Rand's notions of Kant and Hume

[Ellen Stuttle]

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

The reference is on pg. 347 of Judgment Day and on pg. 306 of MYWAR. I don't want to quote it with its underlay and general context of undercutting.

The book mentioned is The Ghost in the Machine, which was published in 1967, although the context NB had been talking about in the chapter was circa 1964 -- one of the cases where he conflates things from different years.

Ellen

[George H. Smith]

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.

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

The double suicide by the Koestlers is one of those intensely personal decisions that I don't think can legitimately be judged by other people, especially not in moral terms. I wouldn't call it heroic or non-heroic; such terms do not apply. But I understand the decision. It makes perfect sense to me why Cynthia Koestler would prefer not to live at all rather than to live without her husband. I might not make the same decision in similar circumstances, but then again, I might. It all depends on a number of variables.

For all we know, Arthur did attempt to persuade Cynthia that she should carry on without him; in fact, this strikes me as highly likely. But whatever the decision-making process may have been, I cannot help but admire them for the resolution and dignity with which they embraced the final fact of death.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

The reference is on pg. 347 of Judgment Day and on pg. 306 of MYWAR.

Until now it never occurred to me that the initials of My Years With Ayn Rand spell MYWAR. How appropriate, in a way.

I wonder if this is one of those "Branden = Ben Rand" sort of things,

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

GHS: 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]

Another bad influence from Rand - call someone immoral at a certain point in the debate. And then your supporters will merely cheer you on with an attaboy!

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

GHS: Here and elsewhere in your post, you have misrepresented my point by selectively snipping it

Not even close. You and Jeff do repeatedly use intimidation and appeal to [your] professionalism and expertise to try to overawe others quite often in lieu of providing evidence. As my post clearly indicated.

But, hand caught in the cookie jar, you are now resorting to -moral- insults. Just like the "Orthodox Randroids" you claim to despise. In another form of character assassination, you are trying very hard to paint me as one of them. Despite all the posts over the years of disagreement I have made on a range of issues.

GHS: Problems arise (for the Randian) as Koestler..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....the either/or position that [the Randian] a priori conception of history demands

Neither Peikoff nor Rand were trying to trace every exception. They were not writing books of exhaustive intellectual history. Nor did they say that *every* influence of Aristotle was benign. If they contented themselves with only discussing the favorable influences that doesn't mean they deny that there are exceptions. It is unfair of you to call this an "either/or" approach. (In fact, now that I think about it, I do recall mention of Aristotle's bad influences, his mistakes which were rigidly frozen into dogma by the church. I don't recall if this was by Rand or in one of the history of philosophy lectures....?? I seem to recall Peikoff talking about the silliness of A's concentric crystalline spheres.)

You are -caricaturing- the positions of Rand and Peikoff.

And you are getting away with it here because most people haven't read or taken the courses in which this material is discussed. I wouldn't doubt that you could find a case where R or P failed to mention a qualification such as this, but that would be to completely obliterate and smear the cases where they did point out something such as A's mistake or too slavish adherence to him or 'frozen Aristotelianism'.

Do Rand and Peikoff make mistakes? Yes, and I would be the first to point them out.

But they are by no means as simple-minded as your caricature of "a priori Randian history" indicates.

GHS: 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 guess sometimes humor or sarcasm can reveal the truth, can't it?

Edited May 14, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

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....

George,

You might be interested in this gem: "I will love you for eternity" - Lovers of Valdaro

Michael

[Rich Engle]

Not even close. You and Jeff do repeatedly use intimidation and appeal to [your] professionalism and expertise to try to overawe others quite often in lieu of providing evidence. As my post clearly indicated.

*sigh*

You know, if I didn't know better, I'd say that reeks of the Green-Eyed Monster. Once you get past the painfully-predictable O-speak.

You know you're in trouble when they start up with the "evidence" thing, again. It's like being DuckTaped to a chair and being forced to watch Perry Mason reruns, over and over again.

I do believe MSK is right, Phil--you need to break out of your speak. For one thing, it has become painfully apparent over recent years that the traditional Glossary of Things Randian, the Style Manual, is lacking, mostly in terms of statistical density. Writers, real writers, are always on the search for new, improved turns-of-phrase. If you don't do that, the next thing you know you start sounding like an old man. You get crotchety and cornered. You become William Buckley, or something worse.

Telephoto shot of Phil's last visit to his local cyber-cafe'. Problem: Can't

for sure determine which one is Phil. (photo courtesy of National Enquirer/Reuters)

Please provide more evidence and state your premises without evasive blank-outs. Yeah, that's it.

rde

Edited May 14, 2010 by Rich Engle

[George H. Smith]

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

GHS: Here and elsewhere in your post, you have misrepresented my point by selectively snipping it

Not even close. You and Jeff do repeatedly use intimidation and appeal to [your] professionalism and expertise to try to overawe others quite often in lieu of providing evidence. As my post clearly indicated.

Okay, you have made this charge several times, so prove it. Cite even one specific instance where you think I have used an "argument from authority" (this is your term from an earlier post) against you. (I want an actual quote by me, not your dubious summary of what you think I said.) And then explain why this example constitutes an "argument from authority."

If you can do this, then I will apologize to you. If you cannot do this, then you should apologize to me for the false charge.

But, hand caught in the cookie jar, you are now resorting to -moral- insults. Just like the "Orthodox Randroids" you claim to despise. In another form of character assassination, you are trying very hard to paint me as one of them. Despite all the posts over the years of disagreement I have made on a range of issues.

You did in fact distort what I had written by severely snipping my post. You thereby created a ridiculously easy target and took some ham-handed swipes at it.

GHS: Problems arise (for the Randian) as Koestler..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....the either/or position that [the Randian] a priori conception of history demands

PC: Neither Peikoff nor Rand were trying to trace every exception. They were not writing books of exhaustive intellectual history. Nor did they say that *every* influence of Aristotle was benign. If they contented themselves with only discussing the favorable influences that doesn't mean they deny that there are exceptions. It is unfair of you to call this an "either/or" approach. (In fact, now that I think about it, I do recall mention of Aristotle's bad influences, his mistakes which were rigidly frozen into dogma by the church. I don't recall if this was by Rand or in one of the history of philosophy lectures....?? I seem to recall Peikoff talking about the silliness of A's concentric crystalline spheres.)

You are -caricaturing- the positions of Rand and Peikoff.

Let me get this straight. Are you now conceding that there are instances where Aristotle had a bad influence and Plato had a good influence? I am talking, of course, about the ideas of Aristotle and Plato; I am obviously not talking about abuses over which they had no control, such as the incorporation of some of their ideas into later Christian theology and science. (Both, not merely Aristotle, were victims of this.)

A simple yes or no will suffice here. I won't even insist that you provide examples.

Do Rand and Peikoff make mistakes? Yes, and I would be the first to point them out.

Good for you! Now point out a few of the "mistakes" that Rand and Peikoff made in their interpretations of history, for that is the subject we have been arguing about. Was their treatment of Kant among their mistakes?

I am asking these questions because I want to see whether you are serious about your concessions, or whether you are merely attempting to wiggle out of an impossible situation by feigning a rational attitude. If you refuse to answer, or if you answer in a vague, nonspecific way, then we will know that we are merely watching a self-serving intellectual circus.

I have asked clear, straightforward questions that you can answer in a matter of minutes. It's time for you to put up or shut up.

Ghs

[Philip Coates]

> the "mistakes" that Rand and Peikoff made in their interpretations of history..[that] is the subject we have been arguing about.

-My- listing mistakes is not the subject. The subject is your sweeping claim that the entire approach to history or intellectual history is wrong.

> I have asked clear, straightforward questions that you can answer in a matter of minutes. [GHS]

No you haven't. You make a whole series of demands to further explain a series of things that were clear in my original posts or are common sense...For example: I've already said R and P make mistakes. Why should I try to prove to you if I have said before of if I have a list handy? That's just an attempt to change the subject. It's the old debater's trick: Ask someone else to do further work ON A SIDE ISSUE. Then that becomes the subject and the old one is forgotten.

> If you refuse to answer, or if you answer in a vague, nonspecific way, then we will know that we are merely watching a self-serving intellectual circus.

That's exactly the complaint I have about you.

Instead of carefully defending your sweeping claims about intellectual history, you "blow smoke", question your opponent's ethics, and raise a whole bunch of side issues or try to shift the burden of proof:

1. You make a big deal about what professionals like yourself would know as opposed to amateurs like me who dare to disagree with you.

2. When confronted with how that is an appeal to authority and an attempt to intimidate, you whine that I'm 'selectively snipping' you.

3. When the amount of evidence you offer that R and P completely misunderstand intellectual history is questioned...or even more evidence is asked for...or when it's argued that this is oversimplified, you attack my honesty,change the subject and say that if I don't give you evidence I'm dishonest.

4. Even though a lot of what Peikoff and Rand said is in the oral tradition and the details or exact quotes may be buried, you claim that it would take 'minutes' FOR ME to answer your multiple questions. But if I ask you for evidence of something, you say things like "everyone who knows any history knows it" and "I'm not going to take the time."

George, while you've certainly asserted it enough times, I'm beginning to suspect you are not serious about being able to prove that Rand and Peikoff's view of history or intellectual history is basically wrong and 'a priori'. That's a far broader claim than they sometimes make mistakes.

Prove it.

It's time for you to put up or shut up.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Brant Gaede]

If you know a lot about philosophy and the history of philosophy and engage in a conversation with someone not so knowledgeable then relative to him you are an authority, but that doesn't constitute an argument from authority even if you point that out in the context of the other guy not repairing to the facts as stated but his own philosophical has-to-be. The actual problem is Phil's refusal to engage or withdraw so the conversation goes nowhere. In that context there can't be logical fallacies for there is no real argument to begin with to apply a fallacy to.

--Brant

could be bad manners

Edited May 14, 2010 by Brant Gaede

[George H. Smith]

> the "mistakes" that Rand and Peikoff made in their interpretations of history..[that] is the subject we have been arguing about.

-My- listing mistakes is not the subject. The subject is your sweeping claim that the entire approach to history or intellectual history is wrong.

Yup. I figured that you would ignore my question, which you oh-so-conveniently snipped from your post.

You also snipped this:

Okay, you have made this charge several times, so prove it. Cite even one specific instance where you think I have used an "argument from authority" (this is your term from an earlier post) against you. (I want an actual quote by me, not your dubious summary of what you think I said.) And then explain why this example constitutes an "argument from authority."

If you can do this, then I will apologize to you. If you cannot do this, then you should apologize to me for the false charge.

Rather than cite any evidence, you merely repeat your absurd charge in various ways. You obviously cannot support your allegation by citing anything that I actually said, in contrast to your inaccurate characterizations of what you claim I said.

You owe me an apology, Phil. I know I won't ever get it, given how reckless you are in hurling groundless accusations, but you still owe me one.

If you don't agree, then -- to repeat -- quote just one passage by me where I used an argument from authority against you. Just one.

Can't do it, can you? -- you shameless liar.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George, while you've certainly asserted it enough times, I'm beginning to suspect you are not serious about being able to prove that Rand and Peikoff's view of history or intellectual history is basically wrong and 'a priori'. That's a far broader claim than they sometimes make mistakes.

Prove it.

It's time for you to put up or shut up.

This is amusing, coming as it does from an Objectivist who surely knows that I am not obligated to "prove" a theory wrong for which no evidence has been given. Even so, I have written extensively in this thread -- especially in regard to Kant -- about the many problems in the Rand/Peikoff approach. You apparently didn't read those posts or, if you did, you chose to ignore them.

In stark contrast, you haven't given any arguments for the Rand/Peikoff approach. Instead, you weasel out of your epistemological responsibility by vaguely referring to Peikoff's early lectures, which no one can access, or by hinting that you might post an article on the subject at some future time.

Fine, write a defense, and we will see how it holds up. But until we see such a defense, we should follow the Randian maxim that a position for which no justification has been given should be rejected as arbitrary.

An alternative would be to quote (or link) something by Rand or Peikoff where a justification is given in support of their theory of history. And I don't mean bald assertions and random examples; I mean actual arguments in support of their approach to history. That at least would give us something to work with. As things stand now, however, all we have is your personal assurance that their approach is sound. And that won't quite do the trick.

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

If you know a lot about philosophy and the history of philosophy and engage in a conversation with someone not so knowledgeable then relative to him you are an authority, but that doesn't constitute an argument from authority even if you point that out in the context of the other guy not repairing to the facts as stated but his own philosophical has-to-be. The actual problem is Phil's refusal to engage or withdraw so the conversation goes nowhere. In that context there can't be logical fallacies for there is no real argument to begin with to apply a fallacy to.

--Brant

could be bad manners

I have stated my position on this subject previously on OL, but I will summarize it again, in terms clear enough so that maybe even Phil will understand it.

First, there are no "authorities" in pure philosophy. Period.

Second, there can be legitimate "authorities" in specialized disciplines, such as history, but their authority pertains only to the issue of credibility. That is to say, if an accomplished historian makes a historical claim, X, then X should be taken seriously by others. But this does not mean that X has been proved or that others should not criticize it.

To deem a proposition "credible" is not to claim that the proposition has been justified. It means that the proposition is worthy of serious consideration -- or, in other words, that it is worthy of being investigated to see whether it can be justified or not.

In contrast, if someone who knows zilch about history makes a historical claim, Z, then Z does not deserve serious consideration until and unless some evidence for its credibility is presented. It may turn out that this historical claim is true, but there is no reason why anyone should take the time and effort to determine its truth or falsehood in the absence of credibility.

There is a lot more to this subject, but these are the essentials.

Ghs

[Ellen Stuttle]

George,

You might be interested in this gem: "I will love you for eternity" - Lovers of Valdaro

Michael

Back before the site redesign, it used to be that on the bottom of the forums screen, you could click on feature which showed the current viewing pattern -- i.e., what threads were being viewed.

I started to notice that, very often, the "Lovers of Valdaro" thread was being viewed by someone or other or even someones, even though there hadn't been new posts on the thread for a long while.

With most threads, the view count averages to about 20/post. With threads where there are hot arguments, especially ones where non-OL persons might be following what's happening, the view-count averages might go up to 40/post or even, occasionally, 50/post.

The "Lovers of Valdaro" thread has 9 posts and (as of this moment) 4,387 Views, a view-count average of close to 500/post.

I've saved the link to the thread and have clicked on it every now and then myself. In addition to the photo in the opening post, there's the engraving Dragonfly posted from Flammarion's Astronomie Populaire (1879) -- link .

Ellen

PS, George, re the acronym "MYWAR." "My Years with Ayn Rand" was the original subtitle of "Judgment Day." On revising the memoir, Nathaniel just dropped the original title and used the subtitle. I'd be surprised if he ever thought of what the acronym would be. Barbara didn't notice until sometime in the last two or so years. There's a post on OL she was typing when she suddenly noticed and mentioned the "My War," but I couldn't find the post on quick hunting.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Ellen Stuttle

[Jonathan]

Back before the site redesign, it used to be that on the bottom of the forums screen, you could click on feature which showed the current viewing pattern -- i.e., what threads were being viewed.

The feature is still on the bottom of the main page. It's the "Show by: Last Click" feature.

J

[Robert Campbell]

Actually, different publishers tend to adopt common standards for formatting, punctuation etc. such as the Chicago Manual of Style.

Phil,

Do you have any idea how many citation and reference formats are presently in use?

Compare an English journal with a Psych journal with a Computer Science journal and you'll begin to get some idea.

Robert Campbell

[Ellen Stuttle]

Thanks, J, re the "Show by: Last Click" feature. Yep, there it is still.

Ellen

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Phil,

Do you have any idea how many citation and reference formats are presently in use?

Compare an English journal with a Psych journal with a Computer Science journal and you'll begin to get some idea.

Robert,

Here's an online source for helping with formatting that I discovered a while back:

Son of Citation Machine

All those different forms are a pain...

Michael

[Philip Coates]

Phil: Actually, different publishers tend to adopt common standards for formatting, punctuation etc. such as the Chicago Manual of Style.

Robert: Do you have any idea how many citation and reference formats are presently in use? Compare an English journal with a Psych journal with a Computer Science journal and you'll begin to get some idea.

Different in broad essentials or in small details?

And does that mainly apply to journals as opposed to major publishers for ordinary readers -- book publishers, magazine and periodical publishers? When I say publishers, I mean the latter, the broader world of publishing. Not academics who, as we all know, are nuts.

....

PS, with regard to the more academic or professional journals, I've been published in two places that fall somewhat within that subcategory - a computer science journal [Proceedings of the Association for Computing Machinery] and The Independent Review.

Here's an example of my references from the latter:

Hobbes, Thomas. [1640] 1969. Elements of Law. Edited by F. Tonnies, 2d ed. London:

Cass.

———. [1642] 1983. De Cive. Edited by H. Warrender. Oxford: Oxford University

Press.

———. [1651] 1994. Leviathan. Edited by E. Curley. Indianapolis: Hackett.

[i crossposted with Michael...I used the citation machine he mentions and this looks like the APA style.]

Edited May 14, 2010 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

And does that mainly apply to journals as opposed to major publishers for ordinary readers -- book publishers, magazine and periodical publishers? When I say publishers, I mean the latter, the broader world of publishing.

I'd mention to Phil that newspapers, which I ignorantly think of as part of "the broader world of publishing," follow AP (Associated Press) style, not Chicago. But I'm sure I'm wrong about this. Phil will correct my misinformation, I'm sure, in his very next post.

JR

[Philip Coates]

Jeff, I wish I had time to correct all of them, I really do, but I'm afraid I have a finite lifespan.

[Rich Engle]

Jeff, I wish I had time to correct all of them, I really do, but I'm afraid I have a finite lifespan.

From Which All Hope Springs Eternal, Phil.

You know it's fucked up when you have gotten Good Men down to suggesting various types of journalistic formats. I think that means that they are suggesting hackneyed, but workable pathways that would force you to write with clarity.

And Gawd Help You if you added a bit of panache. Your writing smells like the inside of a coffin. That, I have smelt, but now that I think of it (but have not smelt it), more like the pants of a mustard-farting motivational speaker. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hcR7hr4LLQg

But that is not going to happen, is it? The panache thing, I mean--not the coffin one. The latter, well, you have that one down, er, cold, as they say.

rde

Edited May 15, 2010 by Rich Engle

[Neil Parille]

As far as the Peikoff/Rand view of history, I'd just point to The Ominous Parallels. What evidence did Peikoff presents that Kant's ideas filtered down to the masses in a way that made Nazism inevitable (or close to it)? Nor does he show that Kantians were more likely to be Nazis than other groups.

One could make a much better claim for Nietzsche or Darwin being the cause of Nazism.

-Neil Parille

[BaalChatzaf]

One could make a much better claim for Nietzsche or Darwin being the cause of Nazism.

-Neil Parille

Darwin? How so? He simply pointed out that each kind of living thing would grow to the limits of its ability to reproduce in the context of environmental conditions. Grass would grow, moss would grow, bacteria would reproduce, other livings things would reproduce and so on and so on. He simply stated a fact. It has no moral or ethical or political content whatsoever. Anyone who tries to derive a political conclusions from the spreading of moss on the forest floor is a fool or a charlatan.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

Subject: The Ominous Parallels and the Role of Philosophy

NP: As far as the Peikoff/Rand view of history, I'd just point to The Ominous Parallels. What evidence did Peikoff presents that Kant's ideas filtered down to the masses in a way that made Nazism inevitable (or close to it)? Nor does he show that Kantians were more likely to be Nazis than other groups. One could make a much better claim for Nietzsche or Darwin being the cause of Nazism.

Neil, I don't have a copy of the book handy, but I remember not liking the book in many ways and particularly feeling that Peikoff left out or compressed a lot of steps or stages and that he was much better at tracing intellectual causation in his history of philosophy courses.

Also, that he left out non-philosophical causes for the dark road Germany took: Wars which spread anarchy and chaos throughout German-speaking lands, such as the Thirty Years War, which took place largely on German soil and left the yearning for a strong ruler.

The mistake is not in saying (1) that philosophy has a profound and deep influence, one that most historians don't understand not having been trained in it - but the mistake is (2) the "philosophy only" explanation of history of Peikoff (and perhaps Rand) in some writings....But, again, it's been a while and I may be misremembering that particular book.

Point (1) is, however, a major insight of P and R, one seldom appreciated.

I do remember (and I can't recall the source) from the Objectivist thinkers coming away with the idea that key philosophers' influences were often subtle and indirect. And sometimes they would have been horrified at the results. And sometimes the subsequent thinkers simply take a premise they accept and derive all sorts of bizarre consequences.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Philip Coates

[Philip Coates]

Has anyone here read this: "Explaining Postmodernism" by Stephen Hicks? He's an Objectivist professor tracing the history of ideas. He starts even before pomo with Rousseau.

Looking at the TOC, he has at least eight chapters dealing with Kant or reactions to Kant.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Philip Coates