Posted on 04/26/2004 6:09:22 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
It's beyond reason, and more like like cornered animals would act.
You should find it curious. It makes a big difference between an ancient and a modern.
How so?
- Was 'god' different in 'ancient' times, corny?
Generally speaking, the human thinker was different in those times.
BIG generality corny.. What's your basis? [I'll bet on guesswork]
A difference sometimes underscored by the terms ancient and modern.
~Deep~ concept. So deep it makes no sense.
Aristotle was ancient, Kant and Rand are modern.
More fluff. -- Meaningless words corny.. You seem to specialize in empty rhetoric.
The author sniffs this out a little bit when he says Rand finds fault with Aristotle's metaphysics.
Ahhh yes, --- You can't answer my questions, -- so you switch the subject to meta-bull..
-- There is no end to arguing supernatural 'metaphysics'. -- Spare me,.
A subject you are particularly interested in, apparently.
That's what I thought...thanks for the confirmation.
If anybody stands on his shoulders, it would be Aquinas.
Agreed.
Aristotle formulated the language of the syllogism; Whether logic is an invention can be debated, but Aristotle wasn't the inventor.
Aristotle also recognized that induction wasn't the only path to first principles (First principles figure quite large in his practical ethics).
If Rand finds fault in Aristotle for viewing essences as metaphysical (read: Aristotle is wrong to say not all first principles are inductive or deductive), a strange double allegiance appears: she doesn't take to Aristotle as the teacher any more than Kant did (he also exalted his logic). We're told she disliked Kant, but on this most important point of first principles, while hoping to rise on the shoulders of Aristotle, she is closer to lopping off Aristotle's head in order to reign as Kant II.
LOL! Poor Ayn! Always amazing how 'first principles' makes or breaks so many...
It's not important to create a judgment, but it is important as a source of inspiration. Whether or not there is a god or gods is the ultimate starting point for a train of thought regardless of the philosopher.
Aristotle believed in God, but not a God any Christian would recognize.
Hank
Yes, but not recently.
Do you really think this is an accurate representation of his stance on essence?
In the sense that Aristotle believed essences have ontological existence, yes, but not in the same sense as Platonic universals.
But your question might pertain to something else. Does it?
Hank
I did not know that, but, as they say, it takes one to know one.
Actually, Ayn Rand did not drink.
I guess you did not know that.
Hank
A nice, succinct summary. The irony is that Rand herself would be barely capable of understanding what Kant was trying to establish - or rather, trying to overthrow. Namely, the primacy of Reason over dogma. Mainly Aristotelian dogma.
Not widely read, in her own proud admission, she would encounter a notion or two that offended her own sensibilities and render a permanent blanket judgment on the thinker in question. She did the same with Beethoven's music. Did she read the Prologomena or the carefully and thoughtfully before dismissing Kant? No.
Did she listen to a wide range of Beethoven's work? Symphonies, overtures, piano sonatas, the string quartets? Has she even a rudimentary acquaintance with music theory? Does she approach it as a condiment (if it doesn't taste good the first time, it must be 'bad art').
Perhaps my favorite example of exposing Rand as a philosophical lightweight is her praising Aristotle to the heavens for inventing logic, followed by her own metaphysical axiom the 'A=A'. Ahem, 'A=A' is not even an intelligible statement in symbolic logic (that's the kind of logic Aristotle is credited with inventing). The proper expression would be to say 'A implies A' (A -> A). But her acquaintance with real live academic logic (did she even possess a copy of Copi?) makes her confuse logic with mathematics. She is trying to state the law of identity, but is lacks the rudimentary tools to express herself. This is a great philosopher? No, this is a self-absorbed hermit with a cult following who avoided open, equal debate. All she ever wanted was a pulpit.
Hey, at least Aristotle believed in a God. Rand's God is 'Reason', yeah, with a capital 'R', which entitle her to blend it with her personal notion of 'Nature' to form an attractive naturalist philosophy, but replete with hidden metaphysical assumptions. One basic example: Any successful capitalistic society, such as she adores, requires self-sacrifice to defend it. But why not weasle out of one's duty whenever possible. Because you respect 'ethics'? If there is no God nor afterlife, it clearly has no effect when you are dead and stinking.
It's easy to write so glibly from a NY penthouse, when you are not doing any heavy lifting yourself. If the masses adopted Rand's attitute, they would surely take a Howard Stern approach to life. Rand's Objectivism is that swan in the Glass Menagerie. Looks beautiful until you take is out and play with it. Real philosophy is made of tougher stuff. And Rand defender would be hard pressed to cite more than paltry few great capitalists or contributers to America's success who could adhere to her philosophy.
Ayn Rand - closer to Rousseau than Ben Franklin!
True. He believed only in an impersonal First Cause. However, wouldn't it be just a wee bit important for a 'great philosopher' like Rand, who based her own philosophy entirely on Aristotle, do deal with this issue? The possibility that there is even an impersonal First Cause opens up the logical possibility that He could also be intelligent, personal and caring, as well as the guarantor, metaphysically speaking, of human morality. Rand want Reason and Ethics without any metaphysical underpinnings. If Reason and Ethics are sufficient unto themselves, Rand must show how Aristotle was wrong and how the world can be conceived without a First Cause, an Unmoved Mover. I have read all of her philosophical essays (an afternoon would suffice) and fail to see where she authentically grapples with the fundemental metaphysical questions of Western philosophy. She's merely a poser with attitude.
Now that's laughable.
And it shows the lack of any knowledge you've got about Rand. She detested libertarians precisely because they have no philosophy -- and they're rather proud of it.
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.