tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post6633112374842189118..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivist Myths 2: Rand Solved The Mind/Body ProblemDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger12125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-88337698514408035322021-02-20T19:14:40.892-08:002021-02-20T19:14:40.892-08:00Harry and Peikoff were trying to explain, but taki...Harry and Peikoff were trying to explain, but taking their comments out of context misses everything else they say which illuminates. Rand actually does a great job of explaining this as does Peikoff and Binswager. The whole thing is swept aside by the axioms. To understand this one must look beyond Descartes and Hobbes, as Rand, Peikoff and Binswager say they are really two of the same thing, the spiritualists, or idealist, or dualist, or rationalists, or in objectivist terms Intrincisist, vs the materialist, skeptics, monist, empiricist, or in objectivist terms the subjectivist are really the same thing it's why Rand says "they are two sides of the same coin both symbols of death" it is not simply a value issue, it covers values, epistemology and metaphysics(as wel as politics and art). <br /><br />You have to take a 10,000 mile view to fully appreciate it, but its contained in the axioms. The dualist or rationalist or idealist postulates a mind without a body, or a mind disconnected from a body, or a mind disconnected from reality, a mind that has total knowledge and omniscience, a "world of forms" or a supernatural realm, a mind that stands above the physical world and the materialist, or monist says "true enough" if that is the mind then there is no mind, if knowledge means omniscience then there is no knowledge only subjective whim, or nominalism. But again, they are refuted both the same by the axioms Rand identifies, both the rationalist/spiritualist/intrincisist and the empiricist/materialist/subjectivist have to smuggle in the other part. In order for the materialist to say that there is no mind only a mechanistic body, or that there is no certainty "people disagree" "they have their own experience" they have to smuggle in certainty and consciousness, for there is no disagreement and no experience without a mind. This isn't dualism its objectivism.Ryanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16483321770071397984noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-23990051948153978912010-01-02T09:27:33.724-08:002010-01-02T09:27:33.724-08:00I thought that objectivist rejection of the term &...I thought that objectivist rejection of the term "dualism" was because of its prior association with Descartes, not because they are avoiding a dual view of life as having both a mind and body aspect.<br /><br />I thought Binswanger's comments were accepting dualism but reject the Descartes interpretation.Rob Quinnhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14159847715449112482noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-31235315529396434072008-04-16T18:02:00.000-07:002008-04-16T18:02:00.000-07:00____________________________In fact, she's saying ...____________________________<BR/><BR/>In fact, she's saying the opposite; they are unique and separate things, each with a specific identity which must be in harmony with each othe. - Paul<BR/>____________________________<BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/><BR/>Wasn't that the ideal of samurai?<BR/><BR/>"To know and to act the same"Red Granthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08066324554026925595noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-62767998533029416322008-04-16T16:44:00.000-07:002008-04-16T16:44:00.000-07:00I think you are confusing what Ayn Rand meant by t...I think you are confusing what Ayn Rand meant by the mind-body dichotomy. Yes, there is a very important distinction between existence and consciousness; Leonard Peikoff does a good job explaining in OPAR how both subjectivism and intrinicism are examples of the primacy of consciousness. However, when Ayn Rand says she rejects the mind-body dichotomy, she is <I>not</I> saying they are the same thing. She is saying that there should be no contradiction, no dicotomy between your values and principles and you behavior and expression. This is why, for example, she rejects Platonic love (refusing in body the one whom you know is deserving of love). This is also why she rejects pragmatism which says "forget principles and morality, let's be practical" which implies that morality (the mind side of the dichotomy) is in opposition to what is practical (the body side). She rejects the also rejects the concrete-abstraction dichotomy, and the theory-practice dichotomy, both variants of the M-B dichotomy.<BR/><BR/>In summary, I believe your misunderstanding lies in assuming that by rejecting the mind body dichotomy she was saying they were metaphysically the same thing. In fact, she's saying the opposite; they are unique and separate things, each with a specific identity which must be in harmony with each other. The issue is more ethical than metaphysical.Paul Kennedyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08844942510476409480noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-57716410649327930622007-09-26T22:35:00.000-07:002007-09-26T22:35:00.000-07:00Well, I'd double ditto that.To be honest, as a Pop...Well, I'd double ditto that.<BR/><BR/>To be honest, as a Popperian I have some sympathy for Rand's dualist view of the mind, possibly more than Greg does.<BR/><BR/>It really is the hardest problem out there however.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24726638896068354602007-09-26T20:26:00.000-07:002007-09-26T20:26:00.000-07:00"The precise nature of a theory of mind compatible...<I>"The precise nature of a theory of mind compatible with Objectivism...has yet to be established."</I><BR/><BR/>In OPAR, Peikoff mentioned that this was one area where Rand's study was incomplete. He also mentioned the possibility of new and exciting work in the field of neuroscience to this end. I'm not sure how much (if any) of that work has been done. Nevertheless I would be very interested in seeing it should it ever surface.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-49432022783883143102007-09-22T07:43:00.000-07:002007-09-22T07:43:00.000-07:00I found this review of Dennett's "Free Will Evolve...I found this review of Dennett's "Free Will Evolve". The review is by Eyal Mozes.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--766-The_Dogmatic_Determinism_Daniel_Dennett.aspx" REL="nofollow">http://www.objectivistcenter.org/cth--766-The_Dogmatic_Determinism_Daniel_Dennett.aspx</A>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65237578236619492302007-09-21T09:17:00.000-07:002007-09-21T09:17:00.000-07:00What's the Objectivist objection to Spinoza's solu...What's the Objectivist objection to Spinoza's solution to the Mind/Body Problem, i.e. neutral monism?Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053206301930599116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64522554257574841072007-09-20T16:56:00.000-07:002007-09-20T16:56:00.000-07:00KS:>Is anybody aware of the official Objectivist p...KS:<BR/>>Is anybody aware of the official Objectivist position on Daniel Dennet...<BR/><BR/>It can only be "Evil": denies free will.<BR/><BR/>>He is 100% materialist.<BR/><BR/>The confusion over this in Rand land is maximal. I have read (and argued) with plenty of O'ists who take hard-materialist positions (mostly because of Rand's rhetoric about Plato, religion etc), yet who don't realise this entails taking a hard-determinist position on free will.<BR/><BR/>I call this genre the "Accidental Determinists"...;-)<BR/><BR/>>I'm curious to know if he is considered a thinker that is evil/dishonest/evader or somebody an Objectivists might consider honest and on the right track.<BR/><BR/>Most likely they "don't think of him"...;-)Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-80834617718354826932007-09-20T10:05:00.000-07:002007-09-20T10:05:00.000-07:00Is anybody aware of the official Objectivist posit...Is anybody aware of the official Objectivist position on Daniel Dennet and his views on free will and consciousness. From my layman perspective he seems to make a lot of sense. He is 100% materialist. Yet makes a great case for the emergence of free will that is compatible with a deterministic universe. His view also allows for an indeterministic universe.<BR/><BR/>I'm curious to know if he is considered a thinker that is evil/dishonest/evader or somebody an Objectivists might consider honest and on the right track.<BR/><BR/>(Hmmm, is there any philospher around today that Objectivists can say good things about?)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3951874923640667362007-09-18T14:35:00.000-07:002007-09-18T14:35:00.000-07:00This comment has been removed by the author.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053206301930599116noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-74706379005420937272007-09-17T05:40:00.000-07:002007-09-17T05:40:00.000-07:00The funniest thing is that claim that "we aren't d...The funniest thing is that claim that "we aren't dualists, we are Objectivists." Kind of like "we aren't libertarians, we are radicals for capitalism."<BR/><BR/>When do Objectivists discard terms like capitalism, radicalism, individualism, etc. because they are associated with people they don't like? Consistency would seem to demand it.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com