Objectivism

[WillJ]

Not exactly. That's like saying, "the only reason murder is illegal, is because government exists." Sure, government has to exist for something to be illegal. But that's only one reason, there are others which are more to the point if someone asks "why is murder illegal?" The existence of government is simply a framework against which questions of "legal or illegal?" can be answered. Similarly the possibility of different conditions is a framework against which the question "free or compelled?" can be answered.

Not quite sure what you're saying, but to me it seems like although there are more direct answers to, "Why did I choose a red sweater?" they all distantly stem from the initial conditions of the universe. If all these initial conditions are known, and the universe is known to be deterministic, after a hell of a lot of calculating it could be figured out that I will choose a red sweater. This is different from your government/murder example, as "the government exists" isn't a full answer---that is, it doesn't follow from "The government exists" that "murder is illegal." After all, the government exists and eating peanut butter is legal, so a complete answer would have to include how exactly murder was determined by the government to be bad.

Right. And by the same token, the initial condition of the universe could be different if the current condition were different, or if the final (in a Big Crunch) condition were different, or anywhere in between. The interdependency relations are perfectly symmetric; no metaphysical envy is called for.

Hmm, I suppose that's true. If initial conditions of a deterministic universe could hypothetically be different, there's no reason why nothing else could hypothetically be different.

But what if nothing could be different? We were talking about the initial conditions of the universe being different, but what if, somehow, the initial conditions followed logically from something, just as the formation of a hurricane follows from low air pressure over warm water? The universe would thus be "closed" to alternate possibilities, and thus hypothetical discussion would be silly. Or do all deterministists hold that, although each cause has just one effect, there is an inititial input of randomness in the universe to get things going, and the universe is thus "open" to alternate possibilities?

You're right, I regard as unfounded the idea that determinism would prohibit blame. I'd wager that Hitler did actually consider other options - pursuing negotiations with the Allies, changing his staff, changing the German economy - besides just blaming the Jews for every woe of Germany. He just failed to give those alternatives the appraisal they merited. There were reasons why not, but those reasons don't excuse him, because he had enough rationality and intelligence in general to be responsible for his actions.

But under the conditions that led to Hitler's actions and thoughts, he was destined to launch the Holocaust. There was no supernatural "ghost" (for lack of a better word) of Hitler that input new evil into the world; all the evil followed logically from Hitler's environment.

And now I'm not so sure about my disagreement with those who critique determinism on this. Before, I was thinking that although there's no supernatural ghost of Hitler, Hitler's very natural mind works just as well; it input new evil into the world in the sense that it was one of the conditions that led to Hitler commiting evil. But now I realize that the state of this mind follows logically from everything that Hitler came into contact with ever since his birth plus the conditions of his brain/mind at birth. It's hard to assign Hitler some outside "thing" that brought new evil into the world.

Not "anyway". Argument of what should or should not happen is one of the causal factors, sometimes critical factors, determining action. We are talking about intelligent human beings, after all. Our thoughts and debates matter.

Yeah, you're right; you can't escape determinism.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Hi WillJ. My time is limited now, so one point now, the others later.

Not quite sure what you're saying, but to me it seems like although there are more direct answers to, "Why did I choose a red sweater?" they all distantly stem from the initial conditions of the universe. If all these initial conditions are known, and the universe is known to be deterministic, after a hell of a lot of calculating it could be figured out that I will choose a red sweater. This is different from your government/murder example, as "the government exists" isn't a full answer ...

OK, but I thought the question was "Why is it true that WillJ could have worn a blue sweater?" And the most direct answer IMHO would point to your rationality and to the fact that if you had adequate reason in favor of blue, you would have worn the blue. If the blue sweater was warmer, for example, and hypothermia was a potential issue. Or if you just plain preferred blue, and the sweaters were otherwise similar, that would be an adequate reason. If we can show that in such cases you would have worn blue, that strongly supports the claim that you could have worn blue. (By ruling out competing hypotheses which claim you were driven by compulsions.)

In order for this sort of argument to work, it does need to be possible that the history of the universe were different, but the key point lies elsewhere. It lies in you, in your nature as both a sentient and sapient being.

 

[Ayatollah So]

But what if nothing could be different? We were talking about the initial conditions of the universe being different, but what if, somehow, the initial conditions followed logically from something[...]. Or do all deterministists hold that, although each cause has just one effect, there is an inititial input of randomness in the universe to get things going, and the universe is thus "open" to alternate possibilities?

As far as I know most determinists either admit some uncaused event like the Big Bang, or remain silent on the question of initial causation. I'm agnostic about determinism - I'm not here to defend determinism, only to deny that it would be scary if it were true. (I'm sure you realize that WillJ, but who knows, there may still be someone besides you and me reading this thread ) But I'm not agnostic about there being something uncaused - causality can't extend indefinitely into the past if time started with the Big Bang. And, if you really mean "follow logically from something" - there always have to be premises in any logical chain of reasoning. There is always something unexplained.

There was no supernatural "ghost" (for lack of a better word) of Hitler that input new evil into the world; all the evil followed logically from Hitler's environment..

OK, if you use the word "evil" just to mean something bad. But if "evil" means malevolent, some of the causes of Hitler's atrocities don't qualify as "evil" until there is a person (namely Hitler) to intentionally carry out his Final Solution.

And now I'm not so sure about my disagreement with those who critique determinism on this. Before, I was thinking that although there's no supernatural ghost of Hitler, Hitler's very natural mind works just as well; it input new evil into the world in the sense that it was one of the conditions that led to Hitler commiting evil.

Why new? It's like those products that say "new and improved". Who cares if it's new, if it's superior, isn't that the key? Likewise if Hitler's evil is, in some sense, "just" a coalescing of woeful conditions that were already out there - still, it's evil. And by resisting that evil, we reduce its effect from what it would be in the absence of resistance.

you can't escape determinism.

I also can't escape the electromagnetic forces that hold my atoms and molecules together. Good thing.

 

[WillJ]

Well, Ayatollah So, you've presented an interesting argument and I think I'm in agreement with you.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I'm sure you realize that WillJ, but who knows, there may still be someone besides you and me reading this thread

You really think so?

Being "agnostic" on determinism is a sensible position, of course, but for the moment the evidence is strongly in favour of non-determinism. The behaviour of, say, radioisotopes is so perfectly stochastic that it would be perverse to assume some deterministic principle behind it.

A bit like clinging to atheism after it were discovered that quarks come with a little label saying "Copyright God".

 

[IceBlaZe]

We already had a thread of Objectivism, just a short time before I stopped writing in the forum... History has a nice way of repeating itself.

Anyway, I expressed my despise of that philosophy there, and the numerous flaws in contains, and I'd be glad to do that again here, only I think it is a waste of efforts.

Basically, this page concentrates various criticism of Objectivism - the so-called "philosophy".

 

[Ayatollah So]

Being "agnostic" on determinism is a sensible position, of course, but for the moment the evidence is strongly in favour of non-determinism. The behaviour of, say, radioisotopes is so perfectly stochastic that it would be perverse to assume some deterministic principle behind it.

Before I jump on that bandwagon, I'd like to know whatever happened to Bohm's Alternative to Qantum Mechanics (David Albert, Scientific American May 94). Last I heard it was still a contender.

Anyway, compatibilism is still a live issue even if determinism isn't. For one thing, neural firings (for example) are relatively large-scale events which may well make quantum chances cancel to practical certainty. For another, any of the arguments against free will based on determinism could be made, with equal (il)logic, based on micro-randomness influencing human action.

 

[WillJ]

We already had a thread of Objectivism, just a short time before I stopped writing in the forum... History has a nice way of repeating itself.

Anyway, I expressed my despise of that philosophy there, and the numerous flaws in contains, and I'd be glad to do that again here, only I think it is a waste of efforts.

Basically, this page concentrates various criticism of Objectivism - the so-called "philosophy".

Hmm, do you happen to have a link to the thread, or remember the title and/or thread starter?

 

[The Last Conformist]

Before I jump on that bandwagon, I'd like to know whatever happened to Bohm's Alternative to Qantum Mechanics (David Albert, Scientific American May 94). Last I heard it was still a contender.

I don't have a SciAm subscription any longer, and I don't like paying for DLs.

Not knowing any details, I can only speak from general principles. To explain radioactivity deterministically, he'd need a deterministic process that mimics stochasitc behaviour to a very high degree of approximation (I suppose such a process would be a holy grail to the computer industry!). Unless his theory explains something that standard theory cannot, Occham's razor suggest that we explain what looks like randomness as randomness.

Edit: Some googling shows it to be a variant of "hidden variables". That means we'd get a pretty nasty sort of non-locality - a change in a physical system can cause one in another system, near as any experiment can tell, instantaneously.

 

[newfangle]

I think this qualifies as the longest, most interesting threadjack in history. Isn't philosophy fun!

 

[The Last Conformist]

No.

 

[Ayatollah So]

Hmm, do you happen to have a link to the thread, or remember the title and/or thread starter?

The thread starter was aneeshm. Now let's see if I'm any good with linking to another thread.

 

[newfangle]

Wow, that thread's only 10 months old. I didn't realize how much I've changed in that time.

Hopefully for the better.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Ten months? I feel old or something ...

 

[newfangle]

Just because your views don't change every 5 minutes.

 

[The Last Conformist]

Yours do?

This thread made me look for some further material again, and a reoccuring complaint against objectivism is that it simultaneously asserts the existance of sacrosant rights and the validity of ethical egoism. This is inconsistent, since if an individual respects the rights of others, he might be forced to refrain from an course of action beneficial to himself, or even take one directly harmful to himself; this isn't compatible with ethical egoism.

Some Objectivism "resolve" this by saying there cannot be any conflict of interests between rational agents. This is simply preposterous. Is there some sane stock defense?

 

[newfangle]

Yours do?

When I first picked up Oism, Rand was the principle influence in my thinking.

As time passed on, and I began examing many other ideas, I didn't necessarily disagree with her, but rather her influence become much less.

This seems be a trend with me, and so consequently it appears as though my positions changed radically on a regular basis.

Is there some sane stock defense?

This is the best I've seen:

http://journals.kluweronline.com/article.asp?PIPS=5139594
(You have to click on the "PDF" link on the blue toolbar beneath the title: "Article Abstract."

 

[WillJ]

Yours do?

This thread made me look for some further material again, and a reoccuring complaint against objectivism is that it simultaneously asserts the existance of sacrosant rights and the validity of ethical egoism. This is inconsistent, since if an individual respects the rights of others, he might be forced to refrain from an course of action beneficial to himself, or even take one directly harmful to himself; this isn't compatible with ethical egoism.

Some Objectivism "resolve" this by saying there cannot be any conflict of interests between rational agents. This is simply preposterous. Is there some sane stock defense?

Actually, I believe Objectivism "resolves" the issue in two ways: the first is the one you brought up, and as you said is rediculous and ignores real-life prisoners' dilemmas.

A second argument is that anyone who disrespects the rights of others no longer has any worth to his/her life and thus has no legitimacy in egoism. Which is unfounded, AFAIK, and from my understanding goes against the very basis of Objectivism.

Perhaps, though, newfie or someone else can present a better argument.

Edit: Oops, looks like newfangle just did. I'll take a look...

Edit2: Oh, and thanks AS for linking to the thread.

 

[The Last Conformist]

A second argument is that anyone who disrespects the rights of others no longer has any worth to his/her life and thus has no legitimacy in egoism. Which is unfounded, AFAIK, and from my understanding goes against the very basis of Objectivism.

That's outright stupid - you'd only be entitled to be an egoist as long as you didn't act egoistically!

I'll look at newfangle's link tomorrow. It's nearing midnight here, and I'm tired.