Jump to content






Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Online literature by David Kelley


  • Please log in to reply
33 replies to this topic

#21 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 19,513 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 July 2008 - 07:19 AM

Donovan,

I wouldn't bother wasting my time. It has been discussed in depth here on OL. It was even plagiarized here by one dude on some kind of moral bashing crusade. That turned into a holy mess for a while. You can find the thread in the Garbage Pile section if you are interested.

That monkey-shine of an essay was not one of Hsieh's finest moments. When she ganged up with Perigo and some other nonentities against Chris Sciabarra over on Solo Passion, even Perigo did not agree with her on this, so you can imagine what normal Objectivists think.

Her idea was to out-Peikoff Peikoff on bashing Kelley and take him to a Kantian-like level of mind-body dichotomy. If that had taken hold, I have no doubt the next step would have been to do a Rand thing and declare him to be the second-most evil man in human history (because he was undermining Objectivism, the salvation of humankind). It was an erudite-sounding attempt to show she meant business on her conversion to the ARI fold.

The problem is that she really had to twist Kelley's words around and torture them until they cried uncle and gave up all rational meaning. Simply stated, Kelley wrote one thing and Hsieh bashed another, but said he wrote and meant what she was bashing.

Just boneheaded crap. Nobody takes that seriously.

Michael

Know thyself...


#22 Merlin Jetton

Merlin Jetton

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,670 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 06 July 2008 - 12:24 PM

This is a follow-up to post 9, where I said that Kelley said evil applies primarily to actions. Yet Peikoff and his fans have often said or implied Kelley said 'only' or 'exclusively'. Here is concrete proof, Robert Tracinski saying "Morality, says Kelley, applies only to actions" in a section with heading "The exclusion of cognition from moral evaluation" (my bolds).

#23 Robert Campbell

Robert Campbell

    $$$$$$

  • VIP
  • 3,582 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:South Carolina
  • Interests:psychological theory, self-esteem, classical music, jazz, blues, music history

Posted 06 July 2008 - 02:15 PM

Merlin,

I wonder what Robert Tracinski thinks of his essay in 2008, now that he has become estranged from the Leonard Peikoff Institute.

Robert Campbell

#24 Philip Coates

Philip Coates

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 3,560 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:--Playing Sports (running, basketball, body surfing)
    --Literature and History
    --Art Museums
    --Rock 'n Roll, Classical, Country and Western
    --Epistemology
    --Travel
    --Classic Old Movies

Posted 06 July 2008 - 05:34 PM

> Kelley said evil applies *primarily* to actions. Yet Peikoff and his fans have often said or implied Kelley said 'only' or 'exclusively'. Here is concrete proof, Robert Tracinski saying "Morality, says Kelley, applies only to actions" in a section with heading "The exclusion of cognition from moral evaluation" (my bolds).

Merlin has it in a nutshell - It's a mistake to make this sublimely silly and time-wasting argument more complicated than this.

Kelley was making the *identical point* that Rand did in the Raymond Newman interview - it's when you act on a bad idea that you become much worse, you cross a certain line of implementing in reality, in action.

1. Nowhere in his monograph did Kelley say there are no evil, vicious, bad ideas.

2. Nor did he say that one cannot ever make a negative evaluation (degree, extent, and type depending on context and nature of the idea) of someone who holds really bad ideas and should or actually does know better.

3. Nor did he deny that bad ideas can -lead- to bad actions.

--case closed--

I have an idea: Why don't we stop twenty years of debating this and instead spend twenty years debating whether Christ is part of the substance of the Godhead or a coequal diety and whether the Holy Ghost has equal status in the Trinity.

The we can kill people who disagree.

#25 Randall

Randall

    $$$

  • Members
  • 356 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Texas
  • Interests:Student of Objectivism. The virtues I seek to live by are: Rationality, Honesty, Independence, Integrity, Justice, Productiveness, Pride and Benevolence.

Posted 12 July 2008 - 01:11 AM

There are many people who read these reviews and essays by the ARI minded people and fall right in. I want to be capable of defending myself and Kelley from injustice. Any help is appreciated.

I have taken actions to open communications, to encourage debate and evaluation when it comes to this division. If any of you have a membership with objectivismonline.net there is an opportunity available now to persuade those who are watching the debate. We can win by using logic, reason and by pointing to the truth. False accusations must be challenged. Errors and misrepresentations have power if we allow them to be unchallenged.

See this thread: http://forum.objecti...p...1619&st=100
“When I disagree with a rational man, I let reality be our final arbiter; if I am right, he will learn; if I am wrong, I will; one of us will win, but both will profit.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged

Study Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand in Dallas, TX - www.thecultureofreasoncenter.com

#26 Stephen Boydstun

Stephen Boydstun

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,692 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Metaphysics; Theory of Concepts and Predication; Philosophy of Science and Mathematics; Philosophy of Mind; Foundations of Ethics; Physics; Mathematics; Biology; Cognitive Science

Posted 12 March 2012 - 04:26 AM

In Reason Papers (Fall 2011) 33:12–30:

Rand versus Hayek on Abstraction
David Kelley

From the essay:

It is difficult to compare Hayek‘s view of abstraction with Rand‘s directly. Rand is concerned with the metaphysical and epistemological issues in the classical debate about universals and concepts, while Hayek was concerned with issues in what now would be described as philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Hayek neither addresses the classical problems, nor develops any theory of how abstractness and universality are possible. Rand, for her part, offers nothing beyond a few observations about the relation of the conscious mind to the physical brain, which she regards as chiefly a scientific issue.

Nevertheless, there are clear points of difference between their views of abstraction underlying the basic differences I outlined above about the power of reason. . . .

Outline

1. Introduction

2. Rand versus Hayek on the Power of Reason

3. Reason and Abstraction

4. Rand’s Theory of Concepts

5. Hayek on Abstraction

6. Hayek’s Functionalism

7. Hayek’s Kantianism

8. Active versus Passive Cognition

9. Conclusion: Hayek on Rand on Epistemology and Politics

#27 Merlin Jetton

Merlin Jetton

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,670 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 March 2012 - 05:27 AM

In Reason Papers (Fall 2011) 33:12–30:

Rand versus Hayek on Abstraction
David Kelley

From the essay:

It is difficult to compare Hayek‘s view of abstraction with Rand‘s directly. Rand is concerned with the metaphysical and epistemological issues in the classical debate about universals and concepts, while Hayek was concerned with issues in what now would be described as philosophy of mind and cognitive science. Hayek neither addresses the classical problems, nor develops any theory of how abstractness and universality are possible. Rand, for her part, offers nothing beyond a few observations about the relation of the conscious mind to the physical brain, which she regards as chiefly a scientific issue.

Nevertheless, there are clear points of difference between their views of abstraction underlying the basic differences I outlined above about the power of reason. . . .


My brief comment.

#28 Mark

Mark

    $$$$

  • Members
  • 378 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 12 March 2012 - 10:03 AM

Rand, for her part, offers nothing beyond a few observations about the relation of the conscious mind to the physical brain, which she regards as chiefly a scientific issue.

No, I don’t believe she does. I don’t think she wrote about the subject, except words to the effect (I’ve forgotten where) that a (non-physical) mind is a natural part of a human being, with the implication not to get exercised over it.

On that subject see Raymond Tallis’ Aping Mankind, which I’m almost done reading. He’s also on YouTube.

#29 studiodekadent

studiodekadent

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,182 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Brisbane, Australia
  • Interests:Austrian and Evolutionary Economics, Objectivism, Electro-Industrial Music (Listening/Composing/ Producing), Synthesizers, Goth/Industrial/ Cyberpunk/Formal Fashion, Makeup (more than my mother), Drinking, Blackjack, Debauchery of Assorted Varieties.

Posted 04 April 2012 - 08:39 PM

Thanks for the copy of Kelley's paper. I've been looking forward to reading it.

For one, I'm glad Kelley avoided descending into Hayek-bashing. But, I must emphasize as a point of criticism, the article completely avoids looking for much in the way of common ground between Rand and Hayek (apart from their repeated focus on the nature of human cognition as the basis for classical liberalism).


Full disclosure; I agree with Hayek's critique of rationalism. I disagree with Hayek's epistemology.

Also, I believe Kelley makes a mistake: "Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls constructive rationalism. His concept of rationalism is somewhat idiosyncratic, and is not equivalent to Rand‘s conception of reason."

Italics mine.

Hayek's concept of rationalism is NOT idiosyncratic. Rationalism is the philosophical proposition that all knowledge comes from a priori and deductive sources, without empirical evidence. This is precisely how the term is used in philosophy.

Rand, on the other hand, uses "reason" idiosyncratically. Her "reason" is a very empirical concept of reason, but most philosophy has a tendency to use "reason" to mean deductive reason rather than empirical reason (Hayek does this too, in that he often uses "reason" to refer to a rationalist concept of reason).

Kelley is right, however, that Rand's "reason" is not Hayek's "rationalism." Rand herself made this error. I am glad Kelley avoided making the same mistake.

"Neither, Hayek claims, do societies acquire their norms through the insights or teachings of previous thinkers, nor do the norms arise through any social contract among individuals. Instead, he offers an evolutionary account to the effect that rules evolve by a process akin to natural selection."

False dichotomy. I invite Kelley to read Kurt Dopfer and Jason Potts' The General Theory of Economic Evolution. The insights or teachings of previous thinkers are part of an evolutionary process; what happens is that big philosophers come up with new ideas (variation), these ideas spread throughout the population at large (replication), and individuals then experiment with/implement/analyze these ideas to see what works/what is of value (selection).

"For Hayek, moral rules have a status lying between instinct and reason. They are not literal instincts of the kind we ascribe to animals; they are not inborn. They are habits people acquire in the course of maturation and experience, as they are acculturated to the norms of their society. But neither are such norms the product of reason."

Kelley now falls into the trap of conflating Hayek's "reason" with Rand's "reason." He's also implicitly suggesting that Hayek assumed people were just conditioned by society. Both are errors. Hayek used "reason" typically to refer to a rationalist concept of reason. Rand also rejected the idea that rationalism could lead to valid moral norms.

Additionally, Hayek is not talking about correct moral norms. He's not saying what philosophy is right. He's talking about a process by which a society acquires the moral belief/s it holds. He isn't evaluating these beliefs, he's merely talking about how societies in general come to them.

And let's be honest; the correct ideas aren't necessarily the dominant ones in the marketplace of ideas (a fact most Objectivists should be acutely aware of).

"This (Hayek's) case for market freedom is essentially negative." (Brackets mine)

Kelley is correct; Hayek's case is essentially a critique of the utopian social planners. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Hayek was an economist writing during the decades when people were very much enamored with socialism; the socialists of the time believed that they would produce superior real-world outcomes to markets. Hayek set out to rebuke this.


Whilst I agree with Rand that a positive case for classical liberalism is a necessary condition to achieve a free world, Hayek was operating in an intellectual context that irrefutably needed a negative case AGAINST the rising tide of statism.

"Rand and Hayek can be seen as representing two different strands of Enlightenment thought. Rand is the best twentieth-century representative of the tradition of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and others who have prized man‘s power of reason and have wanted to liberate that power in science, production, and the individual pursuit of happiness. What Rand adds to the tradition is an individualist moral theory based on man‘s need to think and produce in service to his life, and epistemological insights regarding the nature and validation of reason, including the theory of concepts outlined below. Hayek represents the tradition of the Scottish Enlightenment, including thinkers such as David Hume, Adam Smith, and others who were more skeptical of the power of reason. Such thinkers tend to look at man not as the subject of rational knowledge or agent of rational action, but as the object of an inquiry about how societies function. This is the tradition that gave rise to the concept of spontaneous order, order that arises from human action, but not from human design."


Again, a false dichotomy (similar to Rothbard's) between spontaneous order and individual reason. The concepts deal with completely different spheres! Reason, as Objectivists are acutely aware of, is a faculty of the individual. Spontaneous order is a statement about entire societies. Individuals acting rationally at the micro level will produce spontaneous order at the macro level (in essence, Misesian micro results in Hayekian macro).

Smith and Hayek aren't skeptical about the power of reason at the micro level; they are skeptical about the power of rationalism at the macro level. In short, all they are saying is that human intellect has limits. This is something which should not be controversial to Objectivists; Rand explicitly stated that reason is fallible, contextual and tentative (in the sense of being open-ended to new evidence), and Objectivist epistemology includes that nice concept of Unit Economy, i.e. "we use abstract knowledge because of a cognitive limitation of our minds, we can only focus on six to eight concretes at any one time."

I'm not going to deny that Rand and Hayek had very different epistemological theories. I also agree with Kelley that Rand's account of epistemology is superior to Hayek. However, Hayek's critiques of rationalism are (in my opinion) completely compatible with Objectivism, and much of his thought on the epistemic properties of social institutions is supportable with Objectivist epistemology.
www.myspace.com/studiodekadent

#30 Brant Gaede

Brant Gaede

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 14,237 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Tucson, AZ
  • Interests:All kinds of stuff

Posted 04 April 2012 - 11:32 PM

(I just corrected the font size.)

Thanks for the copy of Kelley's paper. I've been looking forward to reading it.

For one, I'm glad Kelley avoided descending into Hayek-bashing. But, I must emphasize as a point of criticism, the article completely avoids looking for much in the way of common ground between Rand and Hayek (apart from their repeated focus on the nature of human cognition as the basis for classical liberalism).


Full disclosure; I agree with Hayek's critique of rationalism. I disagree with Hayek's epistemology.

Also, I believe Kelley makes a mistake: "Hayek, by contrast, is a critic of what he calls constructive rationalism. His concept of rationalism is somewhat idiosyncratic, and is not equivalent to Rand‘s conception of reason."

Italics mine.

Hayek's concept of rationalism is NOT idiosyncratic. Rationalism is the philosophical proposition that all knowledge comes from a priori and deductive sources, without empirical evidence. This is precisely how the term is used in philosophy.

Rand, on the other hand, uses "reason" idiosyncratically. Her "reason" is a very empirical concept of reason, but most philosophy has a tendency to use "reason" to mean deductive reason rather than empirical reason (Hayek does this too, in that he often uses "reason" to refer to a rationalist concept of reason).

Kelley is right, however, that Rand's "reason" is not Hayek's "rationalism." Rand herself made this error. I am glad Kelley avoided making the same mistake.

"Neither, Hayek claims, do societies acquire their norms through the insights or teachings of previous thinkers, nor do the norms arise through any social contract among individuals. Instead, he offers an evolutionary account to the effect that rules evolve by a process akin to natural selection."

False dichotomy. I invite Kelley to read Kurt Dopfer and Jason Potts' The General Theory of Economic Evolution. The insights or teachings of previous thinkers are part of an evolutionary process; what happens is that big philosophers come up with new ideas (variation), these ideas spread throughout the population at large (replication), and individuals then experiment with/implement/analyze these ideas to see what works/what is of value (selection).

"For Hayek, moral rules have a status lying between instinct and reason. They are not literal instincts of the kind we ascribe to animals; they are not inborn. They are habits people acquire in the course of maturation and experience, as they are acculturated to the norms of their society. But neither are such norms the product of reason."

Kelley now falls into the trap of conflating Hayek's "reason" with Rand's "reason." He's also implicitly suggesting that Hayek assumed people were just conditioned by society. Both are errors. Hayek used "reason" typically to refer to a rationalist concept of reason. Rand also rejected the idea that rationalism could lead to valid moral norms.

Additionally, Hayek is not talking about correct moral norms. He's not saying what philosophy is right. He's talking about a process by which a society acquires the moral belief/s it holds. He isn't evaluating these beliefs, he's merely talking about how societies in general come to them.

And let's be honest; the correct ideas aren't necessarily the dominant ones in the marketplace of ideas (a fact most Objectivists should be acutely aware of).

"This (Hayek's) case for market freedom is essentially negative." (Brackets mine)

Kelley is correct; Hayek's case is essentially a critique of the utopian social planners. I fail to see how this is a bad thing. Hayek was an economist writing during the decades when people were very much enamored with socialism; the socialists of the time believed that they would produce superior real-world outcomes to markets. Hayek set out to rebuke this.

Whilst I agree with Rand that a positive case for classical liberalism is a necessary condition to achieve a free world, Hayek was operating in an intellectual context that irrefutably needed a negative case AGAINST the rising tide of statism.

"Rand and Hayek can be seen as representing two different strands of Enlightenment thought. Rand is the best twentieth-century representative of the tradition of John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, and others who have prized man‘s power of reason and have wanted to liberate that power in science, production, and the individual pursuit of happiness. What Rand adds to the tradition is an individualist moral theory based on man‘s need to think and produce in service to his life, and epistemological insights regarding the nature and validation of reason, including the theory of concepts outlined below. Hayek represents the tradition of the Scottish Enlightenment, including thinkers such as David Hume, Adam Smith, and others who were more skeptical of the power of reason. Such thinkers tend to look at man not as the subject of rational knowledge or agent of rational action, but as the object of an inquiry about how societies function. This is the tradition that gave rise to the concept of spontaneous order, order that arises from human action, but not from human design."


Again, a false dichotomy (similar to Rothbard's) between spontaneous order and individual reason. The concepts deal with completely different spheres! Reason, as Objectivists are acutely aware of, is a faculty of the individual. Spontaneous order is a statement about entire societies. Individuals acting rationally at the micro level will produce spontaneous order at the macro level (in essence, Misesian micro results in Hayekian macro).

Smith and Hayek aren't skeptical about the power of reason at the micro level; they are skeptical about the power of rationalism at the macro level. In short, all they are saying is that human intellect has limits. This is something which should not be controversial to Objectivists; Rand explicitly stated that reason is fallible, contextual and tentative (in the sense of being open-ended to new evidence), and Objectivist epistemology includes that nice concept of Unit Economy, i.e. "we use abstract knowledge because of a cognitive limitation of our minds, we can only focus on six to eight concretes at any one time."

I'm not going to deny that Rand and Hayek had very different epistemological theories. I also agree with Kelley that Rand's account of epistemology is superior to Hayek. However, Hayek's critiques of rationalism are (in my opinion) completely compatible with Objectivism, and much of his thought on the epistemic properties of social institutions is supportable with Objectivist epistemology.


Rational Individualist, Rational self-interest, Individual Rights--Libertarian--objectivist Objectivist, not an Objectivist Objectivist


#31 Stephen Boydstun

Stephen Boydstun

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,692 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Metaphysics; Theory of Concepts and Predication; Philosophy of Science and Mathematics; Philosophy of Mind; Foundations of Ethics; Physics; Mathematics; Biology; Cognitive Science

Posted 21 September 2012 - 04:16 AM

Now online:

The Evidence of the Senses
A Realist Theory of Perception
David Kelley (1986)

(Thanks to Teresa at Rebirth of Reason for this notice.)

#32 Michael E. Marotta

Michael E. Marotta

    Rational Empiricist

  • Members
  • 2,418 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Austin, Texas
  • Interests:Numismatics, Physical Security and Computer Security, Aviation

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:30 PM

I saw Tress's post. I re-initialized my Scribd profile, added some documents of my own, etc., and then downloaded this into my Objectivism folder to read offline at my leisure. I have some cassette tapes of Kelley lectures and I remain impressed after a decade.

Mike M.
-----------------------------------------------

Michael E. Marotta, BS, MA.
Criminology & Social Science


Blogging at Necessary Facts
Website: CSI: Flint (2011)
------------------------------------------------


#33 Michael Stuart Kelly

Michael Stuart Kelly

    $$$$$$

  • Root Admin
  • 19,513 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 21 September 2012 - 10:45 PM

I have Kelley's The Evidence of the Senses, but I went ahead and got the PDF, also. You can't beat the price. :)

For some reason, I haven't read it yet. I wonder how it stands up to the recent explosion of knowledge in neuroscience.

I have to get around to it...

Michael

Know thyself...


#34 Stephen Boydstun

Stephen Boydstun

    $$$$$$

  • Members
  • 1,692 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Virginia
  • Interests:Metaphysics; Theory of Concepts and Predication; Philosophy of Science and Mathematics; Philosophy of Mind; Foundations of Ethics; Physics; Mathematics; Biology; Cognitive Science

Posted 27 September 2012 - 07:21 AM

David Kelley’s review of John Searle’s Mind: A Brief Introduction (2004) is available here.

Searle’s earlier work The Rediscovery of the Mind (1992) is reviewed by Eyal Mozes here.

Concerning Searle’s philosophy of mind further, I recommend Views into the Chinese Room, especially #20.*




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users




Nightingale-Conant