|
|
|
Apollo v. Stolyarov or How Not to Behave in an Argument G. Stolyarov II A Journal for Western Man-- Issue XXXVII-- July 13, 2005 |
|
Some people just do not know how to be civil. They manifest this
ignorance especially when they encounter arguments to which they have no
response. Having been outwitted, they then stoop to malign their
intellectual opponent in every manner conceivable, forgetting that this
displays no particular talent nor advances one's case in any way.
Unfortunately, far too many of those people are self-proclaimed
Objectivists. One such Objectivist, who has shown his true colors in a
recent e-mail exchange with me, is Adrian Apollo. I seldom desire to
breach all contact with a given individual, but I have made this
decision with regard to Mr. Apollo after his insults had plainly become
absurd. Unfortunately, Mr. Apollo now seeks to convince other honest
Objectivists that I am an "enemy of the movement," because I happen to
disagree with him on a fairly technical issue of metafysics that neither
Ayn Rand nor Leonard Peikoff had specifically addressed. Therefore, I am
obliged to defend myself by displaying the simple truth: the transcript
of our exchange. There is a purely analytical facet to this debate that
readers can find interest in, even if they do not care about Mr.
Apollo's grievance with me, or do not question my integrity as a
filosofer and advocate of truth. I am convinced that I had won that
debate, in the caliber, precision, and amount of my arguments, most of
which Mr. Apollo has chosen not to answer prior to lapsing into personal
attacks. May the reader contemplate universal truths from those, and,
from Mr. Apollo's claims, may he learn how not to behave in an
argument.
But, let us begin at the beginning. Mr. Apollo had e-mailed me after reading a single article of mine, titled "Mistakes Concerning Infinity," included as Chapter IX in my new filosofical treatise, A Rational Cosmology. Mr. Apollo had not read my entire treatise (only Chapters I, and IX-XII are in the public domain), so I was inclined at first to think it understandable that he was not exposed to the full scope of my arguments regarding cosmology and ubiquitous observations about the natures of entities. His initial comment seemed to be a legitimate issue of disagreement, or perceived disagreement, and I decided to treat it as such. Mr. Apollo had chosen to forward his initial message to two other individuals, who remained an "audience" for the remainder of what transpired. The names of those individuals shall be kept confidential. My own interspersed comments about the debate shall occur to indicate exactly where and how the debate degenerated. They shall always be preceded by the words, "Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov." Message 1: From Adrian Apollo: July 11, 2005:
"Euclidean space/time is to science a metafysical given that
mathematics must accept if it is to function in this world."
This a very big mistake that Stolyarov makes. There is no such thing
as "Euclidean space/time." Euclidean geometry is a *method* and not
itself anything other than a system of abstractions. The abstractions
refer to local phenomena, not the universe as a whole (or to use his
language, it does not refer to all of the entities that we call
the "universe" all at once.)
There can be no such thing as something(s) that extends indefinitely
in all directions, which is what a Euclidean universe would have to
do. Such a pseudo-conception is inherently contradictory.
Based on what I read, I expect that his response might be a floating
abstraction that has to do with the concept of "indefinite" or
"extending indefinitely."
Adrian
Message 2: From G. Stolyarov II: July 11, 2005:
Greetings.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "is no such thing as 'Euclidean space/time.'" This
is true. However, never have I said that Euclidean space/time is a
thing, or an entity in itself. I had merely stated that it
was a metafysical given. In fact, as Chapters III and IV of my
treatise demonstrate, Euclidean space/time is a composite of four qualities
which all entities must have to some extent. That is, all
entities must have some measurement of length, width, height,
and time (measured by age). The Euclidean model is then a series of
tools we necessarily use to relate these qualities to one another if
we want to accurately understand them-- and therefore it is
permissible to label the qualities with the adjective "Euclidean."
What indefinite space/time means is, we can take any amount of
entities with a measurement of X in any dimension, lay them out side
by side, and we will still be able to do it, no matter how many
entities we have, provided we take the time to thus arrange them.
There is no inherent limit to "the universe qua universe" which
would prevent us from doing so.
However, I stand by my assertion that what I refer to as the four
dimensional qualities of entities are universal, in the
sense that they are found in every individual entity qua individual
entity. (I explain this proper use of the adjective, "universal," in
Chapter II). Science, to the extent that it seeks to retain a
rational grounding, will need to accept these qualities as a
metafysical given in every entity that it seeks to study; its job
then becomes to interpret the magnitudes or measurements of
these qualities in particular entities, and how said magnitudes
affect those entities' behavior.
I am
G. Stolyarov II Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator Proprietor, The Rational Argumentator Online Store Author, Eden against the Colossus, A Rational Cosmology Chief Administrator, Chicago Methuselah Foundation Fund Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: So far, everything is civil. Let the reader note how I attempt to steer Mr. Apollo toward a more thorough understanding of my system by referencing specific chapters of my work, where the insights I briefly present in the message are clarified in greater depth. Message 3: From Adrian Apollo: July 11, 2005:
This sounds like a primacy-of-consciousness statement to me. If we are doing the "laying out" (creating mental representations), then what we have created only corresponds to reality if that's the way reality actually is. Since reality itself cannot extend indefinitely without limit, then there *is* an inherent limit. Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: There is evidently a disagreement here, and Mr. Apollo's "primacy of consciousness" accusation seems a bit rash, especially because Objectivism does not look kindly upon primacy of consciousness ideologies. However, the disagreement remains purely intellectual, and therefore within the bounds of proper conduct. Message 4: From G. Stolyarov II: July 11, 2005:
Greetings.
Mr. Apollo wrote: "This sounds like a primacy-of-consciousness
statement to me. If we are doing the 'laying out' (creating
mental representations), then what we have created only
corresponds to reality if that's the way reality actually is.
Since reality itself cannot extend indefinitely without limit,
then there *is* an inherent limit."
By "laying out," I mean not only a mental process, but a fysical
action. If we were to fysically lay out the entities in the
manner I had described, we would find that we would be able to
do so indefinitely. There is no such entity as reality qua
reality; it does not itself have any sort of expanse
whatsoever. The term is simply inapplicable to it. Only entities
have expanse (i.e., volume, which implies measurements in all
three spatial qualities), and these entities can also be
separated from each other by any conceivable magnitude. We can
also arrange two entities five units apart, or 5*10^1000 units
apart, and this arrangement will be possible, provided that the
natures of the entities themselves and our fysical
capacities as arrangers can facilitate it.
You make the mistake of treating reality (or existence or the
universe) as either an entity in itself or some basic "fabric"
which facilitates the spatial arrangement of entities. In fact,
no such "fabric" exists. Where there are no specific entities,
there are no specific entities. There is no such "thing" as
space, or vacuum, or ether, that occupies the gaps. My statement
is not a product of the primacy of consciousness, but rather of
the most rigorous adherence to the primacy of existence. A is A.
Where something is, it is. Where something is not, nothing
is anything-- not even a "universal fabric" which has some sort
of limit associated with it. And to claim that there is a limit
to reality (or existence) begs the question: what is beyond this
limit? If it is something, then this something is beyond
existence, and it therefore does not exist (and therefore cannot
be something). If it is nothing, then there is nothing
beyond existence, and existence is all there is, and thus
talking about a "limit" to it is self-contradictory.
I am
G. Stolyarov II Editor-in-Chief, The Rational Argumentator Proprietor, The Rational Argumentator Online Store Author, Eden against the Colossus, A Rational Cosmology Chief Administrator, Chicago Methuselah Foundation Fund Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: I am extremely patient in countering the "primacy of consciousness" accusation directly by showing how my system does, in fact, display the primacy of existence. At that time, I still assumed nothing about Mr. Apollo and considered our disagreement to be an honest and honorable one. Even if he were not swayed by my arguments, I hoped that he would genuinely try to understand them and their interrelationships, at least. Message 5: From Adrian Apollo: July 11, 2005:
This analysis definitely confuses imagination with actuality, as
I understand the analysis, and, as I predicted, involves
"indefiniteness" being misunderstood and used as a floating
concept.
"If we were to fysically lay out the entities in the manner I
had described, we would find that we would be able to do so
indefinitely."
The manner being referred to is a "Euclidean" one and that makes
this is a meaningless statement. "Indefinitely," in this
attempted usage, is just another word for infinity. I.e., it
amounts to the attempt to have "infinity" without calling it
"infinity."
You're attempting to get around the issue by saying that only
entities exist. It is true that only entities exist, but they
exist within a context with each other which prevents such
actions as being able to lay them out "indefinitely."
As for the concept "limit," you misinterpret my usage of it
because you actually do conceive of the universe as being
Euclidean (extending outwards in straight lines), which it is
not. Take the case of several objects being arranged in a
circle. There is a "limit," in such a scenario, as to how we
could apply the concepts "to the left of" and "to the right of,"
or also "extends outwards." It wouldn't make sense to say that
something is "to the left of" something else, if we had to go
all the way around the circle. In that case, the concepts
"left" and "right" lose their meaning, because everything would
be to the left of and to the right of everything else.
The same thing with "indefinitely" in such a scenario. If we go
all around the circle and come back to where we started, then
that shows a limit and that we cannot extend outwards (around
the circle) "indefinitely." Once we come back to where we
started, it would render the concept "extend" meaningless if we
tried to say that it continued to apply after we mentally
crossed back over our original object. That would confuse our
*conception* of the circle of objects with the circle of
objects itself. It confuses the *use* of concepts with their
denotation. No matter how many times we imagine going around
the circle, the fact is that there is only those finite number
of entities in the circle, not an infinite amount, and no such
phenomenon as "indefiniteness" is uncovered or identified, since
there are limits involved.
As to whether all the entities of existence exist within such a
circular context with each other is a matter for science to
decide and explain. Perhaps there is another type of way they
could relate to each other. But the purpose of the illustration
is to show what the concept "limit" means once one avoids the
pitfall of thinking that the universe is Euclidean, which it
cannot be and which amounts to an assertion which could have no
meaning.
This is an example of the application of concepts having limits,
as AR mentions in IOE. When we say "table," we don't include
the possibility that a table exists with is 6 million lights
years tall.
There can be no such thing as the existence of entities which
have internal properties which would allow us to "arrange" them
in such an "indefinitely" outward extending Euclidean fashion.
That's the same thing as implying that infinity exists, and we
cannot get around the issue by saying that there is no such
thing as space qua space. That's a red herring. Whether you
call it "space" as a figure of speech, or refer to it as
"internal properties of entities," the analysis is the same.
To speak about our ability to "arrange" objects is to impose a
primacy-of-consciousness view onto reality (i.e., onto the
things that exist) even if we say there is a physical process
involved. The question is not what *we* can do our imagine, but
what actually exists. Do entities actually exist which extend
outwards "indefinitely"? The answer is no (because the
statement has no meaning).
Euclidean geometry only applies to a finite subset of reality in
any one particular application of it, not to all of it at the
same time. Or, to use the other way of phrasing it (avoiding
the terms "reality" and "it"): Euclidean geometry does not apply
all at once to *all* the entities that exist in existence, only
some of them, in any one particular application of it.
Adrian
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: This is the longest and most thorough post Mr. Apollo had made, and a decent attempt to craft rebuttals to my arguments. There is still the mild "primacy of consciousness" accusation, and the more grievous accusation of "confusing imagination with reality," though it was made of my analysis and not of me as a person. I let both of those slide as I prepared to address Mr. Apollo's particular arguments. Message 6: From G. Stolyarov II: July 11, 2005:
Greetings.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "The manner being referred to is a 'Euclidean'
one and that makes this is a meaningless statement.
'Indefinitely,' in this attempted usage, is just another word
for infinity. I.e., it amounts to the attempt to have
'infinity' without calling it 'infinity.'"
Yes, it is a Euclidean manner, because only a Euclidean manner
could correctly describe the spatial and temporal qualities and
entities, as well as their spatial and temporal relationships to
each other. However, nowhere is the attempt to have "infinity"
included. No matter how many entities we lay out in the manner I
described, it will always be a finite number of entities.
Indefiniteness only refers to the fact that we can always
introduce one more into the succession, and there will be
nothing except our own natures and the natures of entities
involved to prevent us from doing it. (I.e., if we are fysically
tired and the entities repel each other, then continuing this
placement would be difficult at best, but if both our capacities
to place the entities and their capacities to remain thus placed
exist, no inherent property of existence can ever stop us.)
Mr. Apollo wrote, "You're attempting to get around the issue by
saying that only entities exist. It is true that only entities
exist, but they exist within a context with each other which
prevents such actions as being able to lay them out
'indefinitely.'"
How so? On what basis do you make such a blanket assertion about
the nature of all entities in general? Do you have your
evidence in ubiquitous observation, or in logical deduction, or
some combination of the two? On the contrary, I know that both
ubiquitous observation and logical deduction support my
position. Everywhere we look, we observe that no entity has an
inherent "cap" on how long it can exist-- only its
nature determines the age it will reach, and, by modifications
to its nature, it can always extend its possible age. This,
then, must be true of both the entity which arranges and the
entities which are arranged in my example. Furthermore, given
knowledge of entities' properties, man has always been able to
arrange them in ways that yield greater measurements of
desirable qualities than had existed before. It is nothing short
of a claim to intellectual omniscience to state that, no matter
how much we learn about the natures of entities, there will
always be something preventing us from manipulating these
entities in a way that does not violate what we know about their
natures. There is no basis in ubiquitous observation for such a
claim, and thus any _expression of it is unfounded.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "As for the concept 'limit,' you misinterpret
my usage of it because you actually do conceive of the universe
as being Euclidean (extending outwards in straight lines), which
it is not."
The universe does not "extend out in straight lines," because it
cannot extend, period. The lines are not properties of the
universe qua universe. The linear extension exists only
in the context of entitles, because every dimensional quality of
every particular entity is by necessity linear. (To say that it
is anything but is absurd. A circle implies by its definition
measurement parameters in two dimensions, and one does not equal
two. The same is true of any shape other than a line; zigzags,
parabolas, arcs, and circles can never be representative of
single dimensions.) Only when we have two or more entities
simultaneously, or the ability to relate a single entity's past,
present, and/or future positions, do we get the possibility of
linear measurements of the "space" between entities, which is
just an _expression of how far from another entity or from
itself at a given time a certain entity is. This is a
relationship which can conceivably have any magnitude
whatsoever, but must have some finite magnitude. This is what I
mean by the concept of indefiniteness and the assertion that
there is no limit to existence as such.
Mr. Apollo writes, "Take the case of several objects being
arranged in a circle. There is a 'limit,' in such a scenario,
as to how we could apply the concepts 'to the left of' and 'to
the right of,' or also 'extends outwards.' It wouldn't make
sense to say that something is 'to the left of' something else,
if we had to go all the way around the circle. In that case,
the concepts 'left' and 'right' lose their meaning, because
everything would be to the left of and to the right of
everything else."
This statement involves several errors. First, your definitions
of "left" and "right" are not proper as, in a circle, there
cannot be a single linear vector to describe the direction
"left" and a vector of opposite magnitude to describe the
direction "right;" If you have entities A, B, and C, where C is
"right" of B and B is "right" of A, the vector you draw from C
to B will be directed in a wholly different manner from the
vector you draw from B to A. You cannot logically describe this
a single dimensional relationship, because you would need at
least two dimensions to relate the two vectors to each other.
Thus, strictly speaking, the terms "left" and "right" are
inapplicable when arranging entities in a circle. "Left" and
"right," when I speak of arranging entities as I do, refer
strictly to a one-dimensional linear arrangement (the only sort
of linear arrangement there is). This linear arrangement can
take place when combining the parameters of any three spatial
qualities of entities arranged in such a fashion, provided that
the relationship of these parameters always maintains a definite
proportion and directional orientation. (That is, you can
arrange entities along the diagonal between their width and
height, or the diagonal among their length, width, and height,
provided that the relationships of length, width, and height
always remain constant for the entitles thus arranged.)
Second, in order for the arrangement of entities in a circle to
be the inherent outcome when we try to arrange entities
linearly, "circularity" would need to be an inherent property of
the universe qua universe. There would need to be some
"universal fabric" which facilitates a "circular path" onto
which all entities are inevitably placed, and this begs the
question of what this fabric consists of, if not entities. In
fact, no such fabric can exist, because the universe is not an
entity in itself. Rather, the universe permits any sort
of spatial arrangement of entities, given that the natures of
said arrangements are recognized and observed. A circular
arrangement will never extend indefinitely, because it can by
definition encompass only a certain amount of certain entities
whose number cannot be increased without breaking the specific
circle. A linear arrangement, on the other hand, can encompass
any amount of a certain type of entities, though it
always has to be some finite amount. A linear
arrangement can never be a circular arrangement, and vice versa.
In a linear arrangement, we cannot "go over" the same entities
time and again, as we might in a circular one, because a linear
arrangement, by its nature, does not permit such repetition. The
two arrangements are not analogous in that regard.
Mr. Apollo writes, "As to whether all the entities of existence
exist within such a circular context with each other is a matter
for science to decide and explain."
This is precisely the sort of task that is not the
province of the specific-observational sciences to explain. They
must accept as a given, derived from ubiquitous observation,
that entities can be arranged in any manner combining three
linearly measurable spatial parameters, and proceed only to
study the natures of specific arrangements of this sort. No
amount of specific observation can ever contradict ubiquitous
observation, which is the province of rational cosmology and is
prior to the "hard sciences."
Mr. Apollo wrote, "This is an example of the application of
concepts having limits, as AR mentions in IOE. When we say
'table,' we don't include the possibility that a table exists
with is 6 million lights years tall."
While it is true that we know of no such tables, and the
engineering difficulty in building them would be tremendous, it
would be nothing short of a claim to omniscience to state that
some extremely advanced civilization would not someday be able
to amass the knowledge, skill, and desire to build one such
table. Even if it never happens (because I fail to see why
somebody would want to create such a table), the fact
remains that there is nothing which inherently rules out out the
possibility of such a table being created, other than the
natures of the entities involved in creating it.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "To speak about our ability to 'arrange'
objects is to impose a primacy-of-consciousness view onto
reality (i.e., onto the things that exist) even if we say there
is a physical process involved. The question is not what *we*
can do our imagine, but what actually exists. Do entities
actually exist which extend outwards 'indefinitely'? The answer
is no (because the statement has no meaning)."
First, our capacity to arrange objects fysically is about as
real as reality gets. Second, entities which extend outwards
indefinitely are encountered frequently. Take two boxes,
arranged one after the other. They are arrayed indefinitely,
because, if we found a fysical means to do it, we could place a
third box such that the three would be linearly arranged. We
could place a fourth box, a seventeenth box, a 10^65th box, once
again, given that we had the means and the will. The two boxes
are arrayed indefinitely, because they do not run up against
some sort of "universal wall" which would prevent the extension
of their array, or even the distancing of the boxes from each
other.
Mr. Apollo, " Euclidean geometry does not apply all at once to
*all* the entities that exist in existence, only some of them,
in any one particular application of it."
The Euclidean geometry is a method we use to study the
entities, and thus it is true that it cannot apply to all of
them simultaneously, since we cannot study all of them
simultaneously. But the Euclidean qualities, the
dimensions of space and time, do exist simultaneously
in all entities of the universe, seeing as all which presently
exists exists simultaneously and exhibits the nature it does at
the same time, whether or not we are here to observe the
particular nature of a given particular entity. Existence
exists, and each entity has the qualities it has, independent of
whether or not these qualities are being observed.
I am
G. Stolyarov II Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: Note the line-by-line specificity, impersonality, and analytical thoroughness of the arguments here. I am ready to flesh out entire small mathematical models just to demonstrate my point. All of my disagreements with Mr. Apollo are expressed under the consideration that his arguments are false, and would lead to a false claim of omniscience. However, this is a far smaller intellectual accusation than the "primacy of consciousness" one that he has kept repeating and one that carries much less stigma in the Objectivist community. It simply amounts to the claim that a given argument is not warranted by the scope of logical and empirical evidence presently available. While I did not expect Mr. Apollo to back down, I did at the time view him as of sufficient integrity to respond to my message in kind. Message 7: From Adrian Apollo: July 11, 2005:
Wow.... There's quite a lot of mental gymnastics going on here
and I'm afraid it would require about $5000 worth of my time
to unravel it. I will try to chip away at it as it coincides
with my available time and interest.
For now, all I can say is that, in regards to your conception
of how Euclidean geometry applies to reality, you are guilty
of the fallacy of "reification," which means, in this case:
taking a concept of method and trying to make it a concept of
entities. (A similar example would be when a person says that
reality is "continuous," because he tries to reify the "real
numbers.")
Euclidean geometry is a method, and only a method. It arises
out of our analysis of how limited numbers of entities relate
to each other on a local level. The attempt to introduce the
pseudo-concept "indefinite," in this case, represents the
attempt to smuggle in the concept of infinity by giving it
another name. In actuality, the number of entities in the
universe must be finite (because existence has identity).
Therefore, the "indefiniteness" in question cannot exist based
on that fact alone. If the number of entities in the universe
is finite, then they cannot extend "indefinitely" (or be
arranged in a linear row in an "indefinite" fashion, if you
want to avoid using the word "extend.")
It is you, not me, who is claiming omniscience, when you claim that arrangements of entities extending outwards at right angles would *continue* to be at right angles with each other no matter how far out the arrangements extended. It is a matter of the special sciences to determine what would happen in such a scenario. There's no way you could predict what would happen in advance, based simply on the qualities and relationships of entities observed on a small scale. Other relationships may exist amongst the objects which may only be manifested on the large scale.
It is you who is positing, on a primacy-of-consciousness
basis, that every scenario that could exist should be regarded
as being embedded in a Euclidean geometrical system. In my
example of left and right in the circle, I was defining "left"
and "right" in the context of that circle. For you to object
on the basis that "left" and "right" can only have meaning
when it applies to scenarios embedded in a Euclidean system is
arbitrary on your part.
Yes, there does indeed exist the possibility that there are
inherent properties of objects which could stop us from
arranging them linearly "indefinitely" at right angles to each
other. For you to rule that out by fiat is to make a
Rationalistic pronouncement and claim omniscience.
You write: 'Second, in order for the arrangement of entities
in a circle to be the inherent outcome when we try to
arrange entities linearly, "circularity" would need to be an
inherent property of the universe qua universe. There
would need to be some "universal fabric" which facilitates a
"circular path" onto which all entities are inevitably placed,
and this begs the question of what this fabric consists of, if
not entities. In fact, no such fabric can exist, because the
universe is not an entity in itself.'
This is totally and completely false. IF (a big "if") the
universe could be described as being hyperspherical or
hyperspheroidal, that does not require the existence of such a
"fabric" conception, but would only mean that that is how the
entities in the universe relate to each other. You are
throwing the baby out with the bath water here.
What we *do* know is that reality is *not* embedded in a
global Euclidean system, since such would be impossible and
unfathomable. Trying to assert such results in a
contradiction and produces a meaningless utterance. It's
reification.
Adrian
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: Mr. Apollo is showing the first signs of intellectual sloth by refusing to be as thorough in picking through my arguments as I have been regarding his. This is the first mild sign that the paradigm of the debate is moving away from the necessary presumption of the intellectual equality of the contenders. In this shift is implied the notion that I can be thorough, but Mr. Apollo does not have to. Of course, this message was somewhat thorough, and I still gave Mr. Apollo the benefit of the doubt, assuming that either he has legitimate other commitments consuming his time or that the "Wow" comment was meant as a veiled compliment for my thoroughness. Mr. Apollo tries to turn around the omniscience accusation, which I am still comfortable with. I will try to respond in the next letter by turning the claim back onto him. Message 8: From G. Stolyarov II: July 12, 2005:
Greetings.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "For now, all I can say is that, in
regards to your conception of how Euclidean geometry applies
to reality, you are guilty of the fallacy of 'reification,'
which means, in this case: taking a concept of method and
trying to make it a concept of entities. (A similar example
would be when a person says that reality is 'continuous,'
because he tries to reify the 'real numbers.')"
I am not guilty of the above fallacy, because I am not
trying to conceive of Euclidean geometry in itself
as an entity or a quality. I explain this in quite extensive
depth in Chapter III. Rather, I am only stating that 1)
Euclidean geometry is a perfect method for evaluating the
spatial qualities of entities and that 2) there are real
properties which the methods of Euclidean geometry
study, otherwise, Euclidean geometry would not have been a
useful method for studying entities. Because Euclidean
geometry is a perfect method for studying real spatial
properties, it follows that the real spatial properties are
described perfectly by this method.
The perfect validity of the Euclidean method can be
ascertained through what I would consider common sense. The
shortest distance between any two entities is a straight
line. In order to measure a given dimensional quality, it is
nonsensical and arbitrary to propose anything but uniform,
linear units of measure. When we combine this insight with
ubiquitous observation, we understand that any entity
requires three, and only three, linear parameters to measure
its spatial expanse and one parameter to measure its
accumulation of time.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "In actuality, the number of entities in the universe must be finite (because existence has identity). Therefore, the 'indefiniteness' in question cannot exist based on that fact alone. If the number of entities in the universe is finite, then they cannot extend 'indefinitely' (or be arranged in a linear row in an 'indefinite' fashion, if you want to avoid using the word 'extend.')"
Even if the number of entities in the universe is finite,
this still does not rule out my argument. For my argument to
hold, there only need to be at least two entities separated
spatially or at least one entity capable of changing its
position with respect to time. Two entities can have any
magnitude of separation distance which does not violate the
particular natures of those entity. Similarly, an entity
once at position A can conceivably move any number of units
away from position A and still have this be possible,
provided that the entity's particular nature facilitates
this.
Yes, each individual entity is limited in all of its
qualities at any given temporal instant. But there is no
such thing as a "universal" limit outside the limits of
individual entities.
Furthermore, even though the law of conservation of matter
must hold, it is possible for new entities to be
created. Consider entity X splitting up into two entities of
an identical shape and volume, but with each entity half as
dense as entity X. This is within the law of conservation of
matter, and it allows for one more entity to come about than
previously existed. Now, consider what would happen
if we had a linear arrangement of entities like X, and we
were able to arrange all such entities in existence in this
fashion. Still, the arrangement is indefinite, because
entity X could split into two lighter entities of identical
shape and volume, and make the arrangement one entity
longer. In this case, there is always a finite number of
entities in existence, and yet the principle of
indefiniteness holds.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "It is you, not me, who is claiming
omniscience, when you claim that arrangements of entities
extending outwards at right angles would *continue* to be at
right angles with each other no matter how far out the
arrangements extended. "
I am not claiming omniscience, because a universe of
entities with Euclidean spatial properties is the only
universe which facilitates virtually any
conceivable arrangement of entities (and an arrangement in
more than three spatial dimensions does not qualify, because
it is not conceivable). Thus, my theory is the only one that
does not inherently rule out any particular shape
in which entities can be arranged, or the distance
separation between them. It is possible for entities to be
arranged in an extremely large circle in such a universe,
but the only requirements for this arrangement are that it
not contradict its own nature, i.e., exhibit the
properties of some other incompatible arrangement, such as a
linear one. And of course, along with the large circular
arrangement, others are possible that the circular
arrangement does not nullify.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "It is a matter of the special sciences to
determine what would happen in such a scenario. There's no
way you could predict what would happen in advance, based
simply on the qualities and relationships of entities
observed on a small scale. Other relationships may exist
amongst the objects which may only be manifested on the
large scale."
What my theory seeks to bring about is a knowledge of
ubiquitous properties which all entities have.
The special sciences cannot furnish this knowledge, because
they by definition depend on particular experiments. A
particular experiment, via the inherently limited scope of
its examination, can only give us an understanding of the
properties of particular entities-- it can never provide
sufficient information to generalize about all entities, no
matter what they are or what their particular measurements
might be. Only ubiquitous observation can furnish the raw
material out of which fundamental existential
generalizations can be deduced. Only those
observations that we cannot escape in the course of our
functional, daily lives can be used to make universally
applicable logical conclusions, and Euclidean space/time,
without a single demonstration to the contrary, has been
such an observation.
As for relationships among entities, while it is true that
other relationships might exist on a smaller or larger
scale, they can never violate the relationships and
qualities we do know to exist and be universally applicable.
Thus, no matter how extremely small subatomic particles or
vast stars interact with one another, they must always
exhibit the Euclidean spatiotemporal qualities. A specific
discovery can never invalidate ubiquitous observation, or
render it any less than ubiquitous. Any statement to the
contrary is a concession that man's sensory perception of
space and time is invalid.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "In my example of left and right in the
circle, I was defining 'left' and 'right' in the context of
that circle. For you to object on the basis that 'left' and
'right' can only have meaning when it applies to scenarios
embedded in a Euclidean system is arbitrary on your part."
What I maintain is that all definitions must
consistently refer to the same existents. If, within a
given scope of observation, "left" is defined as being one
vector in one instance and a wholly different
vector in every other instance, then there is inconsistent,
equivocal application of the definition. In the course of
any integrated system of observations that we seek to make,
we need to establish a single definition of "left" (or any
other term) and stick to it. The only consistent way to do
this is to define "left" and "right" along a linear
continuum, which ensures that they always refer to the same
vector. Thus, Euclidean geometry is the only fully
consistent method for measuring the real spatial qualities
of entities and for using the terms, "left" and "right"
accurately.
What is arbitrary is your decision to skip from one
definition of a given term to another at your convenience,
within the same system of observations. This would be the
equivalent of a person defining measurement units by
switching definitions: the span from zero meters to one
meter is twice as long as the span from one meter to two
meters. Surely, with such sloppy use of definitions, the
very meaning and utility of measurement units would be
eliminated, just as, with your usage of "left" and "right,"
the meaning and utility of those terms is eliminated, and
they could be molded to say whatever you want them to say.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "Yes, there does indeed exist the
possibility that there are inherent properties of objects
which could stop us from arranging them linearly
'indefinitely' at right angles to each other. For you to
rule that out by fiat is to make a Rationalistic
pronouncement and claim omniscience."
Those "inherent properties" would belong to particular
objects and particular objects only. If a
given type of entity is incapable of being thus arranged,
this says nothing about any other type of entity,
because this property is not ubiquitous. This property is
not ubiquitous because it has not been ubiquitously and
inescapably observed by healthy, functional human beings,
and must therefore belong to only some entities, and not
others, if such a property exists in the first place.
On the "circularity" of the universe, Mr. Apollo wrote,
"This is totally and completely false. IF (a big 'if') the
universe could be described as being hyperspherical or
hyperspheroidal, that does not require the existence of such
a 'fabric' conception, but would only mean that that is how
the entities in the universe relate to each other. You are
throwing the baby out with the bath water here."
First, the description of the universe as having
any "shape" whatsoever implies the description of the
universe as having properties qua universe, which
is an improper view of the universe as an entity. If it is
not an entity, it cannot have a shape, and entities can
conceivably arranged in any manner whatsoever, provided that
this manner is itself and exhibits its own properties, not
the properties of an arrangement which it is not.
Furthermore, any "shape" is a shape of something,
implying that it is matter which is shaped in this
way. Either you will have to concede the false "universal
fabric" premise to give matter to the shape (though you will
still have to explain the contradiction of why this matter
is massless), or you will admit that it is not a shape of
something, and therefore cannot be the shape of the
universe, since the universe cannot have any shape, not
being an entity in itself which is composed of matter that
is strictly a property of the entity, "universe."
Yes, entities with Euclidean qualities can be arranged in a
sferical manner and thus relate to each other; my model of
the universe does not rule this out. What it rules out is
the contradiction of a non-sferical arrangement (such as a
linear one) also being a sferical arrangement.
Mr. Apollo wrote, "What we *do* know is that reality is
*not* embedded in a global Euclidean system, since such
would be impossible and unfathomable. Trying to assert such
results in a contradiction and produces a meaningless
utterance."
Claiming that it is impossible does not make it so,
especially when all the evidence of the senses, in every
single instance, is arrayed against such a claim. Not
only is the Euclidean system devoid of contradictions, but
it is the only system for explaining spatiotemporal
qualities which is entirely free of contradictions.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: This is, again, written in my style of expressing actual ideas in some depth and responding to claims in a point-by-point fashion. There is the discussion of whose claims are "arbitrary," and I turn back Mr. Apollo's arbitrariness accusation onto him in the definition of "left" and "right" debate. This is still appropriate, as it is the arguments that are being called arbitrary (i.e., unwarranted), not the people involved. The next message, however, was the critical "breaking point" of the discussion. Message 9: From Adrian Apollo: July 12, 2005:
"I am not claiming omniscience, because a universe of
entities with Euclidean spatial properties is the only
universe which facilitates virtually any
conceivable arrangement of entities (and an arrangement in
more than three spatial dimensions does not qualify, because
it is not conceivable)."
Mr. Stolyarov,
Please do yourself a favor and learn about Rationalism
before you announce to the world that you are following Ayn
Rand's philosophy. This paragraph above is the
quintessential Rationalistic argument. You are not
*inducing* your ideas from entities, but are rather
attempting to *deduce* their properties starting from ideas.
I cannot explain it to you more clear than that.
Other than that, it is very clear from your writings that
you are attempting to have the *shape* of a universal fabric
*without* the fabric itself! The entities of the universe
are not embedded in an empty Euclidean fabric-less shell, as
your premises seem to show.
Do yourself a favor and show that paragraph to an
Objectivist leader whom you trust. They will immediately
recognize that it is Rationalistic. Perhaps then you will
decided it is worth your while to reevaluate your method of
reasoning. Please!
Adrian
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: Mr. Apollo, whose standards of conduct had hitherto gradually declined, has now crossed the bounds of propriety. He has first evaded an entire lengthy post where I had addressed his claims in depth. Implicit in that decision was the statement that he did not expect of himself the same degree of intellectual rigor or thoroughness as I had assumed in the debate. Along with intellectual sloth, Mr. Apollo has displayed intellectual contempt for his opponent, accusing him of being ignorant of Objectivism (or the filosofy that he is accused of asserting) simply because of an honest disagreement. At the same time, Mr. Apollo's argument includes an unconditional appeal to authority which is the true un-Objectivist claim here. I presume that Mr. Apollo had realized that he could not contend with my arguments in precision and thoroughness. Thus, he has employed the "shortcut" tactic of attacking the person (ad hominem) and poisoning the well against him, so as to make him seem ignorant and, therefore, for his arguments to appear inherently unworthy before they are presented or examined. Mr. Apollo will capitalize on this later, and will never again regain any standard of propriety. Message 10: From G. Stolyarov II: July 12, 2005:
Mr. Apollo,
Your accusation of Rationalism holds no merit, because you
ignore the fact that my method is inductive in its basic
step: in the fact that I use as my fundamental data the
observations that no healthy, functional human being can
avoid making. Since no particular experiment can refine
them, the only further way to study this type of
observation is deductive. All I am claiming is that
knowledge of the validity of Euclidean space/time does not
depend on some particular observation, but rather
on any set of observations whatsoever which human
beings can make and do make.
It is your method which is fundamentally
Empiricist-Positivist, in that you claim that any
conclusion can only be based on some particular
observation, therefore not only ruling out the deductive
method (and thus logic itself), but also improperly
extending the narrow scope of a given experimental
observation onto the entire universe and holding the
universe to be as limited as that experimental observation
(which is essentially the error of modern science's
attempt to make existential generalizations, an occupation
which is not its legitimate province).
No particular entity can give us the answer to
fundamental questions as to what the spatiotemporal
qualities are. Only those properties which are, without
exception, observed in all entities we encounter on a
daily basis can do this. In fact, you are
ignoring genuine induction by neglecting this, the most
fundamental caliber of observation.
Furthermore, I must ask you, how is it even possible to
have the ideas of Euclidean geometry (or any idea
of what space, time, or any other ubiquitous quality is)
without having performed observations of real entities at
some point, and realized that the concepts and methods of
Euclidean geometry had to be observed in real entities in
the first place? All that I am claiming is that the entity
observed could be any entity and does not have to
be some particular one in order for it to give
the Euclidean method what it needs to function.
What we know from ubiquitous observation is that all
entities can be related to each other spatially by three
parameters and temporally by one. To say that there are
any other restrictions to these relations which are
broader than the restrictions existing due to the natures
of particular entities, and yet which are not derived from
ubiquitous observation, is to claim omniscience. The only
way not to claim omniscience is to state that we
cannot rule out any conceivable arrangement until we know
the entities involved. This can only be done by conceding
Euclidean space/time. How this is a Rationalistic
pronouncement rather than an attempt to avoid blatant
Empiricism-Positivism, I know not.
Furthermore, a universe of entities with Euclidean
spatiotemporal properties is the only universe which does
not have a shape! Could you please describe
to me the shape you are alleging the model of my
universe has? Where are its boundaries? All shapes must
have boundaries in at least one dimension, or else the
very concept of "shape" becomes absurd and inapplicable.
It is precisely because the universe is not an entity that it cannot have a shape, in which case space/time must be Euclidean, because it is only in this way that we can rule out any restrictions to the arrangement of entities outside the nature of those entities themselves.
As for your latter request, I hold no authority above that
of my rational mind; anyone may feel free to disagree with
me and try to convince me of the validity of their
disagreement, but I will not take something I disagree
with to be the truth simply because a particular
person, no matter who he/she may be, says it. I do
not need the pronouncements of authorities external to
myself to justify the validity of ideas which have their
basis in reason, common sense, and the unavoidable
evidence of the senses.
I am G. Stolyarov II Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: I am patient and slow to judge, perhaps too much so. Instead of immediately recognizing a personal accusation and ending the debate, I once again counter the accusation directly by showing its falsehood through logic and saying nothing about the person making it. I also note here that Mr. Apollo has been mistaken enough to accept the very same critical fallacy I had refuted in the first chapter of A Rational Cosmology, the fallacy of empiricism-positivism. Message 11: From Adrian Apollo: July 12, 2005:
You're going to have to start making these e-mails
shorter, because if I see flaws in your basic premises,
I'm not going to go into every branch of your reasoning.
I only have the time and patience to discuss the most
fundamental ideas with you.
" All I am claiming is that knowledge of the validity of
Euclidean space/time does not depend on some
particular observation, but rather on any set of
observations whatsoever which human beings can make
and do make. "
Your "any set of observations whatsoever" phrase is
Rationalistic. (The "whatsoever" is the key word that
shows you are jumping into a Rationalistic realm of
reasoning.) True inductive reasoning *generalizes* from
particulars. It can never leap into a combinatorial or
Rationalistic realm of considering all "possible" cases.
That is a false and Rationalistic use of the concept of
"possibility."
Adrian
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: This is now sheer condescension on Mr. Apollo's part. He does not see it worth his while to discuss this matter with any degree of thoroughness, but he patronizingly throws me a bone by offering to discuss only the "fundamentals." Whatever the fundamentals of this debate are now, in Mr. Apollo's opinion, they were not that way when we started. As the reader will notice, the territory of this debate has clearly shifted due to Mr. Apollo's constant attempts to hammer me in another place when he cannot respond to my original defenses of the integrity of my system. The root of all of this is intellectual laziness on Mr. Apollo's part. He does not wish to read a lot, write a lot, or think a lot about anything except what he falsely defines as a fundamental based on where he can attack me the best at the given moment. He does, however, wish to win, and thinks that he will have higher chances by presuming himself my intellectual superior "gracing" me with the gift of his time. If there is one thing I cannot stand, it is sloth. Message 12: From G. Stolyarov II: July 12, 2005:
Mr. Apollo,
You write, "True inductive reasoning *generalizes* from
particulars. It can never leap into a combinatorial or
Rationalistic realm of considering all "possible" cases."
I would advise you to read Chapter I of A Rational
Cosmology. Here, you have essentially conceded the
mentality of Empiricism-Positivism.
"Very mildly put, empiricism-positivism
holds, as its fundamental tenet, that any assertion, no
matter how general, depends on some particular
observation."
As I show, this mentality is devastating for science, and even leads one to deny the axioms, because the axioms are implicitly known by every human being once that person has made any observation whatsoever, thus indicating that the axioms, and all of filosofy, are learned by the method I have described. I am Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: This is an extremely short e-mail. Whatever improprieties he has displayed, I am still willing to accommodate Mr. Apollo's request, because I remain open to the possibility that he means well. I do refer him to a more thorough work which displays his fallacies on this issue. Message 13: From Adrian Apollo: July 12, 2005:
Mr. Stolyarov,
No, no, no! Double and triple no!
This link above (that you wrote) shows clearly that you
have not carefully studied "Objectivism: The Philosophy
of Ayn Rand" by Leonard Peikoff and you do *not*
understand the concept of "contextual
absoluteness," which is the bedrock of Objectivism. You
have no conception of the Objectivist position on how
knowledge is induced from particulars, and how, once it
is properly induced, it is contextually absolute.
Please, Mr. Stolyarov. Are you being honest with
yourself? I don't see how you could be an honest thinker
and write what you do. Your understanding of
Objectivism is very, very weak. You are promulgating a
false interpretation of Objectivism which is very, very
injurious to the Objectivist movement. Please honor Ayn
Rand's request and do *not* call yourself an
Objectivist, if you have any respect for Ayn Rand at
all.
Adrian Apollo
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: Now, the personal accusations have become dire, and all the falser for it. In truth, I have read Peikoff's book, cited Peikoff's book elsewhere, and agree with what he writes there! My only disagreement is with Mr. Apollo, who fails to show how Peikoff's ideas on contextual certainty support exclusively his point of view and not mine. Mr. Apollo simply uses Peikoff's book as a "trump card" against me, without justifying his accusation in any way. This is, again, a device to make him seem intellectually superior and to cast me as inherently ignorant, and dishonest, to add to the avalanche of personal insults. Message 14: From G. Stolyarov II: July 12, 2005:
Mr. Apollo,
This is a plainly unsubstantiated accusation on your part.
1) I have read Peikoff's book and have even cited it in my
other works; it is not my understanding of the contents
therein that is weak, it is your willingness to violate
the sacred cow which is twentieth-century "science" and
extend the principles of Objectivism to their logical
conclusion that is lacking.
2) Your accusations are not supported by specific
evidence, examples, and analysis. You are essentially
claiming that I am wrong and ignorant of Objectivism
without saying why. I wonder, is that an Objectivist thing
to do?
3) You have failed to answer my most essential challenge:
Are the axioms of Objectivism induced from some single
specific observation or set thereof, or can they be
induced by observing anything whatsoever? If
you advocate the former claim, what specific observation
(or set thereof) is required to reach the axioms?
I am
G. Stolyarov II
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: I am evidently not pleased here, yet I maintain the required civility. I do not personally insult Mr. Apollo, instead only pointing out that he is wrong to unconditionally rely on the validity of 20th century "science" as he does, and questioning whether his tone in prior messages was compatible with Objectivist ethics. Furthermore, I myself try to confront him on the "new" fundamentals of this debate (i.e., to beat him at his own game) and try to steer him back into the realm of actual argument. Alas, my techniques work only on honest argumentators, and Mr. Apollo, in his next message, clearly shows that he is not one. Message 15: From Adrian Apollo: July 12, 2005:
If you don't know the Objectivist response to 3, then how
can you possibly claim to be an Objectivist or even be
knowledgeable of it. This is Objectivism 101.
Yes, the axioms of Objectivism are *induced* from
observations, many of them! They are high-level
abstractions which are the result of many chains of
inductions (and deductions which are dependent upon those
inductions).
I *did* say why! You clearly have no conception
whatsoever of the Objectivist position of contextual
absoluteness, which is certainly not in accord with the
popular philosophical positions of the 20th century ideas
you reference.
Please, Mr. Stolyarov. I have had enough of this. Be an
honest intellectual and try to *understand* OPAR, rather
than just quote from it.
Your idea about the axioms being "implicit" in one's
thinking is so obviously Kantian that any Objectivist
worth his salt would recognize it right away. You are
either philosophically incompetent, or dishonest (or some
combination thereof.) Please don't insult my intelligence
by continuing in your M.O.
Kant is the enemy of Objectivism. You are positioning
yourself into being an intellectual enemy of Objectivism.
Enough said.
AA
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: The first paragraf above is plainly evasive and dishonest. I had already known the answer to #3 before I posed the question (the answer is the second alternative in the dilemma). The question itself was a device used to get Mr. Apollo to see the fallacy in the first alternative by stating it clearly. And, indeed, that question was at the core of our disagreement, and, if Mr. Apollo wanted to maintain the impression that he could win the argument, he had to blank out on it and dishonestly accuse me of being the nemesis of Objectivism in an attempt to avoid the issue. The accusation regarding OPAR is sheer snobbery. In no intellectual is an understanding of a work is more thorough than in one who has not only read the book, but also applied its contents to further analysis of his own. (My copy of OPAR is filled with underlines and marginal comments from cover to cover.) Mr. Apollo is, in effect, stating that, no matter whether I have read and applied the book, I will never "understand" it. That faculty is the arcane, exclusive province of him and those agree with his particular positions in this debate. Finally, Mr. Apollo brings Kant into this exchange for the first time. Ayn Rand detested Kant (perhaps too vehemently so), and this sort of accusation is among the gravest in Objectivist circles. I note that I had not once mentioned Kant or supported anything he wrote in this debate. Message 16: From G. Stolyarov II: July 12, 2005:
Greetings.
This is ridiculous.
Is this how an Objectivist purports to deal with somebody
who honestly disagrees with him on an extremely complex
issue? To launch unwarranted accusations, without knowing
the person, what he has read, what he has contemplated,
and what his intentions are? To claim that somebody who
disagrees with his unthinking acceptance of 20th-century
"science" is a Kantian? (Please note that I had not once
mentioned Kant in this entire exchange, nor will you find
me citing him in a supportive manner anywhere on The
Rational Argumentator.)
Clearly, you are 1) psychologizing, 2) unable to hold a
tolerant, civil discourse, and 3) demanding unconditional
acceptance of your view (which neither Rand nor Peikoff
had ever offered support for) as a criterion for being a
"friend of Objectivism" or even not being an enemy
thereof. It is you, with your inquisitorial
tactics, who would be the true foe of Objectivism, if
there is one between the two of us.
Finally, I do know the Objectivist response to my
#3. I also know that it is not in line with your
response. I was asking the question deliberately to
indicate the contradiction. You equivocated in your
response in that you failed to answer whether or not some
single set of observations is necessary to induce
the axioms, and whether or not somebody who did not
experience that specific set of observations would not
have knowledge of the axioms.
It is my impression that you are desperate just to win the
argument, and not to ascertain the truth, and are
therefore beginning to launch ad hominem
accusations, seeing as you were not able to assert your
claims civilly and solely on their own merits.
I am
G. Stolyarov II Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: Indeed, my patience has expired, and I have pointed out the absurdity of Mr. Apollo's attacks. At this point, I will take no further nonsense from him. Any intricate intellectual facets of this debate that interested me have now vanished, and I am no longer in doubt as to Mr. Apollo's lack of integrity. This conviction took a while to obtain. Message 17: From Adrian Apollo: July 12, 2005:
No, my dear, sir. You do not read carefully. I assume
you simply do not want to hear what I am saying.
One, your knowledge of Objectivism is not extensive
enough to be portraying yourself as some sort of expert
on it. This is very, very clear, since you miss the
very clear explanation in OPAR of what contextual
certainty is.
I know very well you did not use the name Kant, but I am
saying that your philosophy is Kantian, whether you
realize it or not. If you don't understand that
distinction, then you're in over your head.
No, this is not ridiculous. I am offended that you
would portray yourself as being knowledgeable about
Objectivism, when you are obviously not. I am simply
telling you what you need to hear.
You continue to make reference to trends in 20th century
science to which I do not adhere. You would know this
if you understood the Objectivist position on contextual
certainty.
What is ridiculous is your ignorance of Dr. Peikoff's
portrayal of the Objectivist position on certainty on
pp. 171-181 of OPAR.
Please make your e-mails shorter and stick to the
essentials. I did not read your entire e-mail (below).
Adrian
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: Mr. Apollo here flaunts his blatant laziness as if it were an asset, bragging about how he did not read my extremely short Message 16. At this point, I was determined to tolerate his tone no longer. I invite everybody to read the pages Mr. Apollo had referenced. Nowhere will you find any refutation of any claim I had advanced. Quite the contrary, Peikoff's ideas are quite in line with my own on this (Peikoff even rejects quantum mechanics elsewhere, but that is a different subject). I will even furnish an excerpt as a post scriptum to this article, so as to demonstrate why Peikoff's words support my arguments, not Mr. Apollo's. Message 18: From G. Stolyarov II: July 13, 2005:
Mr. Apollo,
" I did not read your entire e-mail (below)."
If you are going to continue evading, blanking out, and
flatly and blatantly ignoring the other side's
arguments, then there is no further purpose to this
discussion. Your methods are clearly unfair,
condescending, and intellectually dishonest. Why is it
that it takes me nearly no effort whatsoever to read and
understand what you have written, while you are not even
willing to consider a similar level of commitment to
this discussion?
If you do not wish to discuss the actual arguments I
have made, fine. But I will not let this degenerate into
a one-sided shouting match with my moral sanction.
Either change your ways, apologize for all ad
hominem accusations you have made, or do not expect me
to respond further. Unless the word "Apology" appears in
the title of the next message you send, I will
automatically delete anything else I receive from you.
I am
G. Stolyarov II
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: I am, at this point, not interested in discussing anything with Mr. Apollo. He has behaved abominably, and must either admit the error of his insult-based methods, or not expect me to graciously take any more from him. Message 19: From Adrian Apollo, Subtitled "Wow!": July 13, 2005:
D-- and R--,
Wow..... Can you believe how Stolyarov is evading my
clear points by accusing me of evading when he is the
one who is evading? This is really incredible and very
revealing.
This guy totally distorts the Objectivist view on the
primacy of induction and certainty. Then when it is
pointed out to him that his ideas are obviously in
conflict with Ayn Rand's and Peikoff's, tries to avoid
addressing that fact by getting into all sorts of side
arguments and evading the main issue.
When I tell him I'm not going to pay attention to his
side arguments and I only want to stick to the main
issue (the fundamental premises), he accuses me of
evasion!
That's an interesting form of evasion on his part. Bury
your opponent in a smoke screen of side arguments while
avoiding the fundamental issues. Then when he tries to
get you to focus on the main issues, accuse him of
evading!
R--, are you promoting this guy on your ****** website?
I beg you to reexamine his work and reconsider. This
sort of thing is very harmful to Objectivism, when
somebody like this guy distorts it the way he does.
Adrian
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: I was ready to delete this message, when I recognized how telling it was of Mr. Apollo's true nature. Once Mr. Apollo realizes that I will not play along, he seeks to malign me to others, as if that will vindicate his conduct. He tries to punish me by influencing a break in a productive association of mine with another individual (who did not, to his credit, give in to Mr. Apollo's suggestion). Furthermore, he once again accuses me of violating the Objectivist view on certainty without stating what that view is! Had he done so outright, it would have been obvious that there is no conflict between my and Peikoff's systems. Then, he accuses me of evading that which he himself failed to bring into the debate! The irony here is that Mr. Apollo is twice an evader, once in regard to my claims, and the second time in regard to his own, evading the precise nature of what it was that Peikoff really wrote. Message 20: From Adrian Apollo, Subtitled, "Why I will not and do not need to apologize": July 13, 2005:
Mr. Stolyarov,
Come on now. Are you being honest with yourself?
How on earth can you charactize [sic] me as evading when
I have been trying to get you to address the fundamental
issues? When I say that I will not read or pay
attention to your side issues, that does not mean I am
evading the main one.
If you are honest with yourself, you will see that this
is a form of evasion on your part.
Your views are very, very clearly in conflict
with the Objectivist view of the primacy of induction
and contextual certainty. You want to keep dancing
around this fact and ignore me when I point it out to
you.
I am not evading at all. I have always been willing to
discuss and argue the fundamentals. Once I see that
your e-mail is evading the fundamental issue, I am under
no obligation to read your entire e-mail. If I bite
into a rotten egg, I don't have to eat the whole egg to
know that it is rotten.
Shame on you.
AA
Reflection by Mr. Stolyarov: The initial "fundamental" issue of this debate had been whether or not the spatiotemporal qualities were Euclidean, and Mr. Apollo had repeatedly shifted the debate's focus at his convenience, specifically to evade my successful attempts to defend myself. Let the reader judge for himself who has been the evader here. As a criterion for judgment, consider how many arguments from Mr. Apollo have I deemed fit to respond to, and how often Mr. Apollo has returned the favor. Instead of an apology, Mr. Apollo continued his barrage of accusations (the newest one being the "rotten egg," i.e., any idea he disagrees with). I will no longer allow my personal mailbox to be a forum for him to make these accusations. Nonetheless, he may seek to "warn" others about me in the future, and I am therefore compelled to publish the truth, so that there might be no doubt as to who was the better argumentator, and the more civil one, in this debate. From all this, I am left to induce a most important conclusion: no rational discourse is possible without the presumption of intellectual equality on both sides. This means that a given argumentator might think that his side is true and the other side is false, but, unless there exists a bilateral respect for the other side's intelligence, capacity to make rational arguments, and understanding of the subject, there cannot be a productive exchange of ideas. Mr. Apollo's conduct essentially reflected a sofisticated version of the sofomoric, "You're stupid!" argument. This is never a productive way to engage the other side. If one is losing a debate, he should recognize why and try his best to salvage the situation using his rational faculty. If he cannot, this means he should concede the validity of the position which had refuted his own. Under no conditions should he initiate insults against the other side. I am Post Scriptum: I have taken the liberty to cite here an excerpt from Peikoff's chapter on contextual certainty, in Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, pp. 179-180: "Once, when I was a college student, an instructor defending skepticism declared to the class: 'You think I am Professor X. But how do you know I'm not an impostor, a consummate actor taking the professor's place?' Transpose this question to your own situation. How can you be certain when you attend a lecture that it is Y, a man you know well, who is speaking, rather than an impostor? "In this case, the standard of validation is the direct testimony of your eyes and ears, as identified conceptually and then integrated to whatever other knowledge of yours is relevant. Judged by this standard, the proper conclusion to draw is outside the realm of doubt. All the available information-- everything you observe and everything you know-- leads to your identification of the speaker: the occasion, his appearance, his tone of voice, his facial expressions, his posture and gestures, the content of his prepared remarks, the quality of his extemporaneous jokes, his knowledge of your name and face, and so one. If a skeptic were to say: 'But man does have the ability to impersonate others; so isn't it at least possible that the speaker is an actor?' the reply would have to be: 'That is a non sequitur. On what basis do you claim someone's exercise of this human ability here and now? Is there an iota of evidence to support such a hypothesis in this context?' Of course, there is not." Now, to extrapolate this example onto my assertion that all spatiotemporal qualities are Euclidean in nature. If all available information, observed by human beings every moment of their existence, has supported this claim, and not a single iota of evidence has been found to the contrary, then does this not qualify for a proposition of which we can be contextually certain? When have we ever observed an entity whose spatiotemporal qualities were exhibited in any fashion but a Euclidean one? This is what I mean by ubiquitous observation, a quality or relationship that we observe persistently during our lives, cannot ultimately avoid observing, and which has never been absent in any entity we have observed. Can we not, by the standards Peikoff illustrates, be contextually certain of those ubiquitous observations' (and their logical derivatives') absolutism? How many times have I made this observation, and how many times has Mr. Apollo outright ignored it, and was proud of it? Might this also have been why Mr. Apollo hesitated referring to the particular arguments in Peikoff's book, that is, to avoid feeding my case further? G. Stolyarov II is a science fiction novelist, independent filosofical essayist, poet, amateur mathematician and composer, contributor to organizations such as Le Quebecois Libre, Enter Stage Right, the Autonomist, and Objective Medicine. Mr. Stolyarov is the Editor-in-Chief of The Rational Argumentator. He can be contacted at gennadystolyarovii@yahoo.com. Order Mr. Stolyarov's new comprehensive filosofical treatise, A Rational Cosmology, explicating such terms as the universe, matter, space, time, sound, light, life, consciousness, and volition, at http://www.lulu.com/content/140855. You only pay $2.50 for 81 electronic pages of in-depth reasoning. Free previews, descriptions, and information on A Rational Cosmology can be found at http://www.oocities.org/rational_argumentator/rc.html. Order Mr. Stolyarov's newest science fiction novel, Eden against the Colossus, in eBook form, here. You only pay $10.00, with no shipping and handling fees. You may also find free previews, descriptions and reviews of Eden against the Colossus at http://www.oocities.org/rational_argumentator/eac.html. Give feedback on this work at TRA's forum, which you can access at http://rationalarg.proboards24.com. Advertise your business or product permanen tly on TRA for a mere $1 donation to a worthy endeavor to combat human aging. Click here to learn more. Help bring about the cure for human aging within our lifetimes. Learn how you can help through the Chicago Methuselah Foundation Fund. Visit The Rational Argumentator's new Online Store. Visit TRA's Yahoo! Group, a means of notification and communication for our subscribers. You can find it at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/rationalargumentator. You can sign up by sending an e-mail to rationalargumentator-subscribe@yahoogroups.com. Click here to return to the Issue XXXVII index. Visit TRA's Superstructure Index, the most updated means of accessing everything TRA has to offer. Click here. Visit TRA's Master Index, a convenient way of navigating throughout the issues of the magazine. Click here. |
