objectivism vs positivism
Tribeless
tell me the essential differences between objectivism and positivism.
Regards
Andrew Jones
Tribeless wrote in message <92892242...@newsch.es.co.nz>...
>Sorry to be a bore and ask a straight out question, but can someone please
>tell me the essential differences between objectivism and positivism.
>
>Regards
This probably won't be too enlightning... but I think positivism was a
branch of philosophy that attempted to reduce knowledge back to sensory
experience. What they were trying to do was to say "Hey, look, there are NO
metaphysical problems when you realize that language can be reduced back to
ostensive definitions." (I am assuming that positivism was the philosophy
of the logical positivist - I may be mistaken). Anyway, to give you an
example, lets say we want to discuss the existence of God. The traditional
responses are 1) The Theist response - that God exists. 2) The Athiest
response - that God does not exist. 3) The Agnostic response - that one can
not know. But the response of the Positivist would be "Your question about
God is meaningless since we can not reduce God back to an ostensive
definition". In short, they claim that people are talking garbage when they
talk about such things and reject such discussions out right.
I'll let someone else field objectivism... ;-)
Take care,
Andy.
Mosquito
>Sorry to be a bore and ask a straight out question, but can someone please
>tell me the essential differences between objectivism and positivism.
First of all, there is "Objectivism" which is the self-sealing
ideology created by Ayn Rand (nee Alyssa Rosenbaum) covering an amalgam
of atheism, laissez-faire capitalism, psychological egoism, and
neo-Aristotelian realist epistemology. Connections between these
ideational groupings exist on subjectivist grounds, and so "Objectivism"
(or Randism) can be differentiated from "objectivism" via the following
philosophical school's reliance on the world's existence owing to the
ability to have the world (values, "facts") exist separate from
sensation. It also seems to have the requirement of necessarily
agreeing with others (experts) in "Objectivism" to ensure that one sees
things Objectively.
Second, "objectivism" (note the case) can be either a value theory
(per aesthetics and/or aethics) or a form of epistemology. The value
theory side of objectivism is the view that: values exist separate of
man, the values can be known; they must be principles of human judgments
and conduct; the objectives/principles are such because of some
objective, existing quality. E.g., Epstein's "what is simple is good".
Small "o" objectivist epistemology holds either that: the world exists
of itself independently of our comprehension; knowledge is based on
factual evidence discovered by scientific methods and describes things
as they are; or only meaningful knowledge is derived from and/or
confirmed by the senses. The definition of such is, of course,
incomplete.
Third, "positivism" can be either traditional "positivism" or "logical
positivism". The traditional form can be traced to Auguste Comte (a
brilliant French Enlightenment thinker). It described how man's thought
evolved from successive theological, metaphysical and positive stages of
social evolution. This latter positive stage was based on the idea that
man was at this era discovering things by mathematics, logic, science,
and observation.
"Logical positivism" (aka positivism) was built on the grounds of the
verifiability principle (i.e., knowledge is confirmed iff a theory is
constantly reaffirmed by testing). As such, there is a dependence of
verifiability. Per language, LP turns it into a quasi-calculus for
solving logic problems and serving as the basis for scientific
observation. Per metaphysics, LP renders this practice without meaning
(which is not the case for "objectivism" where meaning still exists in
the absence of testing). Similarly, for value theories (i.e.,
aesthetics and ethics), they are held to be unsubstantiable for similar
reasons.
Cheers,
Mosquito
===========================
To reply by e-mail:
Delete "7" and send to:
3-1-5-9-1-0-5-4
at
3web*dot*com
===========================
Paul Cohen
Mosquito wrote:
..>
..> On 9 Jun 1999 10:01:01 GMT, Tribeless
<Trib...@home.co.nospam> wrote:
..>
..> >Sorry to be a bore and ask a straight out question, but can
someone please
..> >tell me the essential differences between objectivism and
positivism.
..>
..> First of all, there is "Objectivism" which is the
self-sealing
..> ideology created by Ayn Rand (nee Alyssa Rosenbaum) covering
an amalgam
..> of atheism, laissez-faire capitalism, psychological egoism,
and
..> neo-Aristotelian realist epistemology. Connections between
these
..> ideational groupings exist on subjectivist grounds, and so
"Objectivism"
..> (or Randism) can be differentiated from "objectivism" via the
following
..> philosophical school's reliance on the world's existence owing
to the
..> ability to have the world (values, "facts") exist separate
from
..> sensation. It also seems to have the requirement of
necessarily
..> agreeing with others (experts) in "Objectivism" to ensure that
one sees
..> things Objectively.
..>
..> Second, "objectivism" (note the case) can be either a value
theory
..> (per aesthetics and/or aethics) or a form of epistemology.
The value
..> theory side of objectivism is the view that: values exist
separate of
..> man, the values can be known; they must be principles of human
judgments
..> and conduct; the objectives/principles are such because of
some
..> objective, existing quality. E.g., Epstein's "what is simple
is good".
..>
..> Small "o" objectivist epistemology holds either that: the
world exists
..> of itself independently of our comprehension; knowledge is
based on
..> factual evidence discovered by scientific methods and
describes things
..> as they are; or only meaningful knowledge is derived from
and/or
..> confirmed by the senses. The definition of such is, of
course,
..> incomplete.
..>
..> Third, "positivism" can be either traditional "positivism"
or "logical
..> positivism". The traditional form can be traced to Auguste
Comte (a
..> brilliant French Enlightenment thinker). It described how
man's thought
..> evolved from successive theological, metaphysical and positive
stages of
..> social evolution. This latter positive stage was based on the
idea that
..> man was at this era discovering things by mathematics, logic,
science,
..> and observation.
..> "Logical positivism" (aka positivism) was built on the
grounds of the
..> verifiability principle (i.e., knowledge is confirmed iff a
theory is
..> constantly reaffirmed by testing). As such, there is a
dependence of
..> verifiability. Per language, LP turns it into a
quasi-calculus for
..> solving logic problems and serving as the basis for scientific
..> observation. Per metaphysics, LP renders this practice
without meaning
..> (which is not the case for "objectivism" where meaning still
exists in
..> the absence of testing). Similarly, for value theories (i.e.,
..> aesthetics and ethics), they are held to be unsubstantiable
for similar
..> reasons.
..>