Kant vs. Rand
Malenor
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:98stou$uca$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
> "Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in message
news:98rsvv$ed1$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "Hotrod0283" <hotro...@aol.com> wrote in message
> > news:20010315175353...@ng-ck1.aol.com
>
> > > Are there any other differences? Are there any similarities? Is the
> > Kantian
> > > philosophy as "anti-reason" and (i believe, although am unsure)
> "statist"
> > as
> >
> > No, by no stretch of the imagination is Kant anti-reason
>
> Only if one forgets that his declared purpose was "to deny reason to make
> room for faith" or to put it another way: to have reason, while eating it,
> too.
That wasn't the declared purpose of his writing, but it was a goal he
set forth in the Critique of Practical Reason. To deny reason means
to set limits on it. What is reason limited to? It is limited to what Rand
called Existence; only for Kant "existence" is an attribute of things and
not the totality of all things (the universe).
> Or, only if one forgets that the central core of his epistemology was to
> divorce reason from reality, which by a not very great stretch of any
> imagination is anti-reason.
Since "reality" is a category of the understanding by which we judge
things, I hardly see Kant as divorcing anything. And in anticipation
of your attack on his use of categories, don't forget that Kant
credits Aristotle for inventing them.
> And if one has any doubt about that you only
> have to look at his spawn - what happened in German philosophy after him
> (and where that led in the 20th Century).
Um, what happened in German philosophy after Kant? Please refresh
my memory. And as for the 20th century, which country or continent are you
referring to? Are you saying that Kant had a major influence on 20th
century philosophy in all parts of the globe? You are painting with quite
a large brush. Anyway, my knowledge of 20th century
philosophy indicates that it has very little if anything to do with Kant's
philosophy. For instance, Kant's logic was syllogistic in the tradition
of Aristotle. 20th century logicians use some other weird idea like
set theory? But that's not German either.
Malenor
"Robert Chapman" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:robertc-1603...@news.alt.net...
> In article <robertc-1603...@news.alt.net>, Robert Chapman
> <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:
>
> > The major conflicts are in :
> >
> > metaphysics - Rand's realism versus Kant's idealism.
> > ethics - Rand's rational self-interest versus Kants's duty.
>
> Should really add some of the others:
>
> Rand vs Kant
> ------------
> atheism versus Christianity
But your gods are earthly ones so what's the difference?
> freedom of the individual versus freedom/power of the state
> objectivity of values versus the subjectivity of values
Do you really know what you are talking about here?
> science as the investigation of reality versus science as the
> investigation of appearances
So Kant was not opposed to empirical investigation? That's
good isn't it? But the label "appearances" is just a word
to frighten the uninitiated. Every Kantian knows that appearance
is just Kant's way of describing reality for us before it is
judged upon.
> synthesis between mind and body versus the mind-body dichotomy
You have confused Kant with Descartes. But then I realize you
didn't think it up, you're only spouting memorized doctrine.
> capitalism versus statism
Where is the evidence that Kant was a statist?
> Rand was in the correct position on every one of these though in some
> areas her reasoning was faulty.
>
> Rob
Oh? Lol, did you work that one out for yourself, Rob? I want to see
one of Rand's unreasonable arguments on these "correct" positions.
Malenor
> <A_me...@newsranger.com> wrote:
>
> > [snip more of the usual "Randian" interpretations of Kant in same vein]
> >
> > Hotrod, this sort of post is *exactly* why you need to go to the source
> > yourself, to evaluate the claims made therein, and determine whether or
n
> > ot it
> > is an interpretive stance that is openly unfavorable. You wouldn't go
to
> > some
> > newsgroup populated by anti-Randians to get information about Rand, and
a
> > ssume
> > it is reliable or accurate without having read *her* reasonings in her
own
> > words, first-hand, and do your best to give her the benefit of the doubt
(as
> > opposed to reading into it what you think you can read into it in order
to
> > "see" it as bad).
>
> The implication of that is a little unfriendly.
So what's your point?
> And my post didn't have a
> P.S saying 'don't read Kant'. Of course he should read the source as
> well!
Objectivism does discourage reading Kant, but the teachers instruct their
students that if they must read him to interpret from the bias of their
Objectivist religion.
> But just because I am an Objectivist does not mean I have taken my
> views from some sort of Randian textbook. Yes Kant has some useful things
> to say but he takes the wrong position in all major philosophical areas.
Why, because it wasn't your position or Rand's position?
You seem open-minded, yet obviously not as open-minded as you think you are.
> Which of his positions would you defend? He usually botches up the job of
> applying reason which of course Rand sometimes did also, to a far lesser
> extent however. Rand was immensely flawed and you can hear that right
> here on an Objectivist newsgroup.
>
> Rob
Sure sure I've heard that one before. And it was common at one time
to hear some people say they agree with the Communists but disagree
with their methods. But you have in this case rejected Rand's reasoning
and uncritically accepted her doctrines, like a typical Libertarian.
Malenor
"A is A Exterminators" <A_me...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
news:uHhs6.3983$54....@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <20010315175353...@ng-ck1.aol.com>, Hotrod0283
says...
> >
> >Over what is the debate between the Kantians and the Randians? I've read
some
> >of Kant and some of Rand; Ms. Rand seems to engage in many little
diatribes
> >against a brilliant philosopher. (I also believe that she is a very good
one,
> >as well. I agree with some of Ms. Rand's ideas. I think some of them do
have
> >merit. At the same time, I find Kant to be interesting. I also agree
with
> >some of his beliefs. Although, I've read little of both... I guess I
wouldn't
> >be posting if I knew more.)
> >Anyway, by questions are: what are the differences between the Kantian
> >philosophy and the Randian philosophy? It seems to me that there are
> >differences in epistemology and ethics, as well as metaphysics? Am I
corr
> >ect?
> >Are there any other differences? Are there any similarities? Is the
Kantian
> >philosophy as "anti-reason" and (i believe, although am unsure) "statist"
as
eur
> >opean
> >one.) To what political philosophy is Kant generally ascribed? Who are
> >considered Kant's primary influences? What philosophers or schools of
> >philosophy have been influenced by Kant? Well, I thank you for any
answers
> >that are provided.
>
> If you've read "some of Kant," you should be able to at least partially
answer
> one or more of your questions. If you are genuinely interested in finding
out
> about Kant, read his works and/or the secondary interpretive literature.
This
> newsgroup is quite likely *not* the place where you're going to get
reliabl
> e and
> significantly productive information, mainly because a lot of posters here
are
> hell-bent on being hostile toward Kant no matter what. The answers are
> something that you should find out for yourself, and study on your own.
In the
> process, you should make every good-faith effort to understand how Kant
saw
> things and where he is coming from.
>
> A is A Exterminators
Yes, but it takes some preparation obviously to understand Kant. Some
history
of philosophy that predates Kant helps enormously. Kant drew heavily from
Aristotle, and from his Lutheran background too although knowing a
smattering
of Christian doctrine is good enough I think. Since the Critique of Pure
Reason
was primarily (but not only) a response to Hume's Treatise it is necessary
to know
and understand Hume's argument therein. Knowing a little about Leibniz
helps.
He also references Newton. Kant attacked the Rational Psychology of the
time,
which was actually not rational. So it helps to know what that project was
about.
(Kant effectively ended it, which was good.) But I think reading Hume's
Treatise
is the greatest help, and understanding that Kant's reasoning was
syllogistic
in the tradition of Aristotle, a tradition which he took for granted and
never
questioned and certainly never attacked.
Owl
1. Ethics: Both put forward the principle that each individual is an end in
himself One formulation of the categorical imperative is "act so that you
treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always as
an end, never merely as a means." And Rand says "the basic social principle
of the Objectivist ethics" is that every individual is an end in himself,
not the means to the needs or welfare of others.
Rand and Kant, as far as this goes, both appear as defenders of an
individualistic deontological ethics. One difference, of course, is that
Kant believed that you should give to charity, because this would be part of
treating others as ends-in-themselves, whereas Rand would probably have
regarded this as 'altruistic' and as failing to treat yourself as an
end-in-itself. (But she broke down and admitted that it was ok to help
people in an emergency--just as long as you don't make a habit of it.)
2. Metaphysics: Neither philosopher did much in the way of metaphysics. In
Kant's case, his metaphysics consists in affirming the existence of a realm
of 'the thing in itself' about which nothing further can be said. Rand's
metaphysics, on the other hand, consists in such well-known truisms as "A is
A", "existence exists," and "reality is objective."
There is a surface conflict here, since Rand apparently thinks we know
lots about "things in themselves," although she didn't use that term. But
who can really be sure what the hell Kant means by "thing in itself"?
Owl
news:hIws6.2202$Im6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> That wasn't the declared purpose of his writing, but it was a goal he
> set forth in the Critique of Practical Reason.
I don't follow this sentence. It sounds like a contradiction.
> To deny reason means
> to set limits on it. What is reason limited to? It is limited to what Rand
He said "deny knowledge", so he set limits on our knowledge.
> called Existence; only for Kant "existence" is an attribute of things and
> not the totality of all things (the universe).
He limited our knowledge to 'objects of possible experience.' He also
affirmed the existence of things that are not possible objects of experience
('things in themselves'), about which we lack positive knowledge. So it is
not correct to say that he limited our knowledge to "existence."
> Um, what happened in German philosophy after Kant? Please refresh
> my memory. And as for the 20th century, which country or continent are you
> referring to? Are you saying that Kant had a major influence on 20th
> century philosophy in all parts of the globe? You are painting with quite
I'll leave it to Fred to answer that, because I'm curious as to what he will
say.
> a large brush. Anyway, my knowledge of 20th century
> philosophy indicates that it has very little if anything to do with Kant's
> philosophy.
I think it has a lot to do with Kant, but it depends which thinkers you are
looking at. But I'm leaving it to Fred to elaborate on that.
> For instance, Kant's logic was syllogistic in the tradition
> of Aristotle. 20th century logicians use some other weird idea like
> set theory? But that's not German either.
They use the predicate calculus, usually credited to Frege, a German
philosopher, but I'm not aware of any interesting connection to Kant.
Malenor
"Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:98uihm$de$1...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:hIws6.2202$Im6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > That wasn't the declared purpose of his writing, but it was a goal he
> > set forth in the Critique of Practical Reason.
>
> I don't follow this sentence. It sounds like a contradiction.
I mean, Fred (in keeping with the Objectivist tradition) was quoting
Kant out of context, and painting an image of Kant as a philosopher
who wanted to deny reason, all reason, everywhere and forever.
But Kant's grounds for denying reason any claim to the supernatural
realm was based on reason (more precisely, transcendental reflection).
> > To deny reason means
> > to set limits on it. What is reason limited to? It is limited to what
Rand
>
> He said "deny knowledge", so he set limits on our knowledge.
>
> > called Existence; only for Kant "existence" is an attribute of things
and
> > not the totality of all things (the universe).
>
> He limited our knowledge to 'objects of possible experience.'
Well of course I can quote Kant just like you can. But what are these
objects of possible experience? In Rand's terms, those would be
objects of existence. Then you stated...
> He also
> affirmed the existence of things that are not possible objects of
experience
> ('things in themselves'), about which we lack positive knowledge. So it is
> not correct to say that he limited our knowledge to "existence."
You're saying that appearances exist and things in themselves exist, and
that's
true. But like you say our knowledge is limited to those existences Kantians
call appearance. My original statement was directed to someone with
little knowledge of Kant. If I was arguing with or against you I would have
been more precise. Oh well thanks for the correction anyway because
posting to this group might cause my intellect to become as lazy as theirs.
<snip>
> They use the predicate calculus, usually credited to Frege, a German
> philosopher, but I'm not aware of any interesting connection to Kant.
>
Oh that's what it's called. Debating about Frege vs. Kant can be
frustrating because the logic is so different. So where is the
alleged connection between Kant and 20th c. philosophy?
Blank-out.
Malenor
"Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:98uihn$de$2...@slb3.atl.mindspring.net...
> A couple more comments about Rand and Kant.
>
> 1. Ethics: Both put forward the principle that each individual is an end
in
> himself One formulation of the categorical imperative is "act so that you
> treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always
as
> an end, never merely as a means." And Rand says "the basic social
principle
> of the Objectivist ethics" is that every individual is an end in himself,
> not the means to the needs or welfare of others.
> Rand and Kant, as far as this goes, both appear as defenders of an
> individualistic deontological ethics.
Meaning, duty to oneself. But I don't see it supported by the evidence you
gave. There is a huge difference between "humanity" in Kant's formulation
of the CI and "individual" in Rand's ethics. "Humanity" is a transcendental
idea. Rand's "individual" means not individual, but individual life, as if
to say,
"every individual life is an end in itself." The primary value of the
individual
is the life of that individual. Humanity is not the same value as human
life.
Besides, Rand's heroes demonstrated that their lives were not the highest
value, because they were willing to sacrifice their lives for causes, i.e,
for
higher values (whatever they may be).
> One difference, of course, is that
> Kant believed that you should give to charity, because this would be part
of
> treating others as ends-in-themselves,
He did? Is NOT giving to charity a violation of the CI?
> whereas Rand would probably have
> regarded this as 'altruistic' and as failing to treat yourself as an
> end-in-itself.
No, in fact, she considered giving to charity to be an ethical grey area,
a matter of choice. "If you want to give to charity we will not try to stop
you."
> (But she broke down and admitted that it was ok to help
> people in an emergency--just as long as you don't make a habit of it.)
Yes, in "The Ethics of Emergencies," in which she first declares that the
lifeboat scenario was a situation so rare why do philosophers even bother
to debate it? And then she goes on to discuss it anyway. But Kant did
mention it and he did have a solution.
> 2. Metaphysics: Neither philosopher did much in the way of metaphysics.
When Kant analyzes "definitions" he is in the realm of epistemology.
When he analyzes the apriori functions or powers or faculties of the human
mind he is discussing metaphysics. I'd say most of the CPR is metaphysics,
or at least its main topics are metaphysical. And yes Rand was more
concerned with epistemology than metaphysics.
> In
> Kant's case, his metaphysics consists in affirming the existence of a
realm
> of 'the thing in itself' about which nothing further can be said.
His metaphysics is not limited to affirming the mere concept of the
noumenal.
> Rand's
> metaphysics, on the other hand, consists in such well-known truisms as "A
is
> A", "existence exists," and "reality is objective."
No, there is more to be discussed, the nature of causality for instance.
I believe A is A is an axiom of her epistemology, a formulation of the
axiomatic concept of Identity.
> There is a surface conflict here, since Rand apparently thinks we know
> lots about "things in themselves," although she didn't use that term. But
> who can really be sure what the hell Kant means by "thing in itself"?
A lot of people can. The thing in itself is that thing considered apart from
the formal conditions of sensible intuition. Or to put it another way, it
is a concept derived logically from a consideration of things as if they
were not objects of a consciousness sensibly constituted. So what Kant
means by "thing in itself" is merely a logical construct, not a reference to
anything real. It is therefore merely a derivative concept, hardly what
I would consider the highest product of his thought as is Existence for
Rand.
Ken Gardner
> But just because I am an Objectivist does not mean I have taken my
> views from some sort of Randian textbook. Yes Kant has some useful things
> to say but he takes the wrong position in all major philosophical areas.
> Which of his positions would you defend? He usually botches up the job of
> applying reason which of course Rand sometimes did also, to a far lesser
> extent however. Rand was immensely flawed and you can hear that right
> here on an Objectivist newsgroup.
In what respects do you think Rand was "immensely flawed?"
Ken
Ken Gardner
> > And my post didn't have a P.S saying 'don't read Kant'.
> > Of course he should read the source as well!
> Objectivism does discourage reading Kant, but the teachers instruct their
> students that if they must read him to interpret from the bias of their
> Objectivist religion.
It does? Since when? I must not have received the memo.
Ken
Robert Chapman
Malenor <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> The following is a typical package-deal of lies about Kant
Malenor,
Your replies show that you are quite an asshole. Comments like the
following are just a demonstration of personal weakness and the need for
petty attacks.
> > > What philosophers or schools of philosophy have been influenced by Kant?
> > Hegel and Marx are the most famous of many.
> Hegel and Marx are schools of philosophy?
>
> But don't bother thinking up such questions yourself, your
> Randite religion will give you all the questions and answers pre-digested.
>
> That is a typical Objectivist lie. And don't tell me to read Kant for
> the evidence because it is obvious that you haven't even
> read one word of Kant's.
>
> Since when is spouting Objectivist propoganda considered using reason? So
> meone
> else's alleged reasoning, no doubt, like the parasite that you are.
I have in fact read Kant's Critiques in full as well as a half-dozen
(non-Objectivist) secondary analyses and have never read a single word by
Peikoff on Kant, contrary to all your BS. Try dealing with people
rationally and you might get a rational debate rather than simply making
people turn away in disgust. Not everyone wants to get involved in your
childish pettiness.
Rob
A is A Exterminators
>> No, by no stretch of the imagination is Kant anti-reason
>
>Only if one forgets that his declared purpose was "to deny reason to make
>room for faith"
Prove that Kant said this. Do you have a cite?
A is A Exterminators
Here to check your premises
A is A Exterminators
>> views from some sort of Randian textbook.
We wouldn't be able to tell, given that your answer was textbook Rand (or
Peikoff).
>> Yes Kant has some useful things
>> to say but he takes the wrong position in all major philosophical areas.
Possibly so, but almost certainly not the positions you ascribe to him, nor in
so simplistic a fashion. You just spouted generalities, revealing no
understanding.
>> Which of his positions would you defend? He usually botches up the job of
>> applying reason which of course Rand sometimes did also, to a far lesser
>> extent however.
Given the degree of competence you've displayed in reporting on Kant's ideas,
your credibility when you comment on Rand is that much hindered.
Dave OHearn
> Over what is the debate between the Kantians and the Randians? I've
> read some of Kant and some of Rand; Ms. Rand seems to engage in many
> little diatribes against a brilliant philosopher.
Kant was no doubt brilliant, but he upheld the mind-body dichotomy
everywhere. He even went so far as to project it outside the mind and
body, referring to two levels of reality. I don't think Kant thought
there were actualy two "realities", but he did think the dichotomy was
so fundamental that, to us, there might as well be.
Probably the most fundamental aspect of Ayn Rand's philosophy is
rejection of the mind-body dichotomy, and its variants like the
theory-practice dichotomy, moral-practical, analytic-synthetic, etc. This
is what's maintained my interest in her philosophy, as, seeing what
religion does to people, I've found the mind-body dichotomy the most
destructive idea in history. Of course, Kant did not originate it, but he
did a thorough job of systemizing it.
> Is the Kantian philosophy as "anti-reason" and (i believe, although am
> unsure) "statist" as she claims it to be?
Kant and Ayn Rand had very different ideas of what reason is. I don't
understand Kant's well enough to describe it, but perhaps that's the
point. There is no way I, in my day-to-day life, even when I'm making
important moral decisions, think the way Kant said people think. I
wouldn't know how to universalize a maxim if my life depended on it.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Dave OHearn
> >
>
> Or, as another famous person put it, "Ask not what your country can
> do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
That's a great way of summarizing the viewpoint, as it's a false
dichotomy. What you should really ask is what you can do for yourself. If
that happens to include doing something for your country, then go ahead.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Robert Chapman
<A_me...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> >> Yes Kant has some useful things
> >> to say but he takes the wrong position in all major philosophical areas.
>
> Possibly so, but almost certainly not the positions you ascribe to him, n
> or in
> so simplistic a fashion. You just spouted generalities, revealing no
> understanding.
Well I wrote the post in 5 minutes. I was trying to be simplistic as his
questions were so general. A full answer would require a long essay.
Rob
A is A Exterminators
But the point was that your generalities coincide with virtually nothing Kant
said, nor with the broad secondary literature by philosophers who've studied
him. For instance, one ludicrious characterization you made is that Kant w
as an
advocate of the subjectivity of values. Whatever what one might say about
Kant's view of ethics, there is no question that he held our moral obligations
to be objectively binding. Not even textbook Rand or Peikoff would make the
charge that he was a subjectivist in ethics; in fact, they explicitly make the
charge that he was an "intrinsicist."
Owl
> Over what is the debate between the Kantians and the Randians? I've read
See this explanation:
http://enlightenment.supersaturated.com/objectivity/walsh1/walsh.html
> merit. At the same time, I find Kant to be interesting. I also agree
with
Interesting, yet deeply confused.
> Anyway, by questions are: what are the differences between the Kantian
> philosophy and the Randian philosophy? It seems to me that there are
> differences in epistemology and ethics, as well as metaphysics? Am I
correct?
The above link might explain these things.
> Are there any other differences? Are there any similarities? Is the
Kantian
> philosophy as "anti-reason" and (i believe, although am unsure) "statist"
as
No, by no stretch of the imagination is Kant anti-reason.
> she claims it to be? (I am an [american] conservative--as opposed to a
european
> one.) To what political philosophy is Kant generally ascribed? Who are
> considered Kant's primary influences? What philosophers or schools of
> philosophy have been influenced by Kant? Well, I thank you for any
answers
> that are provided.
Haven't read his political philosophy, but he was a social contract
theorist. Kant was importantly influenced by David Hume, to whom he fancied
he had a response. Kant (with the help of Berkeley, the ur-idealist, of
course) spawned the whole 19th-century idealist movement.
Hotrod0283
of Kant and some of Rand; Ms. Rand seems to engage in many little diatribes
as well. I agree with some of Ms. Rand's ideas. I think some of them do have
be posting if I knew more.)
philosophy and the Randian philosophy? It seems to me that there are
differences in epistemology and ethics, as well as metaphysics? Am I correct?
philosophy as "anti-reason" and (i believe, although am unsure) "statist" as
Robert Chapman
> The major conflicts are in :
>
> metaphysics - Rand's realism versus Kant's idealism.
> ethics - Rand's rational self-interest versus Kants's duty.
Should really add some of the others:
Rand vs Kant
------------
atheism versus Christianity
freedom of the individual versus freedom/power of the state
objectivity of values versus the subjectivity of values
science as the investigation of reality versus science as the
investigation of appearances
synthesis between mind and body versus the mind-body dichotomy
capitalism versus statism
Fred Weiss
"Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:98rsvv$ed1$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> > Are there any other differences? Are there any similarities? Is the
> Kantian
> > philosophy as "anti-reason" and (i believe, although am unsure)
"statist"
> as
>
> No, by no stretch of the imagination is Kant anti-reason
Only if one forgets that his declared purpose was "to deny reason to make
room for faith" or to put it another way: to have reason, while eating it,
too.
Or, only if one forgets that the central core of his epistemology was to
divorce reason from reality, which by a not very great stretch of any
imagination is anti-reason. And if one has any doubt about that you only
have to look at his spawn - what happened in German philosophy after him
(and where that led in the 20th Century).
Fred Weiss
Robert Chapman
<A_me...@newsranger.com> wrote:
> [snip more of the usual "Randian" interpretations of Kant in same vein]
>
> Hotrod, this sort of post is *exactly* why you need to go to the source
> yourself, to evaluate the claims made therein, and determine whether or n
> ot it
> is an interpretive stance that is openly unfavorable. You wouldn't go to
> some
> newsgroup populated by anti-Randians to get information about Rand, and a
> ssume
> it is reliable or accurate without having read *her* reasonings in her own
> words, first-hand, and do your best to give her the benefit of the doubt (as
> opposed to reading into it what you think you can read into it in order to
> "see" it as bad).
The implication of that is a little unfriendly. And my post didn't have a
P.S saying 'don't read Kant'. Of course he should read the source as
well! But just because I am an Objectivist does not mean I have taken my
views from some sort of Randian textbook. Yes Kant has some useful things
to say but he takes the wrong position in all major philosophical areas.
Which of his positions would you defend? He usually botches up the job of
applying reason which of course Rand sometimes did also, to a far lesser
extent however. Rand was immensely flawed and you can hear that right
here on an Objectivist newsgroup.
Rob
A is A Exterminators
>
>> Anyway, by questions are: what are the differences between the Kantian
>> philosophy and the Randian philosophy? It seems to me that there are
>> differences in epistemology and ethics, as well as metaphysics? Am I
>correct?
>
>
>metaphysics - Rand's realism versus Kant's idealism.
>ethics - Rand's rational self-interest versus Kants's duty.
>Kant tried to use reason to distort reality
>in such a way that it fit his Christianity and nationalism.
[snip more of the usual "Randian" interpretations of Kant in same vein]
Hotrod, this sort of post is *exactly* why you need to go to the source
yourself, to evaluate the claims made therein, and determine whether or not it
is an interpretive stance that is openly unfavorable. You wouldn't go to some
newsgroup populated by anti-Randians to get information about Rand, and assume
it is reliable or accurate without having read *her* reasonings in her own
words, first-hand, and do your best to give her the benefit of the doubt (as
opposed to reading into it what you think you can read into it in order to
"see"
it as bad).
Someone got that quote from Bertrand Russell(?) that sums up quite nicely the
appropriate methology in this regard?
Robert Chapman
> Over what is the debate between the Kantians and the Randians? I've read some
> of Kant and some of Rand; Ms. Rand seems to engage in many little diatribes
> against a brilliant philosopher. (I also believe that she is a very good
> one,
> as well. I agree with some of Ms. Rand's ideas. I think some of them do
> have
> merit. At the same time, I find Kant to be interesting. I also agree with
> some of his beliefs. Although, I've read little of both... I guess I wou
> ldn't
> be posting if I knew more.)
Which of his beliefs do you agree with?
> Anyway, by questions are: what are the differences between the Kantian
> philosophy and the Randian philosophy? It seems to me that there are
> differences in epistemology and ethics, as well as metaphysics? Am I
correct?
The major conflicts are in :
metaphysics - Rand's realism versus Kant's idealism.
ethics - Rand's rational self-interest versus Kants's duty.
> Are there any other differences? Are there any similarities?
They both claim to be based on reason. However much of Kant's work is
complete nonsense, for instance most of what he says about the nature of
the mind and epistemology is just absurd and contradictory to what science
knows of the brain and mind. Kant tried to use reason to distort reality
in such a way that it fit his Christianity and nationalism.
> Is the Kantian
> philosophy as "anti-reason" and (i believe, although am unsure) "statist" as
> she claims it to be?
It is statist but not as statist as others who furthered his ideas. If
you would call the Nazi's race science anti-reason then yes Kant is
anti-reason. Both however claim to be based on reason, they accept the
value of reason without however really using it.
>(I am an [american] conservative--as opposed to a european
> one.) To what political philosophy is Kant generally ascribed?
'Do your duty for the state'.
> Who are considered Kant's primary influences?
Enlightenment philosophers but he took out the reason while still claiming
to be a champion of it. He started a movement rather than continued one.
> What philosophers or schools of philosophy have been influenced by Kant?
Hegel and Marx are the most famous of many. Kant's influence has been
enormous, he completely altered Western philosophy AND science. For
instance he was a major influence on postmodernism, on Nazism (Kant ->
Hegel -> Treitschke -> Chamberlain (Chamberlain being the founder of Nazi
philosophy)) and on quantum theory (he influenced Bohr and co and led them
to some of their ridiculous pronouncements).
Rob
Tom
.....
>
> >(I am an [american] conservative--as opposed to a european
> > one.) To what political philosophy is Kant generally ascribed?
>
> 'Do your duty for the state'.
>
Or, as another famous person put it, "Ask not what your country can do for
you, ask what you can do for your country".
Tom
Aided by a little sophistry on the words "general welfare," [they claim] a
right to do not only the acts to effect that which are specifically
enumerated
and permitted, but whatsoever they shall think or pretend will be for the
general welfare. -- Thomas Jefferson to W. Giles, 1825.
A is A Exterminators
If you've read "some of Kant," you should be able to at least partially answer
one or more of your questions. If you are genuinely interested in finding out
about Kant, read his works and/or the secondary interpretive literature. This
newsgroup is quite likely *not* the place where you're going to get reliabl
e and
significantly productive information, mainly because a lot of posters here are
hell-bent on being hostile toward Kant no matter what. The answers are
something that you should find out for yourself, and study on your own. In the
process, you should make every good-faith effort to understand how Kant saw
things and where he is coming from.
A is A Exterminators
Here to Check Your Premises
Malenor
lies.
There isn't a single person
who comes here, who knows anything at all about this subject, that
can't name a book or work where Peikoff refers to Kant in the
most strenuously contemptuous way. I won't insult you further
by citing these numerous sources which are easily found even
by a grade-schooler with limited internet or library skills. You
can't reason, you can't think, you can't even observe the facts
of reality correctly without spinning out a web of lies and
delusions. Now grow up, get over Rand, she wasn't that
great, and find out what real scholarship and philosophical
reasoning is about.
Ken Gardner
> Look at the childish asshole Randroid-in-denial telling
> his petty little lies. There isn't a single person who
> comes here, who knows anything at all about this subject, that
> can't name a book or work where Peikoff refers to Kant in the
> most strenuously contemptuous way. I won't insult you further
> by citing these numerous sources which are easily found even
> by a grade-schooler with limited internet or library skills. You
> can't reason, you can't think, you can't even observe the facts
> of reality correctly without spinning out a web of lies and
> delusions. Now grow up, get over Rand, she wasn't that
> great, and find out what real scholarship and philosophical
> reasoning is about.
It continues to astound me that people, especially newbies like
yourself, apparently believe that by barging into this newsgroup and
insulting other people like this, by negative implication (or somehow)
they have something valuable to offer in this newsgroup or are otherwise
intellectually superior by comparison. Frankly, when I read a post like
this, my first impression and guess is that the person is an
intellectually insecure high school or college student who is barely fit
for serious intellectual discussion (or, in many cases, not fit at all).
It's bad enough if I'm right, even worse if I'm wrong, and even more
worse if you are in the philosophy profession in some respect.
Because you raised scholarship and philosophical reasoning, why don't
you start setting the example yourself by disagreeing in the proper way
that scholars and serious philosophers discuss and debate philosophical
issues? Instead of a stream of insults, try explaining why the person
is misinformed or ill-informed, or made an error in logic, or simply
doesn't know all the facts. You might learn something, and so might
your opponent.
Ken
Malenor
"Dave OHearn" <dav...@lessing.oit.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:3ab3...@oit.umass.edu...
> Hotrod0283 (hotro...@aol.com) wrote:
> > Over what is the debate between the Kantians and the Randians? I've
> > read some of Kant and some of Rand; Ms. Rand seems to engage in many
> > little diatribes against a brilliant philosopher.
>
> Kant was no doubt brilliant, but he upheld the mind-body dichotomy
> everywhere. He even went so far as to project it outside the mind and
> body, referring to two levels of reality. I don't think Kant thought
> there were actualy two "realities", but he did think the dichotomy was
> so fundamental that, to us, there might as well be.
You are correct about Kant's noumenal-phenomenal dichotomy. In
fact, it is the only dichotomy he actually terms as such. Tell me, what
else do you know about the N-P dichotomy?
> Probably the most fundamental aspect of Ayn Rand's philosophy is
> rejection of the mind-body dichotomy, and its variants like the
> theory-practice dichotomy
There is no such dichotomy for Kant. A theory exists in one's head, practice
takes place outside it. It's no more a dichotomy than saying that
swimming takes place in water, walking takes place on land, therefore
there is a walking-swimming dichotomy?
, moral-practical,
Again, morality is a theory, and its practice takes place outside of
theories. But didn't Kant write a Critique of Practical Reason which
is all about morality? Why did he call it Practical reason if it was
only about some pure moral theory that can't be practiced. What
is Practical reason anyway? And what use is a moral theory that
can't be practiced? Such charges make Kant sound like far less
than the brilliant philosopher you say he no doubt is.
analytic-synthetic
There is an analytic-synthetic distinction in Kant's CPR, but not
a dichotomy. The so-called analytic-synthetic dichotomy was
merely a vehicle for Peikoff to become famous as a great
philosophical thinker. A better word for this dichotomy would
be "straw dog." Creating a "crisis" out of this intellectual issue
is reminiscent of the Bill Clinton presidency whereby the
White House lived on diet of a crisis-a-day. Objectivism lives
and breathes on intellectual crises which it manufactures from
thin air, and then blows them up to preposterous proportions.
Their crusade against Kant is particularly strong because
it is based on two self-sustaining premises: 1. The worship
of a great cult-leader who is deemed omniscient even by
those who pretend to see the "errors" in her arguments, and
2. The fact that Kant is extremely difficult to understand, thereby
making it more likely that one is going to rely on the great
genius cult-leader to feed us the pre-digested answers to it
which in the long run consist of nothing but slogans and
other one-line, easily memorized formulas, even the
one-worders such as "appearance" and "noumenal," words
designed to strike instant terror in those who live in the darkness
created and sustained by an intellectual elite whose
days are numbered.
> , etc. This
> is what's maintained my interest in her philosophy, as, seeing what
> religion does to people, I've found the mind-body dichotomy the most
> destructive idea in history.
You found that out all by yourself?
> Of course, Kant did not originate it, but he
> did a thorough job of systemizing it.
And this was your own discovery too I take it.
> > Is the Kantian philosophy as "anti-reason" and (i believe, although am
> > unsure) "statist" as she claims it to be?
>
> Kant and Ayn Rand had very different ideas of what reason is.
Since they both practiced Aristotelian syllogistic reasoning I wonder
where their actual differences lie.
> I don't
> understand Kant's well enough to describe it, but perhaps that's the
> point. There is no way I, in my day-to-day life, even when I'm making
> important moral decisions, think the way Kant said people think. I
> wouldn't know how to universalize a maxim if my life depended on it.
Most people nowadays don't. That's why they depend on simple
empirical formulas such as "He did it to me therefore I can do it to him,"
or "Love thy neighbor as thyself, " or "I can't do that, I might get
arrested," or "It's only wrong if you get caught," and on and on...
This is not principled thinking obviously, but merely pragmatic
thinking. The Categorical Imperative, in its 3 forms, is a formula
which bridges the gap between the principle and the practice.
> --
> Dave O'Hearn
>
Fred Weiss
news:SLEs6.368$94....@www.newsranger.com...
> In article <98stou$uca$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Fred Weiss says...
>
> >> No, by no stretch of the imagination is Kant anti-reason
> >
> >Only if one forgets that his declared purpose was "to deny reason to make
> >room for faith"
>
> Prove that Kant said this. Do you have a cite?
I've been corrected that the translation is "to deny knowledge.."
But I would argue that it amounts to the same thing.
Incidentally, since if I've been asked to demonstrate Kant's influence on
contemporary thought, the view of the alleged (inherent) "limitations" of
human knowledge is a pervasive view of modern thought - in all schools, of
all varieties, on all continents. So is the view that we cannot really know
reality. So is the view that the essence of morality, if not the entire
subject of morality, is what we do for others and that what we do for
ourselves is at best "prudent" but without moral merit.
With regard to the Categorical Imperative, Objectivism might agree with it
(because it is merely an assertion that one should be consistent and
non-hypocritical), but it is empty without first answering the question who
should be the primary beneficiary of values and what those are.
It's also important to note that the fact that someone may never have read
Kant doesn't speak to his influence, anymore than the fact that someone
hasn't read Marx doesn't to his. Marxism is pervasive in contemporary
political and social thought and I don't really care if people - Democrats
included - deny it. Certain views can reach the level of unquestioned
established wisdom and people regard them as givens without knowing their
original source. As we've discussed in another thread, the view of
"selfishness" is one such example - much of which btw comes from Kant.
Fred Weiss
Malenor
"Ken Gardner" <kesga...@home.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.151d49297b6a66bf989755@news...
> Malenor says...
>
> > Look at the childish asshole Randroid-in-denial telling
> > his petty little lies. There isn't a single person who
> > comes here, who knows anything at all about this subject, that
> > can't name a book or work where Peikoff refers to Kant in the
> > most strenuously contemptuous way. I won't insult you further
> > by citing these numerous sources which are easily found even
> > by a grade-schooler with limited internet or library skills. You
> > can't reason, you can't think, you can't even observe the facts
> > of reality correctly without spinning out a web of lies and
> > delusions. Now grow up, get over Rand, she wasn't that
> > great, and find out what real scholarship and philosophical
> > reasoning is about.
>
> It continues to astound me that people, especially newbies like
> yourself,
I am not a newbie to newsgroups. In fact I visit them everyday,
and I recall my first visit to this newsgroup and APK over
2 years ago where I posted a few things even then, probably
under the same handle.
> apparently believe that by barging into this newsgroup and
> insulting other people like this, by negative implication (or somehow)
> they have something valuable to offer in this newsgroup or are otherwise
> intellectually superior by comparison.
He called me a name,
> "Robert Chapman" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
> > Malenor,
> >
> Your replies show that you are quite an asshole
therefore I can call him a name :-p
Besides, I never had the hope of tearing down the wall of
anti-intellectualism you call Objectivism to begin with. You know why?
Because I was one of you Randroids at one time. Since I've been
in your shoes, walked a mile in them and much more,
I know exactly how mind-numbing and personality destroying this
theory of yours is.
> Frankly, when I read a post like
> this, my first impression and guess is that the person is an
> intellectually insecure high school or college student who is barely fit
> for serious intellectual discussion (or, in many cases, not fit at all).
rant, rant rant
> It's bad enough if I'm right, even worse if I'm wrong, and even more
> worse if you are in the philosophy profession in some respect.
Ha ha I am hardly an ivory-tower intellectual, I wouldn't lower myself.
> Because you raised scholarship and philosophical reasoning, why don't
> you start setting the example yourself by disagreeing in the proper way
> that scholars and serious philosophers discuss and debate philosophical
> issues? Instead of a stream of insults,
But if you have the moral stamina to see beyond the flames and smoke
there might be a kernel of truth waiting in the wings. I always punctuate
the flames with real facts and real reasoning. The fact that you can't
see past the empirical side of my verbalizations is demonstration of
the fact that your goal is merely empirical self-preservation and
sustaining a fragile self-esteem as opposed to attaining intellectual
enlightenment. Or perhaps you just don't know philosophical
thinking when you see it.
> try explaining why the person
> is misinformed or ill-informed, or made an error in logic,
I did --
** There isn't a single person
** who comes here, who knows anything at all about this subject, that
** can't name a book or work where Peikoff refers to Kant in the
** most strenuously contemptuous way.
Didn't you find that informative?
And furthermore...
** I won't insult you further
** by citing these numerous sources which are easily found even
** by a grade-schooler with limited internet or library skills.
"Sources" refers to Peikoffian attacks on Kant. This was meant
to inform him that the resources are out there readily available,
so easy to find that I won't insult him by holding his hand through
the process of finding them. Frankly, I find his claim that --
> > I have in fact read Kant's Critiques in full as well as a half-dozen
> > (non-Objectivist) secondary analyses and have never read a single word
by
> > Peikoff on Kant
to be highly unbelievable, and incredible if true. But if you take that
statement literally, then
of course there were no references to Peikoff in Kant's Critiques, and
furthermore, there may be a good reason why the secondary literature
makes no reference to Peikoff's take on Kant: To cite Peikoff would
be to greatly diminish the credibility of the work at hand. The only
credible
place to cite Peikoff would have to be in an analysis of cult leaders of the
20th century. To cite Peikoff otherwise would cause one to sound like
a crackpot.
> or simply
> doesn't know all the facts. You might learn something, and so might
> your opponent.
> Ken
>
Thanks for the lecture your Holiness.
Malenor
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:99041e$vti$2...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> "A is A Exterminators" <A_me...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> news:SLEs6.368$94....@www.newsranger.com...
> > In article <98stou$uca$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Fred Weiss says...
> >
> > >> No, by no stretch of the imagination is Kant anti-reason
> > >
> > >Only if one forgets that his declared purpose was "to deny reason to
make
> > >room for faith"
> >
> > Prove that Kant said this. Do you have a cite?
>
> I've been corrected that the translation is "to deny knowledge.."
>
> But I would argue that it amounts to the same thing.
>
> Incidentally, since if I've been asked to demonstrate Kant's influence on
> contemporary thought, the view of the alleged (inherent) "limitations" of
> human knowledge is a pervasive view of modern thought - in all schools, of
> all varieties, on all continents. So is the view that we cannot really
know
> reality. So is the view that the essence of morality, if not the entire
> subject of morality, is what we do for others and that what we do for
> ourselves is at best "prudent" but without moral merit.
This last statement illustrates something I mentioned, the important role of
the
"straw dog" in Objectivism, and crisis-mongering, reminiscent of the
Clinton presidency.
> With regard to the Categorical Imperative, Objectivism might agree with it
> (because it is merely an assertion that one should be consistent and
> non-hypocritical), but it is empty without first answering the question
who
> should be the primary beneficiary of values and what those are.
Now you will learn something:
The CI is not merely such an assertion. The CI is the bridge between
principled thinking and moral action --
"Act so that the maxim of thy will can always at the same time hold
good as a principle of universal legislation."
The CI begins with the word "act." This acting serves as the form
which the will's principled legislation takes. And of course it must
be held as universal for it to reflect the principle involved, else it would
not
be a principle at all. Therefore not acting morally is destructive
of principles. Now where is the moral/practical dichotomy which
the Randroids claim for Kant? Show me.
(How was that, Ken? Informative or not?)
<snip>
> As we've discussed in another thread, the view of
> "selfishness" is one such example - much of which btw comes from Kant.
This is what I was talking about previously, the tossing out of buzzwords
designed to frighten the unwary and uninformed -- a tactic reminiscent of
the style of the Clinton presidency.
> Fred Weiss
>
>
>
>
Ken Gardner
> > apparently believe that by barging into this newsgroup and
> > insulting other people like this, by negative implication (or somehow)
> > they have something valuable to offer in this newsgroup or are otherwise
> > intellectually superior by comparison.
> He called me a name,
[....]
Obviously, what I said to you applies to him and many others here as
well, regardless of "party affiliation." I'm not picking on you
specifically. It's just that your post was the one that caught my eye
and -- whatever your usenet experience -- you are not (yet) a regular
here.
> therefore I can call him a name :-p
> Besides, I never had the hope of tearing down the wall of
> anti-intellectualism you call Objectivism to begin with. You know why?
> Because I was one of you Randroids at one time.
If you are referring specifically to me, you have me confused with
someone else.
> Since I've been in your shoes, walked a mile in them and much more,
> I know exactly how mind-numbing and personality destroying this
> theory of yours is.
I agree with respect to those who treat Objectivism as a religion (or a
substitute for religion) rather than a philosophy. But if you think
everyone here who calls himself an Objectivist fits that description,
you are painting with way too broad a brush.
> > Because you raised scholarship and philosophical reasoning, why don't
> > you start setting the example yourself by disagreeing in the proper way
> > that scholars and serious philosophers discuss and debate philosophical
> > issues? Instead of a stream of insults,
> But if you have the moral stamina to see beyond the flames and smoke
> there might be a kernel of truth waiting in the wings.
Sure. But the fact remains that the flames and smoke add nothing and,
in fact, detract from everything else that may be worthwhile. Injecting
strong emotions, especially hostility, into any intellectual discussion
is almost always counterproductive.
> I always punctuate the flames with real facts and real reasoning.
> The fact that you can't see past the empirical side of my
> verbalizations is demonstration of the fact that your goal is
> merely empirical self-preservation and sustaining a fragile
> self-esteem as opposed to attaining intellectual enlightenment.
> Or perhaps you just don't know philosophical thinking when you
> see it.
This is a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said to
you, "Instead of a stream of insults, try explaining why the person
is misinformed or ill-informed, or made an error in logic, or simply
doesn't know all the facts. You might learn something, and so might
your opponent." First, you are assuming, without really knowing (and
without having any way to know), what I have seen or not seen regarding
your "verbalizations" without even bothering to ask me. Second, you are
making incorrect assumptions about my intellectual motives in
participating in this newsgroup. Third, you are making unwarranted
assumptions about my ability to recognize philosophical thinking of
others.
My essential point here was that if "attaining intellectual
enlightenment" is your goal, then you should leave strong emotions --
especially hostile emotions -- at the door and, instead, be prepared to
discuss issues calmly, logically, and rationally. If you disagree, just
tell me specifically why I'm wrong, what error I made and how to correct
it. That's all I'm saying.
> > try explaining why the person
> > is misinformed or ill-informed, or made an error in logic,
> I did --
> ** There isn't a single person
> ** who comes here, who knows anything at all about this subject, that
> ** can't name a book or work where Peikoff refers to Kant in the
> ** most strenuously contemptuous way.
> Didn't you find that informative?
My problem here was more with your tone than your content. Why not just
say, "Peikoff has always treated Kant in the most strenuously
contemptuous way?" Instead, you phrase this point as an appeal to
authority (which is a form of fallacious reasoning) as well as what Rand
called the argument from intimidation.
> And furthermore...
> ** I won't insult you further
> ** by citing these numerous sources which are easily found even
> ** by a grade-schooler with limited internet or library skills.
>
> "Sources" refers to Peikoffian attacks on Kant. This was meant
> to inform him that the resources are out there readily available,
> so easy to find that I won't insult him by holding his hand through
> the process of finding them.
Same comment and response. Instead of this patronizing tone, just say
that the sources are readily available. If he's genuinely interested,
he'll ask you or he'll check for himself.
[...]
> But if you take that statement literally, then of course there were no
> references to Peikoff in Kant's Critiques, and
> furthermore, there may be a good reason why the secondary literature
> makes no reference to Peikoff's take on Kant: To cite Peikoff would
> be to greatly diminish the credibility of the work at hand.
Well, to put it extremely mildly, I'm not exactly a defender of Leonard
Peikoff myself. However, I can tell you that other philosophers have
criticized Kant on essentially the same grounds that Rand and Peikoff
criticized him, albeit not with the same tone or degree of moral
condemnation. I'm thinking specifically of Mortimer Adler, but there
may be many others as well.
> The only credible place to cite Peikoff would have to be in an analysis
> of cult leaders of the 20th century. To cite Peikoff otherwise would
> cause one to sound like a crackpot.
Until about a year or so ago, I would have disagreed with you. But
today I would tend to agree with you on this point. Peikoff discredited
himself completely in my eyes when he declared on his radio show that
the United States, if it wishes to do so, has the right to nuke the
populations of Afghanistan, Iran, and the Sudan in the name of "fighting
terrorism."
> Thanks for the lecture your Holiness.
You don't have to like what I said. Just think about it.
Ken
Gaius Helen Mohiam
news:y9Ms6.4742$227.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> There is an analytic-synthetic distinction in Kant's CPR, but not
> a dichotomy. The so-called analytic-synthetic dichotomy was
> merely a vehicle for Peikoff to become famous as a great
> philosophical thinker.
Well, that shot, if indeed it was an attempt at that, went nicely
backwards...
> Objectivism lives
> and breathes on intellectual crises which it manufactures from
> thin air, and then blows them up to preposterous proportions.
That's a fair characterization, I would say.
> Since they both practiced Aristotelian syllogistic reasoning I wonder
> where their actual differences lie.
Well, that would be easy to see: Kant actually was a philosopher, and a
universally respected one at that, while Rand was an uneducated
hobby-"philosopher", who knew next to nothing about the subject (and the
little she "knew" was quite obviously far beyond her grasp). Hence her
somewhat, shall we say, original, "interpretation" of Kant.
Helen.
Fred Weiss
news:SLEs6.368$94....@www.newsranger.com...
>
> >> No, by no stretch of the imagination is Kant anti-reason
> >
> >Only if one forgets that his declared purpose was "to deny reason to make
> >room for faith"
>
> Prove that Kant said this. Do you have a cite?
I've been corrected that the translation is "to deny knowledge.."
But I would argue that it amounts to the same thing.
Incidentally, since if I've been asked to demonstrate Kant's influence on
contemporary thought, the view of the alleged (inherent) "limitations" of
human knowledge is a pervasive view of modern thought - in all schools, of
all varieties, on all continents. So is the view that we cannot really know
reality. So is the view that the essence of morality, if not the entire
subject of morality, is what we do for others and that what we do for
ourselves is at best "prudent" but without moral merit.
With regard to the Categorical Imperative, Objectivism might agree with it
(because it is merely an assertion that one should be consistent and
non-hypocritical), but it is empty without first answering the question who
should be the primary beneficiary of values and what those are.
It's also important to note that the fact that someone may never have read
Kant doesn't speak to his influence, anymore than the fact that someone
hasn't read Marx doesn't to his. Marxism is pervasive in contemporary
political and social thought and I don't really care if people - Democrats
included - deny it. Certain views can reach the level of unquestioned
established wisdom and people regard them as givens without knowing their
original source. As we've discussed in another thread, the view of
"selfishness" is one such example - much of which btw comes from Kant.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> The truth is, Kant was far
> more rejected and misunderstood than accepted and furthered.
This isn't an argument, just an observation, but I've heard Marxist
apologists say the same thing (about Marx) many times. Marx really would not
have supported Soviet communism, they say.
Who cares?
This is an approach to philosophy from inessentials.
Would (did?) Rousseau support the French Revolution - and the guillotine? I
actually don't know the answer to that. But again who cares? If you look at
the fundamentals of his philosophy that's where one might have predicted it
would end up - just as one might have predicted that Marxism would have
ended up with Soviet communism - or Nieztsche with Naziism.
Someone once said that every philosopher should be made to live in the world
they advocate, so that they could actually see the implications of their
views.
(I'll mention that there are very few philosophers admirable in this
respect. Jesus was one. He ended up precisely where he should have. In rags
and nailed to a cross.)
I wonder: what do you think Kant's world would look like? In my view: an
insane asylum. What do you think?
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7WMs6.3678$Im6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
What's "the straw dog"? We do do a lot of "crisis-mongering", but, hey, if
there's a crisis, there's a crisis. But your comment has no merit unless you
think there isn't grounds for the prediction. If someone had predicted that
appeasing Hitler would lead to war, no doubt he would have been accused of
"crisis-mongering". I can vividly remember, if you can't, how many of us who
supported a firm stand against the Soviet Union were also accused of being
crisis-mongers, that the poor Russians just wanted world peace like the rest
of us and that instead of fighting them we should unilaterally disarm and
show them our good intentions.
> > With regard to the Categorical Imperative, Objectivism might agree with
it
> > (because it is merely an assertion that one should be consistent and
> > non-hypocritical), but it is empty without first answering the question
> who
> > should be the primary beneficiary of values and what those are.
>
> Now you will learn something:
> The CI is not merely such an assertion. The CI is the bridge between
> principled thinking and moral action --
> "Act so that the maxim of thy will can always at the same time hold
> good as a principle of universal legislation."
>
> The CI begins with the word "act." This acting serves as the form
> which the will's principled legislation takes. And of course it must
> be held as universal for it to reflect the principle involved, else it
would
> not
> be a principle at all. Therefore not acting morally is destructive
> of principles. Now where is the moral/practical dichotomy which
> the Randroids claim for Kant? Show me.
You completely missed my point. I acknowledged that we might agree with it -
with qualification - as an aspect of principled action (though not the
primary basis of principled action). But what you are ignoring is my comment
that it is empty by itself. It can't be a moral primary. Something is not
right merely because you might wish that everyone does it. On the other
hand - at the level of broad moral abstractions - it is true that if
something is right *everyone* should do it, including yourself,e.g. use
reason or be honest, etc. But why is it right to use reason or be honest -
and do so consistently - and to expect/demand that others do? Not merely
because it would be nice if everyone did. As Kant states it, not suprisingly
(because this is rampant in his philosophy), it's a floating abstraction.
This is consistent with Kant's overall view of morality - disconnecting it
from any beneficiary or purpose, i.e. from actual values, i.e. from life.
Just consider his view of suicide, even if one were experiencing agonizing
and terminal pain.
> > As we've discussed in another thread, the view of
> > "selfishness" is one such example - much of which btw comes from Kant.
>
> This is what I was talking about previously, the tossing out of buzzwords
> designed to frighten the unwary and uninformed -- a tactic reminiscent of
> the style of the Clinton presidency.
I don't know what this has to do with Clinton, but I shudder at the thought
that we share anything in common with Clinton, so maybe you'd better
explain.
Fred Weiss
Malenor
> Malenor says...
>
> > > apparently believe that by barging into this newsgroup and
> > > insulting other people like this, by negative implication (or somehow)
> > > they have something valuable to offer in this newsgroup or are
otherwise
> > > intellectually superior by comparison.
>
> > He called me a name,
>
> [....]
>
> Obviously, what I said to you applies to him and many others here as
> well, regardless of "party affiliation." I'm not picking on you
> specifically.
But you did.
> It's just that your post was the one that caught my eye
> and -- whatever your usenet experience -- you are not (yet) a regular
> here.
So you're trolling for newbies I take it. Besides, what would have
caught your eye, that or some dry Kantian verbiage that few
here understand or want to understand?
I don't think of myself as a newbie here, not after 2 years, more
like a lurker... I rarely find anything here interesting to discuss.
Hotrod started this same thread on APK, and that brought
my attention here. At least he didn't cross-post.
> > therefore I can call him a name :-p
> > Besides, I never had the hope of tearing down the wall of
> > anti-intellectualism you call Objectivism to begin with. You know why?
> > Because I was one of you Randroids at one time.
>
> If you are referring specifically to me, you have me confused with
> someone else.
Randroids always say something like that.
> > Since I've been in your shoes, walked a mile in them and much more,
> > I know exactly how mind-numbing and personality destroying this
> > theory of yours is.
>
> I agree with respect to those who treat Objectivism as a religion (or a
> substitute for religion) rather than a philosophy. But if you think
> everyone here who calls himself an Objectivist fits that description,
> you are painting with way too broad a brush.
I can make an exception for George Walsh because I have evidence
to the contrary.
> > > Because you raised scholarship and philosophical reasoning, why don't
> > > you start setting the example yourself by disagreeing in the proper
way
> > > that scholars and serious philosophers discuss and debate
philosophical
> > > issues? Instead of a stream of insults,
>
> > But if you have the moral stamina to see beyond the flames and smoke
> > there might be a kernel of truth waiting in the wings.
>
> Sure. But the fact remains that the flames and smoke add nothing and,
> in fact, detract from everything else that may be worthwhile. Injecting
> strong emotions, especially hostility, into any intellectual discussion
> is almost always counterproductive.
But like you said,
> It's just that your post was the one that caught my eye
And I hardly think that discussing dry Kantian theory would have
accomplished that. Therefore I did accomplish something positive.
> > I always punctuate the flames with real facts and real reasoning.
> > The fact that you can't see past the empirical side of my
> > verbalizations is demonstration of the fact that your goal is
> > merely empirical self-preservation and sustaining a fragile
> > self-esteem as opposed to attaining intellectual enlightenment.
> > Or perhaps you just don't know philosophical thinking when you
> > see it.
>
> This is a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said to
> you, "Instead of a stream of insults, try explaining why the person
> is misinformed or ill-informed, or made an error in logic, or simply
> doesn't know all the facts. You might learn something, and so might
> your opponent." First, you are assuming, without really knowing (and
> without having any way to know), what I have seen or not seen regarding
> your "verbalizations" without even bothering to ask me. Second, you are
> making incorrect assumptions about my intellectual motives in
> participating in this newsgroup. Third, you are making unwarranted
> assumptions about my ability to recognize philosophical thinking of
> others.
Hmmm, would your middle name perhaps be Spock?
> My essential point here was that if "attaining intellectual
> enlightenment" is your goal, then you should leave strong emotions --
> especially hostile emotions -- at the door and, instead, be prepared to
> discuss issues calmly, logically, and rationally. If you disagree, just
> tell me specifically why I'm wrong, what error I made and how to correct
> it. That's all I'm saying.
Yes. You are far more a Kantian than you realize. But I didn't come to
HPO to find intellectual enlightenment. I came here to chip away at
the wall just a little bit after noticing HotRod also posted that same
topic here.
> > > try explaining why the person
> > > is misinformed or ill-informed, or made an error in logic,
>
> > I did --
> > ** There isn't a single person
> > ** who comes here, who knows anything at all about this subject, that
> > ** can't name a book or work where Peikoff refers to Kant in the
> > ** most strenuously contemptuous way.
>
> > Didn't you find that informative?
>
> My problem here was more with your tone than your content. Why not just
> say, "Peikoff has always treated Kant in the most strenuously
> contemptuous way?" Instead, you phrase this point as an appeal to
> authority (which is a form of fallacious reasoning) as well as what Rand
> called the argument from intimidation.
I wasn't making any argument therefore there is no fallacy of argumentation.
I was making a bold assertion. In fact, it was a great statement of faith
in the idea that those who visit this NG have done any reading at all.
> > And furthermore...
>
> > ** I won't insult you further
> > ** by citing these numerous sources which are easily found even
> > ** by a grade-schooler with limited internet or library skills.
> >
> > "Sources" refers to Peikoffian attacks on Kant. This was meant
> > to inform him that the resources are out there readily available,
> > so easy to find that I won't insult him by holding his hand through
> > the process of finding them.
>
> Same comment and response. Instead of this patronizing tone, just say
> that the sources are readily available. If he's genuinely interested,
> he'll ask you or he'll check for himself.
Nevermind the tone, geez... Why be so sensitive? Do all intellectuals,
pseudo or otherwise, have such weak stomachs? And what is your
own tone anyway, not patronizing I take it?
> [...]
>
> > But if you take that statement literally, then of course there were no
> > references to Peikoff in Kant's Critiques, and
> > furthermore, there may be a good reason why the secondary literature
> > makes no reference to Peikoff's take on Kant: To cite Peikoff would
> > be to greatly diminish the credibility of the work at hand.
>
> Well, to put it extremely mildly, I'm not exactly a defender of Leonard
> Peikoff myself. However, I can tell you that other philosophers have
> criticized Kant on essentially the same grounds that Rand and Peikoff
> criticized him,
Yes, those are called "stock criticisms." They are based mainly on
the misinterpretations of english-speaking philosophers. Not all
philosophers
hold or held to these criticisms. Of course I
understand that Rand read Kant in the original German, but then
there arises an ironic situation -- Kant was actually easier to understand
in english! So it depends on which english interpretation you choose.
I have recently discovered (through newsgroups) the splendid
interpretation of the CPR by Werner S. Pluhar. I am also a fan of
Henry E. Allison, who does a great job of discrediting the stock
criticisms, and even shows that there are points to criticize that
the critics have missed completely.
> albeit not with the same tone or degree of moral
> condemnation. I'm thinking specifically of Mortimer Adler, but there
> may be many others as well.
>
> > The only credible place to cite Peikoff would have to be in an analysis
> > of cult leaders of the 20th century. To cite Peikoff otherwise would
> > cause one to sound like a crackpot.
>
> Until about a year or so ago, I would have disagreed with you. But
> today I would tend to agree with you on this point. Peikoff discredited
> himself completely in my eyes when he declared on his radio show that
> the United States, if it wishes to do so, has the right to nuke the
> populations of Afghanistan, Iran, and the Sudan in the name of "fighting
> terrorism."
Hmm, sounds more like G. Gordon Liddy! I don't oppose Peikoff
primarily on particular, empirical matters of policy, but on philosophical
principles. If he had any philosophical grounds to stand on I could
forgive the rest. Perhaps we should take a leaf from Rand's book and
see his actions as reflecting some deeper philosophical issue that needs
to be addressed. His lawsuits, the Clintonian style of leadership....
he strikes me as more of a Pragmatist than an Objectivist.
> > Thanks for the lecture your Holiness.
>
> You don't have to like what I said. Just think about it.
>
> Ken
Lol! I am in the territory of the non-thinkers and he's telling me to think?
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> Would (did?) Rousseau support the French Revolution - and the guillotine?
Hard to say. He died in 1778, some 11 years before the Revolution.
It is interesting to note that both Charlet Corday and Jaque Marrat claimed
to be desciples of Rousseau, but Corday killed Marrat for political
reasons. She knifed him whilst he was in the bathtub.
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7WMs6.3678$Im6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
What's "the straw dog"? We do do a lot of "crisis-mongering", but, hey, if
there's a crisis, there's a crisis. But your comment has no merit unless you
think there isn't grounds for the prediction. If someone had predicted that
appeasing Hitler would lead to war, no doubt he would have been accused of
"crisis-mongering". I can vividly remember, if you can't, how many of us who
supported a firm stand against the Soviet Union were also accused of being
crisis-mongers, that the poor Russians just wanted world peace like the rest
of us and that instead of fighting them we should unilaterally disarm and
show them our good intentions.
> > With regard to the Categorical Imperative, Objectivism might agree with
it
> > (because it is merely an assertion that one should be consistent and
> > non-hypocritical), but it is empty without first answering the question
> who
> > should be the primary beneficiary of values and what those are.
>
> Now you will learn something:
> The CI is not merely such an assertion. The CI is the bridge between
> principled thinking and moral action --
> "Act so that the maxim of thy will can always at the same time hold
> good as a principle of universal legislation."
>
> The CI begins with the word "act." This acting serves as the form
> which the will's principled legislation takes. And of course it must
> be held as universal for it to reflect the principle involved, else it
would
> not
> be a principle at all. Therefore not acting morally is destructive
> of principles. Now where is the moral/practical dichotomy which
> the Randroids claim for Kant? Show me.
You completely missed my point. I acknowledged that we might agree with it -
with qualification - as an aspect of principled action (though not the
primary basis of principled action). But what you are ignoring is my comment
that it is empty by itself. It can't be a moral primary. Something is not
right merely because you might wish that everyone does it. On the other
hand - at the level of broad moral abstractions - it is true that if
something is right *everyone* should do it, including yourself,e.g. use
reason or be honest, etc. But why is it right to use reason or be honest -
and do so consistently - and to expect/demand that others do? Not merely
because it would be nice if everyone did. As Kant states it, not suprisingly
(because this is rampant in his philosophy), it's a floating abstraction.
This is consistent with Kant's overall view of morality - disconnecting it
from any beneficiary or purpose, i.e. from actual values, i.e. from life.
Just consider his view of suicide, even if one were experiencing agonizing
and terminal pain.
> > As we've discussed in another thread, the view of
> > "selfishness" is one such example - much of which btw comes from Kant.
>
> This is what I was talking about previously, the tossing out of buzzwords
> designed to frighten the unwary and uninformed -- a tactic reminiscent of
> the style of the Clinton presidency.
I don't know what this has to do with Clinton, but I shudder at the thought
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Ken Gardner
> > It's just that your post was the one that caught my eye
> > and -- whatever your usenet experience -- you are not (yet) a regular
> > here.
> So you're trolling for newbies I take it.
I wouldn't put it that way. I'm always interested in new posters
because of the potential for them to contribute real value to this
newsgroup above and beyond the mean or average of this newsgroup. I
have limited time and cannot simply respond to anyone on any subject.
Nor are all posters here equal in terms of knowledge, intellectual
ability, logic skills, rhetorical skills, or temperament. Accordingly,
before I decide to respond to a post, among other things I make
judgments regarding whether I think I can benefit from engaging a
particular poster, usually without regard to the subject of his post.
It doesn't take me long to determine whether that person measures up --
or not.
> Besides, what would have caught your eye, that or some dry Kantian
> verbiage that few here understand or want to understand?
In this case, both caught my eye (I have read all of the Kant v. Rand
posts to date), but I have been up and down the Kant road many times and
I found nothing new or interesting to discuss in this particular thread.
> > > Besides, I never had the hope of tearing down the wall of
> > > anti-intellectualism you call Objectivism to begin with. You know why?
> > > Because I was one of you Randroids at one time.
> > If you are referring specifically to me, you have me confused with
> > someone else.
> Randroids always say something like that.
Which, even if true, proves nothing about me specifically or anyone else
specifically. It proves only that you sometimes overgeneralize and may
also have the sloppy intellectual habit of imposing guilt by
association.
> > I agree with respect to those who treat Objectivism as a religion (or a
> > substitute for religion) rather than a philosophy. But if you think
> > everyone here who calls himself an Objectivist fits that description,
> > you are painting with way too broad a brush.
> I can make an exception for George Walsh because I have evidence
> to the contrary.
Well, there are others as well, regardless of your particular state of
knowledge or ignorance at this time.
> > Sure. But the fact remains that the flames and smoke add nothing and,
> > in fact, detract from everything else that may be worthwhile. Injecting
> > strong emotions, especially hostility, into any intellectual discussion
> > is almost always counterproductive.
> > But like you said,
> > It's just that your post was the one that caught my eye.
But the relevant topic for me was your approach to this newsgroup, not
your views on Kant. If, instead, I wanted to know your views on Kant,
and instead you began your post with a stream of insults, I would have
simply skipped to the next post. Occasionally I'll wade through the
manure in the hope of finding a pony, but not often.
> And I hardly think that discussing dry Kantian theory would have
> accomplished that. Therefore I did accomplish something positive.
True, but in the sense that I'm getting a very good read on you, which,
as I explained above, was my primary objective in interjecting myself
into this thread. I've already been there, done that many times on the
Kant issues.
> > This is a perfect example of what I was talking about when I said to
> > you, "Instead of a stream of insults, try explaining why the person
> > is misinformed or ill-informed, or made an error in logic, or simply
> > doesn't know all the facts. You might learn something, and so might
> > your opponent." First, you are assuming, without really knowing (and
> > without having any way to know), what I have seen or not seen regarding
> > your "verbalizations" without even bothering to ask me. Second, you are
> > making incorrect assumptions about my intellectual motives in
> > participating in this newsgroup. Third, you are making unwarranted
> > assumptions about my ability to recognize philosophical thinking of
> > others.
> Hmmm, would your middle name perhaps be Spock?
I appreciate the compliment, but no.
> > My essential point here was that if "attaining intellectual
> > enlightenment" is your goal, then you should leave strong emotions --
> > especially hostile emotions -- at the door and, instead, be prepared to
> > discuss issues calmly, logically, and rationally. If you disagree, just
> > tell me specifically why I'm wrong, what error I made and how to correct
> > it. That's all I'm saying.
> Yes. You are far more a Kantian than you realize. But I didn't come to
> HPO to find intellectual enlightenment. I came here to chip away at
> the wall just a little bit after noticing HotRod also posted that same
> topic here.
And that's something else I wanted to know. Thanks for telling me,
although I had already essentially reached that conclusion anyway.
> > My problem here was more with your tone than your content. Why not just
> > say, "Peikoff has always treated Kant in the most strenuously
> > contemptuous way?" Instead, you phrase this point as an appeal to
> > authority (which is a form of fallacious reasoning) as well as what Rand
> > called the argument from intimidation.
> I wasn't making any argument therefore there is no fallacy of argumentation.
> I was making a bold assertion. In fact, it was a great statement of faith
> in the idea that those who visit this NG have done any reading at all.
Call it whatever you want. I think it is an enthymeme, and in any event
the statement is still fallacious for the same reasons.
> > Same comment and response. Instead of this patronizing tone, just say
> > that the sources are readily available. If he's genuinely interested,
> > he'll ask you or he'll check for himself.
> Nevermind the tone, geez... Why be so sensitive? Do all intellectuals,
> pseudo or otherwise, have such weak stomachs? And what is your
> own tone anyway, not patronizing I take it?
Actually, the weakness here is displayed by the person who wants to vent
his emotions and hostility instead of exercising discipline, restraint,
and self-control and displaying the time, effort, and patience required
to understand a person correctly and then agree or disagree with him in
the right manner and for the right reasons.
[....]
Ken
Dave OHearn
>
> "Dave OHearn" <dav...@lessing.oit.umass.edu> wrote in message
> news:3ab3...@oit.umass.edu...
> > Hotrod0283 (hotro...@aol.com) wrote:
> > > read some of Kant and some of Rand; Ms. Rand seems to engage in many
> > > little diatribes against a brilliant philosopher.
> >
> > everywhere. He even went so far as to project it outside the mind and
> > body, referring to two levels of reality. I don't think Kant thought
> > there were actualy two "realities", but he did think the dichotomy was
> > so fundamental that, to us, there might as well be.
>
> You are correct about Kant's noumenal-phenomenal dichotomy. In
> fact, it is the only dichotomy he actually terms as such. Tell me, what
> else do you know about the N-P dichotomy?
I know it mostly from phenomenology, not Kant's original works. I also
heard a lot of variants of in in Sociology. It's certainly true that
there's a difference between appearance and reality, if only because one
thing can have many different appearances when viewed differently. But I
find it an epistemological issue, and at the least, it's confusing to use
terminology about different realities. When it reaches the point that
someone says, "This is my way of looking at the world, it's just the way
I am, and right or wrong, I can't escape from it," they've made a grave
error. I don't know if Kant went that far, but the sociologists,
borrowing from the phenomenologists, certainly do.
> There is no such dichotomy for Kant. A theory exists in one's head, practice
> takes place outside it. It's no more a dichotomy than saying that
> swimming takes place in water, walking takes place on land, therefore
> there is a walking-swimming dichotomy?
I didn't mean to imply that Kant said anything about the theory-practice
dichotomy. I don't know if he did. It's more of a pop philosophy thing
you'll hear on the street when someone says an idea is good, but won't
work. It was a very common line in defending Communist ideas. My point
was merely that the explicit rejection of false dichotomies is what
maintains my interest in Objectivism.
> , moral-practical,
>
> Again, morality is a theory, and its practice takes place outside of
> theories. But didn't Kant write a Critique of Practical Reason which
> is all about morality? Why did he call it Practical reason if it was
> only about some pure moral theory that can't be practiced. What
> is Practical reason anyway? And what use is a moral theory that
> can't be practiced? Such charges make Kant sound like far less
> than the brilliant philosopher you say he no doubt is.
I think he approached it backwards. He asks, "What are the rules?" and
then sets out to find them, given the constraints that they must be
universizable and non-contradictory. It is probably possible, with a lot
of careful thought, to do this and still come out with a morality that
accepts man as an end in himself, not as a robot following rules. But I
think it's the wrong approach, and not the way real people approach moral
decisions in their lives. You can make a lot of horrible mistakes using
it, and very easily. An example is pacifism. It's universizable and
non-contradictory, but amounts to nothing but death.
I do think Kant explicity endorsed the moral-practical dichotomy when he
said that an action performed in good will is good, regardless of
consequences. He probably would have said that good will requires using
reason to look at the consequences, but I still think this is a bad
approach, starting with morality and saying you need practicality to get
there.
> There is an analytic-synthetic distinction in Kant's CPR, but not
> a dichotomy. The so-called analytic-synthetic dichotomy was
> merely a vehicle for Peikoff to become famous as a great
> philosophical thinker. A better word for this dichotomy would
> be "straw dog."
I don't know to what extent Kant held the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as
Peikoff described it, but I certainly heard a lot of it in school. I
agree that the position, as he presented it, is trivially stupid and
deserves to be called a straw dog. Unfortunately, a lot of people spout
it as rhetoric, saying logic has nothing to do with reality.
> > , etc. This
> > is what's maintained my interest in her philosophy, as, seeing what
> > religion does to people, I've found the mind-body dichotomy the most
> > destructive idea in history.
>
> You found that out all by yourself?
Before I'd heard of Objectivism, if that's what you mean, yes.
> > Of course, Kant did not originate it, but he
> > did a thorough job of systemizing it.
>
> And this was your own discovery too I take it.
It's not a very profound statement. If you have a different view of
Kant, I'll hear it, but I've never heard anyone describe his philosophy
except as a unification of faith and reason. My mother reveres Kant and
says it, and our encyclopedia (we lost it in a fire, or I'd reference it
now), said pretty much the same.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Owl
> > 1. Ethics: Both put forward the principle that each individual is an end
> in
> > himself One formulation of the categorical imperative is "act so that
you
> > treat humanity, whether in your own person or in that of another, always
> as
> > an end, never merely as a means." And Rand says "the basic social
...
> Meaning, duty to oneself. But I don't see it supported by the evidence you
> gave. There is a huge difference between "humanity" in Kant's formulation
> of the CI and "individual" in Rand's ethics. "Humanity" is a
transcendental
> idea.
I'm not following you here. You mean that Kant thought the fundamental
principle of morality was that one should treat a certain *idea* as an end
in itself? I would have thought he meant actual human beings.
> Rand's "individual" means not individual, but individual life, as if
> to say,
> "every individual life is an end in itself."
Right.
> is the life of that individual. Humanity is not the same value as human
> life.
I don't see the difference.
> Besides, Rand's heroes demonstrated that their lives were not the highest
> value, because they were willing to sacrifice their lives for causes, i.e,
> for
> higher values (whatever they may be).
These higher values are considered, in the Objectivist ethics, to be part of
their 'lives', and to be what is required for bettering one's life. Of
course, this concept of 'life' has its problems and has been the subject of
enough discussion here.
> > Kant believed that you should give to charity, because this would be
part
> of
> > treating others as ends-in-themselves,
>
> He did? Is NOT giving to charity a violation of the CI?
Supposedly it is (see the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals, wherein
this is given as one of 4 applications of the CI).
> No, in fact, she considered giving to charity to be an ethical grey area,
> a matter of choice. "If you want to give to charity we will not try to
stop
> you."
"We will not stop you" does not imply "that's an ok thing to do." The
Objectivists also will not try to stop you from cutting your hand off, but
they don't think that's a morally ok thing to do either.
In "The Ethics of Emergencies," she gives some severe qualifications on when
one should be willing to help others, indicating that any such help should
be "marginal and incidental"--so a bit of charity is ok in special
circumstances, but don't overdo it!
> > 2. Metaphysics: Neither philosopher did much in the way of metaphysics.
>
> When Kant analyzes "definitions" he is in the realm of epistemology.
> When he analyzes the apriori functions or powers or faculties of the human
> mind he is discussing metaphysics. I'd say most of the CPR is metaphysics,
> or at least its main topics are metaphysical.
I don't think so; I think it is epistemology. Metaphysics would give us
knowledge of transcendent reality, you know, which is impossible. Kant only
pretends to give us knowledge about *our cognitive faculties*, which is
epistemology.
However, it's true that there is a bit of metaphysics in Kant, since he
(irrationally) affirms the reality of God, free will, and immortality. (Not
to say that belief in free will is irrational, but just that Kant lacked
good reason for it.)
> > Rand's
> > metaphysics, on the other hand, consists in such well-known truisms as
"A
> is
> > A", "existence exists," and "reality is objective."
>
> No, there is more to be discussed, the nature of causality for instance.
I left out the law of causality. However, I don't think Rand said anything
about it other than affirming that the law of causality follows from the law
of identity. I don't think she gave us an analysis of what causation is, for
instance (as other 20th-century philosophers have done). So I don't think
Rand has any interesting metaphysics.
> I believe A is A is an axiom of her epistemology, a formulation of the
> axiomatic concept of Identity.
Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge. "A is A" is not a
statement about knowledge, but a generalization about everything that
exists.
> > lots about "things in themselves," although she didn't use that term.
But
> > who can really be sure what the hell Kant means by "thing in itself"?
>
> A lot of people can. The thing in itself is that thing considered apart
from
> the formal conditions of sensible intuition.
And what the hell is *that*?
The thing-in-itself is *what* thing considered apart from, etc.?
> Or to put it another way, it
> is a concept derived logically from a consideration of things as if they
> were not objects of a consciousness sensibly constituted.
So things in themselves are *concepts*? So in saying we could not have
knowledge of things in themselves, Kant was saying that we cannot have
knowledge of our concepts?
> So what Kant
> means by "thing in itself" is merely a logical construct, not a reference
to
> anything real.
So things in themselves aren't real? I can assure you that this is wrong,
exegetically--it's about the opposite of the truth. Things in themselves are
opposed to 'appearances' and are the true underlying reality.
> It is therefore merely a derivative concept, hardly what
> I would consider the highest product of his thought as is Existence for
> Rand.
I would not call either concept, 'thing in itself' or 'existence', a
particularly high product of thought. In the case of the former, that is
because I don't think the concept makes any sense. In the case of the
latter, it is because the idea that stuff exists is, to put it mildly, not
news to anyone.
Owl
> > He limited our knowledge to 'objects of possible experience.'
>
> Well of course I can quote Kant just like you can. But what are these
> objects of possible experience? In Rand's terms, those would be
> objects of existence. Then you stated...
Of course, because everything exists (as we know from Quine, eh?). Stating
that our knowledge is "limited to existence" is therefore vacuous. My point,
however, was that Kant limited our knowledge to something much smaller than
all of existence.
Also note that when Rand distinguished 'existence' from 'consciousness', she
meant by "existence" that part of reality that is external to the mind.
Hence, in Objectivist terminology, Kant did not believe in knowledge of
'existence'.
> frustrating because the logic is so different. So where is the
> alleged connection between Kant and 20th c. philosophy?
Kant and Berkeley started the idealist movement in philosophy, which took
over 19th century philosophy and has remained dominant in other forms in
20th century Continental philosophy. A good discussion of idealism since
Berkeley is David Stove's "Idealism: A Victorian Horror Story" in _The Plato
Cult_.
Owl
Malenor
> Malenor says...
>
> > > It's just that your post was the one that caught my eye
> > > and -- whatever your usenet experience -- you are not (yet) a regular
> > > here.
>
> > So you're trolling for newbies I take it.
>
> I wouldn't put it that way. I'm always interested in new posters
> because of the potential for them to contribute real value to this
> newsgroup above and beyond the mean or average of this newsgroup. I
> have limited time and cannot simply respond to anyone on any subject.
Your energy for this one seems to be unlimited.
> Nor are all posters here equal in terms of knowledge, intellectual
> ability, logic skills, rhetorical skills, or temperament. Accordingly,
> before I decide to respond to a post, among other things I make
> judgments regarding whether I think I can benefit from engaging a
> particular poster, usually without regard to the subject of his post.
> It doesn't take me long to determine whether that person measures up --
> or not.
Gosh, I'd better measure up to the high intellectual standards of UseNet.
Just remember who started the name-calling vs. who you attacked first,
and consider where your strongest bias lies -- with your fantasy dream
goddess Ayn Rand.
> > Besides, what would have caught your eye, that or some dry Kantian
> > verbiage that few here understand or want to understand?
>
> In this case, both caught my eye (I have read all of the Kant v. Rand
> posts to date), but I have been up and down the Kant road many times and
> I found nothing new or interesting to discuss in this particular thread.
>
> > > > Besides, I never had the hope of tearing down the wall of
> > > > anti-intellectualism you call Objectivism to begin with. You know
why?
> > > > Because I was one of you Randroids at one time.
>
> > > If you are referring specifically to me, you have me confused with
> > > someone else.
>
> > Randroids always say something like that.
>
> Which, even if true, proves nothing about me specifically or anyone else
> specifically. It proves only that you sometimes overgeneralize and may
> also have the sloppy intellectual habit of imposing guilt by
> association.
Hm, I must have learned it while being a Randroid like you.
> > > I agree with respect to those who treat Objectivism as a religion (or
a
> > > substitute for religion) rather than a philosophy. But if you think
> > > everyone here who calls himself an Objectivist fits that description,
> > > you are painting with way too broad a brush.
>
> > I can make an exception for George Walsh because I have evidence
> > to the contrary.
>
> Well, there are others as well, regardless of your particular state of
> knowledge or ignorance at this time.
Name one.
> > > Sure. But the fact remains that the flames and smoke add nothing and,
> > > in fact, detract from everything else that may be worthwhile.
Injecting
> > > strong emotions, especially hostility, into any intellectual
discussion
> > > is almost always counterproductive.
>
> > > But like you said,
> > > It's just that your post was the one that caught my eye.
>
> But the relevant topic for me was your approach to this newsgroup, not
> your views on Kant. If, instead, I wanted to know your views on Kant,
> and instead you began your post
Which one? Mine or the one of the fellow you are fervently defending who
started the insult contest.
> with a stream of insults, I would have
> simply skipped to the next post. Occasionally I'll wade through the
> manure in the hope of finding a pony, but not often.
You weren't interested in discussing Kant, but would prefer to re-hash
the same old Rand slogans over and over again, correct?
> > And I hardly think that discussing dry Kantian theory would have
> > accomplished that. Therefore I did accomplish something positive.
>
> True, but in the sense that I'm getting a very good read on you,
You know me so well. You're right I'm just like all the other ones you
attacked.
<snip>
> the person... exercising discipline, restraint,
> and self-control and displaying the time, effort, and patience required
> to understand a person correctly and then agree or disagree with him in
> the right manner and for the right reasons.
Yes, that's me, you got me pegged.
> [....]
>
> Ken
Owl
> > everywhere. He even went so far as to project it outside the mind and
> > body, referring to two levels of reality. I don't think Kant thought
First, to Dave: I think your use of the concept of a "mind-body dichotomy"
is loose and may give rise to sloppy thinking. You seem to package a number
of different distinctions, along with a bizarre thesis or two, under that
rubric. For instance, you seem to use it indifferently to refer to the
*appearance-reality* distinction, to the implausible idea that we can't know
reality, to the bizarre idea that theories in general are impractical, to
the analytic-synthetic distinction, and to the bizarre idea that morality in
general is impractical. A concept like this, i.e., like your concept
'mind-body dichotomy', is what we in the biz call a "confusion," or,
sometimes, a "massive confusion," since it confuses so many and such
different things.
Furthermore, the *only* idea that has any right to be called "the mind-body
dichotomy" is what is more usually called "the mind-body distinction": the
idea that the mind is something separate and distinct from the body (i.e.,
the mind is something non-physical).
> analytic-synthetic
>
> There is an analytic-synthetic distinction in Kant's CPR, but not
> a dichotomy.
To Malenor: What is the distinction between a distinction and a dichotomy?
> The so-called analytic-synthetic dichotomy was
> merely a vehicle for Peikoff to become famous as a great
> philosophical thinker.
This seems to imply, what you surely know is false, that Peikoff is famous,
and as a great philosophical thinker at that.
> > religion does to people, I've found the mind-body dichotomy the most
> > destructive idea in history.
>
> You found that out all by yourself?
You'd probably have more interesting and perhaps even educational
discussions with Dave if you removed the sarcasm. Take note also of Ken
Gardner's message to you earlier today. That is, if you're interested in
intellectual discussion.
> > Kant and Ayn Rand had very different ideas of what reason is.
>
> Since they both practiced Aristotelian syllogistic reasoning I wonder
> where their actual differences lie.
Rand thought that reason was 'the faculty that integrates the material
provided by man's senses,' and logic was 'the art of non-contradictory
identification.' I haven't read Kant's _Logic_, so I can't say what
definitions, if any, he provided. However, I think there would be an
important difference between the two in that Kant would probably prefer to
conceive of rationality as the following of certain rules and of reason as a
faculty that applies innate categories to our sense data; whereas I think
Rand would want to build cognitive success--that is, awareness of
reality--somehow into the definition of 'reason' and 'rationality', and
would deny any innate content to the faculty of reason.
> > point. There is no way I, in my day-to-day life, even when I'm making
> > important moral decisions, think the way Kant said people think. I
> > wouldn't know how to universalize a maxim if my life depended on it.
Back to Dave: I don't think that Kant said people think in accordance with
the categorical imperative. Rather, he said you ought to think in accordance
with such. I sympathize with the other part, since Kant's formulations of
the CI, in my opinion, are too vague and ambiguous to provide any useful
guidance.
> This is not principled thinking obviously, but merely pragmatic
> thinking. The Categorical Imperative, in its 3 forms, is a formula
> which bridges the gap between the principle and the practice.
No, the CI (allegedly) *is* the principle, the one fundamental moral
principle. Something that might 'bridge the gap' between the principle (the
CI) and practice might be the more specific duties Kant believed in, such as
"you should always keep your promises," and "you should never steal."
Owl
case for this I find in David Stove, "Idealism: A Victorian Horror Story",
which appears in his _The Plato Cult_ as well as _Against the Idols of the
Age_. See:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/search-handle-form/103-6286394-5021421
for some of his books. As a side note (which I may have mentioned here
before), Stove is the best writer I have ever read.
Stove attributes the great success of idealism to "the Gem", an argument
(or argument type) he finds first in Berkeley, later in Kant, and then in
several other idealist philosophers. Anyone familiar with contemporary
intellectual discourse will surely recognize the Gem from Stove's
discussion. Berkeley originated it, but Berkeley was much too clear of a
philosophical writer to gain many converts; Kant originated the now-standard
obfuscation techniques needed to make the Gem appear erudite and profound,
rather than merely ridiculous (as it appears in Berkeley).
Owl
Berkeley is David Stove's "Idealism: A Victorian Horror Story" in _The Plato
Cult_.
Malenor
>
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
> > The truth is, Kant was far
> > more rejected and misunderstood than accepted and furthered.
>
> This isn't an argument, just an observation, but I've heard Marxist
> apologists say the same thing (about Marx) many times. Marx really would
not
> have supported Soviet communism, they say.
I was responding with evidence to someone who claimed that Kant
had this widespread influence on all the philosophies of every continent
on earth.
> Who cares?
>
> This is an approach to philosophy from inessentials.
And it was not a philosophical observation.
> Would (did?) Rousseau support the French Revolution - and the guillotine?
I
> actually don't know the answer to that. But again who cares? If you look
at
> the fundamentals of his philosophy that's where one might have predicted
it
> would end up - just as one might have predicted that Marxism would have
> ended up with Soviet communism - or Nieztsche with Naziism.
>
> Someone once said that every philosopher should be made to live in the
world
> they advocate, so that they could actually see the implications of their
> views.
> (I'll mention that there are very few philosophers admirable in this
> respect. Jesus was one. He ended up precisely where he should have. In
rags
> and nailed to a cross.)
Objectivist hyperbole. NOBODY should end up like that. Besides, I hardly
see Him as a philosopher.
> I wonder: what do you think Kant's world would look like? In my view: an
> insane asylum. What do you think?
I think you have skipped the chapter on Kant and continue to believe only
what your masters tell you.
Dave OHearn
> > ability, logic skills, rhetorical skills, or temperament. Accordingly,
> > before I decide to respond to a post, among other things I make
> > judgments regarding whether I think I can benefit from engaging a
> > particular poster, usually without regard to the subject of his post.
> > It doesn't take me long to determine whether that person measures up --
> > or not.
>
> Gosh, I'd better measure up to the high intellectual standards of UseNet.
> Just remember who started the name-calling vs. who you attacked first,
> and consider where your strongest bias lies -- with your fantasy dream
> goddess Ayn Rand.
You apparently know nothing about Ken. He's been very curtious in not
pointing out just how oblivious you are, but the above paragraph doesn't
come close to describing him. He's more an Aristotelian than an
Objectivist, and I've never read a single post of his where I'd say he
was worshiping Ayn Rand as a "fantasy dream goddess".
I can understand where you're coming from, as you said you read APK for a
while, but the whining child-flamers there have nothing to do with this
newsgroup and it's a mistake to project your opinions of them onto us.
The average age on HPO is probably 20 years higher than on the Kant and
Objectivist alt groups, and the level of discussion is much better,
although that isn't saying much. HPO is almost as good as Usenet used to
be in the old days.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Malenor
"Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:990rhc$5fp$4...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
Humanity includes everybody including oneself. Individual life includes
only the individual. "act so that you treat humanity, *whether in your own
person or in that of another*.."
So yes the highest value for Kant is not any life but a principle, or as
you say, an idea. But "principle" is better.
" That in the order of ends, man (and with him every rational being)
is an end in himself, that is, that he can never be used merely as a
means by any (not even by God) without being at the same time an end
also himself, that therefore humanity in our person must be holy to
ourselves..." (Critique of Practical Reason.)
Humanity is the embodiment of the objective moral law, embodied
within each of us. It is not so much the principle but, in a way,
its incarnation.
> > Besides, Rand's heroes demonstrated that their lives were not the
highest
> > value, because they were willing to sacrifice their lives for causes,
i.e,
> > for
> > higher values (whatever they may be).
>
> These higher values are considered, in the Objectivist ethics, to be part
of
> their 'lives', and to be what is required for bettering one's life. Of
> course, this concept of 'life' has its problems and has been the subject
of
> enough discussion here.
>
> > > Kant believed that you should give to charity, because this would be
> part
> > of
> > > treating others as ends-in-themselves,
> >
> > He did? Is NOT giving to charity a violation of the CI?
>
> Supposedly it is (see the Foundations of the Metaphysics of Morals,
wherein
> this is given as one of 4 applications of the CI).
Sorry, I don't have access to that document.
> > No, in fact, she considered giving to charity to be an ethical grey
area,
> > a matter of choice. "If you want to give to charity we will not try to
> stop
> > you."
>
> "We will not stop you" does not imply "that's an ok thing to do." The
> Objectivists also will not try to stop you from cutting your hand off,
They should if they had any sense of humanity.
> but they don't think that's a morally ok thing to do either.
Like I said, it's an ethical grey area. "My views on charity are very
simple.
I do not consider it a major virtue and, above all, I do not consider it a
moral duty...I regard charity as a marginal issue." (The Ayn Rand Lexicon.)
> In "The Ethics of Emergencies," she gives some severe qualifications on
when
> one should be willing to help others, indicating that any such help should
> be "marginal and incidental"--so a bit of charity is ok in special
> circumstances, but don't overdo it!
She is stating that charity as a selfless duty is wrong.
> > > 2. Metaphysics: Neither philosopher did much in the way of
metaphysics.
> >
> > When Kant analyzes "definitions" he is in the realm of epistemology.
> > When he analyzes the apriori functions or powers or faculties of the
human
> > mind he is discussing metaphysics. I'd say most of the CPR is
metaphysics,
> > or at least its main topics are metaphysical.
>
> I don't think so; I think it is epistemology. Metaphysics would give us
> knowledge of transcendent reality, you know, which is impossible. Kant
only
> pretends to give us knowledge about *our cognitive faculties*, which is
> epistemology.
The question "What is man's mind" is a metaphysical one.
> However, it's true that there is a bit of metaphysics in Kant, since he
> (irrationally) affirms the reality of God, free will, and immortality.
(Not
> to say that belief in free will is irrational, but just that Kant lacked
> good reason for it.)
They are real but not in the empirical sense, more like in the poetic sense,
for Kant. And then they serve as rational functions for making higher
moral judgments. It's not so much their alleged reality that Kant focuses
on but their logical usefulness as concepts. God also serves as an
unattainable
apex of all our strivings for more knowledge. If we were capable of
perfect knowledge then we would know God. Nevertheless, we
constantly seek towards God in our intellectual quests.
> > > Rand's
> > > metaphysics, on the other hand, consists in such well-known truisms as
> "A
> > is
> > > A", "existence exists," and "reality is objective."
> >
> > No, there is more to be discussed, the nature of causality for instance.
>
> I left out the law of causality. However, I don't think Rand said anything
> about it other than affirming that the law of causality follows from the
law
> of identity. I don't think she gave us an analysis of what causation is,
for
> instance (as other 20th-century philosophers have done). So I don't think
> Rand has any interesting metaphysics.
There was an interesting article about the causality of the mind in The
Objectivist.
> > I believe A is A is an axiom of her epistemology, a formulation of the
> > axiomatic concept of Identity.
>
> Epistemology is the philosophical study of knowledge. "A is A" is not a
> statement about knowledge, but a generalization about everything that
> exists.
"The (implicit) concept "existent" undergoes three stages of development
in man's mind. The first stage is a child's awareness of objects....
The second and closely allied stage is the awareness of specific,
particular things which he can recognize and distinguish from the rest
of his perceptual field -- which represents the (implicit) concept
"identity."
(Intro. to Objectivist Epistemology, 6.)
> > > lots about "things in themselves," although she didn't use that term.
> But
> > > who can really be sure what the hell Kant means by "thing in itself"?
> >
> > A lot of people can. The thing in itself is that thing considered apart
> from
> > the formal conditions of sensible intuition.
>
> And what the hell is *that*?
>
> The thing-in-itself is *what* thing considered apart from, etc.?
Those epistemic conditions which make perception and knowledge possible.
> > Or to put it another way, it
> > is a concept derived logically from a consideration of things as if they
> > were not objects of a consciousness sensibly constituted.
>
> So things in themselves are *concepts*? So in saying we could not have
> knowledge of things in themselves, Kant was saying that we cannot have
> knowledge of our concepts?
No, but it is a concept pointing to the fact that perhaps the world is not
how it appears to us. I say, if this concept did not lie implicit in all
our thought, then we would unquestioningly accept everything that
occurs around us. For instance, nobody would have questioned the
apparent motion of the stars as perhaps caused by the rotation of the earth.
Science would not progress at all.
> > So what Kant means by "thing in itself" is merely a logical construct,
> > not a reference to anything real.
>
> So things in themselves aren't real?
No, but the thing-in-itself is a mere concept. Somewhere Kant explicitly
states that things outside of appearance are the cause of our sensory
stimulation. Kant is not concerned though with this question as it is
an empirical, scientific problem, not a transcendental, metaphysical one.
> I can assure you that this is wrong,
> exegetically--it's about the opposite of the truth. Things in themselves
are
> opposed to 'appearances' and are the true underlying reality.
That's what you were told.
> > It is therefore merely a derivative concept, hardly what
> > I would consider the highest product of his thought as is Existence for
> > Rand.
>
> I would not call either concept, 'thing in itself' or 'existence', a
> particularly high product of thought. In the case of the former, that is
> because I don't think the concept makes any sense. In the case of the
> latter, it is because the idea that stuff exists is, to put it mildly, not
> news to anyone.
Apparently you forgot that "existence" for Rand is the highest concept
of all, subsuming all the exists. "Existence and identify are *not
attributes*
of existents, they *are* the existents... The units of the concepts
"existence"
and "identity" are every entity, attribute, event or phenomenon (including
consciousness) that exists, has ever existed or will ever exist."
(Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, 74; The Ayn Rand Lexicon.)
I don't see it as particularly astounding if "existence" is merely
considered
an attribute of things. But Rand transmuted it into an epistemological
axiom, "and this made all the difference."
Malenor
"Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:990rhb$5fp$3...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:uEAs6.2689$Im6.3...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > > He limited our knowledge to 'objects of possible experience.'
> >
> > Well of course I can quote Kant just like you can. But what are these
> > objects of possible experience? In Rand's terms, those would be
> > objects of existence. Then you stated...
>
> Of course, because everything exists (as we know from Quine, eh?). Stating
> that our knowledge is "limited to existence" is therefore vacuous. My
point,
> however, was that Kant limited our knowledge to something much smaller
than
> all of existence.
He limited it to "objects of possible experience," like you said. But then
the
question remains, what experience is possible to man? Interpreting Kant
from an empirical standpoint, I would have to say, everything natural. At
least
that is the practical result of Kant's reasoning.
> Also note that when Rand distinguished 'existence' from 'consciousness',
she
> meant by "existence" that part of reality that is external to the mind.
> Hence, in Objectivist terminology, Kant did not believe in knowledge of
> 'existence'.
No, she included consciousness as a part of existence. "The units of the
concepts "existence" and "identity" are every entity, attribute, action,
event or phenomenon (including consciousness) that exists, has existed
or ever will exist." (Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, 74.) The question
remains, what does this do to your argument? I think your conclusion
was a huge leap from a single proposition concerning what you thought
Rand meant by Existence. The missing proposition would be "Kant
thought everything that existed was mental (ideal)." But Kant never
stated or implied such a thing; rather, he explicitly denies being an
idealist of this ilk. And your conclusion is based on false premises.
Kitcher's introduction to Pluhar's translation of Kant's CPR,
published in 1996, gives a highly enlightening account of this
whole matter.
> > frustrating because the logic is so different. So where is the
> > alleged connection between Kant and 20th c. philosophy?
>
> Kant and Berkeley started the idealist movement in philosophy, which took
> over 19th century philosophy
Kant was explicitly opposed to Berkeley's idealism. See for instance
his Refutation of Idealism in CPR (B274). (The very title tells the
story.) Apparently Kant was trying to refute himself? hmmm...
> and has remained dominant in other forms in
> 20th century Continental philosophy. A good discussion of idealism since
> Berkeley is David Stove's "Idealism: A Victorian Horror Story" in _The
Plato
> Cult_.
I'm sure it is, but if he includes Kant among the idealists he is wrong.
Malenor
>
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:7WMs6.3678$Im6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:99041e$vti$2...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
<snip>
> > > all varieties, on all continents. So is the view that we cannot really
> > know
> > > reality. So is the view that the essence of morality, if not the
entire
> > > subject of morality, is what we do for others and that what we do for
> > > ourselves is at best "prudent" but without moral merit.
> >
> > This last statement illustrates something I mentioned, the important
role
> > of the "straw dog" in Objectivism, and crisis-mongering, reminiscent of
the
> > Clinton presidency.
>
> What's "the straw dog"? We do do a lot of "crisis-mongering", but, hey, if
> there's a crisis, there's a crisis.
I do mean Clintonish crisis-mongering, the crisis-a-day mentality of the
Clinton administration. Of course for the Objectivists, Kant was the
crisis of the millennium.
> But your comment has no merit unless you
> think there isn't grounds for the prediction.
Of course I don't think there are grounds in this case.
The primary beneficiary of the action is stated in the CoPR as humanity.
Within the text of one version of the CI is a reference to others and
oneself. Yes it would be an empty principle if it had no beneficiaries.
> It can't be a moral primary. Something is not
> right merely because you might wish that everyone does it.
This was not Kant's argument.
> On the other
> hand - at the level of broad moral abstractions - it is true that if
> something is right *everyone* should do it, including yourself,e.g. use
> reason or be honest, etc. But why is it right to use reason or be honest -
> and do so consistently - and to expect/demand that others do? Not merely
> because it would be nice if everyone did. As Kant states it, not
suprisingly
> (because this is rampant in his philosophy), it's a floating abstraction.
You're saying it has no basis in reality, you're right. It has its basis
in transcendental reflection.
> This is consistent with Kant's overall view of morality - disconnecting it
> from any beneficiary or purpose, i.e. from actual values, i.e. from life.
No, because humanity includes every individual life, including one's own.
> Just consider his view of suicide, even if one were experiencing agonizing
> and terminal pain.
I don't know what that is, but he was probably opposed to it in any
circumstance. Then on the other side of this issue you have Jack
Kevorkian's suicide machine.
> > > As we've discussed in another thread, the view of
> > > "selfishness" is one such example - much of which btw comes from Kant.
> >
> > This is what I was talking about previously, the tossing out of
buzzwords
> > designed to frighten the unwary and uninformed -- a tactic reminiscent
of
> > the style of the Clinton presidency.
>
> I don't know what this has to do with Clinton, but I shudder at the
thought
> that we share anything in common with Clinton, so maybe you'd better
> explain.
That is an awful thought isn't it. What was the Clinton administration
characterized by in its style of leadership? Scary buzzwords,
crisis-mongering
and polarization (he practically reinvented the phrase "the other side".)
What,
then, is an example of a buzzword for Rand? Take "selfishness" for example.
Rand explains in the intro to the Virtue of Selfishness why she chose such
a title: "Because it frightens you." (Check that quote, it's very close.) In
the
realm of criticizing Kant she developed her own (frightening, yes) meanings
for "noumenal," "appearance," "thing-in-itself," "altruism" (a term Kant
never
used), "selflessness" (which, for Rand, is always "abject"), "duty."
Crisis-mongering, regarding Kant: "Immanuel Kant is the most evil man
in mankind's history." "If you trace the roots of all our current
philosophies
-- such as pragmatism, logical positivism, and all the rest of the
neo-mystics
who announce happily that you cannot *prove* that you exist -- you will find
that they all grew out of Kant." ('Faith and Force') Stated without proof of
course. And from this statement is based all the observations of modern
atrocities, from Hitler, to Stalin, to school violence, every crisis
imaginable,
all of it "traceable" to Kant.
The polarization aspect is obvious, the "us vs. them" attitude of the
Objectivists, particularly in the Peikoffian side of the schism, is
powerful.
It's not so much that polarization is bad, as conflict and debate is
inevitable. But Rand's statement, "Immanuel Kant is the most evil man in
mankind's history," is beyond the pale. It is not based on a desire to
debate him, or even to argue, but to destroy him.
Jddescript
>From: Malenor mal...@hotmail.com
>Date: 3/17/01 9:49 AM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <kAMs6.4779$227.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>
-----------------------------------------------------------
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
Ken; as the rest of this message shows you are talking with a collectivist
"joiner" similar to others who hang out in the Kant forum. They have no
interest in the truth or in learning but are playing a social manipulator
[socman] "game" of debating tactics and pragmatic king's men justification. The
Ayn Rand Theory [ART] can be thought of as a theory of the practical actions of
free people to transform the situations where the socman is present [as they
always are] into an optimum happy condition. Only in this negative sense is
communication with such Kantian socmen of value.
Good seeing JD
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]
]------excerpted, see original--------------------
Ken Gardner
> > I wouldn't put it that way. I'm always interested in new posters
> > because of the potential for them to contribute real value to this
> > newsgroup above and beyond the mean or average of this newsgroup. I
> > have limited time and cannot simply respond to anyone on any subject.
> Your energy for this one seems to be unlimited.
Not for much longer.
> > Nor are all posters here equal in terms of knowledge, intellectual
> > ability, logic skills, rhetorical skills, or temperament. Accordingly,
> > before I decide to respond to a post, among other things I make
> > judgments regarding whether I think I can benefit from engaging a
> > particular poster, usually without regard to the subject of his post.
> > It doesn't take me long to determine whether that person measures up --
> > or not.
> Gosh, I'd better measure up to the high intellectual standards of UseNet.
> Just remember who started the name-calling vs. who you attacked first,
> and consider where your strongest bias lies -- with your fantasy dream
> goddess Ayn Rand.
My what? Ayn Rand means many positive things to me, but "fantasy dream
goddess" is most definitely not one of them. My taste in Russian women
runs much more to someone like Anna Kournakova. :)
[....]
> > > > I agree with respect to those who treat Objectivism as a religion (or
> > > > substitute for religion) rather than a philosophy. But if you think
> > > > everyone here who calls himself an Objectivist fits that description,
> > > > you are painting with way too broad a brush.
> > > I can make an exception for George Walsh because I have evidence
> > > to the contrary.
> > Well, there are others as well, regardless of your particular state of
> > knowledge or ignorance at this time.
> Name one.
Hang around HPO for awhile and you'll find out.
> > But the relevant topic for me was your approach to this newsgroup, not
> > your views on Kant. If, instead, I wanted to know your views on Kant,
> > and instead you began your post
> Which one? Mine or the one of the fellow you are fervently defending who
> started the insult contest.
I'm not defending anyone. My comments about disagreeing civilly and
rationally and leaving hostility and other strong emotions at the door
were intended to apply to everyone (including myself, of course),
although they happened to be specifically directed to you. Also, on
previous occasions here at HPO, I have consistently criticized
"Objectivists" for the very same things to which you now take such
strong exception. In fact, if memory serves me right, you are the first
person to whom I have directed such comments who does _not_ consider
himself an Objectivist.
Ken
Dave OHearn
> >
> > "Dave OHearn" <dav...@lessing.oit.umass.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3ab3...@oit.umass.edu...
> > > Kant was no doubt brilliant, but he upheld the mind-body dichotomy
> > > everywhere. He even went so far as to project it outside the mind and
> > > body, referring to two levels of reality. I don't think Kant thought
>
> First, to Dave: I think your use of the concept of a "mind-body dichotomy"
> is loose and may give rise to sloppy thinking. You seem to package a number
> of different distinctions, along with a bizarre thesis or two, under that
> rubric. For instance, you seem to use it indifferently to refer to the
> *appearance-reality* distinction, to the implausible idea that we can't know
> reality, to the bizarre idea that theories in general are impractical, to
> the analytic-synthetic distinction, and to the bizarre idea that morality in
> general is impractical. A concept like this, i.e., like your concept
> 'mind-body dichotomy', is what we in the biz call a "confusion," or,
> sometimes, a "massive confusion," since it confuses so many and such
> different things.
The mind-body dichotomy is a very fundamental error, so of course it
applies to a whole bunch of things and can generate a whole variety of
less fundamental errors.
> Furthermore, the *only* idea that has any right to be called "the mind-body
> dichotomy" is what is more usually called "the mind-body distinction": the
> idea that the mind is something separate and distinct from the body (i.e.,
> the mind is something non-physical).
I strongly disagree. The above viewpoint is metaphysical, and very
boring. There is no evidence that the mind is separate from the body. End
of question, problem solved.
By mind-body dichotomy, I mean exactly what the dictionary says for
"dichotomy": "a division into two especially mutually exclusive or
contradictory groups or entities". It's essentially a moral position,
not a metaphysical one. It aserts that the mind and body want different
things, and that you must chose whether to satisfy one or the other, but
not both. Just about every religion on earth endores it, even
Judaism and Buddhism which don't have an afterlife. Freud, who believed
the mind was wholy physical, also held the mind-body dichotomy; he
thought the rational part of the mind was in constant conflict with the
rest of it.
It runs very deep in our culture, no thanks to Christianity. I can't
count how many times parents or other people told me I had to choose
between having fun and working hard, being intelligent and being happy,
etc. Do you have a better name for this than "mind-body dichotomy"? I
agree that it has many different forms, but there's a fundamental error
in common throughout them.
> Back to Dave: I don't think that Kant said people think in accordance with
> the categorical imperative. Rather, he said you ought to think in accordance
> with such. I sympathize with the other part, since Kant's formulations of
> the CI, in my opinion, are too vague and ambiguous to provide any useful
> guidance.
That was sloppy wording on my part. I should have said that there are
plenty of moral people who get along fine without thinking in Kant's
terms.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Ken Gardner
> > Gosh, I'd better measure up to the high intellectual standards of UseNet.
> > Just remember who started the name-calling vs. who you attacked first,
> > and consider where your strongest bias lies -- with your fantasy dream
> > goddess Ayn Rand.
> You apparently know nothing about Ken. He's been very curtious in not
> pointing out just how oblivious you are, but the above paragraph doesn't
> come close to describing him. He's more an Aristotelian than an
> Objectivist, and I've never read a single post of his where I'd say he
> was worshiping Ayn Rand as a "fantasy dream goddess".
Thanks for the comments, which I think are accurate in terms of my
actual views, except that I regard Objectivism as essentially
Aristotelianism with different terminology. I have been reading much
Aristotle and much about Aristotle over the last six to nine months or
so, and this extensive reading has only reinforced my view. This would
be a fascinating topic to start on HPO, but only if we have people who
are actually familiar with both Rand and Aristotle first hand. It would
not do merely to have people repeat what Rand and Peikoff say about
Aristotle for the same reasons that it will not do, when discussing
Kant, merely to have people repeat what Rand and Peikoff say about Kant.
And, as I explained to Melanor, my idea of a Russian fantasy dream
goddess is Anna Kournakova, not Ayn Rand. <VBG>
Ken
Malenor
"Owl" <a@a.a> wrote in message news:990t4d$5tr$4...@slb0.atl.mindspring.net...
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:y9Ms6.4742$227.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Dave OHearn" <dav...@lessing.oit.umass.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3ab3...@oit.umass.edu...
> > > Kant was no doubt brilliant, but he upheld the mind-body dichotomy
> > > everywhere. He even went so far as to project it outside the mind and
> > > body, referring to two levels of reality. I don't think Kant thought
>
> First, to Dave: I think your use of the concept of a "mind-body dichotomy"
> is loose and may give rise to sloppy thinking. You seem to package a
number
> of different distinctions, along with a bizarre thesis or two, under that
> rubric. For instance, you seem to use it indifferently to refer to the
> *appearance-reality* distinction, to the implausible idea that we can't
know
> reality, to the bizarre idea that theories in general are impractical, to
> the analytic-synthetic distinction, and to the bizarre idea that morality
in
> general is impractical. A concept like this, i.e., like your concept
> 'mind-body dichotomy', is what we in the biz call a "confusion," or,
> sometimes, a "massive confusion," since it confuses so many and such
> different things.
Yes, in fact, Kant never made a mind-body distinction.
> Furthermore, the *only* idea that has any right to be called "the
mind-body
> dichotomy" is what is more usually called "the mind-body distinction": the
> idea that the mind is something separate and distinct from the body (i.e.,
> the mind is something non-physical).
>
> > analytic-synthetic
> >
> > There is an analytic-synthetic distinction in Kant's CPR, but not
> > a dichotomy.
>
> To Malenor: What is the distinction between a distinction and a dichotomy?
The quality of the split involved. A distinction is merely a mental
dividing of a whole, a dichotomy is a metaphysical divide so severe that the
two sides have never and will never touch one another, so to speak. The
noumenal-phenomenal dichotomy is a valid one as it is impossible
for man to know anything without basically relying on his senses. Surely
this last point is uncontroversial, and it is Kant's point. Any attempt
to gain knowledge without the senses (or Sensibility), such as by
Leibniz and his "castles in the clouds" theory about monads, is
declared noumenal and therefore off-limits by Kant. Any knowledge
which had its origin in the senses is considered phenomenal and therefore
valid. But I don't want to evade the question of the apriori, which is
the element man himself places into knowledge. Still, Kant says,
"There can be no doubt that all our cognition begins with experience.
For what else might rouse our cognitive power to its operation if
objects stirring our senses did not do so?" (B1). This is as strong
an affirmation of an existence of objects outside us, affecting us
sensually, as Kant can make, and yet his detractors continue to ignore
it -- though it is at the very beginning of the CPR 2nd edition.
> > The so-called analytic-synthetic dichotomy was
> > merely a vehicle for Peikoff to become famous as a great
> > philosophical thinker.
>
> This seems to imply, what you surely know is false, that Peikoff is
famous,
> and as a great philosophical thinker at that.
Lol, with his followers anyway. He shot to a higher level of esteem in the
movement back in the 60s. This fact is documented in 2, perhaps 3, of
the Rand biographies.
> > > religion does to people, I've found the mind-body dichotomy the most
> > > destructive idea in history.
> >
> > You found that out all by yourself?
>
> You'd probably have more interesting and perhaps even educational
> discussions with Dave if you removed the sarcasm. Take note also of Ken
> Gardner's message to you earlier today. That is, if you're interested in
> intellectual discussion.
I've been doing more than my share of it, and I have enough energy left
over for a chuckle or two at a Randroid's expense. In this case I don't
find it an unwarranted comment, as Randroids often believe they
came upon their knowledge as individuals rather than as a
collective gaining strength and knowledge from each other.
> > > Kant and Ayn Rand had very different ideas of what reason is.
> >
> > Since they both practiced Aristotelian syllogistic reasoning I wonder
> > where their actual differences lie.
>
> Rand thought that reason was 'the faculty that integrates the material
> provided by man's senses,' and logic was 'the art of non-contradictory
> identification.' I haven't read Kant's _Logic_, so I can't say what
> definitions, if any, he provided. However, I think there would be an
> important difference between the two in that Kant would probably prefer to
> conceive of rationality as the following of certain rules
Yes.
> and of reason as a
> faculty that applies innate categories to our sense data;
No, it does't apply categories and they aren't innate.
>whereas I think
> Rand would want to build cognitive success--that is, awareness of
> reality--somehow into the definition of 'reason' and 'rationality', and
> would deny any innate content to the faculty of reason.
So would Kant.
Now you're taking my comment to a higher level. For Kant there is
cognitions of reason in general, and then various faculties, Sensibility,
Understanding, Judgment, Pure Reason, Practical Reason, and
probably more. The question must relate to cognition in general. I
happen to own a copy of Kant's Logic. He distinguishes cognition
of reason from cognition of history. "The former are cognitions out
of principles, the latter out of data." Later on, he states (at the
beginning
of the General Doctrine of Elements), "All cognitions, that is,
presentations consciously referred to an object..."
(A "presentation" is basically anything subjective [in the mind]. So
a cognition is the conscious relating of something subjective to
something objective.)
> > > point. There is no way I, in my day-to-day life, even when I'm making
> > > important moral decisions, think the way Kant said people think. I
> > > wouldn't know how to universalize a maxim if my life depended on it.
>
> Back to Dave: I don't think that Kant said people think in accordance with
> the categorical imperative. Rather, he said you ought to think in
accordance
> with such. I sympathize with the other part, since Kant's formulations of
> the CI, in my opinion, are too vague and ambiguous to provide any useful
> guidance.
>
> > This is not principled thinking obviously, but merely pragmatic
> > thinking. The Categorical Imperative, in its 3 forms, is a formula
> > which bridges the gap between the principle and the practice.
>
> No, the CI (allegedly) *is* the principle, the one fundamental moral
> principle. Something that might 'bridge the gap' between the principle
(the
> CI) and practice might be the more specific duties Kant believed in, such
as
> "you should always keep your promises," and "you should never steal."
Ah yes. The will is that which bridges the gap. Not duties.
Malenor
"Dave OHearn" <dav...@lessing.oit.umass.edu> wrote in message
news:3ab3...@oit.umass.edu...
> Malenor (mal...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> >
> > "Dave OHearn" <dav...@lessing.oit.umass.edu> wrote in message
> > news:3ab3...@oit.umass.edu...
> > > Hotrod0283 (hotro...@aol.com) wrote:
> > > > Over what is the debate between the Kantians and the Randians? I've
> > > > read some of Kant and some of Rand; Ms. Rand seems to engage in many
> > > > little diatribes against a brilliant philosopher.
> > >
> > > Kant was no doubt brilliant, but he upheld the mind-body dichotomy
> > > everywhere. He even went so far as to project it outside the mind and
> > > body, referring to two levels of reality. I don't think Kant thought
> > > there were actualy two "realities", but he did think the dichotomy was
> > > so fundamental that, to us, there might as well be.
> >
> > You are correct about Kant's noumenal-phenomenal dichotomy. In
> > fact, it is the only dichotomy he actually terms as such. Tell me, what
> > else do you know about the N-P dichotomy?
>
> I know it mostly from phenomenology, not Kant's original works. I also
> heard a lot of variants of in in Sociology. It's certainly true that
> there's a difference between appearance and reality,
This is not Kant's terminology, he never equated reality with noumena.
> if only because one
> thing can have many different appearances when viewed differently.
This is an empirical rendering of the issue, not a transcendental one.
> But I
> find it an epistemological issue, and at the least, it's confusing to use
> terminology about different realities. When it reaches the point that
> someone says, "This is my way of looking at the world, it's just the way
> I am, and right or wrong, I can't escape from it," they've made a grave
> error. I don't know if Kant went that far, but the sociologists,
> borrowing from the phenomenologists, certainly do.
I'm confident that this idea originated from a false interpretation of
Kant's doctrine. It is once again an empirical rendering of a
transcendental concept.
> > There is no such dichotomy for Kant. A theory exists in one's head,
practice
> > takes place outside it. It's no more a dichotomy than saying that
> > swimming takes place in water, walking takes place on land, therefore
> > there is a walking-swimming dichotomy?
>
> I didn't mean to imply that Kant said anything about the theory-practice
> dichotomy. I don't know if he did. It's more of a pop philosophy thing
> you'll hear on the street when someone says an idea is good, but won't
> work. It was a very common line in defending Communist ideas. My point
> was merely that the explicit rejection of false dichotomies is what
> maintains my interest in Objectivism.
Since I broke with Objectivism I haven't had such qualms about
popular sayings. Rand popularized this tendency in her speech to
the academy in Philosophy: Who Needs It. I can interpret this
dichotomy in an innocuous way, probably its intended meaning
anyway: A theory can be self-consistent but not be applicable to
reality. It is a good point to make, to prevent people from thinking
their plausible-sounding theories have any plausibility in the
real world. Kant actually referenced its harmful aspect. He speaks
(in the CPR) of a person who was stupid to begin with, then
grew up to attain great theoretical knowledge -- but never
lost his stupidity. I'll try to get back to you with an actual quote.
> > , moral-practical,
> >
> > Again, morality is a theory, and its practice takes place outside of
> > theories. But didn't Kant write a Critique of Practical Reason which
> > is all about morality? Why did he call it Practical reason if it was
> > only about some pure moral theory that can't be practiced. What
> > is Practical reason anyway? And what use is a moral theory that
> > can't be practiced? Such charges make Kant sound like far less
> > than the brilliant philosopher you say he no doubt is.
>
> I think he approached it backwards.
! YES ! His approach to philosophy in general was backwards
relative to today's methods. But then Kant might consider us today
to be backwards.
> He asks, "What are the rules?" and
> then sets out to find them, given the constraints that they must be
> universizable and non-contradictory. It is probably possible, with a lot
> of careful thought, to do this and still come out with a morality that
> accepts man as an end in himself, not as a robot following rules. But I
> think it's the wrong approach, and not the way real people approach moral
> decisions in their lives. You can make a lot of horrible mistakes using
> it, and very easily. An example is pacifism. It's universizable and
> non-contradictory, but amounts to nothing but death.
His essay on Perceptual Peace, which opposes war and particularly
the building up of masses of weaponry and armies during times
of peace, upheld Perpetual Peace as an ideal toward which we
should strive but not hope to attain in perfection.
> I do think Kant explicity endorsed the moral-practical dichotomy when he
> said that an action performed in good will is good, regardless of
> consequences. He probably would have said that good will requires using
> reason to look at the consequences, but I still think this is a bad
> approach, starting with morality and saying you need practicality to get
> there.
>
> > There is an analytic-synthetic distinction in Kant's CPR, but not
> > a dichotomy. The so-called analytic-synthetic dichotomy was
> > merely a vehicle for Peikoff to become famous as a great
> > philosophical thinker. A better word for this dichotomy would
> > be "straw dog."
>
> I don't know to what extent Kant held the analytic-synthetic dichotomy as
> Peikoff described it, but I certainly heard a lot of it in school. I
> agree that the position, as he presented it, is trivially stupid and
> deserves to be called a straw dog. Unfortunately, a lot of people spout
> it as rhetoric, saying logic has nothing to do with reality.
Kant made a distinction between analytic and synthetic methods and
analytic and synthetic propositions. Kant originated the terms Analytic
and Synthetic (which is perhaps the only true thing Peikoff ever said).
But the distinctions in knowledge were always there only implicit.
The analytic method is merely to break up propositions and concepts
into the constituent parts. The synthetic method involves the added
element of apriori concept. to create a greater whole. As an
example of this last, if we observe a causal event what we have really
observed is only things occurring. A billiard ball moved, then touched
another billiard ball, and then this one went into motion. We then
synthesize this as one (causal) event, not many disparate happenings.
How we do this is very complex, involving, for Kant, many big words
that I don't want to go into here.
Then there is the issue of analytic and synthetic propositions. Peikoff
was primarily concerned with these. Analytic propositions are
sometimes tautological, sometimes not. The proposition, "7 + 5 = some
number" is analytic in that it is part of the concept of summation that
two numbers added together total a third number. But the proposition
"7 + 5 = 12" is synthetic, as the number we come up with, 12, is not
included in the concept of summation. Rather the number was obtained
by reference to intuition (perception), as Kant says, counting our
fingers -- rather than by merely analyzing the proposition itself. No
amount of analysis of the concepts of 7, 5, and summation will give
you the number 12. Of course some might claim its analyticity based
on its obviousness -- i.e., they already knew that 7 + 5 = 12. But try a
harder problem adding bigger numbers for which you have no ready
solution, and you will then see my point. The process of adding is
basically intuitive, although we have devices to aid us now.
> > > , etc. This
> > > is what's maintained my interest in her philosophy, as, seeing what
> > > religion does to people, I've found the mind-body dichotomy the most
> > > destructive idea in history.
> >
> > You found that out all by yourself?
>
> Before I'd heard of Objectivism, if that's what you mean, yes.
And of course, Rand verified what you already thought.
> > > Of course, Kant did not originate it, but he
> > > did a thorough job of systemizing it.
> >
> > And this was your own discovery too I take it.
>
> It's not a very profound statement. If you have a different view of
> Kant, I'll hear it, but I've never heard anyone describe his philosophy
> except as a unification of faith and reason. My mother reveres Kant and
> says it, and our encyclopedia (we lost it in a fire, or I'd reference it
> now), said pretty much the same.
He's also been termed a gap-bridger between rationalism and empiricism.
That pretty much takes care of the mind-body dichotomy doesn't it? If
it's true.
> --
> Dave O'Hearn
Malenor
> Malenor says...
>
> > > I wouldn't put it that way. I'm always interested in new posters
> > > because of the potential for them to contribute real value to this
> > > newsgroup above and beyond the mean or average of this newsgroup. I
> > > have limited time and cannot simply respond to anyone on any subject.
>
> > Your energy for this one seems to be unlimited.
>
> Not for much longer.
Well that's fine as I have found some intellectual opponents to debate with
at last. You're not much of a debater, more of a NG momma.
> > > Nor are all posters here equal in terms of knowledge, intellectual
> > > ability, logic skills, rhetorical skills, or temperament.
Accordingly,
> > > before I decide to respond to a post, among other things I make
> > > judgments regarding whether I think I can benefit from engaging a
> > > particular poster, usually without regard to the subject of his post.
> > > It doesn't take me long to determine whether that person measures
up --
> > > or not.
>
> > Gosh, I'd better measure up to the high intellectual standards of
UseNet.
> > Just remember who started the name-calling vs. who you attacked first,
> > and consider where your strongest bias lies -- with your fantasy dream
> > goddess Ayn Rand.
>
> My what? Ayn Rand means many positive things to me, but "fantasy dream
> goddess" is most definitely not one of them. My taste in Russian women
> runs much more to someone like Anna Kournakova. :)
It wasn't necessarily a sexual comment but it sure sounds like one. hehe
> > > > > I agree with respect to those who treat Objectivism as a religion
(or
> > > > > substitute for religion) rather than a philosophy. But if you
think
> > > > > everyone here who calls himself an Objectivist fits that
description,
> > > > > you are painting with way too broad a brush.
>
> > > > I can make an exception for George Walsh because I have evidence
> > > > to the contrary.
>
> > > Well, there are others as well, regardless of your particular state of
> > > knowledge or ignorance at this time.
>
> > Name one.
>
> Hang around HPO for awhile and you'll find out.
Didn't think you could.
> > > But the relevant topic for me was your approach to this newsgroup, not
> > > your views on Kant. If, instead, I wanted to know your views on Kant,
> > > and instead you began your post
>
> > Which one? Mine or the one of the fellow you are fervently defending who
> > started the insult contest.
>
> I'm not defending anyone. My comments about disagreeing civilly and
> rationally and leaving hostility and other strong emotions at the door
> were intended to apply to everyone (including myself, of course),
> although they happened to be specifically directed to you. Also, on
> previous occasions here at HPO, I have consistently criticized
> "Objectivists" for the very same things to which you now take such
> strong exception
I don't care about the criticism, it makes for fun rebuttals, but you were
obviously biased in it, as you definitely took after me and not
What's-his-name who started the name-calling.
Malenor
> Malenor (mal...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > "Ken Gardner" <kesga...@home.com> wrote in message
> >
> > > Nor are all posters here equal in terms of knowledge, intellectual
> > > ability, logic skills, rhetorical skills, or temperament.
Accordingly,
> > > before I decide to respond to a post, among other things I make
> > > judgments regarding whether I think I can benefit from engaging a
> > > particular poster, usually without regard to the subject of his post.
> > > It doesn't take me long to determine whether that person measures
up --
> > > or not.
> >
> > Gosh, I'd better measure up to the high intellectual standards of
UseNet.
> > Just remember who started the name-calling vs. who you attacked first,
> > and consider where your strongest bias lies -- with your fantasy dream
> > goddess Ayn Rand.
>
> You apparently know nothing about Ken. He's been very curtious in not
> pointing out just how oblivious you are,
> but the above paragraph doesn't
> come close to describing him. He's more an Aristotelian than an
> Objectivist, and I've never read a single post of his where I'd say he
> was worshiping Ayn Rand as a "fantasy dream goddess".
Of course not, he leaves that up to his intellectual compadre Jddescript.
> I can understand where you're coming from, as you said you read APK for a
> while,
I am a regular poster there and have been since Nov.
> but the whining child-flamers there have nothing to do with this
> newsgroup
Name one whining child-flamer in APK. Most of them are
college students, true. Is it a crime to want to get an A in
Kant? APK is the place to go for anything Kant-related,
whether it's ideas, or sources of info (but we don't do their
homework for them).
> and it's a mistake to project your opinions of them onto us.
That's not my point, which is, you are all Randroids. (paint, paint,
paint, paint...)
> The average age on HPO is probably 20 years higher than on the Kant and
> Objectivist alt groups, and the level of discussion is much better,
There is much more discussion here, but the quality is lower. Most of it is
re-hashing of old material, old debates and old conflicts. It's no different
than it was my first time here over 2 years ago. But then neither is APK.
I have learned more on APK in four months than I learned about Kant
on my own in all my years previously.
> although that isn't saying much. HPO is almost as good as Usenet used to
> be in the old days.
It's just busier than other newsgroups, and anything is better than nothing
as long as it isn't spam. If you love AR and don't mind seeing the same
ideas over and over again then yes this is perfect for you.
> --
> Dave O'Hearn
>
JoeOrrion
>> theory of yours is.
>
>I agree with respect to those who treat Objectivism >as a religion (or a
>everyone here who calls himself an Objectivist fits >that description,
>you are painting with way too broad a brush.
I'm sick of all this "objectivism as a religion" bashing. It certainly seems to
be the most natural way for people to get into the philosophy. And so I don't
think it's nice to insult that very substantial portion of the objectivist
"movement." And since it is such a sizeable portion (for proof see my
assertion) why would anyone want to call themselves an objectivist? I mean, all
you are doing is associating yourself with a bunch of pretensious, dorky kids
who will eventually abandon objectivism and dedicate themselves to making fun
of you. Really what is the point of being a smart, honest objectivist? It's
like being a 7 foot tall jockey, you're much better off playing some
basketball.
Joe Teicher
JoeOrrion
Straw Dogs is an awesome movie featuring Dustin Hoffman as a mild-mannered
mathematician who kills a bunch of people.
Joe Teicher
Malenor
"JoeOrrion" <joeo...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010317224351...@ng-mj1.aol.com...
It's not a religion, but a cult, and like all cults it is very difficult to
extricate
oneself from it psychologically.
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> Of course not, he leaves that up to his intellectual compadre Jddescript.
Just one word of explanation to a newbie in this group: JD is a certified
loonie around here, and none of the regulars, regardless of religious
conviction, take him seriously.
Helen.
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> Analytic propositions are
> sometimes tautological, sometimes not. The proposition, "7 + 5 = some
> number" is analytic in that it is part of the concept of summation that
> two numbers added together total a third number. But the proposition
> "7 + 5 = 12" is synthetic, as the number we come up with, 12, is not
> included in the concept of summation.
Bad example. Algebra is entirely analytic, there is absolutely nothing
synthetic about it. Also, this has nothing to do with the size of the
numbers.
Helen.
Malenor
"Gaius Helen Mohiam" <GMo...@Bene-Gesserith.org> wrote in message
news:3YWs6.243224$v.262...@typhoon.nyroc.rr.com...
JD is a regular at APK, and you're right of course. A simple web search on
JD uncovers his posting to boards
all over the net.
Malenor
"Gaius Helen Mohiam" <GMo...@Bene-Gesserith.org> wrote in message
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:akVs6.4738$Im6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Analytic propositions are
> > sometimes tautological, sometimes not. The proposition, "7 + 5 = some
> > number" is analytic in that it is part of the concept of summation that
> > two numbers added together total a third number. But the proposition
> > "7 + 5 = 12" is synthetic, as the number we come up with, 12, is not
> > included in the concept of summation.
>
> Bad example. Algebra is entirely analytic, there is absolutely nothing
> synthetic about it.
Maybe, maybe not. But my proposition is synthetic for the reason
given. You cannot derive 12 by analyzing the left side of the
equation, but by synthesizing the two numbers with the
additional element of intuition. I drew the example from Kant.
You may argue that the solution can be arrived at without
synthesis, but then you are not doing Kant's math, but
20th century math using 20th century concepts.
Malenor
I've debated this point endlessly on APK. Let me set the propositions
in word form:
The sum of two numbers is a number. (analytical)
The sum of 7 (objects) and 5 (objects) is 12 (objects). (synthetic)
The latter is what Kant means because in his example he is
explicitly referencing math to objects in intuition such as fingers. If you
have a math that has no reference to any object whatsoever
then you are contradicting Kant's example, but not
contradicting Kant -- just comparing apples and oranges.
His point is that synthesis always involves the element of
intuition.
Dave OHearn
I was thinking of the so-called Objectivists, not the people studying
Kant. There was some kid with "Capitalist Solider" in his sig that kept
talking about "doing battle" with the "Kantians". That kind of stuff is
why I avoid alt groups. I tried to lurk in APK for a while, and posted a
few times trying to get people not to spew out so much garbage,
misrepresenting both Kant and Rand, as they were only deluding
themselves. It didn't do much good.
> It's just busier than other newsgroups, and anything is better than
> nothing as long as it isn't spam. If you love AR and don't mind seeing
> the same ideas over and over again then yes this is perfect for you.
Almost everyone in this group is a capitalist, but it's simply not true
that we're all in blissful agreement, loving Ayn Rand. Even the people
here who admire here disagree over a large amount of what she said.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Ken Gardner
> Ken; as the rest of this message shows you are talking with a collectivist
> "joiner" similar to others who hang out in the Kant forum. They have no
> interest in the truth or in learning but are playing a social manipulator
> [socman] "game" of debating tactics and pragmatic king's men justificatio
> n. The
> Ayn Rand Theory [ART] can be thought of as a theory of the practical acti
> ons of
> free people to transform the situations where the socman is present [as they
> always are] into an optimum happy condition. Only in this negative sense is
> communication with such Kantian socmen of value.
I tend to agree. If they are not interested in the truth, it is often
useful, in the cultural and political arenas, to expose this fact. On
the other hand, if they are genuinely interested in the truth, maybe I
can bring them closer to my position, or vice versa if I happen to be
mistaken and they happen to be correct. As Rand (through Galt)
paraphrased the point, when I disagree with a rational man, if I'm
right, I win; if he's right, he wins; only one of us will win, but both
will profit.
Ken
Dave OHearn
> "Dave OHearn" <dav...@lessing.oit.umass.edu> wrote in message
> >
> > heard a lot of variants of in in Sociology. It's certainly true that
> > there's a difference between appearance and reality,
>
> This is not Kant's terminology, he never equated reality with noumena.
I said somewhere that I've only rand ethical writings of Kant's.
As far as the noumena/phenomena goes, I'm fairly sure I grasp the idea,
but don't know his terminology. I also don't agree with it, unless you
interpret it in the most general sense as a statement that we aren't
omniscient. Saying we are limitted to certain perceptions is a very
negative way of approaching the topic, and risks ignoring the important
qualification that all things are limitted.
I also find it rationalistic, and the categories especially so. Kant
wouldn't have said what he did if he could see all the scientific
instruments we have today. Some people have made the error of saying that
the theory of relativity proves Kant's claim that space is only a
phenomena of our consciousness. In fact, it does the opposite. We are
able to grasp the theory, proving the limitation false.
> Kant made a distinction between analytic and synthetic methods and
> analytic and synthetic propositions. [...]
Thanks for explaining this. I don't have much to say in reply, although I
am generally wary of statements that there are two ways of thinking.
> > > > [S]eeing what religion does to people, I've found the mind-body
> > > > dichotomy the most destructive idea in history.
> > >
> > > You found that out all by yourself?
> >
> > Before I'd heard of Objectivism, if that's what you mean, yes.
>
> And of course, Rand verified what you already thought.
Of course. What other way is there to accept a philosophic statement as
true, other than to recognize it as something you've seen yourself? I did
not randomly happen across Ayn Rand's books. My particular interest was
in scapegoating. I'd been fed a lot of rhetoric about how bad the
Holocaust was, but I was concerned with the real problem, scapegoating,
not just one instance of it. Although it isn't normally something she's
creditted with, Ayn Rand had brilliant insights about the nature of
scapegoating.
> [Kant has] also been termed a gap-bridger between rationalism and
> empiricism. That pretty much takes care of the mind-body dichotomy
> doesn't it? If it's true.
Kant's Critiques are on my reading list for this year.
--
Dave O'Hearn
Malenor
> Jddescript says...
>
> > Ken; as the rest of this message shows you are talking with a
collectivist
> > "joiner"
That's you.
> > similar to others who hang out in the Kant forum. They have no
> > interest in the truth
You again, Randroid.
> > or in learning but are playing a social manipulator
> > [socman] "game" of debating tactics and pragmatic king's men
justificatio
> > n.
That's you, except it's Queen Rand's men, not king's men.
> > The
> > Ayn Rand Theory [ART] can be thought of as a theory of the practical
acti
> > ons of free people
But when will free people be free of YOU?
> > to transform the situations where the socman is present
Your ideas and methods are far more dangerous than those of any so-called
"socman" (social manipulator). Creating endless acronyms based on stale
Objectivist dogma will not attract more people to your movement.
> > as they
> > always are] into an optimum happy condition. Only in this negative sense
is
> > communication with such Kantian socmen of value.
What you just said in those last two sentences logically and practically
amounts to a big fat zero. Hot Air.
> I tend to agree. If they are not interested in the truth,
Since you two are talking about me, then all I can say is, I've been through
the Randroid scene, I've experienced the deleterious psychological effects,
and I've had my fill of someone else's idea of truth. It is a pity that some
people, such as yourselves, have been permanently damaged by it and will
never see the magnificent grandeur and beauty which is the architectonic
of Immanuel Kant.
> it is often
> useful, in the cultural and political arenas, to expose this fact. On
> the other hand, if they are genuinely interested in the truth, maybe I
> can bring them closer to my position
You are talking about me in the third person plural, therefore I can
respond by saying, you believe we are that far apart because
your Randite masters with their "us vs. them" mentality told you we are.
> , or vice versa if I happen to be
> mistaken and they happen to be correct. As Rand (through Galt)
> paraphrased the point, when I disagree with a rational man, if I'm
> right, I win; if he's right, he wins; only one of us will win, but both
> will profit.
But first you have to be open to the idea that others can be right, even
those you polarize as being far away from your position. Are you? I
have no idea what you believe, except aristotelianism, because all you
want to do is lecture like big momma.
> Ken
>
Malenor
> Malenor (mal...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> > "Dave OHearn" <dav...@lessing.oit.umass.edu> wrote in message
> > >
> > > I know it mostly from phenomenology, not Kant's original works. I also
> > > heard a lot of variants of in in Sociology. It's certainly true that
> > > there's a difference between appearance and reality,
> >
> > This is not Kant's terminology, he never equated reality with noumena.
>
> I said somewhere that I've only rand ethical writings of Kant's.
> As far as the noumena/phenomena goes, I'm fairly sure I grasp the idea,
> but don't know his terminology. I also don't agree with it, unless you
> interpret it in the most general sense as a statement that we aren't
> omniscient. Saying we are limitted to certain perceptions
We are limited to the perceptions that we have, those things which
reside in the space/time matrix (not Kant's terminology). To say you
can know noumenal objects is to make a claim to seeing beyond
space and time to some other dimension. Everything around you is
in space and time, this is a non-controversial fact. Anything not in
space and time, Kant terms noumenal. The question remaining is,
What is space and time?
> is a very
> negative way of approaching the topic, and risks ignoring the important
> qualification that all things are limitted.
All objects in space and time are limited.
>I also find it rationalistic, and the categories especially so.
By appearance perhaps, although they are not innate. Innateness is
a category of empirical being. The categories transcend all talk
of innateness or properties and attributes per se because they ARE the
properties and attributes.
> Kant
> wouldn't have said what he did if he could see all the scientific
> instruments we have today. Some people have made the error of saying that
> the theory of relativity proves Kant's claim that space is only a
> phenomena of our consciousness. In fact, it does the opposite. We are
> able to grasp the theory, proving the limitation false.
No, Kant said that Space is the form of outer intuition in general.
> > Kant made a distinction between analytic and synthetic methods and
> > analytic and synthetic propositions. [...]
>
> Thanks for explaining this. I don't have much to say in reply, although I
> am generally wary of statements that there are two ways of thinking.
But i wager you do not have any qualms concerning inductive vs deductive
reasoning. In fact, analysis and synthesis are common methods
involved in every research paper or Ph.D. thesis. Analysis is very simple,
merely dissect the situation and report what is in there. But to synthesize
means to go *beyond* the data to discover new concepts and new
principles never before seen. A good thesis consists of a synthesis,
because it shows that the applicant for the Ph.D. put some real thought
and effort into the final prize. A synthesis adds to the total body of
human knowledge as an advance over previous knowledge.
> > > > > [S]eeing what religion does to people, I've found the mind-body
> > > > > dichotomy the most destructive idea in history.
> > > >
> > > > You found that out all by yourself?
> > >
> > > Before I'd heard of Objectivism, if that's what you mean, yes.
> >
> > And of course, Rand verified what you already thought.
>
> Of course. What other way is there to accept a philosophic statement as
> true, other than to recognize it as something you've seen yourself? I did
> not randomly happen across Ayn Rand's books. My particular interest was
> in scapegoating. I'd been fed a lot of rhetoric about how bad the
> Holocaust was, but I was concerned with the real problem, scapegoating,
> not just one instance of it. Although it isn't normally something she's
> creditted with, Ayn Rand had brilliant insights about the nature of
> scapegoating.
Perhaps because she was so good at it, whether in the intellectual field
(Kant and the "modern philosophers") or in her private, personal life
(Nathaniel Branden). BTW, I don't recall reading one word from Rand
about scapegoating. (?) Which is odd because I think I've read everything
she's written. Where can I find this material?
> > [Kant has] also been termed a gap-bridger between rationalism and
> > empiricism. That pretty much takes care of the mind-body dichotomy
> > doesn't it? If it's true.
>
> Kant's Critiques are on my reading list for this year.
What I wrote about analytic and synthetic propositions/methods is
crucial to understanding Kant. Good luck and God bless!
Malenor
> Malenor (mal...@hotmail.com) wrote:
> >
> >
> > Almost everyone in this group is a capitalist, but it's simply not true
> > that we're all in blissful agreement, loving Ayn Rand. Even the people
> > here who admire here disagree over a large amount of what she said.
>
Jddescript, aka Jddestroyed because we destroy him on a regular
basis in APK.
> > --
> > Dave O'Hearn
> >
>
Jddescript
>Date: 3/17/01 11:23 PM Mountain Standard Time
>Message-id: <MPG.151dd295c020244898975a@news>
---------------------------------------------------------
]
]
]
]
]
Excellent point and one of the truths we learn from the Ayn Rand Theories[ART]
is that there are many more basically good people [GPs] than is generally
apparent. It is because few people have the courage of an Ayn Rand to speak out
clearly about the socman but rather devote much effort to being invisible to
their socialist screams and takings,whippings, enslavings.
The romantic side of the ART romantic /realism are the techniques for seeing
and understanding and predicting at long distance these GPs while the efforts
to remain at a safe distance from the socmen are minimized although not evaded.
Ayn Rand recognized this historical necessity for freedom to fend off a new
dark ages and it's the reason that the philosophy will gradually grow in human
practical [this world] importance. These are the types of people [GPs or
poterntial GPs] you speak of who are efforting toward achieving the status of
complete free people with others like themselves and are emphatically truth
seeking as part of their happiness efforts. They, over time and maturity, would
much rather profit from knowing the truth than from any socialist competition
to over or best or dominate [enslave] another person. We can learn from them
and they from US.
Good seeing. JD
]
]
]
]
]
-------------------------------------------------------------
Robert J. Kolker
Malenor wrote:
> I've debated this point endlessly on APK. Let me set the propositions
> in word form:
> The sum of two numbers is a number. (analytical)
> The sum of 7 (objects) and 5 (objects) is 12 (objects). (synthetic)
Not so. Using the Peano postulates on can dervive 7 + 5 = 12
in about 13 steps. At no time do you have know anything other
than 1 and the concept of "next".
Bob Kolker
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7WMs6.3678$Im6.5...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:99041e$vti$2...@slb1.atl.mindspring.net...
> > "A is A Exterminators" <A_me...@newsranger.com> wrote in message
> > news:SLEs6.368$94....@www.newsranger.com...
> > > In article <98stou$uca$1...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net>, Fred Weiss says...
> > >
> > > >> No, by no stretch of the imagination is Kant anti-reason
> > > >
> > > >Only if one forgets that his declared purpose was "to deny reason to
> make
> > > >room for faith"
> > >
> > > Prove that Kant said this. Do you have a cite?
> >
> > I've been corrected that the translation is "to deny knowledge.."
> >
> > But I would argue that it amounts to the same thing.
> >
> > Incidentally, since if I've been asked to demonstrate Kant's influence
on
> > contemporary thought, the view of the alleged (inherent) "limitations"
of
> > human knowledge is a pervasive view of modern thought - in all schools,
of
> > all varieties, on all continents. So is the view that we cannot really
> know
> > reality. So is the view that the essence of morality, if not the entire
> > subject of morality, is what we do for others and that what we do for
> > ourselves is at best "prudent" but without moral merit.
>
> This last statement illustrates something I mentioned, the important role
of
> the
> "straw dog" in Objectivism, and crisis-mongering, reminiscent of the
> Clinton presidency.
What's "the straw dog"? We do do a lot of "crisis-mongering", but, hey, if
there's a crisis, there's a crisis. But your comment has no merit unless you
think there isn't grounds for the prediction. If someone had predicted that
that it is empty by itself. It can't be a moral primary. Something is not
right merely because you might wish that everyone does it. On the other
hand - at the level of broad moral abstractions - it is true that if
something is right *everyone* should do it, including yourself,e.g. use
reason or be honest, etc. But why is it right to use reason or be honest -
and do so consistently - and to expect/demand that others do? Not merely
because it would be nice if everyone did. As Kant states it, not suprisingly
(because this is rampant in his philosophy), it's a floating abstraction.
This is consistent with Kant's overall view of morality - disconnecting it
from any beneficiary or purpose, i.e. from actual values, i.e. from life.
Just consider his view of suicide, even if one were experiencing agonizing
and terminal pain.
> > As we've discussed in another thread, the view of
> > "selfishness" is one such example - much of which btw comes from Kant.
>
> This is what I was talking about previously, the tossing out of buzzwords
> designed to frighten the unwary and uninformed -- a tactic reminiscent of
> the style of the Clinton presidency.
I don't know what this has to do with Clinton, but I shudder at the thought
that we share anything in common with Clinton, so maybe you'd better
explain.
Fred Weiss
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FfUs6.4606$Im6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:99087n$7jo$3...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net
> > What's "the straw dog"? We do do a lot of "crisis-mongering", but, hey,
if
> > there's a crisis, there's a crisis.
>
> I do mean Clintonish crisis-mongering, the crisis-a-day mentality of the
> Clinton administration.
I don't recall that as a particularly significant aspect of Clintonism, but
I've noticed that you are not particularly good at thinking in essentials.
>Of course for the Objectivists, Kant was the
> crisis of the millennium.
That's true. Do you know why - at it's most fundamental level? Because it is
ideas that fundamentally drive history - and Kant's have been the most
influential on modern thought.
As a Kantian you should be very pleased at that. Are you?
> The primary beneficiary of the action is stated in the CoPR as humanity.
> Within the text of one version of the CI is a reference to others and
> oneself. Yes it would be an empty principle if it had no beneficiaries.
It doesn't have any beneficiaries. "Humanity" is a floating abstraction - as
in the lovers of "mankind" in the 20th Century supporting communism. The one
thing you can always count on is that purported "lovers of mankind" loathe
*men* - and act accordingly.
Humanity has no values, we do.
> You're saying it has no basis in reality, you're right. It has its basis
> in transcendental reflection.
No further comment necessary.
>
> > This is consistent with Kant's overall view of morality - disconnecting
it
> > from any beneficiary or purpose, i.e. from actual values, i.e. from
life.
>
> No, because humanity includes every individual life, including one's own.
Sorry, that doesn't cut it. One doesn't pursue values for "humanity", one
pursues values for oneself. But you've identified something important here
for those who doubt Kant's influence on Marx.
>
> > Just consider his view of suicide, even if one were experiencing
agonizing
> > and terminal pain.
>
> I don't know what that is, but he was probably opposed to it
Yes, he was - under *any* circumstances.
in any
> circumstance. Then on the other side of this issue you have Jack
> Kevorkian's suicide machine.
This is a smear - and spoken like a true Kantian. I'll just point out that
we are kinder to animals in excruciating, terminal pain than we are to
people.
> The polarization aspect is obvious, the "us vs. them" attitude of the
> Objectivists, particularly in the Peikoffian side of the schism, is
> powerful.
> It's not so much that polarization is bad, as conflict and debate is
> inevitable. But Rand's statement, "Immanuel Kant is the most evil man in
> mankind's history," is beyond the pale. It is not based on a desire to
> debate him, or even to argue, but to destroy him.
Here I am debating you - but yes my intention is to "destroy you"
(intellectually). Yes, we are "polarizers" - because some ideas are at
opposite poles. Communism is the polar opposite of capitalism, and no, I
don't seek to compromise or find common ground with communists. I'm not
interested in a mixed economy - or a mixed or watered-down Objectivism
(hence the schism you refer to.)
And yes, Kant was evil - which you are graciously and amply demonstrating.
So please proceed and continue to make our case for us.
Fred Weiss
Robert Chapman
Malenor <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> He called me a name,
I called you an asshole BECAUSE you came in here behaving like a total
asshole, throwing around insults and making childish comments like:
> > > What philosophers or schools of philosophy have been influenced by Kant?
> > Hegel and Marx are the most famous of many.
> *Hegel and Marx are schools of philosophy?*
Hegel and Marx are philosophers but then you probably knew that didn't you
and just didn't care.
> I did --
> ** There isn't a single person
> ** who comes here, who knows anything at all about this subject, that
> ** can't name a book or work where Peikoff refers to Kant in the
> ** most strenuously contemptuous way.
>
> Didn't you find that informative?
No. So I am aware that Peikoff has written 'Ominous Parallels'. I've
heard a lot of bad things about it so I haven't wasted time reading it.
If I said I hadn't *read* 'War and Peace' you would probably call me a
liar because everyone has heard of War and Peace.
> And furthermore...
>
> ** I won't insult you further
> ** by citing these numerous sources which are easily found even
> ** by a grade-schooler with limited internet or library skills.
>
> "Sources" refers to Peikoffian attacks on Kant. This was meant
> to inform him that the resources are out there readily available
So???? Of course they are. I said I hadn't read Peikoff's writings on
Kant but you've pretended I said he didn't write anything or that I
couldn't find such a thing or some similar nonsense.
> so easy to find that I won't insult him by holding his hand through
> the process of finding them. Frankly, I find his claim that --
>
> > > I have in fact read Kant's Critiques in full as well as a half-dozen
> > > (non-Objectivist) secondary analyses and have never read a single word by
> > > Peikoff on Kant
>
> to be highly unbelievable
Well as long as you know then I'm convinced. I thought I was in the
middle of reading Paton's 'The Moral Law' but I must be in error because
obviously you have an all-seeing eye that knows better.
> and incredible if true. But if you take that statement literally, then
> of course there were no references to Peikoff in Kant's Critiques, and
> furthermore, there may be a good reason why the secondary literature
> makes no reference to Peikoff's take on Kant:
???? I said I have never read anything by Peikoff on Kant, not that I
have never read anything by Kant (or anyone else) on Peikoff! Feel free
to twist it around to see what you want to see. Your dislike of your own
previous mistakes seems to have made you desperately want to pretend
everyone else is like you were and to treat them with the contempt you
thought you yourself deserved. It's psychologically understandable but
far from rational behaviour.
Rob
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> I've debated this point endlessly on APK. Let me set the propositions
> in word form:
> The sum of two numbers is a number. (analytical)
> The sum of 7 (objects) and 5 (objects) is 12 (objects). (synthetic)
Ah, that is different.
> The latter is what Kant means because in his example he is
> explicitly referencing math to objects in intuition such as fingers. If
you
> have a math that has no reference to any object whatsoever
> then you are contradicting Kant's example, but not
> contradicting Kant -- just comparing apples and oranges.
> His point is that synthesis always involves the element of
> intuition.
I agree with that.
Gaius Helen Mohiam
news:3AB4A722...@email.com...
I tend to agree with Malenore there: Once he is talking not about numbers
but about physical objects, he takes this out of the realm of mathematics
(what you and I have had in mind). In that case, I would say that the
statement indeed becomes synthetic in a way. While in this case the mapping
between mathematics and reality seems trivially obvious, there are (most
likely) differences. Just consider the fact that there are infinitely many
mathematical numbers, but it is doubtful that there are infinitely many
physical objects.
Helen.
Gaius Helen Mohiam
> Yes. Perhaps I'll save my worst stuff for the true Randroids such as
> Jddescript, aka Jddestroyed because we destroy him on a regular
> basis in APK.
[Laughing] I'd be curious to see how you do that. In my experience, if you
prove that he is talking nonsense, he just responds with a stream of
meaningless babble which looks pretty much like a random sequence of canned
sentences, with little connection among themselves nor the post he is
"responding" to. I'm still not sure if he really is a human being, or just a
chatterbot, coded by some amateur hacker.
Helen.
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
Fred Weiss
"Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:pOSs6.4477$Im6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>
> "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> news:99087l$7jo$2...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net
> > Someone once said that every philosopher should be made to live in the
> world
> > they advocate, so that they could actually see the implications of their
> > views.
>
> > (I'll mention that there are very few philosophers admirable in this
> > respect. Jesus was one. He ended up precisely where he should have. In
> rags
> > and nailed to a cross.)
>
> Objectivist hyperbole.
You're not bad at hyperbole yourself.
>NOBODY should end up like that.
Hey, that's where he *wanted* to end up - sacrificing himself for your
Kantian "mankind", right? A lot of Christians have chosen to consistently
follow the model along pretty much the same lines with variations. (see: The
Dark Ages). When it later got secularized, post-the "grandeur and
magnificence" of Kant, the view was: hey, if you are not going to willingly
sacrifice yourself for "mankind", we'll do it for you. Concentration camps
to the right of you....gulags to the left of you. What do *you*, matter.
"Humanity" is all. Isn't that what you've said.
Anyway, what does it matter to you. You are just an "appearance". What's
*real* is the race, the state...the greater good of the greater number.
But, hey, according to you, there are no valid Objectivist connections here.
It's just more hyperbole and polarization.
>Besides, I hardly
> see Him as a philosopher.
Of course not. He was intelligible and ordinary people could actually
understand him.
>
> > I wonder: what do you think Kant's world would look like? In my view: an
> > insane asylum. What do you think?
>
> I think you have skipped the chapter on Kant and continue to believe only
> what your masters tell you.
I hate to tell you this, but I'm just reading what you're saying.
Fred Weiss
Robert Chapman
This is interesting to follow in terms of psychological analysis but not
much else.
In article <7JSs6.4472$Im6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
Malenor <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Just remember who started the name-calling vs. who you attacked first
Yes let's remember. Your self-deceit is quite incredible. On Sat Mar 17,
11am, you said (amongst many other insults):
'like the parasite that you are.'
etc, etc, etc
Perhaps you can show me when I started it earlier? I had never even
*read* a post by you before you posted your barrage of insults. But then
you don't really care that what you claim isn't true, only about your need
to make derogatory comments about others.
Rob
Robert Chapman
Malenor <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > (I'll mention that there are very few philosophers admirable in this
> > respect. Jesus was one. He ended up precisely where he should have. In rags
> > and nailed to a cross.)
>
> Objectivist hyperbole. NOBODY should end up like that. Besides, I hardly
> see Him as a philosopher.
Ahh! Him, capital H. There's always an explanation behind the abuse. It
seems you are the very unthinking automaton you claim to oppose.
Believing a 2000 year old book to be the words of a deity, believing fairy
tales of miracles, accepting a twisted and harmful morality and imagining
perfection where there only stands gross ignorance, now that's the height
of gullibility and mindless belief.
Rob
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
> And yes, Kant was evil - which you are graciously and amply demonstrating.
> So please proceed and continue to make our case for us.
Evil or muddleheaded? All the biographical data I have on Kant shows
him to be a tad surpressed sexually (he never married) but never cruel
or nasty to other folks. Aside from the errors derived from his philosophy,
which are not his fault, the worse you could say about him is that his
writing is Dreadful (even in German) and he is anal retentive.
Is it fair of just to blame a philosopher for the errors that people commit
on the basis of his philosophy many years after his/her death. What acts
did Kant perform or commit in his life time that actively promoted
collectivism? Did he oppose liberty? No. Actually he was a member of
the cheerleading squad for the American Revolution.
Kant was a mass of error insofar as he reified abstractions (something
that will rot the brainstem) and got gummed up by his native language,
German. See Mark Twain's essay on German. There is something about
German syntax that conduces to muddle.
Bob Kolker
>
>
> Fred Weiss
Robert J. Kolker
Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> Someone once said that every philosopher should be made to live in the world
> they advocate, so that they could actually see the implications of their
> views.
Should they be made to live in the world, their * followers * advocate.
A philosopher is not responsible for the errors that other people
commit in his name.
Neither is a teacher or a prophet. A case in point is that of the
Gallilean Carpenter, Y'hoshua ben Yosef. There was a man
who saw Torah law being used as a fetter rather than as a guide
to good and righteous behaviour.
Unfortunately, his followers, turned him from a Teacher, a Rabbi
who was trying to restore good Jewish common sense to how
his co-ethnics should deal with each , to the Son of God. What a
dreadful fate! Y'shua whose good advice consisted of telling
people not to lay a trip on others until they cleaned up their own
act, and to treat people the same way they would treat themselves,
was turned into some pansy mystic with long hair and soft weepy
eyes. What a dreadful fate.
Is Jesus responsible for the work of that crack-head John or the
Evil Paul of Tarsus?
Bob Kolker
Robert Chapman
Malenor <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > (I'll mention that there are very few philosophers admirable in this
> > respect. Jesus was one. He ended up precisely where he should have. In rags
> > and nailed to a cross.)
>
> Objectivist hyperbole. NOBODY should end up like that.
Well yes they should, if you listen to 'Him'.
Matthew 10:38 'Whoever does not take up his cross and follow in my steps
is not fit to be my disciple.'
Matthew 16:25 'Whoever wants to save his own life will lose it; but
whoever loses his life for my sake will find it.'
Jesus said the best thing you could do was die for someone else. That's
why Christianity produced thousands of fanatical martyrs. Precisely
because it was thought that everybody *should* end up like him, if they
were moral.
Rob
Malenor
deal with your and your Randroid lies, nobody can.
"Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
news:992ert$feg$3...@slb7.atl.mindspring.net...
>
>
> "Malenor" <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:FfUs6.4606$Im6.6...@newsread1.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >
> > "Fred Weiss" <pape...@ix.netcom.com> wrote in message
> > news:99087n$7jo$3...@slb6.atl.mindspring.net
<snip that>
>
> Here I am debating you - but yes my intention is to "destroy you"
> (intellectually). Yes, we are "polarizers" - because some ideas are at
> opposite poles. Communism is the polar opposite of capitalism, and no,
I didn't offer to compromise, but I am interested in seeking common
ground. Since Kant was a champion of political freedom and reason
I see grounds for it.
> I
> don't seek to compromise or find common ground with communists. I'm not
> interested in a mixed economy - or a mixed or watered-down Objectivism
> (hence the schism you refer to.)
I haven't seen any watered-down Objectivism with schimists such as
George Walsh. Instead I see a desire to end the Clinton-like traits of
the movement which I have already mentioned, and a less destructive
view of other philosophies which Randroids try their hardest to paint
in the blackest way possible. Not to mention the psychologizing and
moralizing of your side, the desire to see your "enemies" on "the other
side" as mentally unbalanced "therefore" evil and wrong.
> And yes, Kant was evil - which you are graciously and amply demonstrating.
> So please proceed and continue to make our case for us.
>
> Fred Weiss
That was a good example of what I was just saying. You are doing
nothing more than upholding a tradition of moralizing which has
not worked and will never work, but will merely isolate you from
the rest of the intellectual community forever. You can't win.
Malenor
>
>
> Fred Weiss wrote:
>
> > And yes, Kant was evil - which you are graciously and amply
demonstrating.
> > So please proceed and continue to make our case for us.
>
> Evil or muddleheaded? All the biographical data I have on Kant shows
> him to be a tad surpressed sexually (he never married) but never cruel
> or nasty to other folks. Aside from the errors derived from his
philosophy,
> which are not his fault, the worse you could say about him is that his
> writing is Dreadful (even in German) and he is anal retentive.
>
> Is it fair of just to blame a philosopher for the errors that people
commit
> on the basis of his philosophy many years after his/her death. What acts
> did Kant perform or commit in his life time that actively promoted
> collectivism? Did he oppose liberty? No. Actually he was a member of
> the cheerleading squad for the American Revolution.
>
> Kant was a mass of error insofar as he reified abstractions (something
> that will rot the brainstem)
Loved the post up until this point. If by reified abstractions you are
referring
to the forms and categories, then all I can say is that they are idealities,
not
concrete things. In fact, they are "so ideal" that they are completely empty
concepts without the added element of something that is real. I think you
have been misled by the common misconception that the categories are
innate structures of the human mind, but that would be to make Kant into
a rationalist. Rationalism holds that there are innate axioms from which
we build up all our knowledge. But the categories are neither innate nor
axiomatic. Kant held that axioms belong to mathematics, not metaphysics.
And he held that the categories were acquired, not innate.
> and got gummed up by his native language,
> German. See Mark Twain's essay on German. There is something about
> German syntax that conduces to muddle.
>
> Bob Kolker
Don't read the original German, try Werner S. Pluhar's english translation
of the CPR with an excellent introduction by Kitcher. Pluhar not only offers
a translation true to Kant's intended meaning, but he breaks up the
long German sentences into smaller bites and converts the verb tenses
from the passive to the active tense.
Robert Chapman
<bobk...@email.com> wrote:
> Neither is a teacher or a prophet. A case in point is that of the
> Gallilean Carpenter, Y'hoshua ben Yosef. There was a man
> who saw Torah law being used as a fetter rather than as a guide
> to good and righteous behaviour.
>
> Unfortunately, his followers, turned him from a Teacher, a Rabbi
> who was trying to restore good Jewish common sense to how
> his co-ethnics should deal with each , to the Son of God. What a
> dreadful fate! Y'shua whose good advice
Good advice? Standard hippy cult stuff (a shallow 'just love each other
man') combined with a hatred of self, of pleasure and of the world. Just
a form of Communism to appeal to the pathetic and the jealous, which it
did more than any philosophy aside from Communism itself.
The sort of person who says
Luke 14:26 If any man come to me, and not hate his father, his mother, his
wife, his children, his brethren, his sisters, yea, his own life also, he
cannot be a disciple of mine.'
is worthy only of contempt.
> Is Jesus responsible for the work of that crack-head John or the
> Evil Paul of Tarsus?
No but he is hardly out of place when mentioned with these other two nutters.
Rob
Lionell K. Griffith
<GMo...@Bene-Gesserith.org> wrote:
>I tend to agree with Malenore there: Once he is talking not about numbers
>but about physical objects, he takes this out of the realm of mathematics
>(what you and I have had in mind).
Where does the concept of one and next come from? Out of the air?
Imagination? The infinite mind? I suggest that ALL math has its
foundation in direct experience with real things. Hence there is no
difference between analytical and synthetic. Except that to
distinguish a difference one must blank out the experiential base of
both.
Lionell K. Griffith
wrote:
>Fred Weiss wrote:
>
>> And yes, Kant was evil - which you are graciously and amply demonstrating.
>> So please proceed and continue to make our case for us.
>
>Evil or muddleheaded?
There is a significant difference? I suggest the source of ALL evil
is massive muddleheadedness. Especially the muddleheaded accepting
the muddleheaded as sources of "enlightenment" and acting upon it.
Malenor
"Jddescript" <jddes...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20010318050926...@ng-fw1.aol.com...
And more Objectivist acronyms than are necessary by far.
> It is because few people have the courage of an Ayn Rand to speak out
> clearly about the socman but rather devote much effort to being invisible
to
> their socialist screams and takings,whippings, enslavings.
Neither Kant nor I are in favor of socialism and its barbarisms, although
those
things have been far more accredited to communism. And Ayn Rand never
mentioned any 'socman.'
> The romantic side of the ART romantic /realism
Romantic Realism is the genre Rand pursued artistically, not politically.
Now why do you suppose nobody believes anything Jddestroyed posts?
> are the techniques for seeing
> and understanding and predicting at long distance these GPs
Good peoples?
> while the efforts
> to remain at a safe distance from the socmen are minimized although not
evaded.
Even your own kind wants to remain a safe distance from you.
> Ayn Rand recognized this historical necessity for freedom to fend off a
new
> dark ages
It's your way of thinking that will help promote a new dark ages. Not
Objectivism,
but your constant habit of obscuring anything good that Objectivism tries to
promote by your obscurantism and the existential emptiness of your comments
in general.
> and it's the reason that the philosophy will gradually grow in human
> practical [this world] importance.
I hardly see someone who has posted to as many newsgroups and boards all
over the net as you have as being practical or of importance.
> These are the types of people [GPs or
> poterntial GPs]
Rand was not concerned with "good people" but with GREAT people. Were
the heroes of her novels merely good? You should check your premises.
> you speak of who are efforting
efforting? If I really was opposed to Rand I would say, Keep it up JD! Your
very style is dangerous to the movement. If some people think Objectivists
are crackpots all they need to do is look at JD for the evidence.
> toward achieving the status of
> complete free people with others like themselves and are emphatically
truth
> seeking as part of their happiness efforts.
Kant was not opposed to happiness, in fact he said it was beneficial to
maintaining a good life. (CoPR.)
> They, over time and maturity, would
> much rather profit from knowing the truth than from any socialist
competition
> to over or best or dominate [enslave] another person. We can learn from
them
> and they from US.
>
> Good seeing. JD
It's apparent that you have missed the thrust of Rand's practical political
philosophy, which was to uphold the status of the genius in society, those
Fountainheads of productive knowledge, the Atlases who hold the world
on their shoulders. But not for JD, his focus is on achieving as much
happiness in the world as possible -- How? Blank-out. Happiness is ok
but the means and the intellectual theory behind achieving it are lost with
JD, and in a way that makes him a psychological libertarian of happiness
(Capitalism, achieved somehow [by defeating the evil socman] automatically
brings happiness -- somehow. JD is the ultimate product of those who
take Ayn Rand as a cult leader, paralyze their own wills and follow
her blindly into the abyss.
Malenor
"Robert Chapman" <rob...@ihug.co.nz> wrote in message
news:robertc-1903...@news.alt.net...
> In article <kAMs6.4779$227.4...@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>,
> Malenor <mal...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > He called me a name,
>
> I called you an asshole BECAUSE you came in here behaving like a total
> asshole, throwing around insults and making childish comments like:
>
> > > > What philosophers or schools of philosophy have been influenced by
Kant?
> > > Hegel and Marx are the most famous of many.
> > *Hegel and Marx are schools of philosophy?*
>
> Hegel and Marx are philosophers but then you probably knew that didn't you
> and just didn't care.
I thought Hegel and Marx were people, not schools. But thanks for clearing
that
up for those here who have their noses stuck in Ayn Rand books all day and
are ignorant about the world beyond them or even that such a world exists
at all.
> > I did --
> > ** There isn't a single person
> > ** who comes here, who knows anything at all about this subject, that
> > ** can't name a book or work where Peikoff refers to Kant in the
> > ** most strenuously contemptuous way.
> >
> > Didn't you find that informative?
>
> No. So I am aware that Peikoff has written 'Ominous Parallels'. I've
> heard a lot of bad things about it so I haven't wasted time reading it.
> If I said I hadn't *read* 'War and Peace' you would probably call me a
> liar because everyone has heard of War and Peace.
So you were just conveniently pretending to be oblivious to Peikoff's little
opinions about Kant. Why? Because he is an idiot and you are his favorite
brown-noser?
> > And furthermore...
> >
> > ** I won't insult you further
> > ** by citing these numerous sources which are easily found even
> > ** by a grade-schooler with limited internet or library skills.
> >
> > "Sources" refers to Peikoffian attacks on Kant. This was meant
> > to inform him that the resources are out there readily available
>
> So???? Of course they are. I said I hadn't read Peikoff's writings on
> Kant but you've pretended I said he didn't write anything or that I
> couldn't find such a thing or some similar nonsense.
No, you were pretending not to know about it.
You are forgetting, which is understandable given I'm told the advanced
years of those who post here.
> > so easy to find that I won't insult him by holding his hand through
> > the process of finding them. Frankly, I find his claim that --
> >
> > > > I have in fact read Kant's Critiques in full as well as a half-dozen
> > > > (non-Objectivist) secondary analyses and have never read a single
word by
> > > > Peikoff on Kant
> >
> > to be highly unbelievable
>
> Well as long as you know then I'm convinced. I thought I was in the
> middle of reading Paton's 'The Moral Law' but I must be in error because
> obviously you have an all-seeing eye that knows better.
I think you're tired and need a nap.
> > and incredible if true. But if you take that statement literally, then
> > of course there were no references to Peikoff in Kant's Critiques, and
> > furthermore, there may be a good reason why the secondary literature
> > makes no reference to Peikoff's take on Kant:
>
> ???? I said I have never read anything by Peikoff on Kant, not that I
> have never read anything by Kant (or anyone else) on Peikoff!
Then clean up your rather sloppy and rhapsodic writing style so people
can understand what you're saying. But what I said about Peikoff is
relevant and many of you will agree, that Peikoff is not worth citing
in a work intended for publication -- probably not even worth citing
for a high school 500-word essay.
> Feel free
> to twist it around to see what you want to see. Your dislike of your own
> previous mistakes seems to have made you desperately want to pretend
> everyone else is like you were and to treat them with the contempt you
> thought you yourself deserved. It's psychologically understandable but
> far from rational behaviour.
>
This coming from a guy who claims to have read Kant's major works and still
remains oblivious to it although Kant was explicit enough about what he
believed.