Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Atlas51184

Regulars
  • Posts

    290
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Atlas51184 got a reaction from softwareNerd in Rationalistic - Please explain the term   
    The term rationalism, in the relevent sense, first appears in the literature in Peikoff's lecture course "Objective Communication" from 1980. In 1983 Peikoff gave an entire lecture series on rationalism, why it is a mistaken way of thinking, how it stunts ones understanding of philosophy, how to avoid the error, etc. The lecture course is "Understanding Objectivism." The course is sold through Ayn Rand Bookstore. Campus clubs can borrow copies for free. It's also part of the OAC curriculum. It should be required listening for all Objectivists.
  2. Like
    Atlas51184 got a reaction from JASKN in John A. Allison takes over as CEO of the Cato Institute   
    There's an obvious mistake about half-way through the video, in one of your text graphics. The "Libertarian = Right-Wing" text is targeted at Peikoff, right? But he's attributing that position to the radio host, and Peikoff himself says that it's the wrong definition. And I don't think "Nolan Chart" gets to determine the correct definition of 'libertarian.' The Nolan Chart says so and so... who cares? I don't understand where the snark is coming from in that part. Hasn't "libertarian" become, for many people" a word like "conservative" and "liberal"? A not very clear concept that means to them something like "socially liberal and economically conservative"? Such a libertarian isn't what Peikoff/Schwartz ever had in mind when they talked about sanction, I don't think.

    I always took it that Rand, Peikoff, and Schwartz meant by "libertarian" "Rothbardian." Weren't all Schwartz's examples of libertarians examples of Rothbardian anarchists? If that's so, then I don't see any hypocrisy going on here. The Kochs own Cato and Charles is an Obejctivist, and Allison has promised to remove anarchists and persons disrespectful of Rand from the Cato payroll. Sounds like Cato moving in an Objectivist direction to me.
  3. Like
    Atlas51184 got a reaction from softwareNerd in John A. Allison takes over as CEO of the Cato Institute   
    There's an obvious mistake about half-way through the video, in one of your text graphics. The "Libertarian = Right-Wing" text is targeted at Peikoff, right? But he's attributing that position to the radio host, and Peikoff himself says that it's the wrong definition. And I don't think "Nolan Chart" gets to determine the correct definition of 'libertarian.' The Nolan Chart says so and so... who cares? I don't understand where the snark is coming from in that part. Hasn't "libertarian" become, for many people" a word like "conservative" and "liberal"? A not very clear concept that means to them something like "socially liberal and economically conservative"? Such a libertarian isn't what Peikoff/Schwartz ever had in mind when they talked about sanction, I don't think.

    I always took it that Rand, Peikoff, and Schwartz meant by "libertarian" "Rothbardian." Weren't all Schwartz's examples of libertarians examples of Rothbardian anarchists? If that's so, then I don't see any hypocrisy going on here. The Kochs own Cato and Charles is an Obejctivist, and Allison has promised to remove anarchists and persons disrespectful of Rand from the Cato payroll. Sounds like Cato moving in an Objectivist direction to me.
  4. Like
    Atlas51184 got a reaction from softwareNerd in Criticism of O-ist theory of concepts   
    That's not a good criticism, because it's not a criticism of Rand's theory. Rand says concepts have to be formed on the basis of perception. That's different than saying concepts have to be formed from their referents. A paleontologist forms the concept "dinosaur" by studying fossils, not dinosaurs. Generally, if some trivial observation refutes a philosophical theory, you've not presented the theory correctly. That goes for non-Objectivism, as well.
  5. Like
    Atlas51184 got a reaction from ttime in Ayn Rand Not a Capitalist by Her Own Definition?   
    What if not all manmade physical objects are property?
  6. Like
    Atlas51184 got a reaction from ctrl y in Value of Reading Old Philosophy   
    Comparing Locke's theory of abstraction in An Essay Concerning Human Understanding with Ayn Rand's in ITOE will help deepen ones understanding of Objectivist epistemology. Teasing out the ways in which the two theories are superficially similar but essentially different is great philosophical exercise. Also, reading Berkeley's (A Treatise Concerning the Principles of Human Knowledge) and Kant's (Lectures on Logic) criticism of Lockean abstractionism may also be valuable. Seeing how Objectivism can answer their criticisms of abstractionism will deepen your understanding of Objectivist epistemology.

    Given that Aristotle is like Objectivism beta, all Objectivists should be almost as familiar with Aristotle as they are with Rand. One of the best ways to learn to think philosophically is to see masters like Aristotle critique other philosophers. Familiarizing yourself with Plato, and then thinking through Aristotle's (and Aquinas's) criticisms of Plato will make you a better philosopher.

    Reading someone like Hume and finding the assumptions which lead him to disaster is a good exercise in philosophical detection.

    Currently, I am working through Wilfrid Sellars' criticisms of foundationalism and concept empiricism, and figuring out how the Objectivist theory of concepts can answer him. I won't know if that's worthwhile until I'm done, but so far I've gotten some value out of the project.

    The value of reading primary sources depends on your goals. If the above projects sound like something you'd find value in, primary sources are a must. Given that you would be interested specifically in using those texts to deepen your understanding of good philosophy, you can't rely on secondary sources that often miss what one needs to accomplish that goal. If you are just interested in knowing the basics of the history of philosophy, something like W.T. Jones' A History of Western Philosophy would be preferable.
  7. Like
    Atlas51184 reacted to brian0918 in 12 Yr Old Genius Sets Out to Disprove Big Bang?   
    And how exactly does a big explosion 14 billion years ago imply that the universe had a beginning?
  8. Downvote
    Atlas51184 reacted to philosopher in 12 Yr Old Genius Sets Out to Disprove Big Bang?   
    His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.
  9. Like
    Atlas51184 got a reaction from Myself in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    Even if McCaskey is supporting Whewell, and even if Whewell is a Kantian, is there any evidence that McCaskey is endorsing the Kantian parts of Whewell? (Hint: there isn't). I've read Whewell in some detail, and I think the claim that Whewell is in any significant way a Kantian, is false. And this attempt to smear McCaskey by associating him with a not-really-but-maybe-to-people-who-haven't-a-clue-what-they-are-talking-about-Kantian is utterly ridiculous.

    Harriman's attempt to smear McCaskey by association with Whewell (someone whose name he doesn't know how to pronounce but is somehow qualified to judge a Kantian) reveals more about Harriman than it does anyone else.

    BTW, Thomas, I see you ommitted the SEP passage which discusses Whewell's extensive disagreements with and differences from Kant.
  10. Like
    Atlas51184 got a reaction from ~Sophia~ in The Logical Leap by David Harriman   
    Even if McCaskey is supporting Whewell, and even if Whewell is a Kantian, is there any evidence that McCaskey is endorsing the Kantian parts of Whewell? (Hint: there isn't). I've read Whewell in some detail, and I think the claim that Whewell is in any significant way a Kantian, is false. And this attempt to smear McCaskey by associating him with a not-really-but-maybe-to-people-who-haven't-a-clue-what-they-are-talking-about-Kantian is utterly ridiculous.

    Harriman's attempt to smear McCaskey by association with Whewell (someone whose name he doesn't know how to pronounce but is somehow qualified to judge a Kantian) reveals more about Harriman than it does anyone else.

    BTW, Thomas, I see you ommitted the SEP passage which discusses Whewell's extensive disagreements with and differences from Kant.
×
×
  • Create New...