Rand's notions of Kant and Hume

[George H. Smith]

Once again, you can't just keeping repeating about Kant only:

You are claiming that metaphysics and epistemology don't 'trump' political considerations... [that] would require discussing the relative influence of M, E and P in the ancient world, in the third world, in the history of the West, the history of Asia. Or at least one or two of those or the equivalent...

You need to *give historical cases and explore them*

As mentioned in my last post, I have given a number of historical cases. Name one historical case that you have ever given, much less explored.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> > As for examples and explanations, I have already provided a number of these, such as Aristotle's influence on slavery and Kant's influence on German liberalism. You ignored all such examples.

Well, duh!!, because those are not examples and explanations of the general question of whether or not metaphysics and epistemology are more fundamental than political philosophy in the course of history.

> As mentioned in my last post, I have given a number of historical cases.

In fact those two examples aren't even on metaphysics or epistemology.

So how can they be historical cases you are offering on the relative influence of metaphysics or epistemology?

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

You do understand that metaphysics and epistemology are not about issues like slavery or liberalism, right?

[George H. Smith]

> > As for examples and explanations, I have already provided a number of these, such as Aristotle's influence on slavery and Kant's influence on German liberalism. You ignored all such examples.

Well, duh!!, because those are not examples and explanations of the general question of whether or not metaphysics and epistemology are more fundamental than political philosophy in the course of history.

> As mentioned in my last post, I have given a number of historical cases.

In fact those two examples aren't even on metaphysics or epistemology.

So how can they be historical cases you are offering on the relative influence of metaphysics or epistemology?

These issues cannot be adequately explored without focusing on a specific case. So, quoting from my earlier post, I will ask you once again:

Do you agree with Peikoff's assessment of Kant's influence?

Please answer the question.

Again, I am being perfectly civil. So far it hasn't made any difference, but we shall see....

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

You do understand that metaphysics and epistemology are not about issues like slavery or liberalism, right?

Slavery and liberalism are political issues and are therefore directly relevant to the subject at hand, i.e., whether epistemological and metaphysical ideas are ultimately more influential than political ideas. I am very sorry if you did not understand this.

As I said, we cannot possibly cover the many issues involved in this discussion without first focusing our attention on a specific case. So, for the third time, I ask:

Do you agree with Peikoff's assessment of Kant's influence?

Your bypassing this question previously was undoubtedly an oversight; I know you would never attempt to evade a key aspect of our reasoned discourse. I therefore look forward to reading your answer.

Ghs

[9thdoctor]

those are not examples and explanations of the general question of whether or not metaphysics and epistemology are more fundamental than political philosophy in the course of history.

Do you agree with Peikoff's assessment of Kant's influence?

Phil, much earlier I brought up John Locke as an example of a philosopher whose epistemology led to Hume and Kant, while his politics led to the founding fathers. How does that square with the hierarchy trump card Peikoff plays to damn Kant?

In the modern world, under the influence of the pervasive new climate, a succession of thinkers developed a new conception of the nature of government. The most important of these men and the one with the greatest influence on America was John Locke. The political philosophy Locke bequeathed to the Founding Fathers is what gave rise to the nation’s distinctive institutions. That political philosophy is the social implementation of the Aristotelian spirit.

Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, pp.109-110

The philosophy of this spokesman [Locke] is a contradictory mixture, part Aristotelian, part Christian, part Cartesian, part skeptic; in short, it is an eclectic shambles all but openly inviting any Berkeley or Hume in the vicinity to rip it into shreds.

Leonard Peikoff, The Ominous Parallels, p.113

Hate to go all Popper on you, but how could the "Randian theory", as represented on this thread, be falsified? Secondly, does the theory have predictive power? Please don’t omit John Locke’s influence from your answer, and I’ll give you extra credit if you work in Rousseau. As Xray would say, TIA!

[Philip Coates]

> As I said, we cannot possibly cover the many issues involved in this discussion without first focusing our attention on a specific case.

No, you can't support something as broad as the relative influence of metaphysics and epistemology as opposed to politics by *only focusing on one specific case*, that of Kant.

Don't try to change the subject by opening up a new question. Answer the question you yourself raised: Can you or can you not give specific historical support for your claim about relative importance of metaphysics and epistemology vs. politics?

Since, you may have missed it before, I request another time:

Don't try to change the subject by opening up a new question. Answer the question you yourself raised: Can you or can you not give specific historical support for your claim about relative importance of metaphysics and epistemology vs. politics?

For the third time, please answer the question:

Don't try to change the subject by opening up a new question. Answer the question you yourself raised: Can you or can you not give specific historical support for your claim about relative importance of metaphysics and epistemology vs. politics?

> Slavery and liberalism are political issues and are therefore directly relevant to the subject at hand, i.e., whether epistemological and metaphysical ideas are ultimately more influential than political ideas.

You do understand that metaphysics and epistemology are not about issues like slavery or liberalism, right?

[Philip Coates]

Much Wider than Kant

> Phil, much earlier I brought up John Locke as an example of a philosopher whose epistemology led to Hume and Kant, while his politics led to the founding fathers. How does that square with the hierarchy trump card Peikoff plays to damn Kant? [ND]

I'll be willing to address that on another thread once I've organized my thoughts on it in a much wider context than just Kant, but I won't answer it here for George because he has three times refused to support a position that he has taken, and instead would like to change the subject so he doesn't have to discuss how that applies to history in the ancient world, western civilization, asia, the third world. Or at least a couple of those.

What were the metaphysics and epistemology of the Egyptians? How did that differ from that of the Ancient Greeks? Did the major classic Asian civilizations have any different metaphysical or epistemological views? Were these more fundamental causes of what happened in those cultures compared to their political views? Did they in fact have any causative effect on their politics?

And in the West, either universally or in particular times or countries, how did the M and E change from ancient to medieval to modern times? Can one name broad patterns? Did they affect or interact with the politics in identifiable ways? Did M and E influence P sometimes or always? Or did P influence M and E sometimes or always?

What role did geographic, economic, and "catastrophe" event like plagues and wars play and were they ever more determinative than philosophy, whether M, E, or P?

And what about the other E, Ethical systems, in all of the above?

Notice what a small role Kant plays in all of the above. I think Mr. G. is realizing how big all this is, how rash were his claim was about M and E relative to P, and that ...ooops, he can't back it up...so he wants to get away from that subject.

And talk first about Kant, second about Kant.

And only then will he talk about...Kant. As if Kant would answer all of these question across a broad sweep of five or ten thousand years of history.

It's an old debater's trick -- and I'm going to stomp on him every time he tries it: Pay attention if your opponent doesn't want to defend his own position. So instead he asks you what your position is on another issue. And, in effect, demands that you answer it instead. He will NEVER go back and answer your question or support the rash claim he made.

[George H. Smith]

> As I said, we cannot possibly cover the many issues involved in this discussion without first focusing our attention on a specific case.

No, you can't support something as broad as the relative influence of metaphysics and epistemology as opposed to politics by *only focusing on one specific case*, that of Kant.

We have to start somewhere.

Don't try to change the subject by opening up a new question. Answer the question you yourself raised: Can you or can you not give specific historical support for your claim about relative importance of metaphysics and epistemology vs. politics?

I have never made any general claim about the "relative merits" of either. I said we must consider each case on its own merits. I said this repeatedly. That's why we need to begin with a particular case, and the fact that Peikoff has applied his philosophy of history to Kant makes it the best case available to us. After discussing Kant, we can move on to other cases, if you wish.

As for changing the subject, may I respectfully point out that the title of this thread is "Replying to Rand's notions of Kant and Hume," and that our entire discussion grew from my criticism of how Peikoff deals with Kant's ideas and influence. Most of my statements about the relative influence of metaphysical and epistemological ideas versus political ideas were made in that context, and I gave numerous reasons and examples explaining why I disagree with Peikoff.

Since, you may have missed it before, I request another time:

Don't try to change the subject by opening up a new question. Answer the question you yourself raised: Can you or can you not give specific historical support for your claim about relative importance of metaphysics and epistemology vs. politics?

There is no reason to be sarcastic. Such behavior only detracts from our reasoned discourse. Remember Kipling!

Again, here was my question:

Do you agree with Peikoff's assessment of Kant's influence?

All I asked for was a simple yes or no answer. I even said that you needn't give reasons for your answer. Surely that isn't asking too much.

A major reason for my asking this question is as follows: If you disagree with Peikoff's assessment of Kant, then it's possible, since I disagree with it as well, that you and I share some common ground. Maybe we don't disagree as much as we think we do.

Perhaps this isn't the case, but surely you, a serious intellectual and scholar who values reasoned discourse, would be willing to answer a simple question so we could find out for sure. I am seeking clarification. I would like to know where you stand on this issue. Is that asking too much?

If you would rather not answer my question, perhaps you would be so kind as to explain why.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

The lesson in all this is don't make a rash claim that you can't back up. Or at least, when you realize it, be willing to say "well, I'll have to rethink it" or "I hadn't thought of that" or "I'm not really sure."

Don't just take a position because someone demands you do so.

But if you do, please try to make sure you can offer a real case for it.

Of breadth proportionate to the sweep of the claim.

Edited May 16, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

It's an old debater's trick -- and I'm going to stomp on him every time he tries it: Pay attention if your opponent doesn't want to defend his own position. So instead he asks you what your position is on another issue. And, in effect, demands that you answer it instead. He will NEVER go back and answer your question or support the rash claim he made.

Stomp? My goodness, Phil, you have become very emotional, even intimidating! This does not help our reasoned discourse. Remember Kipling!

Again, you are asking me to defend a thesis that I don't subscribe to. I have simply said that we should examine each historical case on its own merits.

I sincerely apologize if I have not worded my thesis clearly enough for you to understand. If I have not, please don't hesitate to let me know, and I will see if I can make it simpler.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

What's the big deal? Everybody has a metaphysics and epistemology so everything they say and do is so subsumed. Subsumed, however, doesn't tell us the amount of control and influence nor does it preclude other factors dominating these basics. What happens, for instance if one set of these prevail in a conflict with another set but for reasons not found in the respective foundations? That Hitler got, what, 33% of the vote didn't stop him from overwhelming democracy after using it to get a step up. Newton's nutty ideas about God didn't stop him from being history's greatest scientist. The Black Plague wasn't the result of philosophy and its consequences were, first, death then probably did influence philosophy with its feedback, etc. Did Aristotle or Plato invent the printing press? Or did they merely end up in writing things more commonly known then and now than we have evidence for?

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

1a. PC: Answer the question you yourself raised: Can you or can you not give specific historical support for your claim about relative importance of metaphysics and epistemology vs. politics?

GHS: I have never made any general claim about the "relative merits" of either. I said we must consider each case on its own merits.

Here it is: "My objection to the Rand/Peikoff approach had to do with the claim that a philosopher's ideas in metaphysics and epistemology are ultimately more influential than his ideas in political philosophy."

OK. When you say A is "ultimately more influential" than B, it sounded like a claim about the relative merits of A and B. But I see how you might simply be denying there is -any- universal rule about which is more influential.

1b. GHS: we should examine each historical case on its own merits

And you now say that your general position is it's entirely case by case. And you can't generalize.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

OK, I get it finally. (Sorry if I misunderstood that quote.) I think I probably disagree with that, but that's a whole other subject...and, in my view, a fairly complex one requiring a tour through history.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

2. GHS: There is no reason to be sarcastic. Such behavior only detracts from our reasoned discourse.

Here are some examples of that reasoned discourse:

"you're a liar"

"anyone..who knows anything about the history of philosophy"

"I've forgotten more than you will ever know"

"cowardly"

"I didn't spend four decades immersed in a study of the history of ideas so I could waste my time arguing with an ignorant fool"

"It's a wonder that you are still alive"

"incompetent dunce"

"[your] dishonesty"

Certainly makes me eager to engage with you further.

(Ohmigod, I might have been sarcastic there.)

Bad Phil.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Philip Coates

[George H. Smith]

1a. PC: Answer the question you yourself raised: Can you or can you not give specific historical support for your claim about relative importance of metaphysics and epistemology vs. politics?

GHS: I have never made any general claim about the "relative merits" of either. I said we must consider each case on its own merits.

Here it is: "My objection to the Rand/Peikoff approach had to do with the claim that a philosopher's ideas in metaphysics and epistemology are ultimately more influential than his ideas in political philosophy."

OK. When you say A is "ultimately more influential" than B, it sounded like a claim about the relative merits of A and B. But I see how you might simply be denying there is -any- universal rule about which is more influential.

1b. GHS: we should examine each historical case on its own merits

And you now say that your general position is it's entirely case by case. And you can't generalize.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

OK, I get it finally. (Sorry if I misunderstood that quote.) I think I probably disagree with that, but that's a whole other subject...and, in my view, a fairly complex one requiring a tour through history.

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

I was quite clear about my position in previous posts, so I'm glad you finally got it. One of these times occurred in an early reply to you (#74). I wrote:

To conclude: a priori reasoning about what should have happened historically is frequently at odds with what actually did happen. Perhaps the most famous practitioner of a priori history was Hegel, and it didn't work any better for him than it did for Rand. If you want to know who or what caused a historical event, you actually have to study history to find out. You cannot spin such information out of your head. [New italics.]

Another occasion was in #99:

What I don't believe is that we can ignore the political theories of philosophers, rejecting them as nonfundamental, while appealing to their metaphysical and epistemological theories as the ultimate forces that drive history. In many cases, these political theories, when measured in terms of their influence, have been far more fundamental than any epistemological or metaphysical theories. [New italics.]

Anyway, now that we have cleared that up, will you answer my question?

Do you agree with Peikoff's assessment of Kant's influence?

I'm sure this question just slipped your mind for the fifth or sixth time, so this is just a friendly reminder.

2. GHS: There is no reason to be sarcastic. Such behavior only detracts from our reasoned discourse.

PC: Here are some examples of that reasoned discourse....

But I've reformed, and you haven't. Remember Kipling!

:

[9thdoctor]

in the West, either universally or in particular times or countries, how did the M and E change from ancient to medieval to modern times? Can one name broad patterns? Did they affect or interact with the politics in identifiable ways? Did M and E influence P sometimes or always? Or did P influence M and E sometimes or always?

What role did geographic, economic, and "catastrophe" event like plagues and wars play and were they ever more determinative than philosophy, whether M, E, or P?

And what about the other E, Ethical systems, in all of the above?

Recorded history is painted on a very large canvas, you’ll find examples for each relationship that you’ve reduced here to alphabet soup.

And talk first about Kant, second about Kant.

And only then will he talk about...Kant. As if Kant would answer all of these question across a broad sweep of five or ten thousand years of history.

Who’s Mr. G? GHS? This sounds like a pretty fair characterization of Peikoff in The Ominous Parallels. Here’s a big question, is the identification of Kant as modern history’s alpha bête noire* a defining characteristic of Objectivism? In this lecture David Kelley says both yes and no (39 minutes in). http://www.atlassociety.org/cth--2285-TAS_20th.aspx

Is the Objectivist view of history that philosophy is the primary driver of civilization, with hierarchy as key to the weighting of a concept’s importance, is that specific enough? Or is the application essential, particularly Kant’s rank in the devil’s army? I don’t know. I’m not even sure about the first premise, though if you substitute “a primary driver” for “the primary driver” then I’m definitely on board.

*sorry Robert, but compared to IK you’re a mere beta, and that’s on a good day.

[George H. Smith]

George,

Does David Brion Davis go into slavery in the Islamic world, or address whether Muslim scholars cited Aristotle's Politics in support of slavery?

Robert Campbell

Since Davis focuses on "The Rise and Fall of Slavery in the New World," his discussion of Islamic slavery is relatively brief (around five pages). His discussion begins (p.60):

"While a few sub-Saharan black slaves mixed with other slaves in the ancient world, the Arabs and their Muslim converts were the first people to make use of literally millions of blacks from sub-Saharan Africa, and to begin associating black Africans with the lowliest forms of bondage."

Davis (p. 62) makes only one mention of Aristotle's possible influence:

"The connection between dehumanizing labor and people with a highly distinctive physical appearance led Muslins in increasing numbers to describe blacks in terms that fit Aristotle's image of natural slaves (whether they had heard of Aristotle or not)."

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> Anyway, now that we have cleared that up, will you answer my question? [GHS]

No.

My policy is that I don't want to have a conversation or any further dialogue with someone who insults me, calls me dishonest, calls me a fool, impugns my intelligence, or calls me a coward.

I wouldn't want to give such a person the basic courtesy of even a simple yes or no answer.

,,,,,,,

If anyone else who has not been continually snarky or insulting is interested, I do have a good number of thoughts on Peikoff's view of Kant and some points where he is wrong and some where he is right. And I may address that in another venue, once I've worked out the wider issue of historical causation more clearly.

The more I think about it, the more complicated I think the wider causal issue is.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

"you're a liar...i've forgotten more than you will ever know...cowardly.....I didn't spend four decades immersed in a study of the history of ideas so I could waste my time arguing with an ignorant fool...It's a wonder that you are still alive.....incompetent dunce...[your] dishonesty...anyone..who knows anything about the history of philosophy" --- [these quotes are from GHS on this thread, directed at me and at another individual in one case.]

Not every claim above is an example of the argument from intimidation (some are ad hominems and simple smears, for example). But every one is inappropriate in a civilized discussion or attempt to persuade or make a case. I think it's very important at this point to consider some of the points Rand made on fallacies and bad arguments:

,,,,,,,,,

"The Argument from Intimidation" are indicated by "--". Comments of my own are indicated by "<>" ]

--The pattern is always: “Only those who are evil (dishonest, heartless, insensitive, ignorant, etc.) can hold such an idea.”

<> Rand points out elsewhere that these things are often -implied- not explicitly stated. Note" the argument from intimidation in 'The Emperor's New Clothes' and what the tailor is relying on to con the people.

--"But everybody knows that capitalism is outdated!" "I don't." "Oh, come now!" "Since I don't know it, will you please tell me the reasons for thinking that capitalism is outdated?" "Oh, don't be ridiculous!" "Will you tell me the reasons?" "Well, really, if you don't know, I couldn't possibly tell you!"

<> GHS does the 'everybody knows' fallacy when he claims that his views are totally unconctroversial to anyone who knows anything in history. The everybody knows in this case is restricted to experts in the field of history. He does the I couldn't possibly tell you kind of thing when he doesn't provide evidence for a major claim (such as Plato had massive influence on the Renaissance.

--The tone is usually one of scornful or belligerent incredulity.

<> GHS and JR here have frequently used that kind of attitude toward their opponents. (But they are hardly alone on this and other sites.)

--"Aristotle? My dear fellow—" (a weary sigh) "if you had read Professor Spiffkin's piece in—" (reverently) "the January 1912 issue of Intellect magazine, which—" (contemptuously) "you obviously haven't, you would know—" (airily) "that Aristotle has been refuted."

<>substitute in the first case Peikoff and in the second people with an opinion on Kant

--a moral judgment must always follow, not precede (or supersede), the reasons on which it is based...to condemn without giving reasons is an act of irresponsibility

I would like to add that Rand sometimes suggests that the intimidation and other fallacies are regularly **moral** errors. I largely disagree. I think, by contrast, that they are often in the heat of battle and the real test is whether someone can recognize and admit to them later.

Edited May 17, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

My default position is I don't agree with Peikoff about anything. It's up to him to agree with me about anything or not. Not that I care; not that he cares.

--Brant

agreements are precious

[George H. Smith]

> Anyway, now that we have cleared that up, will you answer my question? [GHS]

No.

My policy is that I don't want to have a conversation or any further dialogue with someone who insults me, calls me dishonest, calls me a fool, impugns my intelligence, or calls me a coward.

I wouldn't want to give such a person the basic courtesy of even a simple yes or no answer.

,,,,,,,

If anyone else who has not been continually snarky or insulting is interested, I do have a good number of thoughts on Peikoff's view of Kant and some points where he is wrong and some where he is right. And I may address that in another venue, once I've worked out the wider issue of historical causation more clearly.

What a classic second-hand Randian response! You have insulted me, but if someone else cares to ask the same question, I will answer it. What a riot!

A policy? You have a policy about answering questions? You're lucky if anyone cares enough about what you think to even ask you a question.

I knew that you would chicken out after I pulled the wings off some of the flies that buzz around your head.

This has been a very entertaining day for me, watching you squirm around with one excuse after another. But don't despair: I'm sure people will flock by the dozens to hear your golden nuggests of historical wisdom.

I've encountered numerous sad sacks on O'ist lists before, but you, my dear Phil, are the best. The absolute best -- a real treasure.

Good luck with your policy, Phil.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

"you're a liar...i've forgotten more than you will ever know...cowardly.....I didn't spend four decades immersed in a study of the history of ideas so I could waste my time arguing with an ignorant fool...It's a wonder that you are still alive.....incompetent dunce...[your] dishonesty...anyone..who knows anything about the history of philosophy" --- [these quotes are from GHS on this thread, directed at me and at another individual in one case.]

I am so very, very sorry that I insulted you. If I had not violated your policy, you might have answered my question. And I have so many other questions about history that I would like to ask you. I could have learned so much about history, if only I had not violated your policy.

Damn, my stomach hurts from laughing so much.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

> Anyway, now that we have cleared that up, will you answer my question? [GHS]

No.

My policy is that I don't want to have a conversation or any further dialogue with someone who insults me, calls me dishonest, calls me a fool, impugns my intelligence, or calls me a coward.

This is a new policy.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

Subject: Laughable Policy

> " What a classic second-hand Randian response! You have insulted me, but if someone else cares to ask the same question, I will answer it. What a riot! A policy? . . . Damn, my stomach hurts from laughing so much." [GHS]

It's interesting you would have so much scorn and contempt for this when you yourself announced an identical policy the same day ==>

"I didn't spend four decades immersed in a study of the history of ideas so I could waste my time arguing with an ignorant fool. So write whatever you like, but I'm not going to read your posts -- at least not on this thread -- any longer." [GHS, #238]

Edited May 17, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

Subject: Laughable Policy

> What a classic second-hand Randian response! You have insulted me, but if someone else cares to ask the same question, I will answer it. What a riot! A policy? . . . Damn, my stomach hurts from laughing so much. [GHS]

It's interesting you would have so much scorn and contempt for this when you yourself announced an almost identical policy the same day ==>

"I didn't spend four decades immersed in a study of the history of ideas so I could waste my time arguing with an ignorant fool. So write whatever you like, but I'm not going to read your posts -- at least not on this thread -- any longer." [GHS, #238]

We owe Ayn Rand a lot and we owe her a little. This is one of the littles.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Subject: Laughable Policy

> " What a classic second-hand Randian response! You have insulted me, but if someone else cares to ask the same question, I will answer it. What a riot! A policy? . . . Damn, my stomach hurts from laughing so much." [GHS]

It's interesting you would have so much scorn and contempt for this when you yourself announced an identical policy the same day ==>

"I didn't spend four decades immersed in a study of the history of ideas so I could waste my time arguing with an ignorant fool. So write whatever you like, but I'm not going to read your posts -- at least not on this thread -- any longer." [GHS, #238]

That was said in a fit of frustration, as I noted in a post written shortly afterwards. I had the good sense to "renege" (the word I used) on it.

I see that responding to me doesn't violate your policy , even though answering a legitimate question does. Tell me, if I asked which time zone you live in, would it violate your policy to answer me? Or does it only violate your policy when the question is integral to the subject being discussed on this thread?

Ghs