tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3997277018771097849.post7245675613306036192..comments2023-07-05T09:41:55.011-07:00Comments on Robbservations: Consorting With the DevilRobbhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15326559345621533658noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3997277018771097849.post-68000187460259867462012-08-11T14:07:54.131-07:002012-08-11T14:07:54.131-07:00Robb, right again. One of Ayn Rand's statemen...Robb, right again. One of Ayn Rand's statements that I took to heart and never forgot is this: 'Nothing is self-evident but the evidence of the senses.' It is a fallacy of context to believe that after much thought and struggle, having arrived at the right solution, one can now 'see' it as self-evident. It is not and never was. Of course, one must automate valid premises. For without that capacity we could never move forward and would have to re-validate every concept before we uttered or discovered the next. But cognitive automation must never be reduced in ones mind as a species of the self-evident.jack schwartzhttp://bioperipatetic.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3997277018771097849.post-72554210665626497542012-08-11T14:00:47.257-07:002012-08-11T14:00:47.257-07:00Betsy, you hit one of the fallacies of irrational ...Betsy, you hit one of the fallacies of irrational condemnation on the head. One can have thought extensively and deeply about a subject with a fully focused honest mind, and yet arrive at a false conclusion. It happens in science, for example, all of the time. Not being Acquinas's Angles means that man cannot know before he discovers it all the truth that is needed to know a final answer to any difficult problem. So, with that in mind, I suggest we go back and read or re-read Peikoff's article entitled 'Fact and Value' and see if we agree or still agree with its pronouncements. For those pronouncements and premises are, in my opinion, the root cause of the immense arrogance and pseudo-indignation of those who believe that they are morally required to condemn as 'bad'(immoral) those who hold ideas that are 'wrong'(erroneous). If you accept Peikoff's arguments in that article, you are left with the very dangerous premise that being wrong is immoral. You see, that he never 'got' what Ayn Rand said when, alluding to Acquinas' Angles, she scolded him for feeling guilt about his error. To him, the error implied immorality, therefore justified guilt. On this fundamental issue, Ayn Rand is right and Peikoff is wrong. No, Peikoff is not a cognitive extension of Ayn Rand. His thoughts and interpretations of Objectivism are his own, just as yours are your own. Only Ayn Rand was the ultimate authority of her own philosophy.jack schwartzhttp://bioperipatetic.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3997277018771097849.post-36087035778076411512012-01-30T10:50:28.430-08:002012-01-30T10:50:28.430-08:00Excellent article, Robb. Thanks.Excellent article, Robb. Thanks.Jeffery Smallhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02213689789082975702noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3997277018771097849.post-14186744030743295782012-01-30T10:06:41.326-08:002012-01-30T10:06:41.326-08:00...and I'll add, if error is possible, and no ......and I'll add, if error is possible, and no one allows for error, what is the point of the concept? But I think the central issue with many (not all) people is that they view certain types or classes of errors as prima facie evidence of dishonesty. This is what my main point was intended to address -- that such type-identification is a form of intrinsicism, the idea that the truth is inherent in things, and can be grasped self-evidently via a simple process -- "Look! See?" It's an assumption that a rational mind functions at almost a perceptual level, or at least a very simple conceptual level. <br /><br />Reasoning doesn't work like that. That's why it's called "reason" -- a process that normally requires much more effort once we get past the age of about three. That's why we go to school. But then, to extend the premise of self-evident judgments to the most complex thing in the universe -- to judgments of the motives and thought processes of other human beings -- that's just silly.<br /><br />I'll add, there's a second motive that I *know* exists, because I've seen it too many times. Some people have an online persona that is extremely abrasive and a style that can only be compared to a bulldog in attempting to gnaw down opponents with endless nuanced repetition of a basic point. (A point that can be wrong, but is taken as a fundamental premise by the bulldog.) And many people either can't make compelling counter-arguments, or they don't type well enough to elucidate their arguments, or they simply don't have, or want to make, the time to do so -- so they confront the online bulldog who has scads of time to type endlessly in answer to every critic, and the critics feel helpless. <br /><br />You combine this with the bulldog's irritating, sometimes grossly insultingly offensive style, and there's a formula for dislike. The critics of the bulldog shift then shift to arguments they *can* make, within the capacity of their ability and time and typing skills -- they revert to moral pronouncements. This allows them to write short, pithy condemnations, rather than long, detailed, and damningly logical and factual rebuttals. The leap to condemn is a wonderful rationalization that saves a lot of work and self-esteem.Robbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15326559345621533658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3997277018771097849.post-528437659259520152012-01-30T09:39:24.700-08:002012-01-30T09:39:24.700-08:00In one of Dr. Peikoff's courses -- I think it ...In one of Dr. Peikoff's courses -- I think it was his Logic course -- he told a story about Ayn Rand's reaction to his guilt over failing to see how an abstract principle applied to a particular situation. "You're not Aquinas's Angel" she told him. <br /><br />She then explained that Aquinas believed that angels automatically understood all the implications and applications of every idea but that human beings did not. They had to think through and understand every single application as a separate mental process. Also, unlike angels, they were not infallible, so they could make mistakes when applying ideas.<br /><br />Ayn Rand's point was that Dr. Peikoff should not feel guilty. On the same grounds, we should not condemn others simply for making errors. Correct applications are not self-evident because we're not Aquinas's Angels.BetsySpeicherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13546046502690948238noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3997277018771097849.post-86249100127110421322012-01-15T15:36:19.811-08:002012-01-15T15:36:19.811-08:00Well, when you throw in the word "context&quo...Well, when you throw in the word "context" you get something very different. Here the context was that all the readers/friends were supposedly Objectivitists (a term that seems to have a broader meaning than we might think). With in that context, how about three examples (taken from real life!):<br />1. So-and-so has read a lot of Ayn Rand and thinks that Nathanial Branden is a fine fellow.<br />2. "I am an Objectivist intellectual and I think that the Communist Chinese leaders are merely mistaken and shoule be tolerated."<br />and 3. (the inclusion of which in this trio is not intended to imply any similarity to the morality of the other two) "The idea that a rational mind can grasp "deep" truths by simple statement is false."C.W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16478139107745117649noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3997277018771097849.post-35533434957457076532012-01-15T13:49:53.097-08:002012-01-15T13:49:53.097-08:00Let me add, I'm mildly troubled by the exact f...Let me add, I'm mildly troubled by the exact formulation my own "large red declaration". I've changed it twice now. What I mean is partly that "The idea that a rational mind can grasp truth **about the thoughts and motivations of people** by means of simple statements is false," though I left it more general to think about. I'm inclined to also re-phrase as, "The idea that a rational mind can grasp *deep* truths by simple statements is false." Off the top of my head, I can't think of any deep truths that can be shown by simple statements. There's always an enormous context of knowledge and experience required to grasp a deep truth. I think that simple statements can at best *summarize* a deep truth or assessment of someone's character, but they can't prove it. That's my thinking, anyway. Open to other observations or examples. --RobbRobbhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15326559345621533658noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3997277018771097849.post-63889553561306080802012-01-15T11:52:46.244-08:002012-01-15T11:52:46.244-08:00To what you have, let me add the following. At a ...To what you have, let me add the following. At a crucial point she uses the word “equipped”. I think that this word sums up an important point that is implied in several of your quotations, that is that to make judgments knowledge is required, but two kinds of knowledge. Knowledge of the specific case being judged, and knowledge of the process of judgment, i.e., how your mind works and of the tools you need, e.g., logic. There is a lot of work required to reach the level of achievement that allows judgment, of a person or a bridge.<br /><br />(Ayn Rand Answers, p. 143) Question: “Apart from basic moral premises, is it ever proper to speak of an Objectivist position on an issue? Shouldn’t one’s own mind be the sole determinant of one’s stand?”<br /><br />Ayn Rand’s answer (1976): This is not an honest question. What does the questioner think a basic moral premise is: ‘A is A.” “thou shalt not steal,” “try to be honest”? That’s not enough. The basic premises of philosophy are the axioms. But there is an enormous distance between philosophical axioms and the actions of your life – so many issues and subissues, so many questions and consequences – that anyone who thinks his own mind can handle these without the help of principles cannot be interested in principles, philosophy, or his own mind. He’s interested in his whims. Objective, rational positions – that is, principles and their application – are not a violation of one’ mind, but an aid. If it is proved to you why a certain course of action is right, and according to what premises, then your own mind is saved a lot of time. It is thereby much easier to consider a case and evaluate it than to do so by yourself from scratch. This is the function of philosophy: to save time.<br /><br />“But if this questioner thinks his own mind should be the sole determinant of his stand on an issue, I’ll ask him by what standard, and by what right? Right is a moral – that is, philosophic – concept. Why should his mind be the sole determinant? Is he properly equipped? No. He would have to be a professional philosopher, and then perhaps by early middle age he would begin to be qualified – that is, to pass judgment on issues strictly on the strength of his own mind alone, unaided by anyone else’s philosophy. He would need to return to the pre-Socratic philosophers. Anyone is free to originate his own philosophy if he can do it. But then he must start from scratch. He must define his premises and objectively demonstrate that his system is right. Then he can practice it on his own, with his own mind as the sole determinant of his actions.<br /><br />“…The serious error here is the failure to differentiate between principles and their application. What philosophy gives you are principles, which are abstract. What philosophy doesn’t tell you is how to apply those principles to the events and the choices of your life. In that regard, your mind is the sole determiner of what to do. Nobody can or should help you. Your own mind must decide how to apply principles.”<br /><br />You actually didn’t offer an argument to your large, red declaration. I don’t think that the length or brevity of an argument, including the presentation of evidence, is a criteria for truth. I can think of several specific, short, factual presentations that would convince me that I do not wish to associate with someone. Some of these issues would lead me to wonder about friends who ignored these issues. <br /><br />But, your original issue is one that I generally agree. Demanding that other people, many of whom you hardly know, reject someone that neither of you hardly know, to show that you have the proper morals, is improper. Usually, I end up being de-friended.C.W.https://www.blogger.com/profile/16478139107745117649noreply@blogger.com