The Atlas Society Forums

Search Sort Posts:  Oldest to newest Newest to oldest

07-16-2007, 4:13 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Logic, Objectivism new God Gödel’s theorems, simplified Sometimes, I think Objectivists place too much emphasis on logic and reason. It’s almost like a blind faith, like they replace the God they rejected with this new God, their only means of discovering reality. This doesn’t need to be. One can stand on one’s own feet and use logic as a tool but not let logic, like a new deity, rule. Logicians and mathematicians warn us not to use formal theorems, like Gödel’s theorems, on regular spoken language, to apply them only to set theory and mathematics. However, I think we can learn something about our informal, fuzzy logic, by studying what happens in formal logic, which is only a more precise and rigid meta-language used to study our regular spoken language. Propositional calculus is symbolic logic, the meta-language we use sometimes to study logical relationships in regular, spoken language, but it is much more precise and rigid, like mathematics. There are symbols to represent statements and signs to represent operations, like conjunction and disjunction and conditionals and double implication and negation, all things we use in spoken language when we say “and”, “or”, “if…, then…” , “if and only if”, and “not”. (A ^B) ->~(CvD) can be translated to “If A and B, then not C or D,” and we can assume that each variable is a simple sentence. There are ways to determine the truth such long statements with truth table analysis, assuming a truth value for each variable and determining what truth value the sentence will have when it is joined by the different connectives and descriptions. If A is true, then (not A) or ~A is false. Now, in logical systems, there has to be some axioms and rules of inference. Then a system is complete if it can include every possible statement and determine its truth. It is consistent if all statements follow the law of non-contradiction, A statement cannot be true and false at the same time. In regular spoken language, there are paradoxes, like the liar’s paradox: If the statement “I am lying,” is true, then it is false, because it says I am lying when I am telling the truth, but if it is false, then it is true, because I am telling the truth about lying. Well, Gödel, in his first theorem, found a way to formulate this paradox in logical language and slip it into formal systems of logic. He came up with a statement like, “This sentence is not provable.” Like the liar’s paradox, if it is true, it is false, and if it is false, it is true. This can’t happen in a system that is complete and consistent. So, we can have a complete system which is inconsistent, or a consistent system which is incomplete, does not contain such a statement. The second theorem states that if a system is consistent, its consistency cannot be proved by methods formalizable in that system. Another system must be used to determine this, but that system would have the same problem, and so on into infinity. So, consistency cannot be proved. A system is closed if it contains all possible statements. Obviously, regular spoken language is not closed. We are constantly coming up with meaningful sentences which have never been uttered or thought of before. This is Chomsky’s creativity principle. It could point to free-will and resourcefulness in humans. However, this openness in logic also allows for this. We don’t have all the answers already, we continue to learn and adapt. So, logic is not a substitute God to which humans should subjugate themselves. It is a tool for their use. They are primary and in control of their tools. Their tools should not control them. bis bald, Nick    Report

07-23-2007, 4:57 PM Brian Joined on 07-23-2007 Posts 5 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God I agree with you that logic is a tool and not a substitute for God.  But I think it's silly to say that Objectivists replaced God with logic.  What's the point?  No one is claiming that logic is an omniscient being.  No one worships logic.  Logic doesn't require faith.  To an Objectivist, logic is the method used to process perceptions into concepts.  When logic is used actively and honestly, one will end up with concepts that correspond to reality.       The "liar's paradox" and the "not provable" sentence don't show us anything about the validity of logic.  There's no reason say (or to evaluate) the statement, "I am lying" in the absence of any context whatsoever.  To determine if the person who says, "I am lying" is lying, then we need to ask what the person claims to be lying about.  So, again, what's the point of all this?  We should use logic sometimes, but not always?  B        Report

07-23-2007, 7:29 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God Objectivists go a little further than saying we should use logic sometimes. They say it is their "only" means of identifying reality. If someone wants to subvert your mind, the first thing they do is make you question the reliability of logic and your ability to use it. Questioning logic or pointing out flaws in it is almost blasphemy. Well, I think the value of logic is its ability to point out its own inadequacies. Blind faith doesn't have this safeguard. Here is part of my summary of what Hazel Barnes said about Existentialism and Objectivism:  Rand is a systematic philosopher in the tradition of Plato and Aristotle.  She believes in an essence prior to existence, that existence is identity.  The existentialist, however, opposes system-building and believes existence preceeds essence.  Rand does say that man becomes, but his task is to become rational.  His essence is Reason.  Sartre, on-the-other-hand, would say man is a being who is what he is not and is not what he is.  His essence is freedom itself to become what he will.  He makes the definition, itself, of what he will have been. Is this existentialists' denial of pre-existing, external paths what Rand characterizes as "a vacuum of their own making..." "..their abdication from the realm of the intellect."?  The Sartrian existentialist would say Rand is leaning on crutches, relying on safety nets, not having the courage to face life without guidelines.  They would say she is substituting Reason for God. In "Atlas Shrugged," Rand's fictional character explains objective Reason: Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth and nothing can take precidence over that act of perceiving it, which is thinking--that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide of action--that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise. According to Rand, this conforms to reality, the ultimate standard, and she defines reality thus: Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason.  Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man's only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth. The very next paragraph explains that this reason belongs to each individual person. The most depraved sentence you can now utter is to ask:  Whose reason?  The answer is: Yours.  No matter how vast your knowledge or how modest, it is your own mind that has to acquire it. ...It is only your own knowledge that you can claim to possess or ask others to consider.  Your mind is your only judge of truth--and if others dissent from your verdict, reality is the court of final appeal. Well, not only are some people better able to reason than others, but some people have more information with which to reason than others.  It's fine to make reality the court of final appeal, but it can be exactly that reality which is in question. Further, when the questions are about values, the disagreements seem much less capable of being resolved by reason and that which we perceive as reality.  However, Rand defines 'value' as that which man acts to gain and/or keep and 'virtue' as the action by which one gains and keeps it.  She is willing to say, as she does in the opening essay in "The Virtue of Selfishness," that "man chooses his values," but she goes on to classify these choosen values as rational or irrational. So, if I decide today that some goal is in my self-interest and pursue that goal with all my reasoning ability, what if I change my mind?  Was my former goal the objective and rational one, or is it my present goal?  Whose reason is most objective and rational, and when are they thus?  But then, I'm not suppose to be depraved and ask such questions.  Rand brow beats me with arguments from intimidation. Theists have God.  Aristotle had an Umoved Mover.  Nietsche had his Superman.  Rand has John Galt.  Is John Galt enough to anchor her philosophy?  Sartre admits there are no absolutes.  There is no anchor, but, perhaps, that is his anchor. Some people think Rand engages in naive, wishful thinking.  She says that if businessmen lived in a perfectly laissez-faire society and followed pure self-interest, there would never arise conflict among them.  Does it not seem like she yearned for the days when black was black and white was white, where there were no shades of gray?  In Rand's world, since there can be no compromise between good and evil, everything is 'either/or' and one side is right and the other is wrong.  Is life really so simple? I can understand not compromising with, say, a mugger or an obvious psychotic who wants to chop off my arm.  It would be absurd to offer him a few fingers instead.  There are lines where 'either/or' is justified.  And, existentialists would not disagree with this in the area of Being.  Even if, after several examinations of an object, there is something left over, a transphenomenality of Being, a table is still a table, even if it could be something else also.  Stating that one never knows absolutely is not to deny all knowledge.  We can have certainty about many specific things even if absolute certainty is lacking.  However, are values and morals subject to the same rational appraisal as tables?  It would be nice if they were.  The existentialist confronts freedom in anguish.  He must reflect on it, not just choose to think or not to think.  Some things, like what Hitler did, are, (according to my philosophy) obviously wrong.  A mugger or an obvious psychotic who wants to chop off my arm is, (again, according to NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism) wrong, but there are shades of gray and places where standards are still needed, where we may have to create them and take responsibility for them.  God has not been deposed so that nature or reason can take His place. According to atheistic existentialism, we have to take His place. bis bald, Nick    Report

07-24-2007, 8:58 PM Brian Joined on 07-23-2007 Posts 5 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God Hi Nick, I still don't see your point.  Are you saying that I should not use logic or reason in some cases, like in these gray areas?  Sort of like Sartre stating (absolutely) that there are no absolutes?  B    Report

07-25-2007, 12:43 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God No, my contention is that pure Objectivism substitutes logic for God. If you want to use logic sometimes and sometimes not, your position is not that of Rand or Peikoff. It is not the position I am criticizing. I agree that we can't always use logic. Logic doesn't reach all situations. We don't always have enough information to weigh consequences and apply logic, and we may be faced with equal consequences which cannot be differentiated by logic. Sometimes, we simply have to choose, and a truely free choice is baseless. (Paradoxically, however, we are not free to avoid such choices. Even choosing not to choose is a choice. Sartre said we are forced into freedom.) I did not, in my last post, address your problem with paradoxes, like the Liar's paradox. You said they need context. No, they can refer to themselves, like the statement, "There are no absolutes," is self-referential. If you hold that "There are no absolutes," is a self-referential statement, then you would be inconsistent by saying "I am lying," is not. (Incidentally, Sartre doesn't mean by this that there is no knowledge at all.) General Semantics has a way of getting arond some of these paradoxes by saying they are true on one level of abstraction but false on another level. This doesn't work well with the paradoxes used by Goedel and Russell in formal logic. Goedel's theorems stand up. To refute them, you have to prove they are wrong. Can you do that? bis bald, Nick    Report

07-25-2007, 4:31 PM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 56 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God pretty crazy yesterday. i came home from work and there are cops and firetrucks at the condo complex where i live. my curious cousin, who lives below me, heads down towards the building with all the action, and comes running back. she tells me there had been a murder/suicide! i live with my sister, and of course she is freaked out. last night wasn't a pleasant one. so this morning, i'm at my computer and decide to check the local news website. turns out there had been an elderly woman with MS and her care taker living in the apartment. an autopsy is pending the official outcome, but it is speculated that the care taker had died in the kitchen 7 days prior, and the elderly woman with MS wasn't able to get herself off the couch to call for help or take care of herself. i hope this is not the case, that would be a terrible experience leading up to death. here is the kicker. one of the rooms in the apartment was being used to grow marijuana. not just maybe a small quantity for personal use, but an entire room, with lamps and the whole deal. just thought this was something you don't hear about every day. i'll post more about it as i find out if anyone is interested.    Report

07-25-2007, 5:14 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God Pretty interesting, and I can understand your excitement and wanting to share this with us. It's not the kind of thing you should have posted in a thread on logic, but that's okay. We won't be picky. Things happen here in Spokane also. There other day, there was a big tanker fire north of town, big black billowing smoke and flames and explosions until an airforce truck shot foam on it and got it under control. Now, they say it was purposely set. I know it is more personal when things happen in your own apartment building. And, it sounds sad. Elderly people depend on their care-givers. About the marijuana, though, perhaps that was something which brought purpose and a little happiness in this person's life. I think drugs like this should be legal for old people. I'm glad my dad was on anti-depresents when he died, and I wish he could have had heroin. I don't believe in using crutches when we don't need them, but anything which makes life easier for old people, prior to their death, should be okay. It might be different with meth or something that could blow-up in the processing and endanger other people in the apartment building, but marijuana is so harmless. bis bald, Nick    Report

07-26-2007, 5:06 AM youngmastermatt Joined on 06-15-2007 Idaho Posts 14 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God While I wouldn't go so far as to say that marijuarna is "harmless", I would agree that THC is one of the more benign drugs you can introduce into your body. Many prescription drugs have the potential to be misused to far more drastic end results than marijuana, and it's a hypothosis of mine that if it wern't for alcohol's place in many cultures, that drug, too would have been outlawed long ago. The mind and mood-altering effects of alcohol are far more dangerous and severe than marijuana. The same argument applies to tobacco- in fact, the tobacco industry fortifies it's product with all sorts of addictive and cancerous substances and is perfectly legal for no other reason than 1) cultural tradition, an 2) lobbying (particularly in the U.S.). And  before anyone asks or wonders- no, I've never smoked either marijuana or tobacco. I don't condemn people who do- a person getting stoned in the safe comfort and privacy of his home is no concern of mine. Besides- I'm not immune from unhealthy pleasures. I love Rock Stars and Red Bulls. While not exactly meth, energy drinks are in no way healthy for me, and the damage to my health more than outweighs the temporary burst of energy I get from consuming one. They're bad for me. So are hamburgers. So are the Bacardi Mojitos I love. The drug bust inadvertently highlights a few Objectivist principles worthy of discussion and debate: what would the Objectivist view on drugs be? Would Ayn Rand have, in the name of personal freedom, supported an old pothead's right to do as he pleases as long no harm is done to others? Would Objectivism say that some drugs are ok and others not? And by what criteria? Can two Objectivists disagree on this issue, yet both remain legitimite Objectivists? (I suspect Ayn Rand would have stated that there would be no agreement between Objectivists, as reason would lead each individual to the same conclusions in most, if not all, aspects of life) Drug use may be an unreasonable act (and therefore something an Objectivist would take issue with), but if said unreasonable act "harms" no one but the user, is it the user's perogative to exercise his free will and harm himself?    Report

07-26-2007, 8:22 AM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 56 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God haha, didn't mean to turn this into a drug debate. well, i'll try to tie it into logic. would there be a rational reason for using drugs that are harmful to the body? Nick mentioned elderly people who suffer from physical pain, and drugs can ease that pain. i don't know of any studies offhand, but i think a persons chances of recovering from an illness would be greatly increased if they didn't have to experience as much pain. and if the illness is terminal, then you have lost nothing by using a pain killing drug. but what about the average healthy person? it seems this is quite common, people introducing chemicals into the body that provide short term benefits in exchange for long term difficulties. a lot of these drugs alleviate stress, which is suspected to be unhealthy. There are all kinds of studies and tests that conclude drugs are bad. but never has there been a study where a drug has caused death 100% of the time. i would do more research, but i'm not that concerned about drugs since i don't use them. i do like to drink and i smoke though. i would like to quit smoking soon, but it's very hard to quit. there is a slight physical change as well as a mental change when i try to quit. i get a little shaky (it's not that bad) along with feeling anxious. i really don't like this feeling and smoking a cigarette seems to get rid of it 100% of the time. i haven't tried any of the quit smoking programs where you just get the nicotine and they step you down a little. that will be my next step. oh well, just some thoughts. not much going on in this forum lately anyway haha.    Report

07-26-2007, 12:17 PM NickOtani Joined on 04-21-2006 Posts 323 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God Right, I have smoked cigarettees and marijuana. At my age, I've done it all. Remember, I was a teenager during the 60s and 70s. Anybody my age who says he or she did not smoke marijuana is either a liar or someone who really didn't fit in. I haven't indulged now for more than thirty years, but I am not opposed to using anything responsibly. We should be able to use drugs as long as we don't let them use us. I don't approve of living in a dream world, trying to escape reality instead of dealing with it. However, old people who are ready to die, deserve anything which can allow them to be happy. I remember my German mother-in-law, who was a law abiding and proper woman all her life, bought a house plant which just happened to have a hemp plant which sprouted up in the same soil. She told us about it, and we seperated it and nurtured it until it grew into a nice, bushy marijuana plant. We kept it in her house and clipped it periodically to smoke the leaves. It's not like she broke the law, since she bought the plant legally, and she kept it in a corner of her house, by the window, but she did know it was an illegal plant. This just made it more interesting to her. It became her favorite plant. She didn't smoke the leaves, but she kept it and watered it and looked at it a lot and thought about it. It brought some excitement into her otherwise dull life of an old person living alone. She was a good old girl. Marijuana is not the evil weed some people have made it out to be. Yes, it can be abused, like alkohal and many other things, but it can also be used responsibly by adults with good judgment. bis bald, Nick       Report

07-26-2007, 12:57 PM Josh Joined on 10-29-2006 Posts 56 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God Yeah, nothing beats hanging out with friends and having a good drug to enjoy along with it. just a little something to take that edge off, get the mind out of work mode for a bit. unfortunately there are people who feel this is so wrong that the action deserves fines, jail sentences, and in some cases even revoking driving privileges. in the case of smoking, there are currently laws getting voted on that will require smokers to pay somewhere in the vacinity of 150% tax on top of the already rediculous taxes on the product. what's really messed up is this money will probably be used to DEmote the product that is raking in all this money. or maybe force an education on some poor kids who don't want to learn while sitting in a classroom for 6 hours a day. i seem to always drag the actions of our government into every topic ><. anyway, enjoy your drugs, just don't get caught. and vote against our government becoming a coerssive monopoly (although it's a little late for that).    Report

08-20-2007, 4:56 PM David George DeLancey Joined on 07-06-2007 Posts 48 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God Hello Josh i Smoked for years winston's were my choice as a truck driver for o about 26 years now i've had lots of free time on my hand well sort of, anyway i also realized with the stress of operating the Vehicle a slight gratual process a where as it's not realy noticed the stress that is operating what an interesting word, anyway while i was sleeping i realized that i grinded my teeth this happens to people in different ways, my brother was realy bad at it , though the female spy shy spy said i realy was'nt to bad a realaxing feeling i supose,though awake and active with the operational ventures accuring and it's all about who we are i myself am relaxed most of the time though stress is a consumption, and the smoking proceedure was effecting my status, such as sucking on it made my jaw and mouth features disruptive, while one day smoking a cigar given to me from about a wedding the dude rolled in the truck stop and started handing them out , well i soon took off realized that the inhalation was'nt all that stressfull and did'nt take much so i stoped buying premade cigarettes and started rolling my own this effort i realized at first would ease the $ value and perhaps the consumption effort was the key wording now when i smoke periodicaly it goes out sometimes i smoke but one to three a day though there are times when five are presumtual early in the morning i find now desire for it though there is that ocation time to time it's been eight years when i swithed over i'm 45 and at first i could tell the difference , and at first well about the first three years i did smoke steadily it been the past fvie years as when i seemed to realy slow down one pack of pouch roll up kind will last me a weak and i did buy a pipe at cvs for about three something that gets kind of nasty with the oosing of the resin that stuff lingures a bit also , well that was long , rewards so far today about objectivisim and logic Logic is when i realized Objectivism is when i decided through the reguards of realizeing and this is just perhaps this setting of explanation being fast and all if i had decided to quit while i was ahead i realized objectivism if some else refers me of such a matter to quit or why had'nt you quit while you were ahead they would understand or realize it's logic 'and or' objectively darn i forgot the libraien came in to say there closing , though here is a guess the other person would be of the objectivism i supose allthough there could be atleast thre reason's of Objectivism about the matter, realix=zing in that ordanance possibly is one of them oops i'm thinging to fast ok time to go till next time 4:54 p.m. centerville Libray Massachussetts    Report

09-03-2008, 2:12 AM David George DeLancey Joined on 07-06-2007 Posts 48 Re: Logic, Objectivism new God A New Baby;s cry    Report

The Atlas... » Ayn Rand's Idea... » General Discuss... » Re: Logic, Objectivism new God

(please select) Forums Home |- Search Forums |- Active Topics |- Unanswered Posts User Options |- Sign In |- Join this community |- Forgot Password Ayn Rand's Ideas |- General Discussion Ayn Rand's Novels |- Atlas Shrugged |- The Fountainhead |- We The Living |- Anthem |- Short Stories and Plays Ayn Rand's Films |- We The Living |- The Fountainhead |- Love Letters |- You Came Along |- Atlas Shrugged Special Interest |- Meet Members |- My Favorite Rand Character |- My Favorite Rand Passage |- If You Like Rand, You'll Like... Summer Seminars |- Summer Seminar 2007 |- Summer Seminar 2008 University Place and PSU