| | Ed,
I think the heart of the issue IS abstraction. This is what makes counterfactuals (properly conceived) valid from an Objectivist epistemological point of view. I think Jordan gave a good summary in post #18, but I want to translate that into Randian terms.
Let's backup to the unicorn example. What has been done here is that you have *abstracted* parts from *reality* (a horse, a horn, a lion's tail, etc.) and reintegrated them to serve an artistic purpose. You still have the *differentiation* and *integration*. Reality still provides the *content*. This is perfectly valid as long as you don't treat the unicorn as a real entity. If you do, then you are ~dropping the context~ by which you arrived at the concept 'unicorn'.
This is where the prior confusion came in regarding art. It must be recognized that art has a different *cognitive role*, it provides a concrete way of *experiencing values*, or as AR put it, art selectively illustrates "what aspects of his experience are to be regarded as essential, significant, important.".
However, this does not mean the it is only valid in art. This same type method is used in the normal cognitive role of concepts by bringing a greater focus to man's limited consciousness (see ITOE--Cognitive Role of Concepts). This process helps to isolate some important aspect of reality and bring it within his range of awareness. A good example of this is on the "Argument from Intimidation" thread where a quote from Peikoff was provided ("My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand: An Intellectual Memoir"):
I am not a Kantian. I do not believe that we can know Ayn Rand only as she appeared to somebody or other. But if I were to grant that premise for a split second, if I were to agree that we all construe reality according to our own personal preferences, then I would still draw a fundamental moral distinction between two kinds of preferences: between those of the muckrakers and those of the hero-worshipers. It is the distinction between the people who, confronted by a genius, are seized with a passion to ferret out flaws, real or imaginary, i.e., to find feet of clay so as to justify their own blighted lives—as against the people who, desperate to feel admiration, want to dismiss any flaw as trivial because nothing matters to them in such a context but the sight of the human greatness that inspires and awes them. In this kind of clash, I am sure, you recognize where I stand
Notice here, he is not saying the Kantian premise is true, but rather he is granting an "if" so that he can distinguish two types of people: (1) one who focuses petty flaws of a genius versus (2) one who focuses on the great achievements of a genius. Now, this does not run the gamut of personal "preferences", but you can see it is an effective epistemological method of isolating these to types for comparison.
I think the earlier quote of Peikoff was taken out of context and misconstrued. I think he was taking aim at the "anything is possible" way of thinking. In effect, what he was saying is that what is *possible* flows from identity. In other words, a car cannot spontaneously spring into a tree--that is NOT possible.
In summary, YES, this is proper method of thinking as long as you do NOT drop the context of how you arrived at the concept (like treating the unicorn as a real entity). And yes, reality still provides the content and, using this method, you are economizing a lot of information so that you can readily grasp it within your consciousness.
Regards,
Michael
|
|
