FYI (Ayn Rand topic)

[Ray Martinez]

I urge everyone to read this book:

"Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand

https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC

From the Google Books caption:

"Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."

Ray (Objectivist)

[*Hemidactylus*]

Here is the most serious review of an Ayn Rand book I could find:

https://youtu.be/_j56IiLqZ9U

[Richard Clayton]

I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an
entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from
Ayn Rand's hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual egoism, through the mania
for deregulation in the 1990s, and right to the 2007-2008 economic
crisis and the Great Recession.

https://smile.amazon.com/Age-Selfishness-Morality-Financial-Crisis/dp/1419715984/

--
[The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
Richard Clayton
"I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling

[Ray Martinez]

I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Note what the caption above says, which directly implies opposing scholars (all of whom, undoubtedly, accept, defend, and promote evolution) reject objective logic, and existence of concepts. This explains WHY Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins don't know what a concept is? and think if evolution is illogical the same doesn't affect existence----when in fact illogical means doesn't exist, cannot exist.

Evolutionists: If concepts don't exist why then does science accept the Biological Species Concept (BSC)?

Ray

[raven1]

You do know that Rand was not just an atheist, but an anti-theist,
don't you? That would cause you to automatically reject any argument
from anyone else: why does Rand not only get a pass, but get used as a
source?

[raven1]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
<pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 4:49:55 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> I urge everyone to read this book:
>>
>> "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
>>
>> From the Google Books caption:
>>
>> "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
>>
>> Ray (Objectivist)
>
>Note what the caption above says, which directly implies opposing scholars (all of whom, undoubtedly, accept, defend, and promote evolution)

So did Rand. You are as confused as it is possible to be.

> reject objective logic, and existence of concepts.

No atheist I know of rejects objective logic, and I know of no one who
denies that concepts exist, as concepts. Whether the things they
describe exist in the real world is another matter entirely: for
example, the concept of "cat" does have a real-world correspondence,
the concept of "leprechaun" doesn't, other than as a character in
Irish folk tales and on cereal boxes. Are you arguing for
neo-Platonism? Do you seriously think that Rand was? (Do you even
understand either question?)

>This explains WHY Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins don't know what a concept is?

I can't think of anyone here (or anywhere, really) who doesn't know
what a concept is. Can you give an example of what you mean about
evolutionists not knowing?

> and think if evolution is illogical the same doesn't affect existence

*If* my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. But she doesn't. And
there is nothing illogical about evolution, either.

>----when in fact illogical means doesn't exist, cannot exist.
>
>Evolutionists: If concepts don't exist why then does science accept the Biological Species Concept (BSC)?

You do understand that in the case of the concept of species,
existence precedes essence, don't you? Again, are you arguing for
neo-Platonism? Rand sure as hell wasn't.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:cf7a6c52-7546-49cc...@googlegroups.com...

> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
>> On 25-Mar-17 19:48, Ray Martinez wrote:
>> > I urge everyone to read this book:
>> >
>> > "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
>> >
>> > https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
>> >
>> > From the Google Books caption:
>> >
>> > "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of
>> > philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is
>> > arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes
>> > that torrent of nihilism...."
>>
>> I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an
>> entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from
>> Ayn Rand's hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual egoism, through the mania
>> for deregulation in the 1990s, and right to the 2007-2008 economic
>> crisis and the Great Recession.
>>
>> https://smile.amazon.com/Age-Selfishness-Morality-Financial-Crisis/dp/1419715984/
>>
>> --
>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
>> Richard Clayton
>> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names

>> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." - Rudyard Kipling

>
> I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the
> epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.
>
> Ray
>

I see. The reason you have not made any progress on you project of tearing
Darwin down so the ToE would collapse is that you haven't had Rand's
Objectivism epistemology book before? What epistemology have you been using
before?

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message

news:1f789e55-c1a4-4f5f...@googlegroups.com...

WTF? I have always insisted that concepts exist. Concepts are continuously
being invented, The concept of space travel is a well known and have been in
existence since long before we were able to travel in space. The concept of
space travel was very prominent in science fiction literature in the 20th
century, snd probably even before that.

"Humans have dreamed about spaceflight since antiquity. The Chinese used
rockets for ceremonial and military purposes centuries ago, but only in the
latter half of "the 20th century were rockets developed that were powerful
enough to overcome the force of gravity to reach orbital velocities that
could open space to human "exploration.
Wikipedia

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:05:27 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

Like the fact of religious believers who accept biological
science, thus refuting his perpetual assertion that only
atheists accept evolution, this is something Ray steadfastly
ignores, even though it's been pointed out several times. If
you look up "cherry picking" you'll see Ray's photo.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[raven1]

<crickets>

[Ray Martinez]

I have very many times made the argument that "Christians" who accept evolution are either traitors or deluded or both based on the objective fact that evolutionary theory uses pro-Atheism assumptions about reality to interpret evidence. These assumptions are known commonly as Naturalism or Materialism.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

I've answered many times; because her epistemology theory is true----the epistemology I use in my evolution refutation work, and because Rand was very much against Christianity, the latter fact undermines any attempt to dismiss what I argue as originating from a theistic epistemological bias.

Ray

[stevet...@gmail.com]

Mar 25Ray Martinez

I urge everyone to read this book: "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_

Mar 26*Hemidactylus*

Here is the most serious review of an Ayn Rand book I could find: https://youtu.be/_j56IiLqZ9U

Mar 27Richard Clayton

I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from Ayn Ran

Mar 27Ray Martinez
I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work. Ray
Mar 27Ray Martinez

Note what the caption above says, which directly implies opposing scholars (all of whom, undoubtedly, accept, defend, and promote evolution)

Mar 27raven1

You do know that Rand was not just an atheist, but an anti-theist, don't you? That would cause you to automatically reject any argument from

Mar 27raven1

So did Rand. You are as confused as it is possible to be.

Mar 27Rolf
"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cf7a6c52-7546-49cc...@googlegroups.com...
Mar 28Rolf
news:1f789e55-c1a4-4f5f...@googlegroups.com...
Mar 28Bob Casanova

On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:05:27 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by raven1
<quotht...@nevermore.com>:

- show quoted text -

Like the fact of religious believers who accept biological
science, thus refuting his perpetual assertion that only
atheists accept evolution, this is something Ray steadfastly
ignores, even though it's been pointed out several times. If
you look up "cherry picking" you'll see Ray's photo.
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

Mar 31raven1
- show quoted text -
<crickets>


7:39 PMRay Martinez
- show quoted text -

I have very many times made the argument that "Christians" who accept evolution are either traitors or deluded or both based on the objective fact that evolutionary theory uses pro-Atheism assumptions about reality to interpret evidence. These assumptions are known commonly as Naturalism or Materialism.

Ray

8:24 PMRay Martinez
- hide quoted text -

If her epistemology is true then how come so had no knowledge of God?

[Ray Martinez]

> If her epistemology is true then how come [she] had no knowledge of God?

Perhaps because she never researched the claims of Christianity from a scientific and historical perspective? Knowledge of God is, to use a legal concept, "constructive knowledge," meaning one could have known/should have known. After all "Theism" is defined as a revelatory concept in the Bible.

Ray

[raven1]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 12:22:07 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

You wouldn't be a theist if you both understood it and thought it
true. I'm guessing your problem is with the former part.

>----the epistemology I use in my evolution refutation work, and
>because Rand was very much against Christianity,

Rand was very much against theism, period, and would be astonished at
the idea that someone was confused enough to use her work to defend
it. Are you suggesting that she didn't understand the implications of
her own epistomology? Because it's much more likely that the
misunderstanding is on your part, rather than hers, particularly given
your own tendency to misunderstand pretty much everything you discuss.

> the latter fact
>undermines any attempt to dismiss what I argue as originating
>from a theistic epistemological bias.

If you can mount an Randian argument against evolution, I'd pay to see
it. But I have as little confidence that you understand anything Rand
had to say as I have that you understand anything you have to say.

[raven1]

On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:36:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

I feel like my head is about to explode after reading this. Do you
seriously not understand that Rand was epistomologically both a
Naturalist and Materialist?

[Ernest Major]

But doesn't Objectivist epistemology reject revelation as a source of
knowledge?
>
> Ray
>
>


--
alias Ernest Major

[Ray Martinez]

All of your replies betray the fact that you haven't the foggiest idea of what Rand's epistemology theory is or entails. In short: It says concepts exist, and that one can be certain. That's it. Where Rand and I part ways concerns concepts that support Atheism and Theism. That's it. So she rejects the concept of design existing in nature, and I accept. That's basically it. Other than what I just said I accept her theory in its entirety, which means I accept concepts as existing, and one can know they exist with certainty.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Objectivism epistemology simply says, concerning any concept offered as supporting Theism, that no material referent exists, so the concept is false. But that's not to say every concept, only the vast majority, especially the concept of design.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:54:55 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:

I feel compelled to explain further. I think you don't understand the fact that Rand's epistemology theory known as Objectivism was not constructed and offered for the purpose of supporting Atheism and refuting Theism but like I said: The main purpose or goal or reason for being was to say concepts exist and one can know they exist with certainty. Supporting her personal worldview was incidental which includes opposing theistic concepts. I believe you falsely assume Rand had a main goal of supporting Atheism, refuting Theism, and that isn't true, these issues were incidental.

Ray

[raven1]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 00:54:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

You really have no idea what you're talking about.

[stevet...@gmail.com]

Ray Martinez
- show quoted text -

))St wrote
> ))If her epistemology is true then how come [she] had no knowledge of God?

Ray replied:

Perhaps because she never researched the claims of Christianity from a scientific and historical perspective? Knowledge of God is, to use a legal concept, "constructive knowledge," meaning one could have known/should have known. After all "Theism" is defined as a revelatory concept in the Bible.

)))ST replies

))) if Theism is revalatory, which I fully accept and agree with, then why are you attempting the vain effort to prove it by reasoning? A relvelation is not acheived by reasoning, it

[Ray Martinez]

Classic example of assertion (and we all know what that means).

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

> ))) if Theism is revalatory, which I fully accept and agree with, then why are you attempting the vain effort to prove it by reasoning? A relvelation is not acheived by reasoning [....]
>

Revelation does not preclude or exclude reason or any synonym. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. Revelation simply means "to unveil." God or Theos, who dwells in the veiled domain of heaven, has revealed Himself to mankind in the form of a person who can be known----hence Theism.

Ray

[stevet...@gmail.com]

10:04 PMRay Martinez

- show quoted text -

> ))) if Theism is revalatory, which I fully accept and agree with, then why are you attempting the vain effort to prove it by reasoning? A relvelation is not acheived by reasoning [....]
>

Revelation does not preclude or exclude reason or any synonym. These concepts are not mutually exclusive. Revelation simply means "to unveil." God or Theos, who dwells in the veiled domain of heaven, has revealed Himself to mankind in the form of a person who can be known----hence Theism.

Ray

)))st
))) I did not say it precludes reasoning, I said it is not reached by reasoning, so you reasoning can never prove or show or give or convince anyone of Theism, only God can do that by revealing Hisself to them

[Ray Martinez]

> ))) I did not say it precludes reasoning, I said it is not reached by reasoning, so you reasoning can never prove or show or give or convince anyone of Theism, only God can do that by revealing [Himself] to them.
>

You are quite correct. Initiative belongs to God alone, however. There are two revelations: a general revelation, and a special revelation. The latter is Jesus the Christ; the former is the natural world and its design. One does in fact need a personal conversion experience to get started with Christ. But the same is not true concerning the general revelation. It's available to everyone as seen in the fact that many non-Biblical religions accept the design of the natural world, as did non-religious Enlightenment Deism.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Tips for standard posting from Google Groups:

* Sign in.

* Traverse to the list of topics page.

(the above can be reversed, doesn't matter)

* Reply FROM the "Reply Box" that appears when you click on the left pointing arrow which is located next to the time stamp in the upper right hand corner of the message you wish to type a reply.

* Place the cursor under text that is marked by this symbol >

(then hit enter to create spacing; then start typing your reply)

* Text marked by one symbol ">" is text your correspondent wrote in the message you are attempting to create a reply.

* Do not place cursor under text marked by multiple symbols > >....

* Do not create your own symbols, wholly unnecessary.

Ray

[stevet...@gmail.com]

Apr 5Ray Martinez

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 2:24:54 PM UTC-7, stevet...@gmail.com wrote:
- show quoted text -

Tips for standard posting from Google Groups:

* Sign in.

* Traverse to the list of topics page.

(the above can be reversed, doesn't matter)

* Reply FROM the "Reply Box" that appears when you click on the left pointing arrow which is located next to the time stamp in the upper right hand corner of the message you wish to type a reply.

* Place the cursor under text that is marked by this symbol >

(then hit enter to create spacing; then start typing your reply)

* Text marked by one symbol ">" is text your correspondent wrote in the message you are attempting to create a reply.

* Do not place cursor under text marked by multiple symbols > >....

* Do not create your own symbols, wholly unnecessary.

Ray

) st replies
) Thanks for the advice Ray, but the whole point is that none of that works on a Ipad, which I am using!

[raven1]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 00:41:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

That nonsensical jumble is what you took away from Rand? You're
insane.

[raven1]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 01:49:31 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

Rand turns over in her grave that you managed to misread her so
completely. I'd turn over in my grave that you managed to misread me
so completely if I were dead, and such a thing were possible.

[Ray Martinez]

Didn't know that! In view of the fact then I think you're doing a great job posting under the circumstances.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You repeat your basic sentiment for the third time while failing completely to show that you have any knowledge about Objectivism. You're lucky I responded.

Ray

[jillery]

Yes, he should be grateful that you lower yourself to share your
wisdom with the unwashed masses. In fact, all should bow in your
direction and sing praises to you five times a day.
--
This space is intentionally not blank.

[stevet...@gmail.com]

Apr 5Ray Martinez

- show quoted text -

> ))) I did not say it precludes reasoning, I said it is not reached by reasoning, so you reasoning can never prove or show or give or convince anyone of Theism, only God can do that by revealing [Himself] to them.
>

You are quite correct. Initiative belongs to God alone, however. There are two revelations: a general revelation, and a special revelation. The latter is Jesus the Christ; the former is the natural world and its design. One does in fact need a personal conversion experience to get started with Christ. But the same is not true concerning the general revelation. It's available to everyone as seen in the fact that many non-Biblical religions accept the design of the natural world, as did non-religious Enlightenment Deism.

Ray

) St replies
) You are lucky that God provides you with an answer to everything

[Ray Martinez]

Yes, we are lucky that God answers us, but He doesn't answer everything. Mystery drives the theological programme as it does the scientific programme.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Nope, Raven is lucky in the sense that I replied to his repeated ignorance of Objectivism. Three times Raven acted as if he had knowledge of Objectivism when in fact he has ZERO knowledge of Objectivism.

Rand didn't formulate an epistemology theory to support Atheism, as Raven ignorantly assumes; rather, she formulated to attack the position of the status quo that says nothing can be known with certainty. Supporting Atheism was incidental or an auxiliary matter. Raven refuses to believe that.

Anyone can fact check and confirm what I'm saying, it's Objectivism 101.

Ray

[raven1]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

My "basic sentiment", as you phrase it, is that a college kid tripping
on LSD would be more likely to give a coherent statement about Rand's
epistemology than you have produced thus far. You don't even sound
like you understand what it is *you're* trying to say, much less what
Rand had to say.

> You're lucky I responded.

Your sense of self-importance is duly laughed at.

[*Hemidactylus*]

The acid tripper might have a difficult time with "existence exists" given,
you know, their state of mind, but compared to Ray's oddball circus
sideshow co-option of her into his bizarro world the hallucinating cid-head
would have more of a chance with the material.

>
> You don't even sound
> like you understand what it is *you're* trying to say, much less what
> Rand had to say.
>

I'm wondering how he emulsifies the oil and water of Rand and Paley. Or has
he ventured that far into the funhouse mirror maze?

>
>> You're lucky I responded.
>
> Your sense of self-importance is duly laughed at.
>

They laughed at Bozo the Clown.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 8:59:54 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
>> On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 20:22:07 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
>> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You're lucky I responded.
>>>
>>> Ray
>>
>>
>> Yes, he should be grateful that you lower yourself to share your
>> wisdom with the unwashed masses. In fact, all should bow in your
>> direction and sing praises to you five times a day.
>> --
>> This space is intentionally not blank.
>
> Nope, Raven is lucky in the sense that I replied to his repeated
> ignorance of Objectivism. Three times Raven acted as if he had knowledge
> of Objectivism when in fact he has ZERO knowledge of Objectivism.
>

You act as if knowledge of Randroid Objectivism is a good thing. It's a
claptrap and breeding ground for ideologues. From the standpoint of
rational ignorance there is no net gain to be had. There is an immense
opportunity cost in not pursuing other intellectual endeavors bearing more
fruit. Plus it takes sometime to brainbleach that pretentious narcissistic
garbage out of your brain. Anyone who feigns a following of Jesus would
have no truck with Rand. Jesus was an altruist and scriptural readings
repudiate Objectivist epistemology on its face. How do you square
Objectivist epistemology with Hebrews 11:1 and 2 Corinthians 5:7?

>
> Rand didn't formulate an epistemology theory to support Atheism, as Raven
> ignorantly assumes; rather, she formulated to attack the position of the
> status quo that says nothing can be known with certainty.
>

Math problems can be known with certainty. Your misplaced certitude in
immutabilism is your intellectual downfall. Certainty is the altar of the
dogmatist.

>
> Supporting Atheism was incidental or an auxiliary matter. Raven refuses to believe that.
>

Rand was an atheist. Your misuse of her work to buttress theism is
laughable. Your ability for unintended comedy is legendary.

>
> Anyone can fact check and confirm what I'm saying, it's Objectivism 101.
>

Was Sermon on the Mount or the bible verses I referenced above Objectivism
101? Rand was known for the dollar sign and gold standard, not the cross.
Your support for her or Trump will surely disqualify you from heaven. You
are wolf in sheep's clothing allied with the Great Deceiver himself. Hope
you enjoy fire and brimstone bub.

[jillery]

On Thu, 6 Apr 2017 14:16:18 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

It's hard to fact check something that you define ad hoc.

[Ernest Major]

As a practical matter the more important topic in epistemology is how we
acquire knowledge, not whether this not is certain. A claim that
certainty is possible is irrelevant to whether objectivist epistemology
supports your claims about science.

That concepts exist is not exactly a radical idea. Concepts exist. But
contrary to your repeated confusion the name is not the thing, the map
is not the territory. That a concept exists does not mean that a
instance of the thing represented by the concept does - if you think Ayn
Rand advocated otherwise please provide a citation. Nor does the fact
that an instance does not exist mean that the concept does not exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Epistemology:_reason

https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/what-is-objectivism/objectivism-101-blog/3368-what-is-the-objectivist-theory-of-knowledge-epistemology

You might also like to explain how (your bastardisation of) objectivist
epistemology leads you to your conclusions. I can't imagine that false
dichotomies, false identities and equivocation of word meanings, ad
homimens, and presuppositionalism, which is what we see you present
here, is part of objectivist etymology.

--
alias Ernest Major

[raven1]

On Wed, 5 Apr 2017 13:53:04 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

I doubt that you do, but please, go on. It may just be the incredibly
awkward way you phrased the above that makes me think you don't
understand what you meant by it.

[Ray Martinez]

Comments plainly indicate that the author doesn't have knowledge about the basic claims of Objectivism.

Objectivism has one major assumption and three major claims:

Assumption: existence exists.

1A) Existence exists conceptually.
1B) One can be certain that concepts exist.
1C) Knowledge is acquired conceptually.

The relevance of the assumption and claims is that modern philosophical thought rejects all of the above----this is why I observed your comments to not reflect knowledge of Objectivism. Note that certainty is a 1B claim as opposed to 2---that's how central certainty is to Objectivism. IF you had done any homework on the subject you would have known this, but you didn't.

>
> That concepts exist is not exactly a radical idea. Concepts exist. But

> contrary to your repeated confusion the name is not the thing....

Very good evidence that you don't know what a concept actually is because you have been taught by the status quo that has long rejected the assumption, 1A, 1B,1C.

The name REPRESENTS the thing. Just like "Ray" represents me, the physical homo sapien variant known only as me. A noun (word) is a person, place, or thing.

> the map
> is not the territory. That a concept exists does not mean that a
> instance of the thing represented by the concept does - if you think Ayn
> Rand advocated otherwise please provide a citation. Nor does the fact
> that an instance does not exist mean that the concept does not exist.

This says Rand advocated what the status quo advocates! You are SO brainwashed you can't even imagine opposition to your deluded way of thinking.

The name or title or label REPRESENTS the thing as an identity. The word "cat" is not a cat----no one is suggesting that. We are saying the word "cat" represents, for example, your pet the material thing (word----thing). What is it that you don't understand? To be fair, I can't comprehend what you don't understand----that's how brainwashed I am by the truth of Objectivism.

>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivism_(Ayn_Rand)#Epistemology:_reason
>
> https://atlassociety.org/objectivism/atlas-university/what-is-objectivism/objectivism-101-blog/3368-what-is-the-objectivist-theory-of-knowledge-epistemology
>
> You might also like to explain how (your bastardisation of) objectivist
> epistemology leads you to your conclusions. I can't imagine that false
> dichotomies, false identities and equivocation of word meanings, ad
> homimens, and presuppositionalism, which is what we see you present
> here, is part of objectivist etymology.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

That you advocate Objectivism and believe in Biblical Truth is a
contradiction. Ayn would implore you to check your premises.

https://youtu.be/TDWKuMvpR3I

This is a twofer in that Ayn shows she is a blank slater who lacked the
knowledge to check her own premises. Saint Paul was ahead of her by far
(Romans 7:23). So were Kant (we impose our laws on reality) and Popper (our
senses are theory impregnated by evolutionary import).

She also believed in the problematic concept of free will. Given we are
shackled by our corporeal nature how does that work out exactly?

Sure we can deliberate if given time, but every deliberation involves
expenditure of energy and is produced by our personal causal nexus,
grounded in brainstuff. Show me where Rand effectively counters this move.

[James Beck]

On Sat, 25 Mar 2017 20:17:43 -0500, *Hemidactylus*
<ecph...@allspamis.invalid> wrote:

>Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> I urge everyone to read this book:
>>
>> "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
>>
>> https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
>>
>> From the Google Books caption:
>>
>> "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of
>> philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is
>> arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that
>> torrent of nihilism...."
>>

>Here is the most serious review of an Ayn Rand book I could find:
>
>https://youtu.be/_j56IiLqZ9U

The most serious problem with Rand is that permitting others to
compete in orderly markets is either inherently altruistic and/or
coercive. In real competition, I hit you over the head with a rock and
take what I want.

In other words, unlike decent philosophers who proceed from basic
epistemological principles, she vapidly assumes her conclusion. Second
or third rate, at best.

[J. J. Lodder]

But first rate in feel for the market.
Tell them what they want to hear,
and tell them it is philosophy too,

Jan

[James Beck]

That's true but Nietzsche had already done it.

[J. J. Lodder]

That's comparing a lion to a mouse,

Jan

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 4:49:55 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> I urge everyone to read this book:
>
> "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
>
> https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
>
> From the Google Books caption:
>
> "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
>

> Ray (Objectivist)

I suggest the following essay by Nathaniel Branden as an example of objectivist thinking. Menatla Health vs Mysticism and Self-sacrifice.

https://books.google.com/books?id=d1GqjIhRejMC&pg=PT33&lpg=PT33&dq=mental+health+versus+mysticism+and+self+sacrifice&source=bl&ots=cVzcBglhTa&sig=C8i6qeUuc3oMIx3YiCs_4g7lThA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjArYvp_9HTAhVDy2MKHS_GApYQ6AEIUTAG#v=onepage&q=mental%20health%20versus%20mysticism%20and%20self%20sacrifice&f=false

My other favorite book of fiction by Rand is the novella Anthem. There is a speech by the main character that makes me tearful every time I read it.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:54:54 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:

> > On 25-Mar-17 19:48, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > I urge everyone to read this book:
> > >
> > > "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
> > >
> > > https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
> > >
> > > From the Google Books caption:
> > >
> > > "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
> >

> > I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an
> > entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from
> > Ayn Rand's hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual egoism, through the mania
> > for deregulation in the 1990s, and right to the 2007-2008 economic
> > crisis and the Great Recession.
> >
> > https://smile.amazon.com/Age-Selfishness-Morality-Financial-Crisis/dp/1419715984/
> >
> > --
> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > Richard Clayton
> > "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> > are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
>
> I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.
>

> Ray

Then you are showing signs of brain damage.

I doubt that Rands Epistemology could be successfully used in an argument against a scientific fact.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 1:04:54 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 12:34:54 PM UTC-7, stevet...@gmail.com wrote:
> > Mar 25Ray Martinez

> > I urge everyone to read this book: "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_

> > Mar 26*Hemidactylus*

> > Here is the most serious review of an Ayn Rand book I could find: https://youtu.be/_j56IiLqZ9U

> > Mar 27Richard Clayton

> > I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from Ayn Ran

> > Mar 27Ray Martinez

> > I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work. Ray

> > Mar 27Ray Martinez
> > Note what the caption above says, which directly implies opposing scholars (all of whom, undoubtedly, accept, defend, and promote evolution)
> > Mar 27raven1

> > You do know that Rand was not just an atheist, but an anti-theist, don't you? That would cause you to automatically reject any argument from

> > Mar 27raven1
> > So did Rand. You are as confused as it is possible to be.
> > Mar 27Rolf
> > "Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:cf7a6c52-7546-49cc...@googlegroups.com...
> > Mar 28Rolf
> > news:1f789e55-c1a4-4f5f...@googlegroups.com...
> > Mar 28Bob Casanova

> > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:05:27 -0400, the following appeared
> > in talk.origins, posted by raven1
> > <quotht...@nevermore.com>:

> > - show quoted text -

> > Like the fact of religious believers who accept biological
> > science, thus refuting his perpetual assertion that only
> > atheists accept evolution, this is something Ray steadfastly
> > ignores, even though it's been pointed out several times. If
> > you look up "cherry picking" you'll see Ray's photo.
> > --
> >
> > Bob C.
> >
> > "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> > the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> > 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
> >
> > - Isaac Asimov
> >
> >

> > Mar 31raven1
> > - show quoted text -
> > <crickets>
> >
> >
> > 7:39 PMRay Martinez
> > - show quoted text -

> > I have very many times made the argument that "Christians" who accept evolution are either traitors or deluded or both based on the objective fact that evolutionary theory uses pro-Atheism assumptions about reality to interpret evidence. These assumptions are known commonly as Naturalism or Materialism.
> >

> > Ray
> >
> >
> >
> > 8:24 PMRay Martinez
> > - hide quoted text -

> > On Friday, March 31, 2017 at 2:14:56 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:

> > > On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:05:27 -0400, raven1
> > > <quotht...@nevermore.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:54:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

> > > ><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >>On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > >>> On 25-Mar-17 19:48, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > >>> > I urge everyone to read this book:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > From the Google Books caption:
> > > >>> >
> > > >>> > "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an
> > > >>> entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from
> > > >>> Ayn Rand's hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual egoism, through the mania
> > > >>> for deregulation in the 1990s, and right to the 2007-2008 economic
> > > >>> crisis and the Great Recession.
> > > >>>
> > > >>> https://smile.amazon.com/Age-Selfishness-Morality-Financial-Crisis/dp/1419715984/
> > > >>>
> > > >>> --
> > > >>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > > >>> Richard Clayton
> > > >>> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> > > >>> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
> > > >>
> > > >>I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.
> > > >

> > > >You do know that Rand was not just an atheist, but an anti-theist,
> > > >don't you? That would cause you to automatically reject any argument
> > > >from anyone else: why does Rand not only get a pass, but get used as a
> > > >source?
> > >

> > > <crickets>
> >
> > I've answered many times; because her epistemology theory is true----the epistemology I use in my evolution refutation work, and because Rand was very much against Christianity, the latter fact undermines any attempt to dismiss what I argue as originating from a theistic epistemological bias.
> >
> > If her epistemology is true then how come [she] had no knowledge of God?
>
> Perhaps because she never researched the claims of Christianity from a scientific and historical perspective? Knowledge of God is, to use a legal concept, "constructive knowledge," meaning one could have known/should have known. After all "Theism" is defined as a revelatory concept in the Bible.
>

> Ray

How does one get knowledge of non-existent beings?

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:54:54 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
> > On 25-Mar-17 19:48, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > I urge everyone to read this book:
> > >
> > > "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
> > >
> > > https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
> > >
> > > From the Google Books caption:
> > >
> > > "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
> >
> > I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an
> > entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from
> > Ayn Rand's hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual egoism, through the mania
> > for deregulation in the 1990s, and right to the 2007-2008 economic
> > crisis and the Great Recession.
> >
> > https://smile.amazon.com/Age-Selfishness-Morality-Financial-Crisis/dp/1419715984/
> >
> > --
> > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > Richard Clayton
> > "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> > are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
>
> I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.
>

> Ray

You do understand that evolution is a fact, right?

The Theory of anything is a collection of observations and then an explanation as to what the observations mean.

Evolution is a fact. it happens. If you want to argue that evolution doesn't happen the way Darwin and Wallace proposed, go ahead. If you are arguing that evolution does not happen then you are in serious trouble.

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2017 at 12:44:54 AM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> On Tuesday, April 4, 2017 at 3:54:55 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:

> > On Tue, 4 Apr 2017 11:36:59 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

> > <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> > >On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 10:59:54 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> > >> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:05:27 -0400, the following appeared
> > >> in talk.origins, posted by raven1
> > >> <quotht...@nevermore.com>:
> > >>

> > >> >On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:54:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez

> > >> ><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >> >
> > >> >>On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
> > >> >>> On 25-Mar-17 19:48, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > >> >>> > I urge everyone to read this book:
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > From the Google Books caption:
> > >> >>> >
> > >> >>> > "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an
> > >> >>> entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from
> > >> >>> Ayn Rand's hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual egoism, through the mania
> > >> >>> for deregulation in the 1990s, and right to the 2007-2008 economic
> > >> >>> crisis and the Great Recession.
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> https://smile.amazon.com/Age-Selfishness-Morality-Financial-Crisis/dp/1419715984/
> > >> >>>
> > >> >>> --
> > >> >>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > >> >>> Richard Clayton
> > >> >>> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> > >> >>> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
> > >> >>
> > >> >>I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.
> > >> >

> > >> >You do know that Rand was not just an atheist, but an anti-theist,
> > >> >don't you? That would cause you to automatically reject any argument
> > >> >from anyone else: why does Rand not only get a pass, but get used as a
> > >> >source?
> > >>

> > >> Like the fact of religious believers who accept biological
> > >> science, thus refuting his perpetual assertion that only
> > >> atheists accept evolution, this is something Ray steadfastly
> > >> ignores, even though it's been pointed out several times. If
> > >> you look up "cherry picking" you'll see Ray's photo.
> > >> --
> > >>
> > >> Bob C.
> > >>
> > >> "The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
> > >> the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
> > >> 'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"
> > >>
> > >> - Isaac Asimov
> > >

> > >I have very many times made the argument that "Christians" who accept evolution are either traitors or deluded or both based on the objective fact that evolutionary theory uses pro-Atheism assumptions about reality to interpret evidence. These assumptions are known commonly as Naturalism or Materialism.
> >

> > I feel like my head is about to explode after reading this. Do you
> > seriously not understand that Rand was epistomologically both a
> > Naturalist and Materialist?
>

> All of your replies betray the fact that you haven't the foggiest idea of what Rand's epistemology theory is or entails. In short: It says concepts exist, and that one can be certain. That's it. Where Rand and I part ways concerns concepts that support Atheism and Theism. That's it. So she rejects the concept of design existing in nature, and I accept. That's basically it. Other than what I just said I accept her theory in its entirety, which means I accept concepts as existing, and one can know they exist with certainty.
>
> Ray

Yes, when one has the facts. If you are arguing for design, there are no testable facts. If you are arguing for god there are no testable facts.

[Ray Martinez]

Rand's stinging indictment of the mainstream philosophical world that rejected her epistemology was essentially the same: brain damaged.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

Absurd.

Science, before the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) accepted design and independent creation of each species, past and present. Our position is that science before the rise remains correct----Darwinism was never true to begin with.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 1:24:54 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:54:54 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:
> > > On 25-Mar-17 19:48, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > I urge everyone to read this book:
> > > >
> > > > "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
> > > >
> > > > https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
> > > >
> > > > From the Google Books caption:
> > > >
> > > > "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
> > >
> > > I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an
> > > entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from
> > > Ayn Rand's hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual egoism, through the mania
> > > for deregulation in the 1990s, and right to the 2007-2008 economic
> > > crisis and the Great Recession.
> > >
> > > https://smile.amazon.com/Age-Selfishness-Morality-Financial-Crisis/dp/1419715984/
> > >
> > > --
> > > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > > Richard Clayton
> > > "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> > > are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
> >
> > I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.
> >
> > Ray
>
> You do understand that evolution is a fact, right?

Only if one accepts the assumptions of Naturalism. As Christians we reject those assumptions as delusional.

>
> The Theory of anything is a collection of observations and then an explanation as to what the observations mean.
>
> Evolution is a fact. it happens. If you want to argue that evolution doesn't happen the way Darwin and Wallace proposed, go ahead. If you are arguing that evolution does not happen then you are in serious trouble.
>

Evolution is not observed to occur, but inferred. We observe design in each species, which falsifies the inference of evolution. Rejecting the observation or appearance of design means you are in big irrevocable trouble with the Designer, the God of the Bible.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

The way I parse that is that you are saying Rand's portrayal of mainstream
philosophy resulted from brain damage? I wouldn't go that far. She was
superficial and understandably scarred by her experience with Bolshevists
in Russia before she came to America. Hence her absolutist Manichean
worldview and give no quarter (double entendre) views as pro-capitalist
propagandist.

I really think you are mixing oil and water bridging Paley with Rand.
Strangest juxtaposition ever. What would Scopes trial participant William
Jennings Bryan think of Rand? Or Greenspan's Randroid essay on gold
standard?

[raven1]

You might want to rephrase that. I do not think it means what you
think it means.

[J. J. Lodder]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Absurd.
>
> Science, before the rise of Darwinism (1859-1872) accepted design and
> independent creation of each species, past and present. Our position is
> that science before the rise remains correct----Darwinism was never true
> to begin with.

So you accept phlogiston too?

Jan

[jillery]

And perhaps witch trials, like they had in Europe until 1783.

--
I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.

Evelyn Beatrice Hall
Attributed to Voltaire

[James Beck]

On Tue, 2 May 2017 10:13:19 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Third rate, then? I'm fine with that.

[J. J. Lodder]

Third rate, and American provincialism.
Rand is almost completely ignored as a philosopher, in Europe.

Not as a literary figure though.
'The Fountainhead' has been converted into a play,
and performed with great succes in Amsterdam, (2014)

They are touring the world with it,
you can see it in Brooklyn in november,

Jan

[Ray Martinez]

Rand ignored as a third-rate philosopher?

Nobody said she enjoyed mainstream acceptance. Her epistemology was offered as refuting the mainstream position. And truth isn't decided by popularity. What made Rand a stand-out was the fact that she is an Atheist who opposed her fellow Atheists as completely deluded for accepting Idealism, Skepticism, and uncertainty. In other words she couldn't be dismissed as a pro-Bible Theist.

Ray

[*Hemidactylus*]

There's quite a bit to unpack there. Objectivism was something of a
packaged product more than a serious philosophy. It was ex cathedra as
spilled from Rand's pen. Rand was the pope on Objectivism. There is little
room for growth or independence of thought, which is ironic for a
philosophy that champions individualism. Leonard Peikoff was heir and stuck
primarily to Rand herself as ultimate arbiter after the ousting of the
Brandens. This is not a philosophy that can consider reality as it is, but
only as Ayn Rand subjectively delimited it. There are schismatics:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Kelley#Objectivism.27s_.27open.27_faction

But these are factional ramifications of a bad set of ideas, just as within
Christendom if Kelley parallels Luther.

Philosophy is about moving forward, debate, changing viewpoints under the
frame of dialectic, without going fullblown Hegel. Philosophers have
considered Berkeleyian idealism, Humean skepticism, among other things such
as whatever it was Kant was calling his views influenced by Berkeley and
Hume. Philosophy moved on. A nonbeliever named Bertrand Russell had greater
impact than Rand. Other philosophers such as Wittgenstein and Popper left
her in the dust. Even now Blackburn, Dennett, Searle, and Wilkins are more
serious academics than Rand. What of lasting significance had Rand
published on mind or consciousness?

Good philosophy acknowledges epistemic limitations. Uncertainty and
ignorance abound.

[James Beck]

On Fri, 5 May 2017 15:43:42 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

The Fountainhead is an entertaining story so that's not surprising.
Europeans have good taste.

It's Atlas Shrugged that's the real yawner, so of course, Hollywood
made a bomb of it. It's dystopian ideological fabulism.

Neither is consistent with her philosophical writing.

[*Hemidactylus*]

Nothing can eclipse Gary Cooper and Patricia Neal in _The Fountainhead_
especially not the book. Wait _The Day the Earth Stood Still_ with Patricia
Neal was a better movie. The Keanu Reeves version was a travesty. But Keanu
Reeves is plastic and emotionally blank enough to pull off the role of
Howard Roark.

[Burkhard]

*Hemidactylus* wrote:
> Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Rand ignored as a third-rate philosopher?
>>
>> Nobody said she enjoyed mainstream acceptance. Her epistemology was
>> offered as refuting the mainstream position. And truth isn't decided by
>> popularity. What made Rand a stand-out was the fact that she is an
>> Atheist who opposed her fellow Atheists as completely deluded for
>> accepting Idealism, Skepticism, and uncertainty. In other words she
>> couldn't be dismissed as a pro-Bible Theist.
>>
> There's quite a bit to unpack there. Objectivism was something of a
> packaged product more than a serious philosophy. It was ex cathedra as
> spilled from Rand's pen. Rand was the pope on Objectivism. There is little
> room for growth or independence of thought, which is ironic for a
> philosophy that champions individualism. Leonard Peikoff was heir and stuck
> primarily to Rand herself as ultimate arbiter after the ousting of the
> Brandens. This is not a philosophy that can consider reality as it is, but
> only as Ayn Rand subjectively delimited it.

That was certainly one factor. Those philosophical schools that really
have an influence very quickly attract good students who improve on the
original proposal - which can mean identifying and resolving mistakes,
expanding or limiting the reach of its claims or applying it to new
problems.

She never allowed this, and ran her group more like a religious group
where one must not add or change "the words" as revealed - maybe one
reason why some religious folks like Ray find her appealing.

But there were other reasons that have more to do with her philosophy.
The problem was that while she was undoubtedly very intelligent, the
training she had had in philosophy was third rate and limited - the only
teacher that had survived the purges first by the Czarists and then by
the communists were the ones who were so irrelevant that nobody cared,
essentially third rate historians of ideas who wrote about philosophy
rather than doing it. That means she a) never got solid grounding in
the contemporary debate and b) never quite understood how philosophy is
more than a series of disconnected "great works" but a continuous
dialogue where people try to solve specific problems.

As a result, she simply wasn't aware of the lively 20th century
discussions that took place in the relevant journals and conferences. So
when she was writing on theoretical philosophy, there were much better
realist theories to chose from already there - Popper's e.g., or Putnam
(in his realist phase), J Searle, G Strawson, S. Kripke, Harre, G.E
Moore, C D Broad, Bertrand Russel (during some stages of his
intellectual development), Nicolai Hartman and with some relevance for
TO, Roy Wood Sellars - co-author of the humanist manifesto and one of
the main proponents of evolutionary epistemology.

Not only were there much better, highly influential and fully developed
realist theories around in abundance when she started to write on this
topic, unlike her these theorists understood the strength of the
non-realist position and engaged with the latest and strongest versions
of this school. Rand, by contrast, is also in this respect similar to
Ray - she never gave a strong and fair account of the non-realist
positions she argued against and never really engaged with the reasons
why people adopt non-realism. Instead we get broad brush dismissals and
personal attacks. That makes her work irrelevant for anyone who is
looking to real answers to the questions non-realists pose. But it is
again in a strange way very much like Ray thinks - she too thought that
if she succeeded in showing a problem in contemporary non-realist
philosophy, the default would be going back to Aristotle as the "last
uncontaminated state" - totally ignoring the centuries of discussion
since then and all the reasons and data that made people give up tat
theory. That is of course nonsense, the problems that modern realists
and non-realists discuss: incommensurabiility of theories, issues
involving translation and with that the problematic relation between
language thought and reality, accounting for theory change of even well
supported theories, underdetermination of theories, the things we now
know about the human brain and how actively it is involved in cognition
etc etc are not simply going away by ignoring them the way Rand did

Another side effect of her failure to engage with contemporary
non-realist positions is that her "solutions" ultimately fail even on
their own terms, that is they do not really lead to a realist position.
The parts of Aristotelian philosophy that she thought she was "reviving"
had long since been incorporated into mainstream philosophy, and that
includes non-realist positions. Her emphasis on "identity" and that
existence is identity? 30 years before her, W. v. O. Quine had put that
succinctly as "no entity without identity" - and Quine was of course
one of the flag bearers for non-realists. Her criticism of irrationalism
and denial of reality as a social malaise of modernity? Well, Husserl
and Heidegger had done that already - just drawing very different
conclusion from it. Her combination of volition, consciousness and
knowledge?
You find the same thing in the non-realist Wittgenstein etc.

So in short, she got ignored because a) there are much better realist
theories around which actually b) address rather than ignore the
problems and challenges posed by non-realists and c) don't like her
approach ultimately merely postulate without supports a couple of axioms
that are so weak that pretty much every position is consistent with
them, and which therefore also can be found in many non-realist theories.

She just has nothing to offer for any committed realist

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 2:24:55 PM UTC-7, raven1 wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 13:02:44 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>
> >On Saturday, March 25, 2017 at 4:49:55 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >> I urge everyone to read this book:
> >>
> >> "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
> >>
> >> https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
> >>
> >> From the Google Books caption:
> >>
> >> "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
> >>

> >> Ray (Objectivist)

> >
> >Note what the caption above says, which directly implies opposing scholars (all of whom, undoubtedly, accept, defend, and promote evolution)
>

> So did Rand. You are as confused as it is possible to be.
>

> > reject objective logic, and existence of concepts.
>
> No atheist I know of rejects objective logic, and I know of no one who
> denies that concepts exist, as concepts. Whether the things they
> describe exist in the real world is another matter entirely: for
> example, the concept of "cat" does have a real-world correspondence,
> the concept of "leprechaun" doesn't, other than as a character in
> Irish folk tales and on cereal boxes. Are you arguing for
> neo-Platonism? Do you seriously think that Rand was? (Do you even
> understand either question?)
>
> >This explains WHY Evolutionists here at Talk.Origins don't know what a concept is?
>
> I can't think of anyone here (or anywhere, really) who doesn't know
> what a concept is. Can you give an example of what you mean about
> evolutionists not knowing?
>
> > and think if evolution is illogical the same doesn't affect existence
>
> *If* my grandmother had wheels, she'd be a wagon. But she doesn't. And
> there is nothing illogical about evolution, either.
>
> >----when in fact illogical means doesn't exist, cannot exist.
> >
> >Evolutionists: If concepts don't exist why then does science accept the Biological Species Concept (BSC)?
>
> You do understand that in the case of the concept of species,
> existence precedes essence, don't you? Again, are you arguing for
> neo-Platonism? Rand sure as hell wasn't.

She was definitely an Aristotelian. She remarked once that only 10% of Aristotle's work survived proving that a little knowledge goes a long way.

[Bill]

Burkhard wrote:



>
> So in short, she got ignored because a) there are much
> better realist theories around which actually b) address
> rather than ignore the problems and challenges posed by
> non-realists and c) don't like her approach ultimately
> merely postulate without supports a couple of axioms that
> are so weak that pretty much every position is consistent
> with them, and which therefore also can be found in many
> non-realist theories.
>
> She just has nothing to offer for any committed realist

Any philosophy, school of thought or ideology is never more
than a starting point. Those who accept them as complete
have to reject other points of view ensuring a kind of
militant ignorance. It is instructive to consider the
conjectures of others but only as interesting things to
think about.

The purpose of it all is to provoke thought, not conformity.
Consider that every time a philosophy becomes entrenched
with its practitioners becoming authoritative, disaster
inevitably follows.

Bill

[Cloud Hobbit]

On Tuesday, March 28, 2017 at 10:59:54 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 17:05:27 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by raven1
> <quotht...@nevermore.com>:
>

> >On Mon, 27 Mar 2017 12:54:10 -0700 (PDT), Ray Martinez
> ><pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >>On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:

> >>> On 25-Mar-17 19:48, Ray Martinez wrote:
> >>> > I urge everyone to read this book:
> >>> >
> >>> > "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
> >>> >
> >>> > https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
> >>> >
> >>> > From the Google Books caption:
> >>> >
> >>> > "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
> >>>

> >>> I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an
> >>> entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from
> >>> Ayn Rand's hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual egoism, through the mania
> >>> for deregulation in the 1990s, and right to the 2007-2008 economic
> >>> crisis and the Great Recession.
> >>>
> >>> https://smile.amazon.com/Age-Selfishness-Morality-Financial-Crisis/dp/1419715984/
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>> [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> >>> Richard Clayton
> >>> "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> >>> are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
> >>

> >>I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.
> >
> >You do know that Rand was not just an atheist, but an anti-theist,
> >don't you? That would cause you to automatically reject any argument
> >from anyone else: why does Rand not only get a pass, but get used as a
> >source?
>
> Like the fact of religious believers who accept biological
> science, thus refuting his perpetual assertion that only
> atheists accept evolution, this is something Ray steadfastly
> ignores, even though it's been pointed out several times. If
> you look up "cherry picking" you'll see Ray's photo.
> --

It's not just some religious believers who believe in Evolution, it's most of them with the exception of Evangelicals, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Mormons according to Pew Research.

98% of scientists connected to the American Association for the Advancement of Science say they believe humans evolved over time.

[Ernest Major]

Ray, Cloud Hobbit appears to be an Objectivist. This means that if your
position really follows Objectivist epistemology you can present your
position to him without disagreements on epistemology getting in the
way. (In other words he's a potential convert.)

And Cloud Hobbit can explain to you why you're not following Objectivist
epistemology.

--
alias Ernest Major

[Burkhard]

Depends on what you mean with "successfully" I guess. Her epistemology
is indeed incompatible with quite a number of scientific facts, that's
one of the problems with it.

In particular it is incompatible with quite a lot of 20th century
cognitive and neuroscience which all emphasize the active role of the
brain in observation and concept formation. She has an extremely crude
"tabula rasa" concept of perception where the external world simply
forces itself on a merely passive observer.

She tries to deal with that through an unsuccessful reductio ad absurdum
- trying to argue that these scientists undermine their own position if
they leave room for persistent optical illusions and the other
manifestations of our brain censoring, editing and manipulating
observational data.

Doesn't work for lots of reasons, but it is a position she argued for.

[Ernest Major]

Perhaps irrelevant, but interesting - I recently saw a report that some
optical illusions are learned. Hunter-gatherers have been found not to
suffer from some illusions perceived by people who live in buildings.

>
> Doesn't work for lots of reasons, but it is a position she argued for.
>

--
alias Ernest Major

[James Beck]

"Plastic" would be high praise for an actor. Maybe "wooden" is the
word you're looking for.

Gary Cooper makes Howard Roark too likeable.

[Ernest Major]

On 07/05/2017 15:02, Ernest Major wrote:
>
> Perhaps irrelevant, but interesting - I recently saw a report that some
> optical illusions are learned. Hunter-gatherers have been found not to
> suffer from some illusions perceived by people who live in buildings.

Link -
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20170306-the-astonishing-focus-of-namibias-nomads


--
alias Ernest Major

[J. J. Lodder]

Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Rand ignored as a third-rate philosopher?

Of course. Objectivism is seen as yet another crazy American sect,
like scientology for example.
(by coincidence also founded by a mediocre author)

> Nobody said she enjoyed mainstream acceptance. Her epistemology was
> offered as refuting the mainstream position. And truth isn't decided by
> popularity. What made Rand a stand-out was the fact that she is an Atheist
> who opposed her fellow Atheists as completely deluded for accepting
> Idealism, Skepticism, and uncertainty. In other words she couldn't be
> dismissed as a pro-Bible Theist.

Your American provincialism is coming through again.

Jan

[jillery]

Of course, American provincialism is an European import.

[Ray Martinez]

Non-sequitur

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

On Tuesday, May 2, 2017 at 1:14:56 PM UTC-7, Cloud Hobbit wrote:
> On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:54:54 PM UTC-7, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > On Monday, March 27, 2017 at 12:09:55 PM UTC-7, Richard Clayton wrote:

> > > On 25-Mar-17 19:48, Ray Martinez wrote:
> > > > I urge everyone to read this book:
> > > >
> > > > "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology" by Ayn Rand
> > > >
> > > > https://books.google.com/books/about/Introduction_to_Objectivist_Epistemology.html?id=VttF6CuC-cQC
> > > >
> > > > From the Google Books caption:
> > > >
> > > > "Today man's mind is under attack by all the leading schools of philosophy. We are told that we cannot trust our senses, that logic is arbitrary, that concepts have no basis in reality. Ayn Rand opposes that torrent of nihilism...."
> > >

> > > I, on the other hand, would recommend Age of Selfishness, an
> > > entertaining and educational graphic novel that draws a clear line from
> > > Ayn Rand's hypocritical, pseudo-intellectual egoism, through the mania
> > > for deregulation in the 1990s, and right to the 2007-2008 economic
> > > crisis and the Great Recession.
> > >
> > > https://smile.amazon.com/Age-Selfishness-Morality-Financial-Crisis/dp/1419715984/
> > >
> > > --
> > > [The address listed is a spam trap. To reply, take off every zig.]
> > > Richard Clayton
> > > "I keep six honest serving men (they taught me all I knew); their names
> > > are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." — Rudyard Kipling
> >
> > I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.
> >
> > Ray
>
> Then you are showing signs of brain damage.
>
> I doubt that Rands Epistemology could be successfully used in an argument against a scientific fact.
>

It most certainly can. Rand was an Arch-Aristotelian, and Aristotelian logic remains the logic of Western scientific thought. See Schrödinger's cat, for example.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

We also know she bought the complete works of Aristotle; a short time later Objectivism was published.

Ray

[Ray Martinez]

You're completely out of touch with Rand's scholarship. She thoroughly considered the arguments of non-realists, Kant, Skepticism, etc. This is what makes her epistemology so convincing. When one's thinking becomes grounded in reality via Aristotle the skeptics, for example, are then instantly seen for what they are: quacks posing as respectable philosophers and logicians. The main jest of your criticism seems to be a silent implication as to Rand's intolerance of doubt and uncertainty. That's all opponents of any stripe are fighting for. Sorry, we KNOW with absolute certainty that pain and suffering exist. And I KNOW opponents accept these concepts existing with absolute certainty; seen, for example, in their arguments against the existence of God.

Ray

[J. J. Lodder]

Try 'dismissing' someone in Europe as 'a pro-Bible Theist',

It will get you a blank stare,

Jan

[J. J. Lodder]

jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, 9 May 2017 13:49:36 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
> Lodder) wrote:
>
> >Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> Rand ignored as a third-rate philosopher?
> >
> >Of course. Objectivism is seen as yet another crazy American sect,
> >like scientology for example.
> >(by coincidence also founded by a mediocre author)
> >
> >> Nobody said she enjoyed mainstream acceptance. Her epistemology was
> >> offered as refuting the mainstream position. And truth isn't decided by
> >> popularity. What made Rand a stand-out was the fact that she is an Atheist
> >> who opposed her fellow Atheists as completely deluded for accepting
> >> Idealism, Skepticism, and uncertainty. In other words she couldn't be
> >> dismissed as a pro-Bible Theist.
> >
> >Your American provincialism is coming through again.
> >
> >Jan
>
>
> Of course, American provincialism is an European import.

Do you really think Ray is an European import?
He sounds very home-grown to me,

Jan

[Burkhard]

You might not have realized this, but Kant is dead for quite some time
now. So when I said that she doesn't engage with the current debate on
realism and non-realism, he wasn't quite what I had in mind.

I gave you above some of the most influential thinkers who published
their main ideas before Rand wrote the "Introduction" - see if you find
any of them cited. Dummett wrote his highly influential "Realism" paper
in 1963 - ten years before the Introduction

And if one were to read it as an exercise in Kant analysis, sorry, then
her scholarship is equally lacking. There is no engagement with
contemporary Kant scholarship, instead she quotes some pretty random
18th and early 18th century commentators.

Some of her reading of Kant is uncharitable, but just about covered by
the text (essentially very similar to Schopenhauer on Kant, I'd say),
others are simply wrong. Kant does not say e.g. that only those actions
that are not also pleasurable or beneficial for the actor are morally
praiseworthy, rather he says that only those actions that an actor would
have done "even if" they were to pleasurable etc to him but out of a
sense of duty are - a very different proposition. Nor does he say that
reality is an illusion - rather, he discusses the difference between
illusion and appearance in several parts of his work, discussions Rand
simply ignores.

>This is what makes her epistemology so convincing. When one's thinking becomes grounded in reality via Aristotle the skeptics, for example, are then instantly seen for what they are: quacks posing as respectable philosophers and logicians. The main jest of your criticism seems to be a silent implication as to Rand's intolerance of doubt and uncertainty.

Eh, no? What gives you that idea? My main criticism was
a) there were at and before the time of her writing much better realist
theories around which she ignored/was not aware of

b) there were at and before the time of her writing much more developed
non-realist theories around which have none of the features she attacks,
but which she ignored/was not aware of, and whose main challenges she
therefore doesn't address. Which together with a) makes her irrelevant
for the contemporary debate

c) these non-realist theories all accept the elements of Aristotle that
she thought are sufficient for a realist philosophy. Quine attacked the
synthetic/analytic distinction long before her, in "Two dogmas of
empiricism", and also build his theory around the concept of identity
("no entity without identity", in "On what there is")

Yet his theory is of course one of the most influential non-realist
theories of science, proving that her solution is at the very least
insufficient to establish a consistent realist position.

(as an aside, not that it matters but given your proclivity for
poisoning the well arguments, the other main anti-realist was his
student Michael Dummett. Quine was an atheist, Dummett a Christian who
tried to revive formal proofs of God. Similarly, you get modern realists
that are theists, and those like John Searle who are atheists - the
discussion does not align with religious preferences)

>That's all opponents of any stripe are fighting for. Sorry, we KNOW with absolute certainty that pain and suffering exist.

And that you should use that example shows that you are as clueless
about the non-realist position as Rand was. One of the similarities
between you two - you are both incapable of trying to gain an informed
and correct understanding of the opposition, preferring bombastic rants
and strawmen instead.

Non-realists do not deny that pain exists, and that we can know with
absolute certainty that pain exists. At least I'm not aware of anyone
who does. The closest, possibly, would be Wittgenstein, if you read him
very carelessly. He does argue that it might be wrong to say we "know"
that we are in pain, but not because there is a possible source for
error, but quite on the contrary, that precisely because I can't
possibly be wrong about being in pain, saying " I know I'm in pain" is
meaningless. 'I'm in pain" conveys all the relevant information already.
We only add (so Wittgenstein) "I know that..." to a statement if there
are public criteria by which we can judge if the claim is right or
wrong. He is of course making an argument about word usage here, not
about the reality of pain - merely what we try to achieve if we add a "i
know that..." to a statement. You can agree or disagree with his
linguistic analysis, but this is then not a disagreement about the
reality of pain and that we are certain when in pain. (of which he is
quite explicit).

Anti-realists do not only accept we can know with certainty that we are
in pain, quite on the contrary they take this and similar statements
often as their starting point.

Because once you require for "knowledge" the same degree of certainty
that we have for pain perception, then everything else falls short.

That's why non-realists sometime collapse into solipsism ("we can only
know internal states such as pain"). Or, more commonly, they try somehow
to build knowledge of the external world from such a secure basis. Pain
experience isn't the best suited for this, because it lacks a phenomenal
object - "I'm in pain", rather than "I'm in pain about something".

So instead we find proposals for several possible bases of absolute
certainty - starting with that other bogeyman of Rand, Descartes and his
"I think therefore I am) or the observational reports in neo-positivism
such as Carnap's "Aufbau": "I'm having the experience of red in my
visual field now".

All of these are chosen precisely because they (seem to) provide
absolute certain foundations, free of all doubt. From these they then
reconstruct the rest of our knowledge - and in doing so highlight all
the other stuff, assumptions, decisions, conventions etc that are needed
to get from the internal world to the external. The more abstract and
theoretical your terms, the longer and more indirect the link to the
foundations - hence the extended discussion about the status of
theoretical terms in science.

So by bringing up pain, you are making essentially an argument that is
typical for non-realists rather than realists, well done!

[*Hemidactylus*]

The problem of phantom limbs may be relevant. If you stub you toe on the
coffee table and it hurts that is an object-object interaction. If the big
toe of your amputated leg hurts what does that indicate? No toe. No table.
Your brain is projecting a virtual reality in a sense based on what usually
is the case. Thus we are not tabula rasa reacting to outside world so much
as having the sensations of non-existent limbs created for us within
perhaps due to misfires from stump.

[Burkhard]

It is true that pain is much more complicated. To some extend, it seems
to be a learned response. There is e.g. the account of a butcher who
fell in his shop, thought he had been skewered by his meet hook and
reported agonizing pain. When it was pointed out to him that the hook
had only ripped his vest, the pain dissolved.

If you observe people coping well with pain, your own pain perception
decrease. And with little children, when they fall they sometimes check
first the faces of adults before they cry. Similarly, some pain
avoiding behavior is sometimes only on display if we feel watched, and
if it is then increased s part of therapy, the pain increases too - to
the point that medical intervention stops working.

There is a fascinating overview article here:
http://williams.medicine.wisc.edu/painpsychology.pdf

But for the philosophical point, none of this is directly relevant.
These people are still in pain (or not) and increasingly have the fmri
to prove it - that they are mistaken about the locality or the external
causes of the pain is a different issue.

[Rolf]

"Ray Martinez" <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6663abd5-6c1d-4014...@googlegroups.com...

>> > > are What and Why and When and How and Where and Who." - Rudyard

>> > > Kipling
>> >
>> > I recommended her Objectivism epistemology book because it's the
>> > epistemology I'm using in my evolution refutation work.
>> >
>> > Ray
>>
>> Then you are showing signs of brain damage.
>>
>> I doubt that Rands Epistemology could be successfully used in an argument
>> against a scientific fact.
>>
>
> It most certainly can. Rand was an Arch-Aristotelian, and Aristotelian
> logic remains the logic of Western scientific thought. See Schrödinger's
> cat, for example.
>

I didn't know Aristotle was familiar with Quantum Mechanics.

Aristotle's views on physical science profoundly shaped medieval
scholarship. Their influence extended from Late Antiquity and the Early
Middle Ages into the Renaissance, and were not replaced systematically until
the Enlightenment and theories such as classical mechanics.

(Wikipedia) Anything wrong with that?



> Ray
>

[Rolf]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message
news:1n5t43u.1altfan1ximkwhN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl...

Indeed. As far as I am concerned. I don't know what Theism is.

Rolf
> Jan
>
>

[Rolf]

"J. J. Lodder" <nos...@de-ster.demon.nl> wrote in message

news:1n5t41p.1yyu9ui19sp0fxN%nos...@de-ster.demon.nl...

He sounds very alien to me,

Rolf

> Jan
>

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 12:07:52 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.

Lodder) wrote:

>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 9 May 2017 13:49:36 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>> Lodder) wrote:
>>
>> >Ray Martinez <pyram...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Rand ignored as a third-rate philosopher?
>> >
>> >Of course. Objectivism is seen as yet another crazy American sect,
>> >like scientology for example.
>> >(by coincidence also founded by a mediocre author)
>> >
>> >> Nobody said she enjoyed mainstream acceptance. Her epistemology was
>> >> offered as refuting the mainstream position. And truth isn't decided by
>> >> popularity. What made Rand a stand-out was the fact that she is an Atheist
>> >> who opposed her fellow Atheists as completely deluded for accepting
>> >> Idealism, Skepticism, and uncertainty. In other words she couldn't be
>> >> dismissed as a pro-Bible Theist.
>> >
>> >Your American provincialism is coming through again.
>> >
>> >Jan
>>
>>
>> Of course, American provincialism is an European import.
>
>Do you really think Ray is an European import?

Of course, my expressed point is about provincialism, not Ray. But
since you asked, Ray is almost certainly derived from European
immigrants, so he qualifies.

>He sounds very home-grown to me,
>
>Jan

[jillery]

On Wed, 10 May 2017 18:24:07 +0200, "Rolf" <rolf.a...@gmail.com>
wrote:

You may not know what "pro-Bible Theist" means, you may not have heard
its use, but it's almost certain you personally know people who
qualify. I realize some would like to totally isolate Europe from the
rest of the world, but they have not yet succeeded. And my impression
is the majority of Muslim immigrants in Europe also qualify.

[Rolf]

"jillery" <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:cft7hcl4fgrvbb3du...@4ax.com...

I think maybe I got stuck on the label pro-Bible Theist.

I recently encountered one of them, he had the Bible open on his shelf and
by the context it appeared like he's reading it all the time.

It's like I would be reading Origins all the time. I read it once as a
matter of principle.

His conclusion is that end is near! Didin't we already know that, even
without the Bible?

[Ray Martinez]

If one is up on the philosophical then one would know that Kant remains a giant today in the eyes of the mainstream, and has influenced them greatly.

>
> I gave you above some of the most influential thinkers who published
> their main ideas before Rand wrote the "Introduction" - see if you find
> any of them cited. Dummett wrote his highly influential "Realism" paper
> in 1963 - ten years before the Introduction
>
> And if one were to read it as an exercise in Kant analysis, sorry, then
> her scholarship is equally lacking. There is no engagement with
> contemporary Kant scholarship, instead she quotes some pretty random
> 18th and early 18th century commentators.
>

You haven't read Rand, if you had you wouldn't have said what you said.

> Some of her reading of Kant is uncharitable, but just about covered by
> the text (essentially very similar to Schopenhauer on Kant, I'd say),
> others are simply wrong. Kant does not say e.g. that only those actions
> that are not also pleasurable or beneficial for the actor are morally
> praiseworthy, rather he says that only those actions that an actor would
> have done "even if" they were to pleasurable etc to him but out of a
> sense of duty are - a very different proposition. Nor does he say that
> reality is an illusion - rather, he discusses the difference between
> illusion and appearance in several parts of his work, discussions Rand
> simply ignores.
>
>
> >This is what makes her epistemology so convincing. When one's thinking becomes grounded in reality via Aristotle the skeptics, for example, are then instantly seen for what they are: quacks posing as respectable philosophers and logicians. The main jest of your criticism seems to be a silent implication as to Rand's intolerance of doubt and uncertainty.
>
> Eh, no? What gives you that idea? My main criticism was
> a) there were at and before the time of her writing much better realist
> theories around which she ignored/was not aware of
>
> b) there were at and before the time of her writing much more developed
> non-realist theories around which have none of the features she attacks,
> but which she ignored/was not aware of, and whose main challenges she
> therefore doesn't address. Which together with a) makes her irrelevant
> for the contemporary debate
>
> c) these non-realist theories all accept the elements of Aristotle that
> she thought are sufficient for a realist philosophy. Quine attacked the
> synthetic/analytic distinction long before her, in "Two dogmas of
> empiricism", and also build his theory around the concept of identity
> ("no entity without identity", in "On what there is")

You don't even possess 101 knowledge of Objectivism so you should not be leveling criticism.

I never separated existence of pain and suffering from certainty, which you did in your criticism, which misrepresents what I said. Moreover, if one thing is known to exist with absolute certainty then the list becomes infinite. I could have picked any thing, including air or an extinct animal species. I picked pain and suffering because it graphically shows the sheer lunacy of non-realist thinking. And when I spoke of pain and suffering I was mainly talking about external pain and suffering as experienced by others, not by myself. The fact that you saw the need to defend uncertainty in this context via the internal claim and everything else you said shows the degree of reality denial practiced by deniers of certainty. Pain is known to exist with absolute certainty, those who deny make no sense because the example is rhetorical. Like I said non-realists don't deserve any respect whatsoever. You're starstruck by reputation and credentials which renders your entire defense to be the invalid-argument-from-authority.

And deniers hypocritically invoke existence of pain and suffering to reject the existence of the biblical God. Despite their denials, which are throwaway, they are most certain, living their lives as convinced Atheists.

Ray

[Burkhard]

And nothing I say contradicts this. It still means that if you do
philosophy rather than history of philosophy (and only Hegelians think
that's the same thing) you need to engage with the contemporary
discussion, not (just) with his original exposition.

But you also confuse science and history of science, so I suppose that's
par for the course with you

>
>>
>> I gave you above some of the most influential thinkers who published
>> their main ideas before Rand wrote the "Introduction" - see if you find
>> any of them cited. Dummett wrote his highly influential "Realism" paper
>> in 1963 - ten years before the Introduction
>>
>> And if one were to read it as an exercise in Kant analysis, sorry, then
>> her scholarship is equally lacking. There is no engagement with
>> contemporary Kant scholarship, instead she quotes some pretty random
>> 18th and early 18th century commentators.
>>
>
> You haven't read Rand, if you had you wouldn't have said what you said.

Well, I read her "Introduction to Objectivist philosophy"and "Philosophy
who needs it". But I'd be the first to admit that it was some time ago
and not very carefully, it soon bored me to death.

But as you are the resident expert,it should be easy for you to prove me
wrong - just cite 5 or so references in the above works where she
engages with contemporary (at the time of her writing, of course) Kant
scholarship, say a few references to articles form the main
philosophical journals, or the most influential monographs of the time,
say Henry Allison's influential defence of Kant, or T K Seung's analysis
of his oeuvre, Dieter Henrich's bang-on point book on Objecitvity and
Identity in Kant.Or Paul Guyer's. OK the latter's influential book on
knowledge claims in Kant is arguably after the Introduction was
published, but his numerous articles that prepared that work span three
decades But I'm not fuzzy, any evidence of engagement with the
scholarly literature of the 1970s will do.

So you assert - but as usual fail to substantiate it. Maybe you can e.g.
explain how in your informed view Quine's criticism of the
synthetic/analytic distinction, which precedes Rand's by 30 years or so,
does not show, contra Rand, that realism is dependent upon that
distinction.

Eh what? I did not say that you separated pain and suffering from
certainty, quite on the contrary, I said that pain and suffering are
accepted as certain also by non-realists, and hence the worst possible
example you could come up with

> Moreover, if one thing is known to exist with absolute certainty then the list becomes infinite.

A statement that amply demonstrates your total ignorance of the
philosophical discussion.

Almost all non-realists accept that some things can be known with
certainty. All non-realists that are also foundationalists (which
includes Descartes, Kant and the empiricists) typically try to rebuild
the totality if our knowledge on these secure foundations - the
Cartesian cogito, the Kantian categories or observation reports with the
empiricists.

There is simply no way that you can get simply from one type of certain
knowledge to an infinity of equally certain knowledge, which is what all
their efforts demonstrate, or we would not have this discussion. Rand to
her credit knew this and therefore chooses another strategy to build her
theory.

> I could have picked any thing, including air or an extinct animal species. I picked pain and suffering because it graphically shows the sheer lunacy of non-realist thinking. And when I spoke of pain and suffering I was mainly talking about external pain and suffering as experienced by others, not by myself.

You might have been "thinking" about it, but you were most certainly not
"talking" about it. You simply mentioned pain, which in the
philosophical discussion on certainty always mean subjectively
experienced pain. If yo meant something else, you should have said so, I
can;t read your mind.

>The fact that you saw the need to defend uncertainty in this context via the internal claim and everything else you said shows the degree of reality denial practiced by deniers of certainty.

That sentence makes no sense. I did not defend uncertainty with the
internal claim, I pointed out the fact that non-realists generally agree
that internal pain can be known with certainty.

> Pain is known to exist with absolute certainty, those who deny make no sense because the example is rhetorical. Like I said non-realists don't deserve any respect whatsoever. You're starstruck by reputation and credentials which renders your entire defense to be the invalid-argument-from-authority.

Let's add "argument from authority" to the list of words you
misunderstand. First, no, I did not make an argument from authority,
they are of the form "X is true because an authority says so". Instead,
I mentioned authorities, because they are a relevant data for the
argument that I (and not an authority) did make: that is that Rand was
ignored because she was unaware of what the experts in the field had
been discussing, and hence did not realize that everything she said that
was correct was not only not original, but things realists and
non-realists agreed on.

To give evidence for this claim you have indeed to mention authorities,
but it does not turn it into something with the structure of an argument
from authority.

Furthermore, arguments from authority are only fallacious if the
authority cited is not in a "position to know" - otherwise it is simply
an argument from expert opinion which is perfectly valid, and used as
such e.g.in every court trial where you have expert evidence.

>
> And deniers hypocritically invoke existence of pain and suffering to reject the existence of the biblical God. Despite their denials, which are throwaway, they are most certain, living their lives as convinced Atheists.

And that again shows nicely that you don't understand what (most)
non-realists are arguing (but you share that with Rand, so it's not
entirely your fault, you just follow once again the wrong authority)

As I said, non-realists, whether theists or atheists, do not deny
existence of pain, quite on the contrary, they used historically the
utter certainty with which we can judge at least our own pain as one
argument why exactly we can't know much else.

As for pain of others, what non-realists argue is not that we can't know
that pain exists, in general. Pain and pleasure both play important
roles in the philosophy of action in Kant and Hume, e.g. Rather, that
in every specific instance,our judgement if a specific person is in pain
now might be mistaken. And most realists agree with that, at least if
they are reasonable - if not, you'd have to deny that malingering or
false criminal accusations happen, ever, or the medical evidence just
how varied pain experience and expression can be across individuals.

The next mistake you make is to infer that if something can't be known
with absolute certainty, all knowledge claims are equally valid, which
is not what most non-realists would claim, and most certainly not
Descartians, Kantians or empiricists. Rather, different claims come
with different degrees of confidence (and that too is something most
reasonable realists agree with) That is perfectly sufficient to act as
guide for our actions and rational decisions. So an atheistic
non-realist does not need to have absolute certainty that pain (in
others) exist, just that there is strong evidence for the position,
which would make it in turn equally strong evidence against the
proposition of a tri-omni deity.

That holds for epistemological non-realism, and even ore so for
ontological non-realism. Kant and modern Kantians do not argue that what
we experience is an illusion (that's just Rand's careless misreading)
let alone that the phenomenal world doesn't matter. He simply says that
to be human means to experience the world in specific ways which we
can't transcend (that would be metaphysics of the 2. order). But because
as humans, we can't but experience the world in this way, and we all do
it in the same way (which ensures objectivity of knowledge claims), this
also does not matter.

With other words, for all practical purposes, there is no real
difference between non-realists and realists, not when it comes to
evaluating which claims are more convincing than others, not when it
comes ot make rational decision on what course of action to take or what
claims to believe.

Which is exactly why most epistemologists these days embrace a form of
"quietism", arguing that all forms of non-obviously absurd realism and
non-ralism ultimately converge.








>
> Ray
>

[Ray Martinez]

You don't seem to realize or understand that Rand was attacking a handful of fundamental mainstream positions, not peripheral or obscure positions, but foundational positions, so she need not engage in the way you are saying. The mainstream has told us that nothing can be known with certainty. Rand does not have to quote any advocate of uncertainty in extenso in order to address and falsify this foundational claim of fact.

> But you also confuse science and history of science, so I suppose that's
> par for the course with you
>

Absurd to say the least. There are three main disciplines relevant in these context, philosophy or philosophy of science, logic or Empiricism, and history of science. Note the absence of science itself in this list.

>
> >>
> >> I gave you above some of the most influential thinkers who published
> >> their main ideas before Rand wrote the "Introduction" - see if you find
> >> any of them cited. Dummett wrote his highly influential "Realism" paper
> >> in 1963 - ten years before the Introduction
> >>
> >> And if one were to read it as an exercise in Kant analysis, sorry, then
> >> her scholarship is equally lacking. There is no engagement with
> >> contemporary Kant scholarship, instead she quotes some pretty random
> >> 18th and early 18th century commentators.
> >>
> >
> > You haven't read Rand, if you had you wouldn't have said what you said.
>
> Well, I read her "Introduction to Objectivist philosophy"and "Philosophy
> who needs it". But I'd be the first to admit that it was some time ago
> and not very carefully, it soon bored me to death.

So you basically admit.

>
> But as you are the resident expert,it should be easy for you to prove me
> wrong - just cite 5 or so references in the above works where she
> engages with contemporary (at the time of her writing, of course) Kant
> scholarship, say a few references to articles form the main
> philosophical journals, or the most influential monographs of the time,
> say Henry Allison's influential defence of Kant, or T K Seung's analysis
> of his oeuvre, Dieter Henrich's bang-on point book on Objecitvity and
> Identity in Kant.Or Paul Guyer's. OK the latter's influential book on
> knowledge claims in Kant is arguably after the Introduction was
> published, but his numerous articles that prepared that work span three
> decades But I'm not fuzzy, any evidence of engagement with the
> scholarly literature of the 1970s will do.
>

She does engage Kant, and I already explained, above, why your request is invalid, however. At the end of her Introduction book she includes a transcript of scholarly debate between her and several critics who ask questions about Objectivism. So the epilogue most certainly satisfies the jest of your concerns. Read the book.

If both sides accept then, like I said, the list of things that can be known to exist with certainty becomes infinite. And remember we are not just talking about existence but certainty as well.

> Moreover, if one thing is known to exist with absolute certainty then the list becomes infinite.
>
> A statement that amply demonstrates your total ignorance of the
> philosophical discussion.

Or your inability to identify a simple falsifying contradiction in the non-realist position.

The world operates via certainty. This is why, for example, persons don't step in front of a moving bus, and this is why rocket science is successful because the orbits and revolutions of planets can be predicted with absolute certainty. If not a manned flight would go lost in space. So the way the natural and man-made worlds operate falsify uncertainty.

>
> Almost all non-realists accept that some things can be known with
> certainty. All non-realists that are also foundationalists (which
> includes Descartes, Kant and the empiricists) typically try to rebuild
> the totality if our knowledge on these secure foundations - the
> Cartesian cogito, the Kantian categories or observation reports with the
> empiricists.
>
> There is simply no way that you can get simply from one type of certain
> knowledge to an infinity of equally certain knowledge, which is what all
> their efforts demonstrate, or we would not have this discussion. Rand to
> her credit knew this and therefore chooses another strategy to build her
> theory.
>

If one thing can be known to exist with absolute certainty then the list becomes infinite. You just can't accept the fact that very many big names are loons.

>
> > I could have picked any thing, including air or an extinct animal species. I picked pain and suffering because it graphically shows the sheer lunacy of non-realist thinking. And when I spoke of pain and suffering I was mainly talking about external pain and suffering as experienced by others, not by myself.
>
> You might have been "thinking" about it, but you were most certainly not
> "talking" about it. You simply mentioned pain, which in the
> philosophical discussion on certainty always mean subjectively
> experienced pain. If yo meant something else, you should have said so, I
> can;t read your mind.
>

Based only on pain experienced by others, like starving third world children, we know pain and suffering exist with absolute certainty.

>
> >The fact that you saw the need to defend uncertainty in this context via the internal claim and everything else you said shows the degree of reality denial practiced by deniers of certainty.
>
> That sentence makes no sense. I did not defend uncertainty with the
> internal claim, I pointed out the fact that non-realists generally agree
> that internal pain can be known with certainty.

Which establishes a contradiction in their thought.

> > Pain is known to exist with absolute certainty, those who deny make no sense because the example is rhetorical. Like I said non-realists don't deserve any respect whatsoever. You're starstruck by reputation and credentials which renders your entire defense to be the invalid-argument-from-authority.
>
> Let's add "argument from authority" to the list of words you
> misunderstand. First, no, I did not make an argument from authority,
> they are of the form "X is true because an authority says so". Instead,
> I mentioned authorities, because they are a relevant data for the
> argument that I (and not an authority) did make: that is that Rand was
> ignored because she was unaware of what the experts in the field had
> been discussing, and hence did not realize that everything she said that
> was correct was not only not original, but things realists and
> non-realists agreed on.

Never said Rand addressed pain and suffering as harming uncertainty.

>
> To give evidence for this claim you have indeed to mention authorities,
> but it does not turn it into something with the structure of an argument
> from authority.
>
> Furthermore, arguments from authority are only fallacious if the
> authority cited is not in a "position to know" - otherwise it is simply
> an argument from expert opinion which is perfectly valid, and used as
> such e.g.in every court trial where you have expert evidence.
>
> >
> > And deniers hypocritically invoke existence of pain and suffering to reject the existence of the biblical God. Despite their denials, which are throwaway, they are most certain, living their lives as convinced Atheists.
>
> And that again shows nicely that you don't understand what (most)
> non-realists are arguing (but you share that with Rand, so it's not
> entirely your fault, you just follow once again the wrong authority)
>
>

Your reaction indicates the brutal sting of the accuracy of my point. There is no shortage of mainstream philosophical thought using pain and suffering as evidence of Atheism.

> As I said, non-realists, whether theists or atheists, do not deny
> existence of pain, quite on the contrary, they used historically the
> utter certainty with which we can judge at least our own pain as one
> argument why exactly we can't know much else.

Note the sudden separation of existence from certainty. You've committed this inconsistency again.

>
> As for pain of others, what non-realists argue is not that we can't know
> that pain exists, in general.
> Pain and pleasure both play important
> roles in the philosophy of action in Kant and Hume, e.g. Rather, that
> in every specific instance,our judgement if a specific person is in pain
> now might be mistaken. And most realists agree with that, at least if
> they are reasonable - if not, you'd have to deny that malingering or
> false criminal accusations happen, ever, or the medical evidence just
> how varied pain experience and expression can be across individuals.
>
> The next mistake you make is to infer that if something can't be known
> with absolute certainty, all knowledge claims are equally valid, which
> is not what most non-realists would claim,

I've said no such thing.

> and most certainly not
> Descartians, Kantians or empiricists. Rather, different claims come
> with different degrees of confidence (and that too is something most
> reasonable realists agree with)

You've now departed our context. Degrees of confidence has nothing to do with material existence of common things.

> That is perfectly sufficient to act as
> guide for our actions and rational decisions. So an atheistic
> non-realist does not need to have absolute certainty that pain (in
> others) exist, just that there is strong evidence for the position,
> which would make it in turn equally strong evidence against the
> proposition of a tri-omni deity.
>
> That holds for epistemological non-realism, and even ore so for
> ontological non-realism. Kant and modern Kantians do not argue that what
> we experience is an illusion (that's just Rand's careless misreading)
> let alone that the phenomenal world doesn't matter. He simply says that
> to be human means to experience the world in specific ways which we
> can't transcend (that would be metaphysics of the 2. order). But because
> as humans, we can't but experience the world in this way, and we all do
> it in the same way (which ensures objectivity of knowledge claims), this
> also does not matter.
>
> With other words, for all practical purposes, there is no real
> difference between non-realists and realists, not when it comes to
> evaluating which claims are more convincing than others, not when it
> comes ot make rational decision on what course of action to take or what
> claims to believe.
>
> Which is exactly why most epistemologists these days embrace a form of
> "quietism", arguing that all forms of non-obviously absurd realism and
> non-ralism ultimately converge.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
> > Ray
> >

Ray

[Stevet]

Not sure who these mainstreamers are but if they have told us that "
nothing can be know with certainty" then they have also told us that we
cannot know with certainty that nothing can be known with certainty. So all
a bit pointless really.


“Reading the Socratic dialogues one has the feeling: what a frightful waste
of time! What's the point of these arguments that prove nothing and clarify
nothing?”

- Wittgenstein

--
Stevet

[*Hemidactylus*]

Uncertainty exists in our relations to the world.

>
>> But you also confuse science and history of science, so I suppose that's
>> par for the course with you
>>
> Absurd to say the least. There are three main disciplines relevant in
> these context, philosophy or philosophy of science,
>

Your use of "or" here is confusing.
>
> logic or Empiricism,
>
Another confusing "or". We are up to 4 things here.
>
> and history of science.
>
Now 5.

>
> Note the absence of science itself in this list.
>

Because you don't understand it?

What do you think of Kant? Or do you accept the Objectivist party line
disparagement as an unthinking droid?

"The world" could give a rat's ass about certainty. Certainty is tuned to
our relation to reality. The world "operated" for billions of years before
beings capable of injecting certainty came along.

>
>This is why, for example, persons don't step in front of a moving bus,
>

People do in fact step in front of moving vehicles due to misjudgment. At
the point in time they screwed up they could have felt certain the vehicle
was stopping, turning, or moving more slowly. People hesitate to pull out
in front of buses when they are uncertain of their current distance and
speed and due to conditions such as rain when their own traction
capabilities are uncertain.

>
> and this is why rocket science is successful because the orbits and
> revolutions of planets can be predicted with absolute certainty.
>

Rockets explode on launches or other issues arise causing system failure.
Are there not variables in rocketry, windows, and some tolerance of
variation?

>
> If not a manned flight would go lost in space.
>

There have been disasters of launch and reentry with the shuttles. And
Apollo 13 was almost a disaster. Was that mishap foreseen? And how certain
were those involved that there wouldn't occur a units conversion blunder
which destroyed a Mars orbiter in 1999? Oops.

>
> So the way the natural and man-made worlds operate falsify uncertainty.
>

Bullshit. Uncertainty is important in quantum mechanics. And how certain
are you how much you weigh or how talk you are at any given time? Have you
ever used significant figures in calculations? Measurement has some
fuzziness. But it is often close enough for government work.

How many water molecules exist in your body right now? While I asked you
that question the number probably fluctuated wildly. How many cells have
you in a given span of time? Cells are dying and dividing. There is an
answer perhaps but at best we can merely guess. How many brain cells do you
have at this given moment?

How many gallons of fuel are in your car? How certain can you be that based
on that estimate from a digital gas gauge how far you can drive before
running out of gas given air condition load, prevailing head or tail winds,
grade of road and the other variables?

>>
>> Almost all non-realists accept that some things can be known with
>> certainty. All non-realists that are also foundationalists (which
>> includes Descartes, Kant and the empiricists) typically try to rebuild
>> the totality if our knowledge on these secure foundations - the
>> Cartesian cogito, the Kantian categories or observation reports with the
>> empiricists.
>>
>> There is simply no way that you can get simply from one type of certain
>> knowledge to an infinity of equally certain knowledge, which is what all
>> their efforts demonstrate, or we would not have this discussion. Rand to
>> her credit knew this and therefore chooses another strategy to build her
>> theory.
>>
> If one thing can be known to exist with absolute certainty then the list
> becomes infinite. You just can't accept the fact that very many big names are loons.
>

Just because you are certain of some tangible things, that does not mean
you can comprehend all aspects of reality with certainty. There exists
reason for doubt.

[Ray Martinez]

Excellent point, which I have made before.

Ray

[Ernest Major]

I wonder if Ray is aware of the discrepancies between the predicted and
observed trajectories of the Pioneer probes (now generally believed to
be due to a non-gravitational effect -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pioneer_anomaly). (Non-gravitational
effects are more prominent in the case of cometary orbits.)

Or if he is aware of the chaotic elements in solar system motions
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stability_of_the_Solar_System).

And that's before we take account of the existence of undiscovered
bodies in the outer solar system, or pertubations by extra-solar bodies.

--
alias Ernest Major