Does the distinction between Monism and dualism exist outside the mind?
Epistemologically yes.
Metaphysically no.
Category Archives: Philosophy
It’s time to drive a stake through the heart of Objectivism
I’m not sure how I ended up here. But I did.
The desire for the unearned has two aspects: the unearned in matter and the unearned in spirit. (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) These two aspects are necessarily interrelated, but a man’s desire may be focused predominantly on one or the other. The desire for the unearned in spirit is the more destructive of the two and the more corrupt. It is a desire for unearned greatness; it is expressed (but not defined) by the foggy murk of the term “prestige.” . . .
Unearned greatness is so unreal, so neurotic a concept that the wretch who seeks it cannot identify it even to himself: to identify it, is to make it impossible. He needs the irrational, undefinable slogans of altruism and collectivism to give a semiplausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it to reality—to support his own self-deception more than to deceive his victims.
– Ayn Rand in “The Monument Builders,” The Virtue of Selfishness
And I was mortified. Just a few days ago I accused Rand of this.
The conventions that govern our use of stipulative definitions demand that any use of a word stipulatively defined is preceded with the appropriate disclaimer, i.e., “In what follows, I use ‘X’ to mean ‘Y’. Rand rode roughshod over this convention with cavalier contempt.
But in these two paragraphs (the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on Prestige) not only does Rand adhere to the rules meticulously, – (By “spirit” I mean: man’s consciousness.) – she levels the very same charge at those who desire unearned greatness that I’d leveled at her.
I hastily posted an embarrassed retraction to atone for my rush to judgement. 🙁
But then I realised. I’d thought I was wrong but actually I was right. The two paragraphs do not exonerate Rand. They seal her doom.
Rand knew the rules. She knew the danger of ambiguity. She acknowledged the need of one who seeks unearned greatness for “irrational, undefinable slogans … to give a semiplausible form to his nameless urge and anchor it to reality—to support his own self-deception more than to deceive his victims.”
And she went and broke the rules. She capitalised on the foggy murk of the very ambiguities she introduced to underwrite her egoistic creed. She satiated her need for prestige with the irrational, undefinable slogans of Objectivism – not to support her own self-deception but to deceive her wretched victims – her own followers.
Rand knew exactly what she was doing.
If I’m not wrong, I’ve resolved something that has long puzzled me. You see, I’ve spent considerable time in the virtual company of Rand’s deluded disciples. And over the course of that time I’ve developed a grudging respect for Objectivism’s founder. The lady was smart, super-smart. But her philosophy simply doesn’t stack up.
It was never meant to stack up. It’s a philosophy for life on earth. Rand’s life on Earth, surrounded by an inner-circle of adoring sycophants. And her philosophy served its purpose. It created an army of hapless dupes in thrall to their evil dominatrix.
Rand earned her greatness. But what shall she give in return for her soul?
What is rationality? (Part 1)
It’s been a while, but tomorrow night The New Inklings meet again! The time is 7 pm. The place is the Downtown House Bar and Cafe at the Downtown Backpackers, corner of Bunny Street and Waterloo Quay, Wellington.
We discuss philosophy (mainly) and theology. You’re welcome to join us, provided that you are (1) irenic, and (2) rational. If you don’t know what it means to be irenic, Google is your friend. If you don’t know what it means to be rational, well … tomorrow night’s discussion topic is for you!
the nature of rationality and what a commitment to Reason entails
So I thought I’d jot down a few recent thoughts … and start a series of posts … on this fundamentally important to everything topic.
Here’s my all-time favourite Ayn Rand quote.
To arrive at a contradiction is to confess an error in one’s thinking; to maintain a contradiction is to abdicate one’s mind and to evict oneself from the realm of reality.
I used to love to brandish this one at Ayn Rand’s hypocritical followers. I say ‘used to’ because it’s just dawned on me that Rand got it completely wrong! (Yet again! Wotta surprise!)
To arrive at a contradiction is NOT to confess an error in one’s thinking. To arrive at a contradiction is the strongest confirmation possible that there is NO error in one’s thinking!
And to maintain a contradiction is NOT to abdicate one’s mind nor to evict oneself from the realm of reality. At least, not in the short-term, probably not in the medium-term and possibly not even in the long-term! NOT to maintain a contradiction, in the short-term at least, would be irrational in the utmost extreme!
I really don’t know why I didn’t see this sooner … perhaps you don’t see it yet, so I’ll explain.
The simplest example of a contradiction is a proposition and its negation. P and not-P. Two propositions are contradictory, or inconsistent, if they cannot both be true. Three propositions are mutually contradictory, or form an inconsistent triad, if they cannot all be true. Four propositions that cannot all be true form an inconsistent tetrad. And so on and so forth.
None but the completely insane ever believes P and not-P. But believing A, B and C, where A, B and C cannot all be true? This is a commonplace. But most people who believe A, B and C don’t notice the inconsistency. A and B don’t contradict. B and C don’t contradict. C and A don’t contradict. It’s the mutual inconsistency that gives rise to the contradiction. To arrive at the contradiction you actually have to have some logical nous. You have to be able to recognise that
(P1) A
(P2) B
Therefore, (C) not-C
is a deductively valid argument. So to arrive at a contradiction is actually to confirm that you have at least a basic grasp of logic! Which most people don’t.
So you’ve arrived at a contradiction. You believe A, B and C and you are cognizant of the contradiction. You know your beliefs can’t all be true. You know that (at least) one of them has to go. But which one? You’d better sit down and try to figure that one out. But you don’t want to reject the wrong belief. So, in the meanwhile, you’ll maintain the contradiction. Take your time. It’s the rational thing to do.
He that hath seen me
For an entertaining exercise, name the third person of the Unholy Trinity.
Who is it? Mini-Me? Fat Bastard? Frau Farbissina? Or … ?
Brian Leftow on “One Person Christology” is Glenn Peoples’ latest blog post.
How can a Chalcedonian Christology avoid ending up with Christ being two people? If the divine logos (the second person of the Trinity) combined with a fully functioning human body and soul (which some people take to be the ingredients of a human being), that is surely two people and not one, right?
Commenter Nathan thinks it would be an entertaining exercise “to try and define Logos and Human as classes, and then try and bring them together to get incarnate Jesus.” He adds, “but ultimately it won’t work.”
Class, superclass, subclass, interface, implementation, instantiation, inheritance—these are all concepts in object-oriented programming (OOP). Object-oriented programming is a programming paradigm that represents things in the real world as objects with attributes (“properties”) and abilities (“methods”). In software development, object-oriented programming is the one true way. But in theology?
The theology question of the day is not
How can God be three persons?
but the closely related
How can the Incarnate Christ be only one?
By implementing the Human interface, that’s how! Not sure if serious or trolling? I’m serious. I think everything is software.
(Incoming! Genetic fallacy! “When you’re a hammer, everything looks like a nail,” you say. “You’re a progr(h)ammer, Richard, so *of course* everything looks like software to you!” Nice try but no chocolate fish. Thales was not a tap.)
I’ll try to elaborate. But there’s a problem. Whereas the procedural paradigm is intuitive, the object-oriented paradigm is counter-intuitive. I started out in the procedural paradigm. Next stop, bitter experience. That’s when I made the paradigm shift. But it wasn’t easy explaining the object-oriented paradigm to myself then, and it won’t be easy explaining it to you now. That’s the problem. But I’ll try to elaborate.
I don’t always determine the meaning of a word by looking at its etymology, but when I do I look at the etymology of the word ‘logic’. The word ‘logic’ derives from the Greek λόγος or Logos, which has no exact translation but means, roughly, “reason, idea, word”. But Logos is the second person of the Trinity. Christ is Logos.
God is the author of the logic of the world, and his son is the expression of this logic.
So says philospher Nicholas F. Gier. Now, what is software but an expression of logic? Think about it.
In the beginning was the Code, and the Code was with God, and the Code was God.
Controversial? Heretical? Or just plain bat-shit crazy? No more so than the Logos Christology of the Gospel of John is any of those things.
A brain (and the body housing it) and a mind (the software running on it) are what constitutes a human person. Christ Incarnate was a human person. He was simultaneously the second person of the Trinity. How come he was not two persons, but just one? Simple. He was running different software. You and I instantiate the class DomesticatedPrimate. Christ Incarnate instantiated the class Logos. Christ is the class Logos. He instantiated himself.
An interface is an abstract class that defines a set of abstract methods. The Human interface is an abstract class that defines what it is to be human in terms of distinctively human attributes and distinctively human abilities. The classes DomesticatedPrimate and Logos have this in common. They both implement the Human interface.
That’s my destructive heresy for today. I’m not teaching it, mind. Just putting it out there.
OOP or Oops!? Be sure to let me know in the comments.
Say what you mean and mean what you say
Have you considered an egg?
Consider Humpty Dumpty, the world’s most famous egg.
I poached the following passage from Lewis Carroll’s Through the Looking-Glass (1872), where Humpty discusses semantics and pragmatics with Alice.
“I don’t know what you mean by ‘glory’,” Alice said.
Humpty Dumpty smiled contemptuously. “Of course you don’t – till I tell you. I meant ‘there’s a nice knock-down argument for you!'”
“But ‘glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’,” Alice objected.
“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean – neither more nor less.”
“The question is,” said Alice, “whether you can make words mean so many different things.”
“The question is,” said Humpty Dumpty, “which is to be master – that’s all.”
What an egg-otist! Whosoever exalteth himself shall be abased. It’s no wonder Humpty Dumpty had a great fall.
A long time ago I was a philosophy student at Otago University. And one exam time I was looking at some past exam papers and came across the following exam question: What is the meaning of a word?
It’s a simple question with a simple answer. The meaning of a word is determined by the conventions that govern its use. This is no mere platitude. It’s philosophical orthodoxy and has been since David Lewis – ranked by his peers as the third most important philosopher of the twentieth century – published Convention: A Philosophical Study (1969). Platitude. Orthodoxy. Truth.
The meaning of a word is determined by the conventions that govern its use.
Alice is right. ‘Glory’ doesn’t mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’. You can’t make words mean so many different things. You can’t make ‘glory’ mean ‘a nice knock-down argument’ on your own, any more than you can determine the next government by casting a single vote. What’s more, one of the conventions that governs the use of the term ‘glory’ is the convention of correcting people when they use the word to mean something else. Our linguistic conventions have a built-in inertia that safeguards our very ability to communicate.
Humpty Dumpty’s semantics was scrambled a long time before he met the same fate.
Sense of Life Objectivists (SOLO) is the world’s foremost forum for disciples of Ayn Rand. Go there and check out the banner at the top-right of every page. Every few page loads it advises
Say what you mean, and mean what you say
It’s good advice. But, SOLO being the hive of hypocrisy that it is, well, you’d hardly expect its delusional denizens to take it, would you? No, you wouldn’t and they don’t.
Recently, I’ve been following (one side of) a conversation on SOLO. An Objectivist said this.
What did you understand I meant by “human (i.e. existential) survival”? Let me tell you, because I think you misinterpreted me. I meant what Ayn Rand meant by it, namely, living in accordance with man’s identity as having the potential to be a heroic being
This has the more general form.
What did you think I meant by ‘X’? I meant ‘Y’.
To which I respond, if you meant ‘Y’, why didn’t you find the word or words which actually mean what you meant, and use those instead? To enter into a philosophical discussion is to commit to upholding certain standards of rational debate. It is inexcusable to say ‘X’ when you mean ‘Y’. I know, I’ve done it myself. I’ve said ‘X’ when I meant ‘Y’. And I’ve apologised. There is simply no excuse for not saying what you mean, let alone any entitlement to use words any which way. Why should other participants in the debate have to take time out to establish the meaning of your every utterance? It’s an imposition.
There’s another problem. Words have meanings. Their meanings are determined by the conventions that govern their use. Their meanings are not determined by you on an ad lib basis as you see fit on any given occasion. Consider the case of someone who habitually says ‘X’ but means something else. (In other words, consider an Objectivist.) The Objectivist tells us he actually meant ‘Y’. But what does he mean by ‘Y’? Perhaps by ‘Y’ he means ‘Z’?
This can go two ways. One is an infinite regress of stipulative definitions. The other is a regress that stops when the Objectivist tells you that what *he* actually means is the same as what the *words* he uses actually mean. But if the Objectivist is demonstrably capable of using words to mean what the words mean, as he is in the latter case, he is without excuse for not using words to mean what they actually mean in the first place.
We use words to talk about reality. The constant redefinition of ordinary words that goes on in Objectivist circles has the inevitable consequence that the relations of reference that obtain between words and the world come unstuck.
Ayn Rand described herself as an advocate of reason. I know what ‘reason’ means. I don’t know what Rand meant by ‘reason’ but I know what she didn’t mean. She didn’t mean reason.
Sin of ignorance? Upgrade now to sin of culpable ignorance! Free voucher.
False belief? Could be a simple mistake. You don’t know any better.
But what if you act on it? Then it’s a false pretext. Could be a sin of ignorance. You should know better than that.
What if I tell that you’re wrong and tell you why you’re wrong—but you persist in the error of your ways? Then you commit a sin of culpable ignorance.
Let’s be clear. We’re not talking Lutheran trifles here. A sin of culpable ignorance is a mortal sin. (‘Mortal’ as in brain death. Yours.) Your offending isn’t at the lower end of the scale. It’s at the other end of the scale. You haven’t merely offended, you’ve blatantly violated. You have declared yourself an enemy of Reason and an enemy of God. Blasphemy! You have taken the name of Reason—the Lord thy God (or, if you prefer, your Only Absolute)—in vain and broken the Third Commandment.
Thomas Jefferson got it.
Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a god; because, if there be one, he must more approve the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear.
It’s a shame that Jefferson didn’t read this before he put pen to paper. To *say* in your heart, “There is no God,” is foolishness. But to *argue* God’s non-existence is in its very nature an act of worship! (And thereby self-refuting!) Gobsmack!
What about Ayn Rand? She said she got it. She paid a fortune in lip service. But flattery gets you nowhere. Inference takes you places! So is Objectivism the road to nowhere or are Objectivists on a hiding to nothing? Yes, indeed.
I am not primarily an advocate of capitalism, but of egoism; and I am not primarily an advocate of egoism, but of reason. If one recognizes the supremacy of reason and applies it consistently, all the rest follows.
This—the supremacy of reason—was, is and will be the primary concern of my work, and the essence of Objectivism. Reason in epistemology leads to egoism in ethics, which leads to capitalism in politics.
Did you just feel a puff of air? That was Satan spreading his wings. But this time it ain’t no laughing matter. The greatest intellectual saboteur of all time, operating deep within Reason’s inner sanctum, is now exposed as traitor to the true Royal cause. Objectivism is the philosophy of reason all right – reason with a silent ‘T’.
Richard Dawkins Produces Another Theist: Proslogion
Dr. Laura Keynes grew up in Cambridge, arguably the intellectual center of the United Kingdom. She studied at the University College of Oxford on a full-ride scholarship and ended up earning a Doctor of Philosophy degree. Her doctoral thesis was on epistemology, the study of knowledge and justified belief. As her last name indicates, she is the great-grandniece of the famous economist John Maynard Keynes. She is also the great-great-great-granddaughter of Charles Darwin.
Why am I telling you about this young lady? Because she recently wrote an article entitled, “I’m a Direct Descendant of Darwin…and a Catholic.” Now the title didn’t surprise me at all. I know a lot of Catholics (and even more Protestants) who believe in evolution. Indeed, one of the leaders of the Intelligent Design movement, Dr. Michael Behe, says:1
You can be a good Catholic and believe in Darwinism. Biochemistry has made it increasingly difficult, however, to be a thoughtful scientist and believe in it.
However, as I read the article, I couldn’t help but smile. You see, Laura was raised Catholic but drifted away from the faith after her mother became a Buddhist and her brother rejected all organized religion. By the time she was studying for her Doctor of Philosophy degree, she was an agnostic. During that time, however, Richard Dawkins had opened up an international dialogue on the existence of God with his thoroughly awful book, The God Delusion. Well, Laura decided to read Dawkins and his fellow New Atheists, and she says:
I expected to be moved from agnosticism to atheism by their arguments, but after reading on both sides of the debate, I couldn’t dismiss a compelling intellectual case for faith. As for being good without God, I’d tried and didn’t get very far. At some point, life will bring you to your knees, and no act of will is enough in that situation. Surrendering and asking for grace is the logical human response.
I don’t think that’s the response Dawkins and his colleagues were hoping for. The entire article is worth a read, because it really shows how an intellectual person should respond to what the New Atheists have produced:
I read central texts on both sides of the debate and found more to convince me in the thoughtful and measured responses of Alister McGrath and John Cornwell, among others, than in the impassioned prose of Hitchens et al. New Atheism seemed to harbor a germ of intolerance and contempt for people of faith that could only undermine secular Humanist claims to liberalism.
Notice what she did. She read the central texts on both sides of the debate. Most people don’t do that, but it is the most important thing a real intellectual can do. I suspect that working on her dissertation made her realize that there is no such thing as an unbiased argument. All authors start with their preconceived notions, which color the way they view and present the evidence. As a result, the only way to come close to getting an unbiased view of the debate is to read from both sides. By doing that, you will hopefully be able to start seeing how the various authors are “coloring” the evidence, and that will allow you to remove some of the “coloring” and look at the evidence a bit more clearly.
When Laura did that, she saw something that should be immediately obvious to those who read both sides of this debate: the New Atheists are full of bluster and bravado, but their arguments are incredibly weak. Those who have responded to the New Atheists (at least the ones she read) provide a start contrast. They are calm, measured, and rational in their response. According to her, this contrast helped to demonstrate that the majority of the evidence clearly goes against the atheist position, and the bluster of the New Atheists is an attempt to cover up this inconvenient fact. As a result, she returned to the faith of her childhood.
Read more >>here<<
Married to a Megalomaniac…
It was with amusement that I read an NZ Herald article today which said….
“…The way you sleep may reveal aspects of your personality, with dark traits such as narcissism and cheating linked to night owls.
A study by researchers in Sydney and Liverpool has found the “dark triad” of personality traits – narcissism, psychopathy and Machiavellianism – are linked to those who prefer to stay up late….”
Read more >>>here<<<
How much weight should a person like myself ... a man with political ambitions, and who also has difficulty getting to bed before midnight.... place on such assertions?
Am I supposed to believe that I stay up late 'scheming' and 'revolutionizing'....and that typically my latest activism being putting myself into the Local body Elections for the Hamilton city Council... is real evidence.... not of the fact that because I work a 10 hour day, that the night time is my only opportunity to defend and promote my Ideals and values...
Not because I really give a shit about Freedom and Justice....
Not because of carrying the weight that because There is no one else.... not one other Libertarian Candidate standing in Hamilton... that unless I step up... no one will...
Not because of my conviction that not to stand, means Evil must prevail...
But instead.... according to this 'Study'....that All those Ideas that *I believe* and hold dear are instead... evidence of my Narcissism... My Psychopathy.... My Machaelellianism????
Ie Are the things which I consider to be tokens of my virtue and good character in reality Signposts of my Base Character and self delusion?
What pains me the most is that my own Wife thinks this is so.
It is indescribably painful when the person who has spent the last 20 years with you and is supposed to be closest to you... and is supposed to understand your Heart and Soul... can write off your most cherished Beliefs and values... as merely personal Vanity!
I stagger in contemplation that even my own wife thinks I'm a Fraud!
Obviously she does not give a Rat's arse about the things I hold Dear.
I write this Blog with full confidence that unless someone tells her about my comments here ....she will never know about them.
She never bothers to read my work.... she obviously has more important... Less Diabolical... things on her mind.
But Let's be honest... Is not the Headline 'Tim Wikiriwhi For Mayor' a statement reeking of Psychopathic Narcissism!??
I know that.
Do I have an over-inflated sense of my own importance?
I know that my chances for success at the elections are no better than the other 8-10 times I have stepped forward.
Is that in itself a valid reason for me not to bother?
Should I appreciate and submit to that?
I hear Satan's Laughter... and cackling of the mob.
None the less I Stand.
How can my wife believe I do this for fun.... for Vanity?
It's an Ordeal.
An Obligation.
I do it for my community...
For my Children....
And yes.... for my own conscience and self esteem.
Yet if someone else would step forward I would be greatly relieved!
I think Ill have another Beer.
I'm in no rush to go to bed.
I have a world to Dominate!... no wait that's Socialism..... :-)
The thing is that when I do hit the hay... my conscience is clear, and I still have a vision and hope to share...
I have spent this evening getting my nomination forms sorted... my Profile pic, and my Election profile statements done.
I need to get my A into town tomorrow before noon to get registered.... that's the cut off and typical Tim style I have left it to the last moments to decide to run.... If I don't make tomorrow's deadline... I will be disqualified.
Tim Wikiriwhi For Mayor/ Hamilton West!
…Due to gross incompetence our city wallows in high rates and crippling debt.
Yet still I believe Hamilton could become New Zealand’s premier city via the rigorous application of the principles endorsed by Nobel Prize winner for economics Milton Friedman.
Reducing bureaucratic interference with private property, individual liberty, and business will allow you to realize your full potential.
Hamiltonian’s interests are best served when Council keeps costs down.
Lower rates means lower rents, and ultimately lower food and petrol bills.
Lower rates gives Hamilton business’s the greatest advantage to compete both domestically and globally.
While you forge a brighter future, I’ll focus on the reduction of city debt and rates by running a tight ship.
Council should stick to essential utilities.
I will promote community interests by soliciting philanthropy from the Private sector, encouraging voluntary community initiatives to develop art, charity and culture.
Let’s think smart, and aim for success.
Tim Wikiriwhi
Affordable Waikato.
Rambo Surrenders…. to Christ.
American Super Star SYLVESTER STALLONE has become a Christian.
