Straw Men are Huemerous

[Ryoroyzu]

I'd like to comment on a section starting from 06:20 lasting to 09:45

First off, I'd like to clarify your statement and justify why I in itself think it's untrue and thereby nothing to base a conclusion (I have not read Ayn Rands work in detail, nor have I read Michael Huemers commentary in detail, I am not (trying to) defend or attack either one of them. I see them both arguing with flaws solely from your presentation of them. Please follow me below:

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu You say, and I'll try to quote you as directly as I can, that these two sentences are incompatible:

1. "Something is valuable to an identity only if the entity faces alternatives(Huemers evaluation of Rands premise"

and

2. "It's _possible_ for something to be of value only if there's an alternative (You on Rands premise)"

The statement that these two are incompatible, is false. It follows directy from 2 to 1!

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu I believe it's rather the last sentence Huemer (and I) would object to: " Where no alternative exists, no goals and no values are possible." A required consequence of this statement is, in fact, Huemers' understanding: "Something is valuable to an identity only if the entity faces alternatives." Which reads: If an individual are not faced with any alternatives, or in no way can influence a given action or - in general - a system, the individual should not associate values with it.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu Huemer argues that this is untrue by (your quote of him) stating: "(...) There's no way that I can avoid it -- would that mean that the money will have no value?"

You state: "The fact that things happen about which nobody have any control, does not mean that one is not faced with any alternatives."

Forgetting that I think this is a bad illustration of the point, I'll try to elaborate how I see this "confusion":

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu Huemer tries to argue from contradictory; meaning, if he can find an example where supposed premise is false by reasoning and reference to reality, the conclusion breaks down. He does so successfully applying a new assumption: "I value the fact that someone gives me money." As so far I agree with Huemers' analysis. Moving further, though, I'd like to part from both Rand and Huemer.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu A big stepping stone here is that regardless whether you appreciate (thus value) the act of giving, do favors or alike, we understand this by intuition to not be a problem of morality. This concludes that - certainly - Huemer is making an irrelevant objection. But the objection holds true, meaning that Ayn Rand in return, is falsely describing her premise which - by definition - should adhere to her view of morality. It does not. It faces a more wider subject, a subject of appreciation

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu As seen from your own quotation of Huemer, he understands this trickery with the words perfectly: "It follows that it makes no sense to say something one cannot get or cannot avoid is "good". Your commenting on this, using Rands premise, is entirely circular: You're arguing that the reason for for said statement to be untrue, is by holding said premise to be true. In other words: assuming premise to conclude premise. To be noted, Huemer contradicts using the same circular reasoning.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu The only way I can imagine a logical reasoning to be invalid and false, following from the same premises, is for the premises not to adhere to the conclusion. This describes perfectly why I believe that both Huemer and Rand is falsely following the assumption that morality have anything to do with said feelings at all. I believe that appreciation is a subject of aesthetics, admiration.

[Ryoroyzu]

@Ryoroyzu But I _do believe_ that it follows that theories of subjects of goals, achievements, admiration - aesthetics - contradicts the holding position of (your accurate or in-accurate description of) Ayn Rands point: Roughly stated that "if I cannot progress through it, it's not of moral value to me." It also means that i reject the following conclusion of Huemers' "ethical intuisionism". But that is another subject.

[efghijkl8]

You haven't shown how rand gets from 'urival is the standard of value' to you must life in a life 'proper to man'/'qua man'. This is a criticism Huemer makes and which you have't answered.

[mdrdrm]

Very very good, thank you for this.

Am I the only one that caught the irony in his name? He certainly gives his own "hue" to Rand's philosophies.

[jajajlol]

Very nice; Moreover that's when the concept of good appears, if it is good - that is, it furthers or advances your quality of life (and you know or at least you are able to justify it) then you regard it as a value: something you gain or keep because is good, and if you wish to live then you take it! oh Huemer....

[jdoe933]

So she re-states premise #1 twice, and this is taken as the argument? You are continuing to simply restate that nothing is intrinsically valuable, but this is not an argument for that position.

Premise #2 does not need to be carried as "something is always a value in the face of alternatives". This isn't even close to what Huemer is getting at. Rand says that without an alternative existing, there can be no value. That is clearly what is meant by the last sentence you display from her on #2.

[sbank]

Thanks for the video. It's almost scary that there are people like Huemer are in the position to be educating people when he doesn't understand the content in the first place.

[bonnie43uk]

...is this the right room for an argument?

[ajcrizon]

Another thing:

When all automatic processes are towards the furtherance of the organisms life, then a non-volitional lifeform will always act towards the furtherance of it's life (without free will, it has no choice, it is hardwired, it is automatic).

A black widow is non-volitional and yet it engages the female, salmon swim up the rivers and die.

[chaeberle69]

Neither the black widow nor the salmon are immortal, and so their automatic processes further the life of the species. That is the purpose of those processes (see minute 22).

[ajcrizon]

"of the species" is never mentioned at all. It is very clear that rand speaks about individual entities when she uses "their", and drawing the conclusion that (automatic) life actually acts always towards the furtherance of their species and _not_ of the individual would be not in the sense of rands philosophy against collectivism and altruism. A black widow sort of "sacrificess" himself for the sake of the species.

[ajcrizon]

So why does a plant have an alternative and a computer has not?

They are both hardwired. Just the two words "life" and "death" don't make it different from "working" and "destroyed".

So yes, a plant is comparable to a computer.

I see no reason why only "life" and "death" is an alternative when it comes to unconscious matter.

[chaeberle69]

You're confusing alternatives with conscious choice just as Heumer did.

[ajcrizon]

You did not get my point. There is simply no argument why "life" and "death" are metaphysical any more important in unconscious matter than other "alternatives" like "falling into a black hole" or "not falling into a black hole".

Life and Death being the only alternative for unconscious matter is just a definition and a very strange one.

[hitssquad]

Hi, Paul.

Nice videos. Thanks for the education.

FYI, UC Boulder also brought us "The Most IMPORTANT Video You'll Ever See":

youtube. com/results?q=overpopulation+l­ecture+bartlett

[grantsinmypants2]

That scarecrow was hilarious!

[samuelmichaud]

non life. AI. Is programmed to choose facing an alternative.

[samuelmichaud]

Ants have no alternative? Well if you think about it that way(habits) then we don't have an alternative as well. This hardwired brain is just like a reaaal basic version of ours.

[samuelmichaud]

replace the word alternative with choice.

[samuelmichaud]

Mr. McKeever looks like bill hicks

[dabruin2]

Mr. McKeever,

Well done and thank you for the education. A lot of Rand's work, I've found, requires focus/effort from the reader to understand what exactly she means. A lazy interpretation as you've shown can cause a snowball effect of misunderstanding. Thank you for taking the time to go through Huemer's work point by point.

[PaulMcKeever]

You're quite welcome.

[SaskBigPicture]

Superb analysis, Paul. I will have to read Huemer's paper when I have time. His arguments are a pretty obvious example of the Kantian hordes closing ranks to defend the ivory towers they infest. For Objectivists to win the battle of ideas, perhaps the time has come for the founding of an "Atlas University" dedicated to reason.

[jwoodswce]

Founders College in South Boston, VA?

[PaulMcKeever]

If only they had facilities for science and pre-med.

[Oppp2]

a++ 5/5!

[Elhan2005]

BTW, Rand after Aristotle emphasized man's nature as rational animal, not rational drone (ie a 100% rational being.) I'm not sure why more people can't get this.

[davidngo4415]

great job. but i think you also need to give an example of a person being rational enough to survive, but irrational enough to make him/herself unhappy. after rational survival behavior is followed, rational happiness still needs to be done. speak to this "middle ground" please.

[CultureOfReason]

You'll fInd Your answer in Being Consistent;

ie) Living Consistently mr.davidngo.

Keep Reason @ Your Center & "Everything else follows"

unhappiness can stem from looking around at a world gone 'Huemer'-ous, frustrated that You're alone in Your battle...Evidently You're not.

"Every solitude is a pinnacle" and now this tool connects all the pinnacles in a compatible way.

"Don't let it go"

*************** CultureOfReason ***************

[PaulMcKeever]

Actually, I've been thinking about that one for a few weeks, so your request comes at a good time. Watch for it in the coming weeks.

[WickedWilmes]

Hi David, it might be nice to read some works by nathaniel branden-if you did not already do so- who creates a very convincing case for putting rationality/mind/awareness as the central condition for self-esteem and happiness. Indeed, basically "Keep Reason @ Your Center & "Everything else follows", and intellectual autonomy as Cultureofreason points out, I think happiness follows the same logic as survival. But curious to know Paul's view on this, cheers

[Wonderbread166]

Well done. Liked the 'fatal errors' scarecrow and "OOOHH MY GODDD AAGGHHHH!" :D

[qtronman]

Brilliant analysis, Paul. Great work!

[WickedWilmes]

Objectivism: the more you challenge it, the stronger it gets.

Another victory of reason and hats off to mcKeever!

[AluminumFoilHatMan]

Rubbish.

Objectivism: the more you challenge it, the more fanatic and rationalizing its followers get.

[davidngo4415]

don't confuse being impassioned with fanaticism, or rationalizing with rational support. And please stop calling us "followers".  There's nothing but our own logic and reason that we're "following". It's not a cult or a religion based on blindly following some leader or faith-based dogma.

[AluminumFoilHatMan]

No, you're right. I don't think any of you are passive in the slightest. But one can "follow" something out of choice and due diligence, so one can be a follower while also using logic and reason.

With that said, I think that most of you "Objectivists" have resonated with a movement that appeals heavily to those with an intense craving for self-aggrandizement at most any cost to others, despite all protestations otherwise.

[qtronman]

Define "aggrandizement".

[Nemis071]

Indeed, and on top of that give us examples of prominent Objectivists who have "...an intense craving for self-aggrandizement at most any cost to others, despite all protestations otherwise." the most important part to me being the "...at most any cost to others...".

[Signofthedollar]

What purpose does Huemer's paper serve?

[PaulMcKeever]

Well, it might have the effect (whether intended or not) of:

i) giving people the false impression that Rand's philosophy has been proven, by a philosophy professor, to be "fatally flawed"

ii) giving people who dislike Rand's philosophy a reason to believe that their dislike is somehow in accord with reality.

[legendre007]

Was Huemer referencing a hardcover edition? The page numbers often differ between hardcover and paperback editions.

[PaulMcKeever]

I borrowed an older edition and have discovered that the page numbering in that one is different than in the one I have.  I suspect Michael Huemer was working with an older edition (which isn't to suggest that the text is any different).

[AluminumFoilHatMan]

Objectivism is a front, a facade. It's for hypocrites and social climbers who desire an austere front and justification for their stealing ideas from other people while claiming them as their own. It attracts people who like to form cliques and lynch mobs, and who like to needlessly create bad guys for them to demonstrate their supposed righteousness and might. Totally phony.

[Amovitas]

I don't really think the above requires a response other than his name says it all.

[Elhan2005]

Yep. Best not to feed the obvious trolls.

[AluminumFoilHatMan]

My name was designed for the benefit of the shallow and mindless.  I'm glad it's helped you expedite your thinking process to the point of knee-jerk dismissal.

[AynRandAnswers]

Objectivism is the most UN-phony philosophy ever presented.

[AluminumFoilHatMan]

Only because you say so.

Saying so, makes it so.

Magical thinking. Subjectivism.

Objectivism.

[Nemis071]

Perhaps, FoilHat, you could present arguments for your world view and why or where Objectivist philosophy fails. Or indicate us to a place that that espouses your world view.

Coming in here and denouncing Objectivism, in the comments of an Objectivist video, without any sort of argument, only makes you look as hateful and crazy as your name suggests. Why shouldn't we dismiss your ranting as trolling?

[AluminumFoilHatMan]

I'm not walking into that trap. Objectivists themselves are the argument against "Objectivism"... They are white-collar sociopaths who, being sociopaths, naturally dismiss all arguments against their character instantly out of hand.

Thus it is a waste of time to even attempt to argue against the living arguments themselves.

My indictments are, therefore, not for

"Objectivists" but, rather, for those honest wretches who have had direct experience with suffering through "Objectivists".

[AluminumFoilHatMan]

They are the only ones capable of being truly honest about the true character of "Objectivists".

[qtronman]

Yes, and you sound like you so deeply care about the "honest wretches" who have been so profoundly "victimized" by having to come across Objectivists.

Is this guy supposed to be an anti-Objectivist? Yawn.

[qtronman]

"[Objectivists] are white-collar sociopaths..."

Mere assertion. There are many "blue-collar" and "pink-collar" Objectivists, too.

How do you define sociopath, Dr. Psychiatrist? I heard Hitler had good social skills.

[Elhan2005]

You're a troll. Give it up.