The Solution to the Problem of Universals
Malrassic Park
metaphysically or otherwise. Nobody has questioned this. But by the
same token, the human mind is what is and evading this fact will not
make it go away. The fact important to the context of Universals is
that the human mind imbues the real world with ideals of its own
creation.
The human mind does this for various reasons, first and foremost
perhaps is to bring comprehension to the world around it. Where the
world utterly fails to bring its comprehension to the human mind, the
mind itself makes this comprehension a possibility, set forth as a
task not by reason or mystical intuition, but by the nature of the
mind itself.
Sometimes, however, this task takes on elements of psychological
neurosis, as when Ayn Rand, in her quest for the Ideal Man, thinks to
have found it in this or that personage (such as Branden) and is
eventually disappointed to find that it's not the case. If Rand had
understood the nature of Universals as idealizing principles of the
mind she might have understood that they were not intended to serve as
psychological projections based on unmet childhood needs carried into
adulthood as neuroses - and finally, when the subconscious premises of
this neurosis are gathered together in a somewhat less rhapsodic and
more intellectualized way, as a lowly, secular, man-worshipping,
emotion-driven religion posing as higher philosophy.
1Z
> The human mind does this for various reasons, first and foremost
> perhaps is to bring comprehension to the world around it. Where the
> world utterly fails to bring its comprehension to the human mind, the
> mind itself makes this comprehension a possibility, set forth as a
> task not by reason or mystical intuition, but by the nature of the
> mind itself.
That's horribly vague. The world may not be ready-categorised
in human terms, but that does not mean it is without form and void.
Malrassic Park
metaphysically or otherwise. Nobody has questioned this. But by the
same token, the human mind is what is and evading this fact will not
make it go away. The fact important to the context of Universals is
that the human mind imbues the real world with ideals of its own
creation.
The human mind does this for various reasons, first and foremost
perhaps is to bring comprehension to the world around it. Where the
world utterly fails to bring its comprehension to the human mind, the
mind itself makes this comprehension a possibility, set forth as a
task not by reason or mystical intuition, but by the nature of the
mind itself.
Sometimes, however, this task takes on elements of psychological
Charles Bell
> Sometimes, however, this task takes on elements of psychological
> neurosis, as when Ayn Rand, in her quest for the Ideal Man, thinks to
> have found it in this or that personage (such as Branden) and is
> eventually disappointed to find that it's not the case.
I think it's clear by now, after all these years on this forum, that
Malrassic Park is simply incapable of avoiding that logical fallacy
known as the ad hominem, and furthermore, his incapability is
precisely due to the fact that Immanuel Kant, his god, relied on it
constantly (particularly in the form of psychologizing) to impress his
personality cult-following.
Tim
Ironic that the only o'ist counters to Kant are always in the form of
ad hom. Charlie Brown misses the ball and lands on his dirty arse,
again, and yes charlie that's an ad hom too.
Charles Bell
>
> Ironic that the only o'ist counters to Kant are always in the form of
> ad hom. Charlie Brown misses the ball and lands on his dirty arse,
> again, and yes charlie that's an ad hom too.
What is not ironic but to be expected is that retarded Timmy says
retarded things. Retarded Timmy does not realize that this very post
is not an ad-hom argument, nor in point of fact anything that Mal has
referred to my having said, but a direct and clear insult against
Usenet scum, but a moral question arises as to moral culpability of
retarded Timmy in saying stupid things as to nature of a retarded
person who will say stupid things.
Timmy says "Timmy!"
Jim Klein
> Undoubtedly, and without reservation, the universe is what it is,
> metaphysically or otherwise. Nobody has questioned this. But by the
> same token, the human mind is what is and evading this fact will not
> make it go away. The fact important to the context of Universals is
> that the human mind imbues the real world with ideals of its own
> creation.
FROM WHAT DOES IT CREATE THEM?
Here, I'll put it in words you can understand. Change
"imbues" to "imbibes."
jk
Malrassic Park
metaphysically or otherwise. Nobody has questioned this. But by the
same token, the human mind is what is and evading this fact will not
make it go away. The fact important to the context of Universals is
that the human mind imbues the real world with ideals of its own
creation.
The human mind does this for various reasons, first and foremost
perhaps is to bring comprehension to the world around it. Where the
world utterly fails to bring its comprehension to the human mind, the
mind itself makes this comprehension a possibility, set forth as a
task not by reason or mystical intuition, but by the nature of the
mind itself.
Sometimes, however, this task takes on elements of psychological
neurosis, as when Ayn Rand, in her quest for the Ideal Man, thinks to
have found it in this or that personage (such as Branden) and is
Jim Klein
> Undoubtedly, and without reservation, the universe is what it is,
> metaphysically or otherwise. Nobody has questioned this.
Wow, that's pretty forceful and unequivocal. What
a shame that you've made it so clear that this
tells us nothing about reality...to you.
So what you're saying exactly, I'm not sure.
> But
Oh, but.
> by the
> same token, the human mind is what is and evading this fact will not
> make it go away.
Although that brings up the interesting question of how
the human mind could know about the human mind
when it can't know about anything else.
> The fact important to the context of Universals is
> that the human mind imbues the real world with ideals of its own
> creation.
The fact important, is that it does not.
I notice that you wax poetic but don't answer
my question. "FROM WHAT DOES IT CREATE THEM?"
> The human mind does this for various reasons, first and foremost
> perhaps is to bring comprehension to the world around it.
I assume you mean about the world around it. Even
you wouldn't say we bring comprehension TO the
world around us, right?
So in what manner does creating (or having
spontaneously generated) these ideals with
which we imbue the world, help the matter of
bringing comprehension about the world to us?
> Where the
> world utterly fails to bring its comprehension to the human mind, the
> mind itself makes this comprehension a possibility, set forth as a
> task not by reason or mystical intuition, but by the nature of the
> mind itself.
Makes me think of Coney Island. I'm sure it's a
fun ride, but could you answer any questions or
address any issues a bit more directly?
> Sometimes, however, this task takes on elements of psychological
> neurosis, as when Ayn Rand, in her quest for the Ideal Man, thinks to
> have found it in this or that personage (such as Branden) and is
> eventually disappointed to find that it's not the case. If Rand had
> understood the nature of Universals as idealizing principles of the
> mind she might have understood that they were not intended to serve as
> psychological projections based on unmet childhood needs carried into
> adulthood as neuroses - and finally, when the subconscious premises of
> this neurosis are gathered together in a somewhat less rhapsodic and
> more intellectualized way, as a lowly, secular, man-worshipping,
> emotion-driven religion posing as higher philosophy.
Please?
jk
Tim
Typical randroid response. ie ad hom, of course charlie brown in
randroid fashion hides behind the assertion that it is not. Poor poor
charlie brown, if saying it only made it happen.
Charlie Brown misses the ball, again.
Charles Bell
> Typical randroid response
I think it's clear by now, after all these years on this forum, that
Retarded Timmy is simply incapable of avoiding that logical fallacy
known as the ad hominem, and furthermore, his incapability is
precisely due to the fact that Krusty the Clown, his god, relied on it
constantly (particularly in the form of psychologizing) to impress his
personality cult-following. (c) Malrassic Park
Ken Gardner
"Malrassic Park" <male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Undoubtedly, and without reservation, the universe is what it is,
> metaphysically or otherwise. Nobody has questioned this. But by the
> same token, the human mind is what is and evading this fact will not
> make it go away. The fact important to the context of Universals is
> that the human mind imbues the real world with ideals of its own
> creation.
The human mind does not invent or create ideas or concepts. It produces
them, either correctly (in accordance with the facts of reality) or
incorrectly by a process of perceptual observation and reason. The whole
point of epistemology is to explain how this process works, what parts are
automatic, and how to do the volitional parts correctly rather than
incorrectly. It isn't about how to rationalize what many people often do to
avoid the required effort: just make up shit about the world without having
to be responsible (epistemologically, morally, politically, or esthetically)
for the consequences.
[....]
Tim
> On Dec 20, 10:24�am, Retarded Timmy <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > Typical randroid response
>
> I think it's clear by now, after all these years on this forum, that
> Retarded Timmy is simply incapable of avoiding that logical fallacy
> known as the ad hominem,
Classic!!! Let me get this straight, calling me retarded is not an ad
hom.? I think it's clear that charlie brown wouldn't know a logical
fallacy if one were to walk up to him and say: "Hi Charlie Brorwn, I'm
a logical fallacy, why do you always miss the ball?"
and furthermore, his incapability is
> precisely due to the fact that Krusty the Clown, his god, relied on it
> constantly (particularly in the form of psychologizing) to impress his
> personality cult-following. �(c) Malrassic Park
Nah, you're just too stupid to think, don'ty panic though, it's a
prerequisite for being a member in the randroid cult.
Jim Klein
> > I think it's clear by now, after all these years on this forum, that
> > Retarded Timmy is simply incapable of avoiding that logical fallacy
> > known as the ad hominem,
>
> Classic!!! Let me get this straight, calling me retarded is not an ad
> hom.?
That's correct. It is not.
>I think it's clear that charlie brown wouldn't know a logical
> fallacy if one were to walk up to him and say: "Hi Charlie Brorwn, I'm
> a logical fallacy, why do you always miss the ball?"
The logical fallacy of ad hominem is to use an insult "against
the man" in order to show (imply) that therefore his argument
is wrong. While Charles surely offered an insult, it was not in
the service of proving you wrong about something and so was
not an instance of the ad hominem fallacy.
To the best of my knowledge, you couldn't be proven (or implied)
wrong about something, because you have yet to say anything.
jk
Tim
But using best and knowledge together is a contradiction in your case
jimmy boy. So you think it can't be prooved that randroid counters to
Kant are in the form od ad hom.? Be honest, jimmy boy, you wear
randroid blinders that allow you and your ilk to ad hom. the day away
until of course the ad hom. is aimed at your dopey dead cult leader.
Why not read the post first jimmy boy, then maybe, just maybe, you
won't come off looking as stupid as you do.
Charles Bell
> So you think it can't be prooved that randroid
I think it's clear by now, after all these years on this forum, that
Retarded Timmy is simply incapable of avoiding that logical fallacy
known as the ad hominem, and furthermore, his incapability is
1Z
> On Dec 21, 8:33 am, Retarded Timmy <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > So you think it can't be prooved that randroid
>
> I think it's clear by now, after all these years on this forum, that
> Retarded Timmy is simply incapable of avoiding that logical fallacy
> known as the ad hominem,
Tuuuuuuuuuuuu Quooooooooqueeee!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Tim
> On Dec 21, 8:33�am, Retarded Timmy <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > So you think it can't be prooved that randroid
>
> I think
That's a lie charlie brown.
it's clear by now, after all these years on this forum, that
> Retarded Timmy is simply incapable of avoiding that logical fallacy
> known as the ad hominem, and furthermore, his incapability is
> precisely due to the fact that Krusty the Clown, his god, relied on it
> constantly (particularly in the form of psychologizing) to impress his
> personality cult-following. �(c) Malrassic Park
Ah yes, randroid thought processing at its best. You go randroid.
Jim Klein
> > To the best of my knowledge, you couldn't be proven (or implied)
> > wrong about something, because you have yet to say anything.
>
> > jk
>
> But using best and knowledge together is a contradiction in your case
> jimmy boy. So you think it can't be prooved that randroid counters to
> Kant are in the form od ad hom.? Be honest, jimmy boy, you wear
> randroid blinders that allow you and your ilk to ad hom. the day away
> until of course the ad hom. is aimed at your dopey dead cult leader.
> Why not read the post first jimmy boy, then maybe, just maybe, you
> won't come off looking as stupid as you do.
Efficiency. You could've just written, "Nor do I intend to."
jk
Tim
Well jimmy boy, I eagerly await your non ad hom. critique of Kant. But
my guess is: You don't intend to give one, your more content blowing
out sweet nothings.
Tim
"Tim" <tbee...@aci.on.ca> wrote in message
news:3e065ae1-2efc-4486...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
Meanwhile, back at the randroid camp the crickets chirped and the coyotes
howled, all the droids looked nervous - how are we going to respond to this
request? None of us ever bothered to read Kant! Hey, if we ignore him maybe
he'll just go away.
Charles Bell
Jim Klein
> Meanwhile, back at the randroid camp the crickets chirped and the coyotes
> howled, all the droids looked nervous - how are we going to respond to this
> request? None of us ever bothered to read Kant!
Look, nimwit. I don't know from under what rock you
crawled out, and I don't know why you're choosing to
just make stuff up. These are the facts of the matter on
this issue, with regard to me.
I've read Kant extensively, though admittedly I've luckily
forgotten most of it. My opinions on Kant were formed
before I was ever familiar with Rand, and were roughly
similar to her conclusions, though not as specific.
Besides, I'm not interested in Kant or Rand really. I'm
interested in the facts of the world in which I find myself.
Most modern Objectivists consider me an "enemy of
Objectivism," so I'm hardly any sort of "randroid." She
was right about a ton of stuff and she was wrong about
a few things. I view the modern (Post-Mortem) manifestation
of Objectivism as little more than a Church, complete
with faith as its motivator, a holy bible not even written
by the founder, cloisters that protect the flock from public
discussion, and a depth of hypocrisy equal to that of
any other misdirected Church.
I have no reason to suspect that you care about the
facts, but on the slight chance that you do, there they are.
> Hey, if we ignore him maybe
> he'll just go away.
Oh, if only it were that simple!
Look, all I said is that to the best of my knowledge,
you have yet to say anything. Obviously, I meant
anything of substance and as far as I know, you
still haven't offered anything of substance. While
I readily agree that there are all sorts of Objectivist
assholes out there, I don't believe that being a bigger
asshole is a sensible strategy to deal with it. So
maybe work on yourself before you jump in and
start offering wild fantasies.
Maybe learn a drop of the topic about which you're
writing, too. Not only will it help you immensely, it
might help the rest of us as well.
This is one of the fundamental points that Rand was
focussed on, with regard to rationality. In a nutshell,
that it's the nature of man.
IOW, even you can engage it. Try it; you might like it.
jk
Malrassic Park
wrote:
I did not correspond "invent" with "rationalize." And it has nothing
to do with consequentialism. I just don't see any difference between
an inventor inventing a new product, and any person producing a
concept. Whether or not a concept corresponds to reality, a concept is
still an invention, whether arbitrary, subjective, or objective.
Tim
Charley Brown's a randroid, therefore Charley Brown's retarded too!
Tim
> On Dec 23, 8:02 pm, Tim <t...@arc.com> wrote:
>
> > Meanwhile, back at the randroid camp the crickets chirped and the coyotes
> > howled, all the droids looked nervous - how are we going to respond to this
> > request? None of us ever bothered to read Kant!
>
> Look, nimwit. �I don't know from under what rock you
> crawled out, and I don't know why you're choosing to
> just make stuff up. �These are the facts of the matter on
> this issue, with regard to me.
So no, you didn't have anything to say.
>
> I've read Kant extensively, though admittedly I've luckily
> forgotten most of it.
Ah, so you can't comment, you've forgotten, how convenient. White flag
noted.
>�My opinions on Kant were formed
> before I was ever familiar with Rand, and were roughly
> similar to her conclusions, though not as specific.
>
But you conveniently don't remember them.
> Besides, I'm not interested in Kant or Rand really. �I'm
> interested in the facts of the world in which I find myself.
>
White flag number two.
> Most modern Objectivists consider me an "enemy of
> Objectivism," so I'm hardly any sort of "randroid." �She
> was right about a ton of stuff and she was wrong about
> a few things. �I view the modern (Post-Mortem) manifestation
> of Objectivism as little more than a Church, complete
> with faith as its motivator, a holy bible not even written
> by the founder, cloisters that protect the flock from public
> discussion, and a depth of hypocrisy equal to that of
> any other misdirected Church.
>
Fench sitting.
> I have no reason to suspect that you care about the
> facts, but on the slight chance that you do, there they are.
>
Yes, you have no reason.
> > Hey, if we ignore him maybe
> > he'll just go away.
>
> Oh, if only it were that simple!
>
> Look, all I said is that to the best of my knowledge,
> you have yet to say anything. �Obviously, I meant
> anything of substance and as far as I know, you
> still haven't offered anything of substance. �While
> I readily agree that there are all sorts of Objectivist
> assholes out there, I don't believe that being a bigger
> asshole is a sensible strategy to deal with it. �So
> maybe work on yourself before you jump in and
> start offering wild fantasies.
>
From what I can see you seem to have very little to say yourself. You
seem to be of the mind that forgetting is a form of knowledge.
> Maybe learn a drop of the topic about which you're
> writing, too. �Not only will it help you immensely, it
> might help the rest of us as well.
Can I forget it like you. Or is that a right that only belongs to
randroids?
>
> This is one of the fundamental points that Rand was
> focussed on, with regard to rationality. �In a nutshell,
> that it's the nature of man.
>
> IOW, even you can engage it. �Try it; you might like it.
>
> jk
But you've forgotten it.
Just keep waving that big white flag, your bound to draw some
attention.
Jim Klein
> > My opinions on Kant were formed
> > before I was ever familiar with Rand, and were roughly
> > similar to her conclusions, though not as specific.
>
> But you conveniently don't remember them.
Pay attention, please. I don't need to remember them
since Rand wrote hers down and I agree with her. I
didn't say they were forgotten forever.
> > Besides, I'm not interested in Kant or Rand really. I'm
> > interested in the facts of the world in which I find myself.
>
> White flag number two.
'Scuse me? Do you really consider being "interested in
the facts of the world in which I find myself" to be some
sort of surrender? If so, do tell. If not, then what the hell
do you mean?
Why, do you not have an interest in the facts of the world
in which you find yourself? I guess that would be
believable, and it would also explain much of your writing.
After all, so far you haven't demonstrated any such interest.
jk
Tim
> On Dec 24, 1:20 pm, Tim <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
>
> > �> My opinions on Kant were formed
> > > before I was ever familiar with Rand, and were roughly
> > > similar to her conclusions, though not as specific.
>
> > But you conveniently don't remember them.
>
> Pay attention, please. �I don't need to remember them
> since Rand wrote hers down and I agree with her. �I
> didn't say they were forgotten forever.
So basically what you really mean is that you let rand form your
opinions. You claim to have read Kant before you read rand, but you
conveniently forgot what you read and rand reminded you! You are a
poor excuse for a dodger, but a good excuse for a randroid.
>
> > > Besides, I'm not interested in Kant or Rand really. �I'm
> > > interested in the facts of the world in which I find myself.
>
> > White flag number two.
>
> 'Scuse me? �Do you really consider being "interested in
> the facts of the world in which I find myself" to be some
> sort of surrender? �If so, do tell. �If not, then what the hell
> do you mean?
>
The facts you forget?
> Why, do you not have an interest in the facts of the world
> in which you find yourself? �I guess that would be
> believable, and it would also explain much of your writing.
>
> After all, so far you haven't demonstrated any such interest.
>
All you have demonstrated is an ability to forget, then cling to rand
-- didn't she demand that you think for yourself? Frankly, using her
as a crutch tells me that you are not interested in the facts.
You should ask yourself jerry. How interested can you be when all you
do is forget them?
Jim Klein
> > Pay attention, please. I don't need to remember them
> > since Rand wrote hers down and I agree with her. I
> > didn't say they were forgotten forever.
>
> So basically what you really mean is that you let rand form your
> opinions. You claim to have read Kant before you read rand, but you
> conveniently forgot what you read and rand reminded you! You are a
> poor excuse for a dodger, but a good excuse for a randroid.
I wrote, "Pay attention, please." I don't do "pretty-pretty
please" or "simon says" or any of that other childish stuff.
I asked you politely to pay attention. So what that leaves
for you, if you have any interest in who you are at all, is to
explain why a polite request for you to do something as
simple as pay attention, did not cause you to do it.
I for one am /extremely/ interested in that. So maybe
we could Move Forward if you wish to cover that.
Now one last time, I will ask you to please pay
attention. This is not rocket science and it's
very easy to follow. So please, try to follow.
I had extensive formal training in philosophy. I
took lots and lots of philosophy courses in college,
at both the undergrad and grad level. And I took
these courses at a school which at the time was
well regarded in the philosophy discipline.
Point being, of course I read plenty of Kant. What do
you think you start with, in college philosophy? And
yes, I quickly developed a distaste for him...a bit for
his style but a severe distaste for what he was saying.
At the time, since I moved on rapidly, I didn't really
analyze Kant in depth, nor try to figure out the root
of my distaste for his philosophy. MUCH later, when
I became familiar with Rand (long out of school with
no degree) and came across her discussions of Kant,
I realized how well she pinned down exactly what my
distaste was.
Since then, I've come to learn more. For starters, that it
is true that many Objectivists behave exactly as you
imply and dislike Kant because Rand disliked Kant.
Further, it's the case that many Objectivists misunderstand
Kant on some particular points...I learned that right here
from a discussion between an Idiot Objectivist and one
Charles Johnson (I might be wrong about that name) who
was familiar with Kant as few are, including various
translations and really fine, fine distinctions. He made
mince-meat of the Objectivist, which was nearly always
the case around here years ago when the place was
populated by many Idiot Objectivists and several very
fine non-Objectivist minds.
> All you have demonstrated is an ability to forget, then cling to rand
> -- didn't she demand that you think for yourself?
You are making a fool out of yourself and don't even
know it. That makes you a double-fool, I think.
I didn't just pop out from under a rock like you did,
you know. I've been around for decades, since before
there was even such a thing as Usenet.
Yes, frequently these days I demonstrate an ability to
forget. If you bother to ever check your facts, you'll
discover that I'm rather forthright about that.
The "cling to Rand" is about the silliest charge anyone
could make against me. I've spent nearly twenty years
focused on the point that clinging to Rand is the most
anti-Randian thing one could do. And yes, that many
who call themselves "Objectivists" do just that. Indeed,
generally those who call themselves that the loudest,
are guilty of it the most. This is not news.
I tried to give you clues---that many consider me an
"enemy of Objectivism" and that I disagree with Rand
about several things, some of them foundational.
But there you go, thinking that if you just write words,
then reality will follow. Since I do respect Rand and
agree with very much of what she wrote, I do reserve
a special contempt for so-called Objectivists who do
just what many say they do...take Objectivism as some
sort of religion that they follow by faith and have the
sort of righteousness that any ol' plain religionists
might have. So whaddya know...we actually agree
about something and you didn't even know it!
But there's another special contempt I have. It's
for people who forget that other people are
individuals, and treat them as if they were mere
pawns of "larger issues" and larger groups. Once
they do that, they lose sight of the nature of the
beast and can do anything to the individual, always
shrieking to the "larger issues" and "public good"
and all that silly claptrap, as a rationalization for
the terrible actions they take.
This is the contempt which you have earned here.
And it gets even worse, because the worst contempt
of all goes to those who absolutely refuse to think,
who absolutely refuse to recognize facts as facts,
who carry on their lives in a fog of the unknown,
not knowing and not knowing that they don't know.
Objectivists call this the sin of "evasion," the /choice/
to intentionally disregard the facts and continue on
anyway, in an intentional sort of unconsciousness,
totally devoid of any connection to reality.
OTOH, the good news is that anyone can change. Just
remember, as a wise man once wrote, "We are as we
do, not as we say we do."
Who are you, Tim?
> Frankly, using her
> as a crutch tells me that you are not interested in the facts.
> You should ask yourself jerry. How interested can you be when all you
> do is forget them?
If I ever need a crutch like this, that will be the day I stop.
You should ask yourself terry...how interested are YOU
in the facts? I own the address which has been the most
prolific in this particular place, so there's no shortage of
information to discover my philosophical approach.
So it's time for you to declare publicly. Are you interested
in making judgments about a person by investigating and
integrating the facts about that person, or are you just
another emotional yahoo driven by fear of Rand and
the insight she offered us?
jk
Jim Klein
> Who are you, Tim?
Sorry, Tim. I forgot(!) the far more important question.
Who do you want to be?
jk
Tim
"Jim Klein" <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:0d8382f7-00aa-47a9...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 24, 2:25 pm, Tim <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
> I wrote, "Pay attention, please." I don't do "pretty-pretty
> please" or "simon says" or any of that other childish stuff.
I'm not convinced.
>
> I asked you politely to pay attention.
Hmmm, I politely asked you to provide a non ad hom. critique of Kant. You
did
not comply. Where does that leave you, mr pot?
<snip>
> At the time, since I moved on rapidly, I didn't really
> analyze Kant in depth, nor try to figure out the root
> of my distaste for his philosophy. MUCH later, when
> I became familiar with Rand (long out of school with
> no degree) and came across her discussions of Kant,
> I realized how well she pinned down exactly what my
> distaste was.
Hmmm, you said above that you studied at both undergrad and grad. levels yet
you claim here you have no degree. Please explain.
<snip>
>
>> All you have demonstrated is an ability to forget, then cling to rand
>> -- didn't she demand that you think for yourself?
>
> You are making a fool out of yourself and don't even
> know it. That makes you a double-fool, I think.
Hmmmm, I though it made you like a fool. Does that make you a fool cubed?
>
> I didn't just pop out from under a rock like you did,
> you know. I've been around for decades, since before
> there was even such a thing as Usenet.
Haaaaa, haa, ha. Good one jimmy! Now your point is? You forgot to add: nyah,
nyah, nee, nyah, nyah or my daddy's better than your daddy. LOL.
<snip>
> But there you go, thinking that if you just write words,
> then reality will follow.
For example? And think through the consequences of not being able to provide
one.
<snip>
> This is the contempt which you have earned here.
Please cite one, just one post of mine where I have shrieked about "larger
issues" and the "common good". And think through the consequences of not
being able to provide one.
<snip>
> Who are you, Tim?
>
I'm Tim.
<snip>
> So it's time for you to declare publicly. Are you interested
> in making judgments about a person by investigating and
> integrating the facts about that person, or are you just
> another emotional yahoo driven by fear of Rand and
> the insight she offered us?
>
I think rand was out to lunch, I've said why before, most people here just
whined in response. In short emotional yahoos seem drawn to rand. Hope that
helps.
>
> jk
Tim
"Jim Klein" <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:0d8382f7-00aa-47a9...@t42g2000vba.googlegroups.com...
> I wrote, "Pay attention, please." I don't do "pretty-pretty
> please" or "simon says" or any of that other childish stuff.
I'm not convinced.
>
> I asked you politely to pay attention.
Hmmm, I politely asked you to povide a non ad hom. critique of Kant. You did
not comply. Where does that leave you, mr pot?
<snip>
> At the time, since I moved on rapidly, I didn't really
> analyze Kant in depth, nor try to figure out the root
> of my distaste for his philosophy. MUCH later, when
> I became familiar with Rand (long out of school with
> no degree) and came across her discussions of Kant,
> I realized how well she pinned down exactly what my
> distaste was.
Hmmm, you said above that you studied at both undergrad and grad. levels yet
you claim here you have no degree. Please explain.
<snip>
>
>> All you have demonstrated is an ability to forget, then cling to rand
>> -- didn't she demand that you think for yourself?
>
> You are making a fool out of yourself and don't even
> know it. That makes you a double-fool, I think.
Hmmmm, I though it made you like a fool. Does that make you a fool cubed?
>
> I didn't just pop out from under a rock like you did,
> you know. I've been around for decades, since before
> there was even such a thing as Usenet.
Haaaaa, haa, ha. Good one jimmy! Now your point is? You forgot to add: nyah,
nyah, nee, nyah, nyah or my daddy's better than your daddy. LOL.
<snip>
> But there you go, thinking that if you just write words,
> then reality will follow.
For example? And think through the consequences of not being able to provide
one.
<snip>
> This is the contempt which you have earned here.
Please cite one, just one post of mine where I have shrieked about "larger
issues" and the "common good". And think through the consequences of not
being able to provide one.
<snip>
> Who are you, Tim?
>
I'm Tim.
<snip>
> So it's time for you to declare publicly. Are you interested
> in making judgments about a person by investigating and
> integrating the facts about that person, or are you just
> another emotional yahoo driven by fear of Rand and
> the insight she offered us?
>
I think rand was out to lunch, I've said why before, most people here just
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>> The fact important to the context of Universals is
>> that the human mind imbues the real world with ideals of its own
>> creation.
..
>The fact important, is that it does not.
..
>I notice that you wax poetic but don't answer
>my question. "FROM WHAT DOES IT CREATE THEM?"
From what is the mathematical "law of averages" created? and how do
you know it's a law?
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>
>So in what manner does creating (or having
>spontaneously generated) these ideals with
>which we imbue the world, help the matter of
>bringing comprehension about the world to us?
How does the law of averages help you in this matter?
Jim Klein
> From what is the mathematical "law of averages" created? and how do
> you know it's a law?
The relevant point isn't whether it's a law or not,
nor even from what or where it was created (for
now anyway). The relevant question--if there's
any relevancy to be found here at all--is what
a law of this sort is.
I can give a three word response--it's a description--
that does a better job of encapsulating what a law
of nature is, than the perhaps millions of pages
you've read about it.
Maybe you're afraid that this realization will render
all that time a waste. What you don't get is that
your stubborn refusal to Move Forward is what's
doing that.
jk
Jim Klein
> > On Dec 24, 2:25 pm, Tim <tbees...@aci.on.ca> wrote:
> > I wrote, "Pay attention, please." I don't do "pretty-pretty
> > please" or "simon says" or any of that other childish stuff.
>
> I'm not convinced.
You be sure and lemme know when you are, okay?
> > I asked you politely to pay attention.
>
> Hmmm, I politely asked you to povide a non ad hom. critique of Kant. You did
> not comply. Where does that leave you, mr pot?
It leaves me not complying with your request, just as
you didn't mine. I'm not here to provide independent
critiques of Kant; I'm more than busy enough providing
critiques of those who swallow his philosophy.
> Hmmm, you said above that you studied at both undergrad and grad. levels yet
> you claim here you have no degree. Please explain.
Stew on it a while. You might even find the answer in
the archives; I'm not sure.
You see, I've spent a lifetime building a reputation
for honesty. I decided to do that a long time ago,
and I decided to do it the easy way.
> > I didn't just pop out from under a rock like you did,
> > you know. I've been around for decades, since before
> > there was even such a thing as Usenet.
>
> Haaaaa, haa, ha. Good one jimmy! Now your point is? You forgot to add: nyah,
> nyah, nee, nyah, nyah or my daddy's better than your daddy. LOL.
Oh, did you think I was talking about someone else?
Are you?
Then you misunderstood. You can't write 11,000 posts
under the sort of scrutiny I write under, unless you're
impeccably honest.
Are you able to understand the point now?
> > But there you go, thinking that if you just write words,
> > then reality will follow.
>
> For example? And think through the consequences of not being able to provide
> one.
For example...what? You had me pegged as an
Objectivist, a randroid, a faithful follower and even
now as perhaps a liar.
You think ANY of that has ANYTHING to do with
reality, when there's a veritable overflow of
information on precisely these points available
to you. But you don't seek the information; you
just write and write and write.
Personally, I think I did a fair summary of that approach.
You think that if you write the words, then reality
will follow. Near as I can tell, you're proceeding on
that belief even now.
As to any serious offer you once made about the
folly of Rand's approach or something, then I'm
sorry if I missed it. That would indeed be saying
something and if you'd like to briefly summarize
some (or any) of your major objections to her,
then I'll be happy to take a look.
But that's only if you have something serious, direct
and clear. As you can see, all the positions here for
crazy, meaningless Kantian bullshit are already taken.
Feel free to throw the insults...I'm one who can take 'em
as well as dish 'em out. But somewhere along the way,
be sure to get to /something/ substantive. If you ever
get around to those archives which might answer some
of your questions, you'll see that I almost never fail to
drive home /some/ philosophical point, even amidst
the insults.
You sound like maybe you'd be a good one for a
flame war, but you can count me out if you're not
going to offer anything substantive whatsoever.
jk
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>On Dec 25, 1:01 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Math consists of descriptions in mathematical language. So what? Try
to move forward, not backward as in your response, and ask yourself
why you think the Law of Averages is a law (and it's not because I
capitalized the word "law"), not just a mathematical law but a law
describing and even predicting reality.
But you're right for a change, in that it's allegedly being a Law
really isn't that important for right now. How the heck did this "Law"
come into being in the first place? The question is relevant to the
problem as an analogy, but moreover, as relating directly to the
manner in which such "laws" are created in non-mathematical senses,
that is, laws which bring sense and order to perception.
Tim
>
> You be sure and lemme know when you are, okay?
>
Don't hold your breath.
>
>> > I asked you politely to pay attention.
>>
>> Hmmm, I politely asked you to povide a non ad hom. critique of Kant. You
>> did
>> not comply. Where does that leave you, mr pot?
>
> It leaves me not complying with your request, just as
> you didn't mine. I'm not here to provide independent
> critiques of Kant; I'm more than busy enough providing
> critiques of those who swallow his philosophy.
>
Right, so you critique what you admit to forgetting. How do you do that? Can
you swim if you've forgotten how to?
> You see, I've spent a lifetime building a reputation
> for honesty. I decided to do that a long time ago,
> and I decided to do it the easy way.
>
Right, like those honest critiques you provide based on information that
you've forgotten or at least based on what rand told you to think for
yourself. Yeah, sounds real honest.
> Oh, did you think I was talking about someone else?
> Are you?
>
Am I what jimmy? Do try to pay attention or have you forgotten that to?
> Then you misunderstood. You can't write 11,000 posts
> under the sort of scrutiny I write under, unless you're
> impeccably honest.
>
What type of scrutiny is that? The newsnet police?
> Are you able to understand the point now?
>
>
I have to be honest and admit that I think you don't have a point to make,
maybe ayn can make one for you?
<snip vague plea for something or other>
Ray
>
> "Jim Klein" <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:797c52bb-d595-4b2e...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>
> maybe ayn can make one for you?
>
You don't CAPITALIZE certain proper names.
It tells me a lot about you.
Peace on Earth (ONLY) to men of good will.
Ray
Tim
> You don't CAPITALIZE certain proper names.
> It tells me a lot about you.
>
You capitalize entire words. That tells me that you are still in grade
school. Does your mommy know that you are up so late.
> Peace on Earth (ONLY) to men of good will.
>
> Ray
See you're doing it again, it tells me a lot about you, ray.
Jim Klein
> See you're doing it again, it tells me a lot about you, ray.
Hey, why not? The only interesting thing left is to discover
whether you view yourself as a mentalist, or just mental!
Don't worry. I'll probably be around if you can ever
bring yourself to say something. How about something
Rand got really wrong? My guess is that even though
there are plenty of those, you won't be able to find one.
Make my day; show me wrong.
jk
Tim
You know the source:
"When a savage who has never learned to talk asks...when he
declares..."
Now where is your non ad hom critique of Kant?
Make my day.
Ken Gardner
"Malrassic Park" wrote:
>>The human mind does not invent or create ideas or concepts. It produces
>>them, either correctly (in accordance with the facts of reality) or
>>incorrectly by a process of perceptual observation and reason. The whole
>>point of epistemology is to explain how this process works, what parts are
>>automatic, and how to do the volitional parts correctly rather than
>>incorrectly. It isn't about how to rationalize what many people often do
>>to
>>avoid the required effort: just make up shit about the world without
>>having
>>to be responsible (epistemologically, morally, politically, or
>>esthetically)
>>for the consequences.
> I did not correspond "invent" with "rationalize." And it has nothing
> to do with consequentialism. I just don't see any difference between
> an inventor inventing a new product, and any person producing a
> concept.
Yeah, I know. That's a big part of the problem. :) [Insert "sorry, could
not pass that one up" here.]
>Whether or not a concept corresponds to reality, a concept is
> still an invention, whether arbitrary, subjective, or objective.
It isn't an invention. If you are looking for an analogy, it's more like
growing crops, where both man (the farmer in this analogy) plays an
essential role and nature plays an essential role (and sets the rules that
the farmer must follow -- if his goal is successfully to grow crops).
Concepts are the products of a certain cognitive method of classification --
a method that must be discovered, not invented or created (it's the same
method for all of us and there is only one right way to do it and many wrong
ways).
Tim
Meanwhile, back in galt's gutter the randroids clowded themseleves in
their high-tech shield (a tarp one of them found), the crickets
chirped and the coyote's howled, as did the randroids. They howled
incessantly - we don't know a thing about Kant, what we thought we
knew we've forgotten.
But surely jimmy, even you with your muddled memory can figure out
that a savage who never learned to talk surely couldn't ask any
questions! Meanwhile, back in the gutter, the randroids where
impervious to such questions; the magic tarp kept everything from the
outside out.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
..
>> I did not correspond "invent" with "rationalize." And it has nothing
>> to do with consequentialism. I just don't see any difference between
>> an inventor inventing a new product, and any person producing a
>> concept.
..
>Yeah, I know. That's a big part of the problem. :) [Insert "sorry, could
>not pass that one up" here.]
..
>>Whether or not a concept corresponds to reality, a concept is
>> still an invention, whether arbitrary, subjective, or objective.
..
>It isn't an invention. If you are looking for an analogy, it's more like
>growing crops, where both man (the farmer in this analogy) plays an
>essential role and nature plays an essential role (and sets the rules that
>the farmer must follow -- if his goal is successfully to grow crops).
>Concepts are the products of a certain cognitive method of classification --
>a method that must be discovered, not invented or created (it's the same
>method for all of us and there is only one right way to do it and many wrong
>ways).
You're saying that nature (the "metaphysically given" in Rand's
philosophy) plays an essential role. The inventor in my own analogy is
not working against nature and he is not denying nature's role in his
invention.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>I've read Kant extensively, though admittedly I've luckily
>forgotten most of it. My opinions on Kant were formed
>before I was ever familiar with Rand, and were roughly
>similar to her conclusions, though not as specific.
Rand has uttered nothing specific from Kant's philosophy, only general
criticisms unsupported by his text.
For example, her statement "Immanuel Kant is the most evil man in
mankind's history," while certainly specific, finds no support in the
Kantian text.
Where she wrote "Kant corrupted the concept "reason" to mean a mystic
faculty pertaining to another dimension," it is certainly specific,
but finds no support in the Kantian text.
When she wrote that "a free, prosperous, brilliantly successful
country, [is] a living refutation of Kant," she was certainly
specific, but lacks support in the Kantian text - which specifically
supports political freedom in the truest classical Liberal tradition.
When she wrote: "Kant had to rely on a noumenal world in order to
destroy the world that exists," that is certainly specific, but bears
with it no textual support, no citations, nothing to clue the reader
in as to where Kant stated any such thing.
When she wrote: "Kant originated the technique required to sell
irrational notions to the men of a skeptical, cynical age who have
formally rejected mysticism without grasping the rudiments of
rationality," that certainly sounds specific - however, it is not,
since Rand offered not one single shred or iota of evidence to back
up her slanderous statements leveled against Kant.
Ken Gardner
"Malrassic Park" wrote:
> You're saying that nature (the "metaphysically given" in Rand's
> philosophy) plays an essential role. The inventor in my own analogy is
> not working against nature and he is not denying nature's role in his
> invention.
I don't like the "invention" analogy. The word is ambiguous and could be
referring to the invention of a fantasy as easily as to the invention of a
light bulb. The fact is that concepts are produced naturally by human
consciousness -- not always correctly and never automatically, but we all do
it, Objectivist and non-Objectivist alike.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
..
>"Malrassic Park" wrote:
..
>> You're saying that nature (the "metaphysically given" in Rand's
>> philosophy) plays an essential role. The inventor in my own analogy is
>> not working against nature and he is not denying nature's role in his
>> invention.
..
>I don't like the "invention" analogy. The word is ambiguous and could be
>referring to the invention of a fantasy as easily as to the invention of a
>light bulb. The fact is that concepts are produced naturally by human
>consciousness -- not always correctly and never automatically, but we all do
>it, Objectivist and non-Objectivist alike.
There is no ambiguity if you stop and realize that reasoning lends
itself toward both possibilities, either fantasy or light bulb -
particularly if you realize that the light bulb started out as a
fantasy in someone's imagination.
I am not saying there is no distinction between an arbitrary fantasy
and a fiction that could be a possible reality. I am only pointing to
the fact that reasoning makes both possible.
It is, on the other hand, Objectivism that detracts from imagination's
role in inventive genius by always denigrating it as arbitrary. As if
to say, nature gave man a faculty of imagination that only possesses
some arbitrary non-life function.
Jim Klein
> It is, on the other hand, Objectivism that detracts from imagination's
> role in inventive genius by always denigrating it as arbitrary.
Aw, cut it out already. You're so full of shit that it
strains credulity. I've always taken you as sincere,
but sometimes I wonder.
Did she "denigrate" Ellis Wyatt in _Atlas Shrugged_? Hank
Rearden? How about the inventive genius behind the
Galt Line...was that denigrated too IYO?
Generally, did she denigrate businessmen? Did she
acknowledge the role that inventive genius plays in
a businessman's life?
Either get serious or take a hike already. If the
Objectivists can find hiding places for their
philosophy, surely you can too.
> As if
> to say, nature gave man a faculty of imagination that only possesses
> some arbitrary non-life function.
Or get double the pleasure, and do both!
jk
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>On Dec 29, 5:34 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
..
>> It is, on the other hand, Objectivism that detracts from imagination's
>> role in inventive genius by always denigrating it as arbitrary.
..
>Aw, cut it out already. You're so full of shit that it
>strains credulity. I've always taken you as sincere,
>but sometimes I wonder.
Take it out on Ken Gardner, he's the one who has a problem with the
word "invention."
Ken Gardner
"Malrassic Park" wrote:
[....]
> It is, on the other hand, Objectivism that detracts from imagination's
> role in inventive genius by always denigrating it as arbitrary. As if
> to say, nature gave man a faculty of imagination that only possesses
> some arbitrary non-life function.
This is simply wrong. Objectivism does not denigrate imagination as
arbitrary. It simply does not regard imagination as a valid tool of
cognition. It might be the beginning of a process that eventually leads to
cognition (see, e.g., the light bulb example), but that's different.
Again, I prefer the term Rand herself used: produced. Consciousness
produces concepts by a specific process that is either reality based
(objective) or not reality based (intrinsic or subjective). Not revealed or
invented, but produced. The process itself is a discovery that every human
being learns beginning at infancy as he or she learns to speak.
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>
>"Malrassic Park" wrote:
..
>> It is, on the other hand, Objectivism that detracts from imagination's
>> role in inventive genius by always denigrating it as arbitrary. As if
>> to say, nature gave man a faculty of imagination that only possesses
>> some arbitrary non-life function.
>
>This is simply wrong. Objectivism does not denigrate imagination as
>arbitrary.
But you, and others like you on this forum... keep... doing.... IT.
Therefore, you open yourself up to charges which you naturally don't
hold to be valid.
The next time you accuse me of being arbitrary simply because it was
ME who used a concept you consider valid, I will be certain to direct
you back to this post of yours.
Or maybe the next time you refer to one of those concepts I will
accuse you of being arbitrary, then ask you why the accusation applies
only to ME, but never, for God's sake NEVER, applies to you.
> It simply does not regard imagination as a valid tool of
>cognition. It might be the beginning of a process that eventually leads to
>cognition (see, e.g., the light bulb example), but that's different.
>
>Again, I prefer the term Rand herself used: produced. Consciousness
>produces concepts by a specific process that is either reality based
>(objective) or not reality based (intrinsic or subjective). Not revealed or
>invented, but produced. The process itself is a discovery that every human
>being learns beginning at infancy as he or she learns to speak.
You mean that's what makes you happy? Whenever someone parrots a word
Rand used in ITOE, THAT makes you happy?
Ken Gardner
"Malrassic Park" wrote:
>>This is simply wrong. Objectivism does not denigrate imagination as
>>arbitrary.
> But you, and others like you on this forum... keep... doing.... IT.
Not me, kemo sabe. If others are doing it, they're wrong and I'm not
responsible for their mistakes.
[....]
Jim Klein
> >This is simply wrong. Objectivism does not denigrate imagination as
> >arbitrary.
>
> But you, and others like you on this forum... keep... doing.... IT.
Uh, no. What's denigrated is the presentation of
imagination as if it were something else.
Does "blueness" ring any bells with you?
jk
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>On Dec 31 2009, 4:07 pm, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
..
>> >This is simply wrong. Objectivism does not denigrate imagination as
>> >arbitrary.
..
>> But you, and others like you on this forum... keep... doing.... IT.
..
>Uh, no. What's denigrated is the presentation of
>imagination as if it were something else.
I don't know what you're talking about, so You will have to quote back
to me my references to imagination that bother you in this way.
Jim Klein
> I don't know what you're talking about, so You will have to quote back
> to me my references to imagination that bother you in this way.
Here's another Randism for you. "Mister, there's nothin'
I /have to/ do, except die."
Besides, I covered this already...
"Does 'blueness' ring any bells with you?"
And the only thing that bothers me about any of
this, is the extraordinary waste of bandwidth. But
since there's nothing more interesting currently,
that's hardly a bother at all. So you keep pluggin'
away; it'll be really easy to tell when I'm bothered.
You see, I don't engage in things that bother me,
except at the point of a gun.
jk
Malrassic Park
wrote:
>On Jan 2, 12:01 am, Malrassic Park <malen...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't know what you're talking about, so You will have to quote back
>> to me my references to imagination that bother you in this way.
>
>Here's another Randism for you. "Mister, there's nothin'
>I /have to/ do, except die."
Wow, how philosophical.