tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post4071327967761206155..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: Objectivist Quote of the Week: Einstein "Corrupted"Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger55125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-16033245342848595002013-06-10T16:47:51.445-07:002013-06-10T16:47:51.445-07:00* such a mind* such <b>a</b> mind<br />Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-89708714864156375672013-06-10T16:43:14.143-07:002013-06-10T16:43:14.143-07:00I am happy to see that my very condensed summation...I am happy to see that my very condensed summation of ARCHN's true character is still posted in the rightmost panel.<br /><br />Of course, the latest critique of Objectivism, using Diana Hsieh's behavior as an exemplar, is consistent with this blog's complete, <b>emotionally deliberate</b>, rejection of Ayn Rand's thought.<br /><br />Dishonest minds, such as Nyquist's, cannot resist anything that might support their thesis. Confirmation Bias, Dropped Context, Hierarchical Inversion of Concepts, and more, are the Fallacious Tools of their trade. Nyquist is such mind. He is pretty smart in his use of those tools, ... sucking in neophytes (perhaps his power trip). <br /><br />Of course, that is all the more sad because of the cerebral waste his mind has chosen to pursue.Richardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/02479600882274172677noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-85725295325696860612009-07-09T13:22:52.256-07:002009-07-09T13:22:52.256-07:00Cavewight: "Knight?"
That's Frank K...Cavewight: "Knight?"<br /><br />That's Frank Knight, the economist. Objectivists have distorted the views of a number of philosophers and social scientists over the decades, but they have never done it to as ridiculous an extent as in J. Ridpath's absurd article on Knight. The article not only so badly distorts Knight's views that one suspects Ridpath of being entirely innocent of having read any of Knight's books, but it also contains some howlers regarding economic intellectual history.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63987449849078652412009-07-09T09:52:54.193-07:002009-07-09T09:52:54.193-07:00Dragonfly wrote:
"About Rand's God arg...Dragonfly wrote: <br /><br />"About Rand's God argument: according to Barbara Branden Rand said about the statement in her diary "Today I decided to be an atheist": "I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong", which is not quite the same as what PhysicistDave writes, but it's certainly similar and as an argument for atheism it's no less ludicrous."<br /><br />When reading Rand's glorifying of "man", I often get the impression that "god" merely changed his name to "man" in her thinking.Xraynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24602026500859282962009-07-08T20:09:28.794-07:002009-07-08T20:09:28.794-07:00Knight?Knight?Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25794749486174147212009-07-08T19:47:18.334-07:002009-07-08T19:47:18.334-07:00Kulero: "If someone argues against a person&#...Kulero: "If someone argues against a person's views, they should at least represent those views correctly. To do otherwise is dishonest."<br /><br />This is a nice ideal, but if it were accepted, we would have to charge Rand and some of her orthodox disciples with dishonesty in misrepresenting Kant, Hume, Russell, Wittgenstien, Emerson, Carlyle, Nietzsche, Hayek, Weber, Knight, etc. Objectivists have to be careful here. You can't expect people to abide by standards which your side fails to live up to. <br /><br />There's an additional reason for not playing the moral indignation card on this issue, and it is this: philosophers are constantly misrepresenting one another, and being in turn misrepresented either by their followers or their critics. It is merely an occupational hazard in philosophy and the failure to accept it as such can only lead to an unwise and useless frustration. There used to be a series of books called "The Library of Living Philosophers," which featured criticisms of an active philosopher, with a rebuttal by that philosopher at the end of the book. Nearly always the rebuttal consisted of complaints about misunderstandings, misinterpretations, and misrepresentations of the philosopher's critics. Philosophy is often scandalously vague and abstract; and where you have vagueness, you have ambiguity. Indeed, many arguments in philosophy rest on ambiguity and could not carry conviction without it. So we should not be in the least surprised that individuals coming from different points of view should offer varied interpretations of a vague and ambiguous discourse.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52847722547755728462009-07-08T18:29:00.725-07:002009-07-08T18:29:00.725-07:00Dragonfly wrote:
Well no, Kant was wrong, Euclidea...Dragonfly wrote:<br /><i>Well no, Kant was wrong, Euclidean geometry, like any other geometry (elliptic, hyperbolic, Riemannian) is analytical, it follows directly from the axioms (different axioms, different geometries). Whether a particular geometry can be applied to descriptions of physical systems is an empirical question, so the statement "this particular geometry describes that system" is a synthetic truth, the geometry itself however is analytic, its validity doesn't depend on the fact whether it gives the best description of reality.</i><br /><br />I gave Euclid's fifth postulate as an example of syntheticity - it doesn't matter whether it applies to reality. I realize that there is this common view that syntheticity has to do necessarily with reality - this notion comes from Positivism (Einstein was a Positivist who held to that definition). However, I'm trying to stay with Kant's original definition, since, after all, he is the one who invented the nomenclature and originally defined the terms of this discussion.<br /><br />And indeed, for Kant the synthetic a priori is true without appealing to experience. You have made the common error of conflating 'a posteriori' (which means from experience) with "synthetic" (which only deals with the logical structure of propositions).Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66660456378939939742009-07-08T15:58:04.088-07:002009-07-08T15:58:04.088-07:00Cavewight: "In FACT, if we had no such choice...Cavewight: "In FACT, if we had no such choice then that would render Euclidean geometry ANALYTICAL, when in fact it was proven by Kant to be SYNTHETIC A PRIORI."<br /><br />Well no, Kant was wrong, Euclidean geometry, like any other geometry (elliptic, hyperbolic, Riemannian) is <i>analytical</i>, it follows directly from the axioms (different axioms, different geometries). Whether a particular geometry can be <i>applied</i> to descriptions of physical systems is an <i>empirical</i> question, so the statement "this particular geometry describes that system" is a <i>synthetic truth</i>, the geometry itself however is analytic, its validity doesn't depend on the fact whether it gives the best description of reality.<br /><br />About Rand's God argument: according to Barbara Branden Rand said about the statement in her diary "Today I decided to be an atheist": "I had decided that the concept of God is degrading to men. Since they say that God is perfect, man can never be that perfect, then man is low and imperfect and there is something above him – which is wrong", which is not quite the same as what PhysicistDave writes, but it's certainly similar and as an <i>argument</i> for atheism it's no less ludicrous.Dragonflynoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-16147260838259862802009-07-08T15:08:39.178-07:002009-07-08T15:08:39.178-07:00Hey Daniel,
If anyone can provide the reference I...Hey Daniel,<br /><br />If anyone can provide the reference I requested, I would appreciate it. If no one can do that, then I think it should at least be acknowledged (by me if by no one else), that PDave's statement is a misrepresentation.<br /><br />Although the comments were made many months ago, the statements are still there publicly on your blog. Someone can still read them and think, "Rand said that? That's obviously garbage so she's nuts." Therefore I do still see some value in pointing out that the argument isn't actually Rand's (unless someone can show that they are).<br /><br />Thanks for the pointer to the other criticisms. I'll check 'em out.Kulerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04047347524341743239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-5605327977409721522009-07-08T14:04:25.829-07:002009-07-08T14:04:25.829-07:00Hi Kulero,
PDave is a smart guy, and from what I ...Hi Kulero,<br /><br />PDave is a smart guy, and from what I know, very knowledgeable in Objectivism. However, as these comments were made a couple of years ago and he isn't here to explain them in detail, I don't know if there's much merit in critiquing them too closely. <br /><br />Instead there is a truckload of detailed criticisms, both empirical and logical - check out our extensive THE ARCHNFILES sidebar!...;-) - made by people such as Greg, myself and others who <i>are</i> actually here to discuss them. Perhaps you might find it more productive to tackle some of these, rather than a passing commenter from 18 months ago?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-46369933701206417692009-07-08T12:26:34.419-07:002009-07-08T12:26:34.419-07:00gregnyquist wrote:
"I'm not aware that R...gregnyquist wrote: <br />"I'm not aware that Rand espoused the argument ascribed to her by PhysicistDave. He may have perhaps confused an explanation... (which suggest...that atheism is best nourished by a benevolent sense of life)."<br /><br />I agree, and that's exactly my point. If someone argues against a person's views, they should at least represent those views correctly. To do otherwise is dishonest. (We might ascribe such to an honest mistake, but an honest person would educate himself on a person's views before bashing them publicly.)<br /><br />The way PDave put it, he suggested that what he wrote was the essence of Rand's argument against the existence of God, that it was her "proof" for such. I'm quite familiar with Rand's work, and I understand her case to be entirely different. Therefore I ask PDave to educate me (and all readers of this blog) where is the source material that backs up his assertion that that is, indeed, Rand's argument.<br /><br />...if he can. I find nothing logical (nor Rand-like) in the argument he ascribed to Rand. Nor would any Objectivist I know. Any student of logic knows that for a syllogism to be valid, the premises have to be valid. And both premises in that argument are tenuous at best. That the universe is benevolent is a metaphorical staement, not a logical one. And that a benevolent universe logically implies no God remains to be proven. (It certainly isn't an axiom.)<br /><br />I wholeheartedly agree with PDave that the argument is bunk. I disagree just as much that the argument is Rand's.<br /><br />Getting to others of PDave's statements:<br />"Could Objectivism simply be explained by a phenomenon of some people who wish to be rational and who are very good at manipulating words but who are also extraordinarily bad at getting behind the words to actual meaning?"<br /><br />It's strange to hear someone describe Objectivism this way, because tying abstractions (such as words) to concrete existence (actual meaning) is exactly what O-ism is ALL about. It details exactly how to accomplish this, and does so at all levels of philosophy. I applaud PDave for seeing the crucial need to focus on meaning, not on words. And perhaps he has met some self-proclaimed O-ists who were bad at it, probably recent converts who hadn't fully grasped the philosophy. (It does take time and dedication, especially given what we learned at home, church, and school.) But his statement does not accurately describe Objectivism itself.<br /><br />PDave:<br />"I’ve noticed a lot of humanities majors and almost zero competent technical people among the Objectivists. That fits my theory."<br /><br />That may be PDave's experience, but it isn't universal. I know several highly competent technical folks who are Objectivists, as well as a journalist, investor, several housewives/mothers, two gym owners (businesspeople), a few teachers, and a lawyer. The technical people include a few programmers, two database experts, and a computer engineer, all accomplished in their fields. I wonder how that fits PDave's theory.Kulerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04047347524341743239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-13448906364866522972009-07-07T21:06:43.687-07:002009-07-07T21:06:43.687-07:00PhysicistDave wrote
In fact, Kant maintained that...PhysicistDave wrote<br /><br /><i>In fact, Kant maintained that we had no choice but to think of space as being described by Euclidean geometry.</i><br /><br />That is a common view of physicists and their ilk about Kant which I have seen many, many times before.<br /><br />In FACT, if we had no such choice then that would render Euclidean geometry ANALYTICAL, when in fact it was proven by Kant to be SYNTHETIC A PRIORI.<br /><br />This is no minor distinction or playing around with words, it is a significant change in perspective on the entire subject of geometry.<br /> <br />This perspective on geometry as synthetic literally frees the mind to think in terms of alternate geometries. <br /><br />The mind is constrained to think, via appearances, in terms of space and time - whatever structure it may have. As it happens, the structure of appearances is not very Euclidean at all. For example, in Euclidean geometry parallel lines never meet, while in appearances, parallel lines (which don't exist in reality, but let's take train tracks as an example) appear to meet at a vanishing-point in the distance.<br /><br />What this tell us is that Euclidean geometry was an invention of Euclid's mind - none of its forms exist in reality - and the mind is clearly not constrained to think in terms of its own inventions. These last two centuries following Kant have shown that it is possible, or let's say, permissible to invent other geometries, and Kant's own theory of the analytic-synthetic supports this even if Kant didn't actually cause it. Concerns over the independent status of Euclid's parallel postulate caused it, because it doesn't follow from the four previous postulates; it is, therefore, not analytically combined with them, but is a synthetic addition to the structure which, when manipulated, produces different forms of geometry.Cavewighthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00898771057884872416noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-65206849845706131802009-07-07T21:00:59.397-07:002009-07-07T21:00:59.397-07:00I think you guys should consider locking off posts...I think you guys should consider locking off posts of a certain age from further debate (maybe 3 months or so). These posts made long after the fact can be hard to track.Xtra Lajhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17166565583455141813noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27268298979451277672009-07-07T18:36:57.897-07:002009-07-07T18:36:57.897-07:00Kulero:
"PhysicistDave wrote:
'Consider...Kulero: <br /><br />"PhysicistDave wrote:<br />'Consider Rand’s argument against the existence of God:<br />1) If the universe is benevolent, there is no God....'<br /><br />"Where did Ayn Rand espouse this argument? I agree with you that it's ludicrous as an argument; I don't agree that it has any proper association with Rand or her philosophy."<br /><br />I'm not aware that Rand espoused the argument ascribed to her by PhysicistDave. He may have perhaps confused an explanation that Rand (or one of her disciples) gave for religious belief for an argument against God. That explanation, if my memory doesn't mislead me, partially ascribes belief in God to a malevolent sense of life (which suggests, even if it doesn't imply, that atheism is best nourished by a benevolent sense of life).gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-52120965371189960292009-07-07T18:08:09.984-07:002009-07-07T18:08:09.984-07:00PhysicistDave wrote:
Consider Rand’s argument agai...PhysicistDave wrote:<br />Consider Rand’s argument against the existence of God:<br />1) If the universe is benevolent, there is no God....<br /><br />Where did Ayn Rand espouse this argument? I agree with you that it's ludicrous as an argument; I don't agree that it has any proper association with Rand or her philosophy.<br /><br />I understand Objectivism's arguments for atheism to be <b>completely</b> different, so I'd like to find your source material for this. TIAKulerohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04047347524341743239noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-22135925052942013942007-12-09T05:25:00.000-08:002007-12-09T05:25:00.000-08:00Wasn't Newton "corrupted" by alchemy and religion?...Wasn't Newton "corrupted" by alchemy and religion? And given the religious beliefs of Faraday and J. Clerk Maxwell, I question the usefulness of electricity.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-27195122293611699012007-12-01T02:54:00.000-08:002007-12-01T02:54:00.000-08:00Robert,I just ran across your post in which you wr...Robert,<BR/><BR/>I just ran across your post in which you wrote:<BR/>>The way I read PhysicistDave's recent interactions with Ms. Hsieh, Dave was treating David Harriman's entire critique of Einstein as a tissue of arbitrary assertions, unworthy of detailed analysis or refutation.<BR/>>The Peiikovians sure don't like being administered a dose of their own medicine.<BR/><BR/>Yes, I was playing "turnabout" quite intentionally (of course, Diana had also ordered me to avoid any discussion of substance).<BR/><BR/>One person on Diana's blog actually raised a serious question about physics, and I answered him seriously. I would have answered anyone else seriously if they had actually indicated a serious interest in the physics.<BR/><BR/>But I've studied the debating tricks and emotional manipulation employed by the Objectivists for a long time (partly in the context of dealing with Christians -- the technology of manipulation is almost identical). I'm ready and willing to play the game by whatever rules they choose.<BR/><BR/>So, yes, I was intentionally and self-consciously playing turnabout with Diana and some of her friends, and, no, they do not seem to have enjoyed a taste of their own medicine!<BR/><BR/>If Harriman would ever abandon his ad hominem attacks and his typical Objectivist tricks of manipulation, I’d even be happy to sit down with him and explain the actual physics and where he is mistaken (he’s not wrong on everything, only on the most important points about relativity). Sadly, I’m pretty sure he will never wish to have such a discussion with me or any other physicist.<BR/><BR/>All the best,<BR/><BR/>DavePhysicistDavehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11111405959451703182noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-33906546406034328292007-11-27T02:57:00.000-08:002007-11-27T02:57:00.000-08:00Jay,My problem with the idea of arbitrary assertio...Jay,<BR/>My problem with the idea of arbitrary assertions is mathematical. If you treat arbitrary as a third truth value you run into Problems. <BR/><BR/>Here's one of the simpler ones.<BR/>If something is not true, then it is false. If something is not false then it is true. It looks something like this<BR/>-true = false<BR/>-false = true<BR/><BR/>But if something is not arbitrary than what is it? Is it true ? or is it false? Is it true or false (which is the same thing as being true)? If not arbitrary is true, why not just call arbitrary, false?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-4498590590691185592007-11-26T11:58:00.000-08:002007-11-26T11:58:00.000-08:00Jay: "What's so false about the idea of arbitrary ...Jay: "What's so false about the idea of arbitrary assertions?"<BR/><BR/>The real problem is the application of the principle. How do you know when something really is an "arbitrary" assertion? Because it's unsubstantiated? Well, most of the things we say are not substantiated. Human intercourse would be very tedious if we had to substantiate everything we said. Generally speaking, an arbitrary statement is any mere assertion that is either incoherent or excessively implausible. <BR/><BR/>The reason why some people here are browbeating Peikoff and other orthodox Objectivists for the whole arbitrary assertion construct is because Peikoff and co. have used it dishonestly, to deny entirely plausible claims about matters of fact without having to provide any evidence for the denial. Thus Schwartz compares Ms. Branden's claims about Ayn Rand's life to the assertion that Rand when to a Buddhist temple every Friday, which is nothing less than a roundabout way of claiming that Branden made everything up. Well if that's what Schwartz believes, why doesn't he just say so and leave it at that?gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-86751286628690725092007-11-26T08:41:00.000-08:002007-11-26T08:41:00.000-08:00What's so false about the idea of arbitrary assert...What's so false about the idea of arbitrary assertions? I can think of a dozen cases where it would be pointless to debate an arbitrary assertion. I feel like it's not even an exclusively "Objectivist" idea. A court of law wont let you ramble on incoherently if what you say has no connection to the facts of the case, for example.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-14159836332330184582007-11-25T14:48:00.000-08:002007-11-25T14:48:00.000-08:00I'm not sure when the doctrine of the "arbitrary a...I'm not sure when the doctrine of the "arbitrary assertion" first made it into the Objectivist vocabulary, but I first heard it when Barbara Branden's biography/memoir of Rand was published. I subscribed to Peter Schwartz's The Intellectual Activist and, if I recall correctly, Schwartz called Branden's recollections of Rand "arbitrary" and compared them to someone who said that Rand went to a Buddhist temple every Friday night.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-67443264894210168072007-11-25T14:10:00.000-08:002007-11-25T14:10:00.000-08:00Part of the Objectivist epistemology, as elaborate...Part of the Objectivist epistemology, as elaborated by Leonard Peikoff, is the doctrine of the arbitrary assertion.<BR/><BR/>An arbitrary assertion is one for which no evidence or argument has been provided. Such assertions either require no response from a rational person, or must not be responded to by any rational person (Dr. Peikoff has never been able to make up his mind which). Dr. Peikoff further claims that an arbitrary assertion has no epistemic context, is inherently "detached from reality," and gets a special truth value to itself, since it is neither true nor false. He further maintains that all arbitrary assertions are deliberate (hence producing one is an evil act, ipso facto) and that yielding to the temptation to go arbitrary makes you dumber than a parrot, if it doesn't debrain you entirely.<BR/><BR/>Peikovians like to dismiss as arbitrary any claim that they can't be bothered responding to.<BR/><BR/>The way I read PhysicistDave's recent interactions with Ms. Hsieh, Dave was treating David Harriman's entire critique of Einstein as a tissue of arbitrary assertions, unworthy of detailed analysis or refutation.<BR/><BR/>The Peiikovians sure don't like being administered a dose of their own medicine.<BR/><BR/>Robert Campbell<BR/><BR/>PS. I don't think highly of the doctrine, on epistemological grounds. And, of course, once it is invoked, further rational discussion becomes impossible. I do agree with Dave that the ARIans should do their utmost to publicize everything that Mr. Harriman has had to say about 20th century physics (just as I would strongly urge them to transcribe and publish every one of Dr. Peikoff's lectures).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-57774244450160958312007-11-23T14:04:00.000-08:002007-11-23T14:04:00.000-08:00For the record:Five posts up the queue (post dates...For the record:<BR/><BR/>Five posts up the queue (post datestamped 11/22/2007 10:54:00 AM), Greg Nyquist quotes me as asking:<BR/><BR/>"what do you think of the theory that the typical Objectivist is someone who deeply craves respect as an intellectual"? <BR/><BR/>I didn't ask that. PhysicistDave asked it; I quoted him in responding, and said I was quoting him.<BR/><BR/>I don't think the theory as stated describes either the "typical Objectivist" or at least two of the three persons Dave named (Leonard Peikoff and Diana Hseish).<BR/><BR/>No time for further discussion now; just correcting the misattribution.<BR/><BR/>EllenAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-47203618068026022402007-11-22T17:28:00.000-08:002007-11-22T17:28:00.000-08:00Arg, full URL didn't post. Try this one.http://cap...Arg, full URL didn't post. Try this one.<BR/><BR/>http://capmag.com/article.asp?id=4823JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-84614516814118936742007-11-22T17:27:00.001-08:002007-11-22T17:27:00.001-08:00This comment has been removed by the author.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.com