Some questions for the critics of objectivism

[thrasymachus]

thrasymachus wrote
It's frustrating that you seem almost to categorically be incapable of doing something simple.

It's like if I were to ask you, "Is your user name here thrasymachus? yes/no" or "In the word 'cat,' what letter comes after 'c'?"--just to see if you can directly, straightforwardly answer a simple question, you'd start talking about epistemology, etc etc and wouldn't be able to just answer "yes" or "a."

From my perspective, if we can't simply answer "yes" to a question like "Is your user name here 'thrasymachus'?" then we certainly can't tackle anything more complex than that.

Okay, I'm easy: what is this well formed, compartmentalized question if distinction that cares nothing for extraneous issues but is altogether clear as my moniker thrasymachus?

[thrasymachus]

OF distinction

[baker]

Then the rabbit hole is not for you. But this is where things get interesting, otherwise, philosophy is just a exercise in terminological agreement.

Truth via mysticism?

[thrasymachus]

baker wrote
Truth via mysticism?

Mysticism??

[baker]

Mysticism??

You keep talking about going down the rabbit hole. This is mysticism.

A better image would be "through the looking-glass."

Still, there's something Humpty-Dumptyish about making words mean whatever one wants them to mean ...

[thrasymachus]

baker wrote
You keep talking about going down the rabbit hole. This is mysticism.

A better image would be "through the looking-glass."

Still, there's something Humpty-Dumptyish about making words mean whatever one wants them to mean ...

I see. It's just a metaphor referring to a line of inquiry that moves familiar thinking into uncertain ground. A lawyer might do the same when referring to, say, the boundaries where explicit law ends and real ethical judgment begins, given that the law, if not simply statutory, is an open ended affair, messy and indeterminate. Inquiry in philosophical matters are like this, but it all depends on how far one is willing take issues into the assumptions at work beneath clear thinking, and this becomes especially poignant in discussions about question begging.

If one never questions philosophically, the world remains foundationally very clear. Nigh tautological, and therefore a galactic bore.

[Atla]

The rabbit hole of phenomenology doesn't come close to the rabbit hole of nondualism.. heh

[Terrapin Station]

All words are deferential to other words, not to the "world" at all,

Simply making a conceptual distinction has nothing to do with being "deferential" to anything, including "the world," so why would we be talking about this?

That stuff out there that is not language is not "known" but merely familiar. Our knowledge of the world is a kind of reified familiarity through the habits of language and reference and meaning.

Perhaps you prefer the simple answer: Our knowledge of the world is pragmatically settled, only, otherwise words just go round and round.

In simply making a distinction, we're not talking about "knowledge of the world." We're just talking about making a distinction.

otherwise, philosophy is just a exercise in terminological agreement.

We need to start with some sort of agreement or mutual understanding, or we can't get anywhere. Hence trying to tackle something very, very simple.

But we can't manage to do this.

[Terrapin Station]

thrasymachus wrote
It's frustrating that you seem almost to categorically be incapable of doing something simple.

It's like if I were to ask you, "Is your user name here thrasymachus? yes/no" or "In the word 'cat,' what letter comes after 'c'?"--just to see if you can directly, straightforwardly answer a simple question, you'd start talking about epistemology, etc etc and wouldn't be able to just answer "yes" or "a."

From my perspective, if we can't simply answer "yes" to a question like "Is your user name here 'thrasymachus'?" then we certainly can't tackle anything more complex than that.

Okay, I'm easy: what is this well formed, compartmentalized question if distinction that cares nothing for extraneous issues but is altogether clear as my moniker thrasymachus?

There's no claim about anything being "well-formed." Let's just see if we can understand a distinction: the core idea is simply the notion of two different locations.

[baker]

I see. It's just a metaphor referring to a line of inquiry that moves familiar thinking into uncertain ground.

Surely for some people, but not for everyone.

A lawyer might do the same when referring to, say, the boundaries where explicit law ends and real ethical judgment begins, given that the law, if not simply statutory, is an open ended affair, messy and indeterminate. Inquiry in philosophical matters are like this, but it all depends on how far one is willing take issues into the assumptions at work beneath clear thinking, and this becomes especially poignant in discussions about question begging.

If one never questions philosophically, the world remains foundationally very clear. Nigh tautological, and therefore a galactic bore.

At some point, one gets tired of philosophical inquiries that lead nowhere and resolve nothing.
Being on a raft -- even though one is aware one is on a raft -- is better than being permanently stuck in quicksand.

[baker]

There's no claim about anything being "well-formed." Let's just see if we can understand a distinction: the core idea is simply the notion of two different locations.

I've always seen the subjective-objective distinction in terms of "how one person thinks things really are" vs. "how things really are", whereby "how things really are" can be known by persons, provided they meet certain ethical and epistemic criteria.
So it's not simply "inside a person" vs. "outside a person".


For example, I live in a culture where, if a person is sent to see a psychologist/psychiatrist, they are told "You need to see a psychologist/psychiatrist, who will tell you how things really are."

[Terrapin Station]

There's no claim about anything being "well-formed." Let's just see if we can understand a distinction: the core idea is simply the notion of two different locations.

I've always seen the subjective-objective distinction in terms of "how one person thinks things really are" vs. "how things really are", whereby "how things really are" can be known by persons, provided they meet certain ethical and epistemic criteria.
So it's not simply "inside a person" vs. "outside a person".

The distinction is one of whether something is person-independent versus being person-dependent (or more specifically mind-independent versus mind-dependent). We don't have to make the distinction exactly that way of course, but that's the conventional distinction. Whatever we name that distinction, there are particular upshots to things being person/mind-dependent versus independent.

For example, I live in a culture where, if a person is sent to see a psychologist/psychiatrist, they are told "You need to see a psychologist/psychiatrist, who will tell you how things really are."

Your last few posts are kind of suggesting that you were sent to a psychiatrist or psychologist at some point against your wishes more or less?

[baker]

The distinction is one of whether something is person-independent versus being person-dependent (or more specifically mind-independent versus mind-dependent). We don't have to make the distinction exactly that way of course, but that's the conventional distinction. Whatever we name that distinction, there are particular upshots to things being person/mind-dependent versus independent.

How can you, as a person, possibly talk about things that are mind-independent??

Your last few posts are kind of suggesting that you were sent to a psychiatrist or psychologist at some point against your wishes more or less?

Jesus, no. My point is that people often love to pontificate about things in ways that those in positions of power (such as psychologists) consider utterly abnormal. So we have two ideas of normalcy, existing in parallel: the official version, held by those in positions of power; and the version that people who are not in such positions of power demand to be considered normal. Who's crazy now?

[Terrapin Station]

The distinction is one of whether something is person-independent versus being person-dependent (or more specifically mind-independent versus mind-dependent). We don't have to make the distinction exactly that way of course, but that's the conventional distinction. Whatever we name that distinction, there are particular upshots to things being person/mind-dependent versus independent.

How can you, as a person, possibly talk about things that are mind-independent??

I don't know what the mystery would be. Would you ask how a painting could possibly depict things that aren't themselves paintings? That would seem to suggest a complete failure in grasping the idea of aboutness.

Your last few posts are kind of suggesting that you were sent to a psychiatrist or psychologist at some point against your wishes more or less?

Jesus, no. My point is that people often love to pontificate about things in ways that those in positions of power (such as psychologists) consider utterly abnormal. So we have two ideas of normalcy, existing in parallel: the official version, held by those in positions of power; and the version that people who are not in such positions of power demand to be considered normal. Who's crazy now?

I don't know why psychologists would be people "in positions of power" (at least of any unusual degree) or why we'd be talking about normal/abnormal.

[baker]

How can you, as a person, possibly talk about things that are mind-independent??

I don't know what the mystery would be. Would you ask how a painting could possibly depict things that aren't themselves paintings? That would seem to suggest a complete failure in grasping the idea of aboutness.

So you believe things exist, "out there", independently of your mind, and more importantly, you can talk about them independently of your mind?

I don't know why psychologists would be people "in positions of power" (at least of any unusual degree) or why we'd be talking about normal/abnormal.

Well, aren't you one happy tortoise!