Rand's notions of Kant and Hume

[Ellen Stuttle]

A strong case can be made that political conditions in Europe had far more of an influence on the development of modern science than any metaphysical or epistemological premises, which often varied from one scientist to the next. [....]

Plus the printing press.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Einstein was a bit of a mystic who got it right fairly often and Feynman had no use for philosophy whatsoever. He was a practical genius. Faraday, who with the collaboration of Maxwell produced the first working theory of electromagnetic fields was a religious man whose notion of the field was a reflection of his religious views. Galileo was an obedient Catholic. Newton was a total mystic and a God-Phreak. Read the Scholium in Book III of -Principia Mathematica-.

The greatest physicists ever would have been condemned as mystics or pragmatists in the context of Objectivism. Which is maybe why there is not a single world class physicist who is also an Objectivist (in the Randian sense). I will go even further. There is not a single Aristotelian among the front line physicists who did the work in the post Galilean era. Virtually all followed roughly the Plato-Pythagoras program.

Ba'al Chatzaf

Your points are well taken, and they suggest a conclusion that is extremely important to the current debate about what is "fundamental" in the history of ideas.

A strong case can be made that political conditions in Europe had far more of an influence on the development of modern science than any metaphysical or epistemological premises, which often varied from one scientist to the next. Those political conditions consisted of greater freedom of inquiry, more competition in the marketplace of ideas, and the rise of independent intellectuals who, in many cases, were not beholden to either Church or State.

I would argue that these political conditions were more fundamental to the progress of science in the modern era than were any metaphysical or epistemological premises. Contemporary observers -- e.g., Spinoza, Locke, and other defenders of freedom of inquiry -- often agreed with my claim. They argued that truth will tend to emerge in a free marketplace of ideas.

As for what caused this greater freedom, it certainly didn't come from the ideas of either Plato or Aristotle. Much of it was an unintended consequence of the Protestant Reformation, which broke the intellectual stranglehold of the Catholic Church. (I say "unintended" because many of the early Protestants were more bigoted in matters of science than their Catholic counterparts.)

Ghs

The interweaving complex threads of human history plus biology, psychology and what have you, are staggering. Philosophy is one such thread and since philosophy is made up as we go along, a great deal is after the fact. This doesn't mean it's not valuable as we examine the contemporary situation and try to make the best choices going forward, but as we get to various places and stops on the way we will find ourselves surrounded by the unexpected and the need to redress the situation, etc.--at least for personal use. That is a good use for the human brain.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: George and Jeff -- Repeatedly Substituting Elitism, Arrogance, and Superiority for Careful Argument

> A professional in a given field is usually far more qualified to talk about the standards and practices of his discipline than an amateur. [GHS]

Argument from Intimidation; Argument from Authority. First of all, many of us are quite well read and not mere "amateurs" on an altogether different plane compared to the two of you. Talk about arrogance and presumptiousness!!! Secondly, we're not talking about medicine or astrophysics here. Most of the issues we debate on a site like this -- about justice, ethics, politics, motives of people, what happened in a particular war and what should be done -- are ones that are accessible to normal industrious and serious readers, readers with a lot less knowledge and reading than a Ph.D. in one specialized field. [And with common sense.] "Professionals" don't necessarily know more about than we do. Today's universities are full of "professionals" in philosophy, psychology, economics, the literature who have literally absurd ideas in those fields.'

Moreover, the point I made which you didn't respond to is that expert knowledge or logic or wisdom is not necessarily proportional to whether you have read 100 books on world history or one. Or whether you have published 100 articles. Historically, many fools outpublish those who have had a shorter resume.

> The presumption that you are "equal" in matters of historical judgment to people who have actually studied history is nothing more than wishful thinking on your part.

I have actually studied history. Why do you keep asserting like a Big Lie, that I haven't? Do you have inside knowledge of everything I've read over many decades? Jeff does the same thing with regard to my having read fiction and literature. George, very stupidly, simply asserts that he has forgotten more about a particular subject than I know.

Do you both think that irrationally claiming your opponent is a "know nothing" in a given field constitutes proof or makes you superior? Do you think that an intellectual pecker check -- "I read 10,000 words on X" "Ha! I've read 100,000 words" -- proves anything?

Just saying "no serious scholar thinks X" is not an argument. What you need to offer is an argument, examples, support for something like "X is false because on A, B, C." Time to learn to just argue on the issues.

> I am beginning to suspect that you are in fact a Kantian

And I'm beginning to suspect you both [George and Jeff] were taking a nap when the principles of evidence were discussed.

Edited May 13, 2010 by Philip Coates

[merjet]

> If you're going to insist on using your way, could you at least manage to give the number of the post from which you're quoting? [Ellen]

I view this as an informal forum not an academic one with the need for precise footnoting or the like. Plus, the need for going back is slight if I've correctly snipped the point to which I'm responding.

Given how much easier the quote function is to use than your antiquated method, and given how virtually everyone on OL prefers it, it amazes me that you can proclaim your method better. It's not better so far as readers are concerned, or they wouldn't be bitching about it so much, so I must ask, in a Randian spirit: Better for whom?

One big convenience the OL quote setup gives to the reader is being able to use the little bent arrow and jump to the post being quoted. I often want to do this to see what else the quoted person said and sometimes what the quoted person replied to. With Phil's way, I have to go look for it. Does Phil wish to knowingly make it inconvenient for other readers?

[Philip Coates]

> Does Phil wish to knowingly make it inconvenient for other readers?

Very benevolent. Thanks.

[merjet]

> Does Phil wish to knowingly make it inconvenient for other readers?

Very benevolent. Thanks.

Ditto.

[Philip Coates]

No, it's not "ditto": You seemed to infer a malign intent; I offered reasons why I think my approach is better.

[Rich Engle]

No, it's not "ditto": You seemed to infer a malign intent; I offered reasons why I think my approach is better.

It isn't, outside of for you.

And even that is a little cagey.

rde

[merjet]

I offered reasons why I think my approach is better.

I gave a reason why I like the OL quoting way better than yours. I could have given more, but the one I gave is far stronger than any reason you gave in post #86 in my opinion. Your reply ignored it. There are pluses and minuses to either way, but not one minus for your way or plus for the OL way in post #86.

[George H. Smith]

Subject: George and Jeff -- Repeatedly Substituting Elitism, Arrogance, and Superiority for Careful Argument

Ghs: > A professional in a given field is usually far more qualified to talk about the standards and practices of his discipline than an amateur.

PC: Argument from Intimidation; Argument from Authority....etc.

Here and elsewhere in your post, you have misrepresented my point by selectively snipping it, and I'm not going to waste my time in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If you would care to address the points I actually made, without transforming them into easy targets via selective snipping. then I will respond in a serious way.

It is becoming clear why you don't like the quote function. That would make it more difficult to engage in your ethically challenged method of responding.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

A strong case can be made that political conditions in Europe had far more of an influence on the development of modern science than any metaphysical or epistemological premises, which often varied from one scientist to the next. [....]

Plus the printing press.

Ellen

Well, obviously the printing press. I mean, the printing press goes without saying, doesn't it?

<object width="500" height="405"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="500" height="405"></embed></object>

Ghs

[Alfonso Jones]

Subject: George and Jeff -- Repeatedly Substituting Elitism, Arrogance, and Superiority for Careful Argument

Ghs: > A professional in a given field is usually far more qualified to talk about the standards and practices of his discipline than an amateur.

PC: Argument from Intimidation; Argument from Authority....etc.

Here and elsewhere in your post, you have misrepresented my point by selectively snipping it, and I'm not going to waste my time in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If you would care to address the points I actually made, without transforming them into easy targets via selective snipping. then I will respond in a serious way.

It is becoming clear why you don't like the quote function. That would make it more difficult to engage in your ethically challenged method of responding.

Ghs

George -

You're not getting a pork chop in return.

Bill P

[Brant Gaede]

Howart Rordart (in an alternative reality): My ideas about architecture haven't swept the world because schism junkies keep schisming. It's too bad I decided to teach architecture instead of designing buildings that were built. That was Ann Rander's fault for writing The Doubtinghead. I kept telling her, "No, no, no! Your name is Ayn Rand and the novel should be called The Fountainhead!" (Sob.) At least she got Objectingism right and I 'm the one who knows how to teach it! Listen to me! Do it my way! In ten years of hard work you too can master Objectingism! Just take all of Leno Peicock's courses on architecture! Apply them to everything you think and do--thoroughly integrate them into all aspects of your life until they pour out of your ears!

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: George and Jeff -- Repeatedly Substituting Elitism, Arrogance, and Superiority for Careful Argument

Ghs: > A professional in a given field is usually far more qualified to talk about the standards and practices of his discipline than an amateur.

PC: Argument from Intimidation; Argument from Authority....etc.

Here and elsewhere in your post, you have misrepresented my point by selectively snipping it, and I'm not going to waste my time in an effort to separate the wheat from the chaff.

If you would care to address the points I actually made, without transforming them into easy targets via selective snipping. then I will respond in a serious way.

It is becoming clear why you don't like the quote function. That would make it more difficult to engage in your ethically challenged method of responding.

Ghs

George -

You're not getting a pork chop in return.

Bill P

Gruel?

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

George -

You're not getting a pork chop in return.

Bill P

This isn't the first time.

The sad thing about Phil's Randian approach to history is that it can be reasonably defended in a modified form. But no qualifications are acceptable to an advocate of a priori history, who will not even avail himself of those reliable (i.e., non-Randian) historical accounts that would give some credibility to his general thesis. The Ortho will not avail himself of these sources because, even though they may be very pro-Aristotle relative to Plato, they rarely take the either/or position that his a priori conception of history demands, so they ultimately work against him.

One example of this in the history of science is Koestler's book The Sleepwalkers. His stark contrast of the respective scientific attitudes of Plato and Aristotle could almost have been written by a Randian:

[T]hey were truly twin stars, born to complement each other; Plato the mystic, Aristotle the logician; Plato the belittler of natural science, Aristotle the observer of dolphins and whales; Plato the spinner of allegorical yarns, Aristotle the dialectician and casuist; Plato, vague and ambiguous, Aristotle precise and pedantic (p. 55).

Koestler, in a manner consistent with the Randian view, claims that the "extremist school of Neoplatonism...dominated Western philosophy for several centuries, and stifled all progress in science -- until, in fact, Aristotle was rediscovered and interest in nature revived" (p. 54).

This is a fairly standard account, but problems arise (for the Randian) as Koestler, in his characteristically nuanced manner, goes on to explain why Aristotle's influence was not always favorable to the progress of science and why Plato's influence was not always unfavorable.

This attention to factual details, even when they don't conform to one's philosophical expectations, is one thing that separates good from bad historians. Koestler is not out to prove anything. Despite his obvious preference for Aristotle over Plato, he does not force history into an a priori mold by ignoring inconvenient facts, nor does he attempt to explain those facts away. On the contrary, Koestler is fascinated by those historical developments in science that ran contrary to what we might have expected -- an interest that is reflected in his very choice of a title, The Sleepwalkers.

Thus, even though a Randian historian could cite Koestler's book -- using, for example, the same quotations that I did -- to support his "Aristotle good, Plato bad" covering law of history, he would have to do so in a highly selective manner. But an intelligent Randian would be reluctant to do even this, because Koestler's book is, in effect, an extended demonstration of why the Randian's a priori interpretation of history doesn't work.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

Rand denigrated Koestler to Branden. Makes me think she didn't like competition.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Re post #140:

Bravo, George!

That's an eloquent little gem, both on the flaws of a priori history and on the excellences of The Sleepwalkers (one of my favorite books).

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rand denigrated Koestler to Branden. Makes me think she didn't like competition.

--Brant

Where do you get that story? I think something came up before about Branden on Koestler and it was verified that he read and reviewed The Act of Creation after the split.

If there was discussion with her of something of Koestler's possibly it was of Darkness at Noon, which pertains, in novelistic form, to Koestler's disenchantment with communism.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

Rand denigrated Koestler to Branden. Makes me think she didn't like competition.

--Brant

Do you know if Rand's denunciation of Koestler was in regard to a particular book, such as The Act of Creation? Or did it have something to do with his political views? (I know that Koestler was a former communist, but I'm not familiar with his later political views.) Or, perhaps, did it have something to do with his pro-psychic opinions, as defended in The Roots of Coincidence?

I am captivated by Koestler's double-suicide with his wife. From an online account:

"Facing incurable illness – Parkinson's disease and terminal leukemia – and as a lifelong advocate of euthanasia, Koestler took his own life with his wife, who, however, was perfectly healthy. Koestler died of a drug overdose – death was reported on March 3, 1983. In her suicide note Cynthia Koestler wrote, "I cannot live without Arthur, despite certain inner resources."-"

As I recall from reports at the time, Koestler and his wife were found seated in opposite chairs, facing one another.

I don't recall all the details, but around the fifth grade I read a story from Greek mythology (probably from Edith Hamilton's book) that impressed me profoundly. It was about a Greek god (disguised as a beggar) who went from house to house seeking help. Everyone refused, until a poor elderly couple took him in and fed him. After revealing his true identity, the god granted the couple one wish. Their wish was to die at the same time. They did; and after they were buried next to one another, two trees grew from their graves and intertwined with one another.

I remember thinking how intensely romantic this story was, and I often thought of it over the years (even though I may have misremembered some of the details).

Does anyone know the names of the characters in this story?

But I digress, as I am wont to do, yet again....

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I can't help you right now, George; I'm too wrapped up in other things. It's probably in Judgment day. The context was NB was getting off the tracks--i.e., was deviating from their common intellectual enterprise (from Rand). The particular book really didn't matter. She was also off-put by hypnosis and psychotherapy itself, though ironically enough she exception made in regard to him himself.

--Brant

[Ellen Stuttle]

Rand denigrated Koestler to Branden. Makes me think she didn't like competition.

--Brant

Do you know if Rand's denunciation of Koestler was in regard to a particular book, such as The Act of Creation? Or did it have something to do with his political views? (I know that Koestler was a former communist, but I'm not familiar with his later political views.) Or, perhaps, did it have something to do with his pro-psychic opinions, as defended in The Roots of Coincidence?

According to Wikipedia -- link -- The Roots of Coincidence was published in 1972, i.e. four years after the split. I'm not sure of the time frame in which Koestler started forming his pro-psychic opinions and if he wrote about them prior to that book.

Ellen

[Ellen Stuttle]

I don't recall all the details, but around the fifth grade I read a story from Greek mythology (probably from Edith Hamilton's book) that impressed me profoundly. It was about a Greek god (disguised as a beggar) who went from house to house seeking help. Everyone refused, until a poor elderly couple took him in and fed him. After revealing his true identity, the god granted the couple one wish. Their wish was to die at the same time. They did; and after they were buried next to one another, two trees grew from their graves and intertwined with one another.

I remember thinking how intensely romantic this story was, and I often thought of it over the years (even though I may have misremembered some of the details).

Does anyone know the names of the characters in this story?

But I digress, as I am wont to do, yet again....

Ghs

Baucis and Philemon -- Wikipedia link.

Ellen

[Brant Gaede]

Rand denigrated Koestler to Branden. Makes me think she didn't like competition.

--Brant

Do you know if Rand's denunciation of Koestler was in regard to a particular book, such as The Act of Creation? Or did it have something to do with his political views? (I know that Koestler was a former communist, but I'm not familiar with his later political views.) Or, perhaps, did it have something to do with his pro-psychic opinions, as defended in The Roots of Coincidence?

I am captivated by Koestler's double-suicide with his wife. From an online account:

"Facing incurable illness – Parkinson's disease and terminal leukemia – and as a lifelong advocate of euthanasia, Koestler took his own life with his wife, who, however, was perfectly healthy. Koestler died of a drug overdose – death was reported on March 3, 1983. In her suicide note Cynthia Koestler wrote, "I cannot live without Arthur, despite certain inner resources."-"

As I recall from reports at the time, Koestler and his wife were found seated in opposite chairs, facing one another.

I don't recall all the details, but around the fifth grade I read a story from Greek mythology (probably from Edith Hamilton's book) that impressed me profoundly. It was about a Greek god (disguised as a beggar) who went from house to house seeking help. Everyone refused, until a poor elderly couple took him in and fed him. After revealing his true identity, the god granted the couple one wish. Their wish was to die at the same time. They did; and after they were buried next to one another, two trees grew from their graves and intertwined with one another.

I remember thinking how intensely romantic this story was, and I often thought of it over the years (even though I may have misremembered some of the details).

Does anyone know the names of the characters in this story?

But I digress, as I am wont to do, yet again....

Ghs

Romantic, maybe, heroic, I think not. He could have counseled her on the value of her own life and the value of perseverance. And if his own death was a choice he could have prolonged his to prolong hers. I don't, of course, know all the details and I grant them that they made their choices and that was their right.

--Brant

Jim Jones--not?

Edited May 14, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

Re post #140:

Bravo, George!

That's an eloquent little gem, both on the flaws of a priori history and on the excellences of The Sleepwalkers (one of my favorite books).

Ellen

Thanks, Ellen.

I have my moments from time to time -- when, that is, I'm not bullying people, or crafting arguments from authority and intimidation because I can't otherwise hold my own in debates with Phil.

I read my first book by Koestler in the late 1960s, while I was taking some courses on the history of science at the University of Arizona. The Watershed -- Koestler's account of Kepler in The Sleepwalkers that was published separately in paperback -- was assigned reading for a course on the Scientific Revolution. I was very impressed by Koestler's treatment and style of writing, and I resolved to read more by him.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

I don't recall all the details, but around the fifth grade I read a story from Greek mythology (probably from Edith Hamilton's book) that impressed me profoundly. It was about a Greek god (disguised as a beggar) who went from house to house seeking help. Everyone refused, until a poor elderly couple took him in and fed him. After revealing his true identity, the god granted the couple one wish. Their wish was to die at the same time. They did; and after they were buried next to one another, two trees grew from their graves and intertwined with one another.

I remember thinking how intensely romantic this story was, and I often thought of it over the years (even though I may have misremembered some of the details).

Does anyone know the names of the characters in this story?

But I digress, as I am wont to do, yet again....

Ghs

Baucis and Philemon -- Wikipedia link.

Ellen

Sounds like the template for Sodom and Gomorrah.

--Brant