Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

“anti-essentialism”, identity as “non-existent” and having any conception of it as “pathological”, “infectious”, and “ultimately harmful”… yeah i’d say that’s a true opposite!

you say "Korzybski includes Kant in the aristotelian tradition", which i'd agree with, but i wonder, does he count anyone before him as anti-Aristotelean?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, splitprimary said:

you say "Korzybski includes Kant in the aristotelian tradition", which i'd agree with, but i wonder, does he count anyone before him as anti-Aristotelean?

Korzybski doesn't use the term 'anti-Aristotelian' and doesn't consider himself to be opposed to Aristotle's main mission, which he thought was to make a system to explain science and set its goals. Korzybski only does it for the 20th century's science. He claims that his non-Aristotelian system is the first of its kind, as previous attempts (he doesn't yet mention which ones) weren't as comprehensive and complete as his own.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, actually he does say that Aristotle's system is more comprehensive than those that followed during the two thousand years. On page xli (one of his prefaces), he includes this figure in which A (aristotelian system) contains "a more limited and less general system such as 'christianity' (C), within which is, for instance, the leibnitzian system (L), and within which there are individual, personal systems (P)."

fig.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I start thinking that Korzybski was insane but escaped hospitalization by lucky chance. First he calls Aristotle a 'genius' and then he writes this:

Quote

Aristotle, the extrovert, and his doctrines have appealed, and still appeal, to those who can 'think' but feebly. (p. 88)

So far the claim that Aristotle is 'the extrovert' is unsupported and the claim that he, Rand, I, and everyone on this forum think feebly is in logical error. He also so many pages into the book has yet to cite Aristotle at least once or at least analyze sufficiently any of Aristotle's ideas. Rand, in comparison, did a much better job with Kant than Korzybski can boast of doing with Aristotle. We have no details on Aristotle from Korzybski, only calling names. I will keep you posted if I find anything.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
for clarity & grammar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A long time ago I read the science fiction mentioned by Invictus2017.  I'm a little curious whether the following features in the science fiction came from Korzybski.

The term "null-Aristotelianism".

Abbreviating this term with a capital A with a bar over it, read "null-A".

Emphasis on the need to integrate the cortex, seen as the seat or source of reason, and the thalamus, seen as the seat or source of emotion.

Using "the cortico-thalamic pause" to achieve or maintain such integration.

Referring to a particular reaction as "thalamically quick".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

A long time ago I read the science fiction mentioned by Invictus2017.  I'm a little curious whether the following features in the science fiction came from Korzybski.

The term "null-Aristotelianism".

Abbreviating this term with a capital A with a bar over it, read "null-A". ...

Yes, that's Korzybski's non-aristotelianism, .

4 hours ago, Doug Morris said:

Since Korzybski died in 1950, it's not that surprising that he didn't discuss Rand.

But Rand also never discussed him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 9/8/2018 at 12:13 PM, Ilya Startsev said:

They are not inconsistent, especially if materialism is subjective, and it's also always idealistic, as are we all, to a certain extent. However, what do you mean that the passage illustrates that Korzybski was also an idealist? Being the brain has nothing to do with idealism, since idealism is only concerned with the metaphysical in the metacosmic sense (Platonism, Christianism, Descarteanism, & Hegelianism).

I suppose I should have said Representationalist (I think that's the term, it's been awhile).  This differs from Idealism in that, supposedly, the objects of consciousness have some (unknowable) relationship to reality, whereas Idealism supposes that the objects of consciousness are, in essence, illusions or hallucinations, unconnected to reality.  In my view, there is no real difference between "there is an unknowable connection to reality" and "there is no connection to reality", so Representationalism is a species of Idealism and I tend to use the latter to refer to both.

The notion that the objects of perception are mere constructs of the brain is Representationalist, in that it does not allow one to know how these constructs derive from reality -- any such knowledge would be just one more construct.  "Brain" is just a construct, and there is no reason for believing that there is "brain" or anything else.  (Which illustrates that Representationalism really is Idealism.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Invictus2017 said:

I suppose I should have said Representationalist (I think that's the term, it's been awhile).  This differs from Idealism in that, supposedly, the objects of consciousness have some (unknowable) relationship to reality, whereas Idealism supposes that the objects of consciousness are, in essence, illusions or hallucinations, unconnected to reality.  In my view, there is no real difference between "there is an unknowable connection to reality" and "there is no connection to reality", so Representationalism is a species of Idealism and I tend to use the latter to refer to both.

The notion that the objects of perception are mere constructs of the brain is Representationalist, in that it does not allow one to know how these constructs derive from reality -- any such knowledge would be just one more construct.  "Brain" is just a construct, and there is no reason for believing that there is "brain" or anything else.  (Which illustrates that Representationalism really is Idealism.)

I agree that there is no significant difference between 'unknowable connection to reality' and 'no connection', but I disagree with your definition of idealism. To the contrary, look at Plato. The only true reality, according to him, is the reality of ideal forms only through which our mind can grasp physical and illusory reality outside, [which in itself is] not true reality. Hegel and Emerson were idealists in pretty much the same sense, in that mind is the connection between physical and true (or metaphysical) realities.

Representationalism, on the other hand, is a very vague term, to which we can append Descartes, Locke, and Kant, philosophers of significant differences, in fact, differences so significant that we can fairly judge these men to belong to three different categories.

The notions of constructs is essential to another vague term: constructivism, which is popular in academia, or at least it was popular at the end of the 20th century.  What you describe sounds more like social constructivism, which attributes even to science as an institute such purely subjective and arbitrary constructs. And this is surely neither Kant's, not Korzybski's positions. Hence your arguments to equate Representationalism with Idealism don't work, except in the case with Descartes, but only because the main 'thing' for him that constructs everything, including the mind (or the brain), is God.

Edited by Ilya Startsev
in [ ]

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.

×