Posted on 07/12/2004 1:15:05 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
(If you want on or off this list please freepmail me.)
Hank
Epistemology? Isn't that where they make than incision, you know, when a woman is giving birth? What does Ayn Rand have to do with that?
A = A bump.
This seems wrong, humanness, mountainness, dogness, and bookness would more accurately be called classifications given by people to these objects. None of them are qualities or properties of an object. Were these really properties, there would be distinct classifications of for mountainness, hillness, mesaness, butteness, molehillness, etc. (Dogness, wolfness, coyoteness, etc.; bookness, codexness, scrollness, pamphletness, etc.)
It's a superficial article. Universals are like the phoenix. They emerge from the language perennially. If you are going to dismiss them, you might want to comment on the universal tendency to perceive them with something more profound than a sniff.
And thus she disappears non-conceptual knowledge. He philosophy falls to a performance error: We can know"warm" even if we have no concept-name for it. Concepts are abstractions of the experience of the thing itself, not the only way we can know.
As for "universals," like absolute values, they are beyond the tool of logic to know, therefore Ayn claims they don't exist - even though she and every human being who gets up in the morning either knows absolute values, assumes them, or acts as though they exist.
Rand is great, up to a point. Past that point she makes rookie errors in philosophy. Rationalism, positivism was debunked within 50 years of its birth.
Spoken like a true object-oriented programmer.
You're thinking of episiotomies, not epistemology. But what I can't figure out is how the concept of universals was originated by Mickey Mouse's dog.
Hank, why should a mystic bother with universals? BTW, it was Aristotle (a favorite of Rand, I've been told) who used "katholou" (universal) a word you won't find in Plato. Which word do you have in mind for Plato's "universal"?
This is the point I got into with my atheist son-in-law Jacob over absolutes . Jake went farther to say that they did not even exist. After a few days, he and I agreed that the moral value: "service to humankind is good" is as useful and independently verifiable as the constant speed of light. IOW, he denies the existence of absolutes while assuming them and acting like they exist.
This essay agues that universals are false and useless concepts everywhere, in all cases and will so will be for now and ever shall be world without end, amen. OK, universal concepts are not absolute values-- in fact, some (like Kant lovers) dump on realism with its universals but still push an 'absolute objective idealism' (single syllable translation- it's real if it's in your mind).
These are my two biggest problems with the idealist argument -- the self contradiction of 'there aren't ever anywhere any universals', and the fact that universals ultimately gain de facto acceptance by their very detractors anyway.
And they're still using Occam's Razor when the rest of us have switched to Gillette.
If Jake is willing to invest a little patience in a question/answer discussion, you can illustrate to him how if he did not know, assume or act as if absolute values exist, he wouldn't be able to leave the house.
I've done it a few times, but some get flustered and quit before you finish the questions.
That anything is "true" is in our mind. 2+2 is only marks on a paper; looking at two apples sitting beside each other is electromagnetic waves striking a receptor.
But knowing, really knowing, that two plus two equals four is a true statement - that is an experience of mind.
So, they are right; it's real in our mind. And, yes, it could all be a dream.
However, we have to assume we can trust our experience. Else we cannot say we can "know" anything.
If someone says, "absolutes are only real if they exist in your mind," the answer is: "yes, at least if that statement exists in your mind."
We act as though absolutes exist. By definition, absolutes cannot be proved using reason/logic - else they would be conditional and therefore not absolute.
So, if absolutes can be known, we must use other means - means beyond science and philosophy. However, because it cannot be known by philosophy, philosophy cannot - logically - say it therefore does not exist.
Another method of inquiry, observation, experiment and comparison of results is required.
Rationalism, positivism was debunked within 50 years of its birth.
Assuming you know what they are, Ayn Rand rejected and debunked both herself, and was vehemently opposed to both logical positivism and linguistic analysis.
Hank
That's correct.
Hank
Looks like one of those neverending threads...
Basically that all that can be known can be known by either science or logic.
Ayn seems a consummate positivist. Or am I in error in thinking she believed nothing transcending logic could be known - or even exists?
And the debunking is basically a performance error: the truth statement of that tenet of positivist cannot be proven "known" given the tenets of positivism. Or: "If what you say is true, you can't know that what you say is true."
And thus she disappears non-conceptual knowledge.
You cannot prove this statement short of conceptual knowledge. It assumes conceptual knowledge and therefore negates itself. Her philosophy falls to a performance error: We can know"warm" even if we have no concept-name for it.
Semantic non-sense. You cannot “know” warm if you do not have a concept of it. It is not possible for you to demonstrate otherwise without relying upon the very conceptualization that you say you don’t need. Stolen concept fallacy. As for "universals," like absolute values, they are beyond the tool of logic to know
There is nothing that is beyond the ‘tool of logic to know’ that you can express and can be verified by others as existing. In terms of conceptual development, the ‘problems of universals' is precisely what Rand solved by her hierarchy of conceptual development. Concepts, properly understood, completely replace the need for universals. every human being who gets up in the morning either knows absolute values
This statement reveals a very poor understanding of Rand since she was utterly dedicated to the concept of the absolute. Existence is an absolute, life is an absolute, death is an absolute, reason is “the only absolute for man.” (The bullet hole in the Wet Nurse was an absolute.) Absolute and universal are utterly different concepts and are not related in the way you assert here.
But knowing, really knowing, that two plus two equals four is a true statement - that is an experience of mind.
Conceptual development (the concept 2) and reason (two plus two equals four) being both dependent upon mind, are more than mere experience. They are logical conclusions based upon conceptual definitions. To say they are an experience of the mind is unnecessary and redundant since you cannot know anything other than by way of mind. By definition, absolutes cannot be proved using reason/logic - else they would be conditional and therefore not absolute.
This statement is false, Fallacy of Proving the negative. You can prove something exists, you cannot prove something does not exist (or say it cannot be proved.) The logic is faulty and contains an unproven assumption: If it is proved by logic and reason - it is conditional and not absolute. This a an absolute statement using logic which Therefore contradicts itself. It is just a restatement of that old stupidity: All things are relative. So, if absolutes can be known, we must use other means - means beyond science and philosophy.
Same thing is true of the above statement. It is an absolute statement in logical form: If - then (implied.) To prove it relies upon the very logic it rejects. It isn’t possible to know anything without some foundation of philosophy, however implicit. Another method of inquiry, observation, experiment and comparison of results is required.
Prove that without resorting to logic. In other words; abandon logic, remain illogical and make your point. Good luck. See you in the asylum.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.