On what issues was Rand "wrong"?
Karen White
agreed with Objectivism at some point, but later decided that
Rand had it wrong on a good many issues (I can't for the life of
me recall from whom or in what thread).
I have something of the same "reaction" to Rand's work, although
I confess I am woefully under-prepared to articulate it (that is,
I haven't read the volumes of materials that she wrote or that
others who follow her philosophy have written). Much of the
exchange on the newsgroup, in fact, is focused upon very specific
points that are of little interest to me as a "beginner."
However, I would like to hear from people on their own "analysis"
of any areas where, so far as they can reasonably do so, one must
conclude that Rand was wrong.
Process A02
>However, I would like to hear from people on their own "analysis"
>of any areas where, so far as they can reasonably do so, one must
>conclude that Rand was wrong.
>
I would start by reading an essay that highlights some of objectivism's errors
at:
http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl/rand.html
Or, if you don't have that much time, you could try a shorter description of a
more specific problem at:
http://www.best.com/~ddfr/Libertarian/My_Posts/Ought_From_Is.html
-Process
Gregory Weston
<<I was reading the newsgroup and noted a post from someone who agreed with
Objectivism at some point, but later decided that Rand had it wrong on a good
many issues (I can't for the life of
me recall from whom or in what thread).>>
That was probably me.
<<
However, I would like to hear from people on their
own "analysis" of any areas where, so far as they
can reasonably do so, one must conclude that
Rand was wrong.
>>
The web would be a much better place to look for
that sort of information. Process has some good
links.
If you want some information about what is wrong
with *Objectivists,* specificly the ARI variety, have
a look at Chris Wolf's website.
Aside from that, I'd strongly suggest reading just
one book before you continue your study of
Objectivism. That is David Hume's Treatise of
Human Nature.
This book is the most comprehensive, most lively,
most clearly written, and most vigorously
reasoned book in the history of philosophy.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Gregory Weston
<<Interesting. But, how does reading the Hume
first tie in with reading Rand later? What's the
connection?>>
Once you know what's right it's easier to recognize
what's wrong.
;)
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
db...@tampatrib.com
k-je...@tamu.edu wrote:
> However, I would like to hear from people on their own "analysis"
> of any areas where, so far as they can reasonably do so, one must
> conclude that Rand was wrong.
Well, Ayn Rand didn't like "The Blue Danube." I like "The Blue Danube,"
though. Does that count?
-- at no extra charge
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
db...@tampatrib.com
Process A02 <proce...@aol.com> wrote:
> I would start by reading an essay that highlights some of objectivism's e
> rrors
> at:
>
> http://www.rci.rutgers.edu/~owl/rand.html
The numerous errors of this essay are well-documented in this newsgroup, but
it is indeed a good idea to read it, as suggested.
mdhjwh
Gregory Weston wrote:>Once you know what's right it's easier to
recognize what's wrong.<
Given that your conception of 'right' isn't, in and of itself wrong.
John H
Adrian
Gregory Weston <gregw...@aol.comm> wrote:
> John Sloan writes:
>
> <<Interesting. But, how does reading the Hume
> first tie in with reading Rand later? What's the
> connection?>>
>
> Once you know what's right it's easier to recognize
> what's wrong.
>
And here I thought that while she identified Kant as her arch-nemisis,
it was actually Hume's philosophy that grew into the antithesis of hers.
--
Adrian
Morality is a zero sum game.
Gregory Weston
same "Owl" that posts here?
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Gregory Weston
<<
And here I thought that while she identified Kant as
her arch-nemisis, it was actually Hume's
philosophy that grew into the antithesis of hers.
>>
I don't think Hume's philosophy has been doing any growing for the past 200
years.
:)
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Tim Chalk
> Aside from that, I'd strongly suggest reading just
> one book before you continue your study of
> Objectivism. That is David Hume's Treatise of
> Human Nature.
>
How different is David Hume's view of philosophy with respect to
Objectivism? What can you tell me about him?
- Jason Smith
Owl
news:20000118173321...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> Aside from that, I'd strongly suggest reading just
> one book before you continue your study of
> Objectivism. That is David Hume's Treatise of
> Human Nature.
Nah, too long. The Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Enquiry
Concerning the Principles of Morals give pretty much the same material
more quickly. And this, by the way, is rather specialized reading -- only
serious philosophy students will enjoy it. And also, by the way, almost
everything in it is false.
> This book is the most comprehensive, most lively,
> most clearly written, and most vigorously
> reasoned book in the history of philosophy.
Ahem. Hardly. Rand's books are certainly more lively, more
clearly-written, and more vigorously reasoned than Hume's, and there are
probably dozens of 20th century books of which the same could be said.
Which is not to say that Rand was right either.
Owl
Gregory Weston
<<How different is David Hume's view of
philosophy with respect to Objectivism?>>
Hume's philosophy is more skeptical and less rationalisitc than Rand's (though
in fairness to her, it was more skeptical and less rationalistic than all other
philosophy). He assumes much less to start with, and his reasoning is more
rigorous and thorough.
He was unwilling to accept any of the philosophical prejudices of his era, and
refuted many of them. He bursted more bubbles than anyone but perhaps Socrates.
He viewed epistomology and metaphysics as less important than moral philosophy.
The former were mainly playthings of the tiny number of people who could ever
aspire to know such things.
<<What can you tell me about him?>>
He was regarded in his day as both a great historian as well as a great
philosopher.
He was friends with Benjamin Franklin while in Paris, and was one of the most
important philosophers to the American Revolutionaries.
As he was dieing in 1776, many Christian ladies came to his bedside and tried
to save him. He kindly refused, remaining an agnostic to his death.
My favorite description of him was by his friend Adam Smith. He said "I have
always considered him, both in his lifetime and since his death, as approaching
as nearly the idea of a perfectly wise and virtuous man, as perhaps the nature
of human frailty will admit."
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Jason Smith
Gregory Weston <gregw...@aol.comm> wrote in message
Thanks for the info. I'll definitely look into his book.
- Jason
LQuest
>In article <3884D2FB...@tamu.edu>,
> k-je...@tamu.edu wrote:
>
>> However, I would like to hear from people on their own "analysis"
>> of any areas where, so far as they can reasonably do so, one must
>> conclude that Rand was wrong.
>
>Well, Ayn Rand didn't like "The Blue Danube." I like "The Blue Danube,"
>though. Does that count?
AR had no appreciation for Communism. I happen to think it's cute. Does that
count?
--Mike
LQuest
>John Sloan writes:
>
><<Interesting. But, how does reading the Hume
>first tie in with reading Rand later? What's the
>connection?>>
>
>Once you know what's right it's easier to recognize
>what's wrong.
Cute. Ah... the silly certainty of youth.
--Mike
Gregory Weston
<Nah, too long. The Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Enquiry
Concerning the Principles of Morals give pretty much the same material
more quickly.>>
Well, if you are in a hurry you could read just those, but why drive a Honda if
you could drive a Caddy?
<<And this, by the way, is rather specialized reading -- only serious
philosophy students will enjoy it.>>
I wouldn't go that far. The topics he covers are often very general, for
example "ideas."
<< And also, by the way, almost everything in it is false.>>
I'm glad you cleared that all up. What had I been thinking! :)
<<
> This book is the most comprehensive, most lively,
> most clearly written, and most vigorously
> reasoned book in the history of philosophy.
Ahem. Hardly. Rand's books are certainly more lively, more clearly-written,
and more vigorously reasoned than Hume's, and there are probably dozens of 20th
century books of which the same could be said.>>
It looks like we have a difference of opinion. But surely you don't think
anything Rand wrote is more lively than "Dialogues concerning Natural
Religion." Nothing is!
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
R Lawrence
>Is the author of "Why I am not an Objectivist" the
>same "Owl" that posts here?
Yes, he is.
============================================================================
Richard Lawrence <RL0...@ix.netcom.com>
Visit the Objectivism Reference Center: <http://www.objectivism.addr.com/>
Gregory Weston
<<Cute. Ah... the silly certainty of youth.>>
Youth? I'm 52 years old!
Gregory Weston
Al Mok
Unless you gens conclude that Ms. Rand was wrong about "The Blue
Danube" and Communism respectively (do you?), yours don't count
as far as Ms. Jenkins' question is concerned ;)
Cheers,
-- Al Mok
--
Aloysius K. Mok m...@cs.utexas.edu Department of Computer Science
University of Texas at Austin
"Why?" "Why not?" Austin, Texas 78712
(512)471-9542
Stephen Speicher
> Adrian writes:
>
> <<
> And here I thought that while she identified Kant as
> her arch-nemisis, it was actually Hume's
> philosophy that grew into the antithesis of hers.
> >>
>
> I don't think Hume's philosophy has been doing any growing for the past 200
> years.
>
Actually, more like 280 years. Hume's philosophy was arrested when
he was about 10 years old. Shame they didn't arrest his whole self.
Stephen
s...@compbio.caltech.edu
Save the photons--don't look!
Printed using 100% recycled electrons.
-------------------------------------------
Gregory Weston
<<Actually, more like 280 years. Hume's philosophy was arrested when he was
about 10 years old. Shame they didn't arrest his whole self.>>
It's a shame for you. Us Humean mystics of the muscle are everywhere, and we're
getting ready to take over. And the first thing we'll do, after playing a few
games of backgammon, is arrest you and send you off to Edinburgh for
reeducation. I hope you like golf and sheep, because you'll be there for a
while.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Stephen Speicher
> Speicher wrote:
>
> <<Actually, more like 280 years. Hume's philosophy was arrested when he was
> about 10 years old. Shame they didn't arrest his whole self.>>
>
> It's a shame for you. Us Humean mystics of the muscle are everywhere, and
> we're
> getting ready to take over.
Wow! All three of you? That's a fifty percent increase in Humean
mystics since last year. You're on a roll.
> And the first thing we'll do, after playing a few
> games of backgammon, is arrest you and send you off to Edinburgh for
> reeducation. I hope you like golf and sheep, because you'll be there for a
> while.
>
If the other two Humean mystics look anything like you do in that
picture on your main page, with your upper torso and face covered
with green, blue, yellow, and purple paint, I think the sheep
will take a better liking to you and your fellows.
Gregory Weston
<<
If the other two Humean mystics look anything like you do in that picture on
your main page, with your upper torso and face covered with green, blue,
yellow, and purple paint, I think the sheep will take a better liking to you
and your fellows.
>>
No, I think that the uwes would prefer freckle-faced redheads. It reminds them
of their owners.
<<Wow! All three of you? That's a fifty percent increase in Humean mystics
since last year. You're on a roll.>>
If we continue to grow at that rate there will be 1.9 billion of us in 2050.
Beware.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
mdhjwh
Gregory Weston wrote: >Youth? I'm 52 years old!<
Grow up ! !
>
>
Chris Black
Well, Greg's web site says he graduates from college in Winter 2001, and his
photos show a "young man," so methinks he is not actually 52. Mebbe 25? Even
that is a bit old for an undergraduate, unless he spent several years in the
peace corp...or perhaps, several years in a facility run by some
gubbermental agency colloqually known as jail?
I dunno...just rambling. Obviously tho, he ain't 52.
Stephen Speicher
> Speicher wrote:
>
> <<
> If the other two Humean mystics look anything like you do in that picture on
> your main page, with your upper torso and face covered with green, blue,
> yellow, and purple paint, I think the sheep will take a better liking to you
> and your fellows.
> >>
>
> No, I think that the uwes would prefer freckle-faced redheads. It reminds
> them
> of their owners.
>
'uwes', hmmm. Are you from Brooklyn, and you mean like in 'youse'
guys? Or, do you mean 'UWE's as in those from the University
Women of Europe? Or, are 'uwe' just a Humean, and 'uwe' don't
know what you mean?
> <<Wow! All three of you? That's a fifty percent increase in Humean mystics
> since last year. You're on a roll.>>
>
> If we continue to grow at that rate there will be 1.9 billion of us in 2050.
>
See, that's what happens to Humeans when they have to deal with
practical reality. Your figure is incorrect. People do not exist
as fractional entities year to year. At least, not non-Humeans.
> Beware.
>
Of what? So far you have demonstrated that you do not understand
philosophy, or physics, or English, or math. What are you Humeans
going to do? Bludgeon us to death with a 'uwe'? Or maybe bore us
to death with your inanities.
Gsnyquist
1. Can a moral end be derived from reason? - Rand says yes, Hume says no.
2. Is induction logically valid? Rand says yes, Hume says no.
3. Can human beings govern themselves entirely on the basis of reason? Rand
says yes, Hume says no.
4. Is belief in free will necessary in order hold people (e.g., criminals)
responsible for their actions? Rand says yes, Hume says no.
5. Do men have free will, or are they subject to certain uniformities vaguely
referred to as "human nature"? Rand says they do have free will, Hume says
they don't.
I believe Hume was right on these issues. (He's wrong on some others.) When I
first became acquainted with Rand's philosophy, I knew there was something
wrong with it, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it. Reading Hume enabled
me to understand where Rand had screwed up. I would definitely recommend the
two enquiries and, for more serious students, the treatise.
Jason Smith
Gsnyquist <gsny...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000119065906...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
So what are you doing reading this newsgroup? What you just said you
believed in is the exact opposite of the beliefs of Objectivists.
- Jason
Ernest Brown
> Date: 18 Jan 2000 21:15:21 GMT
> From: Karen White <k-je...@tamu.edu>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Subject: On what issues was Rand "wrong"?
>
> I was reading the newsgroup and noted a post from someone who
> agreed with Objectivism at some point, but later decided that
> Rand had it wrong on a good many issues (I can't for the life of
> me recall from whom or in what thread).
>
> I have something of the same "reaction" to Rand's work, although
> I confess I am woefully under-prepared to articulate it (that is,
> I haven't read the volumes of materials that she wrote or that
> others who follow her philosophy have written). Much of the
> exchange on the newsgroup, in fact, is focused upon very specific
> points that are of little interest to me as a "beginner."
>
> However, I would like to hear from people on their own "analysis"
> of any areas where, so far as they can reasonably do so, one must
> conclude that Rand was wrong.
>
>
This is a rough distillations of posts I've written to Objectivists on
Usenet throughout the years...
I thank (R)eality that I am now, and always have been, a philosophical
objectivist. This has kept me from being an Objectivist (TM), and as such
has put me on the road to defending the truths of the
Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition in philosophy against Rand, Peikoff and
Objectivists who seek to trash the truths found there precisely for
"atheistic reasons."
I don't accept the Objectivist criticism of belief in God primarily
because I don't believe that it "contradicts the primacy of existence,"
and if Rand, Peikoff or other Objectivists ever bothered to actually
*read* Aquinas they might have found that out...
References
1. http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc.htm
2. http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_22a.htm
3. http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_22b.htm
4. http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_21.htm
5. http://www.nd.edu/Departments/Maritain/etext/gc1_23.htm
The fair-minded will not that, for Aquinas, the defining character of God
is his -existence-, not his -mind.- God does not "self-create" himself.
This arrant nonsense may be believed by Peikoff, Spinoza and Sartre, but
not by me or by Aquinas.
No one has ever shown me good reason to believe that rationality can
come from arationality or the non-rational. Four lights are not five
lights and A = A, period.
I'm no Objectivist because I'm not a Kantian about -anything-, including
the philosophy of religion. It is an unfortunate fact that Rand and
Peikoff implicitly rely on critiques of the theistic proofs posited by
their good intellectual soulmates, Hume and Kant. When they don't, and try
to critique sound Christian philosophers using their own arguments, they
fall into the worst question-begging straw-manning imaginable. I am
militantly unimpressed by the quality of their argumentation on the
subject. Don't even get me started on George Smith.
I suppose the root of my interest in Objectivism is trying to find out how
someone like Rand who gives lip service to the greatness of Aristotle and
Aquinas can go so horribly wrong as to attempt to marry their
philosophical accomplishments to atheism. In order to do this,
Objectivists have to "steal concepts" in the philosophy of religion from
Hume, Kant and other skeptical philosophers.
Leonard Peikoff's book, OBJECTIVISM: THE PHILOSOPHY OF RAND, is a fairly
decent overview of her thought, but it illuminates her weaknesses.
The section on religion, especially pages 30-33, really show ignorance of
the Thomistic heritage of the Christian religion and its influence in
Western Culture, ironically enough including Rand's thought. Rand and
Peikoff assert that ALL religious believers insist on "the primacy of
consciousness" (i.e., reality is controlled by,and dependent on, a mind)
vs. "the primacy of existence" (reality is external to any mind),
conveniently forgetting that Thomas asserted that God's EXISTENCE is
primary, not God's consciousness.
For Aquinas, the existence of first principles is self-evident and the
existence of God is not.(Summa Theologica, Question 1, Article 2) His
arguments for God's existence do not rest on the "need" for a priori
validation of our sense experience. In fact, he was the most prominent
critic of Anselm's ontological argument during this time period!
Unfortunately, Peikoff makes the key intellectual error of associating the
notion of -causa sui- ("self-causation") with the concept of God, a
fallacy also committed by Spinoza and Sartre. In orthodox Christian
theology, God does not "self-create himself," such a notion is arrant
nonsense. Rather, since something now exists, something has always
existed, and that -always existent- something is God, contra Peikoff.
(OPAR, pp. 18-22)
Aquinas's contention is that God exists, not on anyone's "say-so," but
demonstrably from the facts of existence. This notion that Christianity is
-based- on "faith" as "blind belief without proof" (as opposed to certain
Christians mistakenly -affirming- that it is based on such "faith") is
exactly the "question-begging" fallacy I object to!
Kant has infected modern theology as well as philosophy. This, combined
with horrible religious education in this country (paralleling the bad
secular educational establishment) has given rise to this
something-for-nothing -faithism-, which I reject on Biblical and
philosophical grounds.
More "intellectual ammunition,"
In order to accept the Kantian refutations of the Thomistic arguments,
you must accept Kant's premises about the limits of the human mind's
knowledge of reality. This is not only the conclusion of the vast
majority of Kantian scholars (who may otherwise be wrong), but the
express statement of Kant himself, as we shall see.
Let's begin with the standard quote from Leonard Peikoff:
"God" as traditionally defined is a systematic contradiction
of every valid metaphysical principle. The point is wider
than just the Judeo-Christian concept of God. *No argument
will get you from this world to a supernatural world.* No
reason will lead you to a world contradicting this one. *No
method of inference will enable you to leap from existence
to a "super-existence."* (187, emphasis mine)
Note that Peikoff is making an -a priori- argument that excludes -in
principle- any argument for the existence of God drawn from
experience. This is a very unusual thing for an Objectivist to do,
unless they buy into the restrictions on human consciousness
propounded by a certain Prussian philosopher. (or are engaging in a
straw-man argument)
Just who is being more faithful to reason and reality here?
To quote from a philosopher that Objectivists despise:
[W]e must assert that it is necessary that there should be
an eternal unmovable substance. For substances are the
first of existing things, and if they are all destructible,
all things are destructible. But it is impossible that
movement should either have come into being or cease to be
(for it must always have existed) ...
... [S]ince there is something which moves while itself
unmoved, existing actually, this can in no way be otherwise
than as it is. For motion in space is the first of the kinds
of change, and motion in a circle the first kind of spatial
motion; and this the first mover produces. The first mover,
then, exists of necessity; and in so far as it exists by
necessity, its mode of being is good, and it is in this
sense a first principle.
On such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world
of nature.... God's self-dependent actuality is life most
good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living
being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration
continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.
(Aristotle, METAPHYSICS. Book XII, chs. 6-7)
It appears that The Philosopher substantially disagrees with Peikoff
on this issue, and in fact this version of the cosmological argument
is the one that inspired Aquinas.
Turning to a philosopher that Rand and Peikoff love:
We should no doubt gladly desist from wishing to have our
questions answered dogmatically, if we understood beforehand
that ... it would only increase our ignorance ... This is
the great advantage of the sceptical treatment of questions
which pure reason puts to pure reason. We get rid by it ...
of a great amount of dogmatical rubbish, in order to put in
its place sober criticism which ... removes successfully all
illusion with its train of omniscience.
If, therefore, I could know beforehand that a cosmological
idea [is] either *too large or too small* for any *concept
of the understanding*, I should understand that, as that
cosmological idea refers only to an object of experience
which is to correspond to a possible concept of the
understanding, it must be empty and without meaning, because
the object does not fit into it, whatever I may do to adapt
it. And this must really be the case with all cosmical
concepts, which on that very account involve reason, so long
as it remains attached to them, in inevitable antinomy.
... We have thus been led at least to a well-founded
suspicion that the cosmological ideas, and with them all the
conflicting sophistical assertions, may rest on an empty and
merely imaginary conception of the manner in which the
object of those ideas can be given ... (Kant, 343-45,
emphasis Kant's)
Kant's attempted refutation of the cosmological argument is thus based
on the categorical limitations arising out of his phenomenal/noumenal
split, and thus the cosmological argument fails (on -his- terms) since
it uses sense phenomena to come to a conclusion about the noumenal
(i.e. God). Why are (alleged) realists such as Peikoff and Rand
getting into bed with Kant on this issue? My experience has led me to
the conclusion that Objectivists prefer to betray their own best
philosophical impulses (those which derive from the truths of the
Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition) in favor of atheism, even when it
means "reifying the zero" and "stealing concepts."
I remain,
For reason and reality
Against Rand and Kant,
Ernest Brown
Works Cited
~~~~~~~~~~~
Aristotle. Metaphysics. Trans. W. D. Ross. Public domain electronic
text.
Kant, Immanuel. Critique of Pure Reason. Trans. F. Max Muller. New
York: Doubleday Anchor, 1966.
Peikoff, Leonard. "God." The Ayn Rand Lexicon: Objectivism from A to
Z. Ed. Harry Binswanger. New York: Penguin-Meridian, 1986. 187.
My thanks to Bill Ramey for the relevant quotes above. Also, our web
site is back up, and fair-minded individuals are invited to peruse it.
Ernie
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
Lionell K. Griffith
<c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
> [W]e must assert that it is necessary that there should be
> an eternal unmovable substance. For substances are the
> first of existing things, and if they are all destructible,
> all things are destructible. But it is impossible that
> movement should either have come into being or cease to be
> (for it must always have existed) ...
There is no basis in evidence for these assertions. Things do not
move because something is unmoved.
>
> ... [S]ince there is something which moves while itself
> unmoved, existing actually, this can in no way be otherwise
> than as it is.
Then rockets cannot move. Another baseless and contra to reality
assertion.
> For motion in space is the first of the kinds
> of change, and motion in a circle the first kind of spatial
> motion; and this the first mover produces. The first mover,
> then, exists of necessity; and in so far as it exists by
> necessity, its mode of being is good, and it is in this
> sense a first principle.
Total nonsense. Truly circular motion is very difficult to produce -
even for the assumed "prime" mover. This notion is based upon the
mystical "purity" of the circle and is without foundation in reality.
>
> On such a principle, then, depend the heavens and the world
> of nature.... God's self-dependent actuality is life most
> good and eternal. We say therefore that God is a living
> being, eternal, most good, so that life and duration
> continuous and eternal belong to God; for this is God.
> (Aristotle, METAPHYSICS. Book XII, chs. 6-7)
Begging the question from the get go. Aristotle's physics was total
bullshit and was stated as such by Rand et.at. Simply because someone
is wrong about something, does not mean they cannot be right and
everything must be rejected. Also, simply because someone is right
about something, does not mean they cannot be worng at everything must
be accepted. EVERYTHING must be checked for validity. That which is
found to be in error should be either corrected or rejected. That
which is found to be correct should be accepted.
Are you saying that "god" exists for the reasons quoted here or that
Aristotle said so, or that Aristotle makes statements counter to
objectivism?
One cannot properly start from a definition and then discover its
referent in reality. One must start from reality and discover the
definition.
God is nothing but a story invented by some to satisfy the question of
the why of the what. Unfortunately, the invention avoids a lot of
details of who, how and when. Without specific demonstration of who,
how, and when, the answer to why is empty of reality.
Gregory Weston
<<Well, Greg's web site says he graduates from college in Winter 2001, and his
photos show a "young man," so methinks he is not actually 52.>>
I meant to say that I am 52 years old in 2033.
Sorry.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Adrian
Gregory Weston <gregw...@aol.comm> wrote:
> Adrian writes:
>
> <<
> And here I thought that while she identified Kant as
> her arch-nemisis, it was actually Hume's
> philosophy that grew into the antithesis of hers.
> >>
>
> I don't think Hume's philosophy has been doing any growing for the
past 200
> years.
>
>
What about Logical Positivism?
--
Adrian
Morality is a zero sum game.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
LQuest
>Chris Black writes:
>
><<Well, Greg's web site says he graduates from college in Winter 2001, and his
>photos show a "young man," so methinks he is not actually 52.>>
>
>I meant to say that I am 52 years old in 2033.
>
>Sorry.
That's OK. Don't sweat it dude. We've all gone through the "silly
certainty" phase.
--Mike
>
>
>Gregory Weston
>http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Karen White
informative to me than the usual posts.
This did bring up an interesting "side" question for me. The original ques
tion was
based on a post that said (more or less) "when I was younger I was an Objec
tivist"
and that later years had brought a change of perspective and different
philosophical conclusions.
Is there any kind of "idea" as to the average age at which one becomes an
Objectivist and/or any tendencies to come to "alternate" ways of thinking as an
Objectivist ages? I was wondering if it is kind of like the "Baptists" of my
acquaintance while growing up--everyone is "born" a Baptist in that part of the
country, but few profess any interest or belief in the subject until they have
become a bit closer to what they think is the end of their lifespan.
Owl
> Aside from that, I'd strongly suggest reading just
> one book before you continue your study of
> Objectivism. That is David Hume's Treatise of
> Human Nature.
Nah, too long. The Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Enquiry
Concerning the Principles of Morals give pretty much the same material
more quickly. And this, by the way, is rather specialized reading -- only
serious philosophy students will enjoy it. And also, by the way, almost
everything in it is false.
> This book is the most comprehensive, most lively,
> most clearly written, and most vigorously
> reasoned book in the history of philosophy.
Ahem. Hardly. Rand's books are certainly more lively, more
clearly-written, and more vigorously reasoned than Hume's, and there are
probably dozens of 20th century books of which the same could be said.
LQuest
>Jason Smith writes:
>
><<How different is David Hume's view of
>philosophy with respect to Objectivism?>>
>
>Hume's philosophy is more skeptical and less rationalisitc than Rand's (though
>in fairness to her, it was more skeptical and less rationalistic than all
>other
>philosophy). He assumes much less to start with, and his reasoning is more
>rigorous and thorough.
>
>He was unwilling to accept any of the philosophical prejudices of his era, and
>refuted many of them. He bursted more bubbles than anyone but perhaps Socr
>ates.
>
>He viewed epistomology and metaphysics as less important than moral philos
>ophy.
Interesting -- as if moral philosophy has ANY value whatsoever without the
finely honed epistemological skills required to extract their value in every
day life.
Oh and BTW -- "METAphysics literally IS philosophy -- metaphysics = "after (or
beyond) physics" -- the realm of human thought concerned with how we should or
should not APPLY our knowledge of the physical world to the WHY of our
existence.
David Hume was JUST another skeptic -- albeit a very astute one. In case you
had not noticed, being skeptical does not necessarily confer validity on your
skepticism.
>The former were mainly playthings of the tiny number of people who could ever
>aspire to know such things.
Or were pompous enough to insist that what they "knew" somehow automatically
superseded what others THOUGHT they knew.
><<What can you tell me about him?>>
>
>He was regarded in his day as both a great historian as well as a great
>philosopher.
"historian and philosopher" -- not unlike "programmer/analyst". The two
mindsets are often mutually exclusive.
>He was friends with Benjamin Franklin while in Paris, and was one of the most
>important philosophers to the American Revolutionaries.
Specifically what evidence have you seen that proves a causal link between his
ideas and our founding fathers' thinking?
--Mike
Stephen Speicher
>
> I thank (R)eality that I am now, and always have been, a philosophical
> objectivist. This has kept me from being an Objectivist (TM), and as such
> has put me on the road to defending the truths of the
> Aristotelian/Thomistic tradition in philosophy against Rand, Peikoff and
> Objectivists who seek to trash the truths found there precisely for
> "atheistic reasons."
>
> I don't accept the Objectivist criticism of belief in God primarily
> because I don't believe that it "contradicts the primacy of existence,"
> and if Rand, Peikoff or other Objectivists ever bothered to actually
> *read* Aquinas they might have found that out...
>
The variety of kooks who populate this group is...astounding.
David Friedman
<lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
> Oh and BTW -- "METAphysics literally IS philosophy -- metaphysics =
> "after (or
> beyond) physics" -- the realm of human thought concerned with how we
> should or
> should not APPLY our knowledge of the physical world to the WHY of our
> existence.
"Metaphysics" *literally* is that part of Aristotle's writing that came
after the volume on physics.
--
David Friedman
http://www.best.com/~ddfr
Owl
Owl
Owl
news:20000119065906...@ng-cq1.aol.com...
> 4. Is belief in free will necessary in order hold people (e.g.,
criminals)
> responsible for their actions? Rand says yes, Hume says no.
> 5. Do men have free will, or are they subject to certain uniformities
vaguely
> referred to as "human nature"? Rand says they do have free will, Hume
says
> they don't.
I agree with the rest of what you said. However, Hume did not deny free
will. He was what we now call a "compatibilist" -- as have been most
philosophers who have written on the subject (incl. Locke, Hobbes, et al.)
A compatibilist is a person who holds that having free will is compatible
with being subject to uniformities ('human nature'). More strongly, they
think that having free will is compatible with having all your actions be
caused.
Owl
> It looks like we have a difference of opinion. But surely you don't
think
> anything Rand wrote is more lively than "Dialogues concerning Natural
> Religion." Nothing is!
Actually, I found the dialogues rather disappointing (especially after
David Stove had praised them as one of the best things ever written in
philosophy). It seemed to me that he had opportunities to slam religion
much harder than he did.
And I don't think there's anything more lively than Rand. Of course, what
makes her lively is also what puts many people off -- I mean, she's
constantly insulting people.
Owl
news:8Eah4.5784$Lv.3...@news1.atl...
> How different is David Hume's view of philosophy with respect to
David Hume is basically the anti-Rand. (You've heard of the
"anti-Christ", right? A being who is completely opposed to and the
opposite of Christ -- well, understand "the anti-Rand" similarly.) That's
why it's ironic that someone on this newsgroup would be recommending him.
The central tenet of Hume's philosophy is: Reason is impotent.
Just remember that, and it will help you greatly in understanding what
he's trying to do at every single point in all of his philosophical
writings.
There was one good thing about him, though: he supported free market
economics.
By the way, pace Weston, Hume was not regarded as a great historian and
philosopher in his day. He himself said of his _Treatise of Human Nature_
that it "fell deadborn from the press." He was not thought of as a great
philosopher until modern times, when irrationalism and subjectivism became
more appreciated in our culture.
Owl
> Nah, too long. The Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Enquiry
> Concerning the Principles of Morals give pretty much the same material
> more quickly. And this, by the way, is rather specialized reading --
only
> serious philosophy students will enjoy it. And also, by the way, almost
> everything in it is false.
Oh, yeah, two more comments:
1) Hume's theories are among the most simplistic, and his arguments the
most sloppy and simplistic, of any well-known philosopher in Western
history, with the exception of Socrates. Hume is considered a 'great
philosopher', but he is definitely not a good one. If he lived in the
20th century, he could not get published in a refereed journal.
2) Anyone who reads Hume needs to read Hume's nemesis: Thomas Reid.
As examples of both of the above points, I reproduce excerpts from Reid's
criticisms of Hume.
First: Hume held that perceptions (what he called "impressions") are just
like ideas, except that they are more 'vivacious' or forceful. He also
thought that a memory is just a fainter impression, a belief was fainter
still, and imagining something is having the faintest idea of all. Those
were the only differences, according to Hume. Reid's response:
"The belief which we have in perception, is a belief of the present
existence of the object; that which we have in memory, is a belief of its
past existence; the belief of which we are now speaking is a belief of its
future existence; and in imagination there is no belief at all. Now, I
would gladly know of this author, how one degree of vivacity fixes the
existence of the object to the present moment; another carries it back to
time past; a third, taking a contrary direction, carries it into futurity;
and a fourth carries it out of existence altogether..." (INQUIRY AND
ESSAYS, 99)
Second: Hume famously claimed that there is no such thing as a self, only
a series of impressions and ideas; he also attacked the idea of substance
in general. Reid's response:
"[I]t is certainly a most amazing discovery that thought and ideas may be
without any thinking being--a discovery big with consequences which cannot
easily be traced by those deluded mortals who think and reason in the
common track. We were always apt to imagine, that thought supposed a
thinker, and love a lover, and treason a traitor: but this, it seems, was
all a mistake; and it is found out, that there may be treason without a
traitor, and love without a lover, laws without a legislator, and
punishment without a sufferer, succession without time, and motion without
anything moved, or space in which it may move: or if, in these cases,
ideas are the lover, the sufferer, the traitor, it were to be wished that
the author of this discovery had farther condescended to acquaint us
whether ideas can converse together, and be under obligations of duty or
gratitude to each other; whether they can make promises and enter into
leagues and covenants, and fulfil or break them, and be punished for the
breach. If one set of ideas makes a covenant, another breaks it, and a
third is punished for it, there is reason to think that justice is no
natural virtue in this system..." (INQUIRY AND ESSAYS, 21)
David Friedman
> There was one good thing about him, though: he supported free market
> economics.
Not only supported. I think he provided the first clear quantity theory
of money.
> By the way, pace Weston, Hume was not regarded as a great historian and
> philosopher in his day. He himself said of his _Treatise of Human Nature_
> that it "fell deadborn from the press." He was not thought of as a great
> philosopher until modern times, when irrationalism and subjectivism became
> more appreciated in our culture.
Adam Smith described him as "by far the greatest philosopher of the
present day" (from memory, but pretty close to verbatim).
EFitzge486
>By the way, pace Weston, Hume was not regarded as a great historian and
>philosopher in his day. He himself said of his _Treatise of Human Nature_
>that it "fell deadborn from the press." He was not thought of as a great
>philosopher until modern times, when irrationalism and subjectivism became
>more appreciated in our culture.
This is preposterous; Hume was either revered or ridiculed by his
contemporaries. But never ignored.
""In 1752 Hume became librarian to the Faculty of Advocates in Edinburgh, and
was thus able to start work on his _History of England_. By 1761 his literary
reputation was sufficient for all his works to be admitted to the Index
Librorum Prohibitorum in Rome."
page 253, _A Critical History of Western Philosophy_ 1964
"Conversely, most readers today pay little attention to Hume's various book of
essays and his _History of England_, [published between 1754 - 1762 in six
volumes, beginning with the Staurt reigns, then working back to the Tudor and
pre-Tudor epochs. It was the standard history text in England for over 100
years], but THESE ARE THE WORKS THAT WERE READ AVIDLY BY HIS CONTEMPORARIES."
page xii, forward David Hume, _Essays: Moral, Political, and Literary 1985
"As a mature man Hume was described in this way: 'His face was broad and fat,
his mouth wide, and without any other expression than that of imbecility. His
vacant and spiritless and the corpulence of his whole person was far better
fitted to communicate the idea of a turtle-eating alderman than of a refined
philosopher' . . . Edward Gibbon, the eminent historian, also lampooned Hume as
'the fattest pig in the sty.' Despite these unflattering descriptions, HUME
BECAME A CELEBRITY, A WELL-ESTABLISHED LITERARY FIGURE AS AN __HISTORIAN_ AND
__PHILOSOPHER__."
"By the time Hume went back to France in 1763 [his "still-borne" Treatise
published some 16 years before] as secretary to the British Ambassador, he was
a huge success, feted in Paris as Britain's most brilliant, witty, exciting man
of letters. . . . In his lifetime, his fame came more from his WRITING A
HISTORY OF GREAT BRITAIN THAN FROM HIS PHILOSOPHY . . . ."
page 150 _From Socrates to Sartre: the Philosophic Quest, 1984
Enough said. Why do you say the lies that you do? You can disagree with his
philosophy; but you cannot argue about his immense success - during his
lifetime and later.
What is this called - evasion? Maybe there is a separate historical reality;
or is it context today . . . .
Elaine
Owl
news:20000119192813...@ng-fl1.aol.com...
> "Conversely, most readers today pay little attention to Hume's various
book of
> essays and his _History of England_, [published between 1754 - 1762 in
six
> volumes, beginning with the Staurt reigns, then working back to the
Tudor and
> pre-Tudor epochs. It was the standard history text in England for over
100
> years], but THESE ARE THE WORKS THAT WERE READ AVIDLY BY HIS
CONTEMPORARIES."
The "these works" referred to here are Hume's history and his essays, not
his philosophy work.
> "By the time Hume went back to France in 1763 [his "still-borne"
Treatise
> published some 16 years before] as secretary to the British Ambassador,
he was
> a huge success, feted in Paris as Britain's most brilliant, witty,
exciting man
> of letters. . . . In his lifetime, his fame came more from his WRITING A
> HISTORY OF GREAT BRITAIN THAN FROM HIS PHILOSOPHY . . . ."
This comment makes the point explicit.
> What is this called - evasion? Maybe there is a separate historical
reality;
> or is it context today . . . .
Please read what I wrote, and then read the quotations that you wrote
above. I said that Hume was not viewed as a great philosopher until
modern times. The quotations that you put in above say that Hume's fame
was more as a historian than as a philosopher, and that the works he was
known for in his own time were the works that are, today, generally
ignored.
One of us in this exchange certainly seems to be evading.
Gregory Weston
have been so thorough.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Gregory Weston
<<Interesting -- as if moral philosophy has ANY value whatsoever without the
finely honed epistemological skills required to extract their value in every
day life.>>
Hume didn't have a proscriptive system of morals like Rand or Kant did, but a
theory of what morals are, their origen, and why men have them.
<<Specifically what evidence have you seen that proves a causal link between
his ideas and our founding fathers' thinking?>>
I've seen a few anecdotes. If you look around for them at a library I'm sure
you would too.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Gregory Weston
<<
> I don't think Hume's philosophy has been doing
> any growing for the past 200 years.
>
> :)
>
What about Logical Positivism?
>>
It's been doing some inspiring.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Gregory Weston
<<Is there any kind of "idea" as to the average age at which one becomes an
Objectivist>>
My guess is the median age is about 18.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Gregory Weston
> No, I think that the uwes would prefer
> freckle-faced redheads.
'uwes', hmmm. Are you from Brooklyn, and you mean like in 'youse' guys? Or, do
you mean 'UWE's as in those from the University Women of Europe?
>>
No. I forgot to hit the shift key. I meant "the Uwes," as in Uwe Brandt and Uwe
Whallenhoffer. Since you don't seem to know, they are two gay German socialites
now living in Scotland. They are known to like freckle-faced redheads.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Brad Aisa
1. Sexual Psychology
Rand identified two sexual psychologies, determined by gender. This view
is incorrect and not supported by the facts. It led to her opposing a
woman president, and also led to her condemnation of homosexuality.
To her credit, I think that she was tremendously insightful in this
area, and her novels are very sexy as a consequence. It was an error of
too narrowly applying something that should have been applied more
broadly.
2. Rationality as Co-extensive with Volition
Objectivism teaches that free will is coextensive with reason, and
dismisses the notion of "volition" as applying to animals as
nonsensical.
This view is erroneous. All higher animals possess volition -- the
ability to freely choose their goals. Reason is a particular mental
faculty that is itself volitional. What distinguishes man from animals
is not "free will", but this very specialized mental faculty that
enables conceptual, not just perceptual, mental processing.
3. Esthetic Taxonomy
I am an ardent fan of Rand's fundamental esthetic theory. However, I
think she erred in the higher level taxonomic classifications, and in
definitions of what constitutes art. For example, she said that a
utilitarian object cannot be art. Thus, something could be art by virtue
of hanging on a museum wall, but not be art by virtue of being in an
advertisement (she used this example.) She declared architecture to be
art, when in fact, it really properly belongs in the category of
*design*, **by her own criteria** (having a utilitarian purpose.)
If you read her book on art, she never actually justifies including
architecture as a fine art -- she just refers the reader to THE
FOUNTAINHEAD, which has no scholarly dissertations on esthetics in it.
I've considered this at great length. There is no justification for
including architecture as Fine Art, from her own basic theory. It
properly belongs as a subset of design, along with things like
automobile design, furniture design, and so on. Her phrase that
architecture "concretizes man's values" is really just meaningless, OR,
is equally applicable to the whole gamut of other design arts.
I think that it makes more sense intellectually, to categorize things as
follows (note: apologies for the dual use of "esthetic", but I couldn't
think of a more appropriate term):
"The Arts"
Design Arts
Design
Architecture
Fine Arts
Literary Arts
Literature
Poetry
Visual Arts
Painting
Sculpture
Digital Art
Dramatic Art
Hybrid Arts
Motion Pictures
Music Videos
Opera/Musical Theatre
Music(??)
Music(??)
Esthetic Arts (hair, clothing, etc.)
Music is sort of in a category by itself. Maybe park it at a root level,
and put a shortcut or link to it in the Fine Arts category. :)
I think that there are elements uniting all of the above, based on
Rand's fundamental identification of the basic purpose of art. I think
it is important to investigate the esthetic aspects of the design and
esthetic arts as well.
Well, that's it. I haven't been able to identify any other areas where
her philosophic ideas conflict with the facts.
--
Brad Aisa <ba...@NOSPAMbrad-aisa.com>
http://www.brad-aisa.com/ -- PGP public key available at:
http://pgp.mit.edu:11371/pks/lookup?search=Brad+Aisa&op=index
"The paper wall will be next to fall." -- Brad Aisa
Brad Aisa
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 20
NNTP-Posting-Host: (protected and logged)
X-Trace: 2-00155f292d10ceb26479424a429c413603748b6129cd869035e0
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:16:29 EST
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 2000 23:13:19 -0500
Brad Aisa wrote:
>
>
> "The Arts"
> Design Arts
>(etc.)
I just wanted to mention that I wasn't trying to present an exhaustive
taxonomy -- I was just providing a structure to show the major relations
I was pointing out. (For example, I didn't mention things like
Composition, Acting, etc.)
No hate mail from angry Musicians, Directors, etc. please! :)
LQuest
>Karen White writes:
>
><<Is there any kind of "idea" as to the average age at which one becomes an
>Objectivist>>
>
>My guess is the median age is about 18.
You may well guess that because you hang with a bunch of young liberals. I
was 45 when I discovered AR. It was epiphany. Since then I have met hundreds
of like minded adults of all ages. I have not yet seen anything like the kind
of pattern you describe.
--Mike
Gregory Weston
<<
>My guess is the median age is about 18.
You may well guess that because you hang with a bunch of young liberals.>>
I do? Why do you think that?
<<I was 45 when I discovered AR. It was epiphany. Since then I have met
hundreds of like minded adults of all ages. I have not yet seen anything like
the kind of pattern you describe.>>
I said the median age was about 18. Of course there are many much older.
Maybe we can take a poll?
Put in 14 for me, and 45 for you.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Gregory Weston
<< It led to her opposing a woman president,>>
That was a fairly old essay, from before Thatcher
took office. I wonder if her Prime Ministry would
have changed Rand's mind.
<<and also led to her condemnation of
homosexuality.>>
Did Rand happen to know any homosexuals?
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
David Friedman
> Please read what I wrote, and then read the quotations that you wrote
> above. I said that Hume was not viewed as a great philosopher until
> modern times.
And I pointed out that Adam Smith, one of his most distinguished
contemporaries, viewed him as the greatest philosopher of the time.
Owl
news:ddfr-E62AB5.2...@nntp1.ba.best.com...
> And I pointed out that Adam Smith, one of his most distinguished
> contemporaries, viewed him as the greatest philosopher of the time.
You seem to be putting a very uncharitable interpretation on my words --
namely, that when I said he wasn't viewed as a great philosopher, I meant
that there was no person who viewed him as a great philosopher. Instead,
I was referring to the general view of him. Smith was his personal
friend, and not necessarily indicative of what the rest of the
intellectual community thought of him.
EFitzge486
>Please read what I wrote, and then read the quotations that you wrote
>above. I said that Hume was not viewed as a great philosopher until
>modern times.
Okay; I will play. Your original quote:
"By the way, pace Weston, Hume was not regarded as a great historian and
philosopher in his day."
"Hume was not regarded as a great historian." That one was easy to refute.
"Hume was not regarded as a great philosopher in his day." That one was easy
to refute too. He still need some help on this point, though.
>The quotations that you put in above say that Hume's fame
>was more as a historian than as a philosopher,
The qualifier "more" does not deny that he was famous as a philosopher; it
means that he was more famous as an historian.
Orson Welles is "more" famous as a director; but he is also famous as an actor.
Get the point?
I am not sure if this is getting me anywhere, but I will enlighten you some
more any way. It is well know that Hume was tremendously influential in
philosophy, from the American revolutionaries, the French Philosophes, the row
he had with Jean Jacques Rousseau, to the consternation he begot in the clerics
when his "Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion" was published after is death.
If his philosophic works were ignored, he would have had the gumption to
publish it (DCNR) during his lifetime. Hell, even that dabbler Kant read and
recognized Hume's importance. Kant poked fun at the titanic intellect of the
same Reid you quote; poked fun at him for completely misunderstanding Hume . .
. maybe like you? It is easy to knock down strawmen; why does it seem to be so
prevalent . . .
>and that the works he was
>known for in his own time were the works that are, today, generally
>ignored.
Don't think so; I know so little about Hume - all of his works - because my
reality evading parents and professors made sure I read and understood him. I
am trying to do the same with my friends and family.
>In his lifetime, his fame came more from his WRITING A
>> HISTORY OF GREAT BRITAIN THAN FROM HIS PHILOSOPHY . . . ."
>This comment makes the point explicit.
"More from his . . history . . than from his philosophy" does not mean that
his philosophy was not widely read and studied. I would argue that most of the
people who have read Rand know her as a novelist and not from her philosophical
works.
The facts show to those who will study, that Hume was famous as both an
historian and philosopher. Even if he was more famous as an historian.
>One of us in this exchange certainly seems to be evading.
What ever.
Elaine
EFitzge486
>Elaine, thanks for clearing that up. I was about to do that too, but I
>wouldn't
>have been so thorough.
Thank you.
Elaine
mdhjwh
Brad Asia wrote>I am an ardent fan of Rand's fundamental esthetic theory.
However, I think she erred in the higher level taxonomic classifications,
and in
definitions of what constitutes art. For example, she said that a
utilitarian object cannot be art. <
I wonder how she would have thought of the Rearden Metal Bracelet ?
John H
Ernest Brown
On 19 Jan 2000, Adrian wrote:
> Date: 19 Jan 2000 15:42:12 GMT
> From: Adrian <adrian...@my-deja.com>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Subject: Re: On what issues was Rand "wrong"?
>
> In article <20000118230302...@ng-cp1.aol.com>,
> Gregory Weston <gregw...@aol.comm> wrote:
> > Adrian writes:
> >
> > <<
> > And here I thought that while she identified Kant as
> > her arch-nemisis, it was actually Hume's
> > philosophy that grew into the antithesis of hers.
> > >>
> >
> > I don't think Hume's philosophy has been doing any growing for the
> past 200
> > years.
> >
> > :)
> >
>
> What about Logical Positivism?
>
> --
> Adrian
Since it turned out to be the only school of Western philosophy to be
"eaten" by its own "young," I hardly think that it qualifies as
"progress." The principle problem with empiricism as a philosophy, as
opposed to empirical methodology in science, is that it's ultimate
"cashing-out" (as Objectivists would say) is in the coin of skepticism, as
Hume's deconstructing himself out of philosophy demonstrates.
Wisdom's Children: A Virtual Journal of Philosophy & Literature
http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/billramey/wisdom.htm
Submissions welcomed.
Ernest Brown
On 19 Jan 2000, Owl wrote:
> Gregory Weston <gregw...@aol.comm> wrote in message
> news:20000118173321...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> > Aside from that, I'd strongly suggest reading just
> > one book before you continue your study of
> > Objectivism. That is David Hume's Treatise of
> > Human Nature.
>
> Nah, too long. The Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding, and Enquiry
> Concerning the Principles of Morals give pretty much the same material
> more quickly. And this, by the way, is rather specialized reading -- only
> serious philosophy students will enjoy it. And also, by the way, almost
> everything in it is false.
I can't help thinking of Dr. Oliver Sacks' comment that an example of true
Humean epistemology at work would resemble his Korsakoff's (sp?) syndrome
patient The Lost Mariner.
> > This book is the most comprehensive, most lively,
> > most clearly written, and most vigorously
> > reasoned book in the history of philosophy.
>
> Ahem. Hardly. Rand's books are certainly more lively, more
> clearly-written, and more vigorously reasoned than Hume's, and there are
> probably dozens of 20th century books of which the same could be said.
> Which is not to say that Rand was right either.
Hume's arguments against miracles, for example, are notoriously poorly
reasoned, and are admitted to be by such theistic fundies and Thomists as
Antony Flew. (g)
Ernie
Ernest Brown
On 20 Jan 2000, Gregory Weston wrote:
> Date: 20 Jan 2000 02:26:12 GMT
> From: Gregory Weston <gregw...@aol.comm>
> Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> Subject: Re: On what issues was Rand "wrong"?
>
> Adrian writes:
>
> <<
> > I don't think Hume's philosophy has been doing
> > any growing for the past 200 years.
> >
> > :)
> >
>
> What about Logical Positivism?
> >>
>
> It's been doing some inspiring.
>
> Gregory Weston
> http://members.aol.com/gregweston
>
>
It's been inspiring people to run away from it at top speed, including its
own former devotees.
E. Brown
Adrian
t.missouri.edu>,
Ernest Brown <c50...@showme.missouri.edu> wrote:
>
> On 20 Jan 2000, Gregory Weston wrote:
>
> > Date: 20 Jan 2000 02:26:12 GMT
> > From: Gregory Weston <gregw...@aol.comm>
> > Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> > Subject: Re: On what issues was Rand "wrong"?
> >
> > Adrian writes:
> >
> > <<
> > > I don't think Hume's philosophy has been doing
> > > any growing for the past 200 years.
> > >
> > > :)
> > >
> >
> > What about Logical Positivism?
> > >>
> >
> > It's been doing some inspiring.
> >
> > Gregory Weston
> > http://members.aol.com/gregweston
> >
> >
>
> It's been inspiring people to run away from it at top speed,
including its
> own former devotees.
>
Are you one of them?
--
Adrian
Morality is a zero sum game.
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
Owl
> publish it (DCNR) during his lifetime. Hell, even that dabbler Kant
read and
> recognized Hume's importance. Kant poked fun at the titanic intellect
of the
> same Reid you quote; poked fun at him for completely misunderstanding
Hume . .
So Kant is a 'dabbler'? Would you characterize the Critique of Pure
Reasoning as dabbling in epistemology?
Kant did indeed do as you say, and he was wrong.
Owl
> philosopher in his day."
>
> "Hume was not regarded as a great historian." That one was easy to
refute.
Propositional logic teaches how the word "and" functions.
> The qualifier "more" does not deny that he was famous as a philosopher;
it
> means that he was more famous as an historian.
It also doesn't mean that he was famous as a philosopher, let alone as a
'great' philosopher.
> "More from his . . history . . than from his philosophy" does not mean
that
> his philosophy was not widely read and studied. I would argue that most
of the
It also doesn't mean that it was, let alone that he was regarded as a
'great philosopher.'
> people who have read Rand know her as a novelist and not from her
philosophical
> works.
Yes, and she is not regarded as a great philosopher either (except by the
Objectivists, of course).
I really don't see the cause for you to get so angry and upset by my
remark about Hume. You seem to take it as a personal insult against you
as well as against David Hume. It is neither.
David Buchner
> Is there any kind of "idea" as to the average age at which one becomes an
> as an Objectivist ages?
I'm 30, and I've only encountered and seriously considered "Objectivist"
ideas in the last year or two. Before that, I was thoroughly embedded in
all sort of whimsical "alternatives."
I wonder how different that makes me from the somewhat-stereotypical
haughty 15-year-old who reads Rand and starts an Atlantean Club in his
high school, latched onto the individualistic message, spouting Selfish
slogans for a few years, then gets married or embarrassed, turns to
something more mainstream, and says "Yeah, I used to be an Objectivist
but then I realized it was dumb."
What I guess I mean is, I wasn't attracted to Rand's "Selfishness" as
part of my teenage rebellion. My teenage rebellion was all "property is
theft" and putting "reality" in quotes all the time.
--
David
buc...@wcta.net Osage MN USA http://customer.wcta.net/buchner
Gregory Weston
<< I really don't see the cause for you to get so
angry and upset by my remark about Hume. >>
I don't think that she's upset, but it can be exasperating when someone says
something demonstrably wrong, and then fails to acknowledge his mistake, as you
have not.
You said:
"Hume was not regarded as a great historian and
philosopher in his day."
That is perfectly,100% wrong. You provided as supporting evidence for your
claim the fact that Hume had written that his Treatise of Human Nature "fell
dead-born from the press." While true, the book was published when he was 29
year old, and he lived to be 65 years old.
The introduction to my edition of the Treatise says that "by 1757, the name of
David Hume was known thoroughout Great Britain and the Continent as Britain's
most famous man of letters. In 1762 Boswell named him 'the greatest writer in
Brittain.'"
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
db...@tampatrib.com
LQuest <lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
> >Well, Ayn Rand didn't like "The Blue Danube." I like "The Blue Danube,"
> >though. Does that count?
>
> AR had no appreciation for Communism. I happen to think it's cute. Does
> that
> count?
Help me out here. Are you saying "The Blue Danube" is like Communism? Or were
you just being zany?
-- at no extra charge
David Buchner
> I said the median age was about 18. Of course there are many much older.
>
> Maybe we can take a poll?
>
> Put in 14 for me, and 45 for you.
I already responded to this (29-30?), but I wanted to add: it was a huge
relief, because I realized that this is what I'd sort of always thought,
deep down, but had been convinced I didn't. It was a liberation to stop
playing at being so, um, liberal.
Brad Aisa
: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
NNTP-Posting-Host: (protected and logged)
X-Trace: 2-00155f292d10ceb26479424a429c413603748b6129cd869035e0
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 2000 18:40:11 -0500
mdhjwh wrote:
>
> I wonder how she would have thought of the Rearden Metal Bracelet ?
She would not classify it as art (what I called "fine art" in my little
taxonomy.) I would classify it as being a "decorative art", which is
itself part of "design arts).
Mark Sieving
LQuest <lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
>
> Specifically what evidence have you seen that proves a causal link
between his
> ideas and our founding fathers' thinking?
Hume was certainly a major influence on Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton
quoted Hume extensively in his own work. Hume's views on factions also
influenced James Madison's Federalist #10.
In general, Hume was probably regarded more favorably by the
Federalists than by the Jeffersonian republicans. Thomas Jefferson
didn't seem to like Hume much. Jefferson called Hume "the apostle of
Toryism" and was sharply critical of Hume's statement that the just
powers of government did not derive from the will of the majority.
LQuest
>In article <3886df71...@news.airmail.net>,
> LQuest <lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
>>
>> Specifically what evidence have you seen that proves a causal link
>between his ideas and our founding fathers' thinking?
>
>Hume was certainly a major influence on Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton
>quoted Hume extensively in his own work. Hume's views on factions also
>influenced James Madison's Federalist #10.
True. But many others were ALSO influential on our founders. Hume was a
member of a chorus -- just ONE of the voices dancing in their 17th Century
minds.
>In general, Hume was probably regarded more favorably by the
>Federalists than by the Jeffersonian republicans. Thomas Jefferson
>didn't seem to like Hume much. Jefferson called Hume "the apostle of
>Toryism" and was sharply critical of Hume's statement that the just
>powers of government did not derive from the will of the majority.
His criticism was well founded. Legitimate government derives it's ONLY just
power from the INFORMED C O N S E N T of the people they serve. That's a
loooooong way from "... the will of the majority" -- which is just mob rule --
an attempt to cast "society" in the role of deity.
--Mike
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
David Buchner <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
news:1e4pqrd.pgp...@ppp193.wcta.net...
> Gregory Weston <gregw...@aol.comm> wrote:
>
> > I said the median age was about 18. Of course there are many much
older.
> >
> > Maybe we can take a poll?
> >
> > Put in 14 for me, and 45 for you.
>
> I already responded to this (29-30?), but I wanted to add: it was a
huge
> relief, because I realized that this is what I'd sort of always
thought,
> deep down, but had been convinced I didn't. It was a liberation to
stop
> playing at being so, um, liberal.
Well, it's great to have you back David.
Looks like Greg Weston is in for 40 years of wandering in the
wilderness
of his mind.
--
A.Broese-van-Groenou.
Al Montestruc
"Karen White" <k-je...@tamu.edu> wrote in message
news:3884D2FB...@tamu.edu...
> I was reading the newsgroup and noted a post from someone who
> agreed with Objectivism at some point, but later decided that
> Rand had it wrong on a good many issues (I can't for the life of
> me recall from whom or in what thread).
>
> I have something of the same "reaction" to Rand's work, although
> I confess I am woefully under-prepared to articulate it (that is,
> I haven't read the volumes of materials that she wrote or that
> others who follow her philosophy have written). Much of the
> exchange on the newsgroup, in fact, is focused upon very specific
> points that are of little interest to me as a "beginner."
>
> However, I would like to hear from people on their own "analysis"
> of any areas where, so far as they can reasonably do so, one must
> conclude that Rand was wrong.
Her statement of the definition of government as having a monopoly on the
use of force in a specific area is flatly wrong. If that definition were
true the US Government would not be a government. By U.S. laws ANYBODY can
use force, and even initiate the use of force (depending on your definitions
a bit) in many situations. Example, the owner of a bar (or his employees or
other agents) can use force to throw someone out of his establishment if
they refuse to leave when asked by the owner or other person authorized by
the owner. Both defacto and dejure this is legal in at least some parts of
the USA.
I have a bit of a hard time with the idea that picking up a passed out drunk
and throwing him out the door is not initiating the use of force. Yes he
may be on your property, but he entered with your consent and became
intoxicated with your help.
David Friedman
It is logically possible that Smith thought Hume was by far the greatest
philosopher of the time, when most people thought he wasn't a great
philosopher at all, but it doesn't seem terribly likely. Smith was an
important part of the intellectual community--and made his original
reputation in philosophy with _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_.
Several people have presented evidence--not proof, but evidence--that
Hume was viewed as a great philosopher in his own time. Unless I have
missed something, you have provided nothing but your own assertion to
the contrary. So don't you think you should either provide the basis for
your claim, or concede that it was wrong?
EFitzge486
>EFitzge486 <efitz...@aol.com> wrote in message
>news:20000120054244...@ng-cl1.aol.com...
>> "By the way, pace Weston, Hume was not regarded as a great historian and
>> philosopher in his day."
>>
>> "Hume was not regarded as a great historian." That one was easy to
>refute.
>
>Propositional logic teaches how the word "and" functions.
Okay, I will try again.
"Hume" = subject
"was not" = copula
"regarded as a great historian in his day" = predicate
Thoroughly refuted. But that's not your point, is it? You want me to consider
the conjunction that the word "and" COULD entail depending on the context. So
lets do it!
"Hume" = subject
"was not" = copula
"regarded as a great historian and philosopher in his day." = predicate
To use "and" in a proposition, each phrase that it conjoins must be true or
your statement is false. Your proposition is patently false and has been
demonstrated so. It is funny how you jumped on me for doing exactly what was
legitimate to do - consider you proposition as involving two distinct claims.
>> "By the way, pace Weston, Hume was not regarded as a great historian and
>> philosopher in his day."
>> The qualifier "more" does not deny that he was famous as a philosopher;
>it
>> means that he was more famous as an historian.
>
>It also doesn't mean that he was famous as a philosopher, let alone as a
>'great' philosopher.
If I really wanted to be a pain in the ass, I could ask why you think that you
can go from what you wrote to "Hume was not regarded as a GREAT philosopher in
his day." For that was not what you wrote.
I see; maybe that is what you want to argue about. Because you simply couldn't
be saying that "Hume was not regarded as a philosopher in his day." Those
silly people inside the Vatican; they banned his writings because he was a
comedian.
Are you trying to leave the door open for yourself by latching onto the
evaluative qualifier "great" and not the fact that Hume was a celebrated
philosopher in his day? I know; Reid did not think he was "great". This
cancels Dr. Friedman's pointing out to you that at least one person did, Adam
Smith. Oh well.
>I really don't see the cause for you to get so angry and upset by my
>remark about Hume. You seem to take it as a personal insult against you
>as well as against David Hume. It is neither.
Lighten up, dude. I don't take umbrage from conversations like this. I think
everything has been quite civil, frankly. I am just an hysterical female; me
thinks that intellectual honesty is important.
Elaine
Jim Klein
EFitzge486 <efitz...@aol.com> wrote:
>>Propositional logic teaches how the word "and" functions.
>
>Okay, I will try again.
>
>"Hume" = subject
>"was not" = copula
>"regarded as a great historian in his day" = predicate
>
>Thoroughly refuted. But that's not your point, is it? You want me to
>consider the conjunction that the word "and" COULD entail depending on the
>context. So lets do it!
>
>"Hume" = subject
>"was not" = copula
>"regarded as a great historian and philosopher in his day." = predicate
>
>To use "and" in a proposition, each phrase that it conjoins must be true or
>your statement is false.
I'm sure you realize that in English (unlike symbolic logic), the usage of
"and" is ambiguous here. It could be a conjuctive predicate or it could be
a conjunctive object. The conjunctive predicate possibility has already
been refuted with evidence...he was regarded as a great philosopher in his
day and he was regarded as a great historian in his day.
The conjunctive object possibility has not been directly addressed...Owl
could say that what's required is someone who thought he was both a great
historian and a great philosopher simultaneously in order to disprove his
claim. That looks as good as shown IMO since I can't imagine all of those
folks thinking he was such a superlative philosopher and yet thinking he
wasn't a great historian, especially since Owl doesn't seem to be disputing
that he was regarded as a great historian.
IOW, Owl obviously hasn't a leg to stand on regarding his claim but I'd say
he still has a toe near the floor. Of course, that's not saying very much
considering that he's already hanged himself!
jk
Ernest Brown
> > E. Brown-
> > It's been inspiring people to run away from it at top speed,
> including its
> > own former devotees.
> >
>
> Are you one of them?
>
> --
> Adrian
No, but after 15 years of philosophical study and reflection, I'm pretty
confident of my statement. A school of philosophy whose most consistent
exponents were the late Chico Marx and Gracie Allen hardly constitutes a
threat.
Ernie
Ernest Brown
(snip)
> Are you saying that "god" exists for the reasons quoted here or that
> Aristotle said so, or that Aristotle makes statements counter to
> objectivism?
(snip)
Neither, my general point is that Aristotle had more confidence in the
human mind's ability to know ultimate reality than Rand, Peikoff and Kant
do. I'm wondering why Rand and Peikoff want to get in bed with their
putative mortal philosophical enemy on this question, and whether or not
they can justify the rest of their philosophy after "stealing" these
concepts.
I thank you for your response, and will elaborate on the rest of your post
later.
robert...@hotmail.com
db...@tampatrib.com wrote:
>
> The numerous errors of this essay are well-documented in this
newsgroup, but
> it is indeed a good idea to read it, as suggested.
I read Heumer's html and did not find numerous errors. Where
are the errors pointed out so that I can see for myself?
Is there one posting which has a refutation?
Bob Kolker
David Buchner
> 2) Anyone who reads Hume needs to read Hume's nemesis: Thomas Reid.
> "[I]t is certainly a most amazing discovery that thought and ideas may be
> without any thinking being--a discovery big with consequences which cannot
> easily be traced by those deluded mortals who think and reason in the
> common track. We were always apt to imagine, that thought supposed a
> thinker, and love a lover, and treason a traitor....
Wow, this is good. Very good. Was Reid a contemporary of Hume's?
David Buchner
> k-je...@tamu.edu wrote:
> > However, I would like to hear from people on their own "analysis"
> > of any areas where ....Rand was wrong.
> Well, Ayn Rand didn't like "The Blue Danube." I like "The Blue Danube,"
> though. Does that count?
Yeah, and Rand liked cats. I prefer dogs.
Mark Sieving
LQuest <lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
> On 21 Jan 2000 00:30:39 GMT, Mark Sieving <msie...@ameritech.net>
wrote:
>
> >In article <3886df71...@news.airmail.net>,
> > LQuest <lib...@DELETETHIS.airmail.net> wrote:
> >>
> >> Specifically what evidence have you seen that proves a causal link
> >between his ideas and our founding fathers' thinking?
> >
> >Hume was certainly a major influence on Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton
> >quoted Hume extensively in his own work. Hume's views on factions
> >also influenced James Madison's Federalist #10.
>
> True. But many others were ALSO influential on our founders. Hume
> was a member of a chorus -- just ONE of the voices dancing in their
> 17th Century minds.
It of course is true that the founders drew from many sources. But in
Hamilton's case at least, Hume was more than just a voice in a chorus.
Hamilton's views on government were derived mainly from Hume and from
Emmerich de Vattel.
>
> >In general, Hume was probably regarded more favorably by the
> >Federalists than by the Jeffersonian republicans. Thomas Jefferson
> >didn't seem to like Hume much. Jefferson called Hume "the apostle of
> >Toryism" and was sharply critical of Hume's statement that the just
> >powers of government did not derive from the will of the majority.
>
> His criticism was well founded. Legitimate government derives it's
> ONLY just power from the INFORMED C O N S E N T of the people they
> serve. That's a loooooong way from "... the will of the majority" --
> which is just mob rule -- an attempt to cast "society" in the role of
> deity.
Who's criticism is well founded? It was Jefferson who said that the
just powers of government come from the will of the majority. It was
Hume who said that the voice of the people is not the voice of God.
Ernest Brown
On 21 Jan 2000, David Buchner wrote:
> Owl <a@a.a> wrote:
> > 2) Anyone who reads Hume needs to read Hume's nemesis: Thomas Reid.
> > "[I]t is certainly a most amazing discovery that thought and ideas may be
> > without any thinking being--a discovery big with consequences which cannot
> > easily be traced by those deluded mortals who think and reason in the
> > common track. We were always apt to imagine, that thought supposed a
> > thinker, and love a lover, and treason a traitor....
>
> Wow, this is good. Very good. Was Reid a contemporary of Hume's?
Yes, in fact he was one of the only people to take Hume's -philosophy-
seriously, a fact that Hume himself thanked Reid for in their marvelously
polite philosophical correspondence.
Arnold Broese-van-Groenou
David Buchner <buc...@wcta.net> wrote in message
news:1e4r1cs.dfn...@ppp193.wcta.net...
> <db...@tampatrib.com> wrote:
>
> > k-je...@tamu.edu wrote:
> > > However, I would like to hear from people on their own
"analysis"
> > > of any areas where ....Rand was wrong.
>
> > Well, Ayn Rand didn't like "The Blue Danube." I like "The Blue
Danube,"
> > though. Does that count?
Yea, well I am a "Bird Man", so you know what I think of cats.
Good for 'Battery Warmers' and sweeping chimneys.
(No hate mail, just kidding)
So, am I still an Objectivist?;-)
--
A.Broese-van-Groenou.
Owl
news:20000120151427...@ng-fq1.aol.com...
> << I really don't see the cause for you to get so
> angry and upset by my remark about Hume. >>
>
says
> something demonstrably wrong, and then fails to acknowledge his mistake,
as you
> have not.
Her first response to my message was to call me a liar. Thus, I think
your interpretation is wrong.
> The introduction to my edition of the Treatise says that "by 1757, the
name of
> David Hume was known thoroughout Great Britain and the Continent as
Britain's
> most famous man of letters. In 1762 Boswell named him 'the greatest
writer in
> Brittain.'"
As has been mentioned before, Hume was known more for his pedestrian
history of England than his philosophy. I suspect you will find it
difficult to find any place where the editor of your book says he was
known as a great philosopher; even if you restrict yourself to Hume fans,
editors are still more careful than you in their statements.
Owl
> It is logically possible that Smith thought Hume was by far the greatest
> philosopher at all, but it doesn't seem terribly likely. Smith was an
> important part of the intellectual community--and made his original
> reputation in philosophy with _The Theory of Moral Sentiments_.
>
> Several people have presented evidence--not proof, but evidence--that
> Hume was viewed as a great philosopher in his own time. Unless I have
> missed something, you have provided nothing but your own assertion to
> the contrary. So don't you think you should either provide the basis for
> your claim, or concede that it was wrong?
David,
Your evidence that Hume was generally regarded as a great philosopher
consists in reporting the opinion of a single person. Granted, he was an
important person, and granted you qualified your statement with "not
proof, but evidence" -- but this seems like extremely weak evidence. Note
that an important person can have an unconventional opinion just as
easily, perhaps more easily, than an unimportant person.
The evidence presented by others seemed rather to support my statement
than to support Greg's. It consisted in quotations from books in which it
is said that Hume was a well-known or famous historian, or man of letters,
that he was more known for his history than his philosophy, that the books
of his that were read avidly were the ones that are generally forgotten
today.
Lastly, I remind you of the burden of proof principle, and that it was
Greg Weston who made the positive claim that Hume was regarded as a great
philosopher in his time.
Gregory Weston
On the question of Hume's fame you have been proven wrong to the satisfaction
of myself and everyone else who has cared enough to comment.
That's the logical end of this discussion for me.
Gregory Weston
http://members.aol.com/gregweston
Owl
> >> "By the way, pace Weston, Hume was not regarded as a great historian
and
> >> philosopher in his day."
> >>
> >refute.
> >
>
> Okay, I will try again.
>
> "Hume" = subject
> "was not" = copula
> "regarded as a great historian in his day" = predicate
The first sentence in quotations above is from me. The second one, "Hume
was not regarded as a great historian," is not; it is from you.
> To use "and" in a proposition, each phrase that it conjoins must be true
or
> your statement is false. Your proposition is patently false and has
been
If you take propositional logic, ask your professor to show you the truth
table for ~(A & B). It shouldn't be necessary for me to point out that
~(A & B) does not entail ~A -- unless, that is, someone were trying to
interpret a statement in the least charitable manner they could.
> If I really wanted to be a pain in the ass, I could ask why you think
that you
> can go from what you wrote to "Hume was not regarded as a GREAT
philosopher in
> his day." For that was not what you wrote.
I find it strange to be called upon to give English lessons here. Gregory
said that Hume was regarded as "a great historian and philosopher." I
assumed he meant, "Hume was regarded as: a great historian and great
philosopher, simultaneously." It would have been strange to say "He was
regarded as a philosopher in his day" -- not only because that is rather
scant praise, but also because the use of "regarded as" is strange.
Whether someone is *great* as a philosopher is a matter of opinion so that
'regarded as' becomes appropriate. But not so with regard to whether
someone is a philosopher or not. Since there is no controversy that Hume
wrote books about philosophy, presumably Greg wouldn't trouble to make the
trivial point that people thought he was a philosopher. And presumably I
would not make the stupid point that people didn't think he did philosophy
at all. All of this is the sort of reasoning that would normally go on
subconsciously and would not be necessary to state, unless someone were
trying hard to find the weakest interpretation of Greg's statement and the
most illogical interpretation of mine.
> I see; maybe that is what you want to argue about. Because you simply
couldn't
> be saying that "Hume was not regarded as a philosopher in his day."
That's right.
> Those
> silly people inside the Vatican; they banned his writings because he was
a
> comedian.
The sarcasm isn't helpful.
> Are you trying to leave the door open for yourself by latching onto the
> evaluative qualifier "great" and not the fact that Hume was a celebrated
> philosopher in his day? I know; Reid did not think he was "great".
This
> cancels Dr. Friedman's pointing out to you that at least one person did,
Adam
> Smith. Oh well.
Again, if someone says "A is regarded as a great philosopher," you could,
technically, interpret that to mean, "There is at least one person who
regards A as a great philosopher," but it would be more natural to
interpret it to mean that this was the general opinion. That, at any
rate, is how I interpreted Mr. Weston's statement.
> Lighten up, dude. I don't take umbrage from conversations like this. I
think
> everything has been quite civil, frankly.
In that case, it's hard for me to reconcile your calling me a liar, as
well as the bits of sarcasm thrown in.
Owl
news:Pine.A41.4.10.1000121...@sp2n21.missouri.edu...
> > Wow, this is good. Very good. Was Reid a contemporary of Hume's?
> Yes, in fact he was one of the only people to take Hume's -philosophy-
> seriously, a fact that Hume himself thanked Reid for in their
marvelously
> polite philosophical correspondence.
At last, someone who agrees with me.
EFitzge486
>In that case, it's hard for me to reconcile your calling me a liar, as
>well as the bits of sarcasm thrown in.
The sarcasm may be obnoxious; but I consider your assertion that Hume was not
thought of as a great philosopher in his day untrue. And that you were being
sarcastic in saying so. Maybe I should be above responding in kind; sometimes
it makes for better reading.
I do not remember calling you a liar. Can you find where I did?
Anyway, if I have insulted you I apologize; that is never my intention and I am
sorry it happened.
Elaine
Owl
> On the question of Hume's fame you have been proven wrong to the
satisfaction
> of myself and everyone else who has cared enough to comment.
I am not surprised to hear that you've succeeded in convincing yourself.
Quotations from books saying Hume was a well-known historian and man of
letters don't prove to my satisfaction that Hume was generally viewed as a
great philosopher, but I guess I have different standards of proof.
> That's the logical end of this discussion for me.
At last.
Owl
> The sarcasm may be obnoxious; but I consider your assertion that Hume
was not
> thought of as a great philosopher in his day untrue. And that you were
being
> sarcastic in saying so. Maybe I should be above responding in kind;
sometimes
> it makes for better reading.
I didn't intend it sarcastically -- I meant it seriously. I also didn't
mean it as an affront to Hume (even though, as I've made clear enough
elsewhere, I think rather poorly of Hume's philosophy) -- I just meant
that Hume's great reputation as a philosopher arose more recently. (I
think that's a rather common phenomenon -- that someone is better
appreciated after their death.)
I also included the remark that in modern times, irrationalism and
subjectivism are better appreciated. This isn't a nice remark, but it is
nevertheless true.
Sarcasm -- where you try to convey an idea by saying the opposite of what
you mean -- is generally a way of strongly mocking the opinion you oppose.
For instance, when someone makes a mistake and you say, "Boy, that was
really brilliant, Einstein," this is actually more insulting than if you
said what you meant, as in, "That was stupid." Similarly, "The church
banned his books because he was a comedian" is a mocking way of getting
across the idea, "The church banned his books because he was a
philosopher."
> I do not remember calling you a liar. Can you find where I did?
I was referring to your first message to me, at the end of which you asked
why I spread such lies about Hume. The answer is that, although I
occasionally make mistakes, I do not lie (well, hardly ever).
> Anyway, if I have insulted you I apologize; that is never my intention
and I am
> sorry it happened.
Ok then, no hard feelings.