"Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
HPO JURY = Malenoid
concepts in terms favorable to a particular ideology or group (e.g.,
objectivism or libertarianism). It is labeled "revisionism" because it
is designed to rebel against the accepted facts. (Sometimes in pursuit
of this revisionism it is argued that "facts are relative anyway,"
sometimes not.)
Smearing is nothing more than the malicious spreading of insinuations
and what-not concerning a person, group, or idea. Revisioning and
smearing work in concert together when it seems necessary to create a
straw-dog and then knock it down, propping up one's own revisionist
concepts in its place. Such is the process which has occurred with the
entire philosophical tradition known as Empiricism.
Objectivism and libertarianism are both guilty of revisionism by
smearing with regard to this tradition. A prime example of this is
found in Chris Sciabarra's "Total Freedom," in which he characterizes
empiricism as fragmentary compartmentalization (p. 158). He quotes
Rand as claiming that empiricists are anti-conceptual, concrete-bound
mentalities.
I only quote Sciabarra because it was the handiest source available to
me at this time. But I first encountered the anti-empiricist bias on
this very group long ago, and it rather surprised me, because
empiricism is a very general category of thought that may encompass a
concern with concretes and trivia, but is not limited to that
atomistic level by far.
The anti-empiricist bias came out strongly that day when I claimed
that Rand was an empiricist. This was met by a vociferous denial. And
in a recent thread here the anti-empiricist bias once again reared up.
How does one defeat such an insidious bias? How does one, for
instance, convince a Nazi that Jews are not evil? Is it possible to
point to facts concerning the matter without being accused of being
too fact-oriented thus empirical? Or, how does one use general
concepts to resolve this issue without being accused of anti-factual
mysticism? By being an Objectivist (or libertarian). The method starts
out quite simply: if you are not an Objectivist, but have instead
acquired some other (competing) discipline of thought, then you are
simply WRONG by default. Since you, as a non-Objectivist, are simply
WRONG, then there is nothing you can say that is right unless it
sounds like something Rand would have said.
The next step is to reduce the non-Objectivists claims to some
intellectual label, such as "subjectivist" or "empiricist." The
approach to this is quite methodological; but then, many things are,
such as herding Jews into gas chambers in alphabetical order by name.
This methodology has even been given a fancy new name by Sciabarra:
dialectics (much to the chagrin of the orthodox objectivists who have
traditionally used the term "dialectics" as another aspect of their
smear campaign against competing ideologies).
In the case of the "empiricist" label, if the Objectivist victim
happens not to believe in the extreme, atomized version of empiricism,
then there will be something WRONG with the new view; it will, of
course, allegedly swing toward the mystical, Platonic side. So the
victim can't win no matter what, the game is rigged against him. He
will always be culpable of some sort of intellectual crime in the
Objectivist's eyes, simply for being non-Objectivist. And of course,
"all of civilization is at stake," as usual, blah, blah.
The proper method of dealing with the Objectivist approach to debate
(which they don't even believe in to begin with), is simply to point
out the technique, to bring it and its intellectual cowardice out
into the light of reason which such intellectual cockroaches naturally
fear.
---------------
"Oh yeahhhh? Well don't get so distressed. Did I happen to mention
that I am impressed?"
Violent Femmes
Spartacus
Rand was not an empiricist.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
A non-biased definition of "empiricism" from philosophypages.com:
"Reliance on experience as the source of ideas and knowledge. More
specifically, empiricism is the epistemological theory that genuine
information about the world must be acquired by a posteriori means, so
that nothing can be thought without first being sensed."
So much for your straw-dog.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:23 PM
Subject: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
>
> In the case of the "empiricist" label, if the Objectivist victim
> happens not to believe in the extreme, atomized version of empiricism,
> then there will be something WRONG with the new view; it will, of
> course, allegedly swing toward the mystical, Platonic side. So the
> victim can't win no matter what, the game is rigged against him.
Not that anyone should care. In such discussions the self-injured victim is
the one that writes nonsense.
> He
> will always be culpable of some sort of intellectual crime in the
> Objectivist's eyes, simply for being non-Objectivist. And of course,
> "all of civilization is at stake," as usual, blah, blah.
>
> The proper method of dealing with the Objectivist approach to debate
> (which they don't even believe in to begin with), is simply to point
> out the technique, to bring it and its intellectual cowardice out
> into the light of reason
Which will invariably be to no avail. Watch Fred shake his head in
disapproval when someone says that approximations are useful. And then say
that they are the truth because they are useful after all. And then say that
inaccurate is true, because we can not be omniscient. This after having been
explained many times in many ways by Gordon and others. The extraordinary
thing is that he can not be cured. And then you can watch Arnold come in his
defense. What's wrong with these people?
> which such intellectual cockroaches naturally
> fear.
.
.
.
.
.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
>From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
>Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 2:23 PM
>Subject: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
>> The proper method of dealing with the Objectivist approach to debate
>> (which they don't even believe in to begin with), is simply to point
>> out the technique, to bring it and its intellectual cowardice out
>> into the light of reason
>Which will invariably be to no avail. Watch Fred shake his head in
>disapproval when someone says that approximations are useful. And then say
>that they are the truth because they are useful after all. And then say that
>inaccurate is true, because we can not be omniscient. This after having been
>explained many times in many ways by Gordon and others. The extraordinary
>thing is that he can not be cured. And then you can watch Arnold come in his
>defense. What's wrong with these people?
I wasn't hoping to cure objectivists and libertarians, but to squash
the potential intellectual force their ideas may have on the naive.
Freddy exemplifies the dangers of believing radical ideas.
.
.
Robert J. Kolker
HPO JURY = Malenoid wrote:
> I wasn't hoping to cure objectivists and libertarians, but to squash
> the potential intellectual force their ideas may have on the naive.
> Freddy exemplifies the dangers of believing radical ideas.
What are your issues with libertarians. Do you find limited government
disagreeable?
Bob Kolker
Spartacus
> A non-biased definition of "empiricism" from philosophypages.com:
> "Reliance on experience as the source of ideas and knowledge. More
> specifically, empiricism is the epistemological theory that genuine
> information about the world must be acquired by a posteriori means, so
> that nothing can be thought without first being sensed."
>
> So much for your straw-dog.
that objectivist epistemology contains ideas based on Aristotlean empiricism
doea not make Rand an "empiricist".
She readily concedes her philosophical "debt" to Aristotle in his
definitions of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge.
any rational philisophical system must accept the idea that sensory data are
valid and that they are man's only cognitive contact with reality and
therefore are his only source of information.
those who claim otherwise, contradict themselves.
however, Rand was an objectivist, and vehemently disagreed with much of the
modern Empiricist's ideas about concepts and universals, as she also
disagrees with many parts of Aristotle's philosophy.
so I'll say again, Rand was not an empiricist . . . she was an objectivist.
as for "Straw Dogs", yeah i liked it, but IMO "The Wild Bunch" is still
Peckinpah's best.
Spartacus
Robert J. Kolker
Spartacus wrote:
> so I'll say again, Rand was not an empiricist . . . she was an objectivist.
An empiricist: some one who gives do weight to the evidence of the
senses. You say Rand did not do this?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
Robert J. Kolker wrote:
> An empiricist: some one who gives do weight to the evidence of the \
Make that due weight. Sorry about that.
Bob Kolker
Spartacus
> senses. You say Rand did not do this?
>
> Bob Kolker
where did I say that?
Spartacus
Spartacus
>
> Make that due weight. Sorry about that.
>
> Bob Kolker
typos are a way of life in Usenet-land . . . fughedaboudit :-)
Spartacus
HPO JURY = Malenoid
<DORIAN...@TEMPLE-GYM.com> wrote:
>> A non-biased definition of "empiricism" from philosophypages.com:
>> "Reliance on experience as the source of ideas and knowledge. More
>> specifically, empiricism is the epistemological theory that genuine
>> information about the world must be acquired by a posteriori means, so
>> that nothing can be thought without first being sensed."
>> So much for your straw-dog.
>that objectivist epistemology contains ideas based on Aristotlean empiricism
>doea not make Rand an "empiricist".
>She readily concedes her philosophical "debt" to Aristotle in his
>definitions of the laws of logic and of the means of human knowledge.
>any rational philisophical system must accept the idea that sensory data are
>valid and that they are man's only cognitive contact with reality and
>therefore are his only source of information.
In other words, an empiricist.
>those who claim otherwise, contradict themselves.
>however, Rand was an objectivist, and vehemently disagreed with much of the
>modern Empiricist's ideas about concepts and universals, as she also
>disagrees with many parts of Aristotle's philosophy.
Or it could be that Objectivism is a sub-school of empiricism. Never
mind her disagreements with other schools of empiricist thought, such
disagreements are all too common and do not indicate a fundamental
conflict on the issue of empiricism itself.
>so I'll say again, Rand was not an empiricist . . . she was an objectivist.
>as for "Straw Dogs", yeah i liked it, but IMO "The Wild Bunch" is still
>Peckinpah's best.
Ok.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
"Limited" government is a relative term. We already have limited
government relative to most other countries, with the exception of New
Zealand and a couple others.
Libertarians will forever disagree on to what extent government should
be limited, among other issues.
But primarily, it's because I don't agree with amoral theories.
Robert J. Kolker
Spartacus wrote:
You said: Rand is not an empiricist. That means she does not depend on
experience for the knowledge she has. If that is so, where does she get
her knowledge?
Bob Kolker
Robert J. Kolker
HPO JURY = Malenoid wrote:
> But primarily, it's because I don't agree with amoral theories.
What is amoral about insisting that government not assert arbitrary power?
Bob Kolker
HPO JURY = Malenoid
I'm referring to the issues of sexual freedom and drugs. They believe
in victimless crimes, and I don't.
But your point is crucial in this way: the government is not an
individual person to whom morality applies. And there are political
principles regulating governments which don't apply to individuals.
Governments have the right to take actions which individuals cannot
take, or don't have the right to take even if they could.
Robert J. Kolker
HPO JURY = Malenoid wrote:
>> But your point is crucial in this way: the government is not an
> individual person to whom morality applies. And there are political
> principles regulating governments which don't apply to individuals.
> Governments have the right to take actions which individuals cannot
> take, or don't have the right to take even if they could.
Persons have rights. Governments have powers. In the best of worlds the
only powers governments will have to excercise are those given to it by
the people who will feel the brunt of these powers. In the worst of
worlds governments (actually the agents of government) will garner those
powers which that can garner and use.
Bob Kolker
HPO JURY = Malenoid
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Persons have rights. Governments have powers. In the best of worlds the
>only powers governments will have to excercise are those given to it by
>the people who will feel the brunt of these powers. In the worst of
>worlds governments (actually the agents of government) will garner those
>powers which that can garner and use.
Bread and circuses...
But every 4 years, the people do speak: they speak out against
libertarianism with their votes. They speak out against destructive
amoralism, drug addiction, sexual addiction, atheism, the destruction
of American cultural values promoted by libertarianism. They speak out
against radicalism, whether it is Libertarian or Green.
Those who are paranoid of government power have issues with authority
which need to be dealt with by psychiatric means. What if everybody
was a paranoid libertarian? There wouldn't be any government to speak
of. And of course the disasters which would follow would only be
blamed on government.
That leads back to my primary point at the beginning of this, in which
no matter what "the other side" does, it's WRONG simply for being the
other side. All responsibility is externalized and projected.
Libertarians don't believe in self-responsibility or accountability,
they believe in blaming. It's always somebody else's fault,
particularly someone in power: the IRS, the CIA, empiricists, or even
Immanuel Kant. They offer simplistic, atomistic answers to complex
social problems, and then claim not to be empiricists.
There needs to be less paranoia and more respect, the sort of respect
to be garnered by an extremely powerful or dangerous entity which
needs to be dealt with in a reasonable manner. Paranoia is not
reasonable.
I'm afraid I have bad news for libertarians: the fact is, there are
people in the world who have more power than you; the fact is, there
are people possessing such power who may not even deserve it. But the
fact is, power is power, and no blaming or castigating or running a
hopeless race for President on the libertarian platform is going to
change that.
Robert J. Kolker
HPO JURY = Malenoid wrote:
> But every 4 years, the people do speak: they speak out against
> libertarianism with their votes. They speak out against destructive
> amoralism, drug addiction, sexual addiction, atheism, the destruction
> of American cultural values promoted by libertarianism. They speak out
> against radicalism, whether it is Libertarian or Green.
>
I simply cannot get worked up about what people do to themselves. I am
more concerning with acts that have consequences on unconsenting
parties. My personal inclination is to ignore what others do, as long as
they don't scare the horses.
And just what is wrong with Atheism. Do you think God gives one
herself-damn about atheists. And what is wrong with amoralism (not to be
confused with immoralism). Every one has a natural right to
indifference. Drug addiction? As long as these dopers do not drive or
operate dangerous machinery, which is it my problem. As long as I am not
compelled to keep these sorry cases alive, why should I care?
Destructino of values? Let the valuers protect their own. If they can't
too bad.
> There needs to be less paranoia and more respect, the sort of respect
> to be garnered by an extremely powerful or dangerous entity which
> needs to be dealt with in a reasonable manner. Paranoia is not
> reasonable.
Do you mean respect, or abject fear?
>
> I'm afraid I have bad news for libertarians: the fact is, there are
> people in the world who have more power than you; the fact is, there
> are people possessing such power who may not even deserve it. But the
> fact is, power is power, and no blaming or castigating or running a
> hopeless race for President on the libertarian platform is going to
> change that.
That all too true. The only answers are to join in on the Power game
too, or escape to a desert island where it does not matter. Or become a
secret disrupter, like the character Markov Chaney in -The Illuminatus
Triology-.
Bob Kolker
>
Spartacus
> experience for the knowledge she has.
no, that is not what it means . . it means that although objectivist
epistemology contains "empiricist" ideas, she was still an objectivist.
she was not a "member" of the modern Empiricist camp and stated quite
clearly several times what she disagreed with them on.
but you already knew that :-)
branding her simply an "empiricist" does her and her philosophy a great deal
of disrespect in my opinion.
Spartacus
Spartacus
no, an objectivist who's epistemological beliefs happen to be in accord with
certain aspects of Empiricism.
I agree with some of the 10 commandements, but that doesnt make me a
Christian.
> Never
> mind her disagreements with other schools of empiricist thought, such
> disagreements are all too common and do not indicate a fundamental
> conflict on the issue of empiricism itself.
i never said there was a conflict, but having one common fundamental idea
does not make two philosophies interchangable, does it?
> >as for "Straw Dogs", yeah i liked it, but IMO "The Wild Bunch" is still
> >Peckinpah's best.
> Ok.
no sense of humor.
btw, Violent Femmes suck.
Spartacus
Robert J. Kolker
Spartacus wrote:
>>You said: Rand is not an empiricist. That means she does not depend on
>>experience for the knowledge she has.
>
>
> no, that is not what it means . . it means that although objectivist
> epistemology contains "empiricist" ideas, she was still an objectivist.
> she was not a "member" of the modern Empiricist camp and stated quite
> clearly several times what she disagreed with them on.
Empiricism is the principle that all knowledge comes from experience
(perception and integration of perceptions). Can you suggest any
additional sources of knowledge independent of experience?
>
> but you already knew that :-)
>
> branding her simply an "empiricist" does her and her philosophy a great deal
> of disrespect in my opinion.
I know what words mean, if that is what you mean. What sources of
knowledge are Objectivists privy to that us lesser folk who depend on
perception are denied?
Bob Kolker
>>
Spartacus
> (perception and integration of perceptions). Can you suggest any
> additional sources of knowledge independent of experience?
>
No, and i never implied that i or anyone else could, so how about we drop
the subject seeing as you are not really reading what i say.
Spartacus
Robert J. Kolker
Spartacus wrote:
> No, and i never implied that i or anyone else could, so how about we drop
> the subject seeing as you are not really reading what i say.
I read it as you wrote it --- Ayn Rand was not an empiricist which means
she dervived knowledge from a source outher than perception and the
integration of perceptions.
Now do you mean what you write, or are we supposed to guess what you mean?
Bob Kolker
>
HPO JURY = Malenoid
<DORIAN...@TEMPLE-GYM.com> wrote:
>> In other words, an empiricist.
>
>no, an objectivist who's epistemological beliefs happen to be in accord with
>certain aspects of Empiricism.
>I agree with some of the 10 commandements, but that doesnt make me a
>Christian.
There is only one important aspect of empiricism, and that is, a
primary concern with a posteriori data. That is the fundamental
principle of empiricism to which Rand subscribed. Or did you forget
that there are fundamental principles in other schools of thought?
HPO JURY = Malenoid
Nobody is 'branding' anything. It is Objectivism that brands ideas and
people with labels. What we are doing is identifying and categorizing.
But I am interested in what Rand disagreed about with Empiricism in
particular. Where can I find these quotes? And I don't mean her
disagreements with certain empiricists, I want to know where Rand
criticized Empiricism itself.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Spartacus wrote:
>> No, and i never implied that i or anyone else could, so how about we drop
>> the subject seeing as you are not really reading what i say.
>read it as you wrote it --- Ayn Rand was not an empiricist which means
>she dervived knowledge from a source outher than perception and the
>integration of perceptions.
>Now do you mean what you write, or are we supposed to guess what you mean?
Spartacus is merely being evasive. I don't know if it qualifies as
"vicious evasion" or not, since I'm not an Objectivist and not privy
to the unseen realm of principles known only to the Objectivist elite.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Objectivism, Libertarianism, Anarchism. They are all untested hypothetical
models. Untested is always cheap.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Robert J. Kolker
Acar wrote:
>
> Objectivism, Libertarianism, Anarchism. They are all untested hypothetical
> models. Untested is always cheap.
Untested? Every governmental form ever used in history has been tested
and they are all found wanting. There are no good governments nor have
there every been any. There are only bad governments and worse governments.
Bob Kolker
>
HPO JURY = Malenoid
<bobk...@attbi.com> wrote:
>Untested? Every governmental form ever used in history has been tested
>and they are all found wanting. There are no good governments nor have
>there every been any. There are only bad governments and worse governments.
A necessary evil is still necessary.
Robert J. Kolker
HPO JURY = Malenoid wrote:
>
> A necessary evil is still necessary.
And is still evil.
Bob Kolker
STU
3o3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>...
> > In other words, an empiricist.
>
> no, an objectivist who's epistemological beliefs happen to be in accord with
> certain aspects of Empiricism.
> I agree with some of the 10 commandements, but that doesnt make me a
> Christian.
objectivism is a myth ... it doesn't exist - it's a concept that leads
to circular thought patterns that don't achieve anything.
Everything that you evaluate as a person is subject to your own
experience, reasoning/logic, intelligence etc.
So any conclusions that are drawn are interpolated and extrapolated
from what you *know* already. But how do you *know* what you know is
right, well it needs to be measured against something!
Otherwise every conclusion you draw from then on will be at least
based on the wrong premise and at worst wrong ... you'll never know.
question is:- how do we measure the ruler.
How can we tell if the ruler is straight ... we can't!
You just have to start somewhere and call something something.
i.e. "this is straight"
We can define truth within a set of givens.
i.e. "if this is a straight ruler -> then a,b and c are straight but d
isn't!"
objectivists think they *are* the ruler!
empiricists think they *have* the ruler!
neither can be true, because there is no way of measuring those
claims!
- which means there must be a higher authority for truth than
ourselves.
... or there is no truth.
We cannot authenticate our own belief based upon our own evaluation of
it.
Another human cannont authenticate your belief based on their
evaluation of it.
Both are subjective appraisals.
There are those who would argue that if many people come independently
to the same conclusion then that is bound to be right:-
but firstly there is no such thing as independence when we are taught
the same way, live on the same planet and share similar experiences
with other human beings.
secondly just because there are more people saying something - doesn't
make it right, just more likely.
More people believed the world was flat than spherical at the time of
Gallileo.
People thought classical physics could describe everything that
happened in the Universe at every scale - until we discovered it
didn't - and we had to write quantum physical laws that govern the
unusual behaviour of things on a quantum scale. Now who's to say
either of those two fields still holds true for the whole field -
because we can't say we won't find another effect that will re-write
the laws.
In fact we could discover occurances that nullify the laws we already
hold as true altogether - maybe relativity will be shown to fall down
in certain circumstances, therefore it doesn't hold at all - or maybe
we'll be looking at it the wrong way - or drawing the wrong
conclusions from our experiments.
Can you see - there's no real way of knowing empirically and
especially objectively if something is a *true* law or not.
BTW agreeing with the 10 commandments don't make you Christian either.
The terms New Testament and Old Testament mean exactly that!
The Old agreement was to do with access to God through laws, rituals,
killing sheep and burning pigeons etc.
The New agreement is to do with access to God through Jesus because
the old one has been replaced, christians believe that God has
revealed Jesus to them as the only way to Him and believing in Him
(following Him) is the only way to eternal life (heaven and stuff) and
relationship with God.
Christians believe God is the ruler and He reveals Himself as such to
those who ask. We then have a measure for our belief system.
STU
Ken Gardner
<Male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>But I am interested in what Rand disagreed about with Empiricism in
>particular. Where can I find these quotes? And I don't mean her
>disagreements with certain empiricists, I want to know where Rand
>criticized Empiricism itself.
Right now I don't have immediate access to her comments on the
subject, but my recollection is that the real target of her criticism
was not so much empiricism (or at least the observation and logical
inference part of it) but (1) the extreme empiricism of David Hume and
(2) the nominalists who in her view didn't have a good theory for
conceptualizing their observations.
Ken
Robert J. Kolker
Ken Gardner wrote:
> Right now I don't have immediate access to her comments on the
> subject, but my recollection is that the real target of her criticism
> was not so much empiricism (or at least the observation and logical
> inference part of it) but (1) the extreme empiricism of David Hume and
> (2) the nominalists who in her view didn't have a good theory for
> conceptualizing their observations.
They did not need one. Hume's mission was deconstruction, not system
building. Hume was out to slay the dragon of metaphysics. He did so very
nicely.
Bob Kolker
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:19 AM
Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
>
>
I still say untested. It's people that are found wanting by other people who
are
ourseves "wanting".
.
.
.
.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
<kesga...@charter.net> wrote:
>Right now I don't have immediate access to her comments on the
>subject, but my recollection is that the real target of her criticism
>was not so much empiricism (or at least the observation and logical
>inference part of it) but (1) the extreme empiricism of David Hume and
>(2) the nominalists who in her view didn't have a good theory for
>conceptualizing their observations.
That's what I suspected. I don't recall reading anything Randian
against Empiricism in particular. The relatively recent criticisms
against empiricism may have originated with Peikoff, do you suppose?
HPO JURY = Malenoid
>And is still evil.
Oh well, you can't expect to have everything in this world. Assuming
you would like to eradicate evil.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
The pure forms of society, totalitalitarian and anarchical, have never
been tested because they are impossible to establish.
Ken Gardner
<Male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Right now I don't have immediate access to her comments on the
>>subject, but my recollection is that the real target of her criticism
>>was not so much empiricism (or at least the observation and logical
>>inference part of it) but (1) the extreme empiricism of David Hume and
>>(2) the nominalists who in her view didn't have a good theory for
>>conceptualizing their observations.
>That's what I suspected. I don't recall reading anything Randian
>against Empiricism in particular. The relatively recent criticisms
>against empiricism may have originated with Peikoff, do you suppose?
I don't know where it is coming from. As far as I know, there is no
difference between Rand and Peikoff on this point.
Ken
HPO JURY = Malenoid
I found a cite. It comes through Sciabarra which I quoted at the
beginning of this thread. Fortunately I have the same edition of ITOE
he cited. 1990, p. 76: According to Sciabarra (Total Freedom, 157),
"Rand once criticized the empiricists as 'anti-conceptualists' who
were unable to venture further than their own concrete-bound obsession
with the collection of discrete bits of data."
But notice that Sciabarra does not quote Rand in full as stating
anything about empiricists. Interesting. So I will provide a fuller
quote, although I'm not going to take it too far. It is enough to
state that there is never one mention of "empiricism" in this part of
ITOE, nor in the book itself as far as I know.
Here's the fuller quote (from chap. 8, Consciousness and Identity):
"Above the first-level abstractions of perceptual concretes, most
people hold concepts as loose approximations, without firm
definitions, clear meanings or specific referents; and the greater a
concept's distance from the perceptual level, the vaguer the content.
Starting from the mental habit of learning words without grasping
their meanings, people find it impossible to grasp higher
abstractions, and their conceptual development consists of condensing
fog into fog into thicker fog -- until the hierarchical structure of
concepts breaks down in their minds, losing all ties to reality; and,
as they lose the capacity to understand, their education becomes a
process of memorizing and imitating. This process is encouraged and,
at times, demanded by many modern teachers who purvey snatches of
random, out-of-context information in undefined, unintelligible,
contradictory terms." etc. etc. On the next page, she targets
Linguistic Analysis as some kind of vicious exponent of the
anti-conceptual mentality.
NOWHERE DOES RAND TARGET EMPIRICISM.
I checked the glossary of ITOE, I checked the Ayn Rand Lexicon. Not a
single mention of empiricism. Nowhere does Rand attack empiricism in
the literature. So all Sciabarra can do is use a bit of rhetorical
sleight-of-hand to give Rand the appearance of attacking empiricism.
But that is only his interpretation after all.
This still leaves open the question of where the attacking began in
the first place.
Acar
Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:13 PM
Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
> On Wed, 9 Jul 2003 21:59:43 +0000 (UTC), Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "Robert J. Kolker" <bobk...@attbi.com>
> >Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:19 AM
> >Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
>
> >I still say untested. It's people that are found wanting by other people
who
> >are ourseves "wanting".
>
> The pure forms of society, totalitalitarian and anarchical, have never
> been tested because they are impossible to establish.
The Objectivist formula has not been tested. Galt's Gulch belongs in the
same category of Utopia.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
I don't suppose minarchism is in the category of the untestable
hypothesis.
Ralph Hertle
[ text omitted ]
>
> NOWHERE DOES RAND TARGET EMPIRICISM.
>
> I checked the glossary of ITOE, I checked the Ayn Rand Lexicon. Not a
> single mention of empiricism. Nowhere does Rand attack empiricism in
> the literature. So all Sciabarra can do is use a bit of rhetorical
> sleight-of-hand to give Rand the appearance of attacking empiricism.
> But that is only his interpretation after all.
Dr. Leonard Peikoff devotes several lectures to the discussion of
Empiricism, the ideas that led to it, and to Pragmatism which is based
in Empiricism, in his course on the History of Western Philosophy. A
good pre-requisite is his course on the History of Ancient philosophy
where many of the basic concepts of philosophy are discussed. These are
excellent courses, and you may want to check with ARI on the
availability of the live or taped lecture series.
Ralph Hertle
HPO JURY = Malenoid
So THAT'S where the lie came from.
.
.
.
.
.
Arnold
"Spartacus" <DORIAN...@TEMPLE-GYM.com> wrote in message
news:RtMOa.45760$3o3.3...@bgtnsc05-news.ops.worldnet.att
>
> btw, Violent Femmes suck.
>
Well why didn't _he_ say that about them? At least that
makes sense.
--
Arnold
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:49 AM
Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 03:36:13 +0000 (UTC), Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
>
>
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
> >Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> >Sent: Wednesday, July 09, 2003 8:13 PM
> >Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
>
> >> The pure forms of society, totalitalitarian and anarchical, have never
> >> been tested because they are impossible to establish.
> >
> >The Objectivist formula has not been tested. Galt's Gulch belongs in the
> >same category of Utopia.
>
> I don't suppose minarchism is in the category of the untestable
> hypothesis.
Neither the Objectivist nor the Libertarian concepts have been tested. They
are, in descending order of charity -- hypotheses, dreams, whims.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Ken Gardner
<Male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>NOWHERE DOES RAND TARGET EMPIRICISM.
Frankly, I'm not surprised. Your post, much of which I omitted for
brevity, illustrates why one should always be aware of people who
paraphrase others rather than directly quote them. :)
>I checked the glossary of ITOE, I checked the Ayn Rand Lexicon. Not a
>single mention of empiricism. Nowhere does Rand attack empiricism in
>the literature. So all Sciabarra can do is use a bit of rhetorical
>sleight-of-hand to give Rand the appearance of attacking empiricism.
>But that is only his interpretation after all.
I don't have access to the Lexicon right now, but did you look at an
entry entitled something like "Rationalism versus Empiricism?" You
might want to check this entry (or simply the entry for rationalism)
and see if there is anything about Empiricism. But even if there is,
I suspect that any criticism will be along the lines of the Rand quote
you mentioned, i.e. more an attack on extreme skeptics like David Hume
than on empiricism generally.
>This still leaves open the question of where the attacking began in
>the first place.
I'm not sure myself.
Ken
HPO JURY = Malenoid
The Rationalism vs. Empiricism entry in the Lexicon was it.
The entry is actually quite interesting to analyze. Here Rand is
claiming that there is an ultimate distinction running as a thread
through philosophical history. This distinction lies in the
relationship between mind and reality, and the apparent necessity of
choosing one or the other as a source of knowledge. She declared that
the empiricist camp "claimed that man obtains his knowledge from
experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate
facts, with no recourse to concepts." These are the philosophers who,
she claimed, abandoned the mind.
It is interesting to analyze because it makes no sense. The source of
Rand's concepts is indeed external reality, immediate facts. It's not
that there isn't an activity present however. And perhaps that is
Rand's claim, that for the empricists there is only mental passivity,
which in my Kantian terms would be a passive receptivity for knowledge
through direct awareness. Which would be to say that man possesses
only a faculty of sensibility (perception) but not one of conceptual
understanding.
For Rand on the other hand there is a mental activity, a "chewing
over" of facts, either implicitly or explicitly, from which knowledge
of reality is obtained.
The rationalists, on the other hand, would be represented as mentally
active, but only chewing over some kind of innately-held concepts
without regard to reality.
The trouble is, Rand doesn't make this point in this fashion. She only
states at the beginning of ITOE that consciousness is an activity. It
is left up to the reader to figure out that her drivel on this topic
is not even stated in ITOE, but in For the New Intellectual.
Another problem is, Rand does not name any philosophers or
philosophies in particular which are guilty of this theory of mental
passivity as a means to knowledge. I believe there is some idea that
receptivity opens up the mind to God's wisdom and grace. But not that
receptivity is the pathway to knowledge of the empirical.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
>> btw, Violent Femmes suck.
I like a grand total of two of their entire repertoire of songs, that
I've heard anyway.
Does it matter? It's just a sig. sheesh.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
>Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:49 AM
>Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
>
>
>> I don't suppose minarchism is in the category of the untestable
>> hypothesis.
>
>Neither the Objectivist nor the Libertarian concepts have been tested. They
>are, in descending order of charity -- hypotheses, dreams, whims.
There's a difference between the untested and the untestable.
Ken Gardner
<Male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>The trouble is, Rand doesn't make this point in this fashion. She only
>states at the beginning of ITOE that consciousness is an activity. It
>is left up to the reader to figure out that her drivel on this topic
>is not even stated in ITOE, but in For the New Intellectual.
For the most part, ITOE was not intended to be polemical, although the
title essay in For the New Intellectual certainly was.
>Another problem is, Rand does not name any philosophers or
>philosophies in particular which are guilty of this theory of mental
>passivity as a means to knowledge.
My guesses are Plato and Hume, probably in that order.
>I believe there is some idea that
>receptivity opens up the mind to God's wisdom and grace.
That would be Plato.
>But not that receptivity is the pathway to knowledge of the empirical.
Maybe Hume.
Ken
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:21 PM
Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 20:08:20 +0000 (UTC), Ken Gardner
> <kesga...@charter.net> wrote:
>
> >On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 01:01:32 +0000 (UTC), HPO JURY = Malenoid
> ><Male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> The entry is actually quite interesting to analyze. Here Rand is
> claiming that there is an ultimate distinction running as a thread
> through philosophical history. This distinction lies in the
> relationship between mind and reality, and the apparent necessity of
> choosing one or the other as a source of knowledge. She declared that
> the empiricist camp "claimed that man obtains his knowledge from
> experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate
> facts, with no recourse to concepts." These are the philosophers who,
> she claimed, abandoned the mind.
Reading this out of context it suggests to me that the phrase "with no
recourse to concepts" (which is ludicrous as written) is really intended to
mean "with no recourse to proper concepts". If so it means that according to
Rand a rational person conceptualizes his perceptions correctly (IOW as
Objectivist do), as opposed to the "empiricist camp".
.
.
.
.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:26 PM
Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:57:27 +0000 (UTC), Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
> >Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:49 AM
> >Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
> >
> >
>
> >> I don't suppose minarchism is in the category of the untestable
> >> hypothesis.
> >
> >Neither the Objectivist nor the Libertarian concepts have been tested.
They
> >are, in descending order of charity -- hypotheses, dreams, whims.
>
> There's a difference between the untested and the untestable.
I agree. But...
I said "untested", Kolker asked "untested?" and I reply: "untested".
:-))
HPO JURY = Malenoid
<kesga...@charter.net> wrote:
>On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 23:21:28 +0000 (UTC), HPO JURY = Malenoid
><Male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>The trouble is, Rand doesn't make this point in this fashion. She only
>>states at the beginning of ITOE that consciousness is an activity. It
>>is left up to the reader to figure out that her drivel on this topic
>>is not even stated in ITOE, but in For the New Intellectual.
>For the most part, ITOE was not intended to be polemical, although the
>title essay in For the New Intellectual certainly was.
Not ITOE, unless you count all the polemics in it. When was she not
being polemical?
There is no way to make sense of the FNI material without referring
back to the ITOE in which she states that consciousness is activity.
Otherwise I don't see any difference between objectivism and
empiricism (alleged passive receptivity of knowledge). Rand can't be
excused for not being polemical enough in ITOE, considering the
endless pages of off-the-wall diatribe contained in it.
>>Another problem is, Rand does not name any philosophers or
>>philosophies in particular which are guilty of this theory of mental
>>passivity as a means to knowledge.
>My guesses are Plato and Hume, probably in that order.
>>I believe there is some idea that
>>receptivity opens up the mind to God's wisdom and grace.
>That would be Plato.
It's a Christian idea.
>>But not that receptivity is the pathway to knowledge of the empirical.
>Maybe Hume.
She might think so.
HPO JURY = Malenoid
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
>Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:26 PM
>Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
>
>
>> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:57:27 +0000 (UTC), Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >----- Original Message -----
>> >From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
>> >Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
>> >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:49 AM
>> >Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
>> There's a difference between the untested and the untestable.
>
>I agree. But...
>I said "untested", Kolker asked "untested?" and I reply: "untested".
Originally I was not referring to galt's gulch, but to the extremes.
You lumped them all together implying that they were all testable
(since they are untested).
HPO JURY = Malenoid
No, it's to be taken literally. That's why I question what she was
referring to, because it makes no sense.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 9:46 PM
Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
> On Fri, 11 Jul 2003 00:57:39 +0000 (UTC), Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >----- Original Message -----
> >From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
> >Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 7:26 PM
> >Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
> >
> >
> >> On Thu, 10 Jul 2003 18:57:27 +0000 (UTC), Acar <g...@d-g-s.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >----- Original Message -----
> >> >From: "HPO JURY = Malenoid" <Male...@hotmail.com>
> >> >Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
> >> >Sent: Thursday, July 10, 2003 12:49 AM
> >> >Subject: Re: "Empiricism," or: The art of smearing
>
> >> There's a difference between the untested and the untestable.
> >
> >I agree. But...
> >I said "untested", Kolker asked "untested?" and I reply: "untested".
>
> Originally I was not referring to galt's gulch, but to the extremes.
> You lumped them all together implying that they were all testable
> (since they are untested).
Not that it matters but I never said anything about untestable, for or
against. The difference between untested and untestable is one that even
Fred _may_ know.
.
.
.
.
..
.
.
..
Ken Gardner
<Male...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>There is no way to make sense of the FNI material without referring
>back to the ITOE in which she states that consciousness is activity.
>Otherwise I don't see any difference between objectivism and
>empiricism (alleged passive receptivity of knowledge). Rand can't be
>excused for not being polemical enough in ITOE, considering the
>endless pages of off-the-wall diatribe contained in it.
The problem here is that she wrote FNI about six years prior to
writing ITOE. To be sure, her view that consciousness is an active
process was already clear in FNI.
>>That would be Plato.
>It's a Christian idea.
Yes, but I think the Christians got it from Plato (I'm thinking
specifically of the Meno, which is probably the only thing Plato ever
wrote that I have actually read).
[...]
Ken