in each of the examples you provided however I want to emphasize first what I mean, i.e, what I am referring to, in reality, when I use the term "version" in relation to science (i.e., what I mean when I say you cannot have a version of science). When I refer to "version" I mean "altered". When I refer to "science" the implication is "science as such" and when I say "science as such" I mean the study of the universe. And just for the sake of being as thorough as possible, when you "study" something, you are gaining knowledge, i.e, facts. So when I say you can't have a version of science I mean you cannot alter that which you study, which is : the facts, you can only learn them or not learn them. This means you cannot alter philosophy- you cannot alter the fudmental facts of existence. When

Regarding your examples, you wrote "These are versions in the sense that there are differences in the underlying assumptions made in these fields...". My question is, "fundamentally, in each 'field' [and why would a field be considered a version/alteration, as aposed to a dilineated subject or class of subjects?] are theorists proclaiming on one field x=y is a fact, but in another it is somehow is not? Because if so, that is quite literally a contradiction in terms.

[Sean O'Connor]

Dream, a specialization is not a "version" or alteration, it is merely a particular aspect of a field. An aspect is quite different than a version/alteration.

[Sean O'Connor]

Bluecherry, you are correct about the enormity of the task of refining English. It will also take centuries! Throughout my life- a long, long, long and healthy one I hope- I can only propose x amount of definitions, and other philosophers can do the same, and throughout the centuries, a proper, epistemologicaly basedl English dictionary can eventually be created. The ultimate value is the achieved ideal which always outweighs the cost, since the cost of not rationally pursuing and achieving the ideal is: the non-ideal, i.e., not worth as much as the ideal, which is the best possible.

I love your point about the inevitable frustration that comes when two people cannot have a constructive intellectual conversation because they don't know one another's premises and principles and worse, they don't define their terms. One of my favorite things about Ayn Rand is that in many of her essays she always said, towards the begining "I shall define my terms" and does so. The value of this is: when you use a word, we know what the hell she means. I mean, when Barack Obama uses the word "freedom" what the hell does he mean? Her certainly doesn't mean "self determination".

I had an interesting experience with this frustration recently. I was discussing the moral justification of capitalism with somebody, and logic as well, and this person told me that when he meant "logic" he meant merely "ideological conviction and consistency- the idea that no principle contradicts the premise" but when I told him "but if the premise contradict's reality, then it isn't true, isn't purely non-contradictory, it isn't logical" he just quit and said "see, this is why we can't have a conversation. Because of our dfferent ideological "paradigms". Because he thinks in terms of paradigms he cannot comunicate in terms of "true" or "false", only in terms of "i want to think this" or "i don't want to think that".

I want to make sure I addressed everything you said properly and so I want to conclude by reiterating that I agree that if I know what you mean/what you are referring to, and vice-versa, then we can have a constructive conversation. Part of the conversation may however, obviously consist of "and on that note I disagree with your definiton", etc.

I appreciate your thoughts.

[Sean O'Connor]

Eiuol, here is what I mean by "postmodern communism": The belief that consists of the following theoretical metaphyical principle : what's true for you is true for you and what's true for me is true for me". The political consequence of this theory is: since everybody has his or her own version of truth, nobody's thoughts are worth more or less than anybody else's, thus nobody's productivity is worth more or less than anybody else's (since to say otherwise is to imply that your view trumps mine) and thus nobody has any claim to any propery; instead everything must be equally distributed by a government. It is true that communism was developed before postmodernism, but I postmodernism was taught and promulgated specifically by insane university professors who wanted a way to rationalize and popularize their sick communist political principle.

[Sean O'Connor]

Also, you asked why you should buy into my definition. Do you mean "why should you believe that philosophy is a science?". If that is the question, the answer is, because philosophy studies existence; science is the study of the aspects of the universe; existence is an aspect of the universe.

[bluecherry]

"The ultimate value is the achieved ideal which always outweighs the cost, since the cost of not rationally pursuing and achieving the ideal is: the non-ideal, i.e., not worth as much as the ideal, which is the best possible."

We only have so much time, energy, and rescources available in our life times though. If we spend some of that on one thing then we can't spend that same portion on something else. There are lots of things one could attempt to perfect to an absolutely ideal state and not nearly enough time in one's life to do them all. Because of this one has to work out how much benefit they get from various things and create priorities based on such. There is far too much else of greater benefit to me that I could be doing with my time for me to expect it would ever become worth it use my time on overhauling this aspect of the English language. I expect this is how it is for just about everybody.

However, what would be worth while far more to me is working out a way to simplify, standardize, and speed up conveying exactly which meaning of a word one is using at any given time rather than splitting the words up.

I don't believe that we can't contest definitions people are using though. If a definition is done in non-essentials or if another definition seems to be being tacked onto a word arbitrarily then there is a problem indeed. However, off the top of my head right now I can't think of another reason aside from just trying to split all words into strictly one possible meaning and I've already said why I think the time that takes is better spent otherwise.

[Eiuol]

Addressed at post #15:

I understand what you're saying, but who are the people you are referring to? My professor was a typical liberal, nothing really communistic. All he really managed to do is make art into nonsense, and spoke of power like Focault would. Postmodernism is so subjective that its advocates wouldn't even speak of equal distribution, just some notion of personal subjectivity being denied by those in power. As far as I know, a postmodernist goes on about the politicization of knowledge and belief or some such nonsense, and probably would say that communism too is an example of being denied subjectivity.

]the answer is, because philosophy studies existence; science is the study of the aspects of the universe; existence is an aspect of the universe.

Your syllogism is fine, but, what do you base your premises on?

Philosophy does include studying existence, but Descartes would probably say philosophy is fundamentally the study of consciousness. Certainly we can say his definition is senseless (hehehe). Still, Descartes wouldn't be precluded from philosophy for being wrong, because he still studied existence. So far, you'd still be fine to use a typical definition from a dictionary.

Okay, science is the study of aspects of the universe. This is extremely broad. Doesn't studying existence *mean* studying the aspects of the universe? There is no need to throw in the word science yet, because philosophy already covers what you mean by science. Also, in this context, isn't "existence" a better word to use than "universe"? They look interchangeable. In other words, it seems you repeated yourself. Philosophy studies existence. Philosophy is the study of the aspects of existence. Existence is existence. This would be fine to say actually, just that "philosophy is science" isn't really making sense to me, even by your own definition.

[Sean O'Connor]

Bluecherry, You are correct when you say we all only have so much time. Indeed, the creation of a new dictionary would be extremely time consuming and extremely complex! This however does not change the fact that in time (centruries, most likely) an ideal dictionary ought to be created. The fact that something is an ideal means that it could and ought to be. As to the issue of which people such an undertaking ought to concern; the answer is: those who are most interested in doing so; those who recognize not only the ideal dictionary qua universal ideal, but those who discover that such an endeavor is one of their personal ideals. Regarding my own effors: there are several concepts I have been able to perfectly define (and there are others I am still sharpening). I most certainly do not expect to produce a dictionary in my lifetime (technically it is possible but even then, as Ayn Rand emphasized in the "Intrduction to Objectivist Epistemology": true definitions don't change fundamentally, but as new knowedlge is gained they may be enhanced, sharpened, clarified, expanded upon, et cetera.

Now I don't blame you for not having the same personal ideals. Your ideals are yours; based on your reason and your personality. However, if someone presents you with a perfectly defined word- why wouldn't you accept it? If you claim that "it's not in the dictionary so it doesn't refer to a definition that most people use" that would be altruistic in nature since you would then be prioritizing the will of the vast majority over the truth; the accuracy of a specific identification and definition.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Sean O'Connor

[Sean O'Connor]

Eiuol, since my response to your first question is quite thorough I shall first address your second question.

Regarding the following: "philosophy studies existence; science is the study of the aspects of the universe; existence is an aspect of the universe."- What is the difference between existence and the universe? Existence is a state and is a "metaphysical-ontological concept". In other words, that which is in the state of existence is that which presently is. On the other hand, the universe as such is not a state or condition. As Nathanial Branden writes in the Objectivist Newsletter of May 1962, "the universe is the total of that which exists". The universe then refers to the content, the aspects, the things, where as existence refers to the state of being, i.e., the fact that all those aspects of the universe are, i.e., they exist. So, science as such studies the aspects. Philosophy studies the condition of existence, and thus the treatment of it and meaning of it. So, this is why we say morality is a philosophical branch. Because morality covers how we treat our lives, specificially how we determine our values. Economics is a branch of philosophy because it covers what specifically we shoudl produce and consume. These branches relate to existence as such. Again, the state of existence is a part of the universe in that it is the intellectual basis of conceptualizing, thinking about, and learning about the universe. This is why philosophy is a field of science.

Now, as to your question regarding those people; the postmodern communist, I am referring to: I shall quote two sections from my essay. The idea to keep in mind is that both ideological theories (i.e., frauds claiming to be philosophers) discuss their ideas based on postmodern epistemology, i.e, dangerous, subjective word games; postmodern ideology could also be referred to as Linguistic Analysis.

3. THE POSTMODERN COMMUNIST SCAM: PHASE ONE

On April 5th, The New York Times published an online article entitled “Philosophy Is Not a Science”, written by a con-artist named Julian Friedland. Not once in this article does Friedland define “Science” and thus he fails to identify that which he claims philosophy is not. If he is implying that we should assume philosophy is not science, and he does not define science, what is it that he wants us to believe philosophy is, or is not? Science, as I defined earlier, regarded as a whole is the study of the universe, a particular or special science studies a particular aspect of the universe. Thus, Friedland implies that philosophy is not, and has nothing to do with the study of the universe, or any aspect of it. This means that, according to him, philosophy means nothing and that the mind, i.e, consciousness and thought are not aspects of the universe. Again, philosophy is the study existence, which is indeed a particular aspect of the universe. Despite what Friedland implies, he contradicts himself and fabricates a definition of philosophy towards the end of his article. He writes that philosophy “employs the tools of logical analysis and conceptual clarification in lieu of empirical measurement. And this approach, when carefully carried out, can yield knowledge at times more reliable and enduring than science.” What is logical analysis? What is logic? He does not define either. Why not? Because then he can use it as a blank word to mean whatever he attaches it to. (This is comparable to fiat money which claims to have a specific value, but is based on nothing other than the public’s submission to it.) Logic, again, is the art of non-contradictory identification. This means “logical analysis” is the identification and removal of contradictions. Furthermore, what does one “logically analyze”? A particular aspect of the universe. Logical analysis is an element of science. When Friedland says “in lieu of empirical measurement” he evades a fact which philosopher Leonard Piekoff articulates perfectly: “There is no distinction between the ‘logically’ and the ‘empirically’ possible (or impossible). All truths…are the product of a logical identification of the facts of experience. This applies as much to the identification of possibilities as of actualities”. (“The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy”) What Julian Friedland is implying is worse than the false analytic-synthetic dichotomy. He is implying that the mind is not based on or in any way part of a knowable reality, and that science is unreliable because reality is, according to him, unknowable. He says “so what objective knowledge can philosophy bring that is not already determinable by science?”. Instead of answering the question he sloppily and unsuccessfully condemns the use of science as a means of knowledge, and he claims as his evidence: the fact that a philosopher named S.M. Liao “argued recently in the Atlantic that we begin voluntarily bioengineering ourselves to lower our carbon footprints and become generally more virtuous”. If Friedland honestly thought Liao’s proposal was illogical, it would be logical to assume that he would explain why. He does not explain why we should not bioengineer ourselves. And he does not explain how it furthers his false belief that philosophy is not science. He just utters an indirectly related sentence and evades his article’s theme. Friedland proceeds by condemning professor Colin McGinn for defining science as knowledge because such a definition, he claims, is muddled. How so? Blank out. What then does Friedland claim is the definition of science? Blankout. Instead he writes “for this definition we might as well brand every academic discipline as science.” No, we do not have to brand every academic discipline as science. We can brand some of them as technological. This would address what appears to be one of his deepest concerns, which is that the “Bachelor of Arts” will be renamed “Bachelor of Science” which would thus undermine the “subjective and qualitative standards” and replace them with “objective and quantitative knowledge.” Art is technological. What is technology? The New Oxford American Dictionary says “machinery and equipment developed from scientific knowledge.” Art is intellectual equipment, and without any scientific knowledge, i.e., retention of the facts of various aspects of the universe, there would be no art, for art, as perfectly defined by Ayn Rand, is a selective re-creation of reality according to an artist’s metaphysical value-judgements. (“The Pyscho-Epistemology of Art”) Although artists may choose to be subjective, they should not be, because that would be irrational, and thus psychologically detrimental, and furthermore art is not fundamentally subjective, for it is based on reality, a concept which Julian Friedman fails to comprehend. Later in his article, he says “We should underscore the fact that various disciplines we treat as science [as related to knowledge of reality], are at least- if not more- philosophical [which according to him is not of reality -a concept he doesn’t believe in- and is beyond definition]. Take for example mathematics, theoretical physics, psychology, and economics. These are predominantly rational conceptual disciplines. That is, they are not chiefly reliant on empirical observation. For unlike science, they may be conducted while sitting in an armchair with eyes closed.” Observe that he does not define “rational” or “conceptual” and that thus, when he describes something as rational or conceptual what he implies is that it is beyond definition, but should be associated with some ambiguous feeling of a discovered, undefined truth. That feeling is called “oblivion”. This oblivion is induced by first telling yourself that if you observe something, you can’t know it, because it’s mere, unreliable science, i.e., an illusion. You then attempt to rationalize this assertion via irrational word games which make you feel that it is futile to attempt understanding something. In essence, it is a premise designed to continually reiterate to your subconscious, by way of those word games, that your reason does not exist. Alas, Friedland fills his article with irrational word games. He does so by giving examples of what he claims “philosophy” and “logical analysis” and “conceptual”/”conceptual clarification” (all of which in his cryptic version of English means “undefined”) can prove. “One such example,” Friedman writes, “is Thrasymachus’ claim that justice is best defined as the advantage of the stronger, namely, that which is in the competitive interest of the powerful. Socrates reduces this view to absurdity by showing that the wise need not compete with anyone”. How does Socrates do this? Blank out. But we are somehow expected to take it as a given, without even the slightest explanation. Now, if you thought that I was merely being figurative and facetious when I accused Friedman of playing word games, you will see, when I relay to you his next point, that I was being quite literal. “Wittgenstein showed that an ordinary word such as ‘game’ is used consistently in myriad contrasting ways without possessing any essential unifying definition. Though this may seem impossible [it doesn’t seem impossible, it is impossible], the meaning of such terms is actually determined by their contextual usage [although neither ‘context’ nor ‘use’ can be be of much value since ‘contextual usage’ can allegedly be used without possessing any essential unifying definition, i.e., they’re meaningless]. For when we look at faces within a nuclear family, we see resemblances from one to the next yet no single trait need be present in every face to recognize them all as members of the family” (italics mine) Family members do not always resemble each other and if they did, the resemblance would be identified and thus would have an “essential unifying definition”. He proceeds: “Similarly, divergent uses of ‘game’ form a family. [How? Blank out] Ultimately as a result of Wittgenstein’s philosophy, [or rather, his demented ideology] we know that natural language cannot be invented in isolation. [How does language come about? Blank out].These are essentially conceptual clarifications. [Remember, he never defines ‘conceptual’, or ‘conceptual clarification’ so what he really means is these are essentially meaningless clarifications beyond comprehension], and as such, they are relatively timeless philosophical truths”. This means philosophy is the art of playing games with words until you’ve confused your mind so intensely that you render it useless. Ladies and gentlemen, this resembles the scene from George Orwell’s novel 1984 when Winston is forced to believe that “2+2=5”. No, we are not being directly forced to believe “divergent uses of the word ‘game’ form a family”, or that divergent beliefs form a reality, and but we are told to believe it, because it is true, even though Friedland never defines truth, and furthermore, note, that this is the product of a man who earned a Ph.D. in philosophy, which is pathetic. I am now convinced that a Ph.D in philosophy as such is meaningless.

Since Friedland refuses to define “concept”, I will. A concept is the mind’s established recognition of a distinct thing existing in reality. A word denotes a specific concept. The word “game” denotes the concept of a competitive activity undertaken exclusively for the sake of amusement. (Monopoly, Hide-and-Seek, Scrabble, Tag, or in Friedland’s case, thought itself, et cetera…and no, the amusement, is not always moral)The word “family” denotes the concept of those who are related, either legally or biologically to a married couple. (Son, second aunt, sister-in-law, a great-great grandfather, etc).

Friedland continues: “Though philosophy does sometimes employ thought experiments, these aren’t actually scientific [they have nothing to do with any aspect of the universe, only with undefined word games] for they’re conducted entirely in the imagination. [They’re entirely irrational]. For example, judges have imagined what might happen if, say, insider trading were made legal. And they have concluded that while it would…promote a degree of investor freedom [fraudulent insider trading does not promote investor freedom, it violates investor freedom, and thus Friedland plays word games here in such a way that he attempts to equate market freedom with fraud, and thus prompt the weak minded to think of ‘fraud‘ whenever they hear the term ‘free market- such is the practice of those who think without defining the word ‘conceptual’], legalization would imperil the free market itself by undermining honest security markets and eroding investor confidence. While this might appear to be an empirical question it cannot be settled empirically without conducting the experiment, which is naturally beyond the reach of jurisprudence”. This means, according to Friedland, that thought is ultimately supernatural, although he will not say it explicitly. Furthermore, he claims that considering the question of whether or not insider trading should be legal as based on reality, i.e., as an aspect of the universe, is “outside the reach of jurisprudence”, and yet if jurisprudence is not an aspect of the universe, but only of someone’s “supernatural” imagination, what do you suspect would be the nature of the laws such a person would deem proper? They would be irrational and if such a person ever was in a position of political power, we would be subjected to those irrational laws.

Friedland does not stop there. He then attacks ethics by saying “science cannot necessarily tell us what to value” and that value is fundamentally subjective. What is his argument? That the study of human nature provides no information about what is good or bad [thus, according to Friedland, murder must be neither good or bad] because “evidence of how most people happen to be does not necessarily tell us about how we should aspire to be. How we should aspire to be is a conceptual question.” Ladies and gentlemen, he still fails to define “conceptual”, which implies that the question of how we should aspire to be is beyond definition. Also, he does not hint at a thought on how we should aspire to be (other than to evade the concepts “reality”, and “definition” and their derivatives) which implies that he does not think people should have substantial aspirations. What a perfect way to convince weak-minded people to judge nothing- to think only about irrational hypotheticals and treat their lives as meaningless- and live immorally. Phase one of the postmodern communist mind-trap complete, for in the words of Karl Marx “communism abolishes all religion, and all morality”. (“The Communist Manifesto”)

4. THE POSTMODERN COMMUNIST SCAM PHASE 2

The hard part-the complex word game- designed to tangle up your mind with undefined concepts, and have them subconsciously automated, and lead you to believe you some how grasp the oblivious nature of truth, is now complete. The second phase of the postmodern communist mind trap is revealed by Newsweek magazine (April 23, & 30, 2012) in a book review entitled “Everyone’s Got a Price” and subtitled “Hardvard’s rock-star moralist says capitalism is ruining America”. It is written by Michael Fitzgerald. It is a book review of What Money Can’t Buy by Michael Sandel. Fitzgerald claims that Michael Sandel is “probably the most relevant living philosopher”. (Fortunately, and interestingly I might add, he did not say the most “brilliant” or “profound” living philosopher) Michael Sandel says of American culture that “we are in the grip of a way of looking at the world and social life and even personal relations that is dominated by economic ways of thinking. That’s an impoverished way of looking at the world”. Considering the fact that the United States is in over $16 trillion of debt, and that even proposing we cut federal spending is considered controversial as opposed to logical and necessary, we, as a culture, are far from even a hint of an economic thought. Now, since Fitzgerald does not define any terms, [do you notice the trend?] let us do so here. The New Oxford American Dictionary defines “economic” as “of or relating to economics or the economy” and defines “economy” as “the wealth and resources of a country or region, especially in terms of production and consumption of goods and services”. So Michael Sandel accuses us of thinking too much about wealth and resources (which we, as a culture, unfortunately do not) and then condemns us for it. Why should anyone be condemned for thinking about “wealth and resources”? Because they are ambitious? Because they might make money? More money than those who do not think about wealth and resources? Because they might achieve something important- more important than something someone else might achieve? Because they want to lead their own, individual lives and thrive? Because they still have aspiration, which Michael Sandel’s partner Julian Friedland failed to steal from them? But here’s “the icing on the cake” so to speak: the notion that thinking about wealth and resources is “an impoverished way of looking at the world”. There are only two implications here: either Michael Sandel is an idiot, and so is the Harvard University administration, for allowing him to be their “rock-star moralist’, or Sandel is a postmodern communist who words things ever so carefully- perhaps with Friedland’s guidance-, in order to prevent himself from ever being explicitly and directly linked to terms such as “communist” or “Marxists”. But most importantly, ladies and gentlemen, Sandel and Friedland refer to themselves as “philosophers”, treat philosophy as the domain of the undefined, and use it for the purpose of advocating communist ideas.

Fitzgerald proceeds: “[sandel] argues that the spread of market philosophy [what kind of ‘market philosophy’? Is Newsweek afraid to use the term ‘free market’ because it might sound too appealing to thoughtful readers?] has created what he calls ‘a consumerist idea of freedom’ as opposed to moral judgement.” What is a “consumerist idea of freedom’? Ever so consistently, it is not defined anywhere in the book review. Freedom is self determination. Consumerist freedom means the individual determining what he or she wants to consume, i.e., purchase. Sandel says that having the freedom to determine what you purchase is a value “opposed to moral judgement”. Who does he think should choose what you purchase? He does not say, and “moral judgement” is never defined. Moral judgement is the act of valuation, which is actually part of the process of determining what you want to purchase. So, Michael Sandel claims that the freedom to valuate, for the sake of determining what you will purchase somehow is not the act of valuation, i.e., moral judgement. That’s a major contradiction. And what is its consequence? The idea that somebody other than the individual, should valuate for that individual. Again, I ask, who is that somebody? And by what standards does that somebody valuate for the individual? And, why those standards? Although he will not explicitly say, we know that since it is freedom he is opposed to, it is thus government force he advocates, which means he advocates either communism, or fascism, or some integration of both. With all that being said in relation to his opposition to consumerist freedom, what are his thoughts on production? Fitzgerald says that Sandel thinks the production of skyboxes is a “metaphor for what’s wrong with our democracy [America is a Democratic Republic, not a Democracy] which ‘[now quoting Sandel] ‘requires that we share enough of a common life to think of ourselves as engaged in a common purpose. [And what is that common purpose?] I think that men and women from all walks of life, including those now inhabiting the skyboxes, can be attracted and drawn out of their skyboxes into the shared public space of the democratic life.’”. So Sandel’s thoughts on production are limited to skyboxes at university stadiums. Does he have any thoughts on invention? If he does, Fitzgerald fails to point it out. And regarding common life, and common purpose, the only “common purpose” he mentions is “our democracy”. Here is the climax of his word game. Sandel is so discontent with our Democratic Republic that he evades it and thinks only of a pure democracy, which is the unlimited rule of the majority. Unlimited majority rule is his only explicit standard. No, he will not say “the collective”, he will not say “the state”, he will not say “the commune”. This way you do not think he is a communist. But if you recall, Sandel believes in government run consumerism, as implied by the fact that he is opposed to a “consumerist idea of freedom”. If the production of “skyboxes” is a “metaphor for what’s wrong with our democracy”, if that is what is in the way of establishing unlimited majority rule, but “those now inhabiting the skyboxes [those who reject majority rule], can be attracted and drawn out of their skyboxes”, if they can be manipulated into accepting unlimited majority rule and submit to it, they will then achieve government run consumerism, and a pure Democracy, which is their common purpose. In the words of Karl Marx: “the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling as to win the battle of democracy” (“The Communist Manifesto”)

How do you attract, and draw in those with strong, firm minds? You do whatever you can to weaken their minds, and there is no better way to do it than to pollute the culture with as much irrationality as possible, so much, that it seems chaotic and confusing, and you are then tempted to accept it. This, we are told, is the product of philosophy, however, ladies and gentlemen, we have exposed a scam. We have exposed an industry that is far more corrupt than the government, or oil, which Ayn Rand pointed out consistently: the universities.

Michael Sandel is not a philosopher and neither is Julian Friedland. They are immoral theoreticians who tie together a bundle of contradictory theories and beliefs which when bound, become immoral ideologies which they call “philosophies”. They cling to the anti-concept “postmodernism”, and deceptively foreword the cause of communism.

Edited January 9, 2013 by Sean O'Connor

[bluecherry]

"The fact that something is an ideal means that it could and ought to be."

What "ought to be" if somebody has chosen to live is each person persuing what is of the greatest possible benefit to themself at any given time. If something goes against that then there's nothing demanding that it exist. Creating clear, valid, useful definitions when current ones are not I can see being useful. However, taking existing clear, valid, useful definitions and reassigning them to new words I don't see being of greatest possible benefit to anybody while there are other more efficient options to achieve the same intended goal of clear communication and thinking. As it stands, I don't see people often getting confused between the two primary different meanings for the word "philosophy." When something like "a", "hers", "his", "thiers", "yours", "my", "the" comes before the word ot it is in plural form than it is the second meaning, when it doesn't then it is the first meaning. The people who say that the facts can vary from person to person - like for some people gravity exists and for others it doesn't, for some people violating the rights of others is fine and dandy and for others it isn't - didn't reach this idea through some confusion about the definition of philosophy. Because there is neither common confusion caused by these multiple definitions with the word "philosophy" nor are people who already actually do have bad ideas getting them through such a confusion and the goals here are clarity and fighting off some bad ideas I don't see a point in pursuing this avenue with the word "philosophy." What you want to do I don't see having any benefit to what you want to achieve. Opposing subjectivism can be done in other ways that are effective though, so I just suggest following those instead of this with your time and rescources and such.

[Sean O'Connor]

The people who say that the facts can vary from person to person - like for some people gravity exists and for others it doesn't, for some people violating the rights of others is fine and dandy and for others it isn't - didn't reach this idea through some confusion about the definition of philosophy. Because there is neither common confusion caused by these multiple definitions with the word "philosophy" nor are people who already actually do have bad ideas getting them through such a confusion and the goals here are clarity and fighting off some bad ideas I don't see a point in pursuing this avenue with the word "philosophy."

I disagree with your assertion for the following reason: those who would, let's say, deny that gravity exists, are the ones who think that philosophy is not a field of science, but rather, an ideology which can serve as their own reality, and which gives them no reason to respect another person's freedom, since their reality is open to their own ideological fantasies. They describe it as their philosophy, and some then credit "their philosophy" as "their contribution to the field of philosophy, which is, to them, not a field of science which studies existence, but rather, a field of science which studies the most influential ideologies in human history. Philosophy and ideology need to be taught and understood separately otherwise that which the masses refer to as "philosophy" will encourage irrationality and subjectivism.

[bluecherry]

Some people may try to equivocate between the meanings. However, they do that after the fact of having made up their minds. Off the top of my head I can recall seeing such equivocations being attempted to try to show that the definition of philosophy does not discredit subjectivism, but I don't recall seeing it used to actually advocate for it. Aside from that and more importantly, have you met many people who did not already believe in subjectivism who then looked at these two meanings in the dictionary (or sans dictionary examined them) and concluded there was more than one right answer for the existence of gravity among other things? I haven't. I can't recall any. I'm guessing if you Googled long enough you could find somebody eventually since just about anything is believed by somebody, but this is an extreme minority to the point of it never happening enough to be a real threat. I think that's the primary issue for me here - I don't have evidence to suggest the problem exists which you want to break up the word "philosophy" in order to fight.

Edited January 10, 2013 by bluecherry

[Eiuol]

Eiuol, since my response to your first question is quite thorough I shall first address your second question.

In some sense, you are right to the extent that the earliest philosophers basically were scientists. Socrates was into astronomy, I don't know about Plato, and Aristotle had a lot to say about biology. Indeed, philosophy and science study aspects of existence. There is a close connection.

You seem to be equivocating, though. In terms of abstraction, there is a notable difference between natural sciences like biology, and the field of philosophy. With biology, scientific study is about narrowing understanding of particulars, which may include figuring out cell division, and narrowing down more so with study. Philosophy on the other hand really focuses on abstractions, going broader. Some ideas can be fine tuned, but they're still abstracting for philosophy. So, that's why there is philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of physics, and so on. Those sciences need wider abstractions, and not just the narrowing of concepts. Math is closely related as a process of abstraction, and I don't quite call it a science by nature of being so abstract. I suppose it goes into its own unique categorization.

I would classify economics as a science, and not a philosophy, and it actually doesn't have anything to say about what one should produce or consume. Economics won't say to not smoke, nor could it say in general one should pursue their life. As a matter of production, economics certainly relates to ethics, but I really would not consider it about philosophy. I believe this point has been disputed on this forum.

*

That's a really long posting and I'm having a hard time reading it all. Communism is wrong, but "philosophy is not a science" isn't as bad as you think it is. It's just stating that the narrowing aspects are probably more important than philosophy, while also probably standing true to the scientific method. There is a contradiction, to be sure, but I don't see it as any kind of postmodernist agenda. Postmodernism doesn't even get that far. Communism at least has some basis, flawed though it may be, while postmodernism explicitly has no basis whatsoever. I don't see postmodern communism being a tenable term. Who is a postmodern communist? Paul Krugman? I don't have much of a referent to go off.

By the way, this is worth a read. http://www.stephenhi...-postmodernism/ You can read the first edition for free. I am linking this because you seem interested in the topic of postmodernism, and this is a book by an Objectivist philosopher. I read it before, it's quite interesting.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Eiuol

[Grames]

(you may read the entire essay at http://seanoconnorli...m-and-thriving/ )

blank lines between paragraphs. please. "Wall of text" effect is strong here.