Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Although I would rather not make such an argument because it goes against some of my own evaluations, I should say that Kant indeed, at least on the surface, is much closer related to Rand (and perhaps, psychologically, she understood this fact) than she is related to the one man who truly contrasted with her, Alfred Korzybski.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/23/2017 at 7:06 PM, Ilya Startsev said:

Since DIM categories presuppose basic philosophy, they cannot, strictly speaking, be used to classify it; the categories derive from the philosophy. Those who lay the foundations of methodical thought are not guided by definitions of method; on the contrary, they are the source and teachers of method. In a sense, though, one can validly apply DIM categories to basic philosophy, if one does so with an opposite meaning—not DIM processes as the source of such principles, but those principles as the source of DIM. (The DIM Hypothesis, Ch. 4, his italics)

Thinking back on Peikoff's careful note on application of categories, there is an opinion of quite an opposite thinker, namely Alfred Korzybski, that can be used to justify the metaepistemological nature of the DIM categories:

Quote

Not every individual knows or realizes the importance of, or seemingly consciously cares for, epistemology; yet every one unconsciously has one and acts ant lives by it. ... Every one has ... some epistemology. (Science and Sanity, p. 554, his italics)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×