11:14 two things labele on the folder 1)remains you what in the folder 2)allow you to organize the material in a logical way 19:00 yesterday homework 36:30 rules of definition 1)genus and differentia 2)reference 3)scope 4)fundamentality 5)unit-economy
Great lecture! However, there's one particular fact I want to point, which is about Ayn Rand being the first to discuss what gives rise to the need for definitions. Actually, the first to inquire about definitions was, Socrates and through his dialogue with Meno, he pointed out why it is important, and question after question, he had inferred why a definition should include all of the units that a concept integrates, and exclude all the non-units. Aristotle then based his guidelines for definition on that same dialogue of Meno.
I will restate the idea Binswanger had talked about @57:15 because I think it's so important: A concept is an integration by means of abstraction, in contrary to integration by means of summation. The concept of man is not a sum of all men, but the one identity that's left after ignoring all that which is different among men, or as Ayn Rand put it 'measurement omission', people tend to think that the concept is a folder that contains all the units inside because they understand integration as some kind of grouping in a larger sum. That's why someone like Russel can come and say that a concept is a contradiction, because the word concept is a group that contains all concepts, while it is by itself a concept, so, it is the whole and a part of the same whole... knowing that the whole is larger than any of its parts, he arrives at a contradiction. This is because of this subtle misunderstanding of the concept being a group that 'contains', while in real concept formation it is a device that abstracts, it reduces real concretes into one hypothetical unit that is concretized by a name and labeled by a definition.
Oops! ....Harry Binswanger got an historical fact wrong. 22:22 . ....The Romans (by the time of the eruption of Vesuvius near Pompeii in 79 A.D.) DID have glazed windows (and glass pitchers and other vessels, etc.). Glass making was expensive; so the glazed windows tended to be small in late Roman times, etc. But they acquired glass-making skill from Syria. I hadn't realized that myself except that I visited Italy and thus Pompeii and Herculaneum. Not only did they have all sorts of items made of glass, but some of their wall paintings were still-lifes featuring glass pitchers. (What's amazing is that in the Naples Museum and the Vatican Museum, they have complete, unbroken samples of pitchers -- at least a couple, drinking glasses, and various small bottles recovered and on display.)
As an architect, I define a window as an opening in a man-made space, that does not involve walking through. (Not exclusive to a building or a car! Think about airplanes, space shuttles, etc..) (The difference isn't exclusive to light/ventilation purposes, could just be opened in a museum to see some painting for example).
"You mean like the UN?" Suppose the anarchocapitalist could respond, "So rather, we should have a monopoly government?" The Objectivist responds "Yes, of course." "You mean like Nazi Germany?" Of course not, not that _type_ of government, the Objectivist could respond. Well sure, if the Objectivist, in supporting monopoly government, isn't committed to just any specific _type_ of government (he only wants one type), then the anarchocapitalist likewise isn't committed to any specific company or organization just because it came about in the absence of a monopoly. I'm not saying "ergo anarchy!" follows from this, I'm just pointing out Binswanger's argument isn't the best.
The UN is an example, though, not a comprehensive list of kinds. I don't think the argument is "all treaty organizations are the UN." I think it's a good example too, consider what the Friedman guy was saying. The argument is that such a things is a comparative example. Specifically, it's comparable in that the idea being discussed is whether anarcho-capitalism would entail conflict of all against all. It wouldn't automatically. If it didn't, there's a damn good chance it would resemble the UN. Why? Because some of such companies would represent a capitalist conception of rights and others might represent a communist perspective. So by having a treaty to negotiate peaceably with communists who don't recognize their thief-like actions as theft, you'd have to create a moral equivalency between those stolen from and those doing the stealing, to be arbitrated by treaty counsel of some kind. Is this what anarcho-capitalism would have to look like? Definitely not. It could simply devolve into brutality and bloodshed since different governing parties need to work within the same territory. I think that's actually more likely, not by reason of avarice but by reason of virtue. Like hell I'd agree to work with a contractor who has a treaty with communist contractors, when it comes to protecting my rights! My property is not negotiable, just like my life. Which is one reason Objectivists maintain that government is a necessary *good* rather than a necessary evil. By dint of our virtues, it is actually better to only have one government in a given geographical area since it prevents localized bloodshed on a day to day basis without requiring compromise with thugs, communists, and slavers.
The anarchist argument was that competing governments could work together with treaties, without specifying how. He is totally taking for granted that treaties solve conflicts. The UN example illustrates why that assumption is wrong. Objectivists on the other hand don't assume a government with a monopoly on force will act a certain way. The UN example leaves the anarchist right back where he started, which is nowhere. The Nazi Germany example just illustrates why we need the right kind of government, which Objectivists know and understand.
Sometimes objectivits repeat that anarcho-capitalism is a floating abstraction. Sometimes they say that we already have anarcho-capitalism. Sometimes they say 'Existence exists". Sometimes they say "only concretes exist." Interresting, considering that "existence" is not a concrete thing.
@@GeorgWilde Existence is the word used for "sum of all things that exist." And what's the least you can say about everything that exists? That it exists. There is no inconsistency here, you need to understand it properly. No comments on anarcho-capitalism.
11:14 two things labele on the folder
1)remains you what in the folder
2)allow you to organize the material in a logical way
19:00 yesterday homework
36:30 rules of definition
1)genus and differentia
2)reference
3)scope
4)fundamentality
5)unit-economy
Great lecture! However, there's one particular fact I want to point, which is about Ayn Rand being the first to discuss what gives rise to the need for definitions. Actually, the first to inquire about definitions was, Socrates and through his dialogue with Meno, he pointed out why it is important, and question after question, he had inferred why a definition should include all of the units that a concept integrates, and exclude all the non-units. Aristotle then based his guidelines for definition on that same dialogue of Meno.
I will restate the idea Binswanger had talked about @57:15 because I think it's so important: A concept is an integration by means of abstraction, in contrary to integration by means of summation. The concept of man is not a sum of all men, but the one identity that's left after ignoring all that which is different among men, or as Ayn Rand put it 'measurement omission', people tend to think that the concept is a folder that contains all the units inside because they understand integration as some kind of grouping in a larger sum. That's why someone like Russel can come and say that a concept is a contradiction, because the word concept is a group that contains all concepts, while it is by itself a concept, so, it is the whole and a part of the same whole... knowing that the whole is larger than any of its parts, he arrives at a contradiction. This is because of this subtle misunderstanding of the concept being a group that 'contains', while in real concept formation it is a device that abstracts, it reduces real concretes into one hypothetical unit that is concretized by a name and labeled by a definition.
Oops! ....Harry Binswanger got an historical fact wrong. 22:22 . ....The Romans (by the time of the eruption of Vesuvius near Pompeii in 79 A.D.) DID have glazed windows (and glass pitchers and other vessels, etc.). Glass making was expensive; so the glazed windows tended to be small in late Roman times, etc. But they acquired glass-making skill from Syria.
I hadn't realized that myself except that I visited Italy and thus Pompeii and Herculaneum. Not only did they have all sorts of items made of glass, but some of their wall paintings were still-lifes featuring glass pitchers. (What's amazing is that in the Naples Museum and the Vatican Museum, they have complete, unbroken samples of pitchers -- at least a couple, drinking glasses, and various small bottles recovered and on display.)
As an architect, I define a window as an opening in a man-made space, that does not involve walking through. (Not exclusive to a building or a car! Think about airplanes, space shuttles, etc..) (The difference isn't exclusive to light/ventilation purposes, could just be opened in a museum to see some painting for example).
About teleological thinking. A person knows why(?)Because as. a conscious individual has free will.
Free will is free choice.
"You mean like the UN?"
Suppose the anarchocapitalist could respond, "So rather, we should have a monopoly government?" The Objectivist responds "Yes, of course."
"You mean like Nazi Germany?"
Of course not, not that _type_ of government, the Objectivist could respond. Well sure, if the Objectivist, in supporting monopoly government, isn't committed to just any specific _type_ of government (he only wants one type), then the anarchocapitalist likewise isn't committed to any specific company or organization just because it came about in the absence of a monopoly.
I'm not saying "ergo anarchy!" follows from this, I'm just pointing out Binswanger's argument isn't the best.
What is a monopoly government?
The UN is an example, though, not a comprehensive list of kinds. I don't think the argument is "all treaty organizations are the UN." I think it's a good example too, consider what the Friedman guy was saying. The argument is that such a things is a comparative example. Specifically, it's comparable in that the idea being discussed is whether anarcho-capitalism would entail conflict of all against all. It wouldn't automatically. If it didn't, there's a damn good chance it would resemble the UN. Why? Because some of such companies would represent a capitalist conception of rights and others might represent a communist perspective. So by having a treaty to negotiate peaceably with communists who don't recognize their thief-like actions as theft, you'd have to create a moral equivalency between those stolen from and those doing the stealing, to be arbitrated by treaty counsel of some kind.
Is this what anarcho-capitalism would have to look like? Definitely not. It could simply devolve into brutality and bloodshed since different governing parties need to work within the same territory. I think that's actually more likely, not by reason of avarice but by reason of virtue. Like hell I'd agree to work with a contractor who has a treaty with communist contractors, when it comes to protecting my rights! My property is not negotiable, just like my life. Which is one reason Objectivists maintain that government is a necessary *good* rather than a necessary evil. By dint of our virtues, it is actually better to only have one government in a given geographical area since it prevents localized bloodshed on a day to day basis without requiring compromise with thugs, communists, and slavers.
The anarchist argument was that competing governments could work together with treaties, without specifying how. He is totally taking for granted that treaties solve conflicts. The UN example illustrates why that assumption is wrong.
Objectivists on the other hand don't assume a government with a monopoly on force will act a certain way.
The UN example leaves the anarchist right back where he started, which is nowhere.
The Nazi Germany example just illustrates why we need the right kind of government, which Objectivists know and understand.
Sometimes objectivits repeat that anarcho-capitalism is a floating abstraction. Sometimes they say that we already have anarcho-capitalism.
Sometimes they say 'Existence exists". Sometimes they say "only concretes exist." Interresting, considering that "existence" is not a concrete thing.
@@GeorgWilde Existence is the word used for "sum of all things that exist." And what's the least you can say about everything that exists? That it exists. There is no inconsistency here, you need to understand it properly.
No comments on anarcho-capitalism.