tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post3493651951367555959..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Alas, "Atlas"Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-78548564250694002822007-10-16T09:40:00.000-07:002007-10-16T09:40:00.000-07:00Bobby Funk, Thinking is involuntary. The brain con...Bobby Funk, Thinking is involuntary. The brain consumes about 20% of the energy that you produce. You do something with all that power. Your brain is always thinking of something. When you think about something, you are simply giving the brain a particular task. You can kind of observe this the next time you have a particularly hard problem. Sometimes if you stop working on it for a short while, do something else, then come back to it, you will know more about how to solve it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-49453901463168337112007-10-15T17:01:00.000-07:002007-10-15T17:01:00.000-07:00Bobby:>Please write the folks at Merriam-Webster a...Bobby:<BR/>>Please write the folks at Merriam-Webster and let them know that they are confusing "thinking per se" with "thinking aimed at a specific purpose."<BR/><BR/>Sometimes thinking is not aimed at a specific purpose, Bobby. People can even have <I>unwanted</I> and <I>confusing</I> thoughts. While all terms are vague to some degree, "thinking" and "thought" are vaguer than most. So you can't hang too much on one definition vs another.<BR/><BR/>>Your own particular criticism of Rand's epistemology is about as clear as mud. Please explain how Rand's "contextual absolute" is an oxymoron...Without abstracting it out of context, of course.<BR/><BR/>Well, it will take a little time to explain, and I do not really expect to convince you...;-) In fact I think you may find my claim <I>prima facie</I> ridiculous. Anyway, here it is:<BR/><BR/><I>Some of Ayn Rand's most important doctrines, on examination, turn out to be no more than mere plays on words.</I> Many of these wordplays are oxymoronic self-contradictions, that add nothing but empty verbiage to the philosophic problem they allege to solve.<BR/><BR/>I know, I know...how can it be that a thinker such as Rand, with her keen awareness of the importance of contradiction, can nonetheless end up embedding a bunch of oxymorons at the root of her system? Well, never mind how for now, it turns out she did. And, like a clever card trick, once you start seeing how it's done it no longer seems all that clever.<BR/><BR/>Let's look at one example: "contextual absolute". An "absolute" usually refers to something that cannot be changed or improved, regardless of where it is in space or time. For example, an "absolute" law of physics -the kind of thing scientists spend their lives trying to discover - is a law that is <I>invariant</I> throughout time and space, anywhere or at any time in the universe.<BR/><BR/>That is, <I>it does not vary in any context.</I><BR/><BR/>Yet observe Rand's various "absolutes" <I>are</I> "contextual" - that is, they <I>do vary</I> according to "context."<BR/><BR/>Thus the word "absolute" is <I>redundant</I>; mere window dressing, in just the same way that saying "definitely maybe" is really just saying "maybe." (In fact "definitely maybe" is logically equivalent to "contextually absolute")<BR/><BR/>(We observe the same problem with her "absolute certainty", which is also "contextual" and also her "absolute precision", which, as clearly described in the ITOE, is merely what is usually referred to in non-Randian jargon as <I>an approximation</I>)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, I do not doubt you will find this claim that a system as seemingly mighty as Objectivism is founded on little more than a few puns to be quite incredible at first. And you are welcome of course to reject it out of hand. But I recommend you think about it carefully for yourself first.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-34882739499493677302007-10-15T15:18:00.000-07:002007-10-15T15:18:00.000-07:00From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:Main En...From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:<BR/><BR/>Main Entry: 1thinking <BR/>Function: noun <BR/>Date: 14th century <BR/>1: the ACTION of USING one's mind to PRODUCE thoughts<BR/><BR/>http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary<BR/>(Emphasis is mine.)<BR/><BR/>Please write the folks at Merriam-Webster and let them know that they are confusing "thinking per se" with "thinking aimed at a specific purpose." Or could it be that "thinking per se" IS "thinking aimed at specific purpose"??? To state the latter is redundant of the former. <BR/><BR/>It was my assumption that Steele was confusing thinking with percepts, as percepts are as close to an involuntary process of the mind as "digestion" is to the body. I really can't say for sure with what, exactly, he was mistakenly substituting thinking.<BR/><BR/>Your own particular criticism of Rand's epistemology is about as clear as mud. Please explain how Rand's "contextual absolute" is an oxymoron...Without abstracting it out of context, of course.Robert Kaercherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003947054155352668noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6903954262280648502007-10-12T15:25:00.000-07:002007-10-12T15:25:00.000-07:00Bobby:>The next time he can't start his car, I won...Bobby:<BR/>>The next time he can't start his car, I wonder if he'll just sit there and wait for the answer to magically appear in his head without any volitional mental effort.<BR/><BR/>Hi Bobby,<BR/><BR/>I think the point may be moot, as you (or DRS, or Rand for that matter) may be mixing thinking <I>per se</I> (the continual flow of thoughts - and these are not 'percepts', note - in our head) with thinking <I>aimed at a specific purpose</I> (eg restarting a stalled car). I wouldn't hang to much on that point as Rand is not all that clear herself. DRS's may be a reasonable interpretation.<BR/><BR/>Rand writes a little bit about mental states like "full focus", which is interesting, but this in turn is surely not the only exclusive meaning of the very broad word "thinking". So DRS's comment is not so "half-baked" really.<BR/><BR/>BTW, while Rand can be criticised at a number of levels, IMHO the place where the most devastating criticism takes place is her epistemology, which turns out to be little more than a series of oxymorons (ie self-contradictions) such as "contextual absolute". This is a highly damaging result, because Rand claimed all her ethics, politics, etc flowed from her epistemological insights. Thus where she is right in these areas, she is right by instinct or accident, rather than by sound reasoning.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65441181324335442342007-10-12T11:33:00.000-07:002007-10-12T11:33:00.000-07:00Steele made some really excellent points. However,...Steele made some really excellent points. However, I would have to take issue with this statement:<BR/><BR/>"Thinking is involuntary, like digestion or blood clotting. If you don't believe this, try to stop thinking for a few seconds." <BR/><BR/>Come now, he doesn't REALLY believe that, does he? The next time he can't start his car, I wonder if he'll just sit there and wait for the answer to magically appear in his head without any volitional mental effort. Or will he get out, pop up the hood, examine individual parts and their relational functions to the rest of the system in an effort to determine what's wrong? <BR/><BR/>If he decides to take it to a mechanic, will the mechanic just instantly know what the solution is without examining the engine and its relational constituent parts? Will the answer just sort of "pop!" into the mechanic's head like gas passing out of his behind following the consumption of a spicy bean burrito, without any voluntary mental exertion?<BR/><BR/>Steele wrongly conflated the involuntary act of receiving sense data and integrating them into perceptions with the concious, willful, volitional act of abstracting those perceptions into concepts. <BR/><BR/>Rand is desperately in need of thoroughgoing criticism, no doubt about it, but it's often disappointing to see even her seemingly most intelligent critics toss out half-baked statements like analogizing human thinking to gastrointestinal functions. With the proliferation of such stupidity in the world, it's little wonder that an intellectual even as mediocre as Ayn Rand so arrogantly considered herself some kind of super-genius.Robert Kaercherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07003947054155352668noreply@blogger.com