SoloHQ: Forum

Forum

Forum : Article Discussions : All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 2) - General R...

Saturday
September 3, 2005

All or Nothing: Philosophy with Degrees (Part 2) - General Reasons by Joseph Rowlands

The all or nothing view, whether caused by rationalism, intrinsicism, or just mental sloppiness, cannot see important relationships, or maybe just doesn't care. It's not concerned with degrees, and can't deal with them. It draws very clear boundaries, and you have easy, definitive uses. It doesn't matter how close you are to the boundaries, the results are the same. (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (26 messages)

Saturday, September 3 - 9:42am

I really liked this (Part 2) installment, Joe!

I found the conflicts-of-interest-are-proportional-to-level-of-irrationality theme to be illuminating. Also, regarding this:

=============
The all or nothing perspective ignores the fundamental reasons behind the premises. It doesn't care that conflicts arise from irrationality. It only remembers it as a rule, to be taken as absolute, and not to be understood or analyzed further.
=============

... I definitely agree! A major theme -- which I've argued for -- is that some folks would rather not work to understand things (ie. work for a conceptual awareness of the world). While I personally -- initially -- got this idea from M. Adler, Rand makes it tremendously clear when outlining the anti-conceptual mentality.

My past contribution here was to merely repeat Adler's insights: philosophers such as Plato, Descartes, Hume, and Kant erred in viewing the mind -- explicitly or implicitly -- merely as a perceiving organ (like the eye or ear), one that "perceives" its inner ideas.

In this respect, concepts were "inner things perceived" not understanding tools (not that BY WHICH we understand really-existing things). If you make this epistemological error, then you will not ever achieve an understanding of values and reality.

What I'm also alluding to, then, is that Plato, Descartes, Hume, and Kant were all-or-nothing'ers in this sense which you have outlined -- a point which, itself, could become a subject of future debate here.

Ed

Saturday, September 3 - 11:34am

It is interesting to look at the development of Pragmatism when discussing rationalism, etc. Pragmatism did a bit to address yes/no, from a when and where perspective. I find it odd that Pragmatism, and where it fits into the development of philosophical thought is not discussed that often any more.

I think at least parts of it are still often misunderstood.

(Edited by Rich Engle on 9/03, 11:35am)

Saturday, September 3 - 11:26am

Dear Joe can you make some real life example regarding your article?
I am confused!
The article seems to encourage pragmatism.

Saturday, September 3 - 6:12pm

Ciro, Joe already used common sense -- or common knowledge -- examples to relate his point to the various common approaches to ethics. That said, I do see how this point about degrees could easily 'slippery-slope' toward pragmatism (I agree with your concern).

If you'd like something more concrete, then I suggest that we "pick on" one of the 4 philosophers which I have mentioned above (those who I have now claimed to be all-or-nothing'ers).

Ciro, you pick the philosopher (Plato, Descartes, Hume, or Kant), and I will tear this philosopher's mind apart (through his written thoughts) -- exposing his particular all-or-nothing'ness.

Ed

Saturday, September 3 - 6:18pm

Ed, glad you liked it, including the conflict of interest example.

Rich, the choice isn't between "all or nothing" and pragmatism. Both are dead ends. I argue here against ignoring degrees. I don't argue against principles, true dichotomies, categories, etc.

My own thoughts on Pragmatism are in this article:
http://solohq.com/Articles/Rowlands/The_Idealism-Pragmatism_Dichotomy.shtml

Ciro, again I have no idea what you're talking about. Nowhere in the article do I promote pragmatism. Perhaps you're accepting the idealism-pragmatism dichotomy I just linked to?

And the article covers so much, I don't know what kind of example you're looking for. An occasion in life where degrees matter? Where don't they matter?

Sunday, September 4 - 1:31am

Ciro:

"The article seems to encourage pragmatism."

Well, no.

Pragmatism insists that you bang away mindlessly on buttons until one of them opens that pesky door. Joe's referring to the application of principles into the real world based upon the degree to which the principle is applicable. A pragmatist would use a shotgun to clear a blocked drain...

http://solohq.com/Forum/Banter/0046.shtml#10

...then realise, after his plumbing was shot beyond repair, that perhaps a gentle cleanser would have been more appropriate. He'd stumble upon this without realising, that while the drain did indeed need to be cleared, an explosive blast was a completely unreasonable remedy.

Or something like that...

Ross

Sunday, September 4 - 7:27am

Ross, thank you!
your explanation was perfect.
Best Ciro.
Io purtroppo , sono una persona che tollero poco l'irrazionalita'. Il saggio di Joe
e la tua descrizione, dell'idraulico mafioso, mi hanno certamente convinto a darmi una regolatina al carattere. Grazie amico, sei una persona a modo.

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/04, 2:18pm)

Sunday, September 4 - 10:21pm

Joe, please excuse the hijack (I promise not to go on and on). Ciro, I took a year of Spanish (a decade ago) -- and while this is likely Italian you're using, and I think I know what you said:

==============
Io purtroppo , sono una persona che tollero poco l'irrazionalita'.
==============

I see that -- in this certain circumstance -- I may have perturbed you, as you are a person who, by and large, tolerates little irrationality in others.

==============
Il saggio di Joe e la tua descrizione, dell'idraulico mafioso, mi hanno certamente convinto a darmi una regolatina al carattere.
==============

I'll, however, leave it to Joe's discretion, to his 'hydraulic Mafia deli,' as my hands are certainly tied (when it comes to) the regulation of the online message board.

==============
Grazie amico, sei una persona a modo.
==============

Thanks friend, I think that you are a person who practices the Aristotelian virtue of the Golden Mean, as it pertains to temperance.

Howzzat?

;-)

Ed

Monday, September 5 - 12:21am

Jeez, Ed, what a hoot!

"hydraulic Mafia deli"

Um, maybe "hydraulic Mafia engineer" perhaps referring to my plumber who uses a shotgun :-)

Ross

Monday, September 5 - 1:08am

Ross, your pragmatist-plumber would've been better off using a 20mm explosive round (to 'clear the pipes') -- though he, as a pragmatist, could not possibly have 'known' that explosives were likely to work better than plain shells, at clearing blockages.

Ed
Sitting in a deli, supported by pneumatics, eating spaghetti, with my gun sitting next to my dinner plate ...

Monday, September 5 - 1:21am

Ed:

"Sitting in a deli, supported by pneumatics, eating spaghetti, with my gun sitting next to my dinner plate ..."

Isn't that a recurring scene from The Godfather... or maybe The Sopranos :-)

Ross

Monday, September 5 - 8:21am

So if you assume there is no conflict of interests between rational men, and you find out that the person you're discussing is not rational, the whole logical chain collapses. You can't say "close enough." If your premises aren't exact, it destroys the 100 percent certainty.

Yes, Joe, that is what I would do, and it would not be my problem to solve, or to worry about trying to understand him. He had better come up with an explanation of his irrationality if he wants to deal with me again.

In addition, between two businesspersons rationality does not count much, there is a contract to respect. If you agree fine other wise, you just say no thank you! It is up to you to be responsible to whom you deal with.

On every situation positive or negative it could be, I try to remain focused on what can I learn from it. When dealing with irrationality we do not need to learn at what decree we should deal with it but just how to avoid it.

I think I am a Peikoffian!
ps
please try to understand me lol

Monday, September 5 - 2:28pm

I just want to state my absolute enjoyment of this article and admiration for the insights it sheds on the false dichotomy shortcomings of those on our side.

Joe - your expose of such shortcomings is probably the reason for the low number of sanctions so far (which to me should be way up there on top). You talk about reality as it is in all of us, and that makes many people uncomfortable.

Mental laziness is easier.

Michael

Monday, September 5 - 5:35pm

Michael, I think you have a point -- Joe does make life 'harder' ... for me (he makes me think).

:-O

Organs grow in response to necessity, and Joe -- more than most philosophers -- increases this necessity in his readership. Let me make this speculation: you couldn't LIVE with Joe, and NOT grow.

Ed
A growing boy

Wednesday, September 7 - 1:18am

Ciro, are you saying that you only deal with Objectivists? You won't even buy groceries at a store unless you assume they're perfectly rational? You treat every religious person you meet as if they were a homicidal maniac?

Degrees obvious matter. Nowhere have I suggested you should overlook people's irrationality, but if you really treated everyone with the slightest irrationality as if they were completely irrational, you would have to lock yourself in a room all day and slowly starve. If you believed that the slightest bit of irrationality completely destroyed the harmony of interests, you'd have to assume anyone and everyone is out to kill you. You'd have to live in a state of extreme paranoia. It's not healthy.

And you can't really do it. More likely you're trying to get at the fact that if someone is irrational, you should acknowledge it and avoid that aspect of them. The more irrational they are, or the more important their irrationality is, you may need to avoid them entirely. So if someone gives lip service to believing in god, you might still be able to deal with them in many positive ways. On the other hand, if they honestly reject property rights, and like to steal from people, you should keep them locked out. But it would be crazy to treat everyone as if they were the irrational drooling beast of Steven Mallory's in The Fountainhead.

MSK, the trend I've noticed for articles is the more concrete they are, the better they do. Sob stories bring the Atlas Points. Everyone can understand them, they don't require much in the way of thinking, and some are interesting. I didn't expect this series to rate very high. I wrote it because I think it needed to be written, and it will be nice to link to in the future. That some people read it and learned from it is great too.

So I don't really think it made people uncomfortable. More than likely the hardcore rationalists would say it doesn't apply to them. I could be wrong, but I think it was probably just too technical for people to really enjoy. No big deal.

Ed, glad I can help you in your growth process. I know that you really enjoy it, though. You like to think and challenge yourself.

Wednesday, September 7 - 7:56am

Joe,

Sob stories bring the Atlas Points.

Just a small point I hope is a complete nitpick. Is there any implied criticism here? "Sob story" is a very derogatory term.

I happen to be one who writes articles with high emotional content.

(btw - Pointing out the Atlas point thing was a manner of trying to generate more interest in your article, which I wish to promote as best I can. It could have been interpreted to mean calling attention to myself, but it was in no way intended like that. I recommend this particular article of yours to any and all who will listen and have cited it several times in my own posts. It deserves the widest readership possible.)

Michael

Wednesday, September 7 - 8:53am

Joe,

I loved this whole series. Maybe seemingly lack of popularity for your article only comes because you are comparing the response of this article to one that triggers strong emotions or an argument.

I could post saying "excellent article"... with nothing much else to add. This article is good. This is the type of material I direct others to when I want to introduce them to the Objectivism.

Wednesday, September 7 - 10:03am

Joe,

Congrats on an excellent article. Maybe you did not quite intend this, but you have laid down an Objectivist foundation for tolerance. By tolerance I do not mean an uncritical acceptance of the beliefs and practices of others. I do mean that hard-headed tolerance that lets us profitably deal with others with whom we have profound differences.

No robotic adherence to pre-formatted rules will give us the know-how to deal with this reality of normal everyday life. Better we understand the principles of Objectivism well enough to recognize when a non-Objectivist shares them to some degree and so find that there is common ground, rather than exclude finding any value at all in contact with that person on an "all or nothing" basis.

Great food for thought, Joe.

Andy

Wednesday, September 7 - 7:45am

J:Ciro, are you saying that you only deal with Objectivists?
No Joe, I don't, but I would love to.

You treat every religious person you meet as if they were a homicidal maniac?
No! I don't. I treat them the same way they treat me!

you'd have to assume anyone and everyone is out to kill you. You'd have to live in a state of extreme paranoia. It's not healthy.

Joe, being from Italy is the last thing I will worry about :), do I think they are out to screw me
yes.

I only avoid the stupids, but not those who should know better, meaning; I fight them!

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 9/07, 12:53pm)

Wednesday, September 7 - 8:31am

Dear Joe, one more thing I want to add; before I became an objectivist I made many mistakes because I had ignored when I made vital decisions what I was feeling.
I know better now to respect what I feel.
Morality means to be aware and to recognize when is appropriate to pass judgement on others. And that's what I do!