galtgulch Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 (edited) Here is the link to the Wikipedia entry regarding Russell's contention:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russells_teapotI had heard of this but had never come across the actual quotation.Always delighted to encounter rational arguments in any field.Enjoy!galt Edited November 11, 2008 by galtgulch Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chris Grieb Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 Galt; At first glance this sounds a something like Peikoff's argument against arbitrary statements.Like Nathaniel Branden's refusal to acknowledge that Kant had first used the argument that determinism means one can't acquire knowledge. I am not surprised that Peikoff would not acknowledge Russell's argument. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 According to OL's own Ted Keer, at another site, the first to use that anti-determinist argument was Epicurus, long before Kant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 According to OL's own Ted Keer, at another site, the first to use that anti-determinist argument was Epicurus, long before Kant.I just wrote a program that puts out the statement:Why should I believe that I was programmed to write out the statement; "Why should I believe that is was programmed to write out this statement"Why indeed?Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike11 Posted November 11, 2008 Share Posted November 11, 2008 I am not surprised that Peikoff would not acknowledge Russell's argument.Is the Pope even aware of this argument? If asked could he summarize Russell's ideas on a level other then, "Its Evil Intrincisist, subjectivist, Kantian, anti-concepts of Altruism!!!!!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sbeaulieu Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 It boggles the mind the extent mankind will go to circumvent truth.~ Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted November 18, 2008 Share Posted November 18, 2008 I'm inclined to agree with #5. The notions of burden of proof and the need to make a case are familiar ones in philosophy, law and everyday life. The resemblance between what Peikoff says and what Russell says is not enough to prove plagiarism or deliberate suppression. 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