Announcement: new print essays forthcoming!


Roger Bissell

Recommended Posts

I'm happy to announce that I have one major essay for the Fall 2007 issue of Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (in press) and two more in preparation for Spring and Fall 2008! The one coming out in the next month or so is entitled "Ayn Rand and 'The Objective': A Closer Look at the Intrinsic-Objective-Subjective Trichotomy," and here is my abstract for the essay (just to tease):

ROGER E. BISSELL offers a new interpretation and clarification of Rand's intrinsic-objective-subjective trichotomy, arguing that although her writings show the objective as having both epistemological and metaphysical aspects, the latter has been drastically downplayed, much to the detriment of further development of Objectivism. He traces the historical roots of the concept of the "objective," as well as the confusion and errors that led to the scope of Rand's trichotomy being radically curtailed by its two chief proponents, and he explains how the common view of the objective as "mind-independent" is a pitfall to be avoided.

I'm not sharing this here in order to provoke a discussion. That is the job of the essay, where the case is made for these various claims. So, if OL folks are at all interested in my take on this subject, (1) buy Vol. 9, No. 1 when it comes out (soon) and/or (2) wait until fall or so of next year, when I post the essay here at OL. Between now and then, discuss or not, as you like, but I'm going to step back from the controversy myself, until my own views are out in print. They've already gone by some rather tough reviewers, and they are much better presented now, thanks to that input. Ready for prime-time, as it were.

The essay for Spring 2008 is (tentatively) entitled "Mind and Will as Objective Phenomena: the Ontological Status of Introspective Data," and it seeks to clarify the nature of introspection and its data by applying the method used in Robert Efron's analysis of perception and Leonard Peikoff's analysis of the ontological status of sense data. Sense data are neither intrinsic nor subjective but

objective, and the same will be shown to be true of our awareness of mind, will, and the various processes associated with them. An extended parallel is drawn between perception and introspection, between sense data and mental data, and between physical objects and the brain-mind. In simplest terms, mind is the form in which we are introspectively aware of the brain, and mind is an entity, viz., the brain, as we are aware of it directly, i.e., introspectively; and there are serious problems with viewing mind in any other way, such as a spiritual entity cohabitating and interacting with the body, or a non-physical process having causal efficacy.

The essay for Fall 2008 is entitled "Will the Real Apollo Please Stand Up? Rand, Nietzsche, Keirsey, and the Reason-Emotion Dichotomy," and it will explore the possible basis for Ayn Rand’s and Friedrich Nietzsche’s misidentification of Apollo as “The God of Reason,” as well as the claim by psychologist David Keirsey that Apollo was instead characterized by emotion or “feeling.” A case will be made, from both personality type theory and mythology, that Apollo was, most fundamentally, the god neither of reason, nor of emotion, but of intuition. (Keirsey is a big Rand fan and cites the heroes and heroines of Atlas Shrugged and The Fountainhead as exemplars of one of his four temperament types, the intuitive-thinkers or Rationals or Prometheans. For details on his views of personality and temperament, see his book Please Understand Me, or check him out on the web.)

The mind-body essay will be a considerably revised version of a paper presented to the 2002 TOC Advanced Seminar in Waltham, Massachusetts, but the most difficult part of the essay (organizing and writing an actual draft) is already done. The Apollo essay is something I've been threatening to do for 10 years or so, and I have just finished my second draft, though it is still quite rough. I'm expecting to have room to spare for making my February 15 and March 1 deadlines, which I just found out about from my cruel taskmaster...uh, dear friend and editor, Chris Sciabarra. :-)

These three essays are about topics that are near and dear to me. I've been fascinated with Rand's trichotomy and the mind-body problem since about 1970, and the relationship of personality type and temperament to Objectivism since the late 1980s, so I greatly appreciate the opportunity to put my long-pondered thoughts into print. Yet another reason to really be glad there is someone smart, generous, decent, and open-minded like Chris at the helm of JARS!

Happy Holidays, everyone!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 64
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • 7 months later...
I'm happy to announce that I have one major essay for the Fall 2007 issue of Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (in press) and two more in preparation for Spring and Fall 2008! [...]

The essay for Spring 2008 is (tentatively) entitled "Mind and Will as Objective Phenomena: the Ontological Status of Introspective Data," and it seeks to clarify the nature of introspection and its data by applying the method used in Robert Efron's analysis of perception and Leonard Peikoff's analysis of the ontological status of sense data. Sense data are neither intrinsic nor subjective but

objective, and the same will be shown to be true of our awareness of mind, will, and the various processes associated with them. An extended parallel is drawn between perception and introspection, between sense data and mental data, and between physical objects and the brain-mind. In simplest terms, mind is the form in which we are introspectively aware of the brain, and mind is an entity, viz., the brain, as we are aware of it directly, i.e., introspectively; and there are serious problems with viewing mind in any other way, such as a spiritual entity cohabitating and interacting with the body, or a non-physical process having causal efficacy.

I'm happy to report that I have just submitted my second draft of this paper to Chris Sciabarra (for further blind-peer review), and it is now entitled "Mind, Introspection, and 'The Objective'". It was originally scheduled for Spring 2008, but the reviewer fell behind with other review work for the journal, so it is now slated for inclusion in the Fall 2008 JARS. (It didn't help that said reviewer found significant problems with the section on free will, necessitating the dumping of that part of the essay and a substantial re-write.)

Also, I should mention that my essay "Will the Real Apollo Please Stand Up?" will not appear until the Spring 2009 JARS, since the Nietzsche-Rand symposium has been delayed from this fall to the spring.

Finally, I hope it's not ~too~ premature to mention that another sequel to my Spring 2007 JARS essay on "the objective" is in preparation. This one will focus not on metaphysics (i.e., philosophy of mind), but on epistemology and logic--specifically, on Rand's "unit-perspective" as the central concept tying together concepts, propositions, and syllogistic logic. If all goes well, this essay will be sent to Editor Sciabarra for review sometime this winter.

Ciao!

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> The essay for Fall 2008..."Will the Real Apollo Please Stand Up?"...will explore the possible basis for Ayn Rand’s and Friedrich Nietzsche’s misidentification of Apollo as “The God of Reason” [Roger]

I assume this refers (in part? in full?) to her only major mention I recall of this topic, her essay "Apollo and Dionysus".

Simply put, Rand does NOT there "misidentify" Apollo as the god of reason.

Quoting her, on the first and second page [the essay can be found in the anthology "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution"]: "In ‘Birth of Tragedy’..,Nietzsche observes two opposite elements, names them after two Greek gods . . . Apollo, the god of light . . . Dionysus the god of wine".

Then she -uses- Nietzsche’s elements provisionally as a jumping off point or as convenient archetypes or "symbols" to concretize and make vivid her discussion of reason vs. emotion in the rest of the essay.

And, on the second page, she further qualifies it, a clear sign she doesn't accept everything about N's symbols as literally true, but is using them as a jumping off point, as handy archetypes: "We may accept Nietzsche's symbols, but not his estimate of their respective values, nor the metaphysical necessity of a reason-emotion dichotomy".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> The essay for Fall 2008..."Will the Real Apollo Please Stand Up?"...will explore the possible basis for Ayn Rand’s and Friedrich Nietzsche’s misidentification of Apollo as “The God of Reason” [Roger]

I assume this refers (in part? in full?) to her only major mention I recall of this topic. It is her important essay "Apollo and Dionysus".

Simply put, Rand does NOT there "misidentify" Apollo as the god of reason.

Quoting her, on the first and second page [the essay can be found in the anthology "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution"]: "In ‘Birth of Tragedy’..,Nietzsche observes two opposite elements, names them after two Greek gods . . . Apollo, the god of light . . . Dionysus the god of wine".

Then she -uses- Nietzsche’s elements provisionally as a jumping off point or as convenient archetypes or "symbols" to concretize and make vivid her discussion of reason vs. emotion in the rest of the essay.

And, on the second page, she further qualifies it, a clear sign she doesn't accept everything about N's symbols as literally true, but is using them as a jumping off point, as handy archetypes: "We may accept Nietzsche's symbols, but not his estimate of their respective values, nor the metaphysical necessity of a reason-emotion dichotomy".

This essay was first delivered at the Ford Hall Forum, I think in 1969. I was there. When she was describing some of the Dionysus behavior at Woodstock, the audience just laughed and laughed.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This essay was first delivered at the Ford Hall Forum, I think in 1969. I was there. When she was describing some of the Dionysus behavior at Woodstock, the audience just laughed and laughed.

Have any of you read The Passion of Dionysus's Critics? It turns out that Dionysus only used wine bottles for mixing paints, and that he required participants in orgies to have permission from all of their lovers, and they were all required to be heroic intellectual and/or sense of life giants worthy of sharing the ultimate value of sex with each other. And, besides, it was a private matter and nobody else's business.

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Roger,

That's great news!

I look forward to reading them.

May your parallel career in philosophy enjoy enduring success. You already have a small body of work that is quite respectable. Bissell is already a "name." Good on you.

Michael

Thanks, Michael -- I look forward to your ~being able~ to read them (i.e., to their appearing in print, not to your learning to read!) :rofl:

When I finish my book on personality, temperament, and human strengths and weaknesses (I'm suppressing the title for now), "Will the Real Apollo Please Stand Up?" will probably be included as an "appendix."

Apart from this essay, my most recent JARS piece plus the one in review plus the one projected for next year plus one on the problem of free will and determinism will form a tetralogy that will be big enough for a pretty meaty, good-sized book, thematically based on the dual-perspective of "the objective." If I can't find a publisher, I will probably spring to have it done print-on-demand via the Internet.

It's very nice to have an editor (Chris S.) who appreciates my thinking and writing. He also knows how to set up and run cyberseminars, which are another direction I eventually hope to go. May he live long and prosper! :)

Meanwhile, back to transcribing BPE and recovering from a nasty bout with the flu. :bye:

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This essay was first delivered at the Ford Hall Forum, I think in 1969. I was there. When she was describing some of the Dionysus behavior at Woodstock, the audience just laughed and laughed.

Have any of you read The Passion of Dionysus's Critics? It turns out that Dionysus only used wine bottles for mixing paints, and that he required participants in orgies to have permission from all of their lovers, and they were all required to be heroic intellectual and/or sense of life giants worthy of sharing the ultimate value of sex with each other. And, besides, it was a private matter and nobody else's business.

J

Yes. I especially enjoyed the revelation that "poor Pythagoras" was just shell-shocked when he found out about Dionysus' carryings-on, and that Euclid was reported to have said that if any evidence existed that Dionysus was morally flawed, it should be suppressed. :thumbsup:

Great parody, even in briefest sketch form. I also ROTFLMAO, like Michael.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> The essay for Fall 2008..."Will the Real Apollo Please Stand Up?"...will explore the possible basis for Ayn Rand’s and Friedrich Nietzsche’s misidentification of Apollo as “The God of Reason” [Roger]

I assume this refers (in part? in full?) to her only major mention I recall of this topic, her essay "Apollo and Dionysus".

Simply put, Rand does NOT there "misidentify" Apollo as the god of reason.

Quoting her, on the first and second page [the essay can be found in the anthology "The New Left: The Anti-Industrial Revolution"]: "In ‘Birth of Tragedy’..,Nietzsche observes two opposite elements, names them after two Greek gods . . . Apollo, the god of light . . . Dionysus the god of wine".

Then she -uses- Nietzsche’s elements provisionally as a jumping off point or as convenient archetypes or "symbols" to concretize and make vivid her discussion of reason vs. emotion in the rest of the essay.

And, on the second page, she further qualifies it, a clear sign she doesn't accept everything about N's symbols as literally true, but is using them as a jumping off point, as handy archetypes: "We may accept Nietzsche's symbols, but not his estimate of their respective values, nor the metaphysical necessity of a reason-emotion dichotomy".

It's true that Rand didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy in its pure form. However, she did restate it on the third page of her essay as "the conflict of reason versus irrational emotion." And she completely accepted, for her purposes of exposition, Nietzsche's portrayal of Apollo as symbolizing reason--merely modified Nietzsche's view of Dionysus, instead seeing Dionysus as symbolizing irrational emotion, and stated her difference with Nietzsche as to the respective values of reason and emotion.

Once the passage where Rand modifies Nietzsche's formulation is taken into account, I don't think it's at all controversial to maintain that Rand identified Apollo with reason, and I argue that she and Nietzsche were incorrect in doing so.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I especially enjoyed the revelation that "poor Pythagoras" was just shell-shocked when he found out about Dionysus' carryings-on, and that Euclid was reported to have said that if any evidence existed that Dionysus was morally flawed, it should be suppressed.

:lol:

J

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes. I especially enjoyed the revelation that "poor Pythagoras" was just shell-shocked when he found out about Dionysus' carryings-on, and that Euclid was reported to have said that if any evidence existed that Dionysus was morally flawed, it should be suppressed.

:lol:

J

If there were any such evidence (and Euclid declared that he had no reason to believe the unfounded assertion that it was) then that evidence was, he said "non-cognitive" and could be dismissed without examination.

Bill P (Alfonso)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two statements of Roger's in his coming essay . . .

1. "she completely accepted, **for her purposes of exposition**, Nietzsche's portrayal of Apollo as symbolizing reason" [asterisks added for emphasis]

2. "Rand identified Apollo with reason...[which was] incorrect"

. . . are not identical. Once again, it is –not- an error or misidentification to do what she did provisionally as a jumping off point or as convenient archetypes or "symbols" to concretize and make vivid.

But in fact, Roger’s error is worse that that:

Reason, light, truth, knowledge ARE some of the many things Apollo is viewed as the god of. THAT is what should not be "at all controversial". If the writer would simply look it up - or remember it from early education.

MORAL: It's extremely important not to jump into print with inaccuracies about Ayn Rand: If your purpose is to criticize her for a non-Objectivist audience, it is advisable to find something - of importance - she is actually wrong about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It's true that Rand didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy in its pure form. However, she did restate it on the third page of her essay as "the conflict of reason versus irrational emotion." [Roger]

WHAT??!! What the hell does that qualification 'in its pure form' mean. She didn't accept it even in an "impure" form.

She not only didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy, she argued against it her whole life: She held that reason is the final resolver and arbiter. [on top of which, in RB's quote above, isn't it clear when someone *restates* something to argue against it?]

A -conflict- is not the same thing as a -dichotomy-.

Everyone has conflicts at certain points in their lives between their desires and what they rationally know they should do, and Rand argues that you should use your reason to resolve them. A dichotomy, on the other hand is an -irreconcilable- conflict.

Jesus H. Freakin' Christ!!! . . . That is Objectivism 101!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It's true that Rand didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy in its pure form. However, she did restate it on the third page of her essay as "the conflict of reason versus irrational emotion." [Roger]

WHAT??!! She not only didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy, she argued against it her whole life: She held that reason is the final resolver and arbiter. [on top of which, in RB's quote above, isn't it clear when someone *restates* something to argue against it?]

A -conflict- is not the same thing as a -dichotomy-.

Everyone has conflicts at certain points in their lives between their desires and what they rationally know they should do, and Rand argues that you should use your reason to resolve them. A dichotomy, on the other hand is an -irreconcilable- conflict.

Jesus H. Freakin' Christ!!! . . . That is Objectivism 101!

Hmmm.....I think I see a mild difference of opinion being expressed here..... :o

I assume from this thead, that Roger's article under , ah, discussion, has not yet been published in JARS (If it has, I have not yet received it).

One of the great things about JARS, is that it allows considerable space, usually in subsequent issues, for the presentation of detailed critiques of past articles. Something that one does not see, regrettably, from the ARIan publications.

Phil, that would be a great place for you to present your criticisms of the final version of Roger's paper. However, for publication, please refrain from listing "Jesus H. Freakin' Christ," as a co-author., as many of his statements have fallen into disrepute, and the addition of his name might lead readers to confuse his views, with yours. :angry:

No. Really. Seriously - please consider a rejoinder in JARS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A dichotomy, on the other hand is an -irreconcilable- conflict.

Phil,

A dichotomy is only contradictory or irreconcilable in one meaning of the term. Dichotomy usually means division into two opposing groups without contradiction or irreconcilability necessarily being the reason for the opposition. There are many standards that can be used to establish a dichotomy.

A false dichotomy, which is a phrase Rand used a lot, would be an "irreconcilable conflict" in the sense I understand you to mean.

Also, on the reason-emotion division, Rand not only allowed for this opposing division, she flat out stated that conscious rational willpower could mold emotions by programming the subconscious. In this view, emotions do not integrate with reason, they are separate from reason and controlled by it. Thus she gave supremacy to one side of the dichotomy (the opposition). She also stated that if one does not choose to control their emotions through reason, their emotions will control their reason.

That's a dichotomy if I ever heard of one.

I would have to look, but I don't believe that she claimed (in her own words, of course) that reason versus emotion is a false dichotomy. It is only when they are established as being irreconcilable that she claimed they are a false dichotomy. And they are reconciled in Objectivism by reason dominating emotions, not merging with them.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> to present your criticisms of the final version of Roger's paper [in JARS]

Jerry, that's an option assuming I were to see the final version in a timely fashion (not available unless you are a subscriber? or wait more? months than the next issue(s) come out. But, I don't need to subscribe to JARS to point out errors in postings made here. Else, what is a 'forum' like this for?

Michael, 'dichotomy' in the sense of a history of philosophy dichotomy and by the originators of these doctrines such as Plato and all their followers is used to mean irreconcilable or at war or fundamentally opposed - reason/emotion dichotomy, mind/body dichotomy, theory/practice dichotomy... At any rate, Rand always made it clear that is what she was referring to and that she disagreed with - a fundamental war. And the *exact opposite* of her view that man is an *integrated* creature, not one hopelessly cut in two.

So it's still not as Roger described it, and my criticism .... as well as my previous criticism of Roger on the 'Apollo issue', obviously ... still stand.

> It is only when they are established as being irreconcilable that she claimed they are a false dichotomy.

Exactly. No different from what I was saying.

> And they are reconciled in Objectivism by reason dominating emotions, not merging with them.

Other than perhaps changing the verb to say reason 'reprogramming' or 'changing' or 'integrating' emotions - which hold out the possibility of resolution of conflict - that' s certainly true.

,,,,,,,

dictionaries give a spectrum of usages but here is the one closest to the one used in the works of philosophers (like Plato with his Tripartite Theory of the Soul): " separation of different or contradictory things: a separation into two divisions that differ widely from or contradict each other. Greek dikhotomia "cutting in two" < dikho- "apart, in two" + temnein "to cut"] "

> please refrain from listing "Jesus H. Freakin' Christ," as a co-author

Jerry, do you mean to suggest that he is not consider a reputable source in academic circles? :-)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WHAT??!! What the hell does that qualification 'in its pure form' mean. She didn't accept it even in an "impure" form.

She not only didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy, she argued against it her whole life: She held that reason is the final resolver and arbiter.

Phil,

I was referring to this.

In order to hold reason as "the final resolver and arbiter" between reason and emotions, there had to be a dichotomy to begin with. Otherwise there would be nothing to resolve—no opposition to arbitrate.

For the sake of precision, I will stick to "false dichotomy" as the precise term.

Michael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> It's true that Rand didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy in its pure form. However, she did restate it on the third page of her essay as "the conflict of reason versus irrational emotion." [Roger]

WHAT??!! What the hell does that qualification 'in its pure form' mean. She didn't accept it even in an "impure" form.

Jeez, Phil, you are so quick to misinterpret me. "In its pure form" simply means: in the simple, ~unqualified,~ unnuanced form in which it is typically stated. In Rand's restatement of the dichotomy, she ~qualified~ it: reason versus ~irrational~ emotions, and she referred to it as "the fundamental conflict of our age."

She not only didn't accept the reason-emotion dichotomy, she argued against it her whole life: She held that reason is the final resolver and arbiter. [on top of which, in RB's quote above, isn't it clear when someone *restates* something to argue against it?]

A -conflict- is not the same thing as a -dichotomy-.

Everyone has conflicts at certain points in their lives between their desires and what they rationally know they should do, and Rand argues that you should use your reason to resolve them. A dichotomy, on the other hand is an -irreconcilable- conflict.

Jesus H. Freakin' Christ!!! . . . That is Objectivism 101!

Objectivism 101 includes the Law of Excluded Middle, which states that a thing is either A or non-A. Any ~TRUE~ dichotomy must be of this form. A true dichotomy has two alternatives which are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive of the possibilities. Any opposition which is ~not~ of this form is a ~FALSE~ dichotomy. A false dichotomy is one which ~purports~ to present mutually exclusive or jointly exhaustive possibilities, which in fact are ~not~ mutually exclusive or jointly exhaustive (or both).

In the present case, reason and emotion are ~not~ mutually exclusive. They are concomitant, necessarily connected. Emotions flow from reason. But emotions also flow from irrationality. So, reason and emotion are not jointly exhaustive ~either~.

The ~REAL~ true dichotomy is: reason and consequent rational emotion vs. irrationality and consequent irrational emotion. Now, I maintain that this is ~exactly~ the form of the reason-emotion conflict that Rand endorsed. (And by "endorsed," to stall off yet another Phil-esque misinterpretation, I simply mean that Rand advocated it as the best way to conceptually grasp and label the "fundamental conflict of our age" and "Apollo vs. Dionysus" as the best way to symbolically represent it.)

It takes just two simple steps from the above (underscored) to get there. First, insert parentheses: reason (and consequent rational emotion) vs. (irrationality and consequent) irrational emotion. Second, delete the parenthetical material: reason vs. irrational emotion.

There ya go, Phil. Reason vs. irrational emotion is both, as Rand said, "the fundamental conflict of our age" -- and, I as have just shown, a ~real~, ~true~ dichotomy. Here we have a case of a conflict that truly ~is~ a dichotomy.

Further, it's ~irreconcilable~, which was a criterion you offered for a dichotomy. You're either using reason (and consequent rational emotion) or you're using (reason and consequent) irrational emotion -- at any given time, and in any given respect. They do not integrate. It's either-or.

True, not all conflicts are dichotomies, but now that I have established that "reason vs. irrational emotion" ~is in fact~ a dichotomy, I think it must now be clear that at least ~some~ conflicts ~are~ dichotomies.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

These two statements of Roger's in his coming essay . . .

1. "she completely accepted, **for her purposes of exposition**, Nietzsche's portrayal of Apollo as symbolizing reason" [asterisks added for emphasis]

2. "Rand identified Apollo with reason...[which was] incorrect"

. . . are not identical. Once again, it is –not- an error or misidentification to do what she did provisionally as a jumping off point or as convenient archetypes or "symbols" to concretize and make vivid.

But in fact, Roger’s error is worse that that:

Reason, light, truth, knowledge ARE some of the many things Apollo is viewed as the god of. THAT is what should not be "at all controversial". If the writer would simply look it up - or remember it from early education.

MORAL: It's extremely important not to jump into print with inaccuracies about Ayn Rand: If your purpose is to criticize her for a non-Objectivist audience, it is advisable to find something - of importance - she is actually wrong about.

Well, considering that there is going to be an extended blind peer review process with one or two re-writes, I don't think I am exactly "jumping" into print, even if I am being inaccurate about Rand. Which I believe I have shown that I am ~not~.

As a result of this discussion and the point I made in a preceding post, I ~will~ be including something in my essay -- of importance -- that she is actually ~right~ about. "Reason or irrational emotion" ~is~ the fundamental conflict of our age, and as stated, it names a ~true~ dichotomy, a truly ~irreconcilable~ division of an area of reality, two alternatives that are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive of the possibilities.

As for what she is actually ~wrong~ about, I have not offered that ~argument~ yet, only my ~assertion/thesis-statement~ that she did, in fact, identify reason with Apollo (and irrational reason with Dionysus), and that that identification is incorrect.

It is undeniable that Rand identifies reason with Apollo. As for Apollo's numerous supposed attributes, Rand ~mentions~ several of the ones named by Nietzsche, and then ~essentializes~, saying "i.e., reason." So, it is ~Rand~ (and only implicitly Nietzsche) who identifies Apollo with reason. She really ~does~ appear to believe that that is Apollo's fundamental characteristic that underlies and explains all the others.

As for the argument supporting the thesis that ~this identification~ is an error, that will appear in the Spring 2008 issue of JARS, if my essay survives the review and re-write process. But comments on what I have presented here are always welcome. It's even OK with me if they invoke the Spirit of the alleged Son of the Grand Spook of the Universe. :angel:

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Michael, 'dichotomy' in the sense of a history of philosophy dichotomy and by the originators of these doctrines such as Plato and all their followers is used to mean irreconcilable or at war or fundamentally opposed - reason/emotion dichotomy, mind/body dichotomy, theory/practice dichotomy... At any rate, Rand always made it clear that is what she was referring to and that she disagreed with - a fundamental war. And the *exact opposite* of her view that man is an *integrated* creature, not one hopelessly cut in two.

Well, logically, that is exactly what a dichotomy is: a fundamental opposition, two alternatives that are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive of the possibilities. Such an opposition is irreconcilable. It's Either-Or.

But the historical "alleged dichotomies" (Rand refers to reason-emotion in this way on the first page of her Apollo/Dionysus essay) are ~not really~ dichotomies. Mind and body are not mutually exclusive; they are a unity. Reason and emotion are neither mutually exclusive nor jointly exhaustive of the possibilities, as I noted in a preceding post.

When a ~purported~ dichotomy, a ~purportedly irreconcilable~ opposition is actually ~not~ a dichotomy, it is given the label "false dichotomy." That does not mean that it really ~is~ a kind of dichotomy that is simply "false." "False" applies strictly only to propositions, and a dichotomy is a specific kind of conceptual division, not a proposition. So, literally, "false dichotomy" is a contradiction in terms, meaning simply: non-dichotomy -- and "true dichotomy" is a redundancy, meaning simply: dichotomy. But there is no problem in using the terms, as long as this is understood. Sorry to be so pendantic about this, but there is way to much confusion about this issue, in mainstream logic texts and among Objectivist philosophers. It's about time it got clarified.

[Now, suppose you wanted to restate a mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive conceptual division as a proposition, so you would be strictly correct in evaluating the division as "true" or "false." You would have to say: X and non-X are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities of Y. If some one says reason and emotion are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities of human guidance, this proposition is false, because another option is irrationality. In other words, reason and emotion are A and B, not A and non-A. This is a false ~statement~ of a dichotomy, a false statement alleging that a non-dichotomy is actually a dichotomy -- a "false dichotomy statement," as it were.....However, if someone says reason and irrational emotion are mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities of human guidance, ~this~ proposition is ~true~, because reason includes consequent rational emotions, and irrationality includes consequent irrational emotions, and ~that is~ a pair of mutually exclusive and jointly exhaustive possibilities -- a real A or not-A alternative. This is a ~true~ statement of a dichotomy, a true statement identifying a real dichotomy.]

> It is only when they are established as being irreconcilable that she claimed they are a false dichotomy.

Exactly. No different from what I was saying.

Actually, that's not a correct description of a ~false~ dichotomy, unless you two are using "established" in a different sense than I take it.

False dichotomies (i.e., non-dichotomies ~alleged~ to be dichotomies) are ~not~ irreconcilable. Reason vs. emotion is an alleged, false dichotomy. Reason and emotion are not irreconcilable.

It is ~true dichotomies~ (i.e, dichotomies) that are irreconcilable. Reason vs. irrational emotion is a real dichotomy. Reason and irrational emotion are irreconcilable.

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

**Apollo as god or symbol of truth, light, order vs. Dionysus as god of wine, drunkeness, 'wild' or unconstrained feeling**

> She really ~does~ appear to believe that that is Apollo's fundamental characteristic that underlies and explains all the others. [Roger]

No. She is well aware that mythical figures often were combinations of traits, not always consistent which were tacked on over a thousand years, so you CAN'T necessarily say this is Apollo's fundamental characteristic. What a writer CAN do is say:

"this is how Apollo is TAKEN by this philosopher, and since that is a reasonable extrapolation from certain of his major aspect -- god of light, truth, the sun, civilization -- vs. god of drunkeness, uninhibiied or unordered wild emotion, I, as a writer, am at liberty to use this as a useful SYMBOL to concretize reason vs. emotion.

That's what "i.e, reason" means!! You have GOT to learn how to read Rand's stylistic tricks and style if you are going to go into public print as a "Rand critic". Otherwise you will do incredible damage.

"i.e., reason" means I'm simplifying in order to -select- using this aspect for literary purposes. It's -not- the same as saying "Apollo IS the god of reason and only the god of reason and Dionysus is ONLY the god of irrational emotion. And neither one could be used by any other writer to symbolize anything else."

Like the Witch Doctor.

Like Attila.

Archetypes, symbols. Get it? Not literal truth. Literary license. OK?

Charitable interpretation of the author's intent? Comprende?

(Jeez, this is such a simple point and I've made it three times now in different ways. Please, simply go back and reread just the first two pages of her essay. I did so yesterday as a double check on this conversation.)

Let me explain this one more time in a different way . . . and I'm not just addressing Roger because there is an important how-to-read-a-thinker-charitably point here for any reader:

You seem to be taking some liberties with her use of Nietzsche's formulation to pick a nit. By making the following mistakes: 1) forgetting that the ideas of the Apollonian and Dionysian are used as symbolic--even 'literary'--devices, archetypes like the Witch Doctor -- takikng it too literally as if a Witch Doctor actually practiced medicine, 2) forgetting the multiple traits of Apollo in mythology which contrasts strongly with Dionysus on this issue and can be a basis for reason vs. irrational emotion, 3) equating her view with Nietzsche's.

Re #2 as I said before:

"Reason, light, truth, knowledge ARE some of the many things Apollo is viewed as the god of. THAT is what should not be "at all controversial". If the writer would simply look it up - or remember it from early education."

Note the asterisked portions below & note that the Greek gods came from multiple sources and could be used to symbolize different things, not always consistently if one wishes a symbol ==>

Etymology and word uses. Note that I'm doing some of your research work for you, which you should have done. So I expect six figure royalties once your revised essay has stunned the intellectual world :-) ===>

APOLLO

--(http://www.wordsources.info/apollo.html). . . # Apollo was associated with **law**, **philosophy**, and the arts. He sometimes gave the gift of prophecy to mortals whom he loved, such as the Trojan princess Cassandra.

--(encyclopedia mythica) The son of Zeus and Leto, and the twin brother of Artemis. Apollo was the god of music (principally the lyre, and he directed the choir of the Muses) and also of prophecy, colonization, medicine, archery (but not for war or hunting), poetry, dance, **intellectual inquiry** and the carer of herds and flocks. He was also a god of **light*

--(wkpd) one of the most important and **many-sided** of the Olympian deities. The ideal of the kouros (a beardless youth), Apollo has been variously recognized as a god of **light and the sun**; **truth** and prophecy; archery; **medicine and healing**; music, poetry, and the arts; and more . .

--(another) .. Apollo's Strengths: Creative, handsome, supportive of all the arts of **civilization**.

DIONYSUS

--(mythweb) DIONYSUS (dye-oh-NYE-sus; Roman name Bacchus) was the god of **wine**.

--(encyclopedia mythica) Dionysus, also commonly known by his Roman name Bacchus, appears to be a god who has **two distinct origins**. On the one hand, Dionysus was the god of wine, agriculture, and fertility of nature, who is also the patron god of the Greek stage. On the other hand, Dionysus also represents the outstanding features of **mystery religions, such as those practiced at Eleusis: ecstasy, personal delivery from the daily world through physical or spiritual intoxication, and initiation into secret rites**.

--(other sources) DIONYSOS (or Dionysus) was the great Olympian god of wine, vegetation, pleasure and festivity. // .. the youthful, beautiful, but effeminate god of wine. He is also called both by Greeks and Romans Bacchus (Bakchos), that is, **the noisy or riotous god**, which was originally a mere epithet or surname of Dionysus, but does not occur till after the time of Herodotus.

--(wkpd) In classical mythology, Dionysus or Dionysos isthe god of wine, **the inspirer of ritual madness and ecstasy**, and a major figure of Greek mythology. He represents not only the intoxicating power of wine, but also its social and beneficial influences. ...He was also known as Bacchus[2] and **the frenzy he induces**, bakcheia. He is the patron deity of agriculture and the theatre. He was also known as the Liberator (Eleutherios), **freeing one from one's normal self, by madness, ecstasy, or wine**.[3] The divine mission of Dionysus was to mingle the music of the aulos and to bring an end to care and worry.[4]

Link to comment
Share on other sites

> to present your criticisms of the final version of Roger's paper [in JARS]

Jerry, that's an option assuming I were to see the final version in a timely fashion (not available unless you are a subscriber? or wait more? months than the next issue(s) come out. But, I don't need to subscribe to JARS to point out errors in postings made here. Else, what is a 'forum' like this for?

Michael, 'dichotomy' in the sense of a history of philosophy dichotomy and by the originators of these doctrines such as Plato and all their followers is used to mean irreconcilable or at war or fundamentally opposed - reason/emotion dichotomy, mind/body dichotomy, theory/practice dichotomy... At any rate, Rand always made it clear that is what she was referring to and that she disagreed with - a fundamental war. And the *exact opposite* of her view that man is an *integrated* creature, not one hopelessly cut in two.

So it's still not as Roger described it, and my criticism .... as well as my previous criticism of Roger on the 'Apollo issue', obviously ... still stand.

> It is only when they are established as being irreconcilable that she claimed they are a false dichotomy.

Exactly. No different from what I was saying.

> And they are reconciled in Objectivism by reason dominating emotions, not merging with them.

Other than perhaps changing the verb to say reason 'reprogramming' or 'changing' or 'integrating' emotions - which hold out the possibility of resolution of conflict - that' s certainly true.

,,,,,,,

dictionaries give a spectrum of usages but here is the one closest to the one used in the works of philosophers (like Plato with his Tripartite Theory of the Soul): " separation of different or contradictory things: a separation into two divisions that differ widely from or contradict each other. Greek dikhotomia "cutting in two" < dikho- "apart, in two" + temnein "to cut"] "

> please refrain from listing "Jesus H. Freakin' Christ," as a co-author

Jerry, do you mean to suggest that he is not consider a reputable source in academic circles? :-)

Phil-

A great thing about OL is that posters engage in lively, er, discussions. If people want DOGMA, they can look elsewhere.

re my suggestion to not include J.H.F.C. as co-author. The JARS editors might not find his academic credentials acceptable -.in general. Or even as an expert on Objectivism (unless he claims to have recently discussed these issues with her and with Nietzsche - and can substantiate such claims to the editors. But they are such a skeptical bunch.).

Now, the late Pope John-Paul II probably could have added to this discussion, having once taught philosophy, and certainly had read Nietzsche. According to reports, he also had read Atlas Shrugged, sometime in the nineteen-nineties. Interesting, since another Catholic "Defender of the Faith" and vociferous critic of Rand, Bill Buckley, admitted that he had never read Atlas Shrugged.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now