A man who is too smart to articulate himself

[airborne]

I've run into someone saying that many of the "great" philosophers were too intelligent to be able to properly convey their ideas to the rest of mankind. All I can say is that this logically does not make sense to me, but I cant proof to you why.

- Einstein articulated his ideas

- Aristotle, Newton etc

How is one to argue/proof against what seems like an illogical statement?

[Inspector]

Scientists, maybe I can see. But philosophers? Their job includes epistemology, so if they can't even articulate themselves then they failed at their job. Perhaps your friend doesn't understand what a philosopher's job is. Given the degenerate state of modern philosophy, that may be understandable. As for Aristotle, perhaps he has a bad translation?

[miseleigh]

Your examples are your proof, at least proof that intelligence is not the cause of the philosophers' communication issues.

Other than that, I would turn the tables back on them and ask for examples that prove their statement, and then ask them how they generalized it to include all philosophers. Also, ask how they decided that it was intelligence that caused the problem and not stupidity. How many philosophers have they read? Which ones did they not understand? How can they be sure that the philosopher in question was intelligent if they couldn't understand him?

[KendallJ]

I've run into someone saying that many of the "great" philosophers were too intelligent to be able to properly convey their ideas to the rest of mankind. All I can say is that this logically does not make sense to me, but I cant proof to you why.

a. I'm not sure there is a proof there. To me this is a non-sequitir. This is two propositions: 1. many "great" philosophers failed to communicate their idea properly. and 2. The cause of this failure was that they were "too intelligent." #2 simultaneously gives their ideas continued credibility in the face of the fact that they failed to communicate them. It is like complimenting an idiot and calling him an idiot simultaneously. It is a contradiction in and of itself. i.e. "His ideas were great, greater than his communication would lead you to believe. It's too bad he was too intelligent to communicate them properly." The reason it is said that way is to continue to give his ideas credibility, while dissavowing your ability to decipher them via the actual words he used to communicate them.

An easy way to expose the contradiction is to ask Megan's last question: "If his ideas are so great, and he failed to communciate them, then how did you learn about their greatness?"

The other way to think about this is that just as one scientist builds upon the work of another, then so too, subsequent philosophers must have straightened out the errors in communication of the first, and so somewhere there should exist a well-articulated version of such greatness. Ask to see it.

b. The burden of proof is on your friend who said this.

Edited June 25, 2007 by KendallJ

[Fukr]

I've run into someone saying that many of the "great" philosophers were too intelligent to be able to properly convey their ideas to the rest of mankind. All I can say is that this logically does not make sense to me, but I cant proof to you why.

- Einstein articulated his ideas

- Aristotle, Newton etc

How is one to argue/proof against what seems like an illogical statement?

I've actually experienced this occurance myself. When trying to enunciate myself to others, I often run them into confusion. The cause for this I expect is that Philosphers have come so far in their respective field that they no longer have the ability articulate themselves to to others. You could say they're on a "different level" of sorts.

Although, you would also expect someone so seemingly intelligent to able to work around the intellect and reasoning of others.

At this point, I don't have a solid explanation/cause for this. However, I do know that I am vehemently opposed to Aristotle.

[Moebius]

Intelligence is a vague concept. I mean, I could easily picture a mathematic savant who is able to intuitively solve extremely difficult equations, yet unable to communicate his exact thought process. It really depends on the mental activity.

However if we're talking strictly about philosophy -especially a rational one-, then you should be able to clarify your ideas simply by going through the logic step by step. I mean, that is the very basis of philosophy. Saying that a philosopher couldn't do that would be like saying that a basketball player is too athletic to shoot a basketball.

[KendallJ]

However, I do know that I am vehemently opposed to Aristotle.

This should be interesting. Why pray tell?

[Chops]

This should be interesting. Why pray tell?

I too am curious.

Edited June 28, 2007 by Chops

[Fukr]

This should be interesting. Why pray tell?

Oh boy. I can see my membership being defenestrated after this...

First of all, I'm a big physics and science guy, so my hatred for him moslty comes from his infractions in those fields.

Since Aristotle was one of the most respected and eminent thinkers at the time, in Europe, his ideas were held almost exclusively as the utmost of truth. Therefore, some of his erroneous claims were taken for granted. He postulated such theories as "The Five Elements", objects of different masses fall at different speeds, and refuted other theories of astronomy such as: Democritus' claim of the Milky Way being made of up of a multiplicity of stars and as well the claim that the Sun was one in the same with the stars. Aristotle's work may have held back science for centuries.

There was also his "Natural Slave" theory which prompted much of European subjugation over indigenous populace.

I understand his works in Metaphysics are widely respected and have no quarrel with them.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Fukr

[MarkH]

Since Aristotle was one of the most respected and eminent thinkers at the time, in Europe, his ideas were held almost exclusively as the utmost of truth. ... Aristotle's work may have held back science for centuries.

Were held by whom? Not by Aristotle but rather by people he never knew or would have approved of. It wasn't Aristotle the man who, centuries later, held back science.

Another point, regarding his science rather than how the medieval scholastics treated it: It's best to compare a man's work with what came before, not with what came after.

[Moebius]

It wasn't Aristotle the man who, centuries later, held back science.

No, it wasn't. It was his ideas. That was Fukr's point.

Another point, regarding his science rather than how the medieval scholastics treated it: It's best to compare a man's work with what came before, not with what came after.

Well Fukr did point out some of Aristotle's contemporaries who did have the right ideas but were dismissed by the man himself. Maybe you can compare it against that.

[Chops]

Holding Aristotle's philosophy in contempt because of his scientific failures is on par with hating Ford cards because Ford was an anti-Semite...they are generally irrelevant.

Yes, Aristotle failed the scientific test of time (5 elements?!), but we don't hold Aristotle in high regard because of his scientific claims. We hold him in regard because of his emphasis on reason.

Stating "I do know that I am vehemently opposed to Aristotle" in a discussion about philosophy (and not science), implies that you hold Aristotle's philosophy in contempt, which is contradicted by your later statement of "his works in Metaphysics are widely respected and have no quarrel with them."

If your original claim was meant only toward his scientific holdings, then it was out of place in this discussion, but if it's toward his philosophy, then we'll need further elaboration.

Edited June 29, 2007 by Chops

[KendallJ]

Yes, Aristotle failed the scientific test of time (5 elements?!), but we don't hold Aristotle in high regard because of his scientific claims. We hold him in regard because of his emphasis on reason.

Actually, the Greek atomists did not fail the test of time. IT was the atomic theory of matter that eventually won out, and it was the Greek who first proposed the concept. They just came up with the wrong "atoms". However, their supposition was correct.

No, it wasn't. It was his ideas. That was Fukr's point.

Moebius, it wasn't his ideas. It was the ideas of the scholastics who rediscovered him. They worshipped him as an absolute. In that respect they didn't follow his own example of actual scientific process and reason, but they carried his name along with their mistakes.

There was also his "Natural Slave" theory which prompted much of European subjugation over indigenous populace.I understand his works in Metaphysics are widely respected and have no quarrel with them.

Well, this is like taking issue with Newton because he didn't get relativity right. If you look at the context of what he was working with, and you look at the fundamentality of what he did in metaphysics and even morese in epistemology, that quarrel is really secondary. Without him, we woudln't have had enough of rational epistemology for the Reinassance and Enlightenment scientist to fix his errors. Like the founding fathers he set the terms by which his errors could be corrected in the future.Which Greek philosopher are you enamoured with exactly. In other words if you are vehemently opposed to Aristotle, who arent you opposed to.

[KendallJ]

Fukr, just so you realize where you're at. This what Rand thought about Aristotle.

The only philosophical debt I can acknowledge is to Aristotle. I most emphatically disagree with a great many parts of his philosophy—but his definition of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge is so great an achievement that his errors are irrelevant by comparison. You will find my tribute to him in the titles of the three parts of ATLAS SHRUGGED.

A long time ago, the grandmaster of all grandmasters gave us the basic principles of the method by which one discovers the rules of nature and of life. His name was Aristotle.

The result of the Enlightenment ideas and attitudes, in every branch of philosophy, was a surging sense of liberation. "We have it in our power to begin the world over again," says Thomas Paine. "A situation, similar to the present, hath not happened since the days of Noah until now. The birthday of a new world is at hand..."

The father of this new world was a single philosopher: Aristotle. On countless issues, Aristotle's views differ from those of the Enlightenment. But, in terms of broad fundamentals, the philosophy of Aristotle is the philosophy of the Enlightenment. The primacy of this world; the lawfulness and intelligibility of nature; the reality of particulars and, therefore, of individuals; <arl_271> the sovereignty and power of man's secular reason; the rejection of innate ideas; the non-supernaturalist affirmation of certainty, objectivity, absolutes; the uplifted view of man and of the human potential; the value placed on intellectual self-development as a means to self-fulfillment and personal happiness on earth—the sum of it is Aristotelian, specifically Aristotelian, as against the mysticism of the Platonic tradition and the self-proclaimed bankruptcy of the skeptical tradition. If the key to the Enlightenment is secularism without skepticism, this means: the key is Aristotle.

In the deepest philosophic sense, it is Aristotle who laid the foundation of the United States of America. The nation of the Enlightenment is the nation of Aristotelianism.

Aristotle provided the foundation, but he did not know how to implement it politically. In the modern world—under the influence of the pervasive new spirit—a succession of thinkers developed a new conception of the nature of government. The most important of these men, the one with the greatest direct influence on America, was John Locke. The political philosophy Locke bequeathed to the Founding Fathers was the social implementation of the regnant Aristotelianism; it became the base of the new nation's distinctive institutions.

Not all philosophies are evil, though too many of them are, particularly in modern history. On the other hand, at the root of every civilized achievement, such as science, technology, progress, freedom—at the root of every value we enjoy today, including the birth of this country—you will find the achievement of one man, who lived over two thousand years ago: Aristotle.

But Aristotle's philosophy was the intellect's Declaration of Independence. Aristotle, the father of logic, should be given the title of the world's first intellectual, in the purest and noblest sense of that word. No matter what remnants of Platonism did exist in Aristotle's system, his incomparable achievement lay in the fact that he defined the basic principles of a rational view of existence and of man's consciousness: that there is only one reality, the one which man perceives—that it exists as an objective absolute (which means: independently of the consciousness, the wishes or the feelings of any perceiver)—that the task of man's consciousness is to perceive, not to create, reality—that abstractions are man's method of integrating his sensory material—that man's mind is his only tool of knowledge—that A is A.

Damn I love the CD-ROM...!

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I've run into someone saying that many of the "great" philosophers were too intelligent to be able to properly convey their ideas to the rest of mankind.

I think an intelligent man can get his ideas across, provided he has sufficient time and puts the effort into it. What I'm thinking of is someone who comes up with a new idea that has never been put into words before, but that requires a lot of refinement to make it completely intelligible.

For example, take Darwin's idea of evolution. If he just came out at that time period and said that all living species evolve from previously living entities, it would have seemed rather ludicrous by most biologists of the day. To them, especially due to the Bible and Platonic influences, it was thought that once a species always a species. So, the idea that species change over time was simply unthinkable. And Darwin had to write a whole book dedicated to the topic to make himself clear.

Likewise, philosophers and other pioneers of reason may have to write volumes in order to make their ideas clear. If Ayn Rand had only written We the Living, then certainly her philosophy would not have been as clear as it is with her having written The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, and numerous articles on her philosophy.

And keep in mind that even the intellectual innovators must think in some language, so for an idea to be clear to them it must already be put into words. If the claim is made that someone has such advanced thoughts that he cannot put it into any known human language, then how does he keep them clear to himself? How could it possibly become so advanced that he has no concepts for what he is thinking? I mean, his thoughts would stop at that point, wouldn't they? Such a thinker may have to coin a new word -- i.e. psycho-epistemology -- but that person would have to make that concept clear to himself, and once he has done that, then he can make it clear to others who speak the same language; even thought it might take more than just a definition.

So, I think the idea that someone is so smart that he just can't get his ideas across falls flat on the face of it. And I think it is a way of trying to reify unintelligibility into an act of genius -- i.e. the rest of mankind is just too stupid to understand, so by comparison the writer must be highly intelligent because no one understands him.

Probably one of the most difficult types of ideas to convey are those that are personal and based on introspection. One might have a personal triumph that one cannot convey to others, because it is very difficult to convey that which only you have experienced. One may try to do that, and be very proud of one's accomplishment, but others see it as something along the lines of, "Well, why did you have that difficulty in the first place?" You know why you had that difficulty, and you have resolved the issue and produced evidence of that resolution, but then someone might say, "Well, if you can articulate it so well, why didn't you do that from the beginning?" And for some reason or another, they just don't understand that it was a new thought or a new procedure that you have come up with, perhaps because they never had that problem.

It's like some of the difficulties I had with Objectivism many years ago, problems that were brought about do to bad thinking habits before coming across Objectivism. It's was a personal triumph for me, as it is for anyone who comes to understand Objectivism, but sometimes just trying to articulate a confusion can be....well, confusing. It makes perfect sense to you that you would have that difficulty given your context, but trying to convey it to others doesn't always hit the mark.

And like Darwin's theory of evolution, it can comes across as quite shocking to those who haven't had that difficulty. They might even be offended, for example if one said that one took selfishness and the pursuit of happiness so seriously that one would be willing to trash one's best friend if he stood in one's way. Try telling that proudly to, say, an orthodox Catholic, and see what kind of shocked expression one gets!

Sometimes people recoil at the shock so much that they don't see the triumph.

It's happened to me quite a number of times over the years. Sometimes it helps to explain oneself further, and sometimes it doesn't. It all depends on how well someone wants to go through the effort to understand the context.

[John McVey]

The phenomenon is real, and can occur entirely honestly. In answer to Megan's question, all that it is required is for there to be just enough clarity for the brilliance to show and make the use practical yet there still be a massive amount of confusion and misunderstanding. The cause of the latter is epistemological, and is actually dealt with by Dr Peikoff in Chapter 4 of OPAR under Objectivity: a failure to reduce and the fallacy of the stolen concept. Thus, the smarter a man is, the more likely simultaneously that he will be able to make his brilliance show that just enough and have so many concepts improperly used that what he has to say is an enormous jumbled mess that a lack of epistemology makes all the worse as his intelligence and hence repertoire of concepts increases.

Errors of this kind are widespread. The fallacy involved was identified for the first time by Ayn Rand. She called it the fallacy of the "stolen concept."

The fallacy consists in using a higher-level concept while denying or ignoring its hierarchical roots, i.e., one or more of the earlier concepts on which it logically depends. This is the intellectual equivalent of standing on the fortieth floor of a skyscraper while dynamiting the first thirty-nine. ...

The reason stolen concepts are so prevalent is that most people (and most philosophers) have no idea of the "roots" of a concept. In practice, they treat every concept as a primary, i.e., as a first-level abstraction; thus they tear the concept from any place in a hierarchy and thereby detach it from reality. Thereafter, its use is governed by caprice or unthinking habit, with no objective guidelines for the mind to follow. The result is confusion, contradiction, and the conversion of language into verbiage.

The antidote is the process of reduction. In regard to higher-level concepts, reduction completes the job of definition. The purpose of a definition is to keep a concept connected to a specific group of concretes. The definition of a higher-level concept, however, counts on the relevant lower-level concepts, which must themselves be connected to concretes; otherwise, the definition is useless. Reduction is what takes a person from the initial definition through the definitions of the next lower level and then of the next, until he reaches the direct perception of reality. This is the only means by which the initial definition can be made fully clear.

I agree, the CD ROM is fantastic

Edit: Added in conclusion about linking intelligence with inarticulateness (STOP LAUGHING!)

JJM

Edited June 30, 2007 by John McVey

[Fukr]

Holding Aristotle's philosophy in contempt because of his scientific failures is on par with hating Ford cards because Ford was an anti-Semite...they are generally irrelevant.

Stating "I do know that I am vehemently opposed to Aristotle" in a discussion about philosophy (and not science), implies that you hold Aristotle's philosophy in contempt, which is contradicted by your later statement of "his works in Metaphysics are widely respected and have no quarrel with them."

If your original claim was meant only toward his scientific holdings, then it was out of place in this discussion, but if it's toward his philosophy, then we'll need further elaboration.

No further elaboration needed. I suppose if I had originally wrote: "I am vehemently opposed to his scientific theories" then perhaps the thread would not have doubled in size with pro-Aristotle backlash.

I have no objection to his work in philosophy. Although, after seeing many Ayn Rand quotes springing from posts in a fit of Aristotelian piosity, I wonder: Does everything in this forum abide by the teachings and values of Ayn Rand? Am I just an ignorant newbie or must we always venerate her works over everything else?

[DavidOdden]

Does everything in this forum abide by the teachings and values of Ayn Rand? Am I just an ignorant newbie or must we always venerate her works over everything else?

There is a "Forum Rules" link at the top if you want clarification and aren't certain about the purpose of this board. As you will have observed, not every post is Objectivist and not every poster is an Objectivist. There are certain lines you shouldn't cross, and if you do, it will probably come to our attantion and we'll clarify matters if necessary. We're not at that point here. The essential statement about the board, in by view, is that its purpose is to enhance intellectual (and occasionally financial, under well-defined conditions) trade between Objectivists. That is, we're here to seriously discuss Objectivism. We certainly tolerate honest questions about Objectivism which seem to lead away from Objectivism, for example a question about why the imaginary possibility of error does not mean that man can have no knowledge. However, if a person were to vigorously pursue a line of questions about knowledge that in fact constitute arguing for Pyrrhonic skepticism, and assuming that attack were smuggled into the regular discussion (we have a little-used debate forum where you can actively advocate an anti-Objectivist idea, the Debate Forum), messages would be sent.

In that sense, this is not a general-purpose chat room, it is focused on the philosophical system developed by Ayn Rand. We have no direct access to your mind, so holding a personal view opposed to Objectivism is not a cause for getting defenestrated. We have had a number of reasonably successful tongue-biters, but the bottom line is, if you are really a Platonist or Kantian, it's hard to imagine you having a sustained interest in a philosophy that is dimetrically opposed to those philosophies.

There are a number of shortcuts to defenestration, if you're interested. Unearned collective insults are a good way, for example implying that Objectivism is a religion and that Objectivists are irrational can lead to gratis flying lessons. Slack can be cut for newbies who have only been around for a short while, but phrasing questions about Objectivism in terms of being "pious" and "venerating" asserts that Objectivism is a religion and that Objectivists are irrational, so you can see how such sly insults could get you bopped. Questions will also be raised about whether you know Arabic, and are being too clever for your own good in picking a username.

[Ragtime]

Do you really think ALL thinking is done in words?

"'Length must exist in SOME quantity, but may exist in ANY quantity. I shall identify 'length' as that attribute of any existent possessing it which can be quantitatively related to a unit of length, without specifying the quantity.' The child does not think in such words, but THAT is the nature of the process which his mind performs wordlessly." (Ch. 2, ITOE).

Knowledge is a built-up, wordless physical structure of some kind that does not automatically change with intentional thought. Whether and how it changes is not under conscious control.If you are someone who has taken the Philosophy of Ayn Rand to heart, and decided not to be a "second-hander," do you remember the moment when you first asked yourself, on some subject, "Do I really believe this, I myself, separate from everyone else?" Do you remember shedding some kind of protective overlayer of words? Do remember that you felt all alone?

Until the conceptual structure integrates new "knowledge" you remain conscious of it as something received from someone else.For example, you may know that Mises claimed to have proven that socialism is not viable as an efficient economic system. You remember his arguments and his illustrations. If called upon to discuss socialism, you think of Mises and his arguments, despite the fact that you have thought a lot about his arguments and believe they are totally cogent.

Or you may be at a point where what you immediately think of is not Mises and his arguments but YOUR OWN KNOWLEDGE that socialism is not an efficient economic system. You may not even remember Mises or 'Socialism' or 'Human Action'. You may not be able to immediately come up with a clear explanation of your beliefs, but if given a few minutes you would probably be able to put your wordless knowledge into words and give a reasonable explanation. What you know is THE THING ITSELF.

Howard Roark is someone whose knowledge is independent of others. He is not a "second-hander". How ist that possible? Thinking about knowledge received from others doesn't automatically make you independent. Only when your own, private conceptual structure changes to accomodate the new knowledge, perhaps in totally unanticipated ways, do you cease to be a "second-hander". You are alone with your knowledge.

Contrary to Mr. Binswanger, this conceptual structure really doesn't seem to be "subconscious" or even "peripherally conscious". You are always aware of all your knowledge--not in words, but by seeing the world by means of this silent structure. It is always there.

Mr. Binswanger states that the "conscious mind controls what is filed and how it is filed". Actually, the only control the conscious mind has over WHAT is incorporated in the structure (as opposed to simple memory of things understood by means of one's existing concepts) is to offer the mind more or less valuable information. One person reads the new biography of Ludwig von Mises. Another person offers his mind the biography of the doorman at the Ritz (or of Britney Spears).

I can prove to you that you are not in control of what is filed and how it is filed! Pick up a book about some subject that your mind has seemed impervious to in the past. Read it while HEARING the words in your mind, but do not intentionally PRONOUNCE the words in your mind. DO NOT FOCUS!! After six months, look at the book again and see if the subject does not seem much easier and more accessible. But HOW COULD THIS BE?

"If you have the wrong psycho-epistemology, your data base may have the wrong information." Actually, it is more likely that the conceptual structure does not make any mistakes (at least in the absence of pathology). It doesn't take wrong turns--it simply stops developing. A child's concepts are not wrong, they are simply primitive.

Objectivism is right that man is a being of volitional consciousness. But the real choice is whether to let the conceptual structure change and re-invent itself, 'let the chilps fall where they may': to step into the unknown.

The truth is that PRONOUNCING words in the mind actually STOPS integration from occurring. If one can refrain from doing this (which is not easy!) one can become aware of his concepts combining and reconfiguring. The world will change a little bit every day. Of course, this is undoubtedly what Nature intended. The mind needs to adapt.

So can it be that someone is too smart to articulate himself--that he has knowledge which is unable to immediately express or even grasp? Absolutely! Someone like Einstein seems habitually bemused and never quite sure of things. He expects the world to change on him at any moment. He is waiting for answers.

(This post is in reply to Thomas Miovas (Post #15, above)! Especially his statement "Keep in mind that even the intellectual innovators must think in SOME language, so for an idea to be clear to them it must already be put into words.")

Edited September 19, 2007 by Ragtime

[Robert J. Kolker]

Were held by whom? Not by Aristotle but rather by people he never knew or would have approved of. It wasn't Aristotle the man who, centuries later, held back science.

Another point, regarding his science rather than how the medieval scholastics treated it: It's best to compare a man's work with what came before, not with what came after.

An author or philosopher is hardly responsible for the misuse and abuse that others do with his work. I will give you an example: Charles Darwin. He postulated a means by which species of living organisms could change over time. Certain organisms would be eliminated because they could either not cope with the world in the conditions they were in, or were out competed for food and other life-resources by other organisms in the niche. Those that succeeded in reproduction passed on the characteristics causing their success to their progeny. Herbert Spencer took Darwin's descent with modification (variation and natural selection) and cooked up "survival of the fittest" (NOT Darwin's original words). Capitalists, fascists and racists picked up Spencer's unfortunate rephrasing of Darwin, and the rest, as is oft said, is history. And who gets the blame? Darwin. One of the most decent and intelligent gentlemen England ever produced. Darwin, like many of his family members was an Abolitionist. He -hated- slavery and spoke up against it many times. But slave holders used distortions of Darwin's work to justify their evil doings.

In our time, Protestant Fundies, who hate the Theory of Evolution have blamed Charles Darwin for many of the evils in the world. Hell! Those evils were around long before either Darwin or the Protestant Crazies, even existed.

Bob Kolker

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Even though even an intelligent man may find it difficult to find the right words to convey what is on his mind at times, inarticulateness is not a sign of intelligence. He needs to think coherently and in a conceptual language in order to resolve his confusions. This means that he must use concepts, rather than some sort of "free" mental somersaults to reach a resolution of his confusion, and this must be done volitionally. Sometimes, when one is stuck, it is good to just let the mind work without trying to force it -- i.e. let the conscious mind work with the subconscious; however, this does not mean "letting your mind go" without any conscious direction.

Thinking means using reason and concepts to consider an issue; if you are not doing that, then what you are doing is not thinking. One ought not confuse thinking with imagining or with emoting. If you are not in conscious control, then your mind is just drifting, hitting upon any chance association your subconscious cares to bring up; which is not thinking. In other words, thinking does not mean whatever the heck your mind is doing; it is a specific mental process that requires volitional control and self-control.

[JMeganSnow]

So can it be that someone is too smart to articulate himself--that he has knowledge which is unable to immediately express or even grasp?

If you can't name it, you don't know it. Period. You might have an image of it, you might sorta kinda have an idea what you mean, but if you can't say it, you don't know it. The quote you made refers to the fact that one may not be able to verbally define every stage of the process by which you acquire knowledge, but you can still identify the fact once you do know it. You may not be able to *define* the word except by pointing. But you have a concept, and you can use it.

Unlike basic concepts that can be defined ostensively with reasonable clarity, more abstract concepts *require* you to be able to verbally define them. The inability to express oneself properly using higher-level abstractions is a result of not grounding them in reality. If you really know what words mean, you can always find some method for expressing yourself, even if it is lengthy.

Now I want to understand what is the difference between "hearing" and "pronouncing" in your head, where neither speech nor listening occur. Perhaps you mean the kind of reading I do when I'm falling asleep and I only actually *read* every third word or so. Sure, when I go through and re-read the book it seems *familiar* but I only *understand* it when I'm *awake*.

[Robert J. Kolker]

If you can't name it, you don't know it. Period.

Does "name it" including describing something so well and thoroughly that the description could be used as a name? For example, "The U.S. President who occupied the Office during the duration of the American Civil War" is synonymous with Abraham Lincoln.

Bob Kolker

[mrocktor]

Proper names are not concepts. Bad example.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

I can prove to you that you are not in control of what is filed and how it is filed! Pick up a book about some subject that your mind has seemed impervious to in the past. Read it while HEARING the words in your mind, but do not intentionally PRONOUNCE the words in your mind. DO NOT FOCUS!! After six months, look at the book again and see if the subject does not seem much easier and more accessible. But HOW COULD THIS BE?

<snip>

Objectivism is right that man is a being of volitional consciousness. But the real choice is whether to let the conceptual structure change and re-invent itself, 'let the [chips] fall where they may': to step into the unknown.

The above is a prescription for mental disaster. Sure, one can get items into the brain (into memory) without any real conceptual focus. But just because it is in the subconscious doesn't make it knowledge.

Harry Binswanger is right; if you don't take volitional control of the filing, then your database can be all messed up. And I assume Ragtime is referring to Harry Binswanger's new book on consciousness, which is where he got the quotes from. I haven't read it yet, but it sounds interesting.

Having volitional control over your mind is crucial to having real knowledge as opposed to having a conglomeration of items stored in memory; though sometimes it is good to let one's subconscious bring things up to the conscious mind for consideration, rather than trying to have total control over the subconscious. It can be the subconscious' way of telling you, "Hey, this doesn't fit!" or "Hey, you need to re-consider this!" Which is good for an active consciousness.

However, it is the conscious mind -- in concepts -- that makes the final determination of where an item of actual knowledge should be in the hierarchy of knowledge. Until one does this it is not knowledge, but rather is something stored in memory. It might be "in there" but it is useless unless it is given careful conscious and volitional consideration.

Concepts are our way of bringing order to the chaos of the mind. That is, if one wants to get to a state of mind that is not a booming buzzing confusion of facts and factoids, then one has to do this consciously and volitionally. The mind must be structured volitionally, for otherwise there is no structure. This involves not only guiding the mind in what to consider but also into how it is to be considered. If one does not consider it consciously and volitionally, then one's memory will just be a jumble of things, like a trash heap or a garbage dump.

Ayn Rand has compared the knowledge hierarchy to that of a skyscraper, and one can only build a skyscraper through conscious intent.