tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post115717966144792076..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The Absent-Minded ProfessorDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-72553842555788258422013-06-26T22:22:30.810-07:002013-06-26T22:22:30.810-07:00> If this is really what Rand intended by her t...> <i>If this is really what Rand intended by her theory it is quite a turn-up for the books. For if Rand really rejects ‘justified true belief’ and ‘to know P, P must be true’ in favour of ‘you can know P, yet P may be false’ then she effectively has the same epistemology as Karl Popper – that all human knowledge is ultimately hypothetical and may turn out to be wrong (yes, even including this theory), and that there is no such thing as a justified ‘certainty’; not even about the existence (or otherwise) of a naked woman in one’s bedroom. If this is what she meant all along then I look forward to the coming rapprochement between Objectivism and Popper’s Critical Rationalism, given that – if we are to believe Seddon - they have the exact same fundamental epistemological basis.</i><br /><br />Objectivists call knowledge contextual which is a way of acknowledging it is fallible. What they seem to mean is that if idea X solves problem Y, it will always do so, that cannot change. X is objective knowledge. If later people become interested in problem Y2 instead, X may not solve it, but it is still a correct solution to Y. It therefore doesn't lose its knowledge status -- it was correct knowledge in context. And since it never loses its knowledge status, it makes sense to call it knowledge.<br /><br />Something like that.<br /><br />Further, the context might be that you didn't understand everything about Y or about X. Pretty much whatever turns out to be wrong with X, you could call it a context issue. In one context (perhaps a naive, ignorant, simplistic starting context), X is knowledge, and then in another context, (e.g. after understanding the issues better), it turns out X is wrong. So contextual knowledge is a lot like fallible knowledge.<br /><br />Yes this is pretty close to Popper-compatible. Why wouldn't it be?Elliot Templehttp://curi.us/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-19962790629645544872010-05-27T14:16:18.181-07:002010-05-27T14:16:18.181-07:00I suppose I can agree with you a bit. Rather than ...I suppose I can agree with you a bit. Rather than relating her theories to actual philosophy, she creates theories similar to those of a motivational speaker. (There are many gaps in her philosophy, and many issues not delt with. Her scope is narrow.) Her main objective is not to define and understand man, but to mold him into an achiever (or at least what is considered to be an achiever). Her essays merely instruct future valedictorians. But, what can we say, she is just an extreme idealist.<br /> As for her "over-romanticized view of human nature", it is spurred by her veneers (or appearances) that are meant to impress the public. For example, she holds her standards at the highest level and often criticizes actions or creations that do not meet them. Is it truly possible for a philosopher to fill an entire philosophy into a novel? Is is truly possible to abide by all of those codes?JunusJuniorhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05694514428702343087noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-54895258440155898302010-05-19T11:54:52.628-07:002010-05-19T11:54:52.628-07:00Anon: "I somewhat comprehend your disagreemen...Anon: "I somewhat comprehend your disagreement with Ayn Rand's philosophy, yet I do not believe that her theories themselves were at fault but herself as a philosopher."<br /><br />I can agree with that up to a point, but only up to a point. Rand's theories have at least one fatal flaw: a factually incorrect, over-romanticized view of human nature. Because this view was central to her view of existence, it corrupted Rand the philosopher, as her philosophy had to be orientated toward upholding a view of human nature that was not entirely consistent with the facts. It turned her philosophy into a species of rationalization, rather than a method of attaining wisdom about man and his relation to existence. These corruptions, to be sure, did not prevent Rand's theories from having an element of truth in them, particularly if they are taken broadly enough and the troublesome particulars are ignored. Broadly speaking, she is right in her realism and in her disgust with totalitarianism and the radical left. There is even something to be said for the eudaimonistic implications of her moral philosophy. But her empirical irresponsibility in her philosophy, fostered by her need rationalize her ideal man, runs far too deep in her thought to rescue most of her theories from serious contamination. If a thinker fails as a philosopher, it's almost certainly going to affect his (or her) theories.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52793826104647251832010-05-18T19:50:18.030-07:002010-05-18T19:50:18.030-07:00I somewhat comprehend your disagreement with Ayn R...I somewhat comprehend your disagreement with Ayn Rand's philosophy, yet I do not believe that her theories themselves were at fault but herself as a philosopher. Rand's ideals (whatever they may be in each case) appear omnipotent and desirable because they model ficticious characters. She models an unattainable state as a standard of man (although I do believe it to be attainable with the correct amount of dilligence) yet does not tell the reader how to emulate it. While philosophy is essentially idealism converted into tainted realism, realis appears to have been purged from Ayn Rand's philosphy not because her philosophy is incorrect but because of ambiguity.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-42004885039750383152010-04-24T14:40:52.487-07:002010-04-24T14:40:52.487-07:00Stephen:
>This is merely a restatement of mysti...Stephen:<br />>This is merely a restatement of mysticism, ie, of fantasy as a standard of knowledge. It is not a method of knowing reality as a guide to the actions needed for man's life in the material universe.<br /><br />Stephen, do you regard the scientific standard of "absolute zero" as a "restatement of mysticism" because we are unlikely to physically achieve it?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-29136905500153433532010-04-24T13:23:59.756-07:002010-04-24T13:23:59.756-07:00"This is merely a restatement of mysticism, i..."This is merely a restatement of mysticism, ie, of fantasy as a standard of knowledge. It is not a method of knowing reality as a guide to the actions needed for man's life in the material universe"<br /><br />Don't worry, although I don't know Greg in the real world I doubt has a problem with "the actions needed for man's life in the material universe"<br /><br />SteveAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52567069174492615232010-04-24T11:02:39.480-07:002010-04-24T11:02:39.480-07:00>it is always possible by way of analogy to pro...>it is always possible by way of analogy to propose “absolute certainty” as a hypothetical standard which we also may never achieve.<br /><br />This is merely a restatement of mysticism, ie, of fantasy as a standard of knowledge. It is not a method of knowing reality as a guide to the actions needed for man's life in the material universe.Stephennoreply@blogger.com