Here is an introductory explanation of my philosophy:
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?
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?
Did you actually read what I linked? It explains some philosophical ideas.
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..
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.
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.
Where’s the “I understand and disagree” option? I guess it’s the “X” button.
Where are the comments on content and substance instead of about format and trivial irrelevant stuff?
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.
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 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?
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.
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…
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.
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. . .
criticism presupposes creation. the over-emphasis on criticism is not warranted.
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?
“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.
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.
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