tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post1926257243572480090..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Aristotle's "Secret Revolt" Against ReasonDaniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-16734887344202115232010-01-03T10:43:01.522-08:002010-01-03T10:43:01.522-08:00But did Rand actually commit the errors that Poppe...But did Rand actually commit the errors that Popper decries? Indeed, is Popper's distinction between essentialist and nominalist definition even legitimate? Take his example of "A puppy is a young dog.". A child who has heard the word "puppy" but not seen puppies may take the definition in the opposite direction from that of the person who first coined the term "puppy". Nevertheless, most of us learn language the way the child does, hearing words and trying to match them with objects, actions, attributes, etc. The definition of "puppy" may use more words, but those words may signify simpler concepts, so that there is an epistemological reduction. As for infinite regress, we avoid that by arriving at concepts whose definitions would be more complicated than our awareness of the group of objects subsumed by the concept, such as concepts of qualia and perceptible concretes.Colin Dayhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14242474803767910852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82334223091483190932008-04-19T00:30:00.000-07:002008-04-19T00:30:00.000-07:00"...with its emphasis on definitions and "true" me..."...with its emphasis on definitions and "true" meanings(what Rand called "checking your premises"), it diverted debates over real problems into fruitless arguments over mere words; arguments, as it turns out, that cannot be logically resolved."<BR/><BR/>Can we then conclude that you do not actually believe that what you are saying is true and that it is all fruitless argument that cannot be logically resolved? I couldn't agree more. Thanks for pointing out your self-contradictions once again, loon.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-82338711789314322682008-03-16T20:43:00.000-07:002008-03-16T20:43:00.000-07:00"As we know from Aristotle himself, essentialism a..."As we know from Aristotle himself, essentialism and the theory of definition met with strong opposition when they were first proposed, especially from Socrates's old companion Antisthenes, whose criticism seems to have been most sensible. But this opposition was unfortunately defeated. The consequences of this defeat for the intellectual development of mankind can hardly be overrated." Karl Popper<BR/><BR/>Aristotle was around 19 years old when Antisthenes reportedly died c. 365 bc.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-41947741739369100602007-05-10T15:28:00.000-07:002007-05-10T15:28:00.000-07:00Dragonfly:>I can't imagine that even some Objectiv...Dragonfly:<BR/>>I can't imagine that even some Objectivists wouldn't see how poor Rand's philosophical writings are in comparison...<BR/><BR/>If you're interested, DF, I recommend Popper's "The Open Society And Its Enemies" as a good start. I think it was the Nobellist scientist Peter Medawar who said he envied people who hadn't read it, as they had such a treat in store...;-)<BR/><BR/>Interesting that, like Rand, Popper had English as a second language too (not to mention teaching himself Ancient Greek, to read the classics in the original).Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-71785518228532313602007-05-10T10:35:00.000-07:002007-05-10T10:35:00.000-07:00Until now I'd never read anything by Popper, but n...Until now I'd never read anything by Popper, but now I might be tempted to buy some of his books. What a pleasure to read his quiet and thoughtful argument, especially when you compare it to Rand's angry ranting style, with its simplistic caricatures of other philosophers and their arguments, telling us in essence that they are all stupid morons. Popper's text is also very readable, there is nothing of the pomposity and obscure jargon one usually associates with philosophers. I can't imagine that even some Objectivists wouldn't see how poor Rand's philosophical writings are in comparison, although they'll probably never admit it publicly.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-16104252305998107772007-05-03T09:35:00.000-07:002007-05-03T09:35:00.000-07:00Isn't it funny that once she defined art in The Ro...Isn't it funny that once she defined art in <I>The Romantic Manifesto</I> and wrote the short story "The Simplest Thing in the World" to illustrate her ideas, Rand never prodoced another work of art? You would think if the Aristotelian method was valid that having solved the problem of art by properly defining it, she (and Objectivism in general) would have experienced a creative renaissance. <BR/><BR/>Like the the creative renaissance that occured in Greece after Aristotle wrote the poetics? What that didn't happen either? Gee...Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04053206301930599116noreply@blogger.com