How will history judge you?
Dennis Hardin
civilization survives, Ayn Rand will be given much of the credit.
Given their current divisiveness, however, it is unlikely that
historians are going to look kindly upon all of her supporters. One
of the following two viewpoints, for instance, is likely to come in
for some pretty harsh criticism.
(A) "Let those of us who are Objectivists at least make sure that what
we are spreading is Ayn Rand's ideas, not some distorted hash of
them...If we engage in quality control now, refusing to sanction the
rewriters of Objectivism whatever the short-term cost and schisms, the
long-range result will be a new lease on life for mankind...Let us not
cohabit with or become alchemists in reverse, i.e., men who turn the
gold of Ayn Rand into lead...Paraphrasing Marx: in demanding
intellectual consistency, we have nothing to lose but our
deluders--and we have the world to win."
(B) "...Objectivism is a young philosophy...By historical standards,
what we have is no more (though no less) than the foundation and
outline of a system...If Objectivism is to survive and flourish as a
system of thought, it must attract philosophers who will build on Ayn
Rand's discoveries...This will not be a matter of adding blocks to a
monolithic structure, with everyone in full agreement at every
step...[M]embers of the school may differ among themselves over many
issues within the framework of the basic principles...Over time,
moreover, the philosophy develops. It grows and expands, in the way a
science does, as thinkers build on the work of their predeccessors..."
Those of us who support either position will also be judged.
How will history judge you?
Dennis Hardin
Dave O'Hearn
> One point on which most Objectivists would likely agree is that, if
> civilization survives, Ayn Rand will be given much of the credit.
> Given their current divisiveness, however, it is unlikely that
> historians are going to look kindly upon all of her supporters. One
> of the following two viewpoints, for instance, is likely to come in
> for some pretty harsh criticism.
>
>
> Those of us who support either position will also be judged.
> How will history judge you?
You did not cite your quotations, nor did you say why, or in which
way, they would be judged harshly by historians.
I can go a little way and guess. The two quotations expressed
different views on what Objectivism is as a philosophy and as a social
system. I could guess who the authors of the quotes are, but it is not
my job to cite your quotations for you. None the less, I don't see
what this has to do with "history" judging people. The authors of the
quotes are already judging each other harshy, right now. What is the
big deal about this "history" thing?
--
Dave O'Hearn
machiavel
081146....@posting.google.com>...
> One point on which most Objectivists would likely agree is that, if
> civilization survives, Ayn Rand will be given much of the credit.
> Given their current divisiveness, however, it is unlikely that
> historians are going to look kindly upon all of her supporters.
Sorry to throw cold water on you, but historians are not likely to
care one way or the other. Objectivism and Ayn Rand will mostly be
remembered by future objectivists and Randites: in other words, by a
very small segment of the population.
> How will history judge you?
No worries on that score. History will take no notice of me.
GSN
Tom S.
081146....@posting.google.com>...
> One point on which most Objectivists would likely agree is that, if
> civilization survives, Ayn Rand will be given much of the credit.
> Given their current divisiveness, however, it is unlikely that
> historians are going to look kindly upon all of her supporters.
[Sigh]
--
HPO : A cross between Princeton's "Center
For Advanced Studies" and "Kindercare".
Wolf DeVoon
>
> No worries on that score. History will take no notice of me.
History remembers individuals who did something first. Much of Ayn
Rand's life and work was anonymous and marginalized. This did not
preclude getting noticed, celebrated, discredited, etc. Her clear,
original statement of moral causation, that evil requires the sanction
of the victim, will be remembered.
DeVoon
Andrew D. Smith
remembered by future objectivists and Randites: in other words, by a
very small segment of the population."
Well this depends on how far and how deep Objectivist ideas are able
to penetrate.
It took a few centuries for a carpenter's teachings to be accepted by
the men in purple, but it eventually happened --a fact that makes the
history of the early Church an important historical topic despite its
relatively small number of adherents.
Tom S.
"Andrew D. Smith" <ads...@uwo.ca> wrote in message
news:36f72e5f.02110...@posting.google.com...
Once the guys in purple figured out how they could manipulate thing to their
power advantage... (Just like eons before)
Tom
Dennis Hardin
What is the big deal about this "history" thing?
You might as well ask: What is the big deal about the survival of
civilization? I sort of thought that was obvious. I also thought it
obvious that an Objectivist would want to play a strong role in
supporting it. As a member of 'mankind,' what could possibly matter
more to one's rational self-interest?
I did not cite the authors of the quotations because I wanted to
encourage the members of this group to think independently about the
two viewpoints, rather than lapse into the usual personal ad hominem
vitriol, which is a waste of everyone's time.
(This is an Objectivist newsgroup, right?)
Dennis Hardin
Tom S.
A more intelligent question would ask, "What does history teach us".
Your question is totally meaningless.
Tom Scheeler
--
* I'm not cheap, but I am on special this week
Dennis Hardin
est.cox.net>...
> "> A more intelligent question would ask, "What does history teach us".
>
> Your question is totally meaningless.
>
> Tom Scheeler
This is very typical of the thoughtless nonsense which contributors
try to pass off as illuminating insight on this group--i.e., Don't
respond to the question, attack the questioner.
(This is an Objectivist newsgroup, right?)
Dennis Hardin
Tom S.
> "Tom S." <sn...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<1DTz9.138$XF5.60883@news2.w
> est.cox.net>...
> > "> A more intelligent question would ask, "What does history teach us".
> >
> > Your question is totally meaningless.
> >
> > Tom Scheeler
>
> This is very typical of the thoughtless nonsense which contributors
> try to pass off as illuminating insight on this group--i.e., Don't
> respond to the question, attack the questioner.
Your response is typical of the children that come in here all full of
themselves and get pissed when they don't fall for your tantrum.
BTW, no one attacked you, so get down off your cross.
Here- this sig for you.
Tom Scheeler
Dennis Hardin
>
> > "History remembers individuals who did something first."
These two posts suggest a misunderstanding of my intent in asking this
question. I did not mean to imply that historians would cite our
contributions as individuals, but rather as supporters of one of two
viewpoints, who thereby played a role in Objectivism's eventual
success (or failure). Summarizing the alternatives:
(A) Objectivism will win if its' leaders suppress dissent and demand
that a true "Objectivist" concur with Rand on every basic issue. If
we stand united--however small our numbers--Ayn Rand will eventually
prevail (somehow).
(B) Objectivism will win if its' leaders allow free discussion to
flourish among its' supporters, thereby creating a philosophical
movement of ever-growing size and influence. It will win just as--in
the past--reason has always eventually prevailed (e.g., Aristotle, the
Renaissance, the Enlightenment) when men were free to use their minds
and independent judgment.
As an individual supporting one of these two viewpoints, you DO play a
role in history, and you WILL be judged accordingly.
Dennis Hardin
Dennis Hardin
.west.cox.net>...
> ">
> Your response is typical of the children that come in here all full of
> themselves and get pissed when they don't fall for your tantrum.
>
Ayn Rand characterized the three cardinal Objectivist values as:
reason, purpose, SELF-ESTEEM. As an Objectivist, I am "full of
myself," thank you very much, and proud of it.
(Is this an Objectivist newsgroup?)
Dennis Hardin
Fred Weiss
"Dennis Hardin" <ran...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:c07b1d14.02111...@posting.google.com...
> (A) Objectivism will win if its' leaders suppress dissent and demand
> that a true "Objectivist" concur with Rand on every basic issue. If
> we stand united--however small our numbers--Ayn Rand will eventually
> prevail (somehow).
>
> (B) Objectivism will win if its' leaders allow free discussion to
> flourish among its' supporters, thereby creating a philosophical
> movement of ever-growing size and influence.
Whether it does or doesn't have anything to do with Objectivism? In which
case what does that have to do with your question concerning the eventual
influence of Objectivism? If someone doesn't concur "on every basic issue",
then what has happened to the Objectivism which you expect to alter the
course of history? If - I assume in the confines of the halls of
Objectivism, such as its own publications, conferences, etc - you "allow
free discussion to flourish" regarding any and every issue and with regard
to any and every viewpoint, including those vehemently and offensively
opposed to Objectivism, ie. if you have a philosophical movement with no
standards, i.e. if we imitate the libertarians and their ludicrous
philosophical hash of a movement, then how do you expect to achieve
"ever-growing size and influence"? And even if we were somehow to achieve
that what have we accomplished if we are left with some cheapened and
watered-down version, if we have as Dr. Peikoff puts it "turned gold into
lead"?
By your own implicit admission, this is a philosophy of enormous importance
to the future of civilization. Is that philosophy of such great importance
whatever anyone wants to call it and it's principles whatever anyone cares
to think they are? What makes it of such importance? How can we allow it to
become open season on Objectivism because its creator is no longer with us
to defend it in her own name and as she did vehemently and intransigently in
her lifetime? Are we to abandon her standards and principles to accomodate
cowards and to pursue popularity - and abandon the very things which will
give it that influence which you claim to want it to have?
> It will win just as--in
> the past--reason has always eventually prevailed (e.g., Aristotle, the
> Renaissance, the Enlightenment) when men were free to use their minds
> and independent judgment.
To judge Objectivism and agree or disagree with it, to take it and apply it
to new and original areas - or to distort and twist it out of shape for
their own dishonest motives? To apply it as Tara Smith and Craig Biddle have
to ethics or as Chris Sciabarra has to the Journal of Ayn Rand Sludge? To
maintain its basic principles and high standards as Leonard Peikoff has,
even if that means fewer adherents, but honest ones, - or to cheapen and
water it down as David Kelley has in the name of a meaningless supposed
ever-growing size and influence which has little or nothing to do with the
vision of its creator?
Incidentally, this is a totally false alternative. It is precisely Ayn
Rand's high standards and elevated principles, in effect her challenging and
demanding view of man, which has been her *prime attraction*. Her publishers
always wanted her to water it down, tone it down, cut it back and she
refused knowing far better than they - and apparently even many of her
purported followers - what intelligent men were able and willing to accept.
And it is that which made her work bestsellers - as they are still.
Fred Weiss
Dave O'Hearn
> Dave O'Hearn <dave...@pobox.com> wrote in message...
> > What is the big deal about this "history" thing?
>
> You might as well ask: What is the big deal about the survival of
> civilization? I sort of thought that was obvious. I also thought it
> obvious that an Objectivist would want to play a strong role in
> supporting it. As a member of 'mankind,' what could possibly matter
> more to one's rational self-interest?
Of course the survival of civilization is important, but it is so
obvious that I don't think discussing it is very interesting. It is
like survival in general. Most people manage not to get themselves
killed in horrible ways. So however important it may be, it is
something most people are doing fine, and it doesn't really need
special attention.
Also, the two main things that are dangerous to civilization, anarchy
and tyranny, are so obviously bad that there is not much use stating
the fact.
> I did not cite the authors of the quotations because I wanted to
> encourage the members of this group to think independently about the
> two viewpoints, rather than lapse into the usual personal ad hominem
> vitriol, which is a waste of everyone's time.
Then you could've stated the viewpoints in your own words. If you
wanted discussion, or for people to think about the issue, you
shouldn't post a quote without citing it. Without a citation, you are
making no good will to demonstrate that the quote is genuine and not
out of context. It simply wastes time.
Also, you could've helped by saying what you thought was important
about the quotes. You just pasted them in and said they would be
"judged by history", but not how or why, how far in the future, and
how important it was.
> (This is an Objectivist newsgroup, right?)
So what? This is just another non-sequitor. I still don't know what
your point is. It has something to do with the survival of
civilization and David Kelley vs. Leonard Peikoff. It sounds like
pretty heavy stuff, but I can't figure out any specifics.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Dennis Hardin
6.atl.mindspring.net>...
> If someone doesn't concur "on every basic issue",
> then what has happened to the Objectivism which you expect to alter the
> course of history? If - I assume in the confines of the halls of
> Objectivism, such as its own publications, conferences, etc - you "allow
> free discussion to flourish" regarding any and every issue and with regard
> to any and every viewpoint, including those vehemently and offensively
> opposed to Objectivism, ie. if you have a philosophical movement with no
> standards, i.e. if we imitate the libertarians and their ludicrous
> philosophical hash of a movement, then how do you expect to achieve
> "ever-growing size and influence"? And even if we were somehow to achieve
> that what have we accomplished if we are left with some cheapened and
> watered-down version, if we have as Dr. Peikoff puts it "turned gold into
> lead"?
>
Wow. This is astonishing. Here we have the true motivation of
Peikoff and his little sycophants, spelled out in no uncertain terms:
Objectivism cannot survive free and open discussion. Of course, what
they really mean is: they personally feel inadequate to the task of
defending Objectivism in free and open discussion.
This represents the exact opposite of what such advocates pretend:
rather than a defense of Ayn Rand, this approach is a massive insult
to her and everything she stands for. [Imagine Aristotle's students
at the Lyceum demanding total allegiance to his every pronouncement,
and tarnishing as 'immoral' anyone who would question his infinite and
infallible wisdom.] And such cowardice--if allowed to continue to
dominate the leadership of the Objectivist movement--could indeed
spell doom for mankind's future. Even the genius of Ayn Rand may not
be able to shine through such a foreboding shroud of fear and
obfuscation masquerading as (phoney) moral intolerance.
Dennis Hardin
Fred Weiss
"Dennis Hardin" <ran...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:c07b1d14.02111...@posting.google.com...
> Wow. This is astonishing. Here we have the true motivation of
> Peikoff and his little sycophants, spelled out in no uncertain terms:
> Objectivism cannot survive free and open discussion. Of course, what
> they really mean is: they personally feel inadequate to the task of
> defending Objectivism in free and open discussion.
What I said was:
" I assume <you are referring to> in the confines of the halls of
Objectivism, such as its own publications, conferences, etc - you "allow
free discussion to flourish" regarding any and every issue and with regard
to any and every viewpoint, including those vehemently and offensively
opposed to Objectivism, ie. if you have a philosophical movement with no
standards, i.e. if we imitate the libertarians and their ludicrous
philosophical hash of a movement, then how do you expect to achieve
"ever-growing size and influence"?
If you weren't referring to "the halls of Objectivism" then your claim is
just patently false since we are quite willing to engage our opponents and
on a regular basis (including of course hpo). If you are referring to, e.g.
TIA, ARB Conferences, OSG, etc, I'll fully stand by my comment. It is highly
relevant that you weren't careful to make this distinction for the obvious
reason that you are prepared to cheapen Objectivist discourse, e.g. your
endorsement of The Journal of Ayn Rand Sludge, despite your objection to one
particularly egregious article (forgetting that allowing such an article is
precisely the principle Sciabarra is on and precisely what he wants to
accomplish in discussions of Objectivism and which is fully consistent with
the garbage in his books, which apparently people such as yourself are eager
to lap up).
Incidentally, I strongly and especially include in the category of those
"vehemently and offensively opposed to Objectivism", you are your Kelleyite
syncophants. This screed of yours being symptomatic. In your mission to
cheapen and water-down Objectivism you do far, far more damage to its
potential cultural impact than any of our explicit enemies. However in the
end the people who are drawn to you as with libertarianism, you will fully
deserve and you will deserve each other. If that's all you want, that's all
you'll get. The better ones will find us as they have - and, as you have
noted, history will judge the difference.
But perhaps history already has. Just out of curiosity, since David Friedman
got me thinking along these lines over the last couple of days, I wondered
how the vaunted David Kelley's books were doing on Amazon.com. The following
were the sales rankings of his books as of Nov.13.
The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. 232,351
Unrugged Individualism. 273,726
A Life of One's Own. 103,987
And how about Chris Sciabarra:
Ayn Rand The Russian Radical. 227,057
These on the other hand were the sales rankings of a smattering of books by
Objectivists, some well known, some hardly known at all outside of
Objectivist circles. I shouldn't include Leonard Peikoff because, well, in
fairness, he is so far out of the league of lesser lights and inferior minds
like Kelley and Sciabarra the comparisons would have been unfair but I
figured everyone would be curious:
Leonard Peikoff. OPAR. 30,208
Leonard Peikoff. Ominous Parallels. 40,984
Peter Schwartz, Return of the Primitive. 55,233
Michael Hurd, Grow Up America. 62,695
Craig Biddle. Loving Life. 26,034
Andrew Bernstein, Heart of a Pagan. 71,248
Edwin Locke, Prime Movers. 78,400
I suppose there is some irony in the fact that even Andrew Bernstein's Cliff
Notes on The Fountainhead which prompted some controversy and I gather was
criticized in Sciabarra's Sludge is probably selling better than all of
Kelley and Sciabarra's books combined at 62,093.
Fred Weiss
Charlotte Corday
> how the vaunted David Kelley's books were doing on Amazon.com. The following
> were the sales rankings of his books as of Nov.13.
>
> These on the other hand were the sales rankings of a smattering of books by
> Objectivists, some well known, some hardly known at all outside of
> Objectivist circles.
(Charlotte) Argumentum ad populum. Shall we pick our philosophers on
the basis of where they rank on a best seller list? In any case
consider the following:
"In the midst of my Amazon addiction, I managed to get out of the
house to attend a party, where I overheard someone mention that an
employee from Amazon.com was present. I sought this person out,
introduced myself, and when I started to explain I was an author of a
new novel, the Amazonite interrupted and said, "And you want to know
about the Amazon sales rankings, right?" I confessed. He was patient,
explaining that the ranking only indicates how a book sold in
comparison with the others in a particular period of time, say an
hour. Which tells you nothing about the overall performance of a book.
He did not know--or would not say--how many book sales would comprise
a noticeable bubble. "Total sales figures would be more relevant and
meaningful," he added. "But there's no way Amazon is going to release
that sort of data. It would be very useful to the competition if they
knew how much of what Amazon was actually selling. So try not to sweat
the ranking." David Corn at
http://www.americanpolitics.com/092999Corn.html
David Friedman
Charlotte Corday <charlott...@yahoo.com> wrote:
It is indeed tempting, especially for authors, to keep an eye on the
figures. In my experience of watching my books, they don't usually
fluctuate all that much. _Hidden Order_ is generally between about
20,000 and 40,000. It currently sells at a rate of a little over a
thousand copies a year, which gives at least a rough idea of the
conversion between Amazon.com ranking and sales.
The real problem isn't the fluctuation, it is that the ratio between
Amazon.com sales and all sales probably varies quite a lot with the
book.
David Friedman
orp.supernews.com>...
> Just out of curiosity, since David Friedman
> got me thinking along these lines over the last couple of days, I wondered
> how the vaunted David Kelley's books were doing on Amazon.com. The following
> were the sales rankings of his books as of Nov.13.
>
> The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand. 232,351
> Unrugged Individualism. 273,726
> A Life of One's Own. 103,987
>
> And how about Chris Sciabarra:
>
> Ayn Rand The Russian Radical. 227,057
>
> These on the other hand were the sales rankings of a smattering of books by
> Objectivists, some well known, some hardly known at all outside of
> Objectivist circles. I shouldn't include Leonard Peikoff because, well, in
> fairness, he is so far out of the league of lesser lights and inferior minds
> like Kelley and Sciabarra the comparisons would have been unfair but I
> figured everyone would be curious:
>
> Leonard Peikoff. OPAR. 30,208
> Leonard Peikoff. Ominous Parallels. 40,984
> Peter Schwartz, Return of the Primitive. 55,233
> Michael Hurd, Grow Up America. 62,695
> Craig Biddle. Loving Life. 26,034
> Andrew Bernstein, Heart of a Pagan. 71,248
> Edwin Locke, Prime Movers. 78,400
From which it follows that Peikoff's most popular book is a little
ahead of my _Hidden Order_ at the moment, although below where it was
a few weeks back. My _Law's Order_ ranks between the Schwartz and Hurd
books. That's the hardcopy--the ebook version is at 2,325, but I'm
afraid that's a less competitive field. My _Machinery of Freedom_ is
about even with Kelley's best figure.
It sounds as though, by myself, I'm roughly equivalent to a third of
the (living) Objectivist movement, measured by Amazon.com sales. But,
to be fair, Fred may well have omitted some of the lesser lights. On
the other hand, Fred is including _Ominous Parallels_, which is partly
by Rand.
Fred Weiss
"Charlotte Corday" <charlott...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:3491db6a.02111...@posting.google.com...
> (Charlotte) Argumentum ad populum.
True, but it was an issue "ad populum". Dennis thinks history will judge his
side better than ours and I was just providing some evidence to the contrary
(at least judging by readership).
As a publisher myself, I have found that Amazon numbers do provide a rough
reading of sales numbers.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote in message
news:86041cd5.02111...@posting.google.com...
>///Fred is including _Ominous Parallels_, which is partly by Rand.
I'm not sure what you are referring to. She wrote a brief laudatory
foreword.
Actually the one work included on the list I hesitated to include for that
reason is The Return of the Primitive which is the new edition of The New
Left, with two additional essays by Peter Schwartz.
Fred Weiss
David Friedman
Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> As a publisher myself, I have found that Amazon numbers do provide a rough
> reading of sales numbers.
As I said in another post, my one datum at the moment is that a book
that ranges from about 20,000 to 40,000 is selling somewhat over a
thousand copies a year in total. Can you add additional data? It would
be nice to have a rough mapping from rank to sales, and some idea of how
much it varies among books.
David Friedman
Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
I was just going by the listing on Amazon, which said it was by Peikoff
and Rand, unless I misread it.
Fred Weiss
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-3AB781.1...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
My closest title to that is Andrew Bernstein's Heart of a Pagan which
fluctuates between 50,000-70,000. That translates into annualized sales of
about 500 a year which seems to jibe with being about half of yours. To show
up at all with any consistency I find you need sales under 200,000. Over
that and it's maybe a copy or two now and then. I've never bothered with a
mapping because below a certain point and it's so low it's hardly worth
bothering
Amazon only reflects my wholesale sales, i.e. the sales handled by my
distributor. I sell some number on my web site and in other ways. In fact a
few of my titles virtually only sell on my web site.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"David Friedman" <dd...@daviddfriedman.com> wrote in message
news:ddfr-533496.2...@sea-read.news.verio.net...
Yeah, it's not clear. It should say "Leonard Peikoff, Ayn Rand (Foreword)"
Fred Weiss
Acar
>
>... since we are quite willing to engage our opponents and
> on a regular basis (including of course hpo).
Not always. You dismiss conventional logic as irrational and not worth
discussing. When you engage a non-Objectivist you need to understand that
Objectivism is being challenged by the use of conventional logic. The
challenger may validly be dismissed if his (conventional) logic is flawed.
If his conventional logic is sound, you must prove the value of your claim
without appealing to circularity. Time and again I have seen hpo members
abandon discussions in a flurry of ad-hominem when their claims are
challenged with *valid* arguments. Then the challenger is declared an
irrational troll.
Wolf DeVoon
.neo.rr.com>...
> When you engage a non-Objectivist you need to understand that
> Objectivism is being challenged by the use of conventional logic
This is one of the most remarkable statements I've ever seen.
Remarkable firstly because it supposes that Objectivists employ
unconventional logic, and secondly because it asserts that
non-Objectivists share conventions of logic which they deem reliable
and superior. Regarding the latter proposition, I would certainly
enjoy reading a brief summary of conventional wisdom.
In the meantime, aided only by Objectivist logic, if there is such a
thing, let's see what Friedman says in reply to George Reisman and
examine his reply closely for any covert Masonic premises.
DeVoon
Dennis Hardin
> "vehemently and offensively opposed to Objectivism", you are your Kelleyite
> syncophants. This screed of yours being symptomatic. >
Most of your remarks do not really merit any response. The
requirement of uniformity of agreement within the "halls of
Objectivism" is unworthy of serious discussion. However, I think I
should point out that you are factually mistaken in suggesting any
comparable degree of sycophantic, lock-step conformity among
Objectivists who do not follow the intrinsicism of Peikoff. As
evidence, you can refer to the prior thread "The Future of TOC," in
which this writer formally declared his disapproval of Kelley's
'position statement' on the War On Terror.
Dennis Hardin
Acar
"Wolf DeVoon" <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote in message
news:facfcb3e.02112...@posting.google.com...
Surprise!
Conventional logic is based on conventional assumptions. Objectivist logic
is based on Objectivist assumtions, especially the peculiar doctrines
sorruonding the concepts of identification and contradiction.. When faced
with an argument based on conventional assumptions, Objectivists (here)
appeal to circularity. For example:
Let X be an argument based on conventional assumptions, which challenges
Objectivit assumptions..
Let Y be an unconventional Objectivist assumption.
An Objectivist is likely to argue that X is false because of Y.
Objectivists seem unable to escape the paradigm of their assumptions long
enough to defend their assumptions on conventional terms, like John Galt
attempted to do with questionable success.
FYI, Friedman is not an Objectivist and Reisman has been excommunicated,
(whether this was a clash of logical systems I don't know). Also, they are
not arguing Objectivism. The problem comes when arguing doctrine.
Robert Kolker
Acar wrote:
> Surprise!
> Conventional logic is based on conventional assumptions. Objectivist logic
> is based on Objectivist assumtions, especially the peculiar doctrines
> sorruonding the concepts of identification and contradiction.
1. Logic is about inferences.
2. So-called Objectivist logic has the same characteristic as any other
logic. Its inference modes are truth preserving (you can't infer a false
conclusion from a true premise) and the law of non-contradiction holds.
3. Identification is an epistemological issue, not an issue concerning
logical inference. Identifications take the form an instance X of type A
is an instance of type B. So what is the big deal?
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Dennis Hardin" <ran...@dslextreme.com> wrote in message
news:c07b1d14.02112...@posting.google.com...
> Fred Weiss <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message > standards, i.e. if
we >
> > Incidentally, I strongly and especially include in the category of those
> > "vehemently and offensively opposed to Objectivism", you are your
Kelleyite
> > syncophants. This screed of yours being symptomatic. >
> -----------------
>
> Most of your remarks do not really merit any response.
Oh, you mean your comments "cannot survive free and open discussion."? Or
that you "personally feel inadequate to the task of defending" them?
>The requirement of uniformity of agreement within the "halls of
> Objectivism" is unworthy of serious discussion.
I agree if anyone ever suggested it. What I said was with regard to "basic
issues". The purpose of that blatant distortion is obvious and has been
essential to the Kelley con game since its inception. Not that it would
matter since you seem incapable of grasping what is basic to Objectivism and
what isn't. You providing a prime example of that. On the one hand you make
a very good identification and display appropriate and righteous outrage and
justifiable *intolerance* at the publication of a vile article in The
Journal of Ayn Rand Sludge (a term you brilliantly coined as a result of the
incident). And then, as if nothing had happened, you turn around on a dime,
as if the article had never appeared and had no more significance than an
uncontrolled hiccup at a party, and pat Sciabarffa on the back and tell him
what a great job he's been doing.
> However, I think I
> should point out that you are factually mistaken in suggesting any
> comparable degree of sycophantic, lock-step conformity among
> Objectivists who do not follow the intrinsicism of Peikoff.
LOL. Oh, you guys are just less "sycophantic" and "lock-step" in your
conformity? Tell me, how many of you somewhat less sycophants agree with
Peikoff's "Fact and Value"? How many of you disagree with "Truth and
Toleration"? How many of you vehemently oppose and are nauseated by Kelley's
embracing of the Brandens?
As
> evidence, you can refer to the prior thread "The Future of TOC," in
> which this writer formally declared his disapproval of Kelley's
> 'position statement' on the War On Terror.
If you are referring to Kelley's position on risking civilian lives, I
commend you for your disapproval. Your position is the correct one and the
one consistent with Objectivism. *Kelley's is not*. Kelley's amounts at the
very least to the endangering of American lives and in my view constitutes
the equivalent of the capitulation of the United States to it enemies -
*and is therefore diametrically opposed to Objectivism*. This is not a minor
mistake anymore than the article you denounced in The Sludge was. But for
some reason you are too much of a coward to draw the appropriate conclusion
from these two examples. So while you are "technically" correct you are in
fact doing what Kelley advocates, namely, divorcing your moral judgements
from application to reality, i.e. sundering "fact and value" in precisely
the way that Peikoff describes. And this is the opposite of the Objectivist
view on the subject. You create in your mind a strawman and regard it as
"intrincism". It is not. It is objective. The problem is that your views are
apparently held in your own mind as *subjective*, i.e. as the equivalent of
"just my lil ol' opinion and who am I to judge anyone as a result of it".
You ought to think about that. That is not the view of it that Ayn Rand had.
And as we've said to you guys from the start. You can hold any views you
want, agree or not with any aspect of Objectivism, just have the decency not
to call what you are doing Objectivism.
Let me give you another example of what I am referring to. I heard about
this incident second-hand, so I may not have all the details correct, but
that's secondary to the point of it. Apparently, the summer after the
appearance of Barbara Brandens' excrement version of The Passion of Ayn Rand
appeared on Showtime, she was invited by David Kelley to appear at one of
your summer conferences. It is my understanding - again I emphasize heard
second hand - that a large number of people got up and walked out in protest
when she appeared on the podium. I remember thinking at the time that if
true I was impressed with them doing that. It showed that they still had
something vaguely resembling principles - except for one thing. The person
they should have walked out on was David Kelley for inviting her in the
first place. But that obviously none of them did.
And that, my friend, is precisely your problem.
Fred Weiss
Acar
"Robert Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com> wrote in message
news:3DDD70FE...@attbi.com...
> Acar wrote:
> > Surprise!
Considering the Objectivist definition of logic, which hinges on
identification, and the strange definition of rationality, one is entitled
to expect unconventional inferences, inasmuch as questionable premises are
valid within their paradigm.
By the way I was going to re-send before I saw your reply because my server
doesn't show my reply. If Wolf doesn't have it I'll be glad to re-publish or
e-mail him.
x
x
x
x
Dennis Hardin
"The problem is that your views are apparently held in your own mind
and who am I to judge anyone as a result of it.' You ought to think
about that..."
________________________
Thank you for your thoughtful and well-considered remarks. I truly am
impressed by the fact that you have identified several issues
correctly and articulated your position very well. (Once again I do
want to offer a factual correction: I am NOT presently a member of
TOC.)
However, I think it is important that you be consistent with the
policy established by your cohorts at ARI. The inference seems clear
that my actions could not possibly be consistent with Objectivist
principles of honesty, integrity and intellectual independence.
Therefore, please proceed to repudiate me thoroughly and refuse
further discussion of these issues with me on the basis of my obvious
and incorrigible moral corruption.
Dennis Hardin
Acar
others using the same server. It will be a duplication for some.
"Wolf DeVoon" <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote in message
news:facfcb3e.02112...@posting.google.com...
Surprise!
Conventional logic is based on conventional assumptions. Objectivist logic
is based on Objectivist assumtions, especially the peculiar doctrines
Wolf DeVoon
> enough to defend their assumptions on conventional terms, like John Galt
> attempted to do with questionable success.
Huh. So, Galt got it wrong someplace in a 50-page argument? Rats.
Where?
> FYI, Friedman is not an Objectivist and Reisman has been excommunicated,
> (whether this was a clash of logical systems I don't know). Also, they are
> not arguing Objectivism. The problem comes when arguing doctrine.
Wow. Friedman not an O'ist? And here I thought that consequentialists
were O'reos, covert Objectivists with a chocolate cookie ambition to
sell books and recline in tax-exempt tenure, teaching sophomores to
add and subtract economic consequences in medieval Iceland.
Talk sense, sonny. You got a beef with Galt's speech, be explicit.
DeVoon
Rod Nibbe
> Wow. Friedman not an O'ist? And here I thought that consequentialists
> were O'reos, covert Objectivists with a chocolate cookie ambition to
> sell books and recline in tax-exempt tenure, teaching sophomores to
> add and subtract economic consequences in medieval Iceland.
> Talk sense, sonny. You got a beef with Galt's speech, be explicit.
!! <LOL>
I must say it seemed as if the sun rose a
bit earlier than expected today in Anchorage
after I read this. What a hoot. I owe you
a laugh Mr. DeVoon.
-RKN
Beaten Paths Are For Beaten Men
A. Carmichael
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote
> > Objectivists seem unable to escape the paradigm of their assumptions long
> > enough to defend their assumptions on conventional terms, like John Galt
> > attempted to do with questionable success.
>
> Huh. So, Galt got it wrong someplace in a 50-page argument? Rats.
> Where?
Well kid, had it been just 25 pages he might been half as wrong. Don't
you hate to imagine what 100 pages might have been like? Besides it
was you who said "rats". (I could be taking that out of context).
> > FYI, Friedman is not an Objectivist and Reisman has been excommunicated,
> > (whether this was a clash of logical systems I don't know). Also, they are
> > not arguing Objectivism. The problem comes when arguing doctrine.
> Wow. Friedman not an O'ist? And here I thought that consequentialists
> were O'reos, covert Objectivists with a chocolate cookie ambition to
> sell books and recline in tax-exempt tenure, teaching sophomores to
> add and subtract economic consequences in medieval Iceland.
An impressive counter-argument. Good for a laugh.
> Talk sense, sonny. You got a beef with Galt's speech, be explicit.
You were saying that my statement was amazing and you sought to prove
it by the example a logical discussion between two Objectivists. Are
we still working on that?
x
x
x
x
Wolf DeVoon
.a87...@posting.google.com>...
> You were saying that my statement was amazing and you sought to prove
> it by the example a logical discussion between two Objectivists. Are
> we still working on that?
>
I have no idea what you are talking about. Previous posts advanced the
notion that Objectivists have some alternative, inferior logic, which
I find pretty laughable. If you wish to discuss logic or defects in
Galt's Speech, please do. I welcome reasoned argument when offered.
Wolf DeVoon
R Lawrence
> If you wish to discuss logic or defects in
>Galt's Speech, please do. I welcome reasoned argument when offered.
By his own admission in this forum in the past, he has never read it. So
don't expect much.
--
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@yahoo.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: http://www.objectivism.addr.com/
A. Carmichael
This line of response appears to be evasive since pervious posts
advanced notions that were well articulated and succintly explained
and justified in some detail. Before you ask for further justification
you may want to address the justification that has already been
offered. Your amusement would look more genuine if your request for
further clarification were even slightly credible.
Acar
"R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OtNE9.16$0b...@news2.central.cox.net...
> Wolf DeVoon <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote:
>
> > If you wish to discuss logic or defects in
> >Galt's Speech, please do. I welcome reasoned argument when offered.
>
> By his own admission in this forum in the past, he has never read it. So
> don't expect much.
Another statement borne out of carelessness, totally false. Starting with
the earliest post in which I gave reasons for not reading AS, I have stated
here on several occasions that I read Galt's speech. It was recommended
early by Betsy Speicher. I went to a bookstore and got myself a used copy of
AR and studied it. I have made reference to it in some detail in some of my
arguments. My study of Galt's speech plus a randomly selected chapter of AS
(the one in which some goats are killed by an experimental device) were
influential in my considered decision not to devote the time to read AS. I
have expalined repeatedly that it is not an ideological boycott.
David Tomlin
> My study of Galt's speech plus a randomly selected chapter of AS
> (the one in which some goats are killed by an experimental device) were
> influential in my considered decision not to devote the time to read AS. I
> have expalined repeatedly that it is not an ideological boycott.
A strange thing to do with a work of fiction. Have you read the first
chapter?
Wolf DeVoon
> ....I went to a bookstore and got myself a used copy of
> AR and studied it....
Okay, cool. Proceed to reasoned argument, then.
Wolf
Acar
I'm going to repeat myself, but for the last time. I wrote that Objectivist
logic is distinctive. You replied that the statement was amazing and
proceeded to ridicule it by citing the example of an argument between two
alleged Objectivists. I then proceeded to "reasoned argument" by explaining
albeit succintly the basis for my statement. (I also explained why the
Friedman/Reisman argument did not apply.) I elaborated further with specific
arguments in a response to Bob Kolker. Your response was to evade the
arguments and write a non-sequitor paragraph ridiculing David Friedman's
theories. My arguments responding to your challenge are still on your table.
I assume that the game of shifting hoops for your opponent to jump has
worked for you in the past. I prefer that you stay on topic. Otherwise you
can familiarize yourself in part with my opinion of Galt's speech by doing a
Google search such as + acar + "Galt's speech". If you choose to react to
any of that, I suggest that we move it to another thread.
Acar
"David Tomlin" <jet...@home.com> wrote in message
news:f8576779.0211...@posting.google.com...
It was not recommeneded to me for the fiction aspect. I read the speech for
philosophical content and sampled the rest to see if there was anything that
could induce me to read further.
>Have you read the first
> chapter?
I remember reading a few pages of that. I also read the excerpt on the ARI
website (Dagny is on the train, the train stops, etc.) I'm sure that the
fiction aspect is quite interesting, like are thousands of other fictional
works.
x
x
R Lawrence
>>>If you wish to discuss logic or defects in
>>>Galt's Speech, please do. I welcome reasoned argument when offered.
>>
>>By his own admission in this forum in the past, he has never read it. So
>>don't expect much.
>
>Another statement borne out of carelessness, totally false.
Not so much carelessness as deficient memory. I recalled your statements
that you had not read the book, but forgot the caveat that you had read the
speech. My mistake.
I assume Mr. DeVoon can now await your logical dissection of Galt's speech,
based on your extensive knowledge of it, plus "Fact and Value" and "a few
other minutia" that you claim to have read. (cf.
http://groups.google.
com/groups?selm=007d01c0dc16%24f6347c80%24d6181d18%40cinci.rr.com ).
>I have expalined repeatedly that it is not an ideological boycott.
This comment seems out of place. I don't believe anyone in the thread has
accused you of such a boycott. Personally, I would never accuse you of such
a high-minded act.
Acar
> I assume Mr. DeVoon can now await your logical dissection of Galt's
speech,
> based on your extensive knowledge of it, plus "Fact and Value" and "a few
> other minutia" that you claim to have read. (cf.
> http://groups.google.
> com/groups?selm=007d01c0dc16%24f6347c80%24d6181d18%40cinci.rr.com ).
Wolf may wait, but challenging on X then asking for Y may lead to getting
nothing. It's a question of trust. For my dissecting skills, such as they
are, do a Google search. I will not repeat myself in a command performance,
but if Wolf looks up my past remarks and challenges them I will respond, as
I responded to his previous challenge. Surely you understand the difference
between filing an argument in disagreement and ordering a command
performance.
> >I have expalined repeatedly that it is not an ideological boycott.
>
> This comment seems out of place. I don't believe anyone in the thread has
> accused you of such a boycott. Personally, I would never accuse you of
such
> a high-minded act.
That is Objectivist logic. It's backwards.
jo domani
.1705...@posting.google.com>...
> Wolf DeVoon <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote in message news:<facfcb3e.02
> 11260645...@posting.google.com>...
>
> >
I have decided to make it known to whoever makes
the quote above that it is due to your own bloody
stupidity that you have no idea.
jo domani
ews2.central.cox.net>...
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
> >"R Lawrence" <RL0...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Wolf DeVoon <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote:
>
> >>>If you wish to discuss logic or defects in
> >>>Galt's Speech, please do. I welcome reasoned argument when offered.
> >>
> >>By his own admission in this forum in the past, he has never read it. So
> >>don't expect much.
> >
> >Another statement borne out of carelessness, totally false.
Who is > >>, >, > >>>, > >? Why dont you use the same format
as the rest of us? No wonder you cant work out your sexuality!
Wolf DeVoon
> I assume that the game of shifting hoops for your opponent to jump has
> worked for you in the past. I prefer that you stay on topic. Otherwise you
> can familiarize yourself in part with my opinion of Galt's speech by doing a
> Google search such as + acar + "Galt's speech". If you choose to react to
> any of that, I suggest that we move it to another thread.
Google sez: Your original search: acar "Galt's Speech" returned zero
results, so I tried other permutations. Apparently, you do not exist.
This brings up another complaint I have. Let's compare our situations,
yours and mine.
I had a quarter million words in print. You have to use UC Berkeley's
Wayback Machine nowdays to find them, because LFC's domains have been
kilt stone dead. Try www.archive.org ->
www.zolatimes.com/writers/devoon_w.html
I'm also busier than you are, whoever you are, Acar. So, the thing to
do is speak your mind, briefly, right here ASAP pronto and
immediately. I will answer. Fair enough?
DeVoon
David Tomlin
> So, Galt got it wrong someplace in a 50-page argument? Rats.
> Where?
It isn't fifty pages of argument. Galt's speech is very heavily
padded with rhetoric. That's why I prefer to work with the
non-fiction versions of Rand's arguments, such as TOE.
When I first read Atlas Shrugged, I was a teenager with an intense
interest in science. One thing about Galt's speech struck me as
particularly odd. A superbright, college educated, twentieth
century man talks on and on about matters biological, without once
mentioning Darwin or evolution.
When I read some of Rand's non-fiction, I was startled to discover
that she just wasn't interested in modern biology. For example,
she wrote "I am not a student of the theory of evolution and,
therefore, I am neither its supporter or its opponent." (_The Ayn
Rand Letter_, May 21, 1973)
Such remarks put _Atlas Shrugged_ in a new light for me. The
novel's alternate world may be thought of as one in which there
never was a Darwin, or his equivalent. It is a world in which
physicists are penetrating the ultimate secrets of matter, but
biology may never have gotten beyond Aristotle.
Aristotle accounted for the capabilities of living things by
positing a teleology inherent in nature. Rand rejected this,
without actually accepting the Darwinian alternative of natural
selection. This left her with no *theoretical* account of the
functioning and behavior of living things. This isn't necessarily
bad, but I think it leaves a gap in her attempt to relate "value"
to "life."
Rand broke with both Aristotle and Darwin by ignoring reproduction.
She claimed the "ultimate end" of each living thing is its own
survival. The difficulties thus occasioned have been much discussed.
Most recently, see the thread titled "Is-Ought debate with David
Friedman."
I think that's enough for one post. Stay tuned for more on where
Galt went wrong. :-)
Malenor
> Wolf DeVoon wrote
>
> > So, Galt got it wrong someplace in a 50-page argument? Rats.
> > Where?
>
> It isn't fifty pages of argument. Galt's speech is very heavily
> padded with rhetoric. That's why I prefer to work with the
> non-fiction versions of Rand's arguments, such as TOE.
>
> When I first read Atlas Shrugged, I was a teenager with an intense
> interest in science. One thing about Galt's speech struck me as
> particularly odd. A superbright, college educated, twentieth
> century man talks on and on about matters biological, without once
> mentioning Darwin or evolution.
>
> When I read some of Rand's non-fiction, I was startled to discover
> that she just wasn't interested in modern biology. For example,
> she wrote "I am not a student of the theory of evolution and,
> therefore, I am neither its supporter or its opponent." (_The Ayn
> Rand Letter_, May 21, 1973)
>
Isn't that a strange argument? I am not a student of, say, mathematics,
therefore I am not its supporter...
Looking more carefully at that "argument," I would simply call
it non-communicative by means of rationalization. Typical of her.
> Such remarks put _Atlas Shrugged_ in a new light for me. The
> novel's alternate world may be thought of as one in which there
> never was a Darwin, or his equivalent. It is a world in which
> physicists are penetrating the ultimate secrets of matter, but
> biology may never have gotten beyond Aristotle.
>
The novel simply reflects "Rand's" subjective viewpoint, and
therefore needs to be discarded philosophically.
> Aristotle accounted for the capabilities of living things by
> positing a teleology inherent in nature. Rand rejected this,
> without actually accepting the Darwinian alternative of natural
> selection.
Assuming that the very act of thinking in terms of evolution
does not involve any theory of an intrinsic teleology. The
latter is an assumption used in any discussion of evolution.
> This left her with no *theoretical* account of the
> functioning and behavior of living things. This isn't necessarily
> bad, but I think it leaves a gap in her attempt to relate "value"
> to "life."
>
She had no theoretical account for anything because of the
paucity of her metaphysics. In that sense, she was at least
honest enough to be agnostic about Darwinism. To accept
Darwinism in the absence of any theoretical backdrop is
nothing but an act of blind faith, intellectually blind, that is.
> Rand broke with both Aristotle and Darwin by ignoring reproduction.
> She claimed the "ultimate end" of each living thing is its own
> survival. The difficulties thus occasioned have been much discussed.
> Most recently, see the thread titled "Is-Ought debate with David
> Friedman."
>
But you can't have a theory of "ultimate ends" without teleology.
This is extremely obvious.
> I think that's enough for one post. Stay tuned for more on where
> Galt went wrong. :-)
>
Just read a few words of Galt's speech or any "Rand" essay.
Very interesting post, btw, looking forward to more reports.
My criticalness was in no way a negativity.
Churl Beck
[...]
> Aristotle accounted for the capabilities of living things by
> positing a teleology inherent in nature. Rand rejected this...
[...]
Rand /said/ she rejected this, but I would argue that it isn't completely
true.
"Fundamental to an objective theory of values is the question: Of value to
whom and for what? An objective theory does not permit...the seperation of
'value' from 'purpose'..." [C:UI, pg 28]
Since she said that plants "value," that means that plants--and all living
things to which she extends this notion--are purposive. This is not
inconsequential to her argument, because if there is not purpose in the
universe, then value cannot be said to objectively exist "in" the universe.
She seized on non-volitional lifeforms, in particular, to prove that value
isn't just a matter of arbitrary choice.
--CHuRL
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ZHsG9.8976$yy.12...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > When I read some of Rand's non-fiction, I was startled to discover
> > that she just wasn't interested in modern biology. For example,
> > she wrote "I am not a student of the theory of evolution and,
> > therefore, I am neither its supporter or its opponent." (_The Ayn
> > Rand Letter_, May 21, 1973)
> >
>
> Isn't that a strange argument? I am not a student of, say, mathematics,
> therefore I am not its supporter...
The analogy would have been "I am not a student of <some theory> in
mathematics..." which would not have been "strange" - except perhaps to you.
> Looking more carefully at that "argument," I would simply call
> it non-communicative by means of rationalization. Typical of her.
Was it an argument, let alone an "argument"? It's just a comment on the
status of her belief on a subject and the reason for it which is quite
communicative and honest which, yes, is typical of her. The distortion of it
is typical of you.
>... The novel simply reflects "Rand's" subjective viewpoint, and
> therefore needs to be discarded philosophically...
....speaking of "arguments" which are "non-comunicative by means of
rationalization" - and typical of you.
Fred Weiss
Wolf DeVoon
> Rand broke with both Aristotle and Darwin by ignoring reproduction.
> She claimed the "ultimate end" of each living thing is its own
> survival. The difficulties thus occasioned have been much discussed.
> Most recently, see the thread titled "Is-Ought debate with David
> Friedman."
David, you'll recall that you encouraged me to participate here.
Friedman's opinion doesn't interest me. Nor do I think you're
interpreting Galt or Rand properly. I question whether you understand
Darwin, who argued that random variation and survival of the fittest
were the engine of evolution. If so, Galt's highly exceptional moral
character and intelligence befitted his fictional superheroism. Miss
Rand was quite explicit, saying that her proof of the existence of
heroic ubermenschen lay in the fact that AS was written and published.
I accept it as true, that Rand's "strike of the men of the mind" has
become factual as well as plausible. It has been my purpose to strip
competence from New Rome on the Potomac, and I've done very well at
it, thank you. More importantly, tens of thousands of honest souls
have quit on their own, without Rand, Galt, or Wolf DeVoon, rather
than support their own destroyers. They do it for their own sake, not
some hypothetical future biological outcome. If I remember Crow's
argument at all correctly, the crucial question is gene pool drift.
Objectivists have fewer offspring than the Crips, and it doesn't
matter to those who live for their own sake, irrespective of
collective outcomes.
Individual human beings are not ants. Everything we do is voluntary --
including the decision to procreate, which I made a year ago, at age
52, probably the final moral commitment I will undertake in life. I
did it for myself, for my own spiritual purpose, new life to replace
my old worn-out one. I would not have done this except for Dagny, who
was worthy and compelling and young at heart, a great mom and a highly
respected geophysicist. Anything happens to me, Baby X will thrive in
Dagny's care. I knew it. Knowledge is power. The exercise of power is
Galt's privilege and moral duty, if you permit the term "duty" as
inescapable responsibility for one's self-actualization.
The "ultimate end" of any man's life is negotiable and personal.
Repeat after me. Men are individuals with the same freedom as mythical
demigods. Our mortality puts the question in sharp focus. What shall I
do? -- and why? Galt is, therefore he ought (of his own self-generated
knowledge and chosen purpose).
I know this doesn't address the issue on your terms. I reject
everything except the obvious. Rand was the greatest of all hedonists,
because she saw the poverty of playthings and baubles, saw the glory
which is uniquely personal independence and integrity, regardless of
dominant culture or political economy.
What's at issue is neither ant colonies nor peacock feathers. It is
rather the human condition, human cognition, human volition and human
potential. Rand was correct in observing that no living thing spits in
its own face and sacrifices itself, except willful man under
theinfluence of blank-out, don't ask, don't tell, impetetrable,
mystical altruism.
Wolf DeVoon
Acar
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote
>
> > I assume that the game of shifting hoops for your opponent to jump has
> > worked for you in the past. I prefer that you stay on topic. Otherwise
you
> > can familiarize yourself in part with my opinion of Galt's speech by
doing a
> > Google search such as + acar + "Galt's speech". If you choose to react
to
> > any of that, I suggest that we move it to another thread.
>
> Google sez: Your original search: acar "Galt's Speech" returned zero
> results, so I tried other permutations. Apparently, you do not exist.
I recommended the method of search after I tried it out. It works well. I
suggest that you learn how to use the engine. It's not complicated.
> This brings up another complaint I have. Let's compare our situations,
> yours and mine.
>
> I had a quarter million words in print.
You are consistent. Previously you said that an argument was sound because
it covers 50 pages. How many words are there in print from and about Kant?
>You have to use UC Berkeley's
> Wayback Machine nowdays to find them, because LFC's domains have been
> kilt stone dead. Try www.archive.org ->
> www.zolatimes.com/writers/devoon_w.html
>
> I'm also busier than you are, whoever you are, Acar.
This probably means that you are very busy, and inclined to arbitrary
conclusions.
>So, the thing to
> do is speak your mind, briefly, right here ASAP pronto and
> immediately. I will answer. Fair enough?
I can trust you to answer? Then please do. Time's a wasting.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Acar
Thank you for picking this up. I was holding out until DeVoon answers my
reply to his original attack. From his reply to you I can see that he's
indeed the artist of shifting hoops, as his reference to your arguments is
tangential at best. Like so many Objectivists, he argues by assertion, that
is. he preaches.
I studied Galt's speech several years ago and Wolf is not the kind of
focused discussant that would motivate me to go back and do it again, so I
will limit myself to a few general remarks from memory. The points that you
make in your excellent post are related to my principal general objection,
which is the allegation of factual conclusions of cosmic proportions derived
from selective observations, followed by a chain of deductive conclusions
based on those shaky premises. I look forward to the rest of your
exposition.
David Tomlin
> David Tomlin wrote
> > Rand broke with both Aristotle and Darwin by ignoring reproduction.
> > She claimed the "ultimate end" of each living thing is its own
> > survival. The difficulties thus occasioned have been much discussed.
> > Most recently, see the thread titled "Is-Ought debate with David
> > Friedman."
> David, you'll recall that you encouraged me to participate here.
Indeed I do, and I appreciate your presence. What's your point?
> Friedman's opinion doesn't interest me.
I appealed to no one's opinion. The subject is *argument*.
> Nor do I think you're interpreting Galt or Rand properly.
That's very uninformative. What are my misinterpretations? What are
the correct interpretations?
> I question whether you understand Darwin, who argued that random
> variation and survival of the fittest were the engine of evolution.
I think I understand Darwin better than you. Have you read _The Origin
of Species_? I have, more than once.
I recommend it highly, if only for the pleasure of seeing a fine mind
at work. It's on line at
http://www.literature.org/authors/darwin-charles/the-origin-of-species/
Here's a quote from Chapter 3:
"I should premise that I use the term Struggle for Existence in a large
and metaphorical sense, including dependence of one being on another,
and including (which is more important) not only the life of the
individual, but success in leaving progeny."
I don't think "survival of the fittest" occurs anywhere in this work.
IIRC, the phrase was coined, and popularized, by Thomas Huxley.
> If so, Galt's highly exceptional moral character and intelligence
> befitted his fictional superheroism.
You've lost me completely. I don't know what the "if so" refers to. And
I thought we were discussing Galt's argument, not his character. (I know,
I closed the first sentence with a preposition, and opened the next with
a conjunction. Call me a fugitive from the grammar police.)
> Miss Rand was quite explicit, saying that her proof of the existence
> of heroic ubermenschen lay in the fact that AS was written and
> published. I accept it as true, that Rand's "strike of the men of
> the mind" has become factual as well as plausible. It has been my
> purpose to strip competence from New Rome on the Potomac, and I've
> done very well at it, thank you.
OK. I don't know what any of this has to do with Galt's argument.
> More importantly, tens of thousands of honest souls have quit on
> their own, without Rand, Galt, or Wolf DeVoon, rather than support
> their own destroyers. They do it for their own sake, not some
> hypothetical future biological outcome.
Darwinism isn't Social Darwinism. IOW, this shaft is loosed against
a strawman.
> If I remember Crow's argument at all correctly, the crucial question
> is gene pool drift.
I don't know the individual you speak of here.
> Objectivists have fewer offspring than the Crips, and it doesn't
> matter to those who live for their own sake, irrespective of
> collective outcomes.
Crips? Aren't they an LA street gang?
Has someone actually collected data on the fertility rates of
Objectivists? Did he get a government grant?
> Individual human beings are not ants.
Correct. And hummingbirds aren't stingrays.
> Everything we do is voluntary --
Except breathing, having a seizure, slipping on a banana peel . . .
You might say we only "do" such things in a manner of speaking, and
that strictly speaking we only "do" what we do voluntarily. But that
would just be circular.
> including the decision to procreate,
On the contrary, people have often found themselves procreating more
or less involuntarily.
> The "ultimate end" of any man's life is negotiable and personal.
You mean it's a whim?
If this is your view, it isn't Rand's/Galt's.
> I know this doesn't address the issue on your terms.
Does it address the issue on Rand's terms?
> I reject everything except the obvious.
I don't know what you mean by this.
> What's at issue is neither ant colonies nor peacock feathers.
Wrong. Animals and plants are at issue, because Rand put them into
issue.
It is not obvious that the actions of animals and plants are of any
relevance to human ethics. But Rand claimed they are, and her champions
have the burden of defending that claim or conceding it.
> Rand was correct in observing that no living thing spits in its own
> face and sacrifices itself, except willful man under theinfluence of
> blank-out, don't ask, don't tell, impetetrable, mystical altruism.
Except for male honeybees, who race one another for a single,
suicidal copulation.
Wolf DeVoon
7b70...@posting.google.com>...
> > Miss Rand was quite explicit, saying that her proof of the existence
> > of heroic ubermenschen lay in the fact that AS was written and
> > published. I accept it as true, that Rand's "strike of the men of
> > the mind" has become factual as well as plausible. It has been my
> > purpose to strip competence from New Rome on the Potomac, and I've
> > done very well at it, thank you.
>
> OK. I don't know what any of this has to do with Galt's argument.
Above is the essential path of Galt's argument. He uses a radio speech
to clobber the bad guys, defend reason, and speak in particular to
Dagny.
[snip]
> > Everything we do is voluntary --
>
> Except breathing, having a seizure, slipping on a banana peel . . .
A being of volitional consciousness faces the decision to live or die
every moment, in wakefulness or sleep. Mature people decide whether
and how to manage epilepsy, avoid banana peels, to be or not to be.
[snip]
> > including the decision to procreate,
>
> On the contrary, people have often found themselves procreating more
> or less involuntarily.
Objectivists don't procreate involuntarily. Trust me.
> > The "ultimate end" of any man's life is negotiable and personal.
>
> You mean it's a whim? If this is your view, it isn't Rand's/Galt's.
Sure it is. Man is free and faces the prospect of individual life.
There were no Galt-clones in AS. Rather, Rand presented a dozen heroes
and heroines who piloted vastly different lives. Cheryl Taggart died a
suicide, rather than be victimized.
[snip]
> > What's at issue is neither ant colonies nor peacock feathers.
>
> Wrong. Animals and plants are at issue, because Rand put them into
> issue.
Let's talk about plants, then. No volition. No reason or science or
language. They grow or die according to external conditions, cannot
alter their environment by building furnaces, shelters, aquaducts.
[snip]
> > Rand was correct in observing that no living thing spits in its own
> > face and sacrifices itself, except willful man under the influence of
> > blank-out, don't ask, don't tell, impenetrable, mystical altruism.
>
> Except for male honeybees, who race one another for a single,
> suicidal copulation.
Honeybees are not men. They have as much choice as plants. Animal and
plant behavior and reproduction, however curious in detail, is
goal-oriented but not philosophical (the product of inquiry and
reason). Having said that, human parents sacrifice much of their
freedom and wealth for children of their own choosing (which includes
adoption).
We should move on to whatever else you feel is wrong in Galt's speech,
beyond behavior of male honeybees. It may be a rare opportunity to
talk to each other. I'm not always able to participate, because I have
to respond to events as they unfold in Nosara. Please ignore my abrupt
style. I'm speaking as a friend and colleague with the only voice I
possess.
Wolf
Wolf DeVoon
===========================================================
Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message news:<oDTC9.23995$tY3.6051579@twister
.neo.rr.com>...
> When you engage a non-Objectivist you need to understand that
> Objectivism is being challenged by the use of conventional logic
This is one of the most remarkable statements I've ever seen.
Remarkable firstly because it supposes that Objectivists employ
unconventional logic, and secondly because it asserts that
non-Objectivists share conventions of logic which they deem reliable
and superior. Regarding the latter proposition, I would certainly
enjoy reading a brief summary of conventional wisdom.
===========================================================
Please make some remark about "conventional logic" or state a question
about Galt's Speech. Otherwise, you have to debate someone else.
DeVoon
Kwag7693
>A being of volitional consciousness faces the decision to live or die
>every moment, in wakefulness or sleep.
I can choose to die or live while asleep? I thought sleep was a period of
unconsciousness.
>> On the contrary, people have often found themselves procreating more
>> or less involuntarily.
>
>Objectivists don't procreate involuntarily. Trust me.
Their sperm and eggs are special.
>Cheryl Taggart died a
>suicide, rather than be victimized.
She committed suicide when she found out what a creep James was, right? Do you
think that was a moral action?
>Let's talk about plants, then. No volition. No reason or science or
>language. They grow or die according to external conditions,
And internal conditions, like their nature.
>cannot
>alter their environment by building furnaces, shelters, aquaducts.
They aren't volitional; some of them do pretty neat things about altering their
environment for their betterment though.
>Having said that, human parents sacrifice much of their
>freedom and wealth for children of their own choosing (which includes
>adoption).
Why is child-rearing so often considered a sacrifice? We don't tend to say
"Wow! you sacrificed a lot of time and money for that big screen TV." Why is
the investment in the creation of a child so readily seen to be a sacrifice?
Kevin
Acar
"Kwag7693" <kwag...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021203102300...@mb-fi.aol.com...
> Why is child-rearing so often considered a sacrifice? We don't tend to
say
> "Wow! you sacrificed a lot of time and money for that big screen TV." Why
is
> the investment in the creation of a child so readily seen to be a
sacrifice?
Because of the universal meaning of "sacrifice" or its translation into
almost any language. However by Objectivist logic it may or may not be a
sacrifice.
Acar
"Wolf DeVoon" <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote in message
news:facfcb3e.02120...@posting.google.com...
My replies to you and Kolker were responsive. Stop lawyering and address my
arguments instead of demanding a presentation. Otherwise, you have to debate
someone else.
x
x
x
x
Malenor
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:asdsj7$49i$1...@slb2.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ZHsG9.8976$yy.12...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> > > When I read some of Rand's non-fiction, I was startled to discover
> > > that she just wasn't interested in modern biology. For example,
> > > she wrote "I am not a student of the theory of evolution and,
> > > therefore, I am neither its supporter or its opponent." (_The Ayn
> > > Rand Letter_, May 21, 1973)
> > >
> >
> > Isn't that a strange argument? I am not a student of, say, mathematics,
> > therefore I am not its supporter...
>
> The analogy would have been "I am not a student of <some theory> in
> mathematics..." which would not have been "strange" - except perhaps to
you.
>
Um, Fred, did you trip over yourself in a hurry to make such
a weak reply?
> > Looking more carefully at that "argument," I would simply call
> > it non-communicative by means of rationalization. Typical of her.
>
> Was it an argument, let alone an "argument"?
It contains the word "therefore," doesn't it, Freddy?
> It's just a comment on the
> status of her belief on a subject and the reason for it which is quite
> communicative and honest which, yes, is typical of her. The distortion of
it
> is typical of you.
>
Ad hom.
>
> >... The novel simply reflects "Rand's" subjective viewpoint, and
> > therefore needs to be discarded philosophically...
>
> ....speaking of "arguments" which are "non-comunicative by means of
> rationalization" - and typical of you.
>
Ad hom.
Acar
"Wolf DeVoon" <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote in message
news:facfcb3e.02120...@posting.google.com...
> tens of thousands of honest souls
> have quit on their own, without Rand, Galt, or Wolf DeVoon
To those we can add another interesting combo: Einstein, Napoleon and Acar.
Malenor
"Churl Beck" <cb...@niu.edu> wrote in message
news:asdn69$an1$1...@husk.cso.niu.edu...
Galt got it wrong, but Churl got it right. "Rand" denies a certain
metaphysical,
base, and then draws it implicitly into her arguments, in this case, to
justify the concept of value.
Malenor
"Wolf DeVoon" <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote in message
news:facfcb3e.02120...@posting.google.com...
Not the best example you could have brought up. Cheryl is
represented, not as thinking, but as reacting, and in her final
day on earth she reacted by flinging herself blindly into the
abyss. She was more like a lemming than a human. Kwag
I think asked if her action was moral or immoral. Answer:
it was neither, no more than the action of a lemming is
moral. Psychotically self-destructive is not a rational
human trait.
It was James Taggart who drove Cheryl to this fate, by
presenting to her a certain kind of world and no other
alternative but annihilation. He literally brainwashed and
abused Cheryl into seeing the world as an evil place,
but she couldn't accept it. A helpless female, with no
ability to set her own course in life, her innocence was
only intrinsic and naive, easily victimized by the likes of
James. It may as well have been James who flung her
into the abyss. Hardly a thought-out suicide, more like
murder. And I think "Rand" saw it that way. Cheryl was
already murdered spiritually. Yes, technically it was a
suicide, but not of the heroic or self-valuing kind. Kill
a person (or a nation) from the inside-out, and then
leave it up to the individual (or nation) to take care
of the rest of the job.
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bn6H9.2406$hM3.2...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> Ad hom.
You're the expert, so I guess you'd know.
Fred Weiss
Acar
This is probably not a substantial objection. She could have said that in
all living things certain things and "actions" that are necessary and/or
useful for the preservation and enhancement of life. Then she could have
used the term "values" for those things as it applies to volitional beings.
The substance of her argument (such as it is) remains intact, as she can
still claim that in all forms of life there is an objective basis for this
category of things and actions.
x
x
x
x
Wolf DeVoon
It's a pleasure to respond to good questions, and I really like your
remarks elsewhere about A-C. Here follow some replies:
> I can choose to die or live while asleep? I thought sleep was a period of
> unconsciousness.
Anecdotal evidence suggests we have voluntary dream experiences, plus
it is reasonable to theorize that sleep/dream states are governed by
and express unresolved issues of wakefulness and its impact on the
subconscious, provided one is honest enough to identify his emotions,
however disturbing they may be. Most dreams typically present a
dilemma of competence. More anecdotal evidence that people can choose
to die in their sleep. Sounds crazy, but there it is.
> >Objectivists don't procreate involuntarily. Trust me.
>
> Their sperm and eggs are special.
Yes, to the extent that Objectivists make reasoned choices about
procreation and are special compared to the bulk of the bell curve.
> >Cheryl Taggart died a
> >suicide, rather than be victimized.
>
> She committed suicide when she found out what a creep James was, right?
> Do you think that was a moral action?
Yes, of course.
> Why is child-rearing so often considered a sacrifice? We don't tend to say
> "Wow! you sacrificed a lot of time and money for that big screen TV." Why is
> the investment in the creation of a child so readily seen to be a sacrifice?
A middle class child costs $250,000 to raise 18 years including some
college tuition but not including major illnesses like leukemia. Most
parents logically want two or three kids, rather than one spoiled
brat, so your mileage may vary. Parents do nothing else beside work,
work, work to put bread on the table, educate and protect their young,
settle disputes among them, you name it. Parenthood starts at 6 am and
finishes at midnight, 365 days a year for 20 years. It is a huge
sacrifice of money, sleep, and pleasure. Good parents get something
back (if their children love and respect them), but they never have
ownership or control of their A-C kids. Parents are big spenders --
they give themselves entirely to the welfare of their innocent
children -- and kids remain by right and nature free, no matter how
much they cost.
Wolf, a dad and granddad
David Tomlin
> > > The "ultimate end" of any man's life is negotiable and personal.
[David Tomlin]
> > You mean it's a whim? If this is your view, it isn't Rand's/Galt's.
[Wolf]
> Sure it is. Man is free and faces the prospect of individual life.
> There were no Galt-clones in AS.
[David]
It wasn't a whim that made Roark an architect, and Galt an inventor/
physicist. Both choices were made in accordance with facts, in this
case facts about the men's own, presumably congenital, abilities.
Rand would say the ultimate end was, in a sense, the same for both men.
Each man was acting for his own *life*.
[Wolf]
> Cheryl Taggart died a suicide, rather than be victimized.
[David]
Tangentially, I have come to see that as a literary error on Rand's
part. Cheryl's suicide may have been convenient for the plot, but I
don't think it was true to the character.
Cheryl would have found herself a hunky stud, poor but ambitious,
to shack up with. The scandal would have embarrassed Jim into
divorcing her. Failing that, she and her stud would have dropped
out of sight, and started over with new names.
Whether Cheryl's suicide was justified under Objectivist ethics
is another question. I don't see the novel expressing a clear judgment
on this either way. But Cheryl is otherwise portrayed as a completely
positive character from an ethical standpoint, her only fault being
naivete.
[Wolf]
> > > Rand was correct in observing that no living thing spits in its own
> > > face and sacrifices itself, except willful man under the influence of
> > > blank-out, don't ask, don't tell, impenetrable, mystical altruism.
[David]
> > Except for male honeybees, who race one another for a single,
> > suicidal copulation.
[Wolf]
> Honeybees are not men.
[David]
They are living things. If they were men, they would not be a
counter-example to "no living thing . . . except willful man . . ."
[Wolf]
> They have as much choice as plants.
[David]
"A plant must feed itself in order to live . . . its life is the
standard of value directing its actions. But a plant has no choice
of action . . . it acts automatically to further its life, it
cannot act for its own destruction."
Rand makes two points in this passage. One is that the actions of
plants are unchosen, automatic. The other is that the plant's
automatic actions are directed by a standard of value, which
is the *life* of the plant.
Later she makes the same two points regarding animals.
Rand's defenders sometimes try to conflate these two points. They
claim that she only said an animal could not *choose* to destroy
itself, because animals cannot choose at all. But it is clear that
she meant to say that the unchosen, automatic actions of animals are
directed toward survival, and cannot be directed toward self-
destruction.
> We should move on to whatever else you feel is wrong in Galt's speech,
> beyond behavior of male honeybees.
I was intending to say more about what I *think* is wrong with Galt's
speech. How I feel about it is another issue. :-)
When I first read _Atlas Shrugged_, I found it very impressive and
persuasive. But I found Galt's speech by far the least impressive,
least persuasive part of it. And that may be said to sum up, in the
proverbial nutshell, why I ultimately became a *libertarian*, but
*not* an *Objectivist*.
Malenor
Ad hom.
Wolf DeVoon
74d7...@posting.google.com>...
> It wasn't a whim that made Roark an architect, and Galt an inventor/
> physicist. Both choices were made in accordance with facts, in this
> case facts about the men's own, presumably congenital, abilities.
> Rand would say the ultimate end was, in a sense, the same for both men.
> Each man was acting for his own *life*.
It occurs to me that the overwhelming context of a man's life is the
market, the time in which he lives and the competitive threats and
opportunities of his unchosen culture (as a child). I accept the idea
that we are born, not made, to some extent. However, I have become
convinced by observation of others and by personally experiencing
moral freedom/responsibility, that no man is given a specific destiny
at birth. Rather than characterize choice as whimsy, I suggest that we
adopt habits that are enormously difficult to shed after a period of
years, especially in youth. Cigarette smoking has dogged me for 35
years. HPO is a much more recent psychological crutch, but I find it
equally compelling. Roark and Galt were projections of man as
autonomous Boy Scouts, squeaky clean soap opera characters. Both had
an enormous impact on me. I became far more willful, often
outrageously so, because I heard the core message of competence. Rand
treats of the powerful and daring. Understanding this, men like me
grow simultaneously in all directions. A clash with hidebound society
is inevitable. So, history shapes our choices, grudges, and
derring-do.
> When I first read _Atlas Shrugged_, I found it very impressive and
> persuasive. But I found Galt's speech by far the least impressive,
> least persuasive part of it. And that may be said to sum up, in the
> proverbial nutshell, why I ultimately became a *libertarian*, but
> *not* an *Objectivist*.
First reading of AS, I skipped Galt's Speech entirely, to find out how
the adventure story ended. That said, on finishing the story and
rejoicing in its plausibiility and celebration of life MQM, I went
back at studied the Speech. It is not exceptional in literature to
sermonize, but I think Rand did a better job than others and had a
better excuse. Galt's Speech prompted me to read every word she wrote.
Pretty good advertising.
Interesting that you became a libertarian and I an anarchist.
Wolf
David Tomlin
> First reading of AS, I skipped Galt's Speech entirely, to find out how
> the adventure story ended.
I've heard that from others. It might be interesting to take a survey.
Who read Galt's speech on first reading of AS? Who skipped it?
I did read it, as I indicated. I think I was actually more interested
in what Galt had to say than in how the story turned out.
David Tomlin
> My replies to you and Kolker were responsive.
I beg to differ.
What you have said so far, is that there are problems with
Objectivist concepts of identification and contradiction,
and with Objectivist definitions of "logic" and "rationality."
That's an intriguing beginning. I hope you will decide to elaborate
on it.
David Tomlin
> "David Tomlin" wrote
> > Aristotle accounted for the capabilities of living things by
> > positing a teleology inherent in nature. Rand rejected this,
> > without actually accepting the Darwinian alternative of natural
> > selection.
> Assuming that the very act of thinking in terms of evolution
> does not involve any theory of an intrinsic teleology. The
> latter is an assumption used in any discussion of evolution.
I don't think so. Why do you say that?
> She had no theoretical account for anything because of the
> paucity of her metaphysics. In that sense, she was at least
> honest enough to be agnostic about Darwinism. To accept
> Darwinism in the absence of any theoretical backdrop is
> nothing but an act of blind faith, intellectually blind, that is.
I'm not sure I undertand this.
All science depends on the assumption that the universe has enough
regularity to be intelligible. I don't think Darwinism requires
any "metaphysical" assumptions beyond that.
> > Rand broke with both Aristotle and Darwin by ignoring reproduction.
> > She claimed the "ultimate end" of each living thing is its own
> > survival. The difficulties thus occasioned have been much discussed.
> > Most recently, see the thread titled "Is-Ought debate with David
> > Friedman."
> But you can't have a theory of "ultimate ends" without teleology.
> This is extremely obvious.
The issue is whether teleology is inherent in nature, or is an
emergent property of some entities.
Charlotte Corday
333a...@posting.google.com>...
I skipped the speech on both my first and second readings of the book.
Look, I don't care how philosophically important Galt's harangue is;
as a literary device it's a disaster. The careful plotting and
narrative force come to a crashing halt once one starts wading into
fifty pages of Epistemology 101 with Prof. Galt. It's been said by
those officially charged with providing the One True Interpretation
that the speech is integral to the novel. Really? It's not as if the
author restrained herself from dropping little hints against
mysticism, altruism, collectivism and statism in every other
paragraph. I say that if by Part II you still don't have a clue about
what's wrong with the world in Atlas, you'll need a lot more help than
can be found in Galt's speech.
Acar
> Acar wrote
>
> > My replies to you and Kolker were responsive.
>
> I beg to differ.
>
> What you have said so far, is that there are problems with
> Objectivist concepts of identification and contradiction,
> and with Objectivist definitions of "logic" and "rationality."
Fair enough.
Disclaimer: I am not a logician either, but a liberal education is enough
for a general assessment.
All logical inferences are ultimately derived from basic axioms. While all
systems of logic (and there are many) are based on pointing to inferences by
the use of assumptions, it follows that systems in which there are
substantial differences in approach to the meaning of the basic axioms will
build progressively differently on those axioms and the final result will be
a fundamental incompatibility between the systems.
That is different from making isolated logical mistakes within the
conventional system by relying on premises that are false within the
conventional system. Objectivism builds an all-inclusive system from
scratch, starting with the most basic axioms and branching to include all
aspects of existence. For starters, Objectivism dictates its own basic axiom
of existence, pointing to direct realism, *which is not axiomatic when
approached by conventional logic*. Any questions that conventional logic may
pose about the nature existence are circularly validated in Objectivism by
force of axiom. Because Objectivism claims to be a cosmic system and starts
from a distinctive set of assumptions, it has to be regarded as a closed
subset, which necessarily answers to questions posed by conventional
thinking in terms of its distinctive axioms, that is, circularly.
The Objectivist take on the axiom of existence modulates the scope of the
axioms of consciousness and identity to produce important systemic
repercussions. For example, while conventional logic admits only of truth
and falsehood, Objectivist logic necessarily requires additional categories.
Objectivist logic goes beyond pure logical thinking to structure and define
the concept of soundness around sense perception. And the Objectivist take
of inductive proof is different from conventional logic, which regards the
inductive method only as a source of theories and hypotheses.
Objectivism deals with the possibility of erroneous identification by the
concept of contextual truth, which reflects directly on our topic by simply
redefining validity as soundness, another fundamental difference between the
two systems.
Malenor
>
> > "David Tomlin" wrote
>
> > > Aristotle accounted for the capabilities of living things by
> > > positing a teleology inherent in nature. Rand rejected this,
> > > without actually accepting the Darwinian alternative of natural
> > > selection.
>
> > Assuming that the very act of thinking in terms of evolution
> > does not involve any theory of an intrinsic teleology. The
> > latter is an assumption used in any discussion of evolution.
>
> I don't think so. Why do you say that?
>
Just think of metaphysics as the "meta-language" of the
physical sciences. It exists whether you think about it or not.
> > She had no theoretical account for anything because of the
> > paucity of her metaphysics. In that sense, she was at least
> > honest enough to be agnostic about Darwinism. To accept
> > Darwinism in the absence of any theoretical backdrop is
> > nothing but an act of blind faith, intellectually blind, that is.
>
> I'm not sure I undertand this.
>
> All science depends on the assumption that the universe has enough
> regularity to be intelligible. I don't think Darwinism requires
> any "metaphysical" assumptions beyond that.
>
Regularity assumes a mechanistic, "clock-like" worldview at least.
This involves an assumption about the reality of time itself. But
evolution not only relies on regularity, but the idea that life or
even the universe itself is "going somewhere" in an apparently
purposeful manner. This requires a theory of ends.
> > > Rand broke with both Aristotle and Darwin by ignoring reproduction.
> > > She claimed the "ultimate end" of each living thing is its own
> > > survival. The difficulties thus occasioned have been much discussed.
> > > Most recently, see the thread titled "Is-Ought debate with David
> > > Friedman."
>
> > But you can't have a theory of "ultimate ends" without teleology.
> > This is extremely obvious.
>
> The issue is whether teleology is inherent in nature, or is an
> emergent property of some entities.
>
The issue of that thread you mentioned? But that would be
a moot point to you, because previously you had stated that
teleology wasn't an issue at all.
Not that the question of inherence versus emergence isn't
interesting. It's just assuming some teleology in nature,
whether in living and non-living or just living things.
--
**********
If a round peg fits into a round hole,
and a square peg fits into a square hole,
then why isn't the end of a penis shaped
like an axe?
Malenor
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:JP9H9.64626$%p6.51...@twister.neo.rr.com...
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zq7H9.2549$hM3.3...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> >
> > Galt got it wrong, but Churl got it right. "Rand" denies a certain
> > metaphysical,
> > base, and then draws it implicitly into her arguments, in this case, to
> > justify the concept of value.
>
> This is probably not a substantial objection. She could have said that in
> all living things certain things and "actions" [] are necessary and/or
> useful for the preservation and enhancement of life. Then she could have
> used the term "values" for those things as it applies to volitional
beings.
> The substance of her argument (such as it is) remains intact, as she can
> still claim that in all forms of life there is an objective basis for this
> category of things and actions.
>
"Life" itself is a metaphysical concept, transcendental to the
topic or morality. She hasn't explained to her readers why
life must be preserved, what is so special about this category
of nature that valuation is not only necessary, but absolute.
Because in order to be a morality, it has to derive some
"shoulds" that are somewhere above the material level of
shoulds. E.g., "the car should have started": we don't
mean that in the moral sense, but for some reason we invoke
a certain non-material indeterminism for the human realm that
requires that one must take actions to preserve one's own life.
It is life, in "Rand's" example, that distinguishes man from
robots and makes morality possible, because you could
argue that the robot needs morality too in order to preserve
its robot existence else it becomes just a pile of scrap
that used to be a functioning robot. (Yes, I realize that the
robot in her example was indestructible and immortal,
but I have never liked that particular example.)
Malenor
"Wolf DeVoon" <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote in message
news:facfcb3e.02120...@posting.google.com...
> David, you'll recall that you encouraged me to participate here.
> Friedman's opinion doesn't interest me. Nor do I think you're
> interpreting Galt or Rand properly. I question whether you understand
> Darwin, who argued that random variation and survival of the fittest
> were the engine of evolution. If so, Galt's highly exceptional moral
> character and intelligence befitted his fictional superheroism. Miss
> Rand was quite explicit, saying that her proof of the existence of
> heroic ubermenschen lay in the fact that AS was written and published.
Strange, I don't recall "Miss Rand" mentioning the Nietzschean
ubermenschen in the quote you are referring to.
Acar
> >
> > > But you can't have a theory of "ultimate ends" without teleology.
> > > This is extremely obvious.
In my view the Universe is going but it's not going anywhere in particular.
It goes wherever its own inherent properties take it. So there is no
ultimate end, no teleology, either inherent of emergent outside of
intelligent purpose. In my view, neither survival nor reproduction are
ultimate ends of living organisms. Reproduction happens to be the property
that keeps species around. That is not purpose but cause and effect.
Acar
>... Any questions that conventional logic may
> pose about the nature existence are circularly validated in Objectivism by
> force of axiom.
I meant to say dismissed or invalidated.
x
Malenor
"Acar" <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote in message
news:5TWH9.72594$%p6.66...@twister.neo.rr.com...
The appearance of beings evolving from lower to higher forms suggests
the opposite of what you say. However, none of these observations
constitutes proof. I am only saying that if one wants to explain evolution,
then purposiveness is axiomatic to our quest to understand it as a
means of bringing all our theories and observations to unity. But -- the
method is not in the understanding, it is the *systematization*
of this knowledge structure under a single, unified category that brings
understanding. As such, its purpose is only a heuristic use-value, and
says nothing about the actual, metaphysical backdrop of the universe.
So from this *epistemological* vantage, your view that the Universe
is going nowhere, goes nowhere.
Wolf DeVoon
> The Objectivist take on the axiom of existence modulates the scope of the
> axioms of consciousness and identity to produce important systemic
> repercussions. For example, while conventional logic admits only of truth
> and falsehood, Objectivist logic necessarily requires additional categories.
> Objectivist logic goes beyond pure logical thinking to structure and define
> the concept of soundness around sense perception. And the Objectivist take
> of inductive proof is different from conventional logic, which regards the
> inductive method only as a source of theories and hypotheses.
>
> Objectivism deals with the possibility of erroneous identification by the
> concept of contextual truth, which reflects directly on our topic by simply
> redefining validity as soundness, another fundamental difference between the
> two systems.
Dear Mr Acar,
You are not merely mistaken, you are unreadable. I presume the above
made sense to you when you wrote it, and perhaps you can explain it
more fully if asked to do so. Please don't. Readers like myself will
undoubtedly remain puzzled by your use of language, because:
(1) "modulate" is not a term of logic, Objectivist or otherwise
(2) "soundness" is not exclusively nor particularly an Objectivist
term
(3) "floating abtraction" is an Objectivist "take" on your hypothesis
I guess what you're referring to as conventional logic is truth tables
and set theory. If true, you're certainly correct as to Russell's
influence. Set theory is all kids ever get in school nowadays,
including college, unless they happen to dig deep in the library
stacks for a volume of what is now called "classical logic" (i.e.,
Aristotelean predicate logic), which is the base of Objectivism and
all other reasoned argument in speculative philosophy.
Farewell, best wishes, etc.
Wolf
none none
I'm halfway through reading Atlas Shrugged for the second time (which
is on hold as I make my way through a few other books) but I read
Galt's speech the first time, and I'll read it the second time. :)
Acar
"Wolf DeVoon" <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote in message
news:facfcb3e.02120...@posting.google.com...
And a good farewell to you, Mr. DeVoon.
x
x
x
x
Acar
The above prsentation aimed at brevity. DeVoon finds it unintelligible.
David, if any of the ideas that I tried to put across are obscure I'm quite
sure that I can make them crystal clear by elaborating on what I wrote.
Rather than elaborate at this point I will do the opposite which is to
extract the essentials from above.
The question is whether Objectivist logic differs from conventional logic.
1. All inferences can be traced to fundamental assumptions (axioms).
2. Different sets of axioms will result in different logical structures.
What is sound for one set of axioms will not be sound for another.
3. "Existence exists" is not axiomatic by conventional logic.
4. As a consequence of 3 (materialistic approach) consciousness and
identification are handled by Objectivism in terms of direct realism,
leading to a logical structure which excludes options that are available to
conventional logic.
5. Conventional logic admits only of truth and falsehood. Objectivist logic
requires a distinction between false, arbitrary and meaningless.
6. Objectivist logic reduces soundness to the criterion of sense perception.
This is more restrictive than the conventional concept of unfettered logical
thinking.
7. Through the concept of contextual truth Objectivism certifies as sound
those conclusionms which are based on currently accepted identifications. By
conventional logic those are valid conclusions, but not necessarily sound.
Example: Newtonian physics which was mostly valid but, as it turned out, not
sound, would have been certified sound by Objectivist logic (thus the word
"truth" with its implication of correspondence).
If other systems that advocate direct realism, moderate realism, idealism,
pragmatism, etc are not considered different logical systems, why must
Objectivism be so considered? Because other systems do not go to the roots
of knowledge and tamper with the axioms.
x
x
x
x
Acar
8. And of course there is the drastic difference in approach to the problem
of induction.
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
Platosearwax
it was redundant and detracted from the story.
I skipped it the second time I read Atlas.
Tom S.
"Platosearwax" <platos...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a002vu8uu0qffojtv...@4ax.com...
> I read it the first time through, but it was rough going. I thought
> it was redundant and detracted from the story.
So what do you think WAS the story?
(I wonder if most people read _Atlas_ and think it's about trains)
Tom
--
grammarian
1515...@posting.google.com>...
> Wolf DeVoon wrote
>
> > So, Galt got it wrong someplace in a 50-page argument? Rats.
> > Where?
>
> It isn't fifty pages of argument. Galt's speech is very heavily
> padded with rhetoric.
All arguments are "padded with rhetoric." You can't have even a
single full page of syllogisms, let alone 50 pages of them.
> When I first read Atlas Shrugged, I was a teenager with an intense
> interest in science. One thing about Galt's speech struck me as
> particularly odd. A superbright, college educated, twentieth
> century man talks on and on about matters biological, without once
> mentioning Darwin or evolution.
Maybe Galt didn't find it especially scientific. A lot of
superbright, college educated, 20th century scientists don't, you
know. Many scientists believe that Darwinism is simply the 20th
century's version of a creation myth; a collection of rationalized
"Just So" stories.
> When I read some of Rand's non-fiction, I was startled to discover
> that she just wasn't interested in modern biology. For example,
> she wrote "I am not a student of the theory of evolution and,
> therefore, I am neither its supporter or its opponent." (_The Ayn
> Rand Letter_, May 21, 1973)
Excuse me, but WHAT, precisely, does _evolution_ have to do with
"modern biology"? I can't think of a single great discovery in 20th
century biology that was made by an evolutionist or requires an
acceptance of evolution to be understood. They were discovered by
_biochemists_ and _molecular biologists_, many of whom, indeed, pay
lip service to Darwin, having no real interest (ergo, no real
understanding) of his theory. In fact, Sir Francis Crick,
co-discoverer of DNA, rejects Darwinism completely. Soren Lovtrup, a
famous Swedish embryologist claims that he paid lip service to
Darwinism until he actually began to read and think about what he
wrote. He found it -- as well as the "neo-Darwinist" theories that
emerged in the 1940s -- to be completely incompatible with his
understanding of embryology. He even wrote a book about it, called
"The Myth of Darwinism."
> Such remarks put _Atlas Shrugged_ in a new light for me. The
> novel's alternate world may be thought of as one in which there
> never was a Darwin, or his equivalent.
The notion of evolution existed long, long before Darwin, who gave it
a specifically materialist slant peculiar both to him and the 19th
century. Generally, pre-Darwinian notions of evolution involved the
idea of an "ur-phenomenon"; for example, a non-specific, generic "eye"
that later becomes a human eye, an ape eye, a fish eye, etc. German
theorists called it a "bauplan." In fact, there is some evidence of
this, with the discovery of the "ey gene."
> It is a world in which
> physicists are penetrating the ultimate secrets of matter, but
> biology may never have gotten beyond Aristotle.
The feeling is that Darwin, with his purely mechanistic notions of
change, may have set speculative biology back to about the time of
Lucretius, with his "De Natura Rerum", and for whom nothing existed
but "matter and motion."
Acar
"Wolf DeVoon" <wolfd...@organic-law.com> wrote in message
news:facfcb3e.02120...@posting.google.com...
> Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote
It occurred to me that if I can prove conclusive that Wolf's three
objections are nonsense, then Wolf as a rational and objective fellow will
finally be persuaded of the truth of my "hypothsesis". So I will reply.
> Dear Mr Acar,
>
> You are not merely mistaken, you are unreadable. I presume the above
> made sense to you when you wrote it, and perhaps you can explain it
> more fully if asked to do so. Please don't. Readers like myself will
> undoubtedly remain puzzled by your use of language, because:
>
> (1) "modulate" is not a term of logic, Objectivist or otherwise.
It was not intended as a technical term. My article sticks to colloquial
langauge whenever possible. Since you have a dictionary, that objection is
taken care of.
> (2) "soundness" is not exclusively nor particularly an Objectivist
> term
It is a term pertaining to logic, which is the topic of discussion. It was
not implied that it is an Objectivist term. Since you admit to not
understanding what is written, the misunderstanding is acknowledged and the
objection vanishes.
> (3) "floating abtraction" is an Objectivist "take" on your hypothesis
This is a good one because it proves my case. By Objectivist logic my
"hypothesis" may well be a floating abstraction but it is not by
conventional logic.
Thanks for your input.
David Tomlin
> "David Tomlin" wrote
> > Malenor wrote
> > > Assuming that the very act of thinking in terms of evolution
> > > does not involve any theory of an intrinsic teleology. The
> > > latter is an assumption used in any discussion of evolution.
> > I don't think so. Why do you say that?
> Just think of metaphysics as the "meta-language" of the
> physical sciences. It exists whether you think about it or not.
I have no idea what that has to do with the question I asked.
> > All science depends on the assumption that the universe has enough
> > regularity to be intelligible. I don't think Darwinism requires
> > any "metaphysical" assumptions beyond that.
> Regularity assumes a mechanistic, "clock-like" worldview at least.
These words are often used to characterize Newtonian physics, as
opposed to quantum physics. Darwinism is as compatible with QM as
with Newtonian physics. But probably I misunderstand you.
> This involves an assumption about the reality of time itself.
What assumption would that be?
> But
> evolution not only relies on regularity, but the idea that life or
> even the universe itself is "going somewhere" in an apparently
> purposeful manner.
No, it doesn't.
Sorry to be abrupt. But, as the saying goes, "what is simply asserted
may be simply denied."
> > > But you can't have a theory of "ultimate ends" without teleology.
> > > This is extremely obvious.
> > The issue is whether teleology is inherent in nature, or is an
> > emergent property of some entities.
> The issue of that thread you mentioned?
No, I mean the issue I was talkin about in distinguishing Rand's
view from Aristotles.
> But that would be
> a moot point to you, because previously you had stated that
> teleology wasn't an issue at all.
Would you quote the sentence? I don't think I said such a thing.
Malenor
"David Tomlin" <jet...@home.com> wrote in message
news:f8576779.02120...@posting.google.com...
> Malenor wrote
>
> > "David Tomlin" wrote
>
> > > Malenor wrote
>
> > > > Assuming that the very act of thinking in terms of evolution
> > > > does not involve any theory of an intrinsic teleology. The
> > > > latter is an assumption used in any discussion of evolution.
>
> > > I don't think so. Why do you say that?
>
> > Just think of metaphysics as the "meta-language" of the
> > physical sciences. It exists whether you think about it or not.
>
> I have no idea what that has to do with the question I asked.
>
Because you said you "don't think so." And I'm telling you
it exists epistemically whether you think about it or not.
It is not the universe that exists in a "container" (so to speak),
but thought itself that is regulated by the metaphysical forms.
Teleology is such a meta-theory that gives substance to
lifeless ideas that possess no explanatory power by
subsisting as a backdrop to the physical sciences.
> > > All science depends on the assumption that the universe has enough
> > > regularity to be intelligible. I don't think Darwinism requires
> > > any "metaphysical" assumptions beyond that.
>
> > Regularity assumes a mechanistic, "clock-like" worldview at least.
>
> These words are often used to characterize Newtonian physics, as
> opposed to quantum physics. Darwinism is as compatible with QM as
> with Newtonian physics. But probably I misunderstand you.
>
That's true, Darwinism makes a place for chance occurrences.
But I think "chance" is only a word we use until we understand
the causal mechanisms involved.
> > This involves an assumption about the reality of time itself.
>
> What assumption would that be?
>
That time is a container for the universe that regulates all
motion within the universe.
> > But
> > evolution not only relies on regularity, but the idea that life or
> > even the universe itself is "going somewhere" in an apparently
> > purposeful manner.
>
> No, it doesn't.
>
> Sorry to be abrupt. But, as the saying goes, "what is simply asserted
> may be simply denied."
>
It doesn't explicitly rely on such a theory, but the implication
of a teleology of nature is found in the very word "evolution."
> > > > But you can't have a theory of "ultimate ends" without teleology.
> > > > This is extremely obvious.
>
> > > The issue is whether teleology is inherent in nature, or is an
> > > emergent property of some entities.
>
> > The issue of that thread you mentioned?
>
> No, I mean the issue I was talkin about in distinguishing Rand's
> view from Aristotles.
>
> > But that would be
> > a moot point to you, because previously you had stated that
> > teleology wasn't an issue at all.
>
> Would you quote the sentence? I don't think I said such a thing.
>
'All science depends on the assumption that the universe has enough
regularity to be intelligible. I don't think Darwinism requires
any "metaphysical" assumptions beyond that.' Teleology would
constitute an example of such a metaphysical assumption.
David Tomlin
> It doesn't explicitly rely on such a theory, but the implication
> of a teleology of nature is found in the very word "evolution."
How so? The word just means "unfolding."
Malenor
"David Tomlin" <jet...@home.com> wrote in message
news:f8576779.0212...@posting.google.com...
Is that your best answer? You have only offered one of
many synonyms for "evolution," and a carefully chosen one at that.
It also means: flowering, growth, and progression (as well
as "upgrowth," which is likened to a development.)
www.m-w.com .
www.britannica.com .
David Tomlin
> All arguments are "padded with rhetoric."
Right. I forgot how passionate Euclid got about his triangles.
> You can't have even a
> single full page of syllogisms, let alone 50 pages of them.
Why not?
> > When I first read Atlas Shrugged, I was a teenager with an intense
> > interest in science. One thing about Galt's speech struck me as
> > particularly odd. A superbright, college educated, twentieth
> > century man talks on and on about matters biological, without once
> > mentioning Darwin or evolution.
> Maybe Galt didn't find it especially scientific. A lot of
> superbright, college educated, 20th century scientists don't, you
> know. Many scientists believe that Darwinism is simply the 20th
> century's version of a creation myth; a collection of rationalized
> "Just So" stories.
I doubt there are "many". Do you have numbers?
I know there are a few anti-Darwinists with advanced degrees in
biology. I'm pretty sure most of them came from fundamentalist
families.
> Excuse me, but WHAT, precisely, does _evolution_ have to do with
> "modern biology"?
Evolution, specifically Darwinian evolution, is integral to modern
biology.
> The notion of evolution existed long, long before Darwin,
I haven't said otherwise.
> who gave it
> a specifically materialist slant peculiar both to him and the 19th
> century.
Whatever.
> The feeling is that Darwin, with his purely mechanistic notions of
> change, may have set speculative biology back to about the time of
> Lucretius, with his "De Natura Rerum", and for whom nothing existed
> but "matter and motion."
You mean your feeling?
Acar
Perhaps I miss subtleties in your argument, but I do not see why
epistemology needs a concept of purpose in order to make sense of the
universe. Nor do I see why such a concept is necessary to bring together
natural phenomena in a such a way that they make sense. The basic steps that
are necessary to make evolution possible are mutation, survival,
reproduction. These are free standing events. In my view these events must
be considered singly for each individual animal or plant in order to avoid
the temptation of assuming that "nature" wants to create more and more
complexity. The concept of teleology makes sense to me only as a metaphor:
the effect greatly resembles purpose.
x
x
x
x