RoR: Forum

Great job, Peter! You should have been at the TOC Advanced Seminar in 2003 to respond to Seddon's paper on "Kant and Faith."

(See my response to the paper at http://www.objectivistcenter.org/events/advsem03/seminars-advpart.asp)

Post 1

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 11:36am

I was wondering if the debaters on this matter would be interested in producing much more "heavy" argumentation on this matter, including, say, a SOLO reading group of the CPR to act as Kant's "Jury" This group would read a given section of CPR every week, and then slug it out with Fred over whether the given section can or cannot be interepreted as supporting Rand's accusations against Kant.

Post 2

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 1:37pm

Thanks Michelle. Can you tell us what the response was at the seminar to Fred's paper?

Robert: Phew! You make reading Kant sound like a duty. :-) Feel free to summon up a Kant reading group if you really wish to undertake the chore, and I'll try and chime in. I'm sure Michelle would be eager to join in too. :-)

I think you might however find it more productive to read Kant in the spirit of the Bertrand Russell quote that I posted earlier, rather than with the intention of refuting or supporting a particular commentator. He's hard enough already without beginning with an agenda you wish to prove or disprove, and you really do need to understand his 'system' before you can fully understand the context for each section.

Post 3

Wednesday, September 29, 2004 - 10:36pm

Excellent (again) work, Peter. I'd say that your intellectual exactitude here is impressive, but then I would be making an understatement.

Ed

Post 4

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 8:32am

Pete asked:

Can you tell us what the response was at the seminar to Fred's paper?

The Advanced Seminar is structured in such a way that the attendees receive the papers few weeks earlier to read and think about. Then each session begins with an assigned attendee presenting his/her critique of the paper under discussion. So the discussion began with my critique of Seddon's paper (included on the same URL). My presentation was followed by Seddon's attempt at rebuttal, my response, and so on in several cycles. The audience found the exchange funny and laughed in several places, especially when Seddon resorted to sexual innuendo in lieu of arguments. Afterwards, Diana Hsieh said that Seddon's manner was very annoying.

Kelley and Will Thomas each expressed respectful criticism of the paper's overall method. Eyal Mozes demolished Seddon's central argument. There were one or two who defended Seddon but I don't remember their names so they can come forward if they wish. Since it was the last session, the audience included several early birds who came for the regular seminar, and a couple of them appeared totally puzzled. Overall, my impression was that Seddon's paper was not taken very seriously.

After the session, Greg Perkins and few others praised my presentation and arguments. I should add that Will Thomas was relieved when I volunteered to respond to Seddon's paper because apparently nobody else wanted to do it. Thomas saw my response prior to the seminar and commended me for being right on the mark.

In hindsight, I know I should not have responded to Seddon's paper, giving it the sanction it did not deserve, especially since I found out that Seddon did not bother to read Rand's articles concerning Kant in her "Philosophy Who Needs It?" (See my post 31 in the thread "Kant Can't" http://www.solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0565_1.shtml#31)

Incidentally, Roger Bissell attended the 2003 advanced seminar, so perhaps he can provide his perspective about this session. Roger?

(Edited by Michelle Cohen on 9/30, 10:25am)

Post 5

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 8:45am

Pete wrote:

Feel free to summon up a Kant reading group if you really wish to undertake the chore, and I'll try and chime in. I'm sure Michelle would be eager to join in too.

Sorry, I can't bring myself to read the entire CPR and waste more of my life by discussing it. I take Moses Mendelsohn's word that the CPR turned Kant into "the all-destroyer."

How about reading and discussing the three essays where Rand analyzes Kant's philosophy: "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," "From the Horse's Mouth,” and "Kant vs. Sullivan?"
(All included in "Philosophy: Who Needs It?") This way we can make sure Fred reads them. (Incidentally, Kelley's "State of the Culture" speech this year was an analysis of "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World.")

Post 6

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 11:46am

Michelle,

I’ve reread your critique of Fred’s TOC Advanced Seminar on Kant. Your opening sentence is:

Dr. Fred Seddon goes into a lot of trouble to prove that Rand’s evaluation of Kant as “the most evil man in human history” is unwarranted.

Fine. You give some reasons in the first paragraph why you think he failed. Then, in your second paragraph you say:

It makes no difference whether Kant meant ‘belief’ or ‘thought’ -- as far as his influence on the course of Western philosophy. We cannot know whether Kant intended to save free will rather than push Western philosophy in the direction of supporting dictatorships (as Seddon claims), but it really does not matter. What matters is how subsequent philosophers used Kant’s ideas to cast a doubt over the very possibility of knowledge. Exempting Kant from responsibility for the course taken by Western philosophy does not change the course taken by Western philosophy.

This has me baffled. In the first sentence you say:

It makes no difference whether Kant meant ‘belief’ or ‘thought’ -- as far as his influence on the course of Western philosophy.

No difference to whom or to what? I think you're saying it makes no difference to the course of Western philosophy, but if so, then what relevance does this have to Fred’s argument? You later say:

What matters is how subsequent philosophers used Kant’s ideas to cast a doubt over the very possibility of knowledge.

Fred’s main point, as I understand him, is that subsequent philosophers didn’t use Kant’s ideas. They misunderstood him. So, it does make a difference “whether Kant meant ‘belief’ or ‘thought’” to Fred’s argument.

Whether you buy Fred’s interpretation of Kant is a separate question. But the correct interpretation certainly is relevant to whether you consider Kant to be “the most evil man in human history”.

Thanks,

Glenn

Post 7

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 12:27pm

Michelle,

"How about reading and discussing the three essays where Rand analyzes Kant's philosophy: "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," "From the Horse's Mouth,” and "Kant vs. Sullivan?"
(All included in "Philosophy: Who Needs It?") This way we can make sure Fred reads them."

First of all, there are four essays where Rand analyzes Kant's philosophy; you forgot "Causality versus Duty." As for making sure "Fred reads them" you reveal once again your ignorance. I teach PWNI every semester. In addition to the title essay, I also teach "Faith and Force" and "Causality vs Duty." As to the latter I have written an entire chapter, chapter five, on it in my book AYN RAND, OBJECTIVISTS AND THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY.

I would love to participate in a reading of PWNI, esp. the Kant chapters.
Bring it on.

Fred

Post 8

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:30pm

Mr. Cresswell,

I have another paper on Kant (Miller on Kant) coming to these pages so I won't comment on everything you wrote. In fact, since you have chosen to ignore what I did in response to your "Can't you make it simple" (its the piece I wrote while standing on one foot) I will simply refer interested readers to what I have already contributed to these pages.
But I do want to thank you for serving me up a real softball in your opening paragraph. Let me quote the paragraph.

"Just to remind readers about the point of this debate - as John Herman Randall says in Aristotle -“That we can know things as they are, that knowledge is possible, is the fact that Aristotle is trying to explain, and not, like Kant and his followers, trying to deny and explain away.” Randall and all the commentators I have seen agree that Kant divorces knowledge from reality."

This is from p. 91 of the Randall. But Mr. Cresswell, if you hadn't dropped the context that Randall had established in the paragraph from which you ripped your quotation, then you would have realized, which you obviously didn't, that Aristotle buys the knowledge of "things as they are" at a terrible price, at least from an Objectivist point of view: to wit, he has to deny that consciousness (nous) has an identity (you do remember the law of identity don't you Mr. Cresswell?) and to affirm that nous is passive (contra Rand's position, (you do remember Rand, don't you Mr. Cresswell?), that consciousness is an ACTIVE process, not a passive state (ITOE 37). (Both of these items are discussed in my "Miller on Kant" article.
Mr. Cresswell, if you go with Aristotle (instead of Kant and Rand) you must deny the consciousness has an identity and that it is active.
Let me now provide the entire quotation so that everyone can see what a context dropper you really are. Tee hee.

"If NOUS were something--if it had a definite and determinate structure of its own--then men could not transparently 'see' and know what is, without distortion. They could not really 'know' things as they are, but only things mixed with the structure of NOUS. Such a NOUS would have turned Kantian; it would have become 'constitutive' and creative, it would have ceased to be the Greek NOUS that is intuitive and 'sees' directly, that enjoys THEORIA. That we can know things as they are, that such knowledge is possible, is the fact that Aristotle is trying to explain, and not, like Kant and his followers, trying to deny and explain away. . . This structural realism of the classic tradition has of course been abandoned in nearly all of our critical philosophies of experience since Hume and Kant. That knowledge is not the PASSIVE reception of the structure of things, that it is an ACTIVE PROCESS of interpretation and construction is the biggest difference between our voluntaristic and biological concepts of knowledge and that of Aristotle."

I know how sick you must feel at having to deny the law of identity and the activity of consciousness, but don't worry, buddy, THE DOCTOR IS IN.

Dr. Seddon

Post 9

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 1:37pm

Glen,

I replied to Peter's question about the audience's response to Seddon's paper at the 2003 Advanced Seminar. It was not my intention to start a discussion of my response.

Michelle

Post 10

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 5:19pm

"How about reading and discussing the three essays where Rand analyzes Kant's philosophy: "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World," "From the Horse's Mouth,” and "Kant vs. Sullivan?" "

much as I love PWNI, I can't bring myself to take seriously a condemnation which contains NO DIRECT QUOTES whatsoever. even "from the horse's mouth" is just the a view of a commentator, rather than any direct evidence against the man. It only seems fair that, if we are to put kant on trial, we should look at the direct evidence of his own key texts. Otherwise we're as bad as the morons who make all manner of accusation against Rand without a single quote from Fountainhead or Atlas Shrugged to back themselves up. I'm not even saying that I necessarily even disagree with Rand here-- only that she did a woefully inadequate job of presenting evidence, especially given the magnitude of the accusation she lays at his feet.

Post 11

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 8:38pm

Fred states "Aristotle buys the knowledge of 'things as they are' at a terrible price, at least from an Objectivist point of view: to wit, he has to deny that consciousness (nous) has an identity (you do remember the law of identity don't you Mr. Cresswell?) and to affirm that nous is passive (contra Rand's position, (you do remember Rand, don't you Mr. Cresswell?)...."
        Now it does not follow from the passivity of consciousness (I am not arguing this issue here) that it has no identity. It would have as an aspect of its identity that it is passive--there are lots of passive things that have an identity, like, say, my chair, on which I am sitting as I am writing this. Not an active thing at all, to the best of my knowledge.
        It would be nice, too, to have the actual--quoted--statement of Aristotle on which the claim that he denies that "consciousness [nous] has an identity" is based. I doubt there is one. (Moreover, even if he did say such a thing, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the Law of Identity--that's just thrown in there for some purpose I don't know what.)
        Peter, I think, is right. Fred needs either to dispute the standard interpretation of Kant, one shared by Ayn Rand--though something for which she faults Kant severely--and then state his unique interpretation and defend it textually and otherwise, or to state whether Rand's understanding of Kant contradicts the standard interpretation and just how and defend this. None of this has been forthcoming from Fred, unfortunately. All we get is a series of assertions, without the requisite scholarship. Maybe there is some such scholarship extant as would be needed but we are not getting it, even in truncated, miniature form. (BTW, Peter, I do not believe Fred has tenure.)
(Edited by Machan on 9/30, 8:40pm)

(Edited by Machan on 9/30, 8:42pm)

Post 12

Thursday, September 30, 2004 - 11:36pm

Fred:

Odd how you now wish to ascribe to me views which I don't hold. Odd too that you don't care to respond substantively. Odd also that you don't quote the whole passage from Randall yourself - even odder that you apparently miss the very point of Randall's passage: that "knowledge is ... the fact that Aristotle is trying to explain, and not, like Kant and his followers, trying to deny and explain away." And that's really the crux of things, isn't it.

(And we do know that Aristotle's explanation of the fact we do have knowledge was unsatisfactory, but we do now have Rand's ITOE, which is very satisfactory. But Aristotle's relative failure is not the issue here; Kant's complete failure is.)

As for your one-footed answer, I responded to that in the thread in which you posted it. For convenience, it's post 22 at http://www.solohq.com/Forum/ArticleDiscussions/0788_1.shtml

Post 13

Friday, October 1, 2004 - 6:30am

Michelle said:

I replied to Peter's question about the audience's response to Seddon's paper at the 2003 Advanced Seminar. It was not my intention to start a discussion of my response.

I understand.

Thanks,
Glenn

Post 14

Friday, October 1, 2004 - 11:07am

Tibor,

"It would be nice, too, to have the actual--quoted--statement of Aristotle on which the claim that he denies that "consciousness [nous] has an identity" is based. I doubt there is one. (Moreover, even if he did say such a thing, it would have absolutely nothing to do with the Law of Identity--that's just thrown in there for some purpose I don't know what.)"

Sorry, I thought everyone knew the context of this debate. It probably goes back at least to Kelley's ES where he is discussing the diaphanous or transparency model of awareness. Kelley cites De Anima, Book III, ch. 4, 429a18-23. Miller in his response to Walsh cites 429a18-27. Aristotle himself gives Anaxagoras "credit" for originating this view.

"Now it does not follow from the passivity of consciousness (I am not arguing this issue here) that it has no identity."

You are correct, it does not follow. Aristotle held both of them and Rand denies both of them. Randall cites them both in his paragraph but doesn't imply any logical connection.

"None of this has been forthcoming from Fred, unfortunately. All we get is a series of assertions, without the requisite scholarship."

See my book AYN RAND, OBJECTIVISTS, AND THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY. It contains two chapters on Kant with 44 juicy endnotes for the scholars in the audience.

Fred

Post 15

Friday, October 1, 2004 - 4:20pm

With Mr Seddon either unable or unwilling to respond adequately, this 'debate' is rapidly descending into farce.

Tibor: "Now it does not follow from the passivity of consciousness (I am not arguing this issue here) that it has no identity."

Mr Seddon replies : You are correct, it does not follow."

PC: Of course, it doesn't. so why did Mr Seddon claim that it does! Why would he use one utterly absurd claim to sidestep the charges against his other unproven absurdities? Perhaps the reader can work it out for himself.

Tibor: "Fred needs either to dispute the standard interpretation of Kant, one shared by Ayn Rand--though something for which she faults Kant severely--and then state his unique interpretation and defend it textually and otherwise, or to state whether Rand's understanding of Kant contradicts the standard interpretation and just how and defend this. None of this has been forthcoming from Fred, unfortunately. All we get is a series of assertions, without the requisite scholarship."

Fred replies: "See my book AYN RAND, OBJECTIVISTS, AND THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY."

PC: I feel compelled to say that if Mr Seddon's book is on a par with the quality of his contributions here then there are far, far better things on which to spend sixty US dollars.

Post 16

Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 10:46am

Mr. Cresswell,

"Tibor: "Now it does not follow from the passivity of consciousness (I am not arguing this issue here) that it has no identity."
Mr Seddon replies : You are correct, it does not follow."
PC: Of course, it doesn't. so why did Mr Seddon claim that it does!"

I never claimed that it did. Don't know how you could have misunderstood. So let me reiterate. Randall presents Aristotle of holding the following two positions but he doesn't imply that one follows from the other.
(1) Nous is unmixed. (Objectivists have read this as consciousness has no identity)
(2) Nous is passive. (Objectivists have read this as consciousness not an active process.)

Neither Randall nor I claim that (1) follows from (2). If you got that impression, you are wrong. It was Tibor who put that out, not me nor Randall.

"All we get is a series of assertions, without the requisite scholarship."
Fred replies: "See my book AYN RAND, OBJECTIVISTS, AND THE HISTORY OF PHILOSOPHY."

That suggestion was only for those who want the "requisite scholarship." I would, if I were you, save my money and spend it on more Duke Ellington.
Speaking of which, what do you think of the Sinatra-Ellington album? I love Frank and that album is one of my favorites.

Dr. Seddon

Post 17

Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 11:01am

Mr. Cresswell,

"Odd . . . that you apparently miss the very point of Randall's passage: that "knowledge is ... the fact that Aristotle is trying to explain, and not, like Kant and his followers, trying to deny and explain away." And that's really the crux of things, isn't it."

Let me retort. I agree with Randall on Aristotle, but not with his statement about Kant. What I was trying to do in my post was point out the cost of Aristotle way--which you term a "relative failure" Let's compare the three on three parameters.

Aristotle:
(1) Consciousness is passive. [I use "consciousness' rather than "nous" throughout.]
(2) Consciousness has no identity.
(3) WE can know things as they are in themselves.

Kant
(1) Consciousness is active.
(2) Consciousness has identity.
(3) WE can't know things as they are in themselves.

Rand:
(1) Consciousness is active.
(2) Consciousness has identity.
(3) We can know things as they are in themselves.

Now we both are going to pick Rand as our first choice. But if you had to pick a second place winner, and you choice is based on the similarity with Rand overall, then you must go with Kant. He agrees with Rand on 2 out of 3. Aristotle with only 1 out of 3, a point Miller admits in his paper.

"But Aristotle's relative failure is not the issue here; Kant's complete failure is.)"

Is it? I think Kant's position is better than Aristotle--esp. when one factors in all the caveats that one must when dealing with Kant. Randall seems to choose Aristotle, but perhaps that is due to his not being bother about (1) and (2) above, positions that Objectivisms rejects.

Dr. Seddon

Post 18

Saturday, October 2, 2004 - 3:18pm

Well, we finally got there:

Kant's position, Mr Seddon admits, is that "WE can't know things as they are in themselves." That's been the point of this debate and the one Mr Seddon has been evading - that Kant systematically severs knowledge from reality, thus permanently severing philosophy from the real world. In doing so he opened the floodgates to the various 'mystics of mind' and 'mystics of muscle' that were to come and blight the real world he had foresworn.

In all that then he should never be claimed as a proto-Objectivist, however many wriggles Mr Seddon attempts to perform on his behalf.

[I'm not a fan of Sinatra, and with four exceptions I prefer my Duke un-vocalised. I'll let you guess the exceptions. :-) ]

Post 19

Sunday, October 3, 2004 - 5:30am