Re: Lindsay's post, 7-19: Must disagree with you here. The issue of the validity of the senses is huge in epistemology, yet deals with automatic processes!

--Mindy

It is here.

The statement is in the first paragraph, I think.

--Mindy

Just read a post, elsewhere, by Diane Hsieh (sp?) in which she says that Rand's concept of Objectivity is novel.

Do you have a link?

Wm

Just read a post, elsewhere, by Diane Hsieh (sp?) in which she says that Rand's concept of Objectivity is novel. On the contrary, the concepts "objective" and "objectivity," as Rand used them, are the same as philosophers in general have always used!! ("Objectivism" is even used in some philosophical dictionaries and surveys to describe a more or less "realistic" stance that some theory has, as compared to another (in no relation to Rand.)) But Hsieh's claim is the sort of thing that turns academics away from Objectivism.

"Objectivism" as naming a whole philosophy, is original with Rand, I believe. Acknowledging a debt to Aristotle is as far as Rand goes in tracing the connection of her thought with extant philosophies. Since mainstream, academic philosophers are dismissive of Rand's thought as not being original, the delineation of her originality is important if we are to answer them. Being able to answer such critics is invaluable in responding to charges that Objectivism is a cult. Who has written on this?

My own opinion is that Rand's originality comes in her ethics and politics. She succeeded in providing an objective basis for defining values, and carries the idea through to its ultimate application in the very messy field of politics. The robustness of her conceptions there are a marvel, to say the least. Ethics and politics are the fruits of philosophy, metaphysics and epistemology the root system (sloppy metaphor.) You don't get good fruits if the roots don't work!! The beauty and robustness of her ethics and politics are themselves a kind of proof as to the soundness of Objectivism, even if it stands as an incomplete philosophy, textually. 

Metaphysics is a brief subject, the most highly abstract one, and one appreciated by only a few. But its truths are "felt" without great effort.  Epistemology is a difficult one, comprising automatic and deliberate processes, all levels of abstraction, generality, concepts, propositions, argument, and prediction. Without completing her theory of epistemology, Rand knew her way through it. She knew perfectly well what epistemology provided man with, even before she had time, fully, to analyze how it did so.

Where does that leave us? Objectivism as a whole system is an immense accomplishment. Rand's vision of man and the world spanned the range of thought, from the very basics to their highest implications. In that sense, it is complete. The integration she made is original, and of momentous import.

Still, she wrote only an intro. to epistemology, so more work is needed.  Is a contribution to Objectivist epistemology feasible? Shouldn't we be analyzing the relations of Objectivism's tenets to other philosophy? It is irresponsible to have incompetent comparisons such as Hsiesh's misleading newcomers and discrediting Objectivism by association.

--Mindy

I appreciate that. Unfortunately if he were to fight every bureaucrat he would not get anything done.

You wrote: "You either want to produce or you don't is the ultimatum he gave. It was wonderful." This guy though is part of the problem as charming as he is. From Galt's speech:

"I saw that the enemy was an inverted morality—and that my sanction was its only power. I saw that evil was impotent—that evil was the irrational, the blind, the anti-real—and that the only weapon of its triumph was the willingness of the good to serve it. Just as the parasites around me were proclaiming their helpless dependence on my mind and were expecting me voluntarily to accept a slavery they had no power to enforce, just as they were counting on my self-immolation to provide them with the means of their plan—so throughout the world and throughout men’s history, in every version and form, from the extortions of loafing relatives to the atrocities of collectivized countries, it is the good, the able, the men of reason, who act as their own destroyers, who transfuse to evil the blood of their virtue and let evil transmit to them the poison of destruction, thus gaining for evil the power of survival, and for their own values—the impotence of death."

I don't think I'm reading too much into what was a good breakfast.

Can't handle him?!

Ye of little faith.

3 divorces? See, he could take a leaf from my book... at least I'm sensible enough to have only married and divorced once. De factos don't count.

To be quite honest and I can't believe I'm saying it, I don't think you would be able to handle the guy.
3 marriages and divorces he was a hard man with huge soft spots for his staff. He provides all the farmers and workers who give him 10 years of service or more a house mortgage free with the condition that it can't be passed on and is non transferable. Brilliant idea.

It doesn't sound as if he is short of money, Olivia

http://nzcapitalist.blogspot.com/

We started chatting, he was a millionaire, worked on shipping boats, steel industry, property and farming. He was full of life, arrogant and loved to speak about his observations of what everyone else consumes their lives with.

Next time give him my number... there's a good son in law.

Yes and at least 350 of that should go to some good shiraz

For me this has been a taxing day at Solo. This thread has paid a wonderful refund to my juices, great discussion.
I shouted myself to a cafe breakfast last week on my own. Thought I would do some alone time enjoying my leisure activities eating out and reading mags. Met this guy who was alone sitting opposite me. The table sat 10 people. We started chatting, he was a millionaire, worked on shipping boats, steel industry, property and farming. He was full of life, arrogant and loved to speak about his observations of what everyone else consumes their lives with. I asked about the RMA and how he deals with bureaucrats. I actually found him rather enlightening. "bureaucrats, you have to accept them, they are a natural part of life" he exlaimed. Learn to negotiate with them. "They don't have a moral right to anything of yours but they do have a legal one". You either want to produce or you don't is the ultimatum he gave. It was wonderful.

Objectivism OUGHT to have a voice for such practical advice, even though it is not a science. Not all of us are born a Galt. But we all have in it us to become one, if we are willing to get rid of destructive premises and fill our brains with the right ideas, and then act in accord with them.

Perhaps you could package and market Boot Camp Seminar weekends... competing against that hugely successful Landmark Forum business. $700.00 per person for two full days of KASS Galtiness, with pee breaks permitted.

KingRandor...

I have, however, learned how to work around the stupidity of others- and even play it to my own advantage.

Now that's worth a blog of its own! If you have a moment, I'm all ears.

I'm going to be honest with my perspective on this...and it may include me saying things that a lot of people will find very condescending, just naturally mean-spirited, depressing, and pompous. Feel free to see it as you like, but I'm just calling it as I see it.

First I confess- I am not an Objectivist. Much of the philosophy makes a lot of sense to me, hell MOST of it does, but there're occasionally things that Ayn Rand said about it that I disagreed with( though overall I tend to agree with her more than almost anyone else)- and she said "either ya follow it down pat, or yer not an Objectivist". So fine, I'm not an Objectivist; my life won't end tomorrow over it.

That said, allow me to mention I work at a hotel/resort in Sandusky, Ohio. I get the chance to observe people a lot, as I'm a cashier for concessions. Doing this work gives me the opportunity to find out what makes people "tick". I.e. it gives me an insight as to how they think- might I add, I'm also about to launch my retail website very shortly, and I hope to soon be doing that as my long-term career.

Regardless, in my honest opinion, you CAN'T sell Objectivism to most people. Reasons being:

1. Most people in this world are STUPID. I'd give that about 98%. It's like the 2% in this world that actually make it work. Y'know how people love to complain about all those shady politicians in office? Y'know why for the most part you'll never get many better? Ya think the people electing them, at heart, are really any smarter/more competent/more honest? R-I-I-I-G-H-T. I still stand by the belief that your average John/Jane Doe would fuck over his/her own neighbor, given the opportunity. The fact is, most people like the short-term thinking, and ignore long-term thinking. I'm quite sure there's more to Objectivism than thinking long-term, but I also believe it's a good part of it.

2. Most people in this world are severe hypocrites. They don't like to play the cards they preach. They'll complain to all holy hell about how high taxes, gas prices, etc are, but will support every idiotic regulation and bill that makes those things possible. And I'm sorry- but at this point in time I just can no longer accept that they're poorly informed. There's more information open to people now, than ever before. They just don't care, and want things both ways. It's that simple. In fact, I even recently mentioned this same point on a thread on an action figure fanatics website, thefwoosh.com, recently, in regards to an action figure line- not one person fought me on it. They KNEW it to be true.

3. To practice Objectivism, you must be motivated, and hold yourself to a very high standard of living. I'd give a good 2% of the world's population is that, and does that.

Ironically, despite all that I've come to believe, I'm not a negative person- I'm in fact a very motivated individual who loves life, loves HIS life, and is in a wonderful relationship with a sweet, caring, beautiful gal.

I have, however, learned how to work around the stupidity of others- and even play it to my own advantage.

If you CAN sell Objectivism to more people, I congratulate you...but I don't believe it's likely. People like quick fixes, and "easy" routes- and they'll gladly screw the Joe over there over to get what they want/need in a heartbeat.

I have been very interested over the last 8 years or so in what "works" with respect to getting the most out of myself. The road to doing this, obviously, is a better understanding of how our brains work and how to use our brains and feed our brains the right stuff to get the results we want.

In this area, the practical, how-to advice, some good, some horrible, is devoid of an Objectivist voice. Alot of the really good stuff is suffused with mysticism (e.g., Think and Grow Rich, The Richest Man in Babylon, etc.) and so most or many Objectivists do not read it or do not take it seriously. Then, there are the Anthony Robbins types who are sometimes effective sometimes not, but always overly wordy and way too expensive, and again, mystical at his root. The quest for success and effectiveness ends with Rand's writings, which do not form a nuts and bolts guide for living effectively and getting the most out of what you've got.

Objectivism OUGHT to have a voice for such practical advice, even though it is not a science. Not all of us are born a Galt. But we all have in it us to become one, if we are willing to get rid of destructive premises and fill our brains with the right ideas, and then act in accord with them.

Scott DeSalvo

www.desalvolaw.com
FREE Injury Report and CD Reveal the Secrets You Need to Know to Protect Your RIGHTS!

James,you are right, philolosophy should integrate new knowledge in non-contradictory way."Knowledge is power". Ayn Rand herself expressed wish to learn neurophysiology. But if you think that science could be a substitute to philosophy,then you are wrong. Philosophy, which is dealing witn widest abstractions, gives validation and meaning to scientific metodology and , therefore, to the knowledge.

Greg,

Small words and Objectivist words then. Concept formation is one of the important things humans do and it is unique, but on a given conceptual level the mental operations given in IOE: reduction, measurement omission and integration don't capture many important things that human brains do.

Jim

Abstraction as you describe is not reserved for humans, it being purely a basic simile for point of perception.

Why the big words?

Some of pattern-recognition and storing sequences of patterns is perceptual, some of it conceptual. Suppose I've been slaving over Vivaldi's Violin Concerto in A-Minor and suddenly a large passage "fits" or I'm Kekule and a snake starts eating its tail and I think about a benzene ring. Neither of these operations was concept-formation in a vertical abstraction sense. It was probably pattern recognition within a given layer of our neocortex operating on previous conceptual data.

The power concept-formation gives us is abstraction, which is uniquely human on a significant scale, although other primates have very rudimentary pre-cursors to it. Goriallas and chimps have a capacity for about an 800 word vocabulary and rudimentary communication.

Jim

... in answer to your question:

What amkes the parts of cognitive operation talked about in IOE fundamental, but those not talked about not fundamental?

What you're talking about appears to be subsumed under "perception" and "memory," and thus automatic, of no philosophic import. IOE, while of course not exhaustive (nor claiming to be) deals with the distinctively human phenomenon of concept-formation which is volitional (also distinctively human, and thus philosophically fundamental).

Linz,

Cognitive science can tell us a lot about thinking. The interplay between how our brains work and a theory of knowledge that maps to reality is important. In many respects the Objectivist epistemology captures some of those like measurement omission, hierarchy and cognitive economy, but it doesn't capture the general nature of pattern recognition and how our brains store sequences of patterns.

If a closed system advocate says that IOE captures everything important about the interplay between cognitive science and epistemology, I would say he was wrong. If the open system advocate says that everything but a few important tenets are open to question i would say he is wrong.

What amkes the parts of cognitive operation talked about in IOE fundamental, but those not talked about not fundamental?

Jim

I'm not sure what your quibble is, exactly. I think you might be making unreasonable, if not improper, demands on philosophy. Philosophy is not science. Obviously it ought not to fly in the face of science, but why must it keep abreast of the minutiae of specialised disciplines? Philosophy is too fundamental for that. In fact, philosophy is fundamental, period, no? Taking its cue from reality (we hope) it sets the rules of epistemology which science uses, no?

The open/closed debate in "Randland" usually pertains to how much, if any, of Objectivism is up for grabs, and how much slack should be cut for dissenters. I don't think your recasting of it has legs, as they say. Feel free to prove me wrong.

...that Rand wrote only an introduction to epistemology shows that the philosophy, if it is to be a complete system of thought, and not her individual product, is incomplete.

However, I disagree that your Prof's definition of philosophy is no longer apt. New science, even when it comes in the form of new technology, adds grist to the philosophical mill, but it does so only at the point that science affects the individual's choices in how to live. And at such a point, the science has been simplified to a level that laymen can understand, at least in its practical application--the one(s) that can affect their choices.

--Mindy