tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post2838717691870818267..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivism & “Metaphysics,” Part 11Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger16125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44512583628446133472011-02-11T05:11:13.976-08:002011-02-11T05:11:13.976-08:00Very clear post indeed! I do take issue with Santa...Very clear post indeed! I do take issue with Santana's statement: "Now the seriousness of mathematics comes precisely of its remarkable and exact relevance to material facts, both familiar and remote. And this in surprising measure." <br /><br />The fact that /some/ math can be applied to reality is actually /not/ surprising at all. The reason basic math is applicable ans useful is because it was developed to be so!<br /><br />What most people who don't know math very well don't seem to understand is that math is not singular, but a collection of tools and theories, some of which are based on intuitions about reality, and some of which aren't. Even in something like geometry, you have euclidian or planar geometry, spherical geometry, hyperbolical gemeometry, ... <br /><br />There are many mathematical theories that find no application in reality at all. For example, 4 dimensional spacial geometry is not very useful in a 3 dimensional universe like ours (snare theory apart).Beoranhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08114449806890952256noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-20973062505411783562010-09-24T04:03:09.838-07:002010-09-24T04:03:09.838-07:00Facts are contingent in the sense that there is no...<i>Facts are contingent in the sense that there is no operating principle guiding them. Natural laws may describe uniformities in nature, but these uniformities are entirely adventitious; they are not caused or directed by natural law. I find that this constitutes a compelling reason to at least be suspicious of physical necessity and open to the contingency of facts.</i><br /><br />I agree with this. Given the success of science and that the mind is so attuned to finding meaning in just about everything, it's a very tough sell to someone who wants to believe that human potential is unlimited and that scientific inquiry will not drive them into frustration when investigating some kinds of questions. I guess the key is what distinguishes the two attitudes, and as you pointed out, it is the tendency to say what the world must be come what may.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-6167376023001448572010-09-23T21:02:18.475-07:002010-09-23T21:02:18.475-07:00Laj: "Facts are what they are - whether they ...Laj: "Facts are what they are - whether they are supposedly necessary or contingent is a claim about how they arise, but cannot be discerned without experimental analysis..."<br /><br />Well that's one approach. The most persuasive argument against necessity in the physical world arises from the notion that necessity is a purely conceptual or logical property which simply cannot be applied to the material world. Santayana, for example, seems to have opposed necessity in nature because he identified it with a type of moralism—i.e., the belief asserting the actual dominance of reason or goodness over the universe at large. So to say there's no physical necessity and that facts are contingent is just a way of noting that the facts don't follow any principle or law or any other kind anthropomorphic logos. Facts are contingent in the sense that there is no operating principle guiding them. Natural laws may <em>describe</em> uniformities in nature, but these uniformities are entirely adventitious; they are not caused or directed by natural law. I find that this constitutes a compelling reason to at least be suspicious of physical necessity and open to the contingency of facts. In addition to this, there's also the concern, adumbrated in my post, that physical necessity is often used to justify rationalistic speculation (that is, in effect, what Brand Blanshard's "Reason and Analysis" is all about: rationalistic speculation is defended on the basis of necessity). It's part and parcel of the view that reality is ultimately intelligible—a view very easy to refute (i.e., simply ask anyone to provide an ultimate explanation for any fact).gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-3057973795198074542010-09-23T19:13:28.186-07:002010-09-23T19:13:28.186-07:00Great post, Greg, though I suspect it will be nigh...Great post, Greg, though I suspect it will be nigh impossible for an Objectivist trapped in reading the Objectivese language to get at the meaning of your statements.<br /><br />There is one ambiguous statement though:<br /><br />Facts, therefore, for all practical intents, are contingent — which effectively means, alogical and "unnecessary."<br /><br />It's easy to understand what you mean if a person familiar with the debate reads the whole paragraph, but the "contingent" part is what I think might confuse people. Facts are what they are - whether they are supposedly necessary or contingent is a claim about how they arise, but cannot be discerned without experimental analysis, and any purported necessity can only be claimed, but can be shown to be in error by any counterexample matching the causal specifications.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-30373604980549427682010-09-20T18:42:59.357-07:002010-09-20T18:42:59.357-07:00The Law of Identity is inapplicable to atoms. Uh ...The Law of Identity is inapplicable to atoms. Uh oh.<br /><br />http://tinyurl.com/32vl72sMike Wadenoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25222977111217822502010-09-20T13:42:45.019-07:002010-09-20T13:42:45.019-07:00"Objectivism, for the numerous reasons you ha..."Objectivism, for the numerous reasons you have laid out does not seem able or willing to accomadate new facts or data at all well."<br /><br />Orthodox Objectivism (i.e., the Peikoffian brand) definitely has trouble absorbing any ideas that conflict with Rand's core notions.<br /><br />"I found your post on the new schism to be especially interesting based where you discussed Mr. Perkoiffs book the logical leap."<br /><br />Actually, that post was written by Neil Parille, and "Logical Leap" is largely written by David Harriman. <br /><br />"The core assumption of Mr. Perkoiff that scientific advancement comes from forumlating ideas in some headspace first seems completly backwards."<br /><br />Perhaps it would be unfair to describe this as the "core" assumption of Harriman's book, but obviously the idea, prominent in Objectivism, that philosophy has veto power over science is deeply problematical. In practice, it can easily degenerate into making science the handmaiden of rationalistic speculation.<br /><br />"I wondered if you were familar with the works of science-historian Mr. James Burke."<br /><br />Thanks for the recommendation. Never read James Burke, but if I get a chance, I'll check him out.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-61897339925896056742010-09-20T13:32:32.139-07:002010-09-20T13:32:32.139-07:00The contradiction phenomenon is a reference to a p...The contradiction phenomenon is a reference to a paradox, way back in my college days our philosophy instructor sent us on a wild goose chase by having us write about an observable, naturally occurring paradox. That was a cruel hoax. <br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox<br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxesAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-44519302447928551952010-09-20T13:25:07.645-07:002010-09-20T13:25:07.645-07:00"What does it mean, in empirical terms, to sa...<i>"What does it mean, in empirical terms, to say that an atom cannot be a non-atom?"</i><br /><br />Or that a particle is also a wave. I vaguely recall that some Objectivists have objections to quantum mechanics because of this; and also because it says that some events have no cause (see Obectivism & Metaphysics Part 10). A quick Google search seems to back this up; anyone want to comment further?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-55180890182837934572010-09-20T07:15:53.034-07:002010-09-20T07:15:53.034-07:00Mr. Nyquist;
Both this Post and your post on the ...Mr. Nyquist;<br /><br />Both this Post and your post on the "new schism" in Objectivism get at one of the issues with objectivism that caused me to stop giving it serious consideration at the end of high school and the beggining of college.<br /><br />Objectivism, for the numerous reasons you have laid out does not seem able or willing to accomadate new facts or data at all well. <br /><br /><br />I found your post on the new schism to be especially interesting based where you discussed Mr. Perkoiffs book the logical leap. The core assumption of Mr. Perkoiff that scientific advancement comes from forumlating ideas in some headspace first seems completly backwards. <br /><br />I wondered if you were familar with the works of science-historian Mr. James Burke. If you ever chose to do a review or deconstruction of "the logical leap" you might find Mr. Burke's "The day the universe changed" as a good work for compairson and refutation.Curious Readernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-1014605884848240742010-09-20T06:53:49.240-07:002010-09-20T06:53:49.240-07:00A remarkably quick search on Poppler immediatly re...A remarkably quick search on Poppler immediatly reveals what I had suspected. <br /><br />Poppler does not say that "everything has to be falsified" or any such thing instead his argument stems from the fact, as Nyquist has related in this post, that any single factual counter example to a theory disproves theory while at the same time no number "positive" test results can ever "Verify" that something is universally true.<br /><br />Its exactly as presented in the main post, a fact counter to our view of nature does mean that nature must change but that our view of nature must change.<br /><br />Poppler's view on Falsifiability would seem to hardly be in contention considering that it is the standard that is used to seperate pseduo-science from its more rigours counterpart.<br /><br />Also your arguement that "Popper claimed<br />that all the laws of Galileo, Newton and Kepler have been falsified." does you no service because in many ways they have been.<br /><br />Kepler, Galileo, and Newton are all, as any first year physicst or engineering student can tell you, approximations. Considering that to the best of our knowledge we live a quantized reletvistic universe then Newton is false (and ergo so are Galileo and Kepler whose theroies were considered verfied by Newtons work).<br /><br />However, unless you spend a lot of time traveling at speeds closing in on the speed of light, then your experienced universe will appear very much newtonian.CuriousReadernoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-70391221405517063202010-09-19T22:15:38.332-07:002010-09-19T22:15:38.332-07:00I curious. I have a copy of Bertrand Russell's...I curious. I have a copy of Bertrand Russell's "A History of Western Philosophy" right here but I was unable to locate where Hume said that about suicide. I even resorted to an electronic copy and word search to no avail. Perhaps you might be willing to post where in the book this is stated or a more exact version of the quote? Thanks in advance.Priest4hirehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04824629850423822304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-69882442149098205602010-09-19T20:25:18.757-07:002010-09-19T20:25:18.757-07:00Looks like Hardesty is trolling again.Looks like Hardesty is trolling again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-37561555028992652932010-09-19T19:12:06.168-07:002010-09-19T19:12:06.168-07:00Hume did indeed write write what I wrote and go to...Hume did indeed write write what I wrote and go to The History Of Western Philosophy by Bertrand Russell for verification.<br />Nyquist, on consciousness are you now disavowing exactly your comments that I was responding to ?<br />"Ambulatory" or undergoing a psychotic moment ? With you it's hard to tell the difference.<br />"Sophistication" means clear as mud in your case.<br />Popper does indeed believe what I credited him with. See his Objective Knowledge. Popper claimed<br />that all the laws of Galileo, Newton and Kepler have been falsified. See pages 189-190 of Harriman's The Logical Leap for verification of Popper's beliefs.<br />Nyquist, your last verbose paragraph is exactly what the shrinks call PROJECTION, you have described yourself and your epistemology to a T. And how many people have signed up with your <br />(NON) "movement." The Objectivists<br />number in the many millions.<br />Matt, I totally agree with your cogent criticism of Nyquist. <br />Less is more in your case.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-11612626614386189652010-09-19T16:07:22.362-07:002010-09-19T16:07:22.362-07:00"How could consciousness not be automtaic ? Y..."How could consciousness not be automtaic ? You think we have to will it into existence ?"<br /><br />Where have I said anything about consciousness and whether it's automatic? That has nothing to do with the subject of this post.<br /><br />"You bifurcation of objective reality only contributes to a total paralysis of thought and then action."<br /><br />Do you have any evidence for this statement? As I happen to be entirely ambulatory and have just complete some sophisticated criticism of Rand's metaphysics, I didn't think so.<br /><br />"The discredited ramblings here on ARCHN remind one of Hume's admission, that if he were to take his philosophy seriously then suicide would be the next step."<br /><br />Hume never wrote such a thing. This is a complete distortion of Hume's argument against extreme skepticism.<br /><br />"Popper's absurd belief that everything has to be falsified..."<br /><br />Popper does not believe that <em>everything</em> has to be falsified.<br /><br />From a rational point of view, Anon's ramblings make no sense at all. Does he really believe he's doing his cause any favors with such ill-tempered ravings? Why would anyone wish to sign up with a movement that included people as splenetic, unmannerly, disagreeable and ungenerous as we have here before us? someone so thin-skinned that he can't prevent himself from having a temper tantrum every time someone dares to criticize one of the chief idols of his craven worship? someone who lacks the wit to respond to criticism intelligently, like a rational, cultivated being?gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86313774266001051732010-09-19T15:22:28.530-07:002010-09-19T15:22:28.530-07:00Belittling language? Check. Arrogant declaration? ...Belittling language? Check. Arrogant declaration? Check. Lack of substantive argument. Check. More quality Objectivist argumentation.<br /><br />Thanks for playing.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14966179466026805822noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-11991637088184002362010-09-19T13:01:09.558-07:002010-09-19T13:01:09.558-07:00How could consciousness not be automtaic ? You thi...How could consciousness not be automtaic ? You think we have to will it into existence ? And what can consciousness perceive but reality ? You bifurcation of objective reality only contributes to a total paralysis of thought and then action. The discredited ramblings here on ARCHN remind one of Hume's admission, that if he were to take his philosophy seriously then suicide would be the next step. Popper's absurd belief that everything has to be falsified really means that there is no objective truth that can be comprehended by all people. <br />IF this were true it would be a horrible step backward about 600 years. And who needs that ?<br />Barnes and Nyquist's problems appear to be psychological rather than philosophical. I'd recommend therapy but since 99.99% of it is quackery, then read Thomas Szasz<br />instead. Or better yet read Ayn Rand and this time try to COMPREHEND it, little fellows.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com