About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
This article has a broken link.



Post 1

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 7:27amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Fixed. Thanks Luke!

Ethan




Post 2

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 8:38amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
You only start running into problems if you try to use your emotions as cognitive tools. In other words, if you let your emotions decide for you

 

Joe, I would suggest that when our emotions dictate to do good, even if our reason says otherwise, I would give it a least a try.

Based on my own experience, four times out of five by giving emotions a chance, it always worked in my favor.

 

To listen to our emotions, sometimes requires courage.

CD

 

 

(Edited by Ciro D'Agostino on 8/14, 8:42am)




Post 3

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 8:52amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Here are some important elements and history of Rand's concept of objectivity in her philosophy:

Objectivity

 

Rand’s most elementary sense of the concept objective is the sense of ordinary parlance. This is the sense she talks of when explaining why she has chosen Objectivism as the name of her philosophy. She credits Aristotle as the first to correctly define “the basic principle of a rational view of existence and of man’s consciousness: that there is only one reality, the one man perceives—that it exists as an objective absolute (which means: independently of the consciousness, the wishes, or the feelings of any perceiver)” [FNI 22].

 

In 1965 Rand published two refinements of her concept of objectivity. Early in the year, she distinguished a metaphysical from an epistemological aspect of objectivity [FAE 18]. Later that year, Rand refined her concept of objectivity further. She introduced her distinction of the intrinsic, the subjective, and the objective. This was in application to her theory of the good and its relationship to other theories of the good [WC 21–26].

 

By the following year, it was clear that Rand envisioned a broadened role for the intrinsicist-subjectivist-objectivist way of locating her philosophic theories in relation to others. She applied the tripartition to the theory of concepts and universals. Concepts, for Rand, can be objective and should be objective. Such concepts are “produced by man’s consciousness in accordance with the facts of reality, as mental integrations of factual data computed by man—as products of a cognitive method of classification whose processes must be formed by man, but whose content is dictated by reality” [IOE 54]. Rand’s conception of concepts (and definitions and essence and . . .) and her conception of the good can be rightly characterized as (i) objective with Rand’s metaphysical-epistemological faces of the objective relation and, at the same time, as (ii) objective within Rand’s intrinsicist-subjectivist-objectivist tripartition.




Post 4

Monday, August 14, 2006 - 12:54pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Joseph, although short, this essay was very solid (concise, but clear and informative).

The line I especially liked was, "So we seek the truth, and we know it's available to us even if we have an emotional stake in the matter." This line encapsulates why having a proper working definition of objectivity is so important.

Well done.

George

(Edited by George W. Cordero on 8/14, 1:45pm)




Post 5

Sunday, March 23 - 6:45amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
What ever happened to good old empiricism?

Bob Kolker




Post 6

Sunday, March 23 - 8:24amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Come on, Bob!  Get with the times. You know that died when people stopped learning math :-). As an empirical-leaning Objectivist, I'm amazed how much principles can be used as a crutch rather than a tool for cognitive economy and power. As Fox Mulder would say, the truth is out there.

Jim




Post 7

Tuesday, March 25 - 3:42amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bob,

=======
What ever happened to good old empiricism?
=======

It went by the wayside (and for good reason). Vulgar empiricism is still "practiced" by the legal and logical positivists infesting our earth, however. It's results can be seen in non-objective laws (the kind ruining our country) and in the "moral" justification for mass murder.

An example is the British multi-rapist-child killer, Ian Brady -- who used "good old empiricism" (in its logically-resultant philosophy of Existentialism) to justify his heinous crimes against humanity. Here he is discussing the parole of Myra Hindley, the girlfriend who would lure unsuspecting children so that Ian could rape and kill them ...

==============
She regarded periodic homicides as rituals of reciprocal innervation, marriage ceremonies theoretically binding us ever closer. As the records show, before we met my criminal activities had been primarily mercenary. Afterwards, a duality of motivation developed. Existential philosophy melded with the spirituality of death and became predominant. We experimented with the concept of total possibility.

Myra is a chameleon who simply reflects whatever she believes will please the person she is addressing. She can kill in cold blood or rage. In that respect we were an inexorable force.
==============
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial_killers/predators/moors/
(update_10.html)


==============
As a young boy, Brady developed a deep fascination with Nazi Germany, and with Nazi pageantry and symbolism. He also developed a keen interest in the writings of the Marquis de Sade and Friedrich Nietzsche, focusing particular attention on Nietzsche's theories of Übermensch and the Will to Power.

He became increasingly enamoured with a philosophy that championed cruelty and torture, and the idea that superior creatures had the right to control (and destroy, if necessary) weaker ones.
==============
http://www.monstropedia.org/


Ed



Post 8

Tuesday, March 25 - 4:14amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
"Good old empiricism" isn't vulgar in my opinion. It's the empiricism of Francis Bacon and John Locke. A big part of it is "reality check".



Post 9

Tuesday, March 25 - 5:50amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
You mean it is wrong to base one's thinking on what one experiences? That is what empiricism is. Anything we know comes through our senses. There is nothing in the "mind"(i.e. intellect) that is not first in the senses.

Bob Kolker




Post 10

Tuesday, March 25 - 5:40pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Merlin and Bob,

Please keep the context. Re-read Joe's essay and view Bob's question while holding Joe's essay (the subject of this thread) in mind.

If you do this, then you will see how it is -- in this context -- that Bob's question has to be interpreted (as empiricism of the radical or vulgar variety) in order for it to be a meaningful question. If you fail to interpret Bob's question in this correct way, then the question loses all of its function.

Now, perhaps Bob didn't mean for his question to even have any kind of meaning (i.e., to be an actual question about some kind of an actual alternative to that about which Joe wrote in his essay). This might be true if he happens to be brain-damaged or evil. Or perhaps Bob simply was not exercising a full mastery of the words which he had typed (in this context). And we all do that -- every now and again.

And if either of these things is true then disregard this truth toward which I'm pointing your attention.

Ed



Post 11

Tuesday, March 25 - 6:19pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Empiricism = experience and fact based thinking. Nothing more, nothing less.

Do you find thinking based on observation, measurement etc. radical? If so, how?

Bob Kolker




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Tuesday, March 25 - 10:41pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bob,

One of the best ways to discover what something is is to use it and see where it gets you in life. Thankfully, philosophers wrote a lot. That leaves us with a rich and colorful background for us to view where certain thinking leads. For instance, if you follow the thinking of Augustine, then you erroneously believe that to err is human -- and you fail to develop self-esteem through proper pride.

A little while back, there was a "great divide" in thinking camps (though it actually started with Plato v. Aristotle). There were Rationalists, like Descartes, who erroneously believed in God because they had convinced themselves that a belief in a God was necessary for explanatory coherence in one's mind.

And almost as a knee-jerk reaction to this kind of thinking, an opposite way of thinking developed: Empiricism. One prominent empiricist, Hume, was led (led by his empiricist thinking) to erroneously believe that ethics is non-cognitive; basically based on one's current feelings. This kind of moral thought leads to an existentialist world-view, where one's feelings are enthroned as a kind of a God-King that we ought to obey. This kind of thought -- as expressed through Heidegger and Nietzsche and others -- is what gave the world a Hitler.

Here's Rand talking about these 2 opposite ways in which humans sometimes attempt to think ...

=========
[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.
=========

If you read Joe's short essay carefully enough, in it you will a rational-empiricism. If you are especially astute about it, you will also find argument against a radical (irrational) empiricism.

Let me know if you can't find these 2 things in Joe's short essay, and I will point them out to you.

Ed


(Edited by Ed Thompson on 3/25, 10:42pm)




Post 13

Wednesday, March 26 - 2:36amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ed wrote:

One of the best ways to discover what something is is to use it and see where it gets you in life. Thankfully, philosophers wrote a lot. That leaves us with a rich and colorful background for us to view where certain thinking leads. For instance, if you follow the thinking of Augustine, then you erroneously believe that to err is human -- and you fail to develop self-esteem through proper pride.


I reply:

Humans make errors all the time. For a number of reasons. Among the reasons: Fatigue, low resolution senses, incomplete data. Shall I go on? Making errors is inevitable. But realizing what they are and making the corrections requires a choice, an act of will.

And I have done exactly what you suggest. I have come up with my own system, Reality Lite (tm) which has served me well for over seven decades. It has kept me alive and sane enough to pass for human. I have a fact based system which avoids many philosophical complications. I believe in keeping things as simple as possible.

You suggestion to see where things get up and go is very, well... empirical.

The philosophers I admire most are (you guessed it!) Hume and Hobbes. They are on point and down to earth. They are no-bullshit philosophers.

My favorite political philosopher is Tom Paine.

The Greeks I agree most with (in a general way) are Demokritos and Lukipus.

And I avoid introspection as a waste of time. Recalling and thinking are as much as I need to do. Anything more is wretched excess.

Bob Kolker




Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 14

Wednesday, March 26 - 5:19amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Bob,

==============
The philosophers I admire most are (you guessed it!) Hume and Hobbes. They are on point and down to earth. They are no-bullshit philosophers.
==============

Perhaps this doesn't concern you this late in life, but I can show how Hobbes' thinking forwarded Christianity more than the thinking of others did, and how Hume's thinking helped to pave the road for Communism. Rand called these camps of anti-mind, anti-man, anti-life folks the Mystics of the Mind and the Mystics of Muscle.

Ed



Post 15

Wednesday, March 26 - 8:10amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ed wrote:

Perhaps this doesn't concern you this late in life, but I can show how Hobbes' thinking forwarded Christianity more than the thinking of others did, and how Hume's thinking helped to pave the road for Communism. Rand called these camps of anti-mind, anti-man, anti-life folks the Mystics of the Mind and the Mystics of Muscle.


I reply:

Hume never breathed a word advocating common ownership of the means of production. Not a word.

Hobbes was a materialist and an atheist. How does this promote Christianity.

I think you are seeing things that are not there. And if another thinker misused Hume's views or mistook them, that is not Hume's fault.

It is also not Hume's fault that Kant read his stuff and went bonkers.

Bob Kolker

(Edited by Robert J. Kolker on 3/26, 8:52am)




Post 16

Wednesday, March 26 - 8:35amSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ed T.:

Merlin and Bob,
Please keep the context. Re-read Joe's essay and view Bob's question while holding Joe's essay (the subject of this thread) in mind.
My reply (or context) was to your maligning empiricism, not about Joe's rather old essay.

You quote Rand in post 12. Her comment about Empiricists is a fine example of a "floating abstraction", of not sticking to the facts.




Post 17

Wednesday, March 26 - 2:28pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Merlin,

Please read what it is that I write more carefully than that. I qualified the kind of empiricism which I had "maligned" (rather than maligning empiricism, per se).

Merlin, do you agree that the following philosophers are Empiricists?

=========
AJ Ayer

G Berkeley

R Carnap

J Dewey

T Hobbes

D Hume

J Locke

JS Mill
=========

If you agree that they are Empiricists, then that's a base that we could begin a fruitful discussion upon. And on that base, it would then be my obligation to show how empiricist thinking necessarily led them into making philosophical mistakes (something which I am both willing and able to do -- if it turns out that you require that much "convincing").

Ed



Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 18

Wednesday, March 26 - 4:59pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
If you agree that they are Empiricists, then that's a base that we could begin a fruitful discussion upon. And on that base, it would then be my obligation to show how empiricist thinking necessarily led them into making philosophical mistakes (something which I am both willing and able to do -- if it turns out that you require that much "convincing").

Are you willing to do that for the shear entertainment value it would give? Pleeeeease?  I love posts like that.

Hume never breathed a word advocating common ownership of the means of production. Not a word.
Bob, Hume offered the means to the end without ever mentioning it. That's the whole point of philosophy. It isn't an instruction manual, it's a method for getting to conclusions.  Bad method, bad conclusions.  




Post 19

Wednesday, March 26 - 5:45pmSanction this postReply
Link
Edit
Ed T. wrote:
Please read what it is that I write more carefully than that. I qualified the kind of empiricism which I had "maligned" (rather than maligning empiricism, per se).
I did. Bob Kolker asked a question about "good old empiricism." Your response was about "vulgar empiricism" with no mention of any "good empiricism." You linked Existentialism to empiricism. You gave a quote from Rand that maligns any Empiricist.
Merlin, do you agree that the following philosophers are Empiricists?
Dewey was a pragmatist. The other philosophers you list are to varying degrees empiricists. So was Aristotle. However, there are big differences among them. I wouldn't spend time defending some of them, just as I wouldn't spend time defending some self-described Objectivists. My biggest defense would be for Locke. I first posted on this thread taking empiricism to be a doctrine as described in the first three sections here, which I'd guess to be close to what Kolker meant. Also, I named only Bacon and Locke.




Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page
User ID Password reminder or create a free account.