curi

Objectivist and Popperian Epistemology

40 posts in this topic

Is that you, bicycles-over-sports-cars Bob?

No, Bob has used multiple 'handles' in the past but this is not one of them. He is innocent. It's also not his style.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think you're wrongly accusing curi of being malicious and trashing Ayn Rand. He likes Ayn Rand and he always defended her fiercly. He calls on people when they misunderstand Ayn Rand. He helps people understand her work.

I probably would not have known about Ayn Rand (and be trapped forever in leftist nonsense) if not for curi. I also managed to start sorting anger issues by reading his stuff.

Can I suggest you try to be more positive in your interpretation of him?

You can suggest what you want but I have read what he is written here and elsewhere. He is misrepresenting Ayn Rand while plagiarizing it in his own mixtures with its antitheses, and preposterously claims to save her work from her own alleged "errors" as he trashes her and other Objectivists in the worst terms for not embracing his pragmatism and the ideas of Karl Popper. He has his own agenda, particularly and most openly in epistemology, and is most certainly not helping people to understand Ayn Rand's work through his own misunderstandings and misrepresentations. His claim to be an "expert on Ayn Rand" is preposterous. He is here on a campaign antithetical to Ayn Rand's philosophy even as he tries to cash in on it, not discussion.

If you have extracted yourself from leftism, then that is good, but there is a lot more to philosophy -- and Ayn Rand's philosophy in particular -- than politics, and the justification of political philosophy depends on it. That is very important to understand. Please continue to read Ayn Rand to understand her ideas, not substitutes with dubious and worse agendas of their own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't point at a person and say: "You say this man is good? Ha! This man is a criminal, I saw him commit attrocities, you can say what you want of him, I have seen him do evil!" and expect to be taken seriously without further evidence.

Give me an example. Quote something he wrote (outside these posts, since you say he does it all over the Internet) where you think he made a major mistake interpreting Ayn Rand and explain what is the correct interpretation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You can't point at a person and say: "You say this man is good? Ha! This man is a criminal, I saw him commit attrocities, you can say what you want of him, I have seen him do evil!" and expect to be taken seriously without further evidence.

You can't make things up like that and still be taken seriously.

Give me an example. Quote something he wrote (outside these posts, since you say he does it all over the Internet) where you think he made a major mistake interpreting Ayn Rand and explain what is the correct interpretation.

You don't tell other people here on the Forum what they can and cannot use as examples. There are numerous examples of his misrepresentation in posts on the three threads he just started -- all on the same topic -- flooding the Forum with his anti-Objectivist campaign in search of converts to his own eclectic Popperism. Since he posted the identical threads on other forums as part of his campaign, you can also read how and why his promotion is being rejected by other knowledgeable people. As a follower of his you would already know what they are.

But his misrepresentations are only part of his problem. He is also trying to munge his anti-Objectivist notions with distortions of Ayn Rand's philosophy in his own eclectic agenda -- as he tries to cash in on Ayn Rand even while he denounces her ideas as "on the whole wrong". He does this in an obnoxious, pompous and condescending manner as he denounces Objectivism and its supporters in such terms as "extremely stupid and irrational" and lectures down his nose at us informing us of Ayn Rand's and Leonard Peikoff's major "mistakes" (in large, bold face type).

He has denounced this and other forums on Ayn Rand as "really bad" and "really sad and reflects badly on the community" because it represents a "total lack of Objectivist discussion groups online". But he doesn't admit that here and exploits the Forum for his own antithetical purposes knowing fully well that it is contrary to the purpose of the Forum and its guidelines, misrepresenting himself as a great fan only trying to combine "similar" ideas.

You didn't say how long you have been reading Ayn Rand and considering her ideas, or what levels you have explored and what you have read. You don't have to do that here if you don't want to, but since you are a Forum member and therefore presumably are a fan of Ayn Rand's in some way and have an active interest, it would be best if you tried to further understand her ideas primarily from her own writing and discuss them here rather than personally defend someone on an anti-Ayn Rand campaign who is misrepresenting her, pursing a contrary agenda, and doesn't understand it very well himself.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the only evidence you are willing to give me is that this forum is no good for discussion?

I prefer the term "fangirl" to "follower", btw. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So the only evidence you are willing to give me is that this forum is no good for discussion?

That is the opposite of what I wrote and ignores what I did write. Your posts are non-responsive. You follow the same pattern as 'curi's' evasive misrepresentation: Someone provides an extensive explanation, he ignores it and says, 'so you believe ...' followed by a one-liner saying something entirely different and the opposite of what was just written.

Everyone else here can see what this anti-Objectivist Popperism campaign improperly exploiting the Forum is about and how it is being promoted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

He is, and still thoroughly disintegrated, but you can't pop in the same popper twice.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So you actually reject logic in general, and only accept logic you consider "realistic"? Your common sense intuition is prior to logic?

If these ideas are so dumb, then your epistemology ought to be able to easily deal with them. If it can't, that's a fault with your epistemology, not a fault with me for bringing up examples.

No, logic is a process of reasoning, but like any tool, it must be used appropriately...

Of course you didn't say that. It is not true that those who reject his rationalism are opposed to logic.

But you are talking to a stone wall. You aren't just arguing against false positions, but trying to communicate with someone who fundamentally thinks in terms of them. He has been evading questions and statements about his posts while he continues to ramble with pronouncements, false premises, misunderstandings, and misrepresentations like the one you just caught him on and rejected.

He has now started three threads here on the same topic, trying to flood the Forum with his promotions of ideas antithetical to Ayn Rand while he misrepresents her philosophy, which he does not understand. His mode of thinking couldn't be more different than Ayn Rand's, despite his buzz-work appeals to reason and logic.

It was clear from his first post consisting of a laundry list of out of context non-essentials containing vague rambling and misrepresentations of Ayn Rand that something was very wrong. But the subsequent pattern is so clear that it is worth knowing that looking him up reveals that he has been doing this all over the internet for years, with no improvement. This most recently includes the exact same posts he has just put here posted simultaneously on multiple forums elsewhere and on his own web sites. This is a campaign, not the kind of discussion he has pretended to seek here.

He is not here for discussion of Ayn Rand in accordance with the purpose of the Forum, he is an eclectic with a cause of his own who has partly plagiarized Ayn Rand and mostly misrepresented and trashed her and other Objectivists for not following his obsession to munge Ayn Rand with Karl Popper, which he calls the 'most important goal in philosophy today'. He is also a programmer, not a philosopher, but that is less important.

All this while misrepresenting himself across the internet as an "expert on Ayn Rand". Despite his claims, he has no credibility and is of no importance. Serious attempts elsewhere to correct his misstatements about Ayn Rand's ideas have resulted only in his personally trashing people by name later as "ignorant", "stupid", "irrational", etc. under the guise that he had personal discussions and knowledge of them. There is more, but that is enough for now. He does not warrant the benefit of the doubt. You take him and his pronouncements seriously at your own peril.

I agree with your conclusions and your observations of his method of presenting of ideas. His flood of posts indicate that he is not here to discuss his ideas or discuss Rand's ideas in relation to his his assertions.

I agree. See my response here which also applies to this thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ewv, I wasn't making a summary of what you wrote. I was judging the forum quality from your replies to curi.

His flood of posts show inspiration and interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ewv, I wasn't making a summary of what you wrote. I was judging the forum quality from your replies to curi.

His flood of posts show inspiration and interest.

This is what you wrote: "So the only evidence you are willing to give me is that this forum is no good for discussion?" That is not what I wrote, let alone the "only" anything. The quote I cited trashing the Forum were from 'Curi'. You misrepresent both what I wrote and what you wrote yourself. Your response is non responsive, personally snide, and not honest.

His "flood of posts" is not "inspiration", it is a campaign with identical cross postings launched across multiple forums, is based on a very unoriginal traditional philosophic corruption for his opposition and misrepresentation of Ayn Rand's philosophy, and has been roundly refuted, which you have not tried to address.

His 'interest' as expressed in his campaign here is not in accordance with the purpose of the Forum. What is yours? Since you now say that you agree with his trashing the Forum as your judgment and find him "inspirational", why are you here at all?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ewv, I wasn't making a summary of what you wrote. I was judging the forum quality from your replies to curi.

His flood of posts show inspiration and interest.

The problem is not an unwillingness to engage in discussion. It is accepting requirements for discussion to take place. One must understand what is required for discussion to be productive, then one can proceed. At issue here is not the discussion of Ayn Rand's ideas, but the misunderstanding of them, and then presenting that misunderstanding as a criticism that 'Curi' has an answer for.

One cannot engage in discussing ideas, when the two parties don't agree on the definitions or meanings of those ideas. My suggestion would be for him to define his terms first, and show how they are connected to reality rather than on a 'logic' not anchored to reality. Concepts not firmly grounded are known as floating abstracts, and Curi is immersed in them.

If there was one overriding message from Ayn Rand, it was never to accept any ideas on faith (especially hers) but to be independent in your thinking, and let reality be the only judge of your ideas. Reading her ideas first hand is the best guide to achieve the independence of thought.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ewv, I wasn't making a summary of what you wrote. I was judging the forum quality from your replies to curi.

His flood of posts show inspiration and interest.

What do you find inspirational about someone who misrepresents what Rand and Peikoff have said about the subjects at hand. I asked curi to provide citations for his allegations about Rand's and Peikoff's positions. He has not only not answered me (yet) (except to cite the title of a chapter of Peikoff's OPAR), but he also should have provided such information without the need for someone to ask. Anyone presenting an interpretation of someone else's ideas needs to provide citations to objectively demonstrate understanding, truth, and context. Curi has done none of that in any of his flurry of postings. What's worse is that his interpretations are wrong. I don't even trust his interpretations of Popper. As far as I can tell, curi is an eclectic who combines ideas for pragmatic reasons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ewv, I wasn't making a summary of what you wrote. I was judging the forum quality from your replies to curi.

His flood of posts show inspiration and interest.

Consider what curi states here.

Knowledge is contextual, absolute, certain, conclusive and progressive. The standard of knowledge is conclusiveness not infallibility, perfection or omniscience.

Certain means we should act on it instead of hesitating. We should follow its implications and use it, rather than sitting around doubting, wondering, scared it might be wrong. Certain also means that it is knowledge, as opposed to non-knowledge; it denies skepticism.

Absolute means no contradictions, compromises or exceptions are allowed.

Contextual means that knowledge must be considered in context. A good idea in one context may not be a good idea when transplanted into another context. No knowledge could hold up against arbitrary context switches and context dropping.

Further, knowledge is problem oriented. Knowledge needs some problem(s) or question(s) for context, which it addresses or solves. Knowledge has to be knowledge about something, with some purpose. This implies: if you have an answer to a question, and then in the future you learn more, the old answer still answers the old question. It's still knowledge in its original, intended context.

None of this is true, nor is anything above in accord with Objectivism. The above is pragmatism talking.

What do you find interesting in the above? What is inspirational to you?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

curi says:

Peikoff says that certainty (meaning conclusive knowledge) is when you get to the point that nothing else is possible.

Where does he say that?

He means that, in the current context, there are no other options.

Where does Peikoff say that?

There's just one option, and we should accept it. All the other ideas have something wrong with them, they can't be accepted.

Where does he say that?

This is fine.

Where does he say that?

curi's statements are entirely unfounded. This is just one small paragraph with a host of problems. All of curi's posts have similar problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.