tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post8037663305810791396..comments2024-03-27T05:47:21.295-07:00Comments on Ayn Rand Contra Human Nature: The Cognitive Revolution & Objectivism, Part 10Daniel Barneshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comBlogger11125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-25206845802465817692007-12-29T08:41:00.000-08:002007-12-29T08:41:00.000-08:00Neil,There's a direct quote to that effect in ARCH...Neil,<BR/><BR/>There's a direct quote to that effect in ARCHN. Something like, Branden suggested that to her and she dismissed it, then he asks her how she can just ignore psychological research and she snaps "Because I know how to think!"<BR/><BR/>That, I agree, is completely dogmatic and ignorant. However, even if I myself were biologically predisposed toward depression, I really hope I wouldn't conclude "Oh well, I'm depressed and that's my lot in life. Might as well just deal with it." I'd still at least try to do what I could about it.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-17027696841291844852007-12-29T08:03:00.000-08:002007-12-29T08:03:00.000-08:00Moony,As I recall, if you read the Brandens' memoi...Moony,<BR/><BR/>As I recall, if you read the Brandens' memoirs, Rand was rather dismissive of the idea that depression and other mental ilnesses might have a biological basis.Neil Parillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11074901258306769278noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-48678830732279668692007-12-29T00:21:00.000-08:002007-12-29T00:21:00.000-08:00"Just because some (or even a great deal) of that ..."Just because some (or even a great deal) of that knowledge is tacit doesn't mean our conscious mind isn't in the driver's seat."<BR/><BR/>Certainly not for <B>all</B> of us all of the time it isn't, and I often wonder how much time it spends behind <B>anyone's</B> steering wheel - despite my best efforts it doesn't seem to be in charge of much of my own journey.<BR/><BR/>What exactly was Rand's position on mental illness? I get the impression that she was one of the "pull yourself together" types wrt depression.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-38225976921041600542007-12-28T19:46:00.000-08:002007-12-28T19:46:00.000-08:00I'd love to, however, I need to re-read and make n...I'd love to, however, I need to re-read and make notes first. My first read is always an uninterrupted, "just for fun" run through. Second time around I take notes and reflect more deeply. <BR/><BR/>When I do that, I'd be happy to.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-63829319465452475092007-12-28T19:29:00.000-08:002007-12-28T19:29:00.000-08:00Jay:> Having just finished ARCHN...Hey wanna revie...Jay:<BR/>> Having just finished ARCHN...<BR/><BR/>Hey wanna review it?Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-24963749457483042802007-12-28T17:29:00.000-08:002007-12-28T17:29:00.000-08:00Ayn Rand was pretty ignorant about cognitive scien...Ayn Rand was pretty ignorant about cognitive science. Having just finished ARCHN I am convinced of that and will readily concede it.<BR/><BR/>However, that does not diminish the importance of conscious thinking or the need to refine it over a lifetime. It also doesn't mean that reason is an "empirically empty verbalism" If our lives are going to take anything close to the shape we want to give them we have to think and act to make it so. Just because some (or even a great deal) of that knowledge is tacit doesn't mean our conscious mind isn't in the driver's seat.JayCrosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15565955869872328326noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-50997678550233954322007-12-28T11:30:00.000-08:002007-12-28T11:30:00.000-08:00Greg:>Her notion of an implicit concept is, at the...Greg:<BR/>>Her notion of an implicit concept is, at the very least, problematic (from her point of view), and quite possibly self-contradictory.<BR/><BR/>Yes. Take her assertion here, for example:<BR/><BR/><I>"The truth of falsehood of all man's conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions."</I> (ITOE, italics in original.)<BR/><BR/>No clearer statement could one want of Rand's rationalistic method. For obviously "implicit" knowledge is unspoken (ie not explicit), so obviously it can't even have a definition - not even an ostensive one - <I>as there is no word to be defined in the first place. </I><BR/><BR/>Just because she mentions an issue like "implicit knowledge" here and there in a vague, handwaving way doesn't mean she has a consistent intellectual position. Rand is a highly scattershot thinker who often doesn't know what she's talking about. For example, she constantly bangs on about the importance "induction", and how evil it is to criticise it, but then tucked way in an obscure corner of the ITOE confesses she cannot even begin to formulate an answer to "<I>the</I> big question of induction" ! It's like a chasm suddenly opens up.<BR/><BR/>Same with her "implicit knowledge". She mentions it - she has to, really, as she has the problem of children knowing things before they can articulate them explicitly, and this is a problem for her theory of concept formation which requires a word to be complete - but is entirely vague about it and does not seem to understand its range and importance. She dismisses it because it is outside man's "conscious control."Daniel Barneshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06359277853862225286noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-75102629957876616022007-12-28T09:08:00.000-08:002007-12-28T09:08:00.000-08:00Jay,I think you're missing the larger point here. ...Jay,<BR/><BR/>I think you're missing the larger point here. Yes, Rand would probably have admitted that there is something like Oakeshott's practical knowledge, as is implied in her "Art of Fiction" seminar. However, she would've denied the main point Oakeshott (and I) draw from it: which is, namely, that there is some knowledge that is tacit and inarticulable and cannot, therefore, be defended by reason. To give an example: connoisseurs of classical piano would almost universally regard Richter's RCA performance of Beethoven's of the Appassionata sonata as superior, in terms of depth and expression, to that of Horowitz. But there is no way you could ever prove or justify or establish, in words or concepts, the superiority of the Richter performance. The connoisseur simply <EM>knows</EM> that the Richter performance is better, and there's an end to it.<BR/><BR/>The anti-foundationalist implications of practical, intuitive, tacit knowledge poses a huge problem for Rand, particularly when we enter the domains of morality and politics.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-20061703842695774562007-12-28T08:40:00.000-08:002007-12-28T08:40:00.000-08:00anon57: "In Rand's own words knowledge is 'a menta...anon57: "In Rand's own words knowledge is 'a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation.' Also, she invoked implicit knowledge quite often in <EM>Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology</EM>."<BR/><BR/>Rand makes these concessions to "practical" knowledge because its difficult to deny the reality of such knowledge, the evidence for it being so overwhelming. The problem is that these concessions are not consistent with her positions elsewhere. When she says, for example, that " reason is man's only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge," she is taking a position that is at odds with Oakeshott's practical knowledge. Her notion of an implicit concept is, at the very least, problematic (from her point of view), and quite possibly self-contradictory.gregnyquisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13653516868316854941noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-66187774704009190272007-12-26T18:49:00.000-08:002007-12-26T18:49:00.000-08:00Greg,Having read AR's "The Art of Non-Fiction" (an...Greg,<BR/><BR/>Having read AR's "The Art of Non-Fiction" (and just begun "The Art of Fiction") I can tell you that she puts plenty of importance on the subconscious. In fact, she even went so far as to say that consciously trying to string sentences together is virtually impossible; you have to "trust" your subconscious during the actual writing, and edit later. <BR/><BR/>Point being, she does seem to put conscious and subconscious thinking into their respective places.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-29196034.post-46262551159968050752007-12-26T06:07:00.000-08:002007-12-26T06:07:00.000-08:00Nyquist: Oakeshott's theory about practical knowle...Nyquist: <I>Oakeshott's theory about practical knowledge, if true, creates problems for Rand, whose foundationalism requires that all knowledge claims be explicitly justified in terms of articulable, reason-based arguments.</I><BR/><BR/>Wrong. In Rand's own words knowledge is "a mental grasp of a fact(s) of reality, reached either by perceptual observation or by a process of reason based on perceptual observation." Also, she invoked implicit knowledge quite often in <I>Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.</I>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com