tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post1398285700917719804..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-64826298801943001132007-10-06T18:09:00.000-07:002007-10-06T18:09:00.000-07:00Greg:>Incidentally, this phrase conceptual knowled...Greg:<BR/>>Incidentally, this phrase conceptual knowledge is itself problematic. If we were to have a discussion about conceptual knowledge, what, in practical terms, would that mean? I suspect it can mean but one thing: discussion of definitions. Or, in other words, a discussion of what one word means in terms of other words. Not a very fruitful discussion, would that be!<BR/><BR/>Popper comes to this same conclusion about "conceptual analysis." Until we can read minds, in practice this will be no different than debates over verbal definitions.Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-90067242465032765752007-10-06T17:20:00.000-07:002007-10-06T17:20:00.000-07:00Neil: "I think Rand's theory of concepts is proble...Neil: "I think Rand's theory of concepts is problematic, but I'm not sure if Rand's penchant for making unsupported statements about human nature and other things should be traced to it."<BR/><BR/>Thanks for the clarification. I fully agree, and if anything I wrote seems to imply otherwise, I'm sorry for the confusion. I do believe, however, that there is a connection between Rand's theory of concepts and her<BR/><BR/> Rand's theory of concepts can be view as a rationalization of her knowledge claims, including her knowledge claims about human nature. If you were to challenge Rand on her knowledge claims about human nature, she might reply, "Anyone who knows how to use their minds correctly, who knows how to reason and form valid concepts, would come to the same conclusions about human nature as I did." Rand's theory of concepts is not only a justification of the validity, or at least potential validity, of conceptual knowledge, but also a justification of <EM>her</EM> conceptual knowledge.<BR/><BR/>Incidentally, this phrase <EM>conceptual knowledge</EM> is itself problematic. If we were to have a discussion about conceptual knowledge, what, in practical terms, would that mean? I suspect it can mean but one thing: discussion of definitions. Or, in other words, a discussion of what one word means in terms of other words. Not a very fruitful discussion, would that be!gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65311065344716892792007-10-01T17:51:00.000-07:002007-10-01T17:51:00.000-07:00Greg,I think Rand's theory of concepts is problema...Greg,<BR/><BR/>I think Rand's theory of concepts is problematic, but I'm not sure if Rand's penchant for making unsupported statements about human nature and other things should be traced to it.<BR/><BR/>Long before Rand came up with the ideas in ITOE, she was convinced of her "heroic man" theory. (This is why she became an atheist at a young age, and I believe she once said that all her life's work was devoted to this principle.)<BR/><BR/>Second, Rand, like many intellectuals, had an exaggerated view of the importance of philosophical ideas.<BR/><BR/>So, for example, I don't think it was the ideas set forth in ITO that led her speculate in her notes for Atlas Shrugged in the 40's that we are living in the midst of "pre-humans" and "sub-hmumans" or her statement years later that a person can raise his IQ from 110 to 150.<BR/><BR/>Ellen Stuttle tives the example of Peikoff's "My Thirty Years With Ayn Rand." There, Rand rejected the idea that a "streaker" at the Academy Awards was a kid making a prank. Instead, she concluded that it was an "example of nihilism." (Actually, Peikoff does connect Rand's observation here to her theory of concepts.)Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-61429025934250816232007-10-01T14:12:00.000-07:002007-10-01T14:12:00.000-07:00Anon:>"Objectivism views philosophic reasoning and...Anon:<BR/>>"Objectivism views philosophic reasoning and scientific reasoning as of a piece."<BR/><BR/>So Anon claims. But once again, we find in her work Rand often makes a clear <I>separation</I> between scientific practice and philosophic practice. Recall her discussions in the ITOE (eg the mind/body problem), where she claims it is the philosopher's job to "define the terms", and the scientist's job to study <I>the actual problems</I>. Obviously these are quite different methods! Yet Anon is arguing that in Objectivism philosophy and science are "of a piece".<BR/><BR/>Thus in Objectivism the methods of science and philosophy are <I>the same but different!</I>.This seems to be yet another example of an unacknowledged contrary within Rand's thinking, like her "contextual absolute."Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.com