IRC log started Fri Aug 9 21:57 Welcome to #GeekSpeak. The topic for tonight's discussion is: "Honesty, Rationality and Certainty". Before we begin, I'll remind you that channel logs are the copyright of the channel owners: Tom Wright and myself. They may not be copied or redistributed in any form without prior permission. As usual, the discussion will be held in keyword-protected mode. If you see anyone off-channel whom you think would be interested in joining the discussion and would not be disruptive, please message them the keyword, which is "evaluate" for tonight's discussion. Those of you who've discussed the issue of tolerance with supporters of David Kelley will find something familiar about this topic, since it addresses questions raised when they try to explain the basis for tolerance as a virtue. Questions about Kelley and IOS are fairly common from newcomers to #GeekSpeak. Sometimes the answers they get are satisfactory, and at other times they're not. Although questions asked on the channel about David Kelley led to this choice of topic, I will not focus primarily on ethical considerations of "tolerance". Instead, I'd like to consider the epistemological foundations of knowledge, specifically: what is required of a man in order to have certainty about the ideas he holds as true. Following that, I'd like to discuss what responsibilities are entailed by the possession of knowledge: the questions of judgement and evaluation, and the actions that are their consequence. Finally, I'll spend some time on discussing what "tolerance" means, and whether it has a valid place in a rational man's mind. I assume that most people here are familiar with the Objectivist theory of concept formation. Concepts are condensations of knowledge, and they are derived from reality according to certain rules. The validity of any given concept can be checked by asking (and answering) the question: what is there in reality that gives rise to the this concept? If you have a clear logical chain of reasoning that ties the concept to reality, you are certain of its validity. With this introduction, I'll start by asking the question: what virtues must a man practise in order to have certainty? Why? Floor's open. Anyone? Well, rationality, obviously. He must be committed to validating all his concepts, by reducing them to reality, and integrating them into the sum of his knowledge. Without both these, you cannot be certain. Tym: What' Rationality -- especially the virtures of productiveness (knowing takes EFFORT) and honesty (being aware and honest about exactly how certain or uncertain you really are). Tym: What's rationality? Reduction is the component that ties individual pieces to reality. But it is integration that insures that those pieces are appropriate, and do not contradict other known facts. Sube: rationality is using the faculty of reason as applied to the evidence of the senses. Tym: Rationality refers to method, then? Sube: yesh. Hi all. Rationality -- especially the virtures of productiveness (knowing takes EFFORT) and honesty (being aware and honest about exactly how certain or uncertain you really are). Betsy: What more can we say about the virtue of being honest in this context? ..actually Rand defines it as the "acceptance of Reason as an absolute". Tym: An absolute for what purposes? Sube: You have to not fake the reality of your own knowledge and thus not claim certainty when you do not have enough evidence to do so. Sube: for the purpose of cognition. Honesty would be never "faking reality". Tym: Cognition is reason. Betsy: Okay. How about professing to a belief that one doesn't practise? Would that be dishonest? or cognition is rationality...cognitive faculty is reason. TomM: cognition is awareness of facts. Tym: Okay, for the purpose of acquiring and validating knowledge. What other purposes? Tym: As is reason. Sube: It might indicate a lack of integrity more than a lack of honesty. I think it indicates a certain dishonesty with oneself. TomM: cognition can occur at the perceptual level too tho. Tym: sure. Betsy: I understand that honesty refers to not faking existence, and integrity to not faking consciousness. Could the fact that one professes a belief he doesn't practise be a failure of either one or both? The overall purpose is to live one's life in accordance with reality and oneself. Here's what Rand says about Rationality: Being rational means acting on the principle that reason is the sole means to knowledge, the sole judge of values, and only guide to action. It means one's total commitment to a state of full, conscious awareness. Sube: It could be. Sometimes a man practices a BETTER code of values than he preaches. That happens a lot. She goes on to say that this state of awareness is maintained on every issue, every waking hour of the day. What does that mean, literally? Subetai: One can not fully integrate incorrect ideas...so it's difficult to have integrity if one is not being honest with oneself (impossible, even). Tom: Hard to be honest too, if you believe and idea that can't possibly be put to practise. Subetai: it means observing existence with an active mind. Sube: It means you should always make an effort to understand. Tom: Every minute you're awake? or using your concepts to perceive existence. Staying in focus, not evading. Should we take that statement literally, that one must be focussed every minute you're awake? Subetai: it does not mean one must induce relativity in every waking hour, but it does mean one should keep 'floating" down to a minimum. Is it a breach of rationality to lose focus at any time (aside from when you're asleep)? Sube: only insofar as yr capable, obviously. Varies from person to person. Sube: It means that you should be in control of the show -- cognitively. Tym: What determines your "capability"? Always staying in focus and not evading when it comes to issues of principle. Sube: if it's within yr conscious control. GlennM: And realize that issues of principles are there all the time. Only on issues that are philosophicaly important must one focus on the base principles involved. Betsy: You're saying that every action and decision you make should be a conscious one, including when and how much to focus? BlueGreen: Actually, that is incorrect. One must keep a good focus on the fundamentals in ANY endeavor -- even playing a game. Subetai: sure, how else would you make such a decision? BlueGreen: Actually, when you fully understand the basic principles, they tend to become automatized and you spend your time fully focused on applications. Sube: Sure. Sometimes it's a rational decision to kick back and relax. Do I understand it that one must stay in focus to the limit of one's abilities (however they're determined), or that the real point is that all of one's actions and decisions must be consciously and thoughtfully made? Subetai: Basically both... Tom: explain Sube: It's a basic committment to awareness -- in action. Sube: well, like Betsy pointed out, actions and decisions are automatised after awhile. Betsy: That's my understanding of it too. Subetai: Being in full focus does not mean one should be gathering new data for a brand new theory every waking hour, it simply means observing existence with principles as one's guide. Okay. Before I move on to the next question, I'll quote what Rand said about honesty: Honesty is the recognition of the fact that the unreal can have no value. Intellectual honesty requires taking ideas seriously, constantly expanding one's knowledge and never evading or failing to correct a contradiction - i.e., the development of an active mind as a permanent attribute. It means that you intend to live by the ideas you accept as true. What I get from that is: In addition to the virtue of rationality (which describes principles and methods), certainty requires that you (1) actively look for and remove contradictions, and (2) do not accept ideas as true that can't be put into practise. Does everyone agree to that? Subetai: Sounds good. Yes. Sube: put more fundamentally: it's a matter of integration and reduction. In reference to that definition of honesty: can there be an idea that is inherently dishonest? Yup Actually, though, 2) should say: do not accept ideas that are not derived from observation of existence. Sube: That is true but there is more -- you have to be focused on the nature of things and _causal_ explanations. Subetai: Any idea not derived from facts of existence has the potential to be inherently dishonest. Betsy: Would that be included in rationality or is that a separate issue on needs to focus on? on needs = one needs Subetai: I would say so -- any idea which contradicts, in any meaningful implementation or ramification, something which is known, especially something known with deep certainty. Subetai: Certainty is an aspect of rationality; it is the knowledge that your ideas are in accordance with observation. Sube: There are ideas that are so in anything anybody can observe about reality that anyone who accepts them cannot be doing it mistakenly. Brad: But "known" refers to a person, who has some specific context. He may *not* know, or not be sure. How about an example of such an idea? Betsy: For example? I see evidence again and again, that it is faulty methods of cognition, particularly rationalism, that permit people to toss word salads and treat the result as knowledge. Sube: Having a causal explanation is necessary for certainty. Subetai: Existence is an illusion of your glands. Tom: Okay. So a denial of "existence exists" is an inherently dishonest idea. Why? Subetai: Well in the case of a person being unaware of contradictions, then they are not being fundamentally dishonest for holding an otherwise invalid idea. I mean "ideas that are so in CONFLICT" Subetai: Because to utter anything, one must accept, at least implicitly, that existence exists. Subetai: My view is based on the fact that an idea can't be seen as having any identity as such in a person's mind, without considering all the steps of its formulation, its purpose, and the fact they had to have made considerations of it. Tom: Can I put that in slightly different words: can I say that believing in an idea that is unpracticeable given the nature of reality is inherently dishonest? Brad: I'd agree to that as a rule. I was asking if there are exceptions to that. Sube: That denying an abstract idea like that can be a mistake. Some people don't even realize what it means. Denying something right in front of you that you can see is usually not honest. Subetai: Hmmm...it could be mistaken...like thinking an airplane must have feather in order to fly. I've been told 'existence exists' is circular reasoning Subetai: It is inherently dishonest if in the act of uttering that statement, one must deny what one is claiming. Betsy: Does that mean that the idea is not inherently dishonest, or that it is, but you mitigate the severity of your moral judgement because the person might not even understand what they really mean when they say that. Tom: Provided they are aware that that's what they're doing? rosc: it's an axiom, which *underlies* reason. Subetai: Well, interpretation of that principle is not always easy, but I draw certain bounds -- those bounds are contextual. You might not conclude to dishonesty in a person on a single issue. But after a while, you might. OTOH, some excursions are too extreme for benefit of the doubt. Subetai: If one denies the axioms, then one is being dishonest, though the observer needs to find out if the person has some understandfing of what he speaks. Sube: To say holding an idea is dishonest, it has to be a situation where the truth should be blatantly obvious to the person and he can only not see it by _refusing_ to see it. (can someone kill rosc, it's a dead session :) It's only dishonesty if the person denies known facts. If they are not aware of the facts, they need to be informed of them. Subetai: I don't think they ahve to be aware of it per se, otherwise, an evasive person--who claims to know nothing--would dnot be dishonest, but he is. Betsy, Tom, Brad: Okay. So you're saying that your moral judgement must include evidence of the person's evasiveness when confronted by the facts he's denying? rosc: re "circular" -- excellent point -- the axioms are *wide integrations*, not percepts -- to understand their purpose and meaning is a tremendous feat. So a person who is confused or equivocal on that, is not necessarily dishonest. But someone who says we *create* reality, IS dishonest, because that notion is obviously false. Subetai: It's not as difficult as you are making it out to be. Sube: If a man on the street fails to see that Marxism is wrong might mean that he doesn't know enough about history or Marxism. For a college professor of history to support Marxism ..... well, that's another story. Tom: Make it easy for me, then. :) Betsy: Okay. Let's move on. Is certainty contextual? Why, or why not? Subetai: if someone denies the perceptually self-evident, then he is being dishonest, whether or not he understands the issue or not. Sube: everything is contextual except the axioms. Sube: Because we all decide things within OUR OWN contexts of knowledge. Tym: What's the context, then? Certainty is contextual. Man has to decide on the basis of the knowledge he has. Context is an understanding of existence. isn't dishonesty a deliberate refusal? it's not something one can be by mistake or out of ignorance Tym: The axioms are the MOST contextual things of all. Their context is anything and everything. Subetai: the totality of yr knowledge at any given time. Tom: That's very broad. Break it up into pieces. What factors should be considered? Subetai: Yes, I would hold people to a moral standard of epistemological responsibility similar to that in law of "due care and attention", say in driving a car. If they are going to keep driving their bodies around in reality, they better be awake. :) Brad: i agree. Brad: ok :) The validity of your knowledge depends on: 1. The facts you know. 2. How well you Betsy: I'd agree that's one way of looking at it. you've integrated them. Subetai: Let's leave morality out for the time being...the fundamental point is that each person is aware of existence to some degree...if he denies it, he is being evasive, and hence is dishonest. 3. Whether or not you made any factual or logical errors. Tom: If he's being evasive or dishonest, that *is* a moral judgement. Does everyone agree with the points I made regarding validity of one's knowledge? Subetai: Sure, but your condemnation or not depends on how well you know him, and what he is capable of doing. Well? Anyone who denies reality is being evasive, regardless of how well you know him :) <> TomM thinks persons confuse "keeping the other persons context" with "the content of his consciousness." Objectivst: On that level, yes. Let's move on from honesty to certainty, please. We can come back to the other later. Subetai: I would add the important point of how well you have reduced your knowledge. Reduction is as important as integration. Brad: Could you explain a bit more what you mean by "reduction". Perhaps an example wold help. <> Betsy cheers for reduction and blows away floating abstractions All human beings start with their mind "tabula rasa" and since one must acquire some knowledge, before he can learn to integrate it, it is possible to accept false ideas honestly "It is important to be nice" -- let's take that as something taught repeatedly, and seemingly true. Subetai: Example: If someone is crossing the street...sees a truck coming...gets out of the way...and then claims he wasn't certain abofut the existence of the truck, he's being dishonest. Reducing a concept to simpler concepts all the way down to perceptual concretes? But what *really* does that mean? What facts give rise to that injunction? Nice, always? Even if someone is a liar? Brad: okay, I understand. Thanks. So reduction is the process of taking that abstract injunction, dissecting it, and tracing back to what facts gave rise to it, checking for incorrect premises or contradictions along the way. Subetai: Yes, reduction means tracing the development of the idea back to the perceptually self-evident. What's the importance of integration in reaching certainty? Subetai: Certainty means integrating an idea with the rest of one's knowledge of existence. perhaps an example of a 'false' idea would help too? or rather, it is the psychological state reached once one has done that. Isn't it true that through integration you become aware of contradictions in your ideas? as a child, for example. And only if one recognizes that there are no contradictions in reality, will he make an effort to correct them You have to make sure that your integration does not conflict with any other knowledge that you have. Glenn: Right. Sube: It your attempt at integration leads to a contradiction, it means you made a mistake and have to fix it. If integration works it may lead you to a causal, fundamental explanation. Subetai: Not if your ideas were correct in the first place ;) rosc: Religion provides a smorgasbord of concepts and ideas for reduction testing in the negative. So does modern politics and economics. :) Betsy: Yes, that's very well put. Next question: given what we've said about certainty being contextual, are there valid grounds for giving people "the benefit of the doubt?" What exactly are you doing or refraining from doing when you do that? Subetai: You are refraining from jumping to a conclusion with space evidence. oops sparce Tom: What does "giving benefit of the doubt" mean? Literally. Good luck trying to reduce almost *any* macroeconomic construct to reality. It is this epistemological house-of-cards upon which modern macro-economic intervention is largest based. But it has no referent. Yet it integrates into a body of "knowledge" real swell... You are taking into consideration the context of the person's lack of knowledge in a certain area. Sube: You are refusing to pronounce a moral judgement when you have insufficient evidence to support it. The 'benefit of the doubt' typically means you don't have enought evidence, and are accepting someone else's conclusion in lieu of making one of your own. Subetai: It means you have evidence that he doesn't understand an issue, as opposed to evading evidence. Subetai: "Benefit of the doubt" is an application of the principles of certainty to the task of judging the character of another's thinking. Betsy: Could it also mean that when your evidence is limited and there is more than one explanation possible, you pick the one that is least condemnatory? Betsy: Pending further evidence, of course. If you know that he "knows better", you are right to pronounce moral judgement. Subetai: in general, yes, but don't go hog wild with that...i.e. don't go around making up excuses for others. TomM, would anyone in reality ever claim such a thing?? Sube: no, it just means you withold judgement. Sube: It means you don't pick ANY explanation. You seek more facts and reserve judgement until you have enough facts. rosc: Claim what? I don't follow... Obj: No, benefit of the doubt is not a substitution of judgment, just an acceptance that enough evidence is not at hand for drawing unequivocal conclusions. Brad, the way it's always been used around me is "I don't know well enough, so I'll trust you to know for me" Betsy: Moral judgement calls for action on your part. Would your actions be consistent with not having passed judgement at all? Would such actions be similar to those you'd have taken if your judgement was based on the least condemnatory explan explanation? Objectivst: i'd say that tyupe of person is reliquing on his responsabilities as a human being. Tom, I agree completely, but that's the way most people use it, from what I've seen. Subetai:That is contextual...you may not be required to do anything about it. Subetai: re: your comments to Betsy -- the default mode of treatment, absent hard evidence, is being nice. There are rational grounds for this. Sube: If you have to act with respect top someone, but don't know exactly what kind of person he is, you take the evidence you do have and do the best you can. Tom: Yes, but what if you are? Subetai: Then you have to go with the most rational explanation of his character, given the evidence you have. you are 'looking' for more evidence Grrr Brad: Being nice, period? Or being nice to whatever degree is possible given the least condemnatory explanation of his actions? observation always being a key :) Subetai: Well, now I think we are trying to mix being too abstract and too particular. Subetai: i think the "least condemnitory attitude" is mistaken. It's giving too much of the benefit of the doubt. Betsy: I understand that. I'm trying to see if we can be a bit more specific regarding "doing the best one can". My attitude toward people I don't know well is benevolent neutrality. I don't assume virtue until I see it and I don't assume vice until I see it. Okay. What I'm trying to get at is this: Subetai: It depends on the context of the relationship. In some cases you must act, in others, not. Sube: AR put it as: generalised respect for _potential_ goodness in a another human being, if you don't know them. Subetai: By "nice", I don't mean you have to go out of your way to do things, I just mean having a benevolent demeanor. Example: if I had doubts about a person, I may not make public praises of them, but if they emailed and asked me for a copy of something, I would probably send it. Does that answer your question? You see someone act in a certain way or make a certain statement. You don't have enough context to judge what that really indicates about the person. Let's say, at best it could be he's made an error, at worst he's deliberately evasive. .... Subetai: That is contextual...it depends on what he is denying...honest errors are not possible in regard to the most fundamental observations. Sube: If I have some evidence that looks bad about someone but it's not conclusive, I might deal with him -- but be careful and wary. I would understand "benefit of the doubt" meaning to *at least* recognize the error, reserving judgement about why that error was made. That's all I mean by "least condemnatory" explanation. How is "benevolent neutrality" different from what I described? Subetai: Yes, for yourself, you make the judgement. Sube: Sounds pretty close to me. okie .... Sube, I get what you're saying. Yes, I would agree with that. Short aside before we move on to the next question - why must one judge? Subetai: it makes a big difference, though, if he is denying existence exists or if he is denying capitalism is the only moral system. Really short, please. Subetai: Why must one identify anything? Because it is an aspect of existence. Sube: You judge because other people can have a huge impact on your life and you want to know whether that impact is likely to be good or bad. Betsy: You judge because you need to evaluate? Subetai: To keep your knowledge integrated. If you don't judge you cause confusion in your own thinging. You must judge, because you must always pronounce good from evil. You must always make the distinction. thinking. Subetai: Judging is an aspect of evaluation. Tom: the other way around Subetai: Well, one must judge because people obey the law of identity, like everything else. *Character* is very real, and will (basically) determine a person's actions in various contexts. Thus, you need to know, for your own interests, what to expect of others in the various contexts in which you may deal with them. Where you have no interest, there is little need to judge. Sube: People need to be evaluated as good or bad for you just like any other aspect of reality does. As aspects of reality go, people are rather important. Betsy; I agree. It is a matter of justice Subetai: Depends what you mean....evaluation is the broader term...you evaluate drinking water, you judge (morally) persons. Judging means the place something in reference to a given standard or principle. Evaluation is judging when the standard is one's own life. the place = to place Subetai: That is not a healthy distinction. Betsy: So you judge a person (determine his nature, character), because that has significance to your own life? Meaning, you use the result of the judgement in your evaluation? Meaning, you judge in order to evaluate? TomM: it makes sense to me. Evaluation pertains specifically to *values* Subetai: Don't you mean "judging" is the narrower species of evaluation? for ones own protection =) Brad: That's the way I understand the terminology. Sube: I judge in order to live. If I want the good things I can get from other people I need to sort out the good guys from the bad guys. who cares about pronouncements! worry bout yer hide ;) Brad: I'm not positive. Seems to me that judging calls for some standard, while evaluation specifies the standard. Tym: Deciding the value of X in: X=1+2 is one type of evaluation. judging == evaluating (their the same eh?) Betsy: How is that different from what I said? What words am I using that I could change/improve? Sube: You evaluate because you need to judge Subetai: i've seen the terms used this way: An evaluation is the end result of a series of judgements. "Evaluate" and "judge" seem pretty synonymous to me. Sube, Brad, TomM: I thinking maybe we're quibbling here. They're really interchangeable terms. Tym: You may be correct. You have to make judgements in order to keep integrated. Every time you fail to do so you are undermining your own cognitivie powers. Rosc: I use both terms. "Evaluation" is measuring by a standard (morality, length, etc.) and judgement usually means an ethical issue. Tym: But that's why I said ealier that making a distinction between the two the way Subetai was, was fnot a healthy distinction. Okay, I'll move on. Subetai: I would say "evaluation" was the broad category of considering the propitiousness of something with respect to a purpose and standard. Justice is evaluation with regard to the character and actions of men, for the purpose of establishing how to deal with them, according to the standard of rational human life. Betsy: That's the way the terms are normally used. Rand says that in order to judge, one must possess an "unimpeachable character" and an "unbreached integrity". What does that mean? Brad: Okay, I'll think about that. Sube: Judging in order to live is more real and concrete than judging in order to evaluate. Betsy: okay Betsy: Er...that doesn't make sense. Sube: it means you shouldn't be a hypocrite :) Judging in order to live is evaluation. Tym: Could you be more specific? TomM: Living is the goal, evaluation is the means. Subetai:It means that if one is to judge another, one must also be prepared to be judged. Let's move on to the question I just asked, please. Subetai: Integrity means keeping all your knowledge in a non-self-contradictory state. The only way to make good judgements/evaluations is to make sure you know what it is you are knowing. Sube: if yr own character is morally wanting it makes you unfit to judge others. Betsy: True. Tym: Is that correctable in a particular instance by scrupulous attention to the facts? A judgment is a conclusion of one or more evaluations You should apply the same standards to judging yourself as you apply to others and live by the standards you use to measure other people's morality. Fb: that makes more sense. Tym: how so? one does not need to be innocent in order to judge. An integrated series of evaluations leads to a judgment. Can a person who's not perfectly honest (say he occasionally fails to live by his own standards) pass judgement on another? Sube: right. Eriks: it's a breach of integrity. Subetai: Well, he can claim he can, but his judgment is skeptical. because it is not integrated. Tom: So he can't? Tym: how so? If one knows the facts and can distinguish right from wrong, one should judge. Being guilty of a crime does not make one incapable of utilizing reason. Subetai: Not fully, no...since honesty is the recognition that the unreal is unreal...maybe he has an unreal assessment? Subetai: I would say he can, as long as he is willing to be judged for his own misdeeds sube: what do you mean by "can" he judge. do you mean *may* he judge, or is he *able* to judge? Joe: "able to". Eriks: it depends on whether one is *aware* that one is guilty and takes steps to make amends. Subetai: such a person will not be consistant. neither with existence dnor with himself. -d Tom: Can he, through an effort of will, make a correct judgement by consciously directing his attention to the facts and logically analyzing them? Tom: In a particular instance? BlueGreen: I don't think that an intentionally dishonest person should pass moral judgements on anyone.It denies the reason for judging (Upholding the sanctity of reason and reality) sube: depends on the issue. he could judge a robber's actions, but perhaps not certain personal issues (say someone's personal decisions). depends on the complexity of the issue. okie.... Subetai: Suer, why not...but the point is that if he is "occassionally dishonest", how will he decide when to be honest and when not to be? by reason? or by emotions? BlueGreen: A dishonest person can pass judgement, but he'll probably do a lousy job of it. Subetai: okie from wiskokie (or something like that :-) Final question: what is the epistemological basis of "tolerance"? Is it different from "benefit of the doubt"? What does it require one to do or not do? A man's failure to follow his own philosophy doesn't really affect his ability to judge; it simply makes him hypocritical, but not unable to judge. Subetai: "Tolerance" means not morally judging a man for the ideas he pronounces...i.e. it claims he is not responsible for holding them, and is catering to dishonesty. Subetai: tolerance is "putting up with" or sanctioning certain behavior. Moral tolerationism is wrong. That is, due to volition, it is dishonest to claim that a man is not responsible for the state or functioning of his mind. dishonest people tend not to judge; "lest they be judged!" Sube: Tolerance means putting up with something you don't like. The issue is: why don't you like it and why do you wish to put up with it. Tom: So it's refraining from judging. So's "benefit of the doubt" - but that was because you didn't have enough facts. Why does tolerance require that you refrain from judging? (unless it can be shown he has some type of pshychological or biological problem that precludes this). Tolerance is one of those "package-deal" terms, like "selfish". There is a legitimate concept in there, but one must always defend it from the package-dealers. subetai: because you are unsure of your own ideas? Subetai: I just indicated that..."tolerance" asks you to refrain from holding a man responsible for the functioning of his own mind. Betsy: So tolerance is neither good nor bad, unless one gives it the context: putting up with what, and why? Tom: I typed that out before you typed out your addition. Sube: Exactly. I tolerate going to the dentist because it keeps me from worse problems. sube: i consider tolerance not be refraining from judging but refraining from acting on those judgements Brad: Can you give an example of legitimate tolerance? For example, Canada is often described as a "tolerant" country, in the good sense. I live in a neighborhood which is dominated by people from Africa and the Middle East. Many of them dress differently from native Canadians, and speak another language. But they are not harrassed or impeded, and are treated as politely as natives. Subetai: Also, gividng the benefit of the doubt means that you *are* holding him responsible, you just ahven't decided if he is mistaken or dishonest (yet). Never mind, Betsy just did. Besty: Why would you call that toleration? Unless you mean you "tolerate" taking the time from other, more enjoyable activities? But there is a big difference between tolerating hajibs (or whatever those scarves are called), and "tolerating" deeply rationalistic, dishonest academic anarchists. TomM: I _don't_like_ goping to the dentist. Brad: yes, one is more political...and the other is moral. Betsy, but you do, because of your knowledge of what happens when you don't. It's an unpleasant experience to have holes made in your teeth. Brad: Leaving someone alone might be said to be political or social tolerance, but that is not the same thing as saying they are not responsible for their own minds. "Tolerance" is the acceptance of individual differences, and involves not dropping context of things like rights, and relevance to one's own life. But it isn't a universal panacea, and is certainly not a fundamental virtue. Brad: Agreed. I politically tolerate a lot of people and things I do not _socially_ or _intellectually_ tolerate. So to sum up: what's a good answer to someone who claims that tolerance is a "minor virtue" because it's soooo hard to think and to be sure you're right? Toleration means putting up with the "appearance" of irrationality, and giving the benefit of the doubt yes, sube, i should know, just today "tolerated" having my wisdom teeth removed...but i don't consider that tolerating...i don't have a problem with what the oral surgeon does, only the pain i must go though to get what i want done...i'm only sacrificing some nerves for a bigger, better result in the end...that's not tolerating Tom: I am opposed to religion. But tolerance means I will speak to a person who I know is religious, and grant them the sanction of what consideration I believe is otherwise due them, for their virtues. Subetai: Tell him to check his premises ;) Sube: eh? Never seen it put that way :? Brad: of course. Too, general, Tom. You can be more specific than that. :) Sube: I would say it may or may not be a virtue dpending on _what_ you are tolerating and _why_ you are tolerating it. Subetai: Oh, it's sooo hard to be more specific ;) Subetai: "minor" virtue??? I would say the problem is those who have a fixation bordering on obsession with the notion that it is a *fundamental* virtue. sube: you tolerate his stupidity and walk away without a response Okay. We're done with the scheduled discussion. Thank you all for coming. Please continue to discuss anything that interests you. I like the way Betsy has put it: tolerationists don't want to tolerate, they want to be tolerated. Betsy: So in a sense, "tolerance" is almost like "extreme" or such -- it has little content of itself, so those elevating it too high in importance, are trying to get away with something... ? Brad: A bunch of Kelleyites call it a "minor virtue", I think. Subetai: That must be a minor faction ;) The people who make the most noise about "toleration" are those who are afraid that people won't accept them (for reasons they are well aware of) but want people to accept them anyway. Subetai: Perhaps you have not received the latest upgrade to Objectivism. What version are you running? :) Brad: Been out of touch with apo for 5 years. :) You ever noticed that these "tolerationists" latch onto those Objectivists that are quick to condemn, and then claim quick to condemn is a moral virtue amoung Objectivists? BradA: I'm running the Standard Release, Versiom 1.0, copyright Ayn Rand, 1982. Subetai: Well, there are those who are all but calling for Objectivism to be versioned and regularly upgraded, just like computer software. So I point this out. Betsy: ;) Besty: By the way, who have you told my joke to regarding "Unrugged Individuals"? Betsy: but Ayn Rand's version was v. 0.9 beta. it has to be updated. <> BradA laughs heartily okay\ Tom: My version of your joke is: What is the title of Kelley's new book in which he pulls the rug out from under individualism?" Betsy: good revision ;) I think one of the most interesting displays of intellectual honesty or dishonesty in action is this tiresome, seemingly never-ending debate on the subject of whether Objectivism is "open" or "closed". Betsy: heh :) I've got to go out for a while. I'll be /away. Thanks for the discussion, and please feel free to continue discussing whatever you like. What are you all talking about? <> Subetai is /away. What is it?! It becomes painfully obvious after a while, that this is FAR from a semantic squabble -- there are two different sets of ideas here, and a single round or two of discussion could easily settle what's what for any honest person. Cyrane: _Unrugged Individuals_ Brad: agreed. I see the same tired arguments being used now that were being used two years ago on APO BradA: s'why we need to refer newbies to archives stuff. Wunner if apo-kellet-collection is still around. Objectivism is not open to irrationality. kelley-collection rather. Tom: Oh, my god, no -- it seems to attract it like a bug lite! :) huh, brad? let's have that single round or two of discussion now Brad: There are two different kinds of PEOPLE here. My kinda poeple see right through the Kelleyite arguments and the other kind hang on to them guiltily for dear life. Betsy: what's the motiviation (psychological or otherwise) of the 2nd group? well, we have Trakinski's essay on the subject on the bot Madelaine: I suggest you read what Peikoff has to say and what Kelley has to say and come to your own conclusions. Madeleine: Objectivism is a specific set of ideas which constitute an integrated philosophy. There are many more ideas, and will doubtless be new discoveries, but those aren't part of Objectivism, because of what it is. There is no universal rule about philosophies. Rand named hers, and specified what it included. joe-: The attempt to get away with not making sound jusgments of moral character. judgments Joe: Most of the Kelleyite I know have a need to _belong_ to Objectivism -- regardless of what it stands for and even if they disagree with it. Madeleine: so we have two simple concepts: a set of ideas exist called "Objectivism", and knowledge is open and new discovery is possible and needed. But these are not the parameters of debate set by those who claim Objectivism is a concept. What gets me are persons who claim Kelley is consistent with Objectivism because he wrote stuff in the past endorced by ARI...well, doesn't Kelley have free will, and couldn't he have freely rejected Objectivism between then and now? can anyone explain what the arguments are? FB: it's a very big topic...if you don't know, well, it may be all the bgetter for you. Come to understand Ayn Rand's works. I don't think Kelley's arguments rae all that important. "Don't examine a folly too closely. Ask yourself what it accomplishes." brad: i asked for those rounds of discussion...what would they be about? Betsy: yesf, and dif one attempts to analyze them, as I did, one can confuse oneself royally. Betsy: Indeed, it becomes more painfully obvious all the time that it is not any particular intellectual quality about David Kelley which can explain the fervent behavior of these individuals. The things he teaches, even allowing for benefit of the doubt, are pretty banal, really. Hardly something to become fired up about. Madelaine: You would be best off getting those "rounds of discussion" from the original sources instead of second-hand from us. what do you mean? when are the parameters changed? Madelaine: Or better yet, stay away from them until you understand Objectivism...the areguments are very confusing to the unwarry. Madelaine: What parameters? <> Tym just checked the OMS site. Looks like Gardener took the apo-kelley-collection down :( Brad: Kelley gives certain people a rationalization for disagreeing with Ayn Rand yet still BELONGING to Objectivism. Tym: Kelley's lawyer asked everyone to stop sending them out, as doing so was a violation of Kelley's copyrights. Tom: But I find even more puzzling the behavior of people like the owners of 2nd Renaissance, who dropped *all* his work, even that which was praised in its day. In my mind, that is *granting* him far more status and importance than he deserves, by exception making. Especially for an organization devoted to the spread of ideas of a certain nature. TomM: I've heard plenty, but it's mostly been second hand I have heard the arguments about sanction and "aid and comfort", but I do not find them convincing. I have a copy of that collection on my Unix acct Betsy: That is so bizzarre. Brad: I disagree...in retrospect, I can now see the seeds of "tolerationism" in all that Kelley wrote, includidng _Evidence of the Senses_. tom: i am insulted that you assume i don't understand o'ism from my questions. it is only that i don't understand ALL of it. TomM: Kelley's lawyer quit IOS when Kelley invited Branden to speak at IOS. TomM: no, that was part of the OSG _Sanction Collection_. These are apo posts. Tym: Oh, well that may be different. Brad: SRB is owned and run by Peter Schwartz who Kelley stabbed in the back by spaking at the Laissez Faure Supper Club. Madelaine: no insult was intended...the point is that one should not go "slumming" until one knows Objectivism well. any dodubt will be augmented by reading that trash. spaking=speaking tom: oh, well just sosyou know i pick up rather fast and hadn't inteded to "slum" back I think we just had a major split. Betsy: Was that a case of "oh, yeah? -- just watch me" ? Brad: Taht goes back to Peikoff's "Fact and Value" where he identified the problem of those who think morality is intrinsicist dogma or subjectivist whim...they wouldn't know objectivity if it slapped them in the face. Tom: I do not think your claims about possible flaws in Kelley's earlier works are the reason for his being boycotted. Brad: No, they are being boycotted due to being made by Kelley. However, the seeds are there. I think *spank*ing at a Libertarian function could be fun... re Did chicago* just crash? Madelaine: good ;) Or did I just get booted off like normal? Good evening. I didn't ahve any probs with chicago. re frode Madeleine: Excuse me, but I never made any such claim. If I may be so bold, I think you purposefully baiting. I was purely speaking of making clear the epistemological character of a certain argument regarding the nature of Objectivism, and NEVER made any other statement. chicagooo - my kind of town ... seen Dominique Brad: Bob Garmong made the apt analogy of reading _Evidence of the Senses_ as looking at reality with someone else's glasses on :) Frode, it's "!seen" now ...at least the second part :/ !seen Dominique Uh. (Objectvst: Thanks.) (no problem) Tym: I would agree with that...I mean, i praised it and got an "A" in phil of sci based on a report on it, but it is way too tolerant of irrationaisms. Kelley never met an inherently dishonest idea in his life, evidently. brad: i was not purposely baiting..perhaps i misunderstood you... Well, it had the character of many scholarly works, which treat respectfully all comers, and refute egalitarianly. Brad: Turns out, that is the root of "tolerationism". ;) Keley was far too much an academician in that work. I guess this would be a good time to ask if anyone has Burgess Laughlin's email address In my opinion, in retrospect, it should never have been endorced by ARI. Clay: Hmmm...I don'thave it handy. Madeleleine: Ok. I just meant that there is *alleged* issue X which I believe intellectually honest people could sort out easily. I contend it is only through intellectual dishonest that persons could over time continue to pretend there was this big issue X. That is all. Then I quickly characterized it, in demonstration. BradA: Is the "Objectivism as a body of works" position, analogous to the argument that "Newtonian physics" pertains to the discoveries made by Newton, and that other discoveries in physics are not Newtonian? " It becomes painfully obvious after a while, that this is FAR from a semantic squabble -- there are two different sets of ideas here, and a single round or two of discussion could easily settle what's what for any honest person." FB: It is not analagous to *anything*. This is not a matter of universals or scientific principles of naming or categorizing. Please let me elaborate... FB: yes. In human existence, vast numbers of things are unique concretes, or unique abstract entities treated like concretes. These are named. The name refers to the aggregate. The name is a proper noun, which serves a completely different purpose in cognition than a concept. The apo-kelley collection is now available on Hal9001's file system Wright: goodeal :) under directory /philosophy/essays I need to be going...see y'all around. later tom Later Tom Now, Ayn Rand developed a unique philosophic system, and decided to name it. She also repeatedly, over the years, emphasized that it was her creation, and the use of that particular capitalized name -- that proper noun -- referred to those ideas, and no others. She was VERY explicit about this. So this is a fact of reality. That term came to exist because of her action, and she specified what it meant. To pretend otherwise is to rebel against reality, and attempt to elevate whim to the level of fact. FB: Does this make the issue at hand clear? <> IamI smacks forehead Missed it again. IRC log ended Fri Aug 9 23:58