John P. McCaskey Posted December 13, 2013 Report Share Posted December 13, 2013 Following the highest established standards of logic, the most rigorous canonical reasoning, any logic professor can decimate Ayn Rand’s moral and political philosophy in one 45-minute lecture. It took the Harvard professor Robert Nozick only a few paragraphs. But Rand doesn’t follow the conventional standards of logic. She has her own distinctive method of arguing. If that method is valid, her moral and political philosophy stands. If it is invalid, her whole system comes crashing down. What is her method and is it valid? Read More... Link to Original Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freestyle Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 In other words, you can defeat Ayn Rand's arguments by refusing to grant meanings to words. Is that it? Easy Truth 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ben Archer Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) edit: (think I misunderstood) Edited December 14, 2013 by Ben Archer Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 (edited) Logic is the formalization of meaning! Edit: Those who aren't familiar with the debate in the philosophy of language and logic and how the analytic synthetic dichotomy relates to it, will not understand Objectivism's criticism..... Edit: "In other words, you can defeat Ayn Rand's arguments by refusing to grant meanings to words. Is that it?" In other words, by not understanding how the perceptual root/context of differentiation constrains the meaning of concepts, leads to endless debates about essentialism, or worse the complete dismissal or relativizing of meaning.( in the case of the anti Positivist like Kuhn and Fayerabend) Edited December 14, 2013 by Plasmatic Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 In other words, by not understanding how the perceptual root/context of differentiation constrains the meaning of concepts, leads to endless debates about essentialism, or worse the complete dismissal or relativizing of meaning.( in the case of the anti Positivist like Kuhn and Fayerabend)I think that's the kind of thing McCaskey is saying as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicky Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 I understand what McCaskey is getting at, but still. Why "attack" Ayn Rand's philosophy at all? Why not just evaluate it based on its merits, without ever bringing whatever "conventional standards of logic" are, into it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 The "better" critiques of Objectivism, by far, are the ones that engage it on an epistemological level. Using reason, if you will, to examine reason, is to critique reason, to identify its strengths, as well as where it might more easily be led astray. Evaluating Objectivism at its core, is to evaluate ones own epistemological processes to its core. In doing so, one can hone ones own epistemological processes. Objectivism stands or falls on this merit, and this merit alone, the merit of "what do I know" and "how do I know it". Something to keep in mind when evaluating this brief outline: it is not likely directed to just an Objectivist audience. How many attacks on Objectivism are simply on the periphery, and do not engage directly on the epistemological battlefield. The peripheral skirmishes can't undermine Objectivism. The only thing that could possibly undermine Objectivism would be to discover a fatal flaw at its core, as Objectivism has done by exposing the major weaknesses contained in other philosophical approaches at their core. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 hasn't essentialism been debunked by the likes of Popper et. al Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Plasmatic Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 hasn't essentialism been debunked by the likes of Popper et. al Since the answer to this question really doesn't have to do with anything in the OP and since Oism is an essentialist epistemology, I assume your joking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
New Buddha Posted December 14, 2013 Report Share Posted December 14, 2013 Since the answer to this question really doesn't have to do with anything in the OP and since Oism is an essentialist epistemology, I assume your joking. In Objectivism, Essence is epistemological as opposed to metaphysical or existential. The reference to Popper notwithstanding, I believe the latter two uses is what Mikee meant. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mikee Posted November 1, 2014 Report Share Posted November 1, 2014 well even those were thought to be problematic by Popper, no? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 27, 2019 Report Share Posted July 27, 2019 * * * * * Split off thread - Ayn Rand's Popcorn-tradiction * * * * * Harrison Danneskjold and StrictlyLogical 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.