Proofs, direct and indirect
Continuing my attempts to bring some kind of certainty to philosophy, this is an argument that unites perception and irrational numbers in that they are both ordinal and can only be proved indirectly. This depends on Rand's correct identification that the concept 'unit' is the base of all numbers and concepts. A 'unit' is conceptual. To see the difference between perceptual and conceptual just compare men to apes relative to the ability to integrate things into units. We (men and apes) see the same/similar world. 'Same" is a concept integrated from perceptual things that are similar. Thousands of years ago men knew what it meant to have two sons, two feet, two eyes, leading to the conclusion that "two" has an identity based on inductive evidence. We hold the abstraction absolutely because until put to use it can harm no one. The 'putting to use' is an example of mind/body integration. The abstract 'two' is proved every time units are united and has no theoretical meaning separate from experience. The practical result of Pythagoras is that mankind lost the ability to prove their numbers
Just over five years ago a man challenged me to prove that Rand is right. Implicit in the request was the idea that I could do it. You (kind reader) need to know that I was a 62 yr old gay male and the man was 25 and straight. My first chore was to relate reason to force so that he cold be sure this was safe to do. The problem with abstractions is that people can be dishonest. You might say that we negotiated a pact which said that we would discuss abstract ideas and that ideas, until used, are harmless abstractions. Take the abstraction 'two'. "two' has no particular existence, it derives its meaning from my knowing that I have two feet, two hands, two eyes, two parents, drawing the conclusion that 'two' means each of those integrations. Now, I can kick with my feet, hit with my hands, etc, but I can't DO anything with the concept two. 'Two' only becomes problematic when applied to pairs that are real. Rand ends the opening essay in "For the New Intellectual' with the naming of two conditions men must meet to gain trust. You have to promise to argue with cardinal (proved) ideas and you have to promise never to resort to force instead of an argument. Your integrity is measured by the facts that follow.
To the extent that I have successfully implemented the values of John Galt I have become visible to those who know those ideas whether they know who John Galt is or not. If I introspect and recall the relations in my life, the most significant have been those where reason was the implicit basis of the relation. What I have done this time is to make the role of reason explicit. Explicitness evokes a stronger emotional response, there is a relation between the power of your emotions and the reasons that support them.
Two unfinished ideas that I will try to finish later. think Kate will like them already.
Just over five years ago a man challenged me to prove that Rand is right. Implicit in the request was the idea that I could do it. You (kind reader) need to know that I was a 62 yr old gay male and the man was 25 and straight. My first chore was to relate reason to force so that he cold be sure this was safe to do. The problem with abstractions is that people can be dishonest. You might say that we negotiated a pact which said that we would discuss abstract ideas and that ideas, until used, are harmless abstractions. Take the abstraction 'two'. "two' has no particular existence, it derives its meaning from my knowing that I have two feet, two hands, two eyes, two parents, drawing the conclusion that 'two' means each of those integrations. Now, I can kick with my feet, hit with my hands, etc, but I can't DO anything with the concept two. 'Two' only becomes problematic when applied to pairs that are real. Rand ends the opening essay in "For the New Intellectual' with the naming of two conditions men must meet to gain trust. You have to promise to argue with cardinal (proved) ideas and you have to promise never to resort to force instead of an argument. Your integrity is measured by the facts that follow.
To the extent that I have successfully implemented the values of John Galt I have become visible to those who know those ideas whether they know who John Galt is or not. If I introspect and recall the relations in my life, the most significant have been those where reason was the implicit basis of the relation. What I have done this time is to make the role of reason explicit. Explicitness evokes a stronger emotional response, there is a relation between the power of your emotions and the reasons that support them.
Two unfinished ideas that I will try to finish later. think Kate will like them already.