A Reply to Manfred F. Schieder

A Reply to Manfred F. Schieder
by Fred Seddon

Manfred: “Prof. Seddon’s comments that Objectivists have now been able to learn that Miss Rand’s works do not constitute a philosophy at all, under any angle of view they may be considered ...”

I have contributed 141 posts to SOLO and have never said or intimated what you attribute to me in the above lines. Can you give me the cite that led you to say this?

Manfred: "For some time now I have come to notice a new strategy to attack Objectivism."

My work on Kant is not an attack on Objectivism qua philosophy. Everything I say could be true or not without in the least impacting the philosophy. It has to do with Kantian scholarship, not with Rand’s philosophy, which I accept.

Manfred: “If they want to defend Kant they are free to do so, but by no means under the disguise of acting under the cover of Objectivism.”

Who died and made you the keeper of the flame? Branden tells us that Rand never even read Kant’s major work and I think he was closer to the “Fountainhead” than you. I think I have every right to say (1) I’m an Objectivist, and (2) Rand is wrong about Kant. Especially when I present arguments for my position, none of which you address or answer, by the way.

Manfred: “Besides, dealing with a defendant of Kant produces the eerie feeling of talking, at best, with a human being (can it even be called so?) ...”

Well, at least you didn’t resort to ad hominem. You are undoubtedly a man of reason.

Manfred: “Kant stated himself that he had to reject reason to make room for religion.”

Is that why he wrote a book 'Religion Within the Limits of Reason Alone? And what he stated was, “I had to limit knowledge to make room for faith.” Of course you might have a different quotation from Kant in mind, but how am I to know that since you don’t quote him? You just expect us to take you on faith?!

Manfred: “Some, like our above-mentioned good professor, hark on the imagined belief (or is it thought, I must beg your pardon) that Rand had little if any knowledge of philosophy in general and Kant in particular ...”

Again, and restricting myself to Kant, I would refer to both the Branden reference above as well as my writings on the subject. If you can find an invalid or unsound argument in my works, let me know.

Manfred: “Prof. Seddon is even ready to change a word written by Kant ('thought' instead of 'faith') to hammer Kant into his convenience.”

Not quite, Here is what I said:

"So when he begins the paragraph in which our text occurs, i.e., just when his argument is about to come to a conclusion, the focused reader is expecting him to say something to the effect that he 'found it necessary to limit knowledge to make room for thought' and not 'I have therefore found it necessary to deny knowledge in order to make room for faith.' I don’t know why he wrote the word 'Glaube' (faith or belief). I am, however, convinced that he meant thought, Gedauct, and it is the distinction between knowledge and thought that we find at play throughout the body of the Critique. (Kant on Faith)"

Manfred: “Since Kant said that the noumenal world cannot be known, it is a mystery how he could even think of something unknowable!”

Obviously the key terms here are “known” and “think.” Kant will remain a mystery if you don’t recognize the fact that he uses both of these terms to designate different types of cognitive access to reality. “Know” is narrower and requires the joint contribution of sensibility and understanding. “Think” is broader and employs only the understanding. Or you think of the former as “perceptual knowledge” and the latter as “non-perceptual knowledge.” Then your sentence would read, “Kant said that the noumenal world cannot be PERCEPTUALLLY KNOWN, it is a mystery how he could have NON-PERCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE of something that he couldn’t have PERCEPTUAL KNOWLEDGE of.” But there is no mystery. Kant is simply using knowledge in two different senses. (Actually he uses knowledge is about FIVE different senses, but let’s not scare away the audience.)

Manfred: “To support such ridiculous beliefs both Plato and Kant had to destroy the validity of reason, precisely the faculty which Rand proved to be unassailable.”

Where does Rand do this? Could you provide a cite? In order to “prove” that reason is unassailable, she would have to use reason, which begs the question.

Manfred: “Kant pretended to understand his noumena ..."

Now you’ve got me confused, Didn’t you just say “Kant said that the noumenal world cannot be known”?

Manfred: “ ... for our senses 'process' (they distort) what they perceive before transferring it into our mind.”

This is the whole Walsh-Miller-Seddon debate that has been rehearsed recently in the pages of JARS, 'Objectivity' and SOLOHQ. Please provide your source in Kant--neither of us can find it anywhere in his writings.

Manfred: "Against Kant's preposterous declaration that we don't see because we see ...”

Once again, WHERE in Kant is this declaration? All we’ve got here is your statement. Can you back it up, or are there only insults in your quiver?

Manfred: “The term 'Universe' means 'ALL that exists.'"

If we take your use of the term, then Kant can’t be a dualist since both the phenomena and the noumena would be part of all that exists. So which is it? Is Kant a dualist, or is your definition incorrect?

Fred Seddon

Discuss this Article (10 messages)