Philosophical Realism done right
Robert J. Kolker
formulated if Rand were a competent philosopher. As a philosopher she is
a better novelist.
There is a series of essays by Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty, PhD, a philosopher.
Look in http://radicalacademy.com/homepage.htm
and go to the section Introductory Essays. You are in for a treat.
Bob Kolker
Lawrence Sayre
You're kidding right? Here is a snippit from one of Dolhenty's rants
taken from the above web source:
quote mode on:
Realistic Theodicy: The Problem of God or Universal Mind
The rational proof of the existence of God is a particular application of
the ontological principles previously defined.
Finite being, whether considered as a limited series or an unlimited
series, is essentially incapable of being the cause of its own becoming.
Becoming finds its rational explanation only in the Immutable. Similarly,
motion is explainable only by the Immovable, and the contingent only by
the Absolute.
The Immutable, the Immovable, the Absolute, is what is meant by God or
Universal Mind.
This metaphysical argument makes it possible for us to acquire some
knowledge, although limited, of the nature of God or Universal Mind. From
it we conclude that God is Pure Act, totally devoid of any potency. Also,
by mentally elevating to the absolute the perfections we find in created
beings, we can obtain such concepts as the good, the one, the true, and
the beautiful. These give us, in an analogical sense, some understanding
of the Being of God or Universal Mind.
quote mode off:
Lawrence Sayre
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
------
My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as
a moral being, with his own happiness as the moral
purpose of his life, with productive achievement as
his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute.
Ayn Rand (in the appendix to 'Atlas Shrugged')
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Kolker
Lawrence Sayre wrote:
>
Did you bother to read his devistation of relativism? No you didn't. You
just stopped where he is doing his Thomist Catholic thing. Read the
rest. You are in for a treat. Read the section on the current
philosophical insantity being taught at the universities.
The man is a hard core Aristotelean and unlike Rand, he makes his
premises clear and he develops his arguments carefully and
progressively. No bombast, no polemics.
One does not have to be an atheist to be on the right track.
Bob Kolker
cantueso
>
> Look in http://radicalacademy.com/homepage.htm
>
> and go to the section Introductory Essays. You are in for a treat.
>
> Bob Kolker
here is Kolker in the middle of the circus, and we are to watch as
he pulls a rabbit or two out of his hat.
and the rabbit is really something: it is The Divine Being herself.
(I tried to read, and I thought the beginning was not too bad, but
then I got a little sleepy and could not concentrate anymore.
let's see if I do better on wittgenstein.
Robert J. Kolker
cantueso wrote:
>
> here is Kolker in the middle of the circus, and we are to watch as
> he pulls a rabbit or two out of his hat.
>
> and the rabbit is really something: it is The Divine Being herself.
>
> (I tried to read, and I thought the beginning was not too bad, but
> then I got a little sleepy and could not concentrate anymore.
>
> let's see if I do better on wittgenstein.
You did not read far enough. Get to the part where he analyzes the
Insanity that is currently destroying the West. He is right on the mark.
Ignoring theology for the nonce, the man is trying to retrieve some of
the values from philosophical realism that have been lost along the way.
Cull and weigh what he has to say. He makes some of the same points as
Objectivism, but he does it right. Rand thought she was a philosopher,
but she was a novelist who played the part of a philosopher on day-time
soap operas.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
> He makes some of the same points as Objectivism, but
> he does it right. Rand thought she was a philosopher,
> but she was a novelist who played the part of a philosopher
> on day-time soap operas.
With all due respect, you have got to be kidding about both Dolhenty and
especially about Rand. The very best thing you can say about his site is
that he posts lots of good stuff from Mortimer Adler (another Aristotelian
and one of my favorite non-Objectivist philosophers). But Jim Austin (or
whoever it was) is right -- Dolhenty screws the pooch when he starts going
into the religion and theology. It's like saying that Hitler loved
children and dogs, but he had this one little problem with the Jews. Even
at his best, Dolhenty can't even get close enough to Rand to tie her
shoelaces.
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
Ken Gardner wrote:
> whoever it was) is right -- Dolhenty screws the pooch when he starts going
> into the religion and theology.
Ignore that part (I did). The rest is good stuff. His analysis of what
is wrong with the current intellectual state of the West in general and
the U.S. in particular is completely on the mark. That is what makes his
stuff worth reading. Just because the doctor is Catholic does not mean
he cannot diagnose the disease.
Being a Catholic and a neo-Thomist is not evil per se.
Bob Kolker
Lawrence Sayre
I didn't have to read any further than I did, since your contention was
that Jonatnan Dohlenty is a better qualified philosopher to define the
tenants Objectivism than Ayn Rand, and I have destroyed this specific
contention with his very own words. Your mistake (not his) was in
equating him with Objectivism.
Thomas Clarke
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2004 00:55:37 +0000 (UTC), Robert J. Kolker
> > formulated if Rand were a competent philosopher. As a philosopher she is
> > a better novelist.
> You're kidding right? quote mode on:
> Realistic Theodicy: The Problem of God or Universal Mind
> quote mode off:
In addition to making unwarranted assumptions about "God",
Dolherty makes the same mistake as Rand: thinking that philosophy
is prior to experience, that is science.
"Thus we reject the materialistic theory of the eternity
of matter because it is in conflict with plain facts.
Further, it contradicts itself; for to speak of
unproduced matter is simply to speak of an unproduced production."
Dolherty claims to be deriving facts about cosmology from some
metaphysical principle.
Objectivists do much the same thing in saying that nothing that exists
can be actually infinite and that the sort alternative-results
causality of quantum mechanics cannot happen.
Makes we wonder if Rand was just lucky in her rejection of God
since here reasoning leads her astray with regard to science.
Tom Clarke
--
Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
Karen
> formulated if Rand were a competent philosopher. As a philosopher she is
> a better novelist.
>
> There is a series of essays by Dr. Jonathan Dolhenty, PhD, a philosopher.
>
"Reality is presented to us by our senses through the medium of
percepts and our intellect fashions concepts or ideas which are
representations of reality in an abstract and universal manner."
This is not the Objectivist theory of universals. Although he comes
to many of the same conclusions as Objectivism (e.g. invidualism), his
view on universals will necessarily lead to different views on other
matters.
He does not live in the Objectivist house, but he is a friendly
neighbor.
Robert J. Kolker
Karen wrote:
>
> This is not the Objectivist theory of universals. Although he comes
> to many of the same conclusions as Objectivism (e.g. invidualism), his
> view on universals will necessarily lead to different views on other
> matters.
>
> He does not live in the Objectivist house, but he is a friendly
> neighbor.
I said philosophical realism. His philosophy is that. His diagnosis of
the insanity rotting the intellectual establishment of the West is spand
dang on the mark. Read it. You will enjoy it. He also deconstructs
Descartes Philosophy as the Mother of Subjectivism. A palpable hit! And
right on the mark again. Cartesian philosophy is a worse disaster than
Kant's nonsense.
Bob Kolker
Ken Gardner
It is against my philosophy to ignore relevant facts. Besides, most of the
rest of his stuff is merely the Reader's Digest version of Aristotle and
Mortimer Adler.
Ken
Ken Gardner
> "Reality is presented to us by our senses through the medium of
> percepts and our intellect fashions concepts or ideas which are
> representations of reality in an abstract and universal manner."
> This is not the Objectivist theory of universals. Although he comes
> to many of the same conclusions as Objectivism (e.g. invidualism), his
> view on universals will necessarily lead to different views on other
> matters.
> He does not live in the Objectivist house, but he is a friendly
> neighbor.
Welcome to HPO.
Ken
malenor
.44968$Ly.42562@attbi_s01>...
.
> Ken Gardner wrote:
> Bob Kolker
Nor is being a Moslem, a philosopher, a Christian, or a member of those
non-white races which you seem to hate so much.
Robert J. Kolker
malenor wrote:
> Nor is being a Moslem, a philosopher, a Christian, or a member of those
> non-white races which you seem to hate so much.
My annoyance has to do with memes not genes. Islam is not a race. It is
a culture and a religion, chosen by the adults and imposed on children.
The nature of al Islam is such that it turns perfectly biologically
normal people either into murderers or those who acquise to murder. It
is the 1200 lb. gorilla at our party. We can ignore the Beast or do
something about it. What would you recomend.
I have no axe to grind with any -race- which is group of people defined
by their genetic characteristic. The target of my ire are actually my
cousins, descended from Father Abraham through his bastard son Ishmael.
Bob Kolker
Mark Nordberg
> With all due respect, you have got to be kidding about both Dolhenty and
> especially about Rand. [...] Dolhenty screws the pooch when he starts going
> into the religion and theology. It's like saying that Hitler loved
> children and dogs, but he had this one little problem with the Jews.
This may or may not be relevant, but Rand ranked Thomas
Aquinas right behind Aristotle. She once said something
like, there are only one and a half great philosophers
in history. Aristotle, of course, was the one. And Thomas
Aquinas was the half -- because she had to deduct half
for his religious ideas.
Mark
Karen
> > He does not live in the Objectivist house, but he is a friendly
> > neighbor.
>
> I said philosophical realism.
Yes you did, and you also said:
> Look at the following web site to see how Objectivism might have been
> formulated if Rand were a competent philosopher.
I'm curious. What did you mean by "Objectivism" in this sentence?
> His diagnosis of
> the insanity rotting the intellectual establishment of the West is
absolutely true and tragically incomplete. There is also the
assumption of guilt, which cannot be explained by subjectivism.
> You will enjoy it.
I did.
Karen
> > He does not live in the Objectivist house, but he is a friendly
> > neighbor.
>
> I said philosophical realism.
Yes you did, and you also said:
> Look at the following web site to see how Objectivism might have been
> formulated if Rand were a competent philosopher.
I'm curious. What did you mean by "Objectivism" in this sentence?
> His diagnosis of
> the insanity rotting the intellectual establishment of the West is
absolutely true and tragically incomplete. There is also the
Karen
> Welcome to HPO.
>
> Ken
Thank you!
You have a lovely newsgroup.
Karen
cantueso
.11459$sI.10939@attbi_s52>...
> cantueso wrote:
>
> >
> > here is Kolker in the middle of the circus, and we are to watch as
> > he pulls a rabbit or two out of his hat.
> >
> > and the rabbit is really something: it is The Divine Being herself.
> >
> > ot read far enough. Get to the part where he analyzes the
> Insanity that is currently destroying the West.>
I answered you the day before yesterday. there was a problem at my
server, though, and now I think my message is no more. I am telling
you so that you understand in case it turns up later.
as far as I can see this is Ratzinger. and your author ought to say
so. I would have to read more, as you said, but your author writes
loosely like a journalist and thinks loosely like a preacher.
I wrote before that his text is like the kind of soup you might get at
a station restaurant where you sppon up all sorts of things that one
does not really know how they got there.
that the West is on a dangerous course I read first in Churchill, then
in Kissinger and in Ratzinger.