Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

William O

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by William O

  1. I seem to recall that Rand rejected modern formal logic in favor of Aristotelian logic, which is the system of logic that you might find explained in Aristotle's Organon or H. W. B. Joseph's An Introduction to Logic. However, I am having trouble finding specific sources that confirm this memory, and I don't know what Rand's reasons would have been for taking this position. So, did Ayn Rand reject modern formal logic in favor of Aristotle's logic? If so, why?
  2. Since he has passed away, I'm concerned that his work might disappear from the internet over time and be lost. This has already happened to at least one website that he ran.
  3. William O

    Do we have a "primitive mind"?

    One issue I haven't seen addressed in this thread at all is: What is the philosophical worldview of the scientists performing this alleged research? Objectivism holds that philosophy controls science, not the other way around. The philosophical conclusions that a person holds will control the outcome of their scientific inquiries. For example, this is why logical positivists who go into physics tend to end up thinking that physics refutes causality (e.g., Neils Bohr), whereas Objectivists who go into physics do not (e.g., Travis Norsen). No one here has the ability to really evaluate the science first hand as far as I know, so in my opinion two of the first questions we should be asking on this or any controversial scientific issue is (1) whether the scientists involved hold premises compatible with Objectivism and (2) whether scientists in the same area of inquiry who accept Objectivism tend to agree with them. Obviously, this is only a heuristic - you can't draw a definitive conclusion on a scientific issue without looking at the scientific data itself. But as laymen, this may be one of the strongest indicators we have as to which side we ought to be on.
  4. William O

    Concept formation and neuroscience.

    @Satsanga, your objection is based on the stolen concept fallacy. It is necessary to validate the faculty of concept formation before neuroscience or any other science is possible.
  5. A.C.E., is this an idea people have argued for in journals or something you came up with on your own? I'm not saying you couldn't have come up with a true idea on your own, but sometimes it's easier to evaluate an idea if there has been scholarly discussion of it.
  6. William O

    Hello (New)

    Welcome! Can I ask what got you interested in Objectivism originally?
  7. William O

    What villain would be most likely to change?

    I'd say the Wet Nurse, because he successfully improved his character to the point that Rearden respected and valued him, even though he started out as a "villain" character. He was also quite young, which made it easier for him. If you want to focus on the really bad villain characters, though, I'd say Toohey would be more likely to improve than James Taggart. The reason is that Toohey grasped the good and consciously rejected it, whereas James Taggart lived in a kind of mental fog fuelled by subconscious nihilism. I imagine it's easier to become good if you know what to do.
  8. Here's a quote I came across in the sidebar, attributed to Ayn Rand: Google indicates that this quote comes from The Fountainhead. I don't think this should be in the sidebar, because it is patently false - your first glance doesn't tell you everything about a person. Rand probably intended for this fictional ability to play some role in the world of The Fountainhead, but the quote doesn't say that it's from a work of fiction, and it isn't particularly insightful out of context.
  9. If it has, then it would probably be part of the "Howard Roark" phase some Objectivist teenagers go through where they're not sure which parts of The Fountainhead are intended to apply to real life and which are just artistic.
  10. William O

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Kant was a world historical genius of nearly unparalleled influence in the history of philosophy, so he is objectively more dangerous than Korzybski, who I only just heard about now from your post. That is the reason to focus on Kant instead of Korzybski.
  11. I think we can use Rand's novels to get some idea of how capitalism and socialism would act. Capitalism would act like Howard Roark or John Galt, and socialism would act like Ellsworth Toohey or James Taggart.
  12. I don't have any comments on this particular situation, but I'd like to note how much the advice and evaluations being given altered once more details were provided. I've seen this happen before on this forum - someone provides an initial description of what they think is going on in their personal life, advice is given, and then the advice changes once more context is provided. In the future, I would suggest a "fact-gathering" period prior to the giving of advice on personal situations, in order to make sure that the advice being offered is accurate and helpful. This would consist of asking plenty of questions and clarifying any unclear aspects of the situation.
  13. William O


    Do you have a source? I am skeptical of this. Which of these poll results are you claiming are favorable to Objectivism? A priori knowledge and the analytic / synthetic distinction are rejected by Objectivism, for example.
  14. First of all, do you agree that my interpretation of Binswanger is likely to be correct? It's useful to separate the stages of interpretation and evaluation when reading philosophy. (After all, if I'm wrong about what he is saying then we're wasting our time discussing my interpretation.) Secondly, regarding your concern about the alleged absurdity of inductive reduction, I'd ask you to read page 264 of HWK, where Binswanger gives two examples of inductive proof or reduction. Here's the first: Binswanger also gives a second, longer example involving the Law of Demand in economics, which I will not quote here. I assume you have the book with you, so you can read that on your own. I would describe the process of reasoning in these reductive proofs as inductive rather than deductive. Do you disagree?
  15. Binswanger is a property dualist, which as far as I know is consistent with Objectivism.
  16. Patrick, I have a hypothesis about how Dr. Binswanger might answer your question. In HWK (p. 262), he writes: He then gives an example of a deductive derivation, a deductive proof, an inductive derivation, and an inductive proof. (This happens on p. 262-264.) Now, let's try to answer your question: As the above passage makes clear, reduction can be inductive. Reduction is nothing more than walking backwards through the derivation that originally led to the idea. If the derivation was inductive, the reduction or proof will be inductive as well.
  17. Respectfully, I think this is the wrong methodology. When two authors disagree, the right reaction isn't to decide ahead of time that one of them is right and the other is wrong just because of who they are. Instead, I think we ought to study each author carefully until we have a solid grasp of what each respectively is saying, then compare the two positions to determine which has better evidence and arguments in its favor.
  18. William O

    What is 'reason'?

    Wouldn't that just be any idea? The Objectivist epistemology is intended as a fully general account of how knowledge is arrived at.
  19. By skeptics, I mean people like Michael Shermer and James Randi who go around disproving unscientific ideas like homeopathy. I'm not talking about philosophical skepticism as in "you might be a brain in a vat." Here are two recently released books that are viewed favorably in the skeptic community (the former has a lot of upvotes in the "skeptic" subreddit, and the latter is by Michael Shermer): Belief: What It Means to Believe and Why Our Convictions Are So Compelling The Believing Brain: From Ghosts and Gods to Politics and Conspiracies---How We Construct Beliefs and Reinforce Them as Truths I haven't read either of these books, but they both basically seem to argue some variant of "everyone is irrational" based on the reviews I've seen. Now, an Objectivist will immediately see that this is a contradiction. If you advocate rationality, you can't tell people that everyone is irrational, because then there is no obligation to be rational. Everyone is on a par in that case. You can deduce that Albert Einstein is indistinguishable from Deepak Chopra in terms of rationality from that premise. So, I have two questions for discussion: 1. Why does this contradiction persist in the skeptic community? What makes this plausible or attractive to them, given their premises? 2. We have to assume that the leaders of the movement, like Shermer, know that what they are saying is nonsense, because any intelligent person can see that their position refutes itself. So my second question is, what's the motive? Thanks for your responses.
  20. It seems like you're pointing to an apparent conflict between the following claims: Full validation only requires reduction and integration. Full validation requires induction. Induction is distinct from both reduction and integration. The solution will require rejecting or modifying one of these three claims somehow (probably the third).
  21. William O

    Good Books on Western Philosophy?

    A new book on the history of philosophy has been published since this thread started: Anthony Kenny's A New History of Western Philosophy. I've read it, and I consider it very readable and informative.
  22. You could consider sitting in on a class instead of taking one for credit. Most philosophy professors will let you do this, although I've heard that it's hard for people to stick with a class without the incentive of the grade. Some universities also have a philosophy club that you can join. When you're deciding which class to take (or sit in on), the primary consideration should be the quality of the professor teaching the course, not the subject matter of the course.
  23. This is going to be an uphill battle, because the person you're debating with is not being honest. I can tell that just from your description of him above: He claimed that he didn't understand the axioms of existence and identity, but the axioms of existence and identity are self evident, so he is not being honest. You might try mockery. His claiming not to know anything provides plenty of material for that - he has to assume he has knowledge just to type out his posts on his keyboard. You will also need to point out all of the stolen concepts and fallacies of self exclusion that he is doubtlessly committing with every post. He has free will, so if he doesn't want to look at reality then he won't.