Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
ruveyn ben yosef

Integrated philosophical systems

23 posts in this topic

What I wrote applies to all Kelleyites as the real reason why they ally with him. There may be others who also have those characteristics -- I have had disagreements with other Objectivists myself -- but don't join with Kelley because of that.

Incidentally, Stephen and I did get solicitations from two prominent Kelleyites to join with Kelley after we disagreed with Dr. Peikoff over who to vote for. They'll take anyone who, they think, has any kind of beef with "established" Objectivism.

Perhaps the most fundamental difference is actually being an independent thinker vs. a second hander. An independent thinker can appreciate the practicality of some of what ARI has done/is doing such as the essay contests, because of a grasp of the importance of true ideas such as Objectivism (including necessarily as an integrated philosophy, not an ala carte buffet), while not approving of everything that they (or LP) do, such as injust treatment of John McCaskey and some other actions.

Kelley and his cadre don't apparently have respect for an integrated philosophic system; it's more about second handed acceptance. So not only don't they do anything of value, their actions are an active disvalue.

There's a certain overlap; there are clearly a number of people who support ARI out of second-handed reasons, and I'm surmising that these are the people most likely to "switch" to Kelley if they get upset over something. (Whereas some might find good reasons to distance themselves from ARI without wanting to "join" Kelley's crowd - which would include myself, although I support the good that ARI does.)

Personally my loyalty is fundamentally to the truth - not to men. Remarkably, I used to know people who all but explicitly stated that their "loyalty" to Leonard Peikoff trumped truth and facts. I don't find such groupies to be a personal value. Fortunately, Facebook has made it much easier to differentiate between first-handed thinkers and the groupies.

The problem with integrated philosophical systems is that if one rejects any one part of it, they must reject the whole. It is a "package deal". All or Nothing.

In the real world, when a systematic whole does not work out, it is common practice to try to salvage what is workable. It works for machines and physical assets, why not for intellectual systems?

ruveyn1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn,

In the real world and integrated system that is tied to reality is the only thing that works long-term. But your response does not surprise me as your ideas are usually just a hodge-podge mess of non-integrated stuff with no real world application beyond the "right now", no principles, just pragmatic thoughts and actions. Here is an idea for you though, create your own philosophy which means you can attempt to integrate your thoughts into one whole (as the truth is the whole), that does not mean it will be based off of the facts of reality as Kant did an immense job BSing himself and the world with his seemingly integrated but fake (not tied to reality) phiolosphy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn,

In the real world and integrated system that is tied to reality is the only thing that works long-term. But your response does not surprise me as your ideas are usually just a hodge-podge mess of non-integrated stuff with no real world application beyond the "right now", no principles, just pragmatic thoughts and actions. Here is an idea for you though, create your own philosophy which means you can attempt to integrate your thoughts into one whole (as the truth is the whole), that does not mean it will be based off of the facts of reality as Kant did an immense job BSing himself and the world with his seemingly integrated but fake (not tied to reality) phiolosphy.

I handle my difficulties a few at a time, so I have a good chance of overcoming them. I leave it to others to create "integrated systems". To them I say good luck and happy times laboring away.

Maxwell and Faraday did not create an "integrated system" but between them the founded electronics and radio communications. Not bad for people who settle for doing less than everything.

I deal mostly with facts. What actually exists is my "hodge podge". There is an old saying I find true in many cases: the Best is the enemy of the Good Enough.

Cheers.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn,

Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding and your lack to stay focused on the discussion at hand. You are the one that brought up integrated philosophical systems and then you attempt to change the subject by going toward scientific discoveries which by the way require theories that are integrated or hence they fail as a theory. finally, you do not leave it to others to create integrated systems as you complain about about almost everything in an attempt to destroy their systems, weak as your attempts may be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn,

Once again you demonstrate your lack of understanding and your lack to stay focused on the discussion at hand. You are the one that brought up integrated philosophical systems and then you attempt to change the subject by going toward scientific discoveries which by the way require theories that are integrated or hence they fail as a theory. finally, you do not leave it to others to create integrated systems as you complain about about almost everything in an attempt to destroy their systems, weak as your attempts may be.

No. I demonstrate my knowledge of my own limitations.

I leave it to others to do the impossible. I do what is possible for me to do.

Has it occurred to you that the Cosmos is so vast that is is impossible to encompass completely by a human created artifact with a finite set of ground assumptions? Knowledge for humans is an endless quest and open-ended. It will never be encapsulated by a philosophical system. No matter how elaborate the system when New Stuff is discovered (and it will be) the system will either have to be modified, expanded or discarded. No integrated system will ever be empirically complete and most likely it will not be logically complete.

Not even mathematics is logically complete as demonstrated by Kurt Goedel in 1931.

And this is very good news because it means there will always be something more for us to find out and to accomplish. There will be no rest for Man between now and the time he becomes extinct..

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn, you once again demonstrate your lack of understanding and the inability to integrate single subjects and or differentiate between multiple subjects. An integrated philosophy such as Objectivism does not define limits to one's knowledge nor discuss what is left for discovery, but of course you would not understand that as you do not understand philosophy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In the real world, when a systematic whole does not work out, it is common practice to try to salvage what is workable. It works for machines and physical assets, why not for intellectual systems?

WIth most systems this would be an option. WIth one as rational, as well integrated and right as Objectivism, it doesn't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn, you once again demonstrate your lack of understanding and the inability to integrate single subjects and or differentiate between multiple subjects. An integrated philosophy such as Objectivism does not define limits to one's knowledge nor discuss what is left for discovery, but of course you would not understand that as you do not understand philosophy.

I am just a poor confused guy. All I can do is stuff like category theory and topology. Is there any hope for me? Probably not.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn, you once again demonstrate your lack of understanding and the inability to integrate single subjects and or differentiate between multiple subjects. An integrated philosophy such as Objectivism does not define limits to one's knowledge nor discuss what is left for discovery, but of course you would not understand that as you do not understand philosophy.

I am just a poor confused guy. All I can do is stuff like category theory and topology. Is there any hope for me? Probably not.

ruveyn

Philosophy dictates science, not the other way around. One's acceptance of a philosophy (even if not a fully integrated one, such as a hodge podge of ideas) dictates their epistemology, so epistemology comes before science. So a scientist, which you seem to love to claim that you are, can only interpret things of any sort from the framework of some type of philosophy. If I had to label your main guiding aspects of your philosophy I would say that you seem to be a pragmatic empiricist. So with that stated, is there hope for you, probably not as you have constantly demonstrated that you are unwilling to rethink your premises on many different levels.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy dictates science, not the other way around. One's acceptance of a philosophy (even if not a fully integrated one, such as a hodge podge of ideas) dictates their epistemology, so epistemology comes before science. So a scientist, which you seem to love to claim that you are, can only interpret things of any sort from the framework of some type of philosophy. If I had to label your main guiding aspects of your philosophy I would say that you seem to be a pragmatic empiricist. So with that stated, is there hope for you, probably not as you have constantly demonstrated that you are unwilling to rethink your premises on many different levels.

Pragmatic empiricist. That is a just observation. I think it fits fine. Since I am genetically mind blind that is the best I can be. Everything I do I have worked out empirically. For me the art of living is painting by the numbers. I have no intuitive talent for it.

Go in peace.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy dictates science, not the other way around. One's acceptance of a philosophy (even if not a fully integrated one, such as a hodge podge of ideas) dictates their epistemology, so epistemology comes before science. So a scientist, which you seem to love to claim that you are, can only interpret things of any sort from the framework of some type of philosophy. If I had to label your main guiding aspects of your philosophy I would say that you seem to be a pragmatic empiricist. So with that stated, is there hope for you, probably not as you have constantly demonstrated that you are unwilling to rethink your premises on many different levels.

Pragmatic empiricist. That is a just observation. I think it fits fine. Since I am genetically mind blind that is the best I can be. Everything I do I have worked out empirically. For me the art of living is painting by the numbers. I have no intuitive talent for it.

Go in peace.

ruveyn

It was not meant as a compliment. I also have no intuitive talent and one does not need it to think and act in an objective manner. So you have everything worked out empirically? So, you worked out your emotional response to the woman you are married to empirically? What was it empirically that let you choose to love her, to actually feel love? You cannot physically see love nor hate for that matter? Or, are you going to tell me/us that you married a woman you feel nothing for?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not meant as a compliment. I also have no intuitive talent and one does not need it to think and act in an objective manner. So you have everything worked out empirically? So, you worked out your emotional response to the woman you are married to empirically? What was it empirically that let you choose to love her, to actually feel love? You cannot physically see love nor hate for that matter? Or, are you going to tell me/us that you married a woman you feel nothing for?

Obviously not -everything-! I have enough worked out empirically to mange my life in good health and with a reasonable degree of contentment. I have no ambitions to fashion my life along the lines of a complete or nearly complete philosophical system. I leave such doings to people who are more ambitious than I am or who are smarter than I am. As Dirty Harry says: A man has got top know his limitations

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was not meant as a compliment. I also have no intuitive talent and one does not need it to think and act in an objective manner. So you have everything worked out empirically? So, you worked out your emotional response to the woman you are married to empirically? What was it empirically that let you choose to love her, to actually feel love? You cannot physically see love nor hate for that matter? Or, are you going to tell me/us that you married a woman you feel nothing for?

Obviously not -everything-! I have enough worked out empirically to mange my life in good health and with a reasonable degree of contentment. I have no ambitions to fashion my life along the lines of a complete or nearly complete philosophical system. I leave such doings to people who are more ambitious than I am or who are smarter than I am. As Dirty Harry says: A man has got top know his limitations

As usual, you did not answer the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As usual, you did not answer the question.

To complete the answer: I love my wife, my children and my grandchildren. I believe that answers your question.

My young grandchildren are a positive joy in my life. They are good kids, smart kids, and they are having the time of their life being alive.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn,

It is good to hear that you consciously love your wife, your children and your grandchildren.

Not consciousness, just patterns on a scope. Love is just patterns.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ruveyn,

I think RayK and Arnold have given you a golden opportunity here. Time to acknowledge the horror: you, my friend, have a mind -- even though it didn't show on your MRI.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ruveyn,

I think RayK and Arnold have given you a golden opportunity here. Time to acknowledge the horror: you, my friend, have a mind -- even though it didn't show on your MRI.

My brain, which is the Real Me, objects. Everything that is me, dwells in my pre-frontal cortex.

Other people, neurology experts have seen my brain at work. No one but you has seen your mind.

I do not mind being an organic finite state automaton with a very, very, large number of states. This has enabled me to pass for a human being going on 80 years. If you have a large enough number of states you can win an Oscar, a Golden Globe or even be elected to high office.

I have passed the Turing Test with flying colors.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ruveyn,

I think RayK and Arnold have given you a golden opportunity here. Time to acknowledge the horror: you, my friend, have a mind -- even though it didn't show on your MRI.

My brain, which is the Real Me, objects. Everything that is me, dwells in my pre-frontal cortex.

Other people, neurology experts have seen my brain at work. No one but you has seen your mind.

I do not mind being an organic finite state automaton with a very, very, large number of states. This has enabled me to pass for a human being going on 80 years. If you have a large enough number of states you can win an Oscar, a Golden Globe or even be elected to high office.

I have passed the Turing Test with flying colors.

ruveyn

You can object all you want, it takes a conscious mind to object. So whether you like it or not, whether you admit it or not, whether some test supposedly demonstrates to you that their is aciton in your brain or not, you are conscious. You can scream it as much as you want and that will never make you a unconscious being. Good day lost man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn, when you reject consciousness you must also reject free will which hence means that you become solely a deterministic being which cannot love, hate, choose a career path, learn math tables and so on. So, if you are claiming you love (along with all those other things) but deny you have a consicousness, it is you that are creating mytical states because those are all beyond the nature of a brain as a brain does not make choices.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn, when you reject consciousness you must also reject free will which hence means that you become solely a deterministic being which cannot love, hate, choose a career path, learn math tables and so on. So, if you are claiming you love (along with all those other things) but deny you have a consicousness, it is you that are creating mytical states because those are all beyond the nature of a brain as a brain does not make choices.

I never rejected consciousness. Ever. I reject the existence of mind as a stand alone substance. Consciousness is what my brain does for me. My brain exists, it works, and so I am conscious. Even when I sleep. My claim is that no one has ever detect, by objective and verifiable means a mind in the body of another person.

Please. If you are going to rag on me, do it for the right reason. Pay attention.

ruveyn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ruveyn, when you reject consciousness you must also reject free will which hence means that you become solely a deterministic being which cannot love, hate, choose a career path, learn math tables and so on. So, if you are claiming you love (along with all those other things) but deny you have a consicousness, it is you that are creating mytical states because those are all beyond the nature of a brain as a brain does not make choices.

I never rejected consciousness. Ever. I reject the existence of mind as a stand alone substance. Consciousness is what my brain does for me. My brain exists, it works, and so I am conscious. Even when I sleep. My claim is that no one has ever detect, by objective and verifiable means a mind in the body of another person.

Please. If you are going to rag on me, do it for the right reason. Pay attention.

ruveyn

Yes you do when you deny that you have a consciousness, so get it straight. One cannot be conscious without a consciousness which your brain is not. So, please pay attention.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0