From estephen@emf.emf.net Fri Sep 15 00:22:33 PDT 1995 Article: 44713 of alt.philosophy.objectivism Path: news.emf.net!emf.emf.net!estephen From: estephen@emf.emf.net (...zeigen...) Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism Subject: Re: The Battle Begins (was: Re: Footprints in the Sand) Date: 15 Sep 1995 07:20:33 GMT Organization: Winter Weather, Berkeley, CA Lines: 172 Message-ID: <43b9g1$di6@emf.emf.net> References: <42bcb2$for@newsbf02.news.aol.com> <4362o7$jbp@emf.emf.net> <437ukq$8lo@degas.ICSI.Net> <438pbg$jfh@noc.tor.hookup.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: 205.149.0.20 My word, but this is a busy newsgroup here. I doubt my little argument will get much attention. John Alway seems to have given up the fray, but Brad Aisa (baisa@hookup.net) wrote: | Actually, Zeigen thinks he is oh-so especially clever -- "How can you be | sure you are sure?", and all that crap he learned in college. This seems like a lot of projection to me. After all, Brad, you don't know me or know how strongly/weakly I believe in anything, and certainly not if I think I'm clever (I don't, actually). I am genuinely open-minded on the subject of subjectivism. Honestly, my position in the universe would feel much more certain to me if I could find a solid foundation on which to build objectivist beliefs. However, I can't, therefore I'm a subjectivist, so far. If you can convince me of the valid basis for your beliefs -- beyond cliches and 900-page manifesto novels -- than I will be very grateful to you. Take me seriously and I'll take you seriously. Anyway, I suppose you're right that this is "crap I learned in college" (five years ago), or at least an evolution of conclusions I drew from undergraduate philosophy courses I took on Philosophy of Mind and Philosophy of Science. My arguments stem informally from Feyerabend, and from the work of George Lakoff of U.C. Berkeley on metaphor. My argument is more than simply, "How can you be sure you are sure?" The argument stems from the following: 1. A thinker must exist to think thoughts. The thoughts do not exist independently of the thinker. 2. The thinker is trapped behind at least two filters: a. The filter of physical (and unreliable) senses, and b. The filter of emotion-based processing and faulty memory storage of that sensory data. 3. The nature of the universe is extremely complex and defies simple rule-based analysis. Given noise from the above filters and the underlying chaotic nature of the data, permanently accurate rules cannot be formed. 4. Even if rules were formed, they would not translate across the barriers that exist between two thinkers and would not be accepted as universal. There are more, but I'll stop here since we are (so far) speaking in generalities. Brad Aisa continues: | But what he doesn't | realize, is that he is totally irrelevant. Men of reason are beginning to | secure control over the institutions and ideals of society once again. First of all, please address me in the second person if you're arguing with me. If you are merely showing off for the other readers of this newsgroup, than I'm not interested in talking further with you. Second, you don't know if I'm a man or a woman or a dog; don't assume that I'm male. (However, I am male, so I'll concede that point.) Third, "men of reason" strikes me as a particularly sexist phrase; that's surprising to me considering this is a newsgroup devoted to the writings of Ayn Rand. Couldn't you have more accurately said, "People of reason"? Or are you trying to claim that the only reasonable people are men? To answer your argument: My "irrelevance" is no basis on which dismiss subjectivism. My philosophy is certainly diametrically opposed to yours: if you cannot be swayed from what you believe, than my arguments are truely irrelevant -- to you. If I can convince you of the validity of uncertainty and subjective-oriented statements and thinking, than I am not irrelevant. I hope to be relevant; at the very least I may end up firming the foundations of your philosophy even if your views do not change. Furthermore, I am surprised to learn that society is now coming under control of reason. When did this start? All evidence that I see is to the opposite, that beliefs in fringe science and violent solutions to conflicts are stronger in our society during 1995 than at any previous period during this century. I would be interested in pursuing this point with evidence and counter-evidence. Brad Aisa continues: | Zeigen | and his ilk have allowed themselves to become lulled into thinking they are | permanently empowered, and that their self-refuting lunacy has some kind of | magic power to keep them ruling (and taunting and ridiculing) the bewildered | masses forever. Quite the opposite. I have no "ilk" that I am aware of. I believe that I am currently less empowered than at any previous point in my life. I believe that only the richest members of our society have any power. Personally, I rule no one; and if you knew me, you'd know that I rarely if ever taunt or ridicule an individual for anything except racist, sexist or self-centered beliefs. Count me as one of the bewildered masses if you want. How does subjectivism relate to this? Are the people who are in power subjectivist? I strongly doubt it. The rulers of our society believe that their actions have predictable, objective results. It is because they believe too much in absolutes that they tend to make such huge mistakes. (An assertion, I know.) | Imagine, discovering that you were a zero? Then I suppose that almost all of us are. Very few individuals make an actual difference. The question we have to ask ourselves: In what ways am I greater than zero? Who have I helped? For me: I work to prevent violence, discrimination and ignorance. I teach computer skills to disadvanteged workers, some of whom are newly entering the job force, and I teach self-defense classes. But this seems to have nothing to do with objectivism or subjectivism. Am I arguing in the wrong place? I should admit here that I know nothing about Ayn Rand and didn't know when I started this discussion that this was an Ayn Rand group. But, since it is named "alt.philosophy.objectivism" I hope to hear a reasonable defense of objectivism here. You can let me know if this is unrealistic for some reason. | Hard fact to swallow, in my opinion. Hope Zeigen takes it like a man, | when it hits him. I hope so too. | (Of course he is always free to come to his senses, but oh-so clever | modernistes like him tend to be incorrigible.) Define "moderniste" please. Funny that you bring up senses -- the core of my argument. We have no independent evidence to confirm what our senses tell us. What is sensible for me appears to seem moronic to you (I'm not quite sure why, yet). And perhaps the opposite is true. So far you have not revealed any actual arguments that you find sensible. | [And to any "tolerationists" out there who think I'm a big intolerant meany | who should be building bridges between Objectivism and just-probably | misguided epistemological nihilists: f*** off, and go to hell, ok?] Why should they? They're right that you're alienating open-minded people who are trying to learn about your philosophy, while at the same time generating all heat and no light. Perhaps you should reconsider the benefits of their approach. Bridges are good things: they build connections, allow for the trading of ideas and thoughts, increase the commerce of the mind. I don't see any drawbacks. | Brad Aisa : "The highest responsibility of philosophers | Toronto, Canada : is to serve as the guardians and integrators | baisa@hookup.net : of human knowledge." -- Ayn Rand Are you acting more as a guardian -- locking up the beliefs that you hold precious -- than as an integrator? __________________________________________________________________________ -- Zeigen (Berkeley, CA) estephen@emf.net Post # 4 Zeigen's Dilemma: http://www.emf.net/~estephen/ "Metaphors, and senseless and ambiguous words, are like /ignes fatui/; and reasoning upon them is wandering amongst innumerable absurdiities;" -- Hobbes' Leviathan, pt. I, chap. 5. Ask me why I disagree.