TTI Forums

Arakasi Takeda wrote:And here is your contradiction. A definition based on physical observation cannot be random. It is bounded by the observation itself.

I don't think we are getting anywhere, but try to give me a short answer for this question.

You said that some definition was based on physical observation. And now tell me how you did use physical observation without assuming that your senses are right? If you didn't assume so, how do you know you observed something real?

Arakasi Takeda wrote:If man had an 'altruism gene', implying that altruism was a trait increasing the survivability of humankind, in direct contradiction to Rand's premise, would that affect your philosophical stance?

It would affect my stance, but I’d still recognize the problems with altruism.

Genetic variation is a natural phenomenon, but it does not mean that we have to accept the specific outcomes that these genes produce. The implication that the presence of a trait at this late date being validation that the trait is better than what came before might not be valid. Variance moves in all directions, forward, backward and sideways.

In the final analysis, you still need to judge the benefits and drawbacks of the condition. Keep it if you like, change it if you can, accept it if you can't.

BTW in my estimation there very well may be an altruism gene.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
To further illustrate the reason I do not hold axioms as 'undeniable truths', here's a simple example:

...

But they are not necessarily true unless one can prove that the axioms of a specific logical system are identical to the axioms of the 'real world'.

AT

This doesn't make since to me. First, just because some calls time an axiom doesn't mean I think it is. I have never thought that it was an axiom. In fact, I have always thought of time as just a measurement.

That is exactly the point I am making Tolthar. You are claiming that one man's axiom isn't necessarily true. What constitues a proper axiom, to you, is based solely on your own definitions.

Just because you only consider time to be a 'measurement' does not mean that scientists studying relativity or quantum mechanics view it the same way. You have your logical system and they have theirs. You have your definitions and boundaries, and they have theirs.

If you ignore reference to some shared reality by which you can measure your axioms against theirs, there is NO way to define one set of these axioms as 'True' and another 'False'. Because of this, I only agree that axioms are necessarily true within their own logical systems.

I happen to believe, however, in the existence of a 'shared' reality - the 'real world', the Universe, the big Objective Reality. Comparisons of axiomatic statements are therefore possibly by comparing them to the axioms dictating knowledge within this Objective reality. Those logical systems whose axioms match those of Objective reality can be considered 'ultimately true'; those which do not are ultimately false.

I also don't see how your example makes time 'relative'.

If I am at the sun (getting a tan or something) and am 2 light minutes away from the earth; and there is someone watching the sun from earth (Bob), time is not different for us.

If I were to travel towards Bob at the speed of light, two minutes still went by for both of us. Bob won't see me for about 2 minutes, and I won't see Bob for about two minutes.

This is really a different topic though since I don't hold time as an axiom. I only hold things that are undeniable as axioms.

The reason this doesn't make sense to you is because you obviously have a flawed sense of what Relativity is.

Suppose you and Bob are both at the sun. You both have watches which measure 'Absolute Time', and are both synchronized to keep time exactly the same. Both of your observe a solar flare occuring at exactly 12:00pm according to your watches.

Bob is then transferred instantly to Earth, which is approximately eight light-minutes away from the sun. A second solar flare occurs, and you both record the exact 'absolute time' displayed on your watchs for when you see the event.

Sitting at the sun, you record that the second solar flare occured at exactly 12:10pm. Bob, sitting on earth, using the same absolute time measurement as yourself, records the solar flare as having occured at 12:18pm.

This is why we can time 'relative'. The timing of a single event, which both of you observed occurs at different 'relative' times, depending solely on the position of the observer. You swear the event occured at 12:10pm. Bob, who watched the exact same event as you, swears the event occured at 12:18pm. You cannot both agree on an 'Absolute Time' on which the exact same event occured. It is completely dependent on your positions.

Now, if you know something about Relativistic Mechanics, you can diagram this event on something called a Light Cone, which shows the event itself as a 'world line' spreading out from the Sun, eventually intersecting with yourself (at 12:10pm relative time) and then, later, with Bob on Earth (at 12:18pm) and, thereby, realize that you really are talking about the same event.

This would be impossible to do if you existed in a world based solely on Newtonian Axioms. In Newtonian physics, if one event is observed to occur at 12:10pm and another at 12:18pm, it is impossible for these to be the same event. If Time is an absolute, an single event cannot occur at two different times.


AT

musashi wrote: Genetic variation is a natural phenomenon, but it does not mean that we have to accept the specific outcomes that these genes produce. The implication that the presence of a trait at this late date being validation that the trait is better than what came before might not be valid. Variance moves in all directions, forward, backward and sideways.

In the final analysis, you still need to judge the benefits and drawbacks of the condition. Keep it if you like, change it if you can, accept it if you can't.

BTW in my estimation there very well may be an altruism gene.

You are correct, Musashi. Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell anemia, Tay-Sachs disease, Spinal muscular atrophy, Huntington's disease, eurofibromatosis, Marfan Syndrome, Hereditary nonpolyposis, colorectal cancer, Hypophosphatasia, Aicardi Syndrome, Chokenflok Syndrome, Hemophilia A, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Color blindness, Muscular dystrophy, Androgenetic alopecia and Leber's Hereditary Optic Neuropathy are all inherited genetic diseases.

Just because we continue to pass something along in our genes does NOT mean that it is beneficial to us in any way.

You are correct, Musashi. Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell anemia...
...Just because we continue to pass something along in our genes does NOT mean that it is beneficial to us in any way.

Actually, you are not entirely correct here. Sickle cell anemia is, in fact, an indirect result of a beneficial mutation.

Individuals who have one parent with the sickle cell gene actually gain a benefit, in relation to a special immunity against the disease of malaria. If you have only one parent with this gene, you are more likely to survive malaria outbreaks, and so the gene spread through certain populations as a beneficial gene mutation.

The problem is that, if both parents have the gene, it results in a condition of sickle cell anemia, which is detrimental to the carrier.


At no time did I state that just because we happen to have a specific gene that it _must_ be beneficial. In fact, there is a much narrower statement that has to be made - the gene must persist through multiple generations, and must show an evolutionary advantage over non-carriers (i.e. it must be naturally-selected for).

Very generally speaking, the more wide spread a specific gene is in a population, the more likely it is that the specific gene is either evolutionarily neutral or evolutionarily beneficial, even if the reason is not immediately apparent. Genes which are evolutionarily detrimental do not increase in population size over multiple generations - that would contradict theory of evolution, and there is no physical observation to that effect.

So if a very large portion of the human population carried an 'altruism gene', and the existence of that gene was increasing over time, then the logical result is that such a gene is either evolutionarily neutral or evolutionarily beneficial.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
At no time did I state that just because we happen to have a specific gene that it _must_ be beneficial. In fact, there is a much narrower statement that has to be made - the gene must persist through multiple generations, and must show an evolutionary advantage over non-carriers (i.e. it must be naturally-selected for).

So... let us say for, example, that there is an altruism gene. You've just said that the existence of a gene is not necessarily beneficial, much like there is no benefit, say to being a genetic carrier of Tay-Sachs disease. So would someone who has a genetic disposition towards altruism have an advantage in natural-selection over someone who does not? In a primitive environment, would the one who selflessly gives away his own food survive over the man who stores food for the winter for his own benefit? No... the altruistic man finds that he will soon be starving.

So, I would say, that in terms of natural selection altruism has a detrimental effect on the individuals survival... and most certainly does not show an evolutionary advantage over others through the course of multiple generations. The fact that it may remain, like Tay-Sachs disease, does not make it beneficial or neutral... it could still be quite detrimental.

Really... we could bring this entire thread to closure by answering your original question based on what we know about genetically transmitted disorders: The existence of an altruism gene would not cause me to change my stance on objectivism because the mere existence of a gene that lends a tendency torwards behavior does not mean that behavior is beneficial, for the individual or humanity.

Really... we could bring this entire thread to closure by answering your original question based on what we know about genetically transmitted disorders: The existence of an altruism gene would not cause me to change my stance on objectivism because the mere existence of a gene that lends a tendency torwards behavior does not mean that behavior is beneficial, for the individual or humanity.

Which is a perfectly acceptable conditional reason. It is conditional precisely because the evolutionary advantage/disadvantage of the specific gene in question is unknown. You state absolutely correct that just because a gene exists does not guarantee that it is beneficial. The problem is, it does not guarantee that is NOT beneficial either. The benefit is an unknown conditional.

If, however, the conditional was resolved, then we would have an absolute answer. If it could be proved that the gene was harmful, we would have evidence supporting Rand's claims explicitly. But if it could be demonstrated that the gene _was_ beneficial, then we would have physical evidence falsifying Rand's claim explicitly.

My point is, the particular 'hypothesis' of Rand's Objectivism can be maintained in the face of an 'altruism gene' only so long as the conditional is either unknown, or discovered to be in favor. If you could prove the altruism gene was beneficial, wouldn't that necessarily be a falsification of at least this one statement of Rand's?

To go even deeper - is there a potential weakness in Objectivism because of it's dual foundationalist axioms - it is possible that empirical data could actually falsify the rational foundationist principles?

Or do you believe the opposite - that rational foundationalism trumps empirical data? If an axiom is 'undeniably true', then no physical evidence can falsify it, as Oleksandr stated in the case of Free Will?


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:

Really... we could bring this entire thread to closure by answering your original question based on what we know about genetically transmitted disorders: The existence of an altruism gene would not cause me to change my stance on objectivism because the mere existence of a gene that lends a tendency torwards behavior does not mean that behavior is beneficial, for the individual or humanity.

Which is a perfectly acceptable conditional reason. It is conditional precisely because the evolutionary advantage/disadvantage of the specific gene in question is unknown. You state absolutely correct that just because a gene exists does not guarantee that it is beneficial. The problem is, it does not guarantee that is NOT beneficial either. The benefit is an unknown conditional.

If, however, the conditional was resolved, then we would have an absolute answer. If it could be proved that the gene was harmful, we would have evidence supporting Rand's claims explicitly. But if it could be demonstrated that the gene _was_ beneficial, then we would have physical evidence falsifying Rand's claim explicitly.

My point is, the particular 'hypothesis' of Rand's Objectivism can be maintained in the face of an 'altruism gene' only so long as the conditional is either unknown, or discovered to be in favor. If you could prove the altruism gene was beneficial, wouldn't that necessarily be a falsification of at least this one statement of Rand's?

To go even deeper - is there a potential weakness in Objectivism because of it's dual foundationalist axioms - it is possible that empirical data could actually falsify the rational foundationist principles?

Or do you believe the opposite - that rational foundationalism trumps empirical data? If an axiom is 'undeniably true', then no physical evidence can falsify it, as Oleksandr stated in the case of Free Will?


AT

Well then, we find ourselves at a basic crossroads that will probably not be solved with empirical research in our lifetime. Is altruism a benefit to the individual and by extension to humanity as a whole? I say no.

The discovery of a gene which lends an altruistic tendency to humans itself is not enough to even begin to disprove Objectivist theory. So, to answer your original philosophical challenge, no... the discovery of this gene would still not change any of the relevant facts presented by objectivism.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:
If man had an 'altruism gene', implying that altruism was a trait increasing the survivability of humankind, in direct contradiction to Rand's premise, would that affect your philosophical stance?

It would affect my stance, but I’d still recognize the problems with altruism.

Genetic variation is a natural phenomenon, but it does not mean that we have to accept the specific outcomes that these genes produce. The implication that the presence of a trait at this late date being validation that the trait is better than what came before might not be valid. Variance moves in all directions, forward, backward and sideways.

In the final analysis, you still need to judge the benefits and drawbacks of the condition. Keep it if you like, change it if you can, accept it if you can't.

BTW in my estimation there very well may be an altruism gene.

Genetic Variance can certainly go in any direction - natural selection, however, is always adaptive to the specific environment (I suppose you could loosely call that the 'forward direction'). Of course, just because something is adaptive at one time doesn't mean it always is...gene mutations could be vestigule as well - something that was adaptive at one point but is neutral now.

I don't make a distinction between our consciousness and our biology as you apparently do - so your next statement:

In the final analysis, you still need to judge the benefits and drawbacks of the condition. Keep it if you like, change it if you can, accept it if you can't.

Doesn't make much sense to me from an evolutionary point of view. After all, I cannot make a conscious decision to 'change my genes'.

Really, your statement is more to the question of how much control do our genes have over our consciousness, or vice versa. If genes do not dictate behavior, then having an altruism 'gene' doesn't mean we _have_ to be altruistic. But we still might want to understand why it is there. It would certainly fly in the face of an a priori idea that altrusim was destructive, because otherwise it would have been naturally selected out of the population. There might be good reasons to reject it, but 'axiomatically' isn't one of them.


Also, I'm not sure that these mirror neurons (which is what I am actually thinking about) really are what the researchers claim. I'm trying to understand what possible evolutionary advantage might be gained from altruism...

Perhaps they are actually advantageous for a different reason. If we can recognize pain in another hominid, it might trigger a 'learning' experience. We see what they are doing, see the resulting pain, and learn not to do it, without actually having to experience the damage first hand. That wouldn't be 'altruism' - that would be a self-serving mechanism. Or, perhaps, these are tied to an idea of reciprical giving. We might be charitable in one instance, with an unconscious or conscious understanding that the receiver will be charitable to us a later date. What appears like a reward for altruism could, in fact, be a reward for 'delayed' capitalism

That's why I'm looking for input...does anyone have any counterpoint as to why these things might be here, why altruism might be evolutionarily advantageous, or anything like that. This board is full of 'anti-altruism' inclined people - if anyone can come up with a foolproof reason why this is bunk, it's the people on this board. But I first need to understand the basis of such arguments. If you argue from a flawed foundation, then the answer just isn't going to cut it.


AT[/quote]

Well then, we find ourselves at a basic crossroads that will probably not be solved with empirical research in our lifetime. Is altruism a benefit to the individual and by extension to humanity as a whole? I say no.

The discovery of a gene which lends an altruistic tendency to humans itself is not enough to even begin to disprove Objectivist theory. So, to answer your original philosophical challenge, no... the discovery of this gene would still not change any of the relevant facts presented by objectivism.

Very succint, thank you.

Can I ask indulgence of your patience for just one more clarification?

Is altruism a benefit to the individual and by extension to humanity as a whole? I say no.

Would you say that your answer to the question is based on:

1) The empirical unknown - which might not be resolved in our lifetime.

2) The logical inconsistency between this potential empirical falsification and Rand's rationalist foundationism (Rand's principle trumps it).

or

3) Something else? [If you would kindly specify]


AT

Oleksandr said:
Your quote has no mentioning of 'axiomatic'. In fact, Ayn Rand never said that virtues are axiomatic true. Can you provide citation for that?

My mistake, you are correct - per Rand, the specific virtues are dervivations one step removed from a single axiom and choice -


http://www.aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/virtue.html

My morality, the morality of reason, is contained in a single axiom: existence exists—and in a single choice: to live. The rest proceeds from these. To live, man must hold three things as the supreme and ruling values of his life: Reason—Purpose—Self-esteem. Reason, as his only tool of knowledge—Purpose, as his choice of the happiness which that tool must proceed to achieve—Self-esteem, as his inviolate certainty that his mind is competent to think and his person is worthy of happiness, which means: is worthy of living. These three values imply and require all of man's virtues, and all his virtues pertain to the relation of existence and consciousness: rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, pride.

The fact is, however, that these _are_ axiomatic, because she never actually derives them. There is no explaination as to how to get from 'existence exists' or 'chose to live' to rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. She insinuates that these virtues automatically flow from the first axiom. Since they cannot be directly derived, and we have to take Rand's words that they do derive from the first, they are axiomatic definitions of what consititutes 'good' within her philosophy.

If however, you can deduce, here and now, how to get form 'existence exists' to 'pride', I'd gladly take a look at your proof....


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:... because she never actually derives them. There is no explaination as to how to get from 'existence exists' or 'chose to live' to rationality, independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride.

This is getting really repetitive, AT. You again make an assumption about what Ayn Rand wrote on morality and how she derived it without having read her and Peikoff's books.

Did you read OPAR? http://peikoff.com/opar/home.htm

Did you read books that are listed here? http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/selfesteem.html

Right, I'm not into writing essays on a forum usually. That is what is called, "spoon feeding" and there are very few people I would find worth it to do that for.

You are just grabbing the definition to things that Rand talks about without actually understanding the things she is talking about.

There is a VERY big difference between knowing a definition and understanding a concept. A definition is just a pointer to a concept; and a concept is just, in the end, an abstraction of concretes. But the concretes that have been identified to create this concept may have many different properties.

For example: the definition of a human is an animal that can reason. But there are many different things about humans that are not subsummed under that definition (shape, size, properties of the mind, etc).

This is why, if you care enough, you should read the non-fiction stuff before arguing flaws in Objectivism... at least the metaphysical and epistemological parts.

-------------------

About your statement about relative and absolute time... I see what you are getting at. But why would that matter? Two seconds is two seconds, whether one person thinks its at 12:10 or 12:18. If you are just saying that the speed of light needs to be taken into account when its feasible then I agree. I don't see how this really changed how "time" was understood at all. Its just another equation taking into account the speed of light.

This doesn't seem any different than saying: If I throw a ball, it will reach the person closer to me sooner than the person farther away.

EDIT: to add the ball example.

Arakasi Takeda wrote: Can I ask indulgence of your patience for just one more clarification?

Would you say that your answer to the question is based on:

1) The empirical unknown - which might not be resolved in our lifetime.

2) The logical inconsistency between this potential empirical falsification and Rand's rationalist foundationism (Rand's principle trumps it).

or

3) Something else? [If you would kindly specify]

I'm going to go with number 3 on this one. My answer is both easy to give and easy to attack... I really just do not think that altruism is the answer. I think that Atlas, alone bearing the weight of the world, should shrug... because the world depending on him to lift it is not going to enable them to lift it on their own, but rather to simply make them dependent on him doing it.

Kaimera Feran wrote:I'm going to go with number 3 on this one. My answer is both easy to give and easy to attack... I really just do not think that altruism is the answer. I think that Atlas, alone bearing the weight of the world, should shrug... because the world depending on him to lift it is not going to enable them to lift it on their own, but rather to simply make them dependent on him doing it.

A more concrete answer is that life requires selfishness. Of course answering for AT would require some essays. Among already pointed Ayn Rand works, I'll also point to "Moral Rights and Political Freedom" by Tara Smith, where she derives rights in a very details and in-depth approach.

(EDIT) ... which of course includes explanation of necessacity to be selfish, thus arriving at concept of individual rights.

You cannot substitute reading Ayn Rand's Corpus with reading the Ayn Rand Lexicon.

Right, I'm not into writing essays on a forum usually. That is what is called, "spoon feeding" and there are very few people I would find worth it to do that for.

You are just grabbing the definition to things that Rand talks about without actually understanding the things she is talking about.

There is a VERY big difference between knowing a definition and understanding a concept. A definition is just a pointer to a concept; and a concept is just, in the end, an abstraction of concretes. But the concretes that have been identified to create this concept may have many different properties.

You are correct - there is a difference between know a definition and understanding it. Which is why I am asking you these questions - to help me understand your concepts.

If you find that a trying thing, then don't answer. You don't have to 'spoonfeed', you don't have to respond at all. You could simply say to yourself 'AT doesn't get it, and I am not going to waste my time answering his silly questions to try to educate him'. Please, by all means, get on with your life.

I came onto this forum, posed a question, and asked for responses. Some have been interesting, others rude, but none of them were forced. This is a forum for 'Deep Thoughts' - it's the place for discussions like this. If you don't want to have one, why the hell are you here?

Now, if you _do_ chose to answer, there are a couple of ways you can do it....you could answer like Musashi or Kaimera - in short, concise statements, and leave it at that. You might get a couple of followup questions, and, if you chose, you may answer those as well.

You can also call me ignorant and berate me for not reading everything the Rand has ever written. Of course, you could also attempt, in your own way, to outline the arguments in those book, for the sake of pushing the discussion forward, and not turning ever question into a battle.

If you chose to ask me questions in return, demanding to know why I don't accept every word of Rand's dogma as gospel, expect to get long essay answers in response.

And, finally, before you decide to underhand slap me for not understanding every concept within Rand while trying to discuss them, I strongly suggest you read up on Relativity before trying to add that to your own discussion. Otherwise, one might be tempted to wonder what kind of hypocritcal point you're trying to make. At least I'm not going to smack you upside the head and tell you to read Einstein's paper, as Olek demands I do for Rand - I'll try to outline what it means with an example (as I did). Just give me the same courtesy you expect of me. I'm willing to try to work around misunderstandings or incomplete knowledge in that subject, rather than taking the combative approach. Maybe you could try the same.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:

You are correct, Musashi. Cystic fibrosis, Sickle cell anemia...
...Just because we continue to pass something along in our genes does NOT mean that it is beneficial to us in any way.

Actually, you are not entirely correct here. Sickle cell anemia is, in fact, an indirect result of a beneficial mutation.

The Sickle Cell Anemia / Malaria relationship is a kind of an evolutionary biology chicken and egg conundrum. There is an obvious connection, but I’m not sure about a causal connection. Plus Sickle Cell is not that good of deal, people die from its complications just as they do from Malaria.

Arakasi Takeda wrote:Very generally speaking, the more wide spread a specific gene is in a population, the more likely it is that the specific gene is either evolutionarily neutral or evolutionarily beneficial, even if the reason is not immediately apparent. Genes which are evolutionarily detrimental do not increase in population size over multiple generations - that would contradict theory of evolution, and there is no physical observation to that effect.

It is a fun subject to ponder, but I’m not sure I’m fully on board with the generalization. Certainly in a very uniform genetic population, your premise must be true – everything else has died off.

But in a less uniform population, where many divergent mutations exist, and a high degree of mutation is occurring, I’d think that evolutionary negative mutation would be an equal proposition to beneficial. In these populations, conditions may dramatically change and turn the tables.

AT, your problem isn't that you are not missing _some_ Ayn Rand concepts described and defended. Your problem is that you barely understand any concepts that Ayn Rand spoke of. As said previously reading just definitions and lexicon is not enough.

If you don't want to read her books, that's fine. But then don't start debates over what she said, because you have no "empirical data" (as you put it yourself) to talk about it.

And why should people give you the outline of it, when you don't wish to read her books? Why should they explain every step to you, when it's already explained in Ayn Rand books?

If you wish to understand Ayn Rand's concepts, why not read the original source? Why ask somebody else for opinion and explanations before reading her yourself?


As a matter of fact, I'm beginning to doubt that you wish to understand her concepts at all. If you did, you have would read her books long time ago, but instead you are here arguing and doing everything except getting and reading her books?

The Sickle Cell Anemia / Malaria relationship is a kind of an evolutionary biology chicken and egg conundrum. There is an obvious connection, but I’m not sure about a causal connection. Plus Sickle Cell is not that good of deal, people die from its complications just as they do from Malaria.

Sickle Cell Anemia/Malaria is a 'chicken and egg' conundrum? How so?

Sickle cell is a point mutation in hemoglobin beta on chromosome 11p15.5. Malaria doesn't have any process to causally affect that chromosome - the mutation occured first, and created a population of people with HbS red cells (the sickle shape).

This strange shape of red cell is resistent to malaria, so populations carrying this type of red cell were naturally selected in populations experiencing malaria outbreaks.

There are complications from SCA that negatively affect the population, that's true, but the case for this being a naturally-selected beneficial mutation specifically in regards to malaria immunity is well established.

But in a less uniform population, where many divergent mutations exist, and a high degree of mutation is occurring, I’d think that evolutionary negative mutation would be an equal proposition to beneficial. In these populations, conditions may dramatically change and turn the tables.

Natural selection will decrease the population carrying a negative mutation and increase the population carrying a beneficial one over time - so long as the environmental conditions affecting that population remain stable. You are making the mistake of saying that, if things catastrophically changed, a negative mutation might become a beneficial one...that's true, but that's not the standard formulation of natural selection. Immediately following a change in conditions, the two genes switch status, and the population slowly, over time, will increase in the newly beneficial gene while the negative one declines.

Evolution looks at long time spans (multiple generations) when adaptive pressures remain fairly constant. Trying to apply evolution to periods of rapid environment change is using a wrench to drive in a nail - (the wrong tool for the wrong job). In those short periods, other factors will dominate.


AT

AT, your problem isn't that you are not missing _some_ Ayn Rand concepts described and defended. Your problem is that you barely understand any concepts that Ayn Rand spoke of. As said previously reading just definitions and lexicon is not enough.

If you don't want to read her books, that's fine. But then don't start debates over what she said, because you have no "empirical data" (as you put it yourself) to talk about it.

And why should people give you the outline of it, when you don't wish to read her books? Why should they explain every step to you, when it's already explained in Ayn Rand books?

If you wish to understand Ayn Rand's concepts, why not read the original source? Why ask somebody else for opinion and explanations before reading her yourself?


As a matter of fact, I'm beginning to doubt that you wish to understand her concepts at all. If you did, you have would read her books long time ago, but instead you are here arguing and doing everything except getting and reading her books?

Please quote to me exactly where I said that I am not interested in reading her books?

Have you never asked a question of someone who claimed they were knowledgable about a subject? Have you ever done it even though there was a book on the same subject in a library somewhere?

If you think Rand can only be understood in context of her books, that's fine. I have chosen to seek knowledge from people like yourselves who have expressed both their interest in the subject, and claimed some knowledge of her meaning. That doesn't mean I am unwilling to read her books....it's just a choice I've made at this time. I have spent sometime looking for specific references from those books, and analysis of them from other sources....are all such things invalid?

You seems to be acting as if these books are some sort of 'sacred text', and that enlightenment on Rand's philosophy is only possible through reading them. I'm sure that's not what you think, or are trying to express, but that is the impression you give.

I appreciate your point - maybe her books are the best source for understanding her philosophy. Are you suggesting they are the only way?

The reason I haven't read these books yet is because I have a book purchase list a mile long....they aren't at the top of that list. That doesn't diminish my interest in this subject at this time....it's a matter of prioritizing several competing interests. I am here, now, discussing this subject with you, now....at some point in the future, I will pick up the books and read them. Where I can, I supplement my current knowledge by reading excerpts, definitions, papers from Rand related websites, and your comments. I know I don't always get the meanings exactly right, and sometimes I misinterpret....Here you are, keeping things honest.

The sense I get from you is that you don't like being challenged on these ideas. You don't like the suggestion that things might be wrong. You don't feel confident to defend them yourself, so you appeal to the books as an 'ultimate authority'. I hold that opinion in the same way 'you believe that I am not actually interested in understanding her concepts.' A simple gut reaction, based on your behavior so far in this thread.

All I can offer you, in response to your doubt, is the following statement - "I am interested in understanding _YOUR_ understanding of Rand's concepts." I am more interested in what you think than what Rand has written, at this precise moment. Eventually, I'll read the books themselves. They just don't rate a higher priority than this discussion at this time.

Take that as you will.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:I have spent sometime looking for specific references from those books, and analysis of them from other sources....are all such things invalid?

Yes, they are invalid.

Arguments for entire systems of philosophy and some very fundamental ideas of epistemology cannot be understood by citations or some remarks that others make.

The time you have spent into this and other discussions (over what Ayn Rand meant and what Objectivism is) could have been enough to get a book from a library. So, this leads me to think that what you are after is the debate itself and not the understanding.

Furthermore, for example, there is no way I can argue and explain to you the contents of ITOE ( http://www.aynrandbookstore2.com/prodin ... mber=AR21B and yes, you can find this book in public libraries ) a monumental work on epistemology. It doesn't mean that I don't get it or don't wish to be attacked on this subject. It means that the subject matter is not appropriate for forum discussion unless you have read at least a chapter out of it yourself.

No, a philosophy cannot be explained to you in a thread on a forum. You will have to do the effort yourself.

No, a philosophy cannot be explained to you in a thread on a forum.

Then why do you have a 'Deep Thoughts' forum on your website? If no one is going to be able to gain any useful knowledge from it, then your just wasting bandwidth.


AT

Arakasi Takeda wrote:

No, a philosophy cannot be explained to you in a thread on a forum.

Then why do you have a 'Deep Thoughts' forum on your website? If no one is going to be able to gain any useful knowledge from it, then your just wasting bandwidth.

Ok, i'll repeat myself:

Oleksandr wrote:It means that the subject matter is not appropriate for forum discussion unless you have read at least a chapter out of it yourself.

So, once you have read a chapter, then we can have a conversation.