tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post3814221907965972117..comments2023-10-08T15:51:17.426+00:00Comments on Beyond Necessity: Ayn Rand: lost in translationEdward Ockhamhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-78046377733962747102009-01-23T00:23:00.000+00:002009-01-23T00:23:00.000+00:00I'm not defending Objectivism, though on the other...I'm not defending Objectivism, though on the other thread "Richard" said more or less that deduction depends upon induction. He was correct in so far that arguments are only as good as the propositions used as premises: one may put together a valid argument (syllogism) using false or imaginary premises--like the one using the Hobbit--but it's pretty much shiets and giggles since the premises are purely imaginary, unverified, in short, wrong. The validity of the form (ie modus ponens, say) is separate from the soundness (is truth) of the premises. I don't think many Objectivists realize that, so Richard gets a gold star. <BR/><BR/><BR/>Of course you could just use numbers and equations, or summation signs, etc, and in that case have sound, valid arguments (assuming you do the math right) . As I said before, however, logicism as a doctrine has shortcomings, and I agree with the brighter Objectivists that most useful knowledge (ie medicine, chemistry, etc) results from inductive research.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-12738248611778015212009-01-22T22:33:00.000+00:002009-01-22T22:33:00.000+00:00>"""2. God can reveal to me the ...>"""2. God can reveal to me the truth of a mathematical theorem.""""<BR/>>>Until you can prove that, your point is moot <BR/><BR/>OK leave God out of it. Suppose an ordinary person reveals the truth to me.<BR/><BR/>I am not sure you understood the argument I was making, which was not meant to be theistic.Edward Ockhamhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07583379503310147119noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-13705587600973152002009-01-22T20:14:00.000+00:002009-01-22T20:14:00.000+00:00"""2. God can reveal to me the truth of a mathemat..."""2. God can reveal to me the truth of a mathematical theorem.""""<BR/><BR/><BR/>Until you can prove that, your point is moot (and again, we might recall that Kant himself offered a list of compelling counterarguments to the classical arguments for God. Bertrand Russell updated that list). I suspect that, like the Maverick, your Rand-bashing is really just atheist-and-skeptic and non-xtian bashing in disguise. Rand does deserve some bashing--her pseudo-aristotelian axioms may be crude--but the essential naturalism of Objectivism does not lack force, or even evidence for it's support.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-21308815.post-47659447433301721002009-01-22T19:04:00.000+00:002009-01-22T19:04:00.000+00:00Agreed, but I contend the confusion stems from an ...Agreed, but I contend the confusion stems from an inability to distinguish the a priori from a posteriori, or more broadly rationalism from empiricism. Their objectivism re external reality is posited and insisted upon, not proven. They are really out and out naturalists, even of Darwinian sort (or is it........occultic sort), but use a few lightweight philosophical terms to lend a certain traditional flavor to the naturalism.<BR/><BR/>That said, I don't object to the naturalistic elements completely, but to the BS. If Objecitivists just said, "nature exists," or "nature is all that exists," mind is matter, etc. or "scientific materialism explains everything" they at least would be a bit more honest. <BR/>really, Rand's not far from the Quinean school, though sans functionalism: Quine actually doesn't believe abstractions like Mind, or ideas, or Reason itself hold.Jhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11567400697675996283noreply@blogger.com