Re: What's Wrong with Ayn Rand? [ To: Polichinello | Post 295708967, reply to 295700567 ] (Score: 2) This, by virtue of its redundancy, may very well become my last lengthy reply on LF. It was, once, a site of libertarianism and free speech. Now it feels a lot more like ATS or FR. I remember lively debates, but see few lately. That is unfortunate, but it is clearly not in my power to change the trend.
First, a disclaimer, via discussing what I am NOT. I am NOT a "randian". I could accurately be called a "post-randian objectivist". I practice MY epistemology by the Law of Volition. Because of the nature of objectivist epistemology, errors in identification, by any individual no matter what they call themselves, are to be noted and corrected, and the correction integrated into the "concept hierarchy" that is the average man's consciousness. So, I'm an Ellis_Wyatt-ian objectivist. She was in no way perfect, and I may well refute some of her errors to prevent others from having to do so.
Peikoff's diatribes?
Nor do I practice Peikoff-ian objectivism. However, he wrote a brilliant refutation of the analytic/synthetic dichotomy that is a must read for anyone one the fence. More on that later.
Peikoff is wrong about a lot of things. He also had a quite a crush on her, I opine, and is prone to hero-worship, unlike me. I've nailed runway models - Rand qua female is no particular prize. Cute-ish and smart, but probably didn't fuck like a porn star. Peikoff looks like the consummate virgin -- I was the drummer of a grunge band, and plowed the fields accordingly. I cite Heinlein. Or, it is useless to throw the ARI at me as evidence of what "objectivists" think, because I may have already refuted them. Or, I've been ~10 miles away from the ARI for 7 years, and I have never once had any desire to go.
Objectivists tell me I need to read AS to get Rand.
Not THIS objectivist. Funny, I'm going from memory because my copy of IOE is loaned out to a friend. And here's the thing, Rand came up months ago, I recommended IOE because he was "smart enough to go straight to the nonfiction". He, high school teacher, went w/ Fountainhead instead, against my advice that if it had to be fiction, at least it should be AS. And then he came back and I had to spend an hour unraveling the knots that book leaves in people, it is so poorly concieved. Roark BARELY practices objectivism.
So, for the obviously literate, I recommend IOE every time. It is NON-fiction. It is a FORMAL proof. Fuck fiction.
The answer is nothing beyond caricaturing them.
In that book. Aquinas stands thoroughly refuted elsewhere.
nominalism (or conceptualism, if you prefer)
I most assuredly do prefer. Nominalism != conceptualism, and that is the analytic/synthetic FALSE dichotomy again. It's like cartesean dualism, and easy to refute: cognition is a function of the organism; there is no mind/body split. Just so, there is no concept/referent's nature split inherent in cognition, we introduce it with sloppy concept formation and integration.
Rand properly identified that the fundamental unit of man's consciousness is a concept, which I use interchangeably with meme. Note, nominalists, that which word I use has NO POWER to change that FACT that the fundamental unit of cognition is what it is.
the platonic realists
Concepts, thus, are derived from first principles, and must never fail to conform to the objective world as directly perceived via the senses (there is no mind/body split), as they are integrated into the larger body of knowledge of the individual. There are no platonic "essences" separate from the objects, nor the concept nor the user. One can rationally deduce that concepts are specific, utile, and the coin of the mental realm, so to speak. And it does not matter what word or symbol I use, the REFERENTS, and all preceding logical hierarchies, persist and MUST persist for the concept to hold its objectivity.
When I use the word "table", I know exactly what I'm referring to, how the concept is subsumed under "furniture", what its distinguishing characteristics are, all the way back to the ostensive proof that, because I can rest my drink on it, existence exists, and I exist as a function of reality.
tautologies... are of no use whatever.
Not true. "Existence exists" is an aphorism, a way of summing up something that takes a bit more words to say in pure form. Thus it is useful as a verbal shortcut, as well as being memorable. However the word "tautology" is often used negatively in supposed refutations of objectivism, because you can't prove one, and her "whole philosophy rests on one". No it doesn't. It rests on the ostensive fact freely obvious to any human that you're a real person living in a real world with real rules. At the end of the day, my explanation of "how I know" it exists rests, not on a faith, but on the simple fact that I have ZERO evidence to believe that existence does NOT exist. Sleep, dreams, acid trips... nothing changes, it's still my cognition in reality. Burn me and it hurts, and I form an automatic memory (read: concept) of the experience and the source. A concept is a mental equivalent of the object it represents, and the nature of the concept must exactly match the nature of the object, in essential details. Fire burns, which can be held to be an objectively true statement, and NOT a tautology, when the proper definitions are used. See "guns kill". Tautology?
But we can all agree that "Existence exists" is a tautology, but not meaningless when considered as a soundbite, and that the statement is not used in her logical chain.
You also have the Kantian dichotomy of noumena/phenomena, Berkeleyian/Humean skepticism and Hegelian dialectic. All of these schools of thought think different things when you say "A is A."
So? Lotsa idiots think lots of things. However, Rand derived her three axioms of Existence, Identity, and Consciousness from reality. They are defined very specifically, and thus can be said to truly represent the three fundamental processes of your existence. Without any one, none are. All others processes of life are derived.
Everyone you cited falls under the simple error so common of the latter half of last millennia, of attempting to refute knowledge with knowledge. The hysterical part of Kant's Critique is that he is exceedingly well reasoned lol, using that which he says is meaningless as his vehicle of meaning. Those who would refute the 3 axioms MUST (and always do) use them as primaries in their attempts. This is akin to knocking your knuckles on a tree as a means to "prove" to me the non-existence of the tree. So, you know, Hume can go screw. I like some of his writing and values, but a true "skeptic" is a man who denies the nature of his own mind in reality.
grad school
To me, a college degree is points OFF the clarity of one's mind, because I have met MANY college grads. However, one of the more perfidious canards is that objectivism is little discussed by college philosophy professors, and thus is not to be taken seriously.
This is because Rand killed the epistemology question for "philosophy". She won. Like Newton and calculus, eventually the schools will come around, but not yet. Tesla's radiant energy is scoffed at by all but the seriously brilliant academians, but it is true and verifiable to even armchair electricians. Michaelson-Morley is wholly flawed and at a grad school level and up everyone knows this, but if you are not an astrophysicist or QM, etc, your textbook tells you there is no aether. Einstein said GR REQUIRED an "ether" (I have the audio), but that is not taught either. So, forgive me if I am undersurprised that kantian leftists trying to bed coeds don't like Rand. She's the most significant philosopher in 3,000-odd years. They don't teach the real physics in college, and they don't teach the real epistemology either. In the exact same way a bureaucrat wants only to preserve his job, Rand is persona non grata in the college classroom.
We note, however, that she does JUST FINE in high schools and below. I think I read Anthem in 6th grade, IIRC.
However, said canard was indeed rolled out for the umpteenth time in TFA. It speaks more to the deep subjectivity of said professors that she is wholly ignored, as opposed to given a fair shake as a notable 20th century American philosopher. They probably give L. Ron Hubbard a more serious treatment, and one does not need too think to hard to see why. Kant/Hegel/Russell - all are very easy to refute. Nominalism is false. Existentialism (as an epistemology) is false. Yet they are what is taught, and they are the philosophies of powerlessness, and they are the prophets of socialism and communisms, as well as Illuminism, that have set back the progress of eastern Europe for centuries.
To close, all refutations of objectivism, if they are to be valid, must refute its formal delimitation. Refuting fiction is the consummate modernist philosophy gag -- "but what if, in all possible universes..." -- FUCK other universes I don't live in and there is no evidence of. And I'm a guy who has a fair grasp of string theory, I have no problem imagining other universes. But to say my knowledge in THIS universe is "incomplete" because you can imagine a universe in which you can construct arbitrary rules which invalidate the proof I'm trying to establish in THIS universe is to fail Occam's Razor. You are injecting the inapplicable and unlikely into the argument for, I claim, nefarious purposes, whether you know it or not.
Or, the question is: what's RIGHT with Ayn Rand?
Answer: the entire top architecture. She makes some blunders later (romantic aesthetics, statism, rights, interventionism, and various and sundry humanities), but it is in fact true that, tautology or otherwise, existence exists.
This is why she is not taught. This is the cause of TFA. This is the cause of this post. I believe the field of epistemology is largely answered, for now, minus still integrating new evidence that comes along. I doubt that said new evidence will refute the underlying proofs in any non-integratable way. I exist, I perceive, I conceive, I act....
I ascribe to a "fractal holographic" view of the universe. The whole and its parts have the same informational topography.
Cognition is a function of entropy.
These are advanced concepts, but exceedingly well reasoned.
Entropy, per se, is largely misunderstood by Newton. Ergo, don't fucking quote dead Germans at me.
Those are old ideas, long since refuted, but as yet still promulgated by those who seek the nihil that nihilism advocates as the norm.
The method I use to acquire this knowledge is objectivist epistemology. I apologize for nothing, and the burden is on the negative to refute my assertion(s).
Be well.
Post 295708967
Poster Comment:
Not only is Ellis Wyatt a gentle soul and a gifted musician and producer, but he is one of the smartest katz I know.
Check out the big brain on Ellis!
His writing style reminds me of Winston Churchill who also had a quaint yet interesting slant on his quill.
For instance, instead of asking if his driver was ready to leave, Ol' Winnie asked, "Is the coachman up on his box?" a reference to the horse drawn conveyance of a big gone era.
I relate to people like that.
Although I try to to write for the masses (of which I'm a proud, card carrying member) that's as much a result of my limitations as my preferences.
At least one member has commented on Ellis' "quirky" style so I understand that some may disagree with my praise.
Either way Ellis writing is noteworthy, and I believe interesting enough to warrant a thread to spotlight it and him.