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 unread


Post 0

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 6:35amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I have been reading Reality and the Mind by Celestine Bittle, published in 1936.

"Certitude is the state of mind in which it gives a firm assent to a judgment without fear of the possibility of error, due to recognized valid reasons. This does not mean the mind is really infallible in theses convictions and error is impossible. What it means is the mind is subjectively certain of its grounds and does not fear the possibility of error" (page 22).

He proceeds to say there are degrees of certainty and classes of increasing degree, such as follow. There are moral certitude, physical certitude, and metaphysical certitude. The first is certainty about a general truth but not true in every instance, such as 'Parents love their children." Physical certitude is based on a physical law of nature, with the law considered to be uniform, necessary and universal. Metaphysical certitude is based on metaphysical law, an exception to which is intrinsically impossible, because it would involve a contradiction. We are convinced no power can change truths like 2+2=4, the part is smaller than the whole, and a circle is no square.

Bittle uses different words that (arguably) have a very similar meaning as Peikoff:
"The concept of "certainty" designates knowledge from a particular perspective: it designates some complex items of knowledge considered in contrast to the transitional evidential states that precede them. (By extension, the term may be applied to all knowledge, perceptual and conceptual, to indicate that it is free of doubt.) A conclusion is "certain" when the evidence in its favor is conclusive; i.e., when it has been logically validated. At this stage, one has gone beyond "substantial" evidence. Rather, the total of the available evidence points in a single direction, and this evidence fulfills the standard of proof. In such a context, there is nothing to suggest even the possibility of another interpretation. There are, therefore, no longer any grounds for doubt" (OPAR 178-9).


Post 1

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 7:02amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
What a great find!! Thank you for sharing this!

Post 2

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 7:21amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
As an aside, Bittle's book has an historical overview of knowledge and truth per Descartes, Spinoza, Leibniz, Locke, Hume, Berkeley, Kant, and more. He is critical of the named ones, especially Descartes, and is himself a Thomist.

Post 3

Wednesday, December 12, 2012 - 5:18pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
The resemblance in intriguing.  I commend you for spotting it and for not immediately inferring that Rand or Peikoff just must have read this book.

Post 4

Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 4:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Peter, that thought didn't even occur to me. But since you raised it  :-) , see the following.
Every form of idealism, whether dualistic or monistic, rests upon the primacy of consciousness. Things simply cannot be known, perceived, experienced, except by a conscious mind. Consciousness is thus for them the universal condition of all knowledge and also of being. Consciousness constitutes its objects[.] (Reality and the Mind, p. 157)
I did not see "primacy of existence" nearby nor in the index. "Primacy of consciousness" is in the index. Also, Bittle is most critical of Descartes, not Kant.

I see that a chapter that I haven't read yet deals with the problem of universals and lays out the same alternatives Rand did. I may post again later. If I see anything like measurement omission, I will get suspicious. :-)


Post 5

Thursday, December 13, 2012 - 7:53amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"Primacy of consciousness" is a phrase I'd never seen outside of Objectivist writings, and its occurrence here would be (not conclusive) evidence that Rand or Peikoff was familiar with the book.  A Bing or Google search shows that some new-agey character named Peter Russell is a prominent user of the expression.
  
(Aristotle had a version of measurement omission, which he called classification by more and less; see Metaphysics Iota and Parts of Animals.  For him it was more a way of uniting or distinguishing species within a genus than of forming species as it was for Rand.)

(Edited by Peter Reidy on 12/13, 7:54am)


Post to this thread


User ID Password or create a free account.