Mutual-interest
M Purcell
interest in the middle and I suspect egotism was an overcompensation
by Ayn Rand to her formative years under communism while the benefits
of capitalism under our democracy probably overawed her. She promoted
fairness and I don't think she disagreed with parilamentary procedure
but rather the extreme altruism promoted by religious beliefs (and
perhaps people's stupidity but that's a given). However there are
unscrupulous and dishonest people who make regulation and enforcement
necessary. Most people practice a combination of self-interest and
community interest by participating in various social groups and
generally the larger the social group the better benefits it provides
the members. I also suspect Ayn Rand was somewhat antisocial in her
dismissal of the majority of people and society (an asshole is still
an asshole no matter what you call it) but perhaps that was part of
the fiction.
Charles Bell
I see the dichotomy of vanilla and chocolate as extremes with mutual
interest in the middle, and I suspect vanilla was an overcompensation
by my aunt Fanny in her formative years under Ben and Jerry's while
the benefits of Baskin Robbins under Dunkin Donuts probably overawed
her. She promoted fairness, and I don't think she disagreed with cow-
milking procedures, but rather the extreme chocolate promoted by
religious beliefs (and perhaps people's stupidity but that's a given).
However, there are unscrupulous and dishonest people who make ding-
dongs and twinkies necessary. Most people practice a combination of
chocolate ice-cream and root beer by participating in various social
groups and generally the larger the social group, the better Howard
Johnson's black cow it provides the members. I also suspect my aunt
Fanny was somewhat antisocial in her dismissal of rocky road, but
perhaps that was part of the root beer float fetish.
M Purcell
.
.
.
I've heard it said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,
it's unfortunate you are incapable of grasping the meaning.
Charles Bell
> blah, blah, blah . . .Supercilious babbling on Ayn Rand . . . blah,blah, blah
>
> I've heard it said that imitation is the sincerest form of flattery,
> it's unfortunate you are incapable of grasping the meaning.
I grasped the (complete lack of) meaning very well, if I say so
myself, though apparently I was very hungry.
M Purcell
It's your imagination.
Jim Klein
> I see the dichotomy of egotism and altruism as extremes with mutual
> interest in the middle and I suspect egotism was an overcompensation
> by Ayn Rand to her formative years under communism while the benefits
> of capitalism under our democracy probably overawed her.
I've been known to be a "smug arrogant prick" because
I enjoy giving advice and suggestions. I actually like
helping people out (or trying to), even as it's not their
benefit that technically motivates me.
So here's my advice for you. Learn what the hell
you're writing about, because this shit stays on
the record forever. Besides the fact that you
obviously understand nothing about Objectivism,
Rand went well out of her way to distinguish what
she called egoism, from egotism.
And what she called egoism, was about halfway there!
> She promoted
> fairness
I'd ask what you think fairness is, but you seem
to be flailing over what selfishness is. One thing
at a time, eh?
> and I don't think she disagreed with parilamentary procedure
> but rather the extreme altruism promoted by religious beliefs (and
> perhaps people's stupidity but that's a given).
Did you really read _Atlas Shrugged_? What, in an hour?
> However there are
> unscrupulous and dishonest people who make regulation and enforcement
> necessary.
You sure about that? I'm from Detroit, which has at
least its share of unscrupulous and dishonest people,
and far more than its share of plain outright thugs.
Neither of those make "regulation and enforcement
necessary" and in fact those responses can be
fairly easily shown to be the cause of the destruction
of a once-great city.
Like I say, maybe first learn what the hell you're
writing about, and then write about it.
> Most people practice a combination of self-interest and
> community interest
What in the world gave you the idea that "community
interest" is exclusive of "self-interest" or vice-versa?
> by participating in various social groups and
> generally the larger the social group the better benefits it provides
> the members.
I'm not saying that's wrong, but what led you to
that conclusion? For that matter, what do you
mean by it?
Maybe when you share your definition of "selfish
benefit," I'll be able to figure it out on my own.
Oops...change "when" to "if."
> I also suspect Ayn Rand was somewhat antisocial in her
> dismissal of the majority of people and society (an asshole is still
> an asshole no matter what you call it) but perhaps that was part of
> the fiction.
Well, she wasn't so anti-social to Nate while being
married to Frank. But once again, what leads you
to suspect this?
Maybe try alt.philosophy.streamofconsciousness, since
that seems to be your interest.
jk
M Purcell
> On Nov 24, 1:24 pm, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > I see the dichotomy of egotism and altruism as extremes with mutual
> > interest in the middle and I suspect egotism was an overcompensation
> > by Ayn Rand to her formative years under communism while the benefits
> > of capitalism under our democracy probably overawed her.
>
> I've been known to be a "smug arrogant prick" because
> helping people out (or trying to), even as it's not their
> benefit that technically motivates me.
Against their wishes? Maybe you do it for their own good?
> So here's my advice for you. 嚙盤earn what the hell
> you're writing about, because this shit stays on
> the record forever. 嚙畿esides the fact that you
> obviously understand nothing about Objectivism,
> Rand went well out of her way to distinguish what
> she called egoism, from egotism.
I suggest you keep your advice to yourself. I'm aware she coined the
term egoism to mean rational self-interest.
> And what she called egoism, was about halfway there!
That's nonsensical.
> > She promoted
> > fairness
>
> I'd ask what you think 嚙篆airness is, but you seem
> to be flailing over what selfishness is. 嚙瞌ne thing
> at a time, eh?
That's your imagination again.
> > and I don't think she disagreed with parilamentary procedure
> > but rather the extreme altruism promoted by religious beliefs (and
> > perhaps people's stupidity but that's a given).
>
> Did you really read _Atlas Shrugged_? 嚙磕hat, in an hour?
Took a little more than a week but I skimmed back over it several
times since.
> > However there are
> > unscrupulous and dishonest people who make regulation and enforcement
> > necessary.
>
> You sure about that? 嚙瘢'm from Detroit, which has at
> least its share of unscrupulous and dishonest people,
> and far more than its share of plain outright thugs.
That's something you enjoy?
> Neither of those make "regulation and enforcement
> necessary" and in fact those responses can be
> fairly easily shown to be the cause of the destruction
> of a once-great city.
Police, tax collection, that kind of thing?
> Like I say, maybe first learn what the hell you're
> writing about, and then write about it.
Do you repeat yourself often?
> > Most people practice a combination of self-interest and
> > community interest
>
> What in the world gave you the idea that "community
> interest" is exclusive of "self-interest" or vice-versa?
Why the vice-versa if they are mutually exclusive? "Egoism" and
altruism are generally chacterized by the good of the one (self-
interest) versus the good of the many community interest) but my point
was they are the extremes of mutual interest.
> > by participating in various social groups and
> > generally the larger the social group the better benefits it provides
> > the members.
>
> I'm not saying that's wrong, but what led you to
> that conclusion?
Observation.
>嚙瘤or that matter, what do you
> mean by it?
Look it up in a dictionary.
> Maybe when you share your definition of "selfish
> benefit," I'll be able to figure it out on my own.
I already did and you haven't yet.
> Oops...change "when" to "if."
Don't bother.
> > I also suspect Ayn Rand was somewhat antisocial in her
> > dismissal of the majority of people and society (an asshole is still
> > an asshole no matter what you call it) but perhaps that was part of
> > the fiction.
>
> Well, she wasn't so anti-social to Nate while being
> married to Frank. 嚙畿ut once again, what leads you
> to suspect this?
The dismissal of most people in Atlas Shrugged.
> Maybe try alt.philosophy.streamofconsciousness, since
> that seems to be your interest.
Try it yourself.
Jim Klein
> > I've been known to be a "smug arrogant prick" because
> > I enjoy giving advice and suggestions. I actually like
> > helping people out (or trying to), even as it's not their
> > benefit that technically motivates me.
>
> Against their wishes?
Now that you mention it, I never noticed!
> Maybe you do it for their own good?
Pay attention, wouldya?
> > So here's my advice for you. Learn what the hell
> > you're writing about, because this shit stays on
> > the record forever. Besides the fact that you
> > obviously understand nothing about Objectivism,
> > Rand went well out of her way to distinguish what
> > she called egoism, from egotism.
>
> I suggest you keep your advice to yourself.
You're in no position to be giving advice, especially
around here. And giving any to me, is pointless anyway.
I seek advice and I take advice, but only sensible
advice and that usually comes from sensible people.
You've got a ways to go yet, but hope springs eternal.
> I'm aware she coined the
> term egoism to mean rational self-interest.
Are you saying you intentionally used the wrong word?
> > And what she called egoism, was about halfway there!
>
> That's nonsensical.
Seriously? You really can't understand the words?
> > > She promoted
> > > fairness
>
> > I'd ask what you think fairness is, but you seem
> > to be flailing over what selfishness is. One thing
> > at a time, eh?
>
> That's your imagination again.
Strictly speaking, "flailing over" is too generous. The more
precise wording would be "ignoring" or "evading."
> > > and I don't think she disagreed with parilamentary procedure
> > > but rather the extreme altruism promoted by religious beliefs (and
> > > perhaps people's stupidity but that's a given).
>
> > Did you really read _Atlas Shrugged_? What, in an hour?
>
> Took a little more than a week but I skimmed back over it several
> times since.
How well you pay attention will be more evident when
you share whether you intentionally used the wrong
word, or if it was a simple typo. Though usually typos
don't happen twice in a row with the same word.
> > > However there are
> > > unscrupulous and dishonest people who make regulation and enforcement
> > > necessary.
>
> > You sure about that? I'm from Detroit, which has at
> > least its share of unscrupulous and dishonest people,
> > and far more than its share of plain outright thugs.
>
> That's something you enjoy?
Is what something I enjoy?
> > Neither of those make "regulation and enforcement
> > necessary" and in fact those responses can be
> > fairly easily shown to be the cause of the destruction
> > of a once-great city.
>
> Police, tax collection, that kind of thing?
Sure, and more. Down in the 3rd, the cops were
caught ramming broomstick handles up the asses
of prisoners. That turn you on?
A couple of cops were convicted of murder. The
Chief was found with a few hundred thousand
dollars in his attic. For a couple of decades, it
was common knowledge that if you wanted a
unit to show up, you had to say there was a shooting;
otherwise no response. At one point it got so bad
that you had to say a cop was involved in the
shooting, else you had virtually no chance of response.
As far as taxes...well, you'd have to see it to believe
it. Cheese spoiling in warehouses...for the poor,
dontchyaknow. Trucks rusting away unused in
parking lots---that was the Weatherization Program,
a particular approach that Obama seems to like
these days. No waste too great, as long as it's
in service of the volk.
Nothing unusual, I guess. This goes on in thousands
of towns across the country. But if there's such a
thing as degree on this stuff, Detroit takes the cake.
That's why it became such a wasteland. The funny
part is that everyone seems to want to follow those
policies, as if a wasteland were what they sought.
Is that what you're looking for?
> > Like I say, maybe first learn what the hell you're
> > writing about, and then write about it.
>
> Do you repeat yourself often?
Yes. Often I repeat until the point gets through,
but for some people it just never gets through.
> > > Most people practice a combination of self-interest and
> > > community interest
>
> > What in the world gave you the idea that "community
> > interest" is exclusive of "self-interest" or vice-versa?
>
> Why the vice-versa if they are mutually exclusive?
Maybe you should give up skimming for a while and
try reading a bit more closely.
> "Egoism" and
> altruism are generally chacterized by the good of the one (self-
> interest) versus the good of the many community interest) but my point
> was they are the extremes of mutual interest.
I know I can't figure out what this means. The only
interesting question, is whether you can!
> > > by participating in various social groups and
> > > generally the larger the social group the better benefits it provides
> > > the members.
>
> > I'm not saying that's wrong, but what led you to
> > that conclusion?
>
> Observation.
Well, I'm all for that method. OTOH, given the
reading comprehension you've demonstrated
so far, I'm not sure your observation will get us
much closer to the truth.
> > For that matter, what do you
> > mean by it?
>
> Look it up in a dictionary.
There's a dictionary that cites what YOU mean
by something? That's very impressive.
> > Maybe when you share your definition of "selfish
> > benefit," I'll be able to figure it out on my own.
>
> I already did and you haven't yet.
I tolerate fools alright, but not liars and/or
deceivers. You did not. So far, you've offered
exactly one definition and as I pointed out at
the time, it can't be the one you mean since
many selfish acts can benefit people besides
the actor. Your definition pretended that it can
help /only/ the actor.
Ignore my advice at your own peril. I already
told you this shit stays on the record forever.
So either offer up your actual definition, else
move along on this topic. My current guess is
that your idiotic-appearing comment in the first
place, was actually idiotic and that you're
starting to realize it.
But go ahead; make my day. Show me wrong.
> > Oops...change "when" to "if."
>
> Don't bother.
>
> > > I also suspect Ayn Rand was somewhat antisocial in her
> > > dismissal of the majority of people and society (an asshole is still
> > > an asshole no matter what you call it) but perhaps that was part of
> > > the fiction.
>
> > Well, she wasn't so anti-social to Nate while being
> > married to Frank. But once again, what leads you
> > to suspect this?
>
> The dismissal of most people in Atlas Shrugged.
_Atlas Shrugged_ is not a good one to "skim." You
say you read it (once anyway), but you simply
could not have been paying very close attention
if you believe this.
Here...I'll give you a trivia question that most
Objectivists can't even answer. What was the
grandest compliment that philosopher Hugh
Akston believed he could bestow on his
three exceptional students?
> > Maybe try alt.philosophy.streamofconsciousness, since
> > that seems to be your interest.
>
> Try it yourself.
Good one. I'm a big fan of honesty, and I agree with
you that a childish mind should respond like a child.
Y'know, you're not the first rookie to cross these
parts. Unless you're a dyed-in-the-wool Kantian,
which I strongly doubt, you're either about to grow
up or take a hike. Either way, we win!
All you've got to figure out now, is whether or
not /you/ want to win.
jk
M Purcell
.
.
.
You're right, this is a waste of time.
Arnold Broese
news:88ffdd07-adbf-4749...@f20g2000prn.googlegroups.com...
> Most people practice a combination of self-interest and
> community interest by participating in various social groups and
> generally the larger the social group the better benefits it provides
> the members.
The implication is that self interest cannot benefit anyone else and thus is
not of benefit to the community. This is the church view. Besides, where is
it written that there is an unchosen obligation of servitude to others? That
some piece of one's life is for others to dispose of? You should read Rand's
work in this regard. If you have already, find a tutor to assist your
understanding next time, because you clearly miss the point of her ethics.
--
Arnold
M Purcell
wrote:
> The implication is that self interest cannot benefit anyone else and thus is
> not of benefit to the community. This is the church view. Besides, where is
> it written that there is an unchosen obligation of servitude to others? That
> some piece of one's life is for others to dispose of? You should read Rand's
> work in this regard. If you have already, find a tutor to assist your
> understanding next time, because you clearly miss the point of her ethics.
Apparently you missed the "self" part as well as the "rational" part.
It's predictable that Objectivists will always resort to ad
hominem's.
.
.
.
.
Jim Klein
> Apparently you missed the "self" part as well as the "rational" part.
> It's predictable that Objectivists will always resort to ad
> hominem's.
FYI, an ad hominem is an attack against the man in
the service of showing his argument wrong. Arnold
did none of that. For that matter, he didn't even
insult you; he made the simple observation that you
have missed the whole point of Rand's ethics.
This was obvious from the start, with your usage of
"egotism" in your opening post. Along the way, you
merely confirmed your lack of awareness of the topic.
Don't misunderstand. I'm sure everyone here loves
kids. It's just that we view philosophy as a subject
for relatively mature adults who understand the
words they write. Since you can't even define the
focal word in your focal point, that leaves you out
of that class. No big deal and I'm sure most here
wish you the best wherever you choose to go and play.
jk
M Purcell
Thanks for confirming my point.
acar
> wrote:
>
> > If you have already, find a tutor to assist your
> > understanding next time, because you clearly miss the point of her ethics.
>
reasoning of the Ayn Rand second-handers. (The advocates of right
thinking and original thought!)
Tell'em. If they don't understand, tell'em again. If they still don't
get the point, tell'em one more time. If they keep coming back they
are incurable - don't tell'em anymore.
(I take rest breaks and then try again. Among those that don't reply
there must be some who get it.)
M Purcell
> "If you don't agree, you don't understand." That's the BRILLIANT
> reasoning of the Ayn Rand second-handers. (The advocates of right
> thinking and original thought!)
>
> Tell'em. If they don't understand, tell'em again. If they still don't
> get the point, tell'em one more time. If they keep coming back they
> are incurable - don't tell'em anymore.
>
> (I take rest breaks and then try again. Among those that don't reply
> there must be some who get it.)
I dislike repeating myself particularly when my comments are on record
and I get burned out on it quicker than before but I keep coming back
hoping I'll find a little rationality. Thank-you
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ray
This site may be of some use to both of you.
That's ok, you'll thank me later.
Hopefully.
Ray of Light
M Purcell
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > On Nov 25, 10:59 am, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> >> "If you don't agree, you don't understand." That's the BRILLIANT
> >> reasoning of the Ayn Rand second-handers. (The advocates of right
> >> thinking and original thought!)
>
> >> Tell'em. If they don't understand, tell'em again. If they still don't
> >> get the point, tell'em one more time. If they keep coming back they
> >> are incurable - don't tell'em anymore.
>
> >> (I take rest breaks and then try again. Among those that don't reply
> >> there must be some who get it.)
>
> > I dislike repeating myself particularly when my comments are on record
> > and I get burned out on it quicker than before but I keep coming back
> > hoping I'll find a little rationality. Thank-you
>
> This site may be of some use to both of you.
>
> http://objectivism101.com/
>
> That's ok, you'll thank me later.
>
> Hopefully.
>
> Ray of Light
I'm quite aware of the tenets of Objectivist philosophy, unfortunatly
it seems the self proclaimed Objectivists are not. Without
rationality, "egoists" are just egotists and I can do without their
interpretations and self deceiving rationalizations.
acar
>
> This site may be of some use to both of you.
>
.
.
.
M Purcell
.
.
I know you meant well Ray, but such sites are ironic for a philosophy
that promotes individual thinking.
Arnold Broese
Yes Ray, individuals make up their own facts, don't you know anything?
--
Arnold
Ray
> On Nov 25, 11:52 am, Ray <rayd...@embarqmail.com> wrote:
>> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > On Nov 25, 10:59 am, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>>
>> This site may be of some use to both of you.
>>
>> http://objectivism101.com/
>>
> I'm quite aware of the tenets of Objectivist philosophy, unfortunatly
> it seems the self proclaimed Objectivists are not. Without
> rationality, "egoists" are just egotists and I can do without their
> interpretations and self deceiving rationalizations.
I give up.
If Arnold and Jim couldn't get through to you, what hope have I.
Ray
of
Light
M Purcell
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > I'm quite aware of the tenets of Objectivist philosophy, unfortunatly
> > it seems the self proclaimed Objectivists are not. Without
> > rationality, "egoists" are just egotists and I can do without their
> > interpretations and self deceiving rationalizations.
>
> I give up.
> If Arnold and Jim couldn't get through to you, what hope have I.
If you had no hope, why did you try? That's called self-deception.
Jim Klein
> I'm quite aware of the tenets of Objectivist philosophy,
"We are as we do, not as we say we do."
> unfortunatly
> it seems the self proclaimed Objectivists are not.
You're probably a nice kid, so I'm trying to think of
some start other than, "Asshole."
Here's Rationality 101. START WITH THE FACTS.
I've written over 11,000 posts here. Now you find
one wherein I proclaim myself an Objectivist.
You'll find scores where I specifically proclaim that
I'm not and you may find hundreds, at least by
others, that I'm some Great Enemy of Objectivism.
But you've got me pegged as a "self-proclaimed
Objectivist." That right there should tell you that
you need to start over. Try Ray's advice; try
actually reading Rand; try reading people who
understand this stuff.
Then understand why you need to correct your
dishonest error, and you can be damn sure it
ain't for me.
> Without
> rationality, "egoists" are just egotists and I can do without their
> interpretations and self deceiving rationalizations.
Oh, listen to this. This from a guy who can't translate
his own claims and describes me as a "self-proclaimed
Objectivist."
"Interpretations and self deceiving rationalizations," eh?
Oh, did I mention the flip side of my sharing the sage
advice that I do? Those who don't heed it inevitably
regret that choice. You should've listened...
Jim Klein
> "If you don't agree, you don't understand." That's the BRILLIANT
> reasoning of the Ayn Rand second-handers. (The advocates of right
> thinking and original thought!)
That's right...confuse the poor guy, like he's going
to know what Post Mortemism or ARIanism are.
Some pal you are.
jk
acar
misunderstanding her. Not all those that think by themselves think
well. (Rand comes to mind, but she was clever debater.)
.
.
.
Jim Klein
> Arnold is a Rand second-hander.
Feh; you have no basis for that. Even using
all the same words wouldn't prove much, since
what matters is how the conclusions are
derived. Hell, just posting around here
fairly well disproves the charge. The
second-handers head for the cloisters.
I've met a (very) few parasite pilots, but I've
never met a pilot who was a second-hander.
Or I'll put it this way. I've never met one who
stayed a pilot. I can't even imagine one, really.
The two are mutually exclusive, I think.
jk
Arnold Broese
news:e4a31972-343a-4733...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>>
> Arnold is a Rand second-hander.
Shame on you using such buzzwords, especially not understanding what they
mean. Anyone could think you were a sec.. ,er, lacking in originality.
Perhaps you have not noticed the unique way I present my ideas. Pay
attention Acar.
--
Arnold
M Purcell
is the immorality of altruistic actions against their wishes, you can
take your "advice" and shove it back up your ass.
acar
wrote:
> "acar" <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:e4a31972-343a-4733...@k4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
>
>Anyone could think you were a sec.. ,er, lacking in originality.
Rubbing Ojectivist's noses on their own terminology is one of my
favorite techniques.
.
.
.
acar
> On Nov 26, 1:17 am, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> but I've
> never met a pilot who was a second-hander.
You've never met Arnold.
Objectivists frequenty recommend that one study Rand's arguments. For
Christ's sake, Rand's native language was Russian. Can't anyone whose
native language is English speak for himself?
Jim Klein
> > but I've
> > never met a pilot who was a second-hander.
>
> You've never met Arnold.
Nor maybe a million other pilots.
> Objectivists frequenty recommend that one study Rand's arguments.
I wish. Post-Mortem, it's just as likely they'll
recommend studying Peikoff's arguments, not
to mention the tenets of the Church.
Myself, I don't do that much even as I'll often
mention that she covered this or that. In the
case at hand, our error-prone lad was himself
writing about what Rand's arguments were.
Rationality 102 teaches that therefore one ought
to be careful that they're actually her arguments.
What exactly is your objection to, "START WITH
THE FACTS?" Is it that there aren't any, that it's
impossible for us to know them, that they are
mutable and therefore intrinsically unknowable...
...what, exactly? Think of all the good you could
do by directly answering. Not only could you get
it off your chest, you could help give instantiation
to the phrase "dyed-in-the-wool Kantian."
jk
Jim Klein
> Ah, so you are a simple egotist.
Funnily enough, that might be true as you mean it.
OTOH, it's in serious question whether or not
you even know what you mean!
> One of Rand's concepts I agree with
> is the immorality of altruistic actions against their wishes,
Why?
> you can
> take your "advice" and shove it back up your ass.
You can rest assured that there's no part of my
body or soul into which I haven't stuffed my
principles.
Why are you here, grasshopper?
jk
M Purcell
> On Nov 26, 8:41 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > Ah, so you are a simple egotist.
>
> Funnily enough, that might be true as you mean it.
>
> OTOH, it's in serious question whether or not
> you even know what you mean!
Then you wouldn't know what you meant by the first sentence. Let me
try to simplify it even more for you; you are an asshole.
> > One of Rand's concepts I agree with
> > is the immorality of altruistic actions against their wishes,
>
> Why?
Because that imposes your will on someone else.
> > you can
> > take your "advice" and shove it back up your ass.
>
> You can rest assured that there's no part of my
> body or soul into which I haven't stuffed my
> principles.
And that's where they belong.
> Why are you here, grasshopper?
Looking for someone else.
acar
\>
> What exactly is your objection to, "START WITH
To start with the facts, first you have to recognize the facts. I've
been trying to explain them to you, but you keep raising objections to
the facts.
> Is it that there aren't any, that it's
> impossible for us to know them, that they are
> mutable and therefore intrinsically unknowable...
>
> ...what, exactly? �Think of all the good you could
> do by directly answering. �
I answer but you don't like the answer.
> Not only could you get
> it off your chest, you could help give instantiation
> to the phrase "dyed-in-the-wool Kantian."
>
I wish. Kant was a great philosopher, and a real philosopher I may
add. I'm not dyed in the wool because I am not an expert. Your
rejection of Kant comes second hand via Rand's hysterical arguments.
Kant discovered the fact that humans can never know the ultimate
nature of reality and you keep insisting the he can. Since you can not
explain it your conviction is based on stubborn, naive faith based on
extrapolation of observed utility. Rand's argument is "... because I
can touch it". Kant says "I can touch it , but..." Then he explains.
Kant's argument is more in line with human experience. Wake up.
Arnold Broese
>> Kant discovered the fact that humans can never know the ultimate
> nature of reality and you keep insisting the he can.
Kant would have to know everything about reality in order to conclude one
couldn't know everything about it. Do you see the problem?
--
Arnold
M Purcell
wrote:
> "acar" <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in message
Only if we stopped learning new knowledge.
acar
wrote:
> "acar" <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in message
How can I see what exists only as a figment of someone's imagination?
I assume that you see a problem there, which makes you a genius
greater than a large number of other
philosophy scholars.
Your reasoning is poor. It is circular and self-justifying. You are
saying that in order for me to say that I don't know what is on your
mind I have to know what is on your mind. You are making Kant's point.
The fact is that all that I know about what is on your mind is what
you write here, when I read it. Unuttered things in your mind are
unknowable to me. (That is just an analogy. Don't milk it.)
Plus the fact that the ultimate nature of reality is not all that
there is to know about reality. One thing that Kant and I have in
common is that we both know a lot about reality. Without that knowlege
we would be unable to extract utility out of it. But be careful -
there seems to be more to it than what we can see and manipulate. Kant
believed there is and it makes logical sense to me. It woud take a
sound argument to convince me otherwise.
Jim Klein
> > What exactly is your objection to, "START WITH
> > THE FACTS?"
>
> To start with the facts, first you have to recognize the facts.
Uh, no. "Recognize the facts" can have no meaning
unless there are facts to recognize.
"Start with the facts" means starting with that
acknowledgement. Then it can make some
sense to try to find out what they are...to
recognize them.
Sure, when I told the kid to "Start with the facts,"
I meant consider what the facts are. But he's
not in a frame of mind to even acknowledge
that there are facts involved. That's why he's
thanking you and calling me an asshole.
He's thanking the guy who's telling him that he
SHOULDN'T start with the facts and should
better be thinking about the recognition of
those facts...and eventually the conclusion
that such recognition is impossible!
Meanwhile, he's derived a judgment of "asshole"
based on a shitload of false impressions and
misunderstandings...all his reponsibility, of
course. If you want some consolation, I can
see how your approach is much simpler!
> I've
> been trying to explain them to you, but you keep raising objections to
> the facts.
No. As you just pointed out---to you "the facts" are
dependent on the recognition of facts. "First" was
the word you used.
> > ...what, exactly? Think of all the good you could
> > do by directly answering.
>
> I answer but you don't like the answer.
>
> > Not only could you get
> > it off your chest, you could help give instantiation
> > to the phrase "dyed-in-the-wool Kantian."
>
> I wish. Kant was a great philosopher, and a real philosopher I may
> add. I'm not dyed in the wool because I am not an expert. Your
> rejection of Kant comes second hand via Rand's hysterical arguments.
I've covered this and it is false. I was well-read in
Kant (lucky for me, nearly all forgotten!) long before
I knew anything about Rand.
> Kant discovered the fact that humans can never know the ultimate
> nature of reality
What he proved in this respect is that idiot humans
can go a long way to confusing themselves, making
themselves dizzy over what "ultimate" might mean.
> and you keep insisting the he can.
I do not, since your "ultimate" will inevitably
translate to "all." I do not claim omniscience
is possible, least of all for us.
> Since you can not
> explain it your conviction is based on stubborn, naive faith based on
> extrapolation of observed utility.
Alright, stubborn. But naieve? FAITH?
Sure there's extrapolation of sorts with regard to
the integration of instances into principles. So
what? Claims of principles are different than claims
of universal occurences. They serve a different
function.
But none of that matters anyway, so there's no need
to chase it. My point--the one you can't stomach--is
what those extrapolations are based upon. You
said it---"observed reality."
> Rand's argument is "... because I
> can touch it". Kant says "I can touch it , but..."
That's his problem. He says that, but denies a
meaning to the "it" in his utterance.
> Then he explains.
That's his problem. He's explaining a referent that
he hasn't conceded is a referent.
> Kant's argument is more in line with human experience. Wake up.
Hmm. Exactly what is "in line with human experience"
supposed to show about a particular action?
jk
1Z
wrote:
> Kant would have to know everything about reality in order to conclude one
> couldn't know everything about it. Do you see the problem?
Kant only has to know that he is limited in what he can know.
Arnold Broese
>
> Your reasoning is poor. It is circular and self-justifying. You are
> saying that in order for me to say that I don't know what is on your
> mind I have to know what is on your mind.
Now now, not knowing, or being unable to know due to circumstances, is not
the same thing as proclaiming something is unknowABLE. You are proclaiming
that some things are, by their nature, unknowABLE. I ask, how can you make
claims (know) about the nature things that you claim are unknowable?
I say that we have gradually been gaining knowledge, which proves knowledge
is gainable. Yet, here you come along, look into the unknown, and make
proclamations about the degree we can comprehend something you know nothing
of. Talk of poor reasoning!
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese
news:21878b94-2c00-4cfd...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
Of course we are limited in our capacities. That is not in dispute. We will
never know all the stars that exist, but that is not to say they are
unknowable by nature; beyond comprehension. It is circumstance that limits
our movement, but who can say he knows the limits of what is knowable? The
issue is whether someone knows about some aspect of reality that is by it's
nature, unknowable, not that it is unknown.
--
Arnold
1Z
wrote:
> "1Z" <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:21878b94-2c00-4cfd...@k17g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On 26 Nov, 22:06, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Kant would have to know everything about reality in order to conclude one
> >> couldn't know everything about it. Do you see the problem?
>
> > Kant only has to know that he is limited in what he can know.
>
> Of course we are limited in our capacities. That is not in dispute. We will
> never know all the stars that exist, but that is not to say they are
> unknowable by nature; beyond comprehension.
Kant argues at lenght that the nature of our limitaitons
is such that we cannot know how things are sparately to
hwo they appear to us.
> It is circumstance that limits
> our movement, but who can say he knows the limits of what is knowable? The
> issue is whether someone knows about some aspect of reality that is by it's
> nature, unknowable, not that it is unknown.
It only has to be unknowable to us.
M Purcell
wrote:
> "1Z" <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
According to physics, the universe is expanding faster than the speed
of light. Since we are limited by the speed of light the parts of the
universe beyond our visual horizon are unknowable.
M Purcell
Likewise both the momentum and position of an electron.
Jim Klein
> According to physics...
This tells us that the subject of the sentence is
intended to be something other than a fact.
[In fairness, I should mention that around here,
most posters use "fact" to mean the state of
reality wholly independently of any conscious
integration of it, as opposed to "truth," which
does involve integration. What integration
exactly, is a matter of hot dispute.]
But don't feel alone. We get a lot of, "According
to Objectivism..." as well!
> the universe is expanding faster than the speed
> of light.
That's news to me, but I'm no scientist. Luckily, we
have many of those at our avail, so hopefully this
will be clarified. For yourself, as always so far, you
should try to figure out exactly what you mean.
Just out of curiosity, can you actually make sense of it?
> Since we are limited by the speed of light the parts of the
> universe beyond our visual horizon are unknowable.
Is this meant to be what I would call a fact?
If so, you've had a remarkable education that clued
you in on the existence of unknowability. Imagine if
we threw even more money down that sinkhole!
jk
M Purcell
>snip more crap.
Arguing about something you are ignorant of is the most moronic thing
I have ever seen. The depth of your idiocy is unknowable.
1Z
If you'd had a decent education, you perhaps wouldn';t regard is as
remarkable
Here's a simple exampe: you don't have to know what is beyond the
horizon
in order to know that there are things beyond the horizon that you
can't see.
acar
acar
wrote:
> "acar" <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in message
reasoning would apply - you would need to know everything in order to
make that statement. I suspect that this is the logic that you turned
upside down when you said that in order to say that something is
unknowable I would have to know it.
The number of bats that were in a Guatemalan cave at 1:02 AM on May 7,
1945 is unknowable. The exact number of stars (plus or minus one) in
the Universe at any given time is unknowable. Many things are
unknowable.
The inability of humans to walk out of their consciousness to inspect
reality directly is a fact of experience on which we can base a
philosophical statement regarding the limits of human knowedge. There
is no logical basis for saying that everything is knowable. That is an
arbitrary statement - a whim.
acar
wrote:
> ... but who can say he knows the limits of what is knowable?
You can. You say that there are no limits.
I can, too. Take a pencil, for example. I can run a lot of tests on it
that tell me, among other things, how I can get some use out of it;
but I can not leave my consciousness to confirm the impressions that I
got from my tests.
> The
> issue is whether someone knows about some aspect of reality that is by it's
> nature, unknowable, not that it is unknown.
The issue is whether someone knows about some unknown aspect of reaity
that is by its nature knowable.
Arnold Broese
news:31b2c845-0ebe-4e56...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> According to physics, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of
> light.
Not in any physics book I have ever read. Nothing is faster than light.
--
Arnold
Arnold Broese
> On Nov 27, 4:02 am, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> Now now, not knowing, or being unable to know due to circumstances, is
>> not
>> the same thing as proclaiming something is unknowABLE. You are
>> proclaiming
>> that some things are, by their nature, unknowABLE. I ask, how can you
>> make
>> claims (know) about the nature things that you claim are unknowable?
>> I say that we have gradually been gaining knowledge, which proves
>> knowledge
>> is gainable. Yet, here you come along, look into the unknown, and make
>> proclamations about the degree we can comprehend something you know
>> nothing
>> of. Talk of poor reasoning!
>>
> It is you who says that everything is knowable.
Let me be more precise then. We are speaking of two aspects of knowledge
here. The first is the knowledge of facts as such, for example, the exact
position of every grain of sand on your local beach last Tuesday. The second
relates to understanding the nature of the world around us. All evidence has
shown a steady increase in the knowledge of the nature of the universe, and
no evidence has proved some things are by their NATURE, beyond human
understanding.
Clearly one cannot extend the limitations of the first type, as limitations
to the second aspect, because they are not the same thing. There is a limit
to the facts we can be aware of, but that is not to say there is a limit to
the facts we are able to comprehend. It is this latter that you insist on,
yet use as proof the limitations of the former. It is an issue of
understanding rather than numerical fact gathering.
--
Arnold
M Purcell
wrote:
> "M Purcell" <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> news:31b2c845-0ebe-4e56...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>
> > According to physics, the universe is expanding faster than the speed of
> > light.
>
> Not in any physics book I have ever read. Nothing is faster than light.
Very good, nothing is faster than light but perhaps you have also read
that the universe is expanding (other galaxies are generally moving
away from us) and due to the curvature of space-time we have glaxies
receding beyond our view, 13 some billion light-years away. As an
update, it's been determined that the rate of expansion of the
universe is accelerating.
M Purcell
Excuse me:
As an update, it's been determined that the expansion of the universe
is accelerating.
Mark N
> On Nov 26, 2:28 pm, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
>>Kant discovered the fact that humans can never know the ultimate
>>nature of reality
>
> What he proved in this respect is that idiot humans
> can go a long way to confusing themselves, making
> themselves dizzy over what "ultimate" might mean.
Come on, Jim. Haven't you been paying attention? The "ultimate nature of
reality" is the thing that we'd be able to discover if we were able to
"inspect reality directly" -- a feat that would only be possible if we
had the ability to "walk out of our consciousness." Since we lack this
latter ability, we unfortunately must remain in darkness forever. :-(
Mark
Mark N
acar
"Idiot humans" have been comcerned with that problem for thousands of
years. Who is the idiot depends on who you ask.
.
.
.
.
acar
wrote:
> "acar" <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in message
the human brain as a supercomputer. You are surrounded by facts that
you can not understand, even within yourself, but since we are
constantly making new discoveries you affirm that one day, long, long
after you are dead, any possible qualitative question will be
answered. Of course you have no proof of this since you are making
dogmatic statements about the unknown. Wouldn't it be more objective
to let the unknown be what it is, rather than pre-ordain for it a
straight jacket tailored by the range of our abilities?
Some among us have ridiculed our inability to send spies to look at
reality first hand instead of relying on office-bound intelligence. We
experience the presence of something out there. Our inability to make
an objective examination of it is all the evidence that we need to
justify Kant's epistemology.
Jim Klein
> The number of bats that were in a Guatemalan cave at 1:02 AM on May 7,
> 1945 is unknowable. The exact number of stars (plus or minus one) in
> the Universe at any given time is unknowable. Many things are
> unknowable.
What a waffle this is. Look, "unknowable" can have two
meanings. "Not able to be known by us, for whatever
reason," is one of them. That's alright and nobody
denies the existence of such facts.
But you turn it around and make it an intrinsic
quality of the fact itself, such that there's a
thing called "an unknowable fact." That's an
error and is the foundation of Subjectivism.
After all, if the nature of reality itself is that it's
unknowable, then what could we possibly have
except for our imaginations of what's out there?
Why don't you Subjecti-statists just imagine that
there's nothing to fear, and you could leave the
rest of us the fuck alone?
The existence of unknowable facts such as you
mention here, is a comment about us. You make
it a comment about the facts and you're off and
running about how it's the nature of reality (facts)
that render them unknowable to us.
And somehow, THIS you know. That's wonderful...
don't you ever get dizzy?
jk
Jim Klein
> > Come on, Jim. Haven't you been paying attention? The "ultimate nature of
> > reality" is the thing that we'd be able to discover if we were able to
> > "inspect reality directly" -- a feat that would only be possible if we
> > had the ability to "walk out of our consciousness." Since we lack this
> > latter ability, we unfortunately must remain in darkness forever. :-(
>
> This may seem funny to you, but it is at the heart of the question.
Oh, I gotta know. At what question is our inability to walk
out of our consciousness the heart of?
> "Idiot humans" have been comcerned with that problem for thousands of
> years.
No, no. For most of that time, owing to both lack of
knowledge and the lack of means to express
various complex ideas, those thinkers were anything
but idiots.
Even I'll grant that Kant wasn't technically an idiot
for considering these things, even as he came up
with some idiotic ramblings as the answer.
Nope, sorry. The idiots are the ones who still to
this day think there's really an issue there.
> Who is the idiot depends on who you ask.
If only that were true, maybe it would add some
legitimacy to mob rule generally. Too bad for
you---it isn't and it doesn't.
jk
acar
> ... even as he [Kant] came up
> with some idiotic ramblings as the answer.
Let me see if I follow you:
Kant was an idiot.
Rand may not have been an idiot but you've had to correct her in a
number of things.
99% of humans are idiots following idiots.
You belong to the 1% of non-idiots.
Is that it?
> Nope, sorry. �The idiots are the ones who still to
> this day think there's really an issue there.
Such as intellectuals, philosophers, and regular non-idiots.
> > Who is the idiot depends on who you ask.
>
> If only that were true,
You don't need to go any further than this exchange.
> maybe it would add some
> legitimacy to mob rule generally.
Humanity is not a mob. I mean 99%. (There are exeptions to
everything.)
>�Too bad for
> you---it isn't and it doesn't.
How come you were not cooked yesterday?
acar
> On Nov 27, 11:33 am, acar <acarm...@mail.com> wrote:
>
> > The number of bats that were in a Guatemalan cave at 1:02 AM on May 7,
> > 1945 is unknowable. The exact number of stars (plus or minus one) in
> > the Universe at any given time is unknowable. Many things are
> > unknowable.
>
> What a waffle this is. �Look, "unknowable" can have two
> meanings. �"Not able to be known by us, for whatever
> reason," is one of them. �That's alright and nobody
> denies the existence of such facts.
The human mind has limitations. You say that it has no limitations
regarding the quality of facts. Your claims of omniscience (that you
have examined all the facts) are silly.
> But you turn it around and make it an intrinsic
> quality of the fact itself, such that there's a
> thing called "an unknowable fact." �That's an
> error
And after having inspected all the facts you know that it is an
error ? (Or is it a subjective statement of faith based on a whim,
completely lacking in objectivity? How can you describe facts that you
don't know?
> After all, if the nature of reality itself is that it's
> unknowable, then what could we possibly have
> except for our imaginations of what's out there?
Enter pragmatism.
Pragmatism is an objective method of saying "I don't know", instead of
making dogmatic (whimsical) statements about the unknown.
> Why don't you Subjecti-statists just imagine that
> there's nothing to fear, and you could leave the
> rest of us the fuck alone?
By all means, be alone instead of replying to my posts.
> The existence of unknowable facts such as you
> mention here, is a comment about us. �You make
> it a comment about the facts and you're off and
> running about how it's the nature of reality (facts)
> that render them unknowable to us.
>
> And somehow, THIS you know. �That's wonderful...
> don't you ever get dizzy?
>
I can prove that there are unknowable facts by simply saying that I
can not leave my consciousness to know them. However you can not prove
that the unknown is knowable.
Arnold Broese
> I can prove that there are unknowable facts by simply saying that I
> can not leave my consciousness to know them. However you can not prove
> that the unknown is knowable.
It is up to the person who claims there is a limit to understanding the
nature of the universe, to offer some evidence for that. The problem is that
he has to know what he is talking about - which directly contradicts his
silly statement. Other, brighter people that is, say that all evidence so
far indicates that the universe is intelligible and conforms to it's nature
in a consistent way. We brighter people have no REASON to put forward the
proposal that there is an arbitrary point beyond which humans cannot
understand something. It is a case of the arbitrary overriding reason, that
is behind your claims.
--
Arnold
M Purcell
wrote:
> It is up to the person who claims there is a limit to understanding the
> nature of the universe, to offer some evidence for that. The problem is that
> he has to know what he is talking about - which directly contradicts his
> silly statement. Other, brighter people that is, say that all evidence so
> far indicates that the universe is intelligible and conforms to it's nature
> in a consistent way. We brighter people have no REASON to put forward the
> proposal that there is an arbitrary point beyond which humans cannot
> understand something. It is a case of the arbitrary overriding reason, that
> is behind your claims.
Idiot. Scientists are trying to discover the nature of the universe,
who are obviously not included among your "brighter" people.
acar
wrote:
>
> It is up to the person who claims there is a limit to understanding the
> nature of the universe, to offer some evidence for that.
No it is not. "We already know the nature of what we don't know". Are
you sure that you want to stay with that claim? With the Universe
being infinitely vast and considering the limitations of human
understanding; with life and volition being unresolved mysteries, the
burden of proof is on the one that claims that he already knows the
nature of the unknown. You would make a lousy investigator if you pre-
judge the findings of the investigation.
>The problem is that
> he has to know what he is talking about
On the contrary -- he is talking about the unknown. But you talk about
the unknown as if you knew what you are talking about.
- which directly contradicts his
> silly statement. Other, brighter people that is, say that all evidence so
> far indicates that the universe is intelligible and conforms to it's nature
> in a consistent way.
Brighter people do not say that. Kant, for example.
> We brighter people
Congratulations!???
> have no REASON to put forward the
> proposal that there is an arbitrary point beyond which humans cannot
> understand something.
You have plenty of reasons to know that there are unknowables.No one
has ever left his consciousness to examine the things that are
revealed by our senses and our instruments.
> It is a case of the arbitrary overriding reason, that
> is behind your claims.
I disagree. In your situation it is a case of jumping to conclusions,
faith and whims overriding objectivity and personal limitations.
Arnold Broese
> On Nov 28, 5:40 pm, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>>
>> It is up to the person who claims there is a limit to understanding the
>> nature of the universe, to offer some evidence for that.
>
> No it is not. "We already know the nature of what we don't know". Are
> you sure that you want to stay with that claim? With the Universe
> being infinitely vast and considering the limitations of human
> understanding; with life and volition being unresolved mysteries, the
> burden of proof is on the one that claims that he already knows the
> nature of the unknown. You would make a lousy investigator if you pre-
> judge the findings of the investigation.
Don't be such a twit. It is not I speaking of knowing the unknown, it is
you. All I say is that there is no reason to pick an arbitrary point and say
that is the limit of human understanding. We are speaking of UNDERSTANDING,
not fact gathering like how many bats are in in a cave.
>
>>The problem is that
>> he has to know what he is talking about
>
> On the contrary -- he is talking about the unknown. But you talk about
> the unknown as if you knew what you are talking about.
You talk and make observations of the unknown yet claim to know that it
can't be known. Don't you see, you admit you don't know what you are talking
about .. it is unknown! I only say that you, by admission don't know, and
can't know what you are talking about. I make no claims about the unknown
except to say that there is no reason to claim that at some point
understanding ceases. Especially when all evidence shows a snowballing
expansion of understanding. All evidence points to increasing knowledge, but
evidence needs to be considered, not ignored.
> - which directly contradicts his
>> silly statement. Other, brighter people that is, say that all evidence so
>> far indicates that the universe is intelligible and conforms to it's
>> nature
>> in a consistent way.
>
> Brighter people do not say that. Kant, for example.
What does he know about science?
>
>
> You have plenty of reasons to know that there are unknowables.No one
> has ever left his consciousness to examine the things that are
> revealed by our senses and our instruments.
Just as I thought, an out of body epistemology. If you thought for yourself
instead of spouting second hand Kant, you would stand a better chance of
making sense of the world around you.
>> It is a case of the arbitrary overriding reason, that
>> is behind your claims.
>
> I disagree. In your situation it is a case of jumping to conclusions,
> faith and whims overriding objectivity and personal limitations.
No jumping, only observing that there is order in the universe, and that
humans can understand order - well some Kant ..er can't, but that is where
they need to put more work in.
--
Arnold
M Purcell
wrote:
> Don't be such a twit. It is not I speaking of knowing the unknown, it is
> you. All I say is that there is no reason to pick an arbitrary point and say
> that is the limit of human understanding. We are speaking of UNDERSTANDING,
> not fact gathering like how many bats are in in a cave.
You have already pick your arbitrary point beyond which there is no
further understanding. The gathering of facts is needed for
understanding.
> You talk and make observations of the unknown yet claim to know that it
> can't be known. Don't you see, you admit you don't know what you are talking
> about .. it is unknown! I only say that you, by admission don't know, and
> can't know what you are talking about. I make no claims about the unknown
> except to say that there is no reason to claim that at some point
> understanding ceases. Especially when all evidence shows a snowballing
> expansion of understanding. All evidence points to increasing knowledge, but
> evidence needs to be considered, not ignored.
Unfortunatly the evidence shows you do not admit when you don't know
what you are talking about. I'm curious as to how you differentiate
facts from evidence.
> > - which directly contradicts his
> >> silly statement. Other, brighter people that is, say that all evidence so
> >> far indicates that the universe is intelligible and conforms to it's
> >> nature
> >> in a consistent way.
>
> > Brighter people do not say that. Kant, for example.
>
> What does he know about science?
What do you know about relevance?
> > You have plenty of reasons to know that there are unknowables.No one
> > has ever left his consciousness to examine the things that are
> > revealed by our senses and our instruments.
>
> Just as I thought, an out of body epistemology. If you thought for yourself
> instead of spouting second hand Kant, you would stand a better chance of
> making sense of the world around you.
Likewise I'm sure for spouting second hand Rand.
> >> It is a case of the arbitrary overriding reason, that
> >> is behind your claims.
>
> > I disagree. In your situation it is a case of jumping to conclusions,
> > faith and whims overriding objectivity and personal limitations.
>
> No jumping, only observing that there is order in the universe, and that
> humans can understand order - well some Kant ..er can't, but that is where
> they need to put more work in.
The universe does not confine itself to our understand of it. To
observe something objectively is to do so without preconceptions.
acar
wrote:
> Don't be such a twit. It is not I speaking of knowing the unknown, it is
> you. All I say is that there is no reason to pick an arbitrary point and say
> that is the limit of human understanding. We are speaking of UNDERSTANDING,
> not fact gathering like how many bats are in in a cave.
Let me tweet some more. There is a disclaimer in the prospectus of all
my mutual funds that says "past performance does not necessarily
reflect future results." Your reasoning mortgages the future based on
current performance. It is simple minded and na�ve.
I can logically say about the unknown that it is unknown. You can not
logically say about the unknown that is knowable. I can say from
personal experience that there are unknowable facts in the Universe.
To say they exist but they are unknown does not violate logic. I KNOW
that there facts inaccessible to the human mind based on the simple
observation that I have mentioned to you already: that I can not
abandon my subjectivity to examine the facts of reality. Instruments
are not subject to the fallibility of the observer, but what is an
instrument without an observer? The evidence of the senses is indirect
and highly processed. The senses are only messengers. There is no
substitute for first hand examination of the thing itself, and that
option is not available to humans. This is what Kant explained and it
took the world of philosophy by storm. Now Arnold Broese, second-
handing Rand, informs us that Kant was a twit and refers to himself as
a more profound thinker. You are entitled to disagree with Kant,
anybody is, but you are going to need a much better argument than what
you have offered so far.
> I make no claims about the unknown
Now you pretend to make no claims about the unknown. But you have
already claimed that there are no limits to human understanding. You
are grasping at straws.
> >> brighter people that is, say that all evidence so
> >> far indicates that the universe is intelligible
>
> > Brighter people do not say that. Kant, for example.
>
> What does he know about science?
Then you need to write a refutation of Kant based on your knowledge of
science.
>
1Z
> I've met a (very) few parasite pilots, but I've
> never met a pilot who was a second-hander.
> Or I'll put it this way. I've never met one who
> stayed a pilot.
I know you can;t possibly regailing us with your
subjectives likes and dislikes here, so I wonder
what the objective criteria for being a "parasite"
and a "second hander" are.
1Z
> Rationality 102 teaches that therefore one ought
> to be careful that they're actually her arguments.
Such consideration need not be extended to I. Kant,
of course.
1Z
>
>
>
> > Your reasoning is poor. It is circular and self-justifying. You are
> > saying that in order for me to say that I don't know what is on your
> > mind I have to know what is on your mind.
>
> the same thing as proclaiming something is unknowABLE. You are proclaiming
> that some things are, by their nature, unknowABLE. I ask, how can you make
> claims (know) about the nature things that you claim are unknowable?
In the way that I know that I don't know anybody in Timbuktu. The
first
"know" isn't a claim to know a person -- it is a claim about the
limitations of
my knowledge. So there is no direct contradiction between the "know"
and the "don't know".
> I say that we have gradually been gaining knowledge, which proves knowledge
> is gainable. Yet, here you come along, look into the unknown, and make
> proclamations about the degree we can comprehend something you know nothing
> of. Talk of poor reasoning!
Kant's argument works as a "problematic" postiion -- there *might* be
some aspect
of reality we cannot percieve -- but it falls short of showing that
there must be.
1Z
wrote:
> Of course we are limited in our capacities. That is not in dispute. We will
> never know all the stars that exist, but that is not to say they are
> unknowable by nature; beyond comprehension.
No it isn't. Kant has other arguments to address that.
1Z
> On Nov 27, 8:36 am, M Purcell <sacsca...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > According to physics...
>
> This tells us that the subject of the sentence is
> intended to be something other than a fact.
...
> But don't feel alone. We get a lot of, "According
> to Objectivism..." as well!
Physics is tested. Objectivism is not.
1Z
> It is you who says that everything is knowable. In that case your
> reasoning would apply - you would need to know everything in order to
> make that statement.
I don't think so. He would just need reason to believe
he does not have the epistemic limitations Kant
thinks he has. Both arguments can be made
on the basis of such limitations or the lack thereof.
> The inability of humans to walk out of their consciousness to inspect
> reality directly is a fact of experience on which we can base a
> philosophical statement regarding the limits of human knowedge.
That is only pointful if being able to do so would deliver some new
kind of knowledge. If non-perspectival view-form-nowhere knowledge
is not even a *logical* possibility, then our lack of it is an
uninteresting issue, like our inability
to have our cake and eat it.
1Z
wrote:
> "acar" <acarm...@mail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2fa99a3c-866d-49f4...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Nov 27, 4:02 am, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> >> Now now, not knowing, or being unable to know due to circumstances, is
> >> not
> >> the same thing as proclaiming something is unknowABLE. You are
> >> proclaiming
> >> that some things are, by their nature, unknowABLE. I ask, how can you
> >> make
> >> claims (know) about the nature things that you claim are unknowable?
> >> I say that we have gradually been gaining knowledge, which proves
> >> knowledge
> >> is gainable. Yet, here you come along, look into the unknown, and make
> >> proclamations about the degree we can comprehend something you know
> >> nothing
> >> of. Talk of poor reasoning!
>
> > It is you who says that everything is knowable.
>
> Let me be more precise then. We are speaking of two aspects of knowledge
> here. The first is the knowledge of facts as such, for example, the exact
> position of every grain of sand on your local beach last Tuesday. The second
> relates to understanding the nature of the world around us.
Let me be even more precise. The second relates to knowing
the nature of things other than as they appear to us.
>All evidence has
> shown a steady increase in the knowledge of the nature of the universe, and
> no evidence has proved some things are by their NATURE, beyond human
> understanding.
No evidence has refuted it either: scientific knowledge is knowledge
of the causal order in space and time, A Kantian just has to remark
that causality, space and time are projections of the human mind.
The counter-argument would probably have to invoke Occam's razor:
a noumenal realm just doesn';t do any explanatory work and can't be
shown to exist by logical necessity..
1Z
> But you turn it around and make it an intrinsic
> quality of the fact itself, such that there's a
> thing called "an unknowable fact." That's an
> error and is the foundation of Subjectivism.
Sayign it's an error doesn't make it so.
> After all, if the nature of reality itself is that it's
> unknowable, then what could we possibly have
> except for our imaginations of what's out there?
THe claim is tha reality is unknowable in itself,
and what we have is knowledge of how i appears to us.
*That* claim may still be flawed, but as it is you are
just misquoting Kant.
1Z
> Nope, sorry. The idiots are the ones who still to
> this day think there's really an issue there.
The idiots are the people who think there
is a *simple* knock-down argument.
> > Who is the idiot depends on who you ask.
>
> If only that were true, maybe it would add some
> legitimacy to mob rule generally.
Is an autocratic answer to that qeustion preferable to a
democratic one?
1Z
wrote:
> It is up to the person who claims there is a limit to understanding the
> nature of the universe, to offer some evidence for that.
e.g Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 1787,
Malrassic Park
>On 28 Nov, 22:40, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
..
>> It is up to the person who claims there is a limit to understanding the
>> nature of the universe, to offer some evidence for that.
..
>e.g Kritik der reinen Vernunft, 1787,
Yes, but where exactly in this work?
Jim Klein
> Let me see if I follow you:
> Kant was an idiot.
I thought I wrote the opposite, but I'll let
you pursue that critical question.
> Rand may not have been an idiot but you've had to correct her in a
> number of things.
> 99% of humans are idiots following idiots.
That doesn't even follow from what YOU wrote.
> You belong to the 1% of non-idiots.
Thank you very much, but most people aren't
idiots. Nor are they wondering about whether
what they know, actually exists.
That way they can do stuff!
[snip to]
> Humanity is not a mob.
You're really losing track. That's MY point!
jk
Jim Klein
> regarding the quality of facts.
Wow. Deep, man. Quality of facts. Got it.
jk
Jim Klein
> The idiots are the people who think there
> is a *simple* knock-down argument.
No, the idiots are the ones who think it's
actually about arguments.
> > > Who is the idiot depends on who you ask.
>
> > If only that were true, maybe it would add some
> > legitimacy to mob rule generally.
>
> Is an autocratic answer to that qeustion preferable to a
> democratic one?
I can't say. I'm too busy trying to find the truth.
I'll let you spend your time on Earth figuring
that one out.
jk
1Z
> On Nov 30, 6:53 am, 1Z <peterdjo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > The idiots are the people who think there
> > is a *simple* knock-down argument.
>
> No, the idiots are the ones who think it's
> actually about arguments.
Did you actually write that? Wow? So what is
philosophy about, Great Sage? Chopped liver?
> I'll let you spend your time on Earth figuring
> that one out.
Already have. I was truing to find out what you think.
Jim Klein
> THe claim is tha reality is unknowable in itself,
Well, whaddyaknow? We finally agree about something!
YES, THAT'S THE CLAIM.
And I'm trying to tell you that it doesn't even rise
to being wrong. That is, it's crazy bullshit that
carries no meaning whatsoever.
If that's wrong, then you write in detail what the
hell "in itself" means in the sentence.
> and what we have is knowledge of how i appears to us.
> *That* claim may still be flawed, but as it is you are
> just misquoting Kant.
I don't recall seriously quoting Kant at all. It's
idiotic Kantians I'm after.
Come to think of it, didn't I mention that it's
long forgotten? I deplore your inability to
address the issues I bring up (let alone
directly answer questions), and instead
always find other claims that the one
implies, but when you don't even keep
track of the facts--leaving the question
of whether there actually are any facts
anyway, to acar--you really get boring.
So either get factual or get funny;
otherwise you can forget about me.
jk
1Z
> If that's wrong, then you write in detail what the
> hell "in itself" means in the sentence.
That is very much the key issue -- and it is one
that needs to be settled *before* the determination
that it is nonsense is made.
> > and what we have is knowledge of how i appears to us.
> > *That* claim may still be flawed, but as it is you are
> > just misquoting Kant.
>
> I don't recall seriously quoting Kant at all. It's
> idiotic Kantians I'm after.
Most of the people Randroids call Kantian
aren't, so that is neither here nor there.
> Come to think of it, didn't I mention that it's
> long forgotten?
It isn;t. Kant scholarship conitinues.
Arnold Broese
> On Nov 29, 12:14 am, Arnold Broese <arnold_broeseREM...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Don't be such a twit. It is not I speaking of knowing the unknown, it is
>> you. All I say is that there is no reason to pick an arbitrary point and
>> say
>> that is the limit of human understanding. We are speaking of
>> UNDERSTANDING,
>> not fact gathering like how many bats are in in a cave.
>
> Let me tweet some more. There is a disclaimer in the prospectus of all
> my mutual funds that says "past performance does not necessarily
> reflect future results." Your reasoning mortgages the future based on
> current performance. It is simple minded and na�ve.
Again you confuse the ability to know, with what is known. We know how
airplanes fly, and trust that fact with our very lives. When an airplane
crashes, it is foolish to think that knowledge no longer applies. What
happens is that facts we were unaware of, may have made themselves obvious,
but these new facts only *increase our understanding*, they don't reduce it.
The same with your mutual funds. You know that given certain conditions, it
pays to invest in the productive capacity of the country. However, no one
can clearly forecast the future conditions, hence the performance of the
mutual fund. Regardless, you still accept the risks because you trust the
basic premise - that we can know things.
> I can logically say about the unknown that it is unknown. You can not
> logically say about the unknown that is knowable.
Of course the unknown is not known. The difference between our positions is
that I make no positive claims about it. You claim to know enough about the
unknown, to know it is unknowable. My position is that there is no reason to
conclude any such thing, especially in the light of our ever increasing
knowledge. Note that this position doesn't require a knowledge of the
unknown, that differs from past experience with it. In the past, unknown
things became understood. What *reason* is there to conclude future things
won't be understood?
I can say from
> personal experience that there are unknowable facts in the Universe.
We have been over this; it is *understanding* that is the issue, not how
many grains of sand are on a beach on a distant planet.
> To say they exist but they are unknown does not violate logic. I KNOW
> that there facts inaccessible to the human mind based on the simple
> observation that I have mentioned to you already: that I can not
> abandon my subjectivity to examine the facts of reality. Instruments
> are not subject to the fallibility of the observer, but what is an
> instrument without an observer? The evidence of the senses is indirect
> and highly processed. The senses are only messengers.
How can you make any claims like that without reference to the senses. This
is an other worldly epistemology. Do you have an outside reference to
measure your "flawed" senses by? Oh, I forgot - truth is voted on by the
majority.
There is no
> substitute for first hand examination of the thing itself, and that
> option is not available to humans.
Rubbish pure speculation that everything is beyond the senses. Absolute
unadulterated rot.
This is what Kant explained and it
> took the world of philosophy by storm. Now Arnold Broese, second-
> handing Rand, informs us that Kant was a twit and refers to himself as
> a more profound thinker. You are entitled to disagree with Kant,
> anybody is, but you are going to need a much better argument than what
> you have offered so far.
Kant and his followers make claims about not being able to know the world as
it really is, yet go on to add "and that's the way it is" Like they really
know about the unknowable.
>
>> I make no claims about the unknown
>
>
> Now you pretend to make no claims about the unknown. But you have
> already claimed that there are no limits to human understanding. You
> are grasping at straws.
>
Not at all. Human understanding leads us in a certain direction. I need
evidence to show that direction will one day no longer apply. Based on what
we know, there is no reason to place a limit on our ability to understand
the world - if you care about reason that is.
--
Arnold
Mark N
> I can prove that there are unknowable facts by simply saying that I
> can not leave my consciousness to know them. [...]
Aren't you begging the question here? Surely anyone who doubts that
there are unknowable facts would refuse to grant your implicit premise
to the effect that there are facts that one would need to "leave one's
consciousness" in order to know.
On what basis do you think that there are facts that you are being
prevented from knowing by your inability to "leave your consciousness"?
And what does "leaving your consciousness" even mean, anyway??
Mark
Mark N
> On 30 Nov, 16:19, Jim Klein <rum...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>If that's wrong, then you write in detail what the
>>hell "in itself" means in the sentence.
>
> That is very much the key issue -- and it is one
> that needs to be settled *before* the determination
> that it is nonsense is made.
Think of it as a conjecture, rather than a determination. I conjecture
that the locution "knowledge of how reality is in itself" is nonsense,
but I'm open to having my conjecture refuted. Ditto for "inspect reality
directly" and "walk out of my consciousness."
Mark
Jim Klein
> Ditto for "inspect reality
> directly" and "walk out of my consciousness."
Now wait a sec. How can you inspect reality
without walking out and if you're walking out,
from what would you be walking?
What's not direct about that?
Plus, now we understand what "steppin' out" means!
jk
Ray
news:16065c2d-e5ae-483a...@1g2000vbm.googlegroups.com...
Definition: Walking out of your consciousness
1. Out of Body Experience, aka Astral Projection - stoned Hippie
2. What happens after I pull the plug - Kevorkian
3. Blank-out - Ayn Rand
Definition: Mutual-interest
Same as mutual-masturbation when two Kantians are having so
much fun that they won't let the thread go.
Ray of mutual Light
1Z
> acar wrote:
> > I can prove that there are unknowable facts by simply saying that I
> > can not leave my consciousness to know them. [...]
>
> Aren't you begging the question here? Surely anyone who doubts that
> there are unknowable facts would refuse to grant your implicit premise
> to the effect that there are facts that one would need to "leave one's
> consciousness" in order to know.
Refusign to grant is all very well, but can they
show that there are necessarily no such facts?
M Purcell
>
> Definition: Mutual-interest
> Same as mutual-masturbation when two Kantians are having so
> much fun that they won't let the thread go.
Likewise for laissez faire capitalism I suppose.
Jim Klein
> Refusign to grant is all very well, but can they
> show that there are necessarily no such facts?
No unknowable facts? Didn't you get it? Everyone
was pulling your leg all along. Of course there are
unknowable facts and of course we know that.
You start with a foundation that's blatantly
contradictory, and then live the system you
build upon it. We were just joking, if we're
even here at all. You can't know for sure.
Kant was Lord Jesus and Gordon Sollars is
Mohammed. Among his students somewhere
is Joseph Smith, but that hasn't happened
yet. But that doesn't matter, because happening
is no different than not happening. Or at
least we can't know for sure that they are.
And look how benevolent our Great Father
was, to give us exactly one fact to know...
that there are no facts we can know for sure.
For sure. It's not much of a jump from there
to, "Humans were born to be thugs." And
even if it were, it wouldn't matter because
there aren't really jumps that we can know
anyway. From a contradiction, it's not much
of a jump to anything.
We had you going though, didn't we?
jk
1Z
> You start with a foundation that's blatantly
> contradictory,
No it isn't. cf "I know there are people unknown to me in Timbuktu"
acar
wrote:
> Oh, I forgot - truth is voted on by the
> majority.
I'll have to try harder, or better yet not try at all. If you don't
get the simple difference between consensus and truth, how can you be
expected to understand Kantian epistemology? With all due respect, you
need to understand before you disagree. We are wasting time.
> >There is no
>> substitute for first hand examination of the thing itself, and that
> > option is not available to humans.
>
> Rubbish pure speculation that everything is beyond the senses. Absolute
> unadulterated rot.
It is not speculation. (The "rubbish" argument and the "rut" argument
are ignored.)
The senses tell you what things look like, what they sound like, what
they feel like, what they smell like and what they taste like. What
they are like is unknowable to us. Are they exactly like the senses
reveal them to be? We don't know. It is UKNOWABLE. That is how I KNOW
that some things are unknowable. You say arbirarily they are exactly
how they appear to be. Can you prove it? Not without leaving your
consciousness. If you want to call it "out of body epistemology" knock
yourself out. They are indeed "out there"and that is the problem. I
call it Kantian epistemology. You feel like ridiculing Kant? Ayn Rand
did. Why not you? Australia is a free country!
acar
> acar wrote:
> > I can prove that there are unknowable facts by simply saying that I
> > can not leave my consciousness to know them. [...]
>
> Aren't you begging the question here? Surely anyone who doubts that
> there are unknowable facts would refuse to grant your implicit premise
> to the effect that there are facts that one would need to "leave one's
> consciousness" in order to know.
Your argument is that I am assuming that there is something out of my
consciousness for me to know. Since you are a realist it is surprising
that you raise that objection, because the other possibility is that
there in nothing out there, that it is all in our consciousness -- the
idealist position. But not to worry, I know what you mean. There is a
third possibility -- that there is something out there, and that my
senses have developed in such a way that I can understand it all.
So, you mean that I have assumed that there is more out there than
what our senses reveal. Actually we have no way of knowing, do we? It
is UNKNOWN. If you know that there isn't, I submit that your position
is logically flawed.
AIUI Kant goes beyond that. He assumes that there is indeed "a thing
in itself" (Here's where dilettantes laugh and mock.) Actually that
can be logically deduced. For example: a chair. I know what it looks
like and am able to manipulate it. That is through sensory data that
is processed by my brain. Those are messages that my brain decodes
from physical stimuli. But the chair is still out there; out of the
body. The chair itself is smething that I know only through
intermediaries. Kant was entitled to speculate that there is more to
the chair than what those intermediaries (the senses) are able to
project. It is a perfectly logical speculation an many meticulous
thinkers have found nothing logically wrong with it.
> On what basis do you think that there are facts that you are being
> prevented from knowing by your inability to "leave your consciousness"?
On the basis that the facts out there do not have the graciousness to
limit their properties to the range of sensitivity of our senses.
Reality was not fashioned around humans.
> And what does "leaving your consciousness" even mean, anyway??
"Leaving" means to exit.
"consciousness" is awareness.
Like I said -- it is impossible.
acar
>
> Think of it as a conjecture, rather than a determination. I conjecture
> that the locution "knowledge of how reality is in itself" is nonsense,
> but I'm open to having my conjecture refuted. Ditto for "inspect reality
> directly" and "walk out of my consciousness."
IMO it is not a reasonable conjecture.You are confusing "impossible"
with "nonsense". It is impossile to inspect reality directly (without
intervention of the senses). IMO it is not nonsense because that
limitation has given rise to the discipline of philosophy.