Michael Stuart Kelly Posted February 13, 2006 Share Posted February 13, 2006 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemologyby Ayn RandStudy Papers from the Enlightenment websiteModerated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy (MDOP)Chapter 1 – Cognition and Measurement1992 – David Ross1994 – Paul SpunzarChapter 2 – Concept-Formation1992 – Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales 1995 – Will WilkinsonChapter 3 – Abstractions from Abstractions1992 – Eduardo Chaves 1995 – JMS 1996 – Log of online chat discussion on #geekspeak IRC channel (Not part of MDOP)Chapter 4 – Concepts of Consciousness1992 – Jimmy (Jimbo) Wales1995 – Diana Mertz Brickell (Hsieh) Chapter 5 – Definitions1992 – Svein Olav G. Nyberg1995 – Bryan Register Chapter 6 – Axiomatic Concepts1992 – James Leithead1995 – Thomas Ryan StoneChapter 7 – The Cognitive Role of Concepts1992 – Raymie Stata1995 – Andrew Breese Chapter 8 - Consciousness and Identity1992 – Carolyn Ray Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy1992 – David Ross Note: The links to the MDOP essays are on the Enlightenment site, however thanks are given to Richard Lawrence of the Objectivism Reference Center for having organized them for easy reference on his site, including the link to the Log of the Chapter 3 IRC chat session. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted September 25, 2006 Share Posted September 25, 2006 ~ I found David Ross' discussion on the A-S 'dichotomy' quite interesting. However, it wasn't until reading it that a new thought occurred to me re the dichotomy's advocates' view of definitions of a concept as specifying 'its meaning in its entirety.'~ Ross points out the bottom line prob re the diff of meanings between advocates and disagreers as pertaining to their very contrary views of the nature of logic and definitions; however, I think that worth adding is their view of 'meaning' also.~ Consider the advocates' above 'meaning' of a concept's definition: there is never an argument about the 'referents' of any meaning of a def. other than it being no more than another set-of-dictionary-symbols. It's as if 'meaning' was considered as merely a synonomous 'math' equation looked at in terms of marks on each side of an "=" sign; 'referent', in 'analytic' terms, (contrary to 'synthetic') seems to have no 'meaning' to any items in 'reality', ergo, neither does 'analytic-meaning.' The latter's meaning is practically meaningless...outside of imagination.LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reason.on Posted September 26, 2006 Share Posted September 26, 2006 Introduction to Objectivist Epistemologyby Ayn RandStudy Papers from the Enlightenment websiteModerated Discussion of Objectivist Philosophy (MDOP)I'd like to post direct links to a few other Enlightenment essays that are quite relevant to some recent discussions here in OL. A Conceptualist Interpretation of Quantum MechanicsIdentity and Universals: A Conceptualist Approach to Logical, Metaphysical, and Epistemological Problems of Contemporary Identity TheoryEdges, Entities, and Existence: An Epistemological ExcursionOpening Remarks for Analytic's discussion of "Edges, Entities, and Existence"BBTC Chapter 4: Self-generationRCR Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted March 31, 2007 Author Share Posted March 31, 2007 Although the following link does not have anything to do with the Enlightenment website, it is a study guide for ITOE and anyone reading this thread is probably interested in studying ITOE. So it is convenient to keep things in one place.There is a very interesting list of questions, chapter-by-chapter to help with study. A Study Guide to Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by K.W. DidionFrom an initial skim, it seems to be ARI oriented. I think that is a good thing because it deals with what Rand actually wrote and not any interpretation of it. If anyone wishes to critique or disagree with ITOE, the best place to start is by thoroughly understanding it. I have no doubt that anyone working their way through all those questions will fully understand the book. I intend to do precisely that myself.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodney Posted March 31, 2007 Share Posted March 31, 2007 (edited) To toot my own horn here a bit, I believe that the essay mentioned in my signature significantly builds on Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology in these ways:1. I offer an alternative explanation to that of Ronald Pisaturo and Glenn Marcus, which as far as I know is the only currently recognized Objectivist theory on the topic, of how number concepts arise in the human mind.2. I account for the fact that mathematical development occurs mostly parallel to the rest of conceptual growth, by pointing up a new connection between the two realms.3. I tie “imaginary” and “complex” (two-dimensional) numbers to reality in a different way than Pisaturo and Marcus.4. I show how I used this understanding to independently stumble upon “hypercomplex” (multidimensional) numbers, which I had never heard of but which are part of higher mathematics. This shows not only the correctness of my thinking, but also the power of philosophy to inform and direct the special sciences. It’s a good answer to the views of “Dragonfly” (“Calopterix splendens”), Daniel Barnes, “Next Level,” and others, who believe that philosophical thought must continually look and bow to what they call “science” regardless of the topic.Normally I would dive into the message boards with my views, but I put in a lot of deep thought about mathematics to arrive at them, and decided not give away these ideas for free! Edited March 31, 2007 by ashleyparkerangel Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now