tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post2022462805055089945..comments2023-10-15T08:15:46.205-04:00Comments on Mike's Eyes (Spotted By): Objectivism's Benefit for Me #2Michael Neibelhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-20683528111681692552009-02-22T09:31:00.000-05:002009-02-22T09:31:00.000-05:00Burgess:After reading your comment again I want to...Burgess:<BR/><BR/>After reading your comment again I want to clarify another point. I am purging beliefs, the content of believing and the precess of believing out of my sum of knowledge and method of thinking. This means that I'm trying never to use the word believing again.<BR/><BR/>To my way of thinking on this, when you say: "I believe the earth goes around the sun. Why? Because of explanations I have seen coming from scientists, explanations that are logical and integrate fully with the rest of my knowledge" you are really saying "I accept on faith that the earth revolves around the sun because I have evidence from other scientists." Clearly this is a contradiction is it not? The statement should have said "I know the earth revolves around the sun because of the evidence provided by scientists..."<BR/><BR/>Another example: "Do you believe the Detroit Tigers will do well this season?" My reply would be something like "Based on the trades made in the off season, I predict, or estimate, that they will do much better than last year." On the other hand you could say "I believe the Tigers will do well this year because I'm praying for them." <BR/><BR/>My point is, if there is evidence, the process is knowing and the content is knowledge. No evidence, the process is believing and the content a belief.<BR/><BR/>I welcome any and all thoughts.Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-65645511556573011502009-02-22T08:54:00.000-05:002009-02-22T08:54:00.000-05:00Burgess:You are right of course that words don't d...Burgess:<BR/>You are right of course that words don't directly have meanings. They refer to concepts that have meanings.<BR/><BR/>I don't want to get very technical with this series of posts although I may do so later. In fact I may have to.<BR/><BR/>For now I just want to keep it somewhat personal showing how Objectivism has helped me. The hope is that a few readers will also want to be so helped and will inquire of Objectivism further.<BR/><BR/>It's also an exercise in affirming in my own mind the value of the philosophy more clearly.<BR/><BR/>But I do think that in the future I will avoid 'words have meanings' per your suggestion and use phrases like 'words refer to concepts which have precise meanings'. Thanks for the input.Michael Neibelhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15321103608597264855noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-19937890.post-51101706805673528902009-02-21T18:13:00.000-05:002009-02-21T18:13:00.000-05:00> "Words have meanings."I would like ...> "Words have meanings."<BR/><BR/>I would like to suggest an alternative approach.<BR/><BR/>Except for proper names ("Columbia River"), words themselves do not have meaning--directly. <BR/><BR/>"A word is merely a visual-auditory symbol used to represent a concept; a word has no meaning other than that of the concept it symbolizes, and the meaning of a concept consists of its units." (Ayn Rand, <I>Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology</I>, p. 40 and 174-177.) However, a particular word, <I>considered as symbolizing a particular concept that refers to particular, defined things</I>, does refer directly to the objects.<BR/><BR/>The problem is that there are more things in the universe than there are words in our vocabulary. Aristotle recognized this:<BR/><BR/>"But the two cases (names and things) are not alike. For names are finite [in number] . . . while things are infinite in number. Inevitably . . . a single name [can] have a number of meanings." (<I>Sophistical Refutations</I>, 165a10-13) <BR/><BR/>"Belief," for example, can be a synonym of faith (or other form of mysticism), or it can be a name for the fact that a person has <I>some</I> position on an issue, but without specifying how he arrived at that position. <BR/><BR/>I <I>believe</I> the earth goes around the sun. Why? Because of explanations I have seen coming from scientists, explanations that are logical and integrate fully with the rest of my knowledge.<BR/><BR/>Of course, the solution to the problem of a single word (symbol) referring to different concepts (valid or not) is to ask: "What do you mean by X?"<BR/><BR/>So, if someone (a Thomist) tells me he believes in God, I can ask him what he means by "believe." If he then tells me he has been persuaded by the arguments of Aquinas, which are based on sense-perception, then I can tentatively conclude that he is trying to be rational but has adopted fallacious arguments. He is not, in this instance, acting on faith.<BR/><BR/>In summary, I try to avoid assuming that my word names the same concept that another person's word names. "Democracy" is an example. Even "freedom" is another example.Burgess Laughlinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13865479709475171678noreply@blogger.com