The Intellectuals Are Dead--Long Live the Intellectuals!

[Christopher]

Science is not an end in itself.

Also as concerns Barbara's experience with successful Objectivists: outside Rockefeller Center there is a giant statue of Atlas. I've always imagined it was inspired by Rand's writings.

[Alfonso Jones]

Some quick observations on this rather surreal thread:

1) It has to be at least a minor sort of amusement to see people who themselves profess little knowledge of Objectivist epistemology attempt to discuss its assumed pros and cons, limitations, relationship to current scientific investigation, etc... I suggest at least a careful reading of ITOE would be a good background for such discussions, to enable meaningful commentary and discussions.

2) Consider the situation with advanced mathematics. Many researchers do excellent work in mathematics without concerning themselves much with the foundations of mathematics. In most academic departments of mathematics, the group concerning themselves with logic and foundations is a rather small subset of the entire department. Does this mean that the others are somehow faulty in their thinking? Of course not! Nobody attempts to span the whole of mathematics at a research level - it is just not possible. So we just can't expect them to all be articulate on foundations. I'm not surprised to find that the bulk of academic mathematicians (and I have known many - - - we can compare Erdos numbers if you would like!) don't spend much time discussing such areas.

3) It is of course a fact that some Objectivists have been rather silly in their pronouncements on physics and mathematics in particular. That, IMO, reflects more on them than on Objectivism. (Take a look at some of their other pronouncements on other subjects for further indications that they are prone to major errors of judgment and to the tendency to pontificate from a platform of ignorance.)

Bill P

[Dragonfly]

Hah! Who started all this? It is the Objectivists who always insist that modern science is corrupt (just look at the first post of this thread). Then they shouldn't start whining when the scientists call them ignorant crackpots.

[Alfonso Jones]

Hah! Who started all this? It is the Objectivists who always insist that modern science is corrupt (just look at the first post of this thread). Then they shouldn't start whining when the scientists call them ignorant crackpots.

If you were responding to my post immediately above - please note what I wrote again.

I have indicated that SOME OBJECTIVISTS have been silly in this regard. That does not mean that all Objectivists have been silly, or that Objectivism is.

Regards,

Bill P

[Dragonfly]

I was not responding to your post but to Michael's post.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... please note what I wrote again.

I have indicated that SOME OBJECTIVISTS have been silly in this regard. That does not mean that all Objectivists have been silly, or that Objectivism is.

Bill,

That is correct. But when a tribal mentality kicks in and a person wishes to pursue an "us against them" approach, and wishes to scapegoat someone or something, it is easier for him to blank this fact out or ignore it.

The trick is to take the worst public element within a grouping or category, hold it up and say everyone within the group is like that, or to take a poor moment by a thinker, hold that moment up and say it represents the entire content of his/her ideas (or proves that the thinker was "an ignoramus" or incapable of comprehension of something, etc.).

If it sounds like the cousin to bigotry, that's because it is.

"So and so started it" is always the justification given for unleashing blind hatred.

I don't like to see this stuff coming out of anyone, but especially coming out of people I like.

btw - Scapegoating is one of the "hidden addictions" of the human mind according to Blair Warren. Addiction sounds about right. It explains how otherwise intelligent people engage in such inexplicably spiteful behavior and foster the growth of such spite. And once an addict gets on a roll, it's never a pretty sight. The more he gets, the more he wants.

Notice the constant repetition, strategic omissions, same old same old (as to opinions), etc., of some of the negative comments against Rand. Notice also that the negative comments are shot through and through with intellectual sloppiness in normal matters like getting the facts right, but that such sloppiness would never be tolerated by any of the critics in their own area of expertise. In other words, when they talk about science or logic or math, they insist on respecting facts. When they talk about Rand, the facts are irritating to them, so the facts are usually left out or distorted.

If you simply say nothing, the comments and distortions and oversimplifications increase in frequency and passion until they become unrecognizable as different from any bigoted statement. It's not enough to have registered an opinion. For an addict, no fix is ever enough...

I wonder if there is a 12 step group for scapegoaters...

Michael

[Neil Parille]

I disscussed this question on my blog --

http://objectiblog.blogspot.com/2009/02/ta...sly-part-i.html

-Neil Parille

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Neil,

I like your approach to critiquing much better than the constant comparisons of bearing one's chest and letting out a Tarzan holler of the "I'm better than Raaaaaaaand!!!" variety.

Essentially, you critique the Objectivist view of history and I am in agreement with you on that. Both the title essay in For the New Intellectual and The Ominous Parallels have serious oversimplifications and misrepresentations, although there are some excellent insights in both works. (Why do the critics never mention the insights? Hmmmm...)

You wrote:

First, is it really the case that the fate of knowledge depends on the right theory of concept formation? History doesn’t bear this out. To take one example, consider the “fate” of mathematics in the twentieth century. No one can deny the tremendous progress that mathematicians made even though there was no agreement as to the conceptual foundation of mathematics or even the definition of a number. Nor does it appear that physics and chemistry (both heavily mathematical) suffered as a result of this conceptual logjam, contrary to what Objectivist “super logic” might suggest if knowledge is rigidly contextual and hierarchical. Is there any reason to doubt that science and technology will continue to make progress even if the Objectivist theory of concept formation remains unheralded?

I agree that "heralding the Objectivist theory of concept formation" is not a prerequisite of knowledge, but that's divorcing Objectivism from ideas and treating it as if it were a brand of dogma or religion. Some of the underpinnings of Objectivism certainly are necessary for knowledge. Principally the fundamental axioms. Noncontradiction. Things of this nature.

Even politics advanced by removing the supernatural from the realm of ideas and dealing solely with existence and noncontradiction. (An individual right concerns life on earth and it cannot be and not be in the law at the same time. The few times that happened, like with slavery, a war erupted. However, if the standard had not been the same as the one used in Objectivism and it were left up to God's will as revealed to His spokesman on earth, history would not have been the same. It would have been in the hands of that spokesman.)

Should you wish to critique one or another Objectivist for bluster, and there are some who really need it, I believe you are correct to do so. But at times you are actually falling off into the same manner of oversimplification that you accuse Objectivists of doing. For instance, you also stated:

... for all the Objectivist bluster about “taking ideas seriously,” Objectivism is destructive of the understanding and enjoyment of ideas. The Objectivist approach simplifies and caricatures the history of ideas to such an extent that one wonders at times why Objectivists would study ideas other than their own.

Do you feel that what happens here on OL is "destructive of the understanding and enjoyment of ideas"? Do you believe that David Kelley's work is "destructive of the understanding and enjoyment of ideas"? Do you believe that Atlas Shrugged is "destructive of the understanding and enjoyment of ideas?"

History and oodles of people who "understand and enjoy ideas" are proof against that judgment if you do.

I could go on, but I think you get what I am saying. That remark above was not your finest moment.

Still, I enjoy your approach to pointing out the errors in prominent Objectivists. They need pointing out.

Michael

[Neil Parille]

Michael,

By "Objectivism" I meant the orthodox Objectivism of Rand, Peikoff and those who think like they do. I don't get the impression that they enjoy studying ideas or make much of an effort to understand ideas other than their own.

-Neil

[Brant Gaede]

Michael,

By "Objectivism" I meant the orthodox Objectivism of Rand, Peikoff and those who think like they do. I don't get the impression that they enjoy studying ideas or make much of an effort to understand ideas other than their own.

-Neil

It's worse than that. Learning the Objectivist catechism from authority figures short circuits and displaces real education and critical thinking. The implication is here's the moral and intellectual way to status, wealth and health--lap it up.

--Brant

[Alfonso Jones]

Michael,

By "Objectivism" I meant the orthodox Objectivism of Rand, Peikoff and those who think like they do. I don't get the impression that they enjoy studying ideas or make much of an effort to understand ideas other than their own.

-Neil

It's worse than that. Learning the Objectivist catechism from authority figures short circuits and displaces real education and critical thinking. The implication is here's the moral and intellectual way to status, wealth and health--lap it up.

--Brant

Ah, the paradox of an authoritarian approach to teaching people to think and live independent lives.

"Professor . . . what are the correct steps to take to be creative?"

I like Roark's answer to Keating in a somewhat different context:

"If you want my advice, Peter," he said at last, "you've made a mistake already. By asking me. By asking anyone. Never ask people. Not about your work. Don't you know what you want? How can you stand it, not to know?

.....

"How can you let others decide for you?"

Of course, the context is different - - - but the declaration of radical independence Rand put into Roark's mouth in this passage is so dramatic, and speaks directly to the soul. And it is very relevant to this matter.

And then, in Roark's meeting with the dean...

"Look," said Roark evenly, and pointed at the window. "Can you see the campus and the town? Do you see how many men are walking and living down there? Well, I don't give a damn what any or all of them think about architecture - or about anything else, for that matter."

Beautiful stuff. Words to live by.

Contrast that with being catechized by a pseudo-Objectivist lecturer.

Bill P

Bill P

[BaalChatzaf]

Michael,

By "Objectivism" I meant the orthodox Objectivism of Rand, Peikoff and those who think like they do. I don't get the impression that they enjoy studying ideas or make much of an effort to understand ideas other than their own.

-Neil

I use the term "Shi'ite Objectivist" or "Shi'iah Objectivism".

[BaalChatzaf]

Science is not an end in itself.

True. It is the best means we have of understanding the world as it is at all scales of size, energy and time.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[thomtg]

Some quick observations on this rather surreal thread:

1) It has to be at least a minor sort of amusement to see people who themselves profess little knowledge of Objectivist epistemology attempt to discuss its assumed pros and cons, limitations, relationship to current scientific investigation, etc... I suggest at least a careful reading of ITOE would be a good background for such discussions, to enable meaningful commentary and discussions.

2) Consider the situation with advanced mathematics. Many researchers do excellent work in mathematics without concerning themselves much with the foundations of mathematics. In most academic departments of mathematics, the group concerning themselves with logic and foundations is a rather small subset of the entire department. Does this mean that the others are somehow faulty in their thinking? Of course not! Nobody attempts to span the whole of mathematics at a research level - it is just not possible. So we just can't expect them to all be articulate on foundations. I'm not surprised to find that the bulk of academic mathematicians (and I have known many - - - we can compare Erdos numbers if you would like!) don't spend much time discussing such areas.

3) It is of course a fact that some Objectivists have been rather silly in their pronouncements on physics and mathematics in particular. That, IMO, reflects more on them than on Objectivism. (Take a look at some of their other pronouncements on other subjects for further indications that they are prone to major errors of judgment and to the tendency to pontificate from a platform of ignorance.)

Bill P

I agree with all your three quick observations, Bill. My original post was inspired by a tangential comment elsewhere, which claimed that Ayn Rand attacked the professions of logic, mathematics, and physics. I could not reconcile that charge with what I had remembered about FTNI, where she made a clear distinction between the professions and their best professionals on the one side, and their worst on the other. So, I would add to your Point 1, to suggest to others also a careful reading of FTNI and/or my original post. An injustice was done against Rand in that other thread and now here again in this thread.

It is a curious thing to bear responsibility for one's judgments. I find in Ayn Rand an exemplar unsurpassed. When she denounces a professional, say, a politican, it is devastatingly personal. But when she praises one, such as the founder of the science of logic, it is equally passionate from the heart. She judges from her convictions of truth--the pressures to fake reality be damned. So I get goose bumps either way when a judgment is found, against the worst or for the best. So too I get in her dedication to the future: "The Intellectuals are dead—long live the intellectuals!"

Edited May 10, 2009 by Thom T G