Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ilya Startsev

Regulars
  • Content count

    736
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Ilya Startsev last won the day on January 5 2015

Ilya Startsev had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Ilya Startsev

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 04/05/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    https://beyondaynrand.wordpress.com/

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Russia
  • Interests
    philosophy & videogames

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Russia
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Ilya
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    thanks to Rand, struggling with the biggest problem in my life: Immanuel Kant
  • Experience with Objectivism
    the ones I most like/admire: AS, ITOE, DIM, EoS
  • Occupation
    teacher

Recent Profile Visitors

7490 profile views
  1. Ilya Startsev

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    In letter 790 he writes that connection is the function of the unity of apperception and it's included in every category, so that we could perceive (anything whole). For Kant, apparently, nothing can be perceived as connected naturally and nothing can be perceived without reason. Talk about overthinking of reality! And they criticize Rand for being naive as if it were something bad.
  2. Ilya Startsev

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    In a letter to Beck (letter 500), Kant gave the definition of perception as a "sensation connected with consciousness."
  3. Ilya Startsev

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    Kant talks in more detail about the unity of apperception and differentiates it from perception in «Über die von der Königlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin fur das Jahr 1791 ausgesetzte Preisfrage: Welches sind die wirklichen Fortschritte, die die Metaphysik seit Leibniz's und Wolfs Zeiten in Deutschland gemacht hat» (1804). Unfortunately, this essay was published posthumously, right after Kant's death, because it was unfinished. I am currently reading it in Russian and cannot find it in English. I can translate a relevant passage from Russian into English, though, if you are interested. Here it is: There are other interesting passages there, as well, that remind me of my illustration of Kant's "perceptions" as spaciotemporally internal:
  4. Ilya Startsev

    Transcending Objectivism and Kantianism

    Ordinary human reason, i.e. common sense, is a ground shared with Rand, since she also made much effort to base the content of her philosophy on the experiences of non-philosophers.
  5. Ilya Startsev

    Transcending Objectivism and Kantianism

    I believe Kant dressed a commonsensical philosophy, in some ways near to Rand's, in academese. On a tangential note, Nietzsche wrote:
  6. Ilya Startsev

    Transcending Objectivism and Kantianism

    Kant contradicts non-euclidean geometry:
  7. Ilya Startsev

    Transcending Objectivism and Kantianism

    I can't do anything here but agree with Rand concerning the connection between Newton and Aristotle. Yet I explain the connection differently. Both of them, although used different rules of description, accepted reality as an ontological given. Yes, Aristotle viewed reality teleologically to describe its mechanics. Interestingly, so did Newton, as he also mystically described reality in his Alchemical Papers. We can also independently verify the connection by evaluating these two factors: Kant's antifoundationalism, particularly as found in his The False Subtlety of the Four Syllogistic Figures (1762) and Attempt to Introduce the Concept of Negative Magnitudes into Philosophy (1763), meaning he intentionally contradicted Aristotle. Kant's congruence with quantum physics as seen in the ways of thinking of the leading quantum physicists: Niels Bohr, Richard Feynman, and Alan Guth. The idea is to reduce the universe to sensations being material particles, represented and structured in mathematical language. These particles do not follow laws of ontological logic. If 1 and 2 are true, then Kant contradicts Aristotle and Newton. And since we also know that Aristotle and Newton are contradicted by quantum physics, we can realign the connections, contra the academically accepted, in sync with Rand.
  8. Ilya Startsev

    Transcending Objectivism and Kantianism

    That's 5b from the OP. This is not accepted by most academicians. Rand's genius was in seeing that Kant is congruent with quantum physics, whereas most academicians think he isn't because they connect Kant to Newton. In contrast to them, Rand connects Newton to Aristotle, hence the opposing connections. Additionally (edit): academicians think that Newton contradicts Aristotle because Aristotle's physics was non-experimental and logical, whereas Newton's physics was experimental (empirical) and mathematical. It is academically accepted that euclidean and non-euclidean geometries contradict each other. Yet I am still confused as to why so many philosophers, like M. Schlick, H. Reichenbach, and T. Oizerman, believed that Kant's a priori space was contradicted by Einstein's spacetime continuum, which itself was similarly ideal and empirical. Kant only explicitly mentioned that a line is the shortest distance between two points and that space has three dimensions, both are factual statements in euclidean as well as non-euclidean geometries. As for politics, I think Kant is represented by the likes of John Stuart Mill, on whose political philosophy EU and, in particular, the Scandinavian model are based and whose examples are set as the goal for America by liberals. Egalitarianism by John Rawls is also Kantian in nature, hence the kind of tolerance presented by Social Justice Warriors is also in order.
  9. Ilya Startsev

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    As for the "functional sense", here is Aristotelian synergy in electrical engineering, taken from Konrad Lorenz's Behind the Mirror: A Search for a Natural History of Human Knowledge, Ch. 2.2.
  10. Ilya Startsev

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    I don't know about you, but I agree with this quote by Aristotle:
  11. Ilya Startsev

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    Because once you quantify something, it won't be the whole. What's the difference between 'every thing' and 'everything'?
  12. Ilya Startsev

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    For my Master's thesis I may choose to work on the issue of integrating post-Kantian philosophy with modern, post-Einsteinian science. It is peculiar, however, to find that not only Kantian a priori are contradicted by empirically valid non-euclidean geometry at the foundation of the theory of relativity but that also Ayn Rand is similarly incompatible with the latter theory. Perhaps there could be something with the concept of the "relativized a priori" coined by Reichenbach and exhibited in Padovani's "Relativizing the relativized a priori: Reichenbach’s axioms of coordination divided".
  13. Ilya Startsev

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    Let me rephrase that. Kant used scientific reason to oppose philosophy. Philosophy is not a science. Kant projected science on philosophy (and religion) and hence reduced philosophy to a scientific worldview, reflected in the third positivism of Frege, Russell, Carnap, and Wittgenstein, all of whom cherished Kant. Kant was a scientist and only thought of mathematics in the scientific sense as applied to matter. In contrast to Kant, Plato was a philosopher and not a scientist. He projected philosophy on science (and mythology). Mathematicians and science-minded philosophers like Cantor, Whitehead, Quine, and Gödel are in this group along with Plato. Plato was a philosopher and only thought of mathematics in the philosophical sense as independent from matter. Here is a way to connect them: Frege, Russell, Carnap, Wittgenstein Cantor, Whitehead, Quine, Gödel Rand, on the other hand, was a philosopher who wanted to connect philosophy with science without projecting one on the other. We have yet to see a science based on Rand's foundational philosophy. My guess is that this kind of science has yet to be born out of philosophy and be separated from it to become a full-fledged science in its own right.
  14. Ilya Startsev

    The DIM Hypothesis - by Leonard Peikoff

    Concerning Kant's epistemology, I've found this diagram on his page of German Wikipedia. Basically his theory goes through several confused and muddled stages, as far as I can understand it: first, our sense organs (Sinne) are affected, then we feel sensations (Empfindungen), then with help of imagination (Vostellungen) through time and space we experience phenomena (Erscheinungen), then with help of categories and rules of "productive imagination" (Produktive Einbildunsgkraft) we form concepts (Begriffe), and finally with help of "schemes" of the same "productive imagination" and our reason we form judgments (Urteile). Not only is imagination hereby confused with sensations, perceptions, and concepts (i.e., Vostellungen and Einbildunsgkraft), but the entire diagram doesn't follow the passage of pure reason to practical reason through the maxims and categorical imperative, the connection which would unite the thing-in-itself (Dinge an sich) with the postulates (Regulative Ideen). Please correct me if I am wrong, but this seems to be Kant in a nutshell. If Peikoff was wrong about the disintegration of epistemology and philosophy in general by Kant, then I am a tram(p) who knows nothing. To those of you who think that Kant was anti-reason, think again. He was rather anti-philosophy. His reason is way beyond what Objectivists are generally accustomed to.
  15. Ilya Startsev

    Transcending Objectivism and Kantianism

    Kant on rational egoists:
×