Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

AlShalashaska

Newbies
  • Content Count

    2
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I think I have basically answered my own question but would be interested to see if anybody has objections/additions. It essentially boils down to the necessity to 'map' ones concepts to metaphysical fundamentals. 'Reduction' is one method to map ones concepts to reality but the proofs you achieve by doing this are useless unless properly integrated 'horizontally' to the whole context of knowledge.
  2. Hi, I listen to lots of Leonard Peikoff's lectures and his work is incredible. I have no issue with understanding the concept of integration and it's narrower concept of hierarchical reduction as one particular means of integration. But I struggle to understand what is meant by 'horizontal' integration; I understand that it means an integration of another particular based on the same level of abstraction, but how does one exactly gauge what level of abstraction they are operating on? What kind of knowledge can someone integrate on the same level that isn't partaking in some sense in reduction. Can someone maybe provide some examples to really elucidate *horizontal* integration? Thanks very much Edit: I am currently listening through Peikoff's course 'The Art of Thinking' on ARI Campus and am on tape 2 'Hierarchy' At around 35:00 he explains how reduction is a process that takes your idea down to the 'roots' - the perceptual referrents. Is horizontal integration merely doing something like mentally connecting psychology to economics or sexuality to philosophy or sexuality to economics?
×
×
  • Create New...