RoR: Forum

“Rand in no means encouraged anyone to view the entirety of the world as a priori; she merely contended that certain a priori foundational truths exist…A priori truths include the absolutism of reality, the validity of reason, and the individual's life as the ultimate value…”

I had always understood that Rand claimed that all knowledge ultimately derives from experience and only from experience; that is, all knowledge is known a posteriori. As far as I am aware, Rand rejected the possibility of a priori knowledge.

I may be wrong. Where did Rand contend that the foundational truths you mention are a priori?

Brendan

Post 1

Thursday, July 17, 2003 - 6:23am

Good question, Brendan. I remember Rand contending that the three primary principles are axiomatic, not a priori.

And, G. Stolyarov, while I don't agree with your stance on abortion, I like this article. I haven't read Rothbard yet, as I still haven't finished von Mises' Human Action. However, if I remember correctly, Rothbard was primarily an economist, not a philosopher. This doesn't excuse his errors, but at least I know to watch carefully for them when reading his works.

Post 2

Friday, July 18, 2003 - 8:25am

MR. BRENDAN: I had always understood that Rand claimed that all knowledge ultimately derives from experience and only from experience; that is, all knowledge is known a posteriori. As far as I am aware, Rand rejected the possibility of a priori knowledge.

MR. STOLYAROV: You look at the issue from a different perspective, though your comment is correct in certain respects. Knowledge does not originate in a vacuum DEVOID OF sensory experience, but certain implicit knowledge has to exist before PARTICULAR data can be processed.

Although the child does not know it, he has implicit concepts of "existence," "consciousness," and "identity," and employs them before he can determine WHAT IN PARTICULAR exists, WHO IN PARTICULAR has consciousness, and what are the identities of those particulars. I do not use a priori in the Kantian sense, but rather in the sense of detached from any one concrete experiment, study, or observation and pertaining to the foundations of ALL such experiments, studies, and observations.

Forgive me if my use of that term left itself open to misinterpretation.

Post 3

Friday, July 18, 2003 - 10:22am

"Today, the gruesome and devastating health hazards posed by tobacco smoke are well known, and any rational man, who upholds his life as the supreme value, will abstain from it as he would from a supreme detriment thereto. However, the early Randian movement (1958-1968) was oblivious, as was the general public, to these consequences."

Gee, Rand , in her near moral perfection, couldn't figure out that smoking was dangerous?
The Nazi's knew, for Rand's sake!

Post 4

Friday, July 18, 2003 - 11:45am

Well, Coyote, maybe Rand decided that it was better to live a pleasurable life than a long one. The lady did live from 1905 to the mid 1980s, despite being a smoker. I see nothing wrong with smoking, if done in moderation. Smoking a pack or two a day is not moderation, by the way.

We're all mortal, and if a cigarette or a glass of wine after a job well done is pleasurable, why deny yourself? What good is living to be 100 if the only way to do it is asceticism?

Post 5

Friday, July 18, 2003 - 11:47am

Besides, Coyote, do you know of any studies from 1958-1968 that proves that tobacco abuse is dangerous?

Post 6

Friday, July 18, 2003 - 6:06pm

Whenever I see the word 'Sociology' I always get concerned.

The word was originally, (and quite accurately), called 'Sillyology'....and I am sure that anyone reading work by Mr Rothbard will understand why.

Over the years it evolved into 'Sociology', but the original meaning remains.

Post 7

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 1:58am

ABOUT THE NAZI WAR ON CANCER:
Collaboration in the Holocaust. Murderous and torturous medical experiments. The "euthanasia" of hundreds of thousands of people with mental or physical disabilities. Widespread sterilization of "the unfit." Nazi doctors committed these and countless other atrocities as part of Hitler's warped quest to create a German master race. Robert Proctor recently made the explosive discovery, however, that Nazi Germany was also decades ahead of other countries in promoting health reforms that we today regard as progressive and socially responsible. Most startling, Nazi scientists were the first to definitively link lung cancer and cigarette smoking. Proctor explores the controversial and troubling questions that such findings raise: Were the Nazis more complex morally than we thought? Can good science come from an evil regime? What might this reveal about health activism in our own society? Proctor argues that we must view Hitler's Germany more subtly than we have in the past. But he also concludes that the Nazis' forward-looking health activism ultimately came from the same twisted root as their medical crimes: the ideal of a sanitary racial utopia reserved exclusively for pure and healthy Germans.

Author of an earlier groundbreaking work on Nazi medical horrors, Proctor began this book after discovering documents showing that the Nazis conducted the most aggressive antismoking campaign in modern history. Further research revealed that Hitler's government passed a wide range of public health measures, including restrictions on asbestos, radiation, pesticides, and food dyes. Nazi health officials introduced strict occupational health and safety standards, and promoted such foods as whole-grain bread and soybeans. These policies went hand in hand with health propaganda that, for example, idealized the Fhrer's body and his nonsmoking, vegetarian lifestyle. Proctor shows that cancer also became an important social metaphor, as the Nazis portrayed Jews and other "enemies of the Volk" as tumors that must be eliminated from the German body politic.

This is a disturbing and profoundly important book. It is only by appreciating the connections between the "normal" and the "monstrous" aspects of Nazi science and policy, Proctor reveals, that we can fully understand not just the horror of fascism, but also its deep and seductive appeal even to otherwise right-thinking Germans.

Post 8

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 2:09am

MATT:
Well, Coyote, maybe Rand decided that it was better to live a pleasurable life than a long one. The lady did live from 1905 to the mid 1980s, despite being a smoker. I see nothing wrong with smoking, if done in moderation. Smoking a pack or two a day is not moderation, by the way.

We're all mortal, and if a cigarette or a glass of wine after a job well done is pleasurable, why deny yourself? What good is living to be 100 if the only way to do it is asceticism?

Coyote:

Wouldn't this be contrary to what Rand believed about hedonism and "whim-worshipping" subjectivism?

It doesn't matter what the individual feels, or if it makes him/her feel good, if it kills you. And Rand did have lung cancer, right? Not to mention the possible effects of second hand smoke, and that smokers usually stink...and the idea of moderation is laughable in regards to cigarattes; hello, they're addictive!

And it's not supposed to be the quantity of years, but the quality, that matters to Objectivism...sure Rand lived into her 80's but she was hardly a vigourous go-getter...according to most accounts, she was lethargic, depressed, and unhealthy, as opposed to, say, someone like Lloyd Wright, who was said to follow a healthy regimine and stayed fit and productive.

No more laughable than your rushing to Rand's defense, though...seems that she is still infallible...Randroid.

Post 9

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 4:13am

I'm such a good-natured person that I'll forgo the verbal assault you rightly deserve, Coyote.

You've completely distracted from the topic of this thread. Stick to the topic, or shut your trap.

J

Post 10

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 9:04am

Well, maybe Coyote decided that it was better to live a pleasurable life than a long one. The lad did live from 1974 to the mid 21 century, despite being a joker. I see nothing wrong with joking, if done in moderation. Joking a objectivist or two a day is not moderation, by the way.

We're all mortal, and if a joke or smartass comment after a job well done is pleasurable, why deny yourself? What good is living to be 100 if the only way to do it is asceticism?

lighten up, you'll live longer, Jeremy.

Post 11

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 9:28am

Besides, Jeremy, I am on the topic. The topic is Rothbard's view of the Cult of Ayn Rand.

Rothbard was right.

Maybe we should call her Ayn Culter.

Man, Objectivists can dish it out, but they sure can't take it...

Post 12

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 12:09pm

Randroid? Me? Hmmm, so that's why I have this funky Sun Microsystems tattoo and serial number. Hey, Coyote, how does suggesting that Rand had reasons for her actions make one a Randroid? Got a smartass remark to answer that one?

Post 13

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 2:43pm

**elijah blinks**

ummmm....Coyote...ummmm...errrrm...ahhh...have you completely flipped?

(or is this just another example of your wig wearing wetness?)

Post 14

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 2:55pm

Calling all Randroids...Calling all Randroids....we have a gliche in the Matrix...it's name is Coyote, and its destruction is essential...we must Exorcise this Demon from our consciousness, to preserve the holy sanctity of The Rand...This Coyote is a danger to our Dogma...nahh errr.....our Matrix...we cannot let it breach the faults of our Reason...
END MESSAGE...

(This how you expect us to respond, Coyote? Well, there, you've gotten what you wanted....)

J

Post 15

Saturday, July 19, 2003 - 7:40pm

ahem...that's ~glitch~, not gliche....I don't know what a gliche is...a niche for gladiators?

Post 16

Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 12:52am

Sorry, but I have to come out of lurker mode to comment. This coyote is an idiot. But I was thinking about what Matthew said about Rand having reasons for her actions. Some commentators like the Brandens have suggested that Rand often made rationalizations for her preferences. Not knowing her myself, I don't know one way or the other. But I think that if one sticks to the basics of what Rand wrote, as opposed to what she said in private, you'll find that she wasn't suggesting that people follow her every word. She writes in PHILOSOPHY: WHO NEEDS IT that one shouldn't accept dogma, Objectivist or otherwise, and advises the reader to go to the source. And she always advocated that one adjust their beliefs in light of new information, should such info truly negate any old beliefs. Whether Rand followed that advice herself or not doesn't mean that the advice itself was flawed; it means she was capable of making mistakes herself. And if people feel the need to adhere to her word as law, then they need to look at themselves and work out some issues. ( 'Though I find the idea of an "Objectivist movement" somewhat paradoxical, the best thing is probably to take the principles and live them, as opposed to getting together to affirm one's Objectivism. Better to show, than to tell.)

As for Coyote's remark about the Nazi's "war against cancer," all that means is that the Nazi's were capable of having mixed premises, also. Hitler supposedly liked animals. Doesn't excuse his genocidal tendencies, and doesn't invite a comparison to Ayn Rand. Her smoking, even if justified by a rationalization, did not result in genocide. Coyote, if you stop to think before you speak, you might make sense.

But somehow I don't think that's what you're here for. " You can't reason with the unreasonable, " so I won't try.

Post 17

Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 3:38am

On 18 July, G Stolyarov wrote: “Knowledge does not originate in a vacuum DEVOID OF sensory experience, but certain implicit knowledge has to exist before PARTICULAR data can be processed.”

Sure, but how does one gain this implicit knowledge? Is it derived from experience of the real world, or is it derived independently of that experience?

“I do not use a priori in the Kantian sense, but rather in the sense of detached from any one concrete experiment, study, or observation and pertaining to the foundations of ALL such experiments, studies, and observations.”

The term a priori is commonly understood to refer to a claim that certain sorts of knowledge can be derived independently of experience, say by the operation of pure reason. And this is the Kantian position.

Ayn Rand was explicitly a radical empiricist, and claimed that all knowledge derives from experience and only experience. But since experience involves specific observations of specific objects, I’m not sure how one could gain such foundational knowledge without resorting to a priori insight of the Kantian kind.

Brendan

Post 18

Sunday, July 20, 2003 - 6:06am

Additionally, her personal life was more turbulent than most.

Stolyarov's assessment of Rand's personal life is gratuitous speculation. There is a pomposity to this fellow's approach to the subject that causes me to discount his conclusions.

Post 19

Thursday, July 24, 2003 - 8:47am