Rand's notions of Kant and Hume

[George H. Smith]

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

There was a "Darwinian" element in Nazi ideology, but it doesn't mean anything, any more than the Nazi distortions of Nietzsche mean anything. Nazi propagandists were not picky; they would selectively pick whatever they deemed useful from earlier thinkers (especially German philosophers) with no concern for accuracy.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

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.

Phil,

I've read Explaining Postmodernism.

Even supplied Stephen with a blurb for the back.

Robert Campbell

[Neil Parille]

George,

You write:

There was a "Darwinian" element in Nazi ideology, but it doesn't mean anything, any more than the Nazi distortions of Nietzsche mean anything. Nazi propagandists were not picky; they would selectively pick whatever they deemed useful from earlier thinkers (especially German philosophers) with no concern for accuracy.

I agree, but if Darwin and N should be left off the hook (and they probably should), why not Kant? (I assume you agree with me on this.)

Incidentally, based on von Mises' Omnipotent Government, I don't get the impression that the Nazis admired Kant.

-Neil Parille

[Philip Coates]

> 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 [brant]

> Cite even one specific instance where you think I have used an "argument from authority"...And then explain why this example constitutes an "argument from authority." ...Can't do it, can you? -- you shameless liar. [GHS]

,,,,,,,,,

<all quotes from GHS>

"I have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than you will ever know" [post #61]

"[Rand's] interpretation is so off-base, both in regard to Kant and Hume (who differed widely in their approaches to ethics), as to be acutely embarrassing to anyone in the ARI crowd who knows anything about the history of philosophy" [start of thread post]

"Plato's influence on the Renaissance is "totally non-controversial" for anyone who has read even a modicum of history of the period.[#93]

"Any reasonable person with a knowledge of history would admit that there are some areas in which Aristotle's influence was deleterious." [#102]

,,,,,,,,,

[wikipedia] Argument from authority --

Source A says that p is true.

Source A is authoritative.

Therefore, p is true.

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;

2. there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter

3. therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.

,,,,,,,,,,

[emphasis added]

[Philip Coates]

Robert: Phil, I've read Explaining Postmodernism. Even supplied Stephen with a blurb for the back.

Thanks, Robert. I'm going to add it to my huge 'to be read' list. I've probably read ten or so complete histories of the world and learned immensely from almost all of them. (I didn't have a good grounding in WH prior to college, compared to American History.)

I've read far fewer intellectual histories and often been unsatisfied with them. [On this and other subject, intellectuals underrate the value of encyclopedias, though, especially Britannica and Americana and that big thick Columbia one volume? I forget exactly what it was called. Wikipedia, of course, can be valuable as well. And professional reference works in philosophy, especially from Oxford and Cambridge.]

I like the fact that Hicks is a TAS-associated Oist and so is highly unlikely to feel constrained to agree with Peikoff or Rand on everything.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Philip Coates

[BaalChatzaf]

.

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;

2. there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter

3. therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.

,,,,,,,,,,

[emphasis added]

If an expert makes a claim or hypothesis, the fact that he is an expert in the subject matter of the claim or hypothesis implies that his arguments and thought should be examined. One of the ways we become wise is to partake of the knowledge and wisdom of others. This does not mean we should cease to think. Rather, it means we should give due consideration and weight to the expert judgment of others.

Ba'al Chatzaf

[Philip Coates]

Yikes!! I just did a quick search of amazon, alibris, and abebooks....$39, $60, and up.

Hicks is too goddamned expensive for me right now, especially since I just ordered a complete set of the Encyclopedia Americana and a ton of literature anthologies and DVD plays and Shakespeare stuff --- mostly for my teaching over the next few months.

[Xray]

I sometime wonder if Ayn Rand might have been happier if she had lived in this earlier era, when thinkers could display their considerable egos without being subjected to public ridicule. Of course, like Bruno and Servetus, she might have been burned at the stake for heresy, but such was the downside of being a genius in those days.

It was not necessary to be a genius to have one's life taken by the reigning ideologists back then. Openly declaring herself as an atheist would have sufficed to get Rand into deadly trouble.

I also doubt that it would have been possible for a woman in those times to display much ego in public.

[The following quotes by Rand are excerpts from "Ayn Rand Answers" - the complete text can be read in the #1 post of this thread].

Rand: "Uhh, now then, where, how do we, uh, relate the "ought" to the "is"?

Well, first, we have to identify the "is" of ethics. What is ethics? And that is precisely what I do in the Objectivist approach to ethics. I first identify what it is: the entire issue of ethics, what is choice, what are values, why does man need them. And when you identify what is the issue of an "ought," where does an "ought," a "should"—that is, a moral precept—where does it come from, then you realize that it comes from the needs of living organisms. The concept "ought" could not have arisen—would not exist—neither the concept nor the reality corresponding to that concept could not , uh, exist—except as a need of living organisms, as a necessity of a living entity's survival.

Rand's attempt to derive an "ought" from an "is" using nature as example is not convincing.

For example, she says a fish "ought to" live in water if it is to survive. But this is no case of "ought to" - for the fish must live in water if it is to survive. Saying a fish "ought to" live in water makes as little sense as saying humans "ought to" breathe for survival. Again, it is: they must breathe if they are to survive. There exists no "ought to" from "is" where survival in nature is concerned.

Imo Rand's trying to use biology to justify her moral code has failed here since it rests on the wrong premise of an "ought to" built into every form of life.

"Ought to" belongs elsewhere. It belongs in the "duty" and "giving advice" section (to others or to oneself ("I ought to (exercise more, write a thank-you note to X ...").

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/ought

1. Used to indicate obligation or duty: You ought to work harder than that.

2. Used to indicate advisability or prudence: You ought to wear a raincoat.

3. Used to indicate desirability: You ought to have been there; it was great fun.

4. Used to indicate probability or likelihood: She ought to finish by next week.

(The variants 3 and 4 can be neglected here since the issue is about 1 and 2)

Rand (emphasis mine): Well, first, we have to identify the "is" of ethics. What is ethics? And that is precisely what I do in the Objectivist approach to ethics. I first identify what it is: the entire issue of ethics, what is choice, what are values, why does man need them. And when you identify what is the issue of an "ought," where does an "ought," a "should"—that is, a moral precept—where does it come from, then you realize that it comes from the needs of living organisms. The concept "ought" could not have arisen—would not exist—neither the concept nor the reality corresponding to that concept could not , uh, exist—except as a need of living organisms, as a necessity of a living entity's survival.

Uh, to give you the simplest example: A fish ought to live in water. Now a fish by itself has no choice about it; it is not a moral choice for the fish. Nevertheless, a fish is a living entity. It is an entity which has to live in water, or, if it is removed from that environment, it dies. Therefore, if we as men would ask, er, "Should a fish live in water?" the answer will be, "If it is to live, yes, it has to live in water. Take it out on dry land and it will die." Now there is the simplest example of the relationship between an "is" and an "ought."

Another example where Rand contradicts herself. After stating that fish "ought to" live in water, she then adds it "has" to live in water. In doing so, she ignores the difference which exists between "ought to" and "have to/must".

Rand: "Since all life is conditional, in the sense that life has to be maintained by a certain kind of action of the living organism itself, then every form of life has an "ought" inbuilt into it and every living organism will live only if it follows a certain course of action, such as a fish has to live in water.

There is no "ought to" built into every form of life. My stomach which currently is digesting food does not operate on any "ought to". Does Rand think biological programs work via "ought to's"?

Notice how she again simply erases the difference between "ought to" and "must", by adding that an organism will live only if is follow certain courses of action. Looks that not "Rand's Razor" was at work here, but "Rand's Eraser". ;)

Why did she feel it necessary at all to insert the term "ought to" in such clear if-then relations in nature?

Imo it was to justify her prescriptive ethics. She needed the term for that. For "you ought to" sounds less imposing than "you must"

But attentive reading shows that she is very harsh in her judgments and quick to label certain choices as "evil".

You wrote on another thread:

As long as I'm digressing, here's an interesting footnote to histories of Objectivism for which which there exists no primary evidence.

After finishing Atheism: The Case Against God in 1974, I returned home (from Hollywood to Tucson) to recuperate from the trauma of writing my first book, only to be presented by friends with a transcript of a lecture by Professor Jeffrie R. Murphy (then head of the philosophy department at the University of Arizona) that characterized Ayn Rand as "the worst philosopher in the history of Western Civilization."

Duly offended in a manner that only someone in their early twenties can be offended, I arranged a debate with Professor Murphy. Believe it or not, the official topic was: "Is Ayn Rand the worst philosopher in the history of Western Civilization?"

The debate was held in the large, luxurious home of an Objectivist friend, and attended by around 50 people. I began my part of the debate in a humorous manner, by suggesting that Professor Murphy could surely think of at least one philosopher who was worse than Ayn Rand -- in which case, I would win the debate. (I offered some candidates, but I don't recall who they were.)

Professor Murphy graciously conceded that my point was well-taken, and that his original judgment may have been exaggerated. He then launched into a critique of Rand's approach to the Is-Ought problem and her approach to definitions, claiming that "man" could be defined as a being who uses urinals.

I was expecting all of this, so I came well prepared. Too bad no recording was made of this debate, which went on for several hours.

I should mention that Jeffrie Murphy was at least sympathetic to the libertarian perspective. He used Hayek's Constitution of Liberty as a text in his political philosophy course, and he wrote a short but excellent book titled Kant: The Philosophy of Right. (I still own a copy), which argues that Kant was a classical liberal, if not an outright libertarian.

Hearing a debate between you and Murphy on the "Is-Ought" issue would have been interesting. Has he published articles on Objectivsm where he discusses this?

Rand: If a man says, "I don't desire to survive qua human being," my answer to him would be, "And just where did he get the concept of desire?" The mere fact that he is capable of desiring anything comes from, is based on the fact that he is a certain kind of entity and thus has the capacity for certain kinds of values. Now he does not have to know where his desire comes from.

Rand's point being? The man making this statement either voices his desire to discontinue living, or rejects Rand idea of what constitues "life proper to man."

Humans have the capacity of choice, and if asked, I suppose the man would well have been able to explain where his desire comes from, by giving the reasons for his choice.

Rand: Morally he should, but in fact he's free to evade the source of his desires. He is also free to decide that he does not want to desire anything or, above all, which he is free to say, he wants to be irrational— many people do.

Rand sees a problem where none exists. For we remain desiring entities until we draw our last breath in a conscious state of mind. Desiring to end one's life is a desire as well. As is desiring to be free from desires.

Rand: But my answer to that is, yes, you have this capability, but it is the purpose of ethics to tell you why if you do not want to survive as a human being, why if you do not want to live as a man, you are evil, mistaken, and wrong—and this is the purpose of the Objectivist ethics, specifically, to tell you why you are wrong in such a desire and why such a desire is evil.

The weaker "ought to" has now vanished, and the cat jumps out of the dogmatist's bag, claws exposed.

Rand marks as evil those "who do not want to survive as human beings" (i. e. who don't want to live "life proper to man" as she sees it, or don't want to live at all.) Those who don't share the Objectivist code of ethics re wrong and therefore their desire is "evil".

Rand does not even grant those who are "wrong" the 'mercy' of having been in simple error, no, their being wrong leads directly to them being damned as evil.

Can you see any individualism in that, George?

Edited May 15, 2010 by Xray

[Philip Coates]

> If an expert makes a claim or hypothesis, the fact that he is an expert in the subject matter of the claim or hypothesis implies that his arguments and thought should be examined. [bC]

Yes, that's true. That's not the fallacy.

[George H. Smith]

,,,,,,,,,

[wikipedia] Argument from authority --

Source A says that p is true.

Source A is authoritative.

Therefore, p is true.

A (fallacious) appeal to authority argument has the basic form:

1. A makes claim B;

2. there is something positive about A that (fallaciously) is used to imply that A has above-average or expert knowledge in the field, or has an above-average authority to determine the truth or rightness of such a matter

3. therefore claim B is true, or has its credibility unduly enhanced as a result of the proximity and association.

,,,,,,,,,,

[emphasis added]

You really take the cake. You cannot even quote the Wiki article on "Argument From Authority" without selectively snipping it to suit your purposes. That article also says this:

"On the other hand, arguments from authority are an important part of informal logic. Since we cannot have expert knowledge of many subjects, we often rely on the judgments of those who do. There is no fallacy involved in simply arguing that the assertion made by an authority is true. The fallacy only arises when it is claimed or implied that the authority is infallible in principle and can hence be exempted from criticism." (My italics.)

The fallacy known as the "argument from authority" does not mean that all appeals authority are fallacious. None of the examples you quoted from me -- all of which are taken out of context -- commits the fallacy known as the "argument from authority." They don't even come close.

Ghs

[Robert Campbell]

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.]

Phil,

No, the citation and reference systems are not alike in "broad essentials."

The Independent Review reference format is pretty similar to the reference format at the Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (e.g., in replacing repeated appearances of an author's name with long dashes).

American Psychological Association style, which we use at New Ideas in Psychology, looks like this:

Hobbes, T. (1969). Elements of law (2nd ed., F. Tönnies, Ed.). London: Cass. (Original work published 1640)

Hobbes, T. (1983). De cive (H. Warrender., Ed.). Oxford: Oxford University Press. (Original work published 1642)

Lots of differences, and no replacing with dashes.

Robert Campbell

[George H. Smith]

,,,,,,,,,

<all quotes from GHS>

"I have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than you will ever know" [post #61]

"[Rand's] interpretation is so off-base, both in regard to Kant and Hume (who differed widely in their approaches to ethics), as to be acutely embarrassing to anyone in the ARI crowd who knows anything about the history of philosophy" [start of thread post]

"Plato's influence on the Renaissance is "totally non-controversial" for anyone who has read even a modicum of history of the period.[#93]

"Any reasonable person with a knowledge of history would admit that there are some areas in which Aristotle's influence was deleterious." [#102]

These are all true statements by me, not arguments.

Suppose you had said, "England declared war on the United States in 1941." And suppose I had replied, "Anyone who has read even a modicum of history knows how absurd this claim is. That England did not declare war on the U.S. in 1941 is totally non-controversial. And anyone who claims otherwise should be embarrassed by his ignorance."

My hypothetical reply incorporates the same features from the quoted passages that you believe commit the fallacy known as the argument from authority. How do you expect anyone to take you seriously when you say such silly things?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

Incidentally, based on von Mises' Omnipotent Government, I don't get the impression that the Nazis admired Kant.

Mises was himself a Kantian in some respects.

I did a CD-ROM search on "Kant" in The Ominious Parallels. In the entire book, Peikoff gives only one instance (or citation) where a Nazi philosopher actually mentions Kant. Here is the excerpt:

Professor L.G. Tirala, a philosophically trained Nazi ideologist, sees beyond the obvious romanticist sources of this attitude. He traces the Nazi activism to the two-world philosophy of Kant (which in turn he ascribes to Kant's "Aryan" nature). Kant's view, he writes, is:

"The essence of the world is richer and deeper than the world of appearance." The world of activity and action is subject to different laws from the world of appearance .... [T]his primacy of action, of the world of action—in the case of Kant, especially the world of ethical action—arises from a primary predisposition of the Aryan race which does not derive from the quibbling, hairsplitting intellect ["kluglerischen Verstand"]. All Teutonic men of science have acknowledged this truth more or less consciously in a primacy of action over pure thinking. The deed is all, the thought nothing!"

"The deed is all, the thought nothing!"" -- this position is as far removed from Kant's philosophy as it is possible to get. But of course this doesn't matter to Peikoff; he managed to dig up one Nazi propagandist who mentioned Kant, and that's all he cared about. (If Peikoff had been able to locate more mentions of Kant in Nazi literature, it is safe to assume that he would have quoted or cited them.)

Peikoff's characteristic method of "reasoning" -- the method he uses to link Kant to Naziism -- is illustrated in the following passage:

Hegel would not have been possible but for Kant, who would not have been possible but for Plato. These three, more than any others, are the intellectual builders of Auschwitz.

As for Peikoff's attempt to link epistemology to political theory, I will need to search his book more carefully to see if he actually presents an argument. But from what I have been able to tell so far, the following bald assertion, with no argument to support it, is typical of his approach:

The branch of philosophy that deals with the powers of reason as a cognitive instrument is epistemology, and this issue is the key to its relationship to politics. It is not an accident that Plato, Kant, Hegel, Marx, and the whole tradition of German nationalism from Luther on, advocated a variety of anti-senses, anti-logic, anti-intellect doctrines. The statism all these figures upheld or fostered is a result; the root lies in their view of knowledge, i.e., of man's mind.

To call Kant a statist is an inexcusable misrepresentation. He advocated basically the same kind of limited government that Rand did (though Kant was less consistent) so, on that basis, we might as well call Rand a "statist" as well.

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

George, At the U of A did you take any philosophy courses from a prof named Bretal (sp?)?

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

George, At the U of A did you take any philosophy courses from a prof named Bretal (sp?)?

--Brant

I vaguely recall a name similar to that, but he taught logic and (I think) the philosophy of science. The professor I am thinking of wrote a book on symbolic logic that employed a fractional method instead of the traditional truth tables. (Very useful, actually.) Is this the guy you are thinking of?

Ghs

[George H. Smith]

George, At the U of A did you take any philosophy courses from a prof named Bretal (sp?)?

--Brant

I vaguely recall a name similar to that, but he taught logic and (I think) the philosophy of science. The professor I am thinking of wrote a book on symbolic logic that employed a fractional method instead of the traditional truth tables. (Very useful, actually.) Is this the guy you are thinking of?

Ghs

Forget what I wrote above. My memory just returned. The professor I was thinking of was Henry Byerly. I don't recall anyone with a name like "Bretal."

Ghs

[Brant Gaede]

George, At the U of A did you take any philosophy courses from a prof named Bretal (sp?)?

--Brant

I vaguely recall a name similar to that, but he taught logic and (I think) the philosophy of science. The professor I am thinking of wrote a book on symbolic logic that employed a fractional method instead of the traditional truth tables. (Very useful, actually.) Is this the guy you are thinking of?

Ghs

Forget what I wrote above. My memory just returned. The professor I was thinking of was Henry Byerly. I don't recall anyone with a name like "Bretal."

Ghs

My step-father and mother knew him. They rented his house for a year or two in the mid-70s after he couldn't bear to live in it any longer after his wife died there. He was a philosophy prof at the U.

I took the basic phil. course in the spring of '68 but almost immediately dropped it because of the huge class size and because I couldn't stand the non-objective arbitrary grading by the grad student teaching assistants. You'd get your test paper back with a grade and no explanation why it was that grade and not another.

--Brant

[George H. Smith]

Rand

Uh, to give you the simplest example: A fish ought to live in water. Now a fish by itself has no choice about it; it is not a moral choice for the fish. Nevertheless, a fish is a living entity. It is an entity which has to live in water, or, if it is removed from that environment, it dies. Therefore, if we as men would ask, er, "Should a fish live in water?" the answer will be, "If it is to live, yes, it has to live in water. Take it out on dry land and it will die." Now there is the simplest example of the relationship between an "is" and an "ought."

Another example where Rand contradicts herself. After stating that fish "ought to" live in water, she then adds it "has" to live in water. In doing so, she ignores the difference which exists between "ought to" and "have to/must".

I agree that Rand's example of fish is pretty dumb. But you won't find this kind of blunder in "The Objectivist Ethics."

All of your musings about the Is-Ought problem have no application to Rand unless you take into account her clear statement in "Causality Versus Duty." There she states that all of her "oughts" (she uses the term "must" instead, but it means the same thing in this context) are conditional in nature. Rand formulates her "oughts" in terms that Kant called "hypothetical imperatives":

Reality confronts man with a great many "musts," but all of them are conditional; the formula of realistic necessity is: "You must, if—" and the "if" stands for man's choice: "- if you want to achieve a certain goal." You must eat, if you want to survive. You must work, if you want to eat. You must think, if you want to work. You must look at reality, if you want to think- if you want to know what to do- if you want to know what goals to choose—if you want to know how to achieve them.

Ghs

[jriggenbach]

Subject: The Ominous Parallels and the Role of Philosophy

I don't have a copy of the book handy . . . it's been a while and I may be misremembering that particular book.

No worries, Phil, just consult a good secondary source like the two volume set (available in most libraries), The Skimmer's Compendium of One-Paragraph Summaries of Fatuously Stupid Books. I'm sure you'll find it invaluable.

JR

[Philip Coates]

1. > You cannot even quote the Wiki article on "Argument From Authority" without selectively snipping it to suit your purposes. [GHS]

Nothing wrong with snipping or selectivity: No one has time to see reposted an entire article or post. You yourself repeatedly quote passages from various books on Kant removing other points of the authors, 'selectively snipping' and including arguments that - in yoiur judgement- are good or you wish to comment on. I am under no obligation to repost every single point you make. I use my judgment and I -never- consciously missrepresent. Quite frankly, you often tend to be long-winded and a bit pedantic. [And, yes, I know I've been accused of the same thing.]

2. > None of the examples you quoted from me -- all of which are taken out of context -- commits the fallacy known as the "argument from authority."

All of them do. What kind of context did you expect me to add to a groundless appeal to your superior authority like ""I have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than you will ever know"?

3. > These are all true statements by me, not arguments.

They are premises -in- an argument.

........

FINAL POINT (hopefully):

All of us may occasionally in the heat of argument commit a logical fallacy. I know I have from time to time. It's not a moral failing. But a simple mistake. What I would hope is, when it is pointed out, someone will go back and say "Whoops. I didn't intend to claim knowledge about your knowledge of history that I cannot possibly have or to claim that you are a liar. I withdraw that."

(An apology isn't necessary, but a retraction usually is once one calms down and has time to think about it.)

[Philip Coates]

JR: No worries, Phil, just consult a good secondary source like the two volume set (available in most libraries), The Skimmer's Compendium of One-Paragraph Summaries of Fatuously Stupid Books. I'm sure you'll find it invaluable.

Very helpful, Jeff.

Edited May 15, 2010 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

1. > You cannot even quote the Wiki article on "Argument From Authority" without selectively snipping it to suit your purposes. [GHS]

Nothing wrong with snipping or selectivity: No one has time to see reposted an entire article or post. You yourself repeatedly quote passages from various books on Kant removing other points of the authors, 'selectively snipping' and including arguments that - in yoiur judgement- are good or you wish to comment on. I am under no obligation to repost every single point you make. I use my judgment and I -never- consciously missrepresent. Quite frankly, you often tend to be long-winded and a bit pedantic. [And, yes, I know I've been accused of the same thing.]

2. > None of the examples you quoted from me -- all of which are taken out of context -- commits the fallacy known as the "argument from authority."

All of them do. What kind of context did you expect me to add to a groundless appeal to your superior authority like ""I have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than you will ever know"?

3. > These are all true statements by me, not arguments.

They are premises -in- an argument.

........

FINAL POINT (hopefully):

All of us may occasionally in the heat of argument commit a logical fallacy. I know I have from time to time. It's not a moral failing. But a simple mistake. What I would hope is, when it is pointed out, someone will go back and say "Whoops. I didn't intend to claim knowledge about your knowledge of history that I cannot possibly have or to claim that you are a liar. I withdraw that."

(An apology isn't necessary, but a retraction usually is once one calms down and has time to think about it.)

Well, I've known George for nearly forty years and I've known Phil for around fifteen years, and I've engaged in numerous conversations with both of them on philosophical, historical, and literary topics, and I'd say that George's claim to have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than Phil will ever know is a simple statement of fact, comparable to "it rained yesterday in Texas."

Remind me sometime to tell you about my conversation with Phil a decade or so ago about Elizabeth Barrett Browning's Sonnets from the Portuguese.

JR

[Brant Gaede]

George, At the U of A did you take any philosophy courses from a prof named Bretal (sp?)?

--Brant

I vaguely recall a name similar to that, but he taught logic and (I think) the philosophy of science. The professor I am thinking of wrote a book on symbolic logic that employed a fractional method instead of the traditional truth tables. (Very useful, actually.) Is this the guy you are thinking of?

Ghs

Forget what I wrote above. My memory just returned. The professor I was thinking of was Henry Byerly. I don't recall anyone with a name like "Bretal."

Ghs

I found him, if anybody cares. He was Robert Bretall an authority on Kierkegaard and his CV goes back until at least 1946. He seems to have been obsessed with Kierkegaard.

--Brant

[Philip Coates]

> I'd say that George's claim to have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than Phil will ever know is a simple statement of fact [Jeff]

BTW, do you think that my criticisms of Ominous Parallels this morning are missrepresentations or missrememberings - or ignorant about the history of philosophy? -->

"..[my]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..."

[Post #174]

Edited May 15, 2010 by Philip Coates

[jriggenbach]

> I'd say that George's claim to have forgotten more about the history of philosophy than Phil will ever know is a simple statement of fact [Jeff]

BTW, do you think that my criticisms of Ominous Parallels this morning are missrepresentations or missrememberings - or ignorant about the history of philosophy?

At the risk of seeming unduly repetitious, I think that my opinion of those criticisms of The Ominous Parallels (criticisms which, so far as I can see, display neither knowledge nor ignorance of the history of philosophy) has no bearing of any kind on the opinion of mine to which you are ostensibly replying - namely that George has forgotten more about the history of philosophy than you'll ever know.

JR