curi Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Here is an introductory explanation of my philosophy: http://curi.us/think/ What do you think about it from an Objectivist perspective? I've read a lot of Rand and I still think this way. She didn't change my mind about these things. Did I miss something? Did Rand miss something? Are our ideas compatible? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Here is an introductory explanation of my philosophy:What philosophy? That site starts asking questions. Do you expect people to keep answering without knowing when they're going to get some value in return? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curi Posted July 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Did you actually read what I linked? It explains some philosophical ideas. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 We aren't perfect? Hmmm. What would constitute a perfect human being? What aspect of reality would you suggest be rewritten (as if reality were rewritable - which, metaphysically, it is not)? After that, the section on Fallibility and Epistemology start to get fuzzy - vague approximations of what the issues are surrounding sound principles of thought analysis (i.e. the art of non-contradictory identificaion.) Before you can identify a mistake, you need a clear grasp of what a non-mistake is in order to recognise the mistake from what is not a mistake. Failure to bring that about would be a mistake. Miss. Take, Miss. Took, Miss. Understood, - sound like evil sea nymphs that wreaked havoc on unsuspecting sailors by enchanting them in the shroud of mist.. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Did you actually read what I linked? It explains some philosophical ideas.Yes, of course I read your first three flip-slides, but did't have the patience to go further. I'd happily read a few pages fulls of paragraphs, but I don't have the patience for Sesame Street style powerpoint. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curi Posted July 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Oh you want to read long dense text? OK read through: http://curi.us/archives/50 And this: http://fallibleideas.com/ When you don't finish reading all this and don't reply, maybe you'll understand why I linked something shorter to begin with, instead of insulting simplicity and brevity as childish. Edited July 13, 2013 by curi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
oso Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Where's the "I understand and disagree" option? I guess it's the "X" button. Edited July 13, 2013 by oso Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curi Posted July 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Where are the comments on content and substance instead of about format and trivial irrelevant stuff? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 You state, "Reason is all about correcting mistakes." Isn't reason all about a proper method to obtaining to knowledge? It seems as if your epistemology is focused on mistakes as the starting point, as if knowledge is a game of Russian roulette, and then you use reason to correct those errors. Epistemology should be focused on the proper way to obtain knowledge. Mistakes are simply a consequence of human fallibility, not a main focus point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
curi Posted July 13, 2013 Author Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Correcting mistakes is the method of obtaining knowledge. Error correction creates knowledge. Human fallibility is and should be a main focus point. It's important and has to be dealt with. Mistakes are common, we have to deal with them all the time, we need systems for that, it's a crucial issue. That's my point. You're asserting to the contrary but not saying anything that would change my mind. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thenelli01 Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) Correcting mistakes is the method of obtaining knowledge. Error correction creates knowledge. Human fallibility is and should be a main focus point. It's important and has to be dealt with. Mistakes are common, we have to deal with them all the time, we need systems for that, it's a crucial issue. That's my point. You're asserting to the contrary but not saying anything that would change my mind. How are you going to know how to correct mistakes if you don't have a proper method of obtaining knowledge? Furthermore, how are you going to be able to identify that it is a mistake? Edited July 13, 2013 by thenelli01 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 When you don't finish reading all this and don't reply, maybe you'll understand why I linked something shorter to begin with, instead of insulting simplicity and brevity as childish.Well, that's a false dichotomy. Anyhow, it turned out that your slides too go on and on. I actually went through the first 20 or so, and most of it was good advice, but your key point about philosophy was not even argued in those slides... just a mention of Popper and one other writer. That's my motivation limit I'm afraid. Since one of your slides asked for feedback on about your site, here is mine: make a single page "standing on one leg" summary of your philosophy, addressed to someone who might have thought a bit about it already, even if still a total layman. I also read the first 20 paragraphs or so of your TCS link, and my feedback is the same. After I read 20 paragraphs of decent enough advice, but that I still consider passe, I stop because there's nothing new... ergo, no value to me... even if their might be value to someone who has never thought about such topics, and wants to hand-held. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) I thought it was a forum rule not to spam the forum promoting non-Oist philosophy? Dont get me wrong, the threads that actually tried to relate pseudo-Popperian ideas to Oism seemed fine but...... Edited July 13, 2013 by Plasmatic dream_weaver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 The key part of learning is criticism. That's what really makes it work. The basic concept is we take fallible ideas, with mistakes in them, and we correct mistakes using criticism. I think this is the source of the entire problem, right here. Criticism is good. People are fallible and, in my opinion, really should seriously analyze any idea before they accept it as true. But criticism presupposes knowledge. You can't criticize a nothing; you can't refute what hasn't yet been thought of. And furthermore, while human beings ARE truly fallible and rather prone to errors, "we take fallible ideas, with mistakes in them. . . " . . . . Right there, in that sentence, you made the blanket assumption that ALL ideas are mistaken (which is where we officially enter the Matrix). That's the premise to check. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) One of the things you'll need is humility. Don't assume you're right. Don't assume other people are wrong. Um. . . Just something else to investigate. . . Edited July 13, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 criticism presupposes creation. the over-emphasis on criticism is not warranted. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 Correcting mistakes is the method of obtaining knowledge. Error correction creates knowledge. Human fallibility is and should be a main focus point. It's important and has to be dealt with. Mistakes are common, we have to deal with them all the time, we need systems for that, it's a crucial issue. That's my point. You're asserting to the contrary but not saying anything that would change my mind. Correcting a mistake.... known to you by what means? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) "The confidence — or arrogance — to think one knows best means a low amount of error correction. The humility — or wisdom — to recognize one's fallibility and ignorance, in the tradition of Socrates (the man who knows he does not know) allows for more error correction." Yeah. . . I'd like to apologize to Plasmatic again; Popper really isn't so compatible with Rand. -------------------------------------- Curi: You need to read this again, thoroughly. http://fallibleideas.com/objective-truth Edited July 13, 2013 by Harrison Danneskjold dream_weaver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondhander Posted July 13, 2013 Report Share Posted July 13, 2013 (edited) I got stuck on this part: You and I are part of everyone. Let that sink in. What do you mean by this? Last I checked, I'm not part of anyone else. Also, as others have said: Criticism can't create ALL knowledge, because you would have to know that something needs to be criticized first before you could criticize it. Edited July 13, 2013 by secondhander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
A is A Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 Curi is a Popperian and a pragmatist who attempts to "integrate" Objectivism into his eclectic style. His writings demonstrate little understanding of Objectivism's methodology and his inability to grasp this fact is his major flaw. He has flooded other Forums with the same questions he has here, where he was criticized and refuted on many points. His inability to grasp the basic arguments against him demonstrate how much he has integrated Popper and pragmatism into his thinking. If you'd like to read other analyses of his arguments, see Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology Epistemology Without Weights and the Mistake Objectivism and Critical Rationalism Both Made Critical Review of Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature False Dichotomies, Package Deals, and Karl Popper dream_weaver 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonor Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 secondhander, I think curi means that everyone is fallible, including you and him, no exceptions. He was not trying to say that we are all one or something silly like that. All knowledge benefits from criticism because no knowledge is perfect. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secondhander Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 (edited) secondhander, I think curi means that everyone is fallible, including you and him, no exceptions. He was not trying to say that we are all one or something silly like that. All knowledge benefits from criticism because no knowledge is perfect. Right, but he seemed to be saying something else, or something more, in the sentence I quoted: "You and I are part of everyone. Let that sink in." Makes me wonder if he has an underlying, or very subconscious, collectivist worldview. As though, maybe he thinks that we should be doing this criticism task together as a collective society to collectively make our society better. Edited July 14, 2013 by secondhander Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 All knowledge benefits from criticism because no knowledge is perfect. Yes, and this is mostly true (It is possible to have perfect knowledge; it's simply not guaranteed) and so everything should be criticized- just like we do on this forum, on a daily basis. Curi's problem is that he cannot or chooses not to understand where knowledge comes from in the first place; he sees it as some sort of arbitrary guessing-game. If he resolved that issue then the rest could stand; until he does it all amounts to little more than one massive floating abstraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harrison Danneskjold Posted July 14, 2013 Report Share Posted July 14, 2013 So the observation that all men who have ever lived have died is consistent with these generalizations? "All men are mortal." and "All men are immortal." "All desks are brown." "All generalizations make no sense." -Paul's Here As a matter of logic, yes it's consistent with those four generalizations. You haven't said why you disagree, so I'll have to guess. -Curi And that's what we call evasion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.