"One Problem With Objectivism"

[John Donohue]

knast my sympathies!

You've correctly identified the progenitors, Plato, Hume, Kant. I am now thinking that Popper may go down in history as the next lynchpin.

Why? You touched upon it. While the others outright deny induction, and so does Popper, he has now slide his falsifiability gambit into place. This thing is in fact no improvement. However, it gives a semplance of rigor or groundedness to proofs. He sort of closed the barn door even though the horse was too lame to run out.

I'm going to post an item at the bottom of this thread about Dr. Piekoff's experience in philosoph grad school.

John Donohue

[Atlas51184]

To say a little about the "how effective is engaging the academics" question:

I say very, very effective. I've heard through the grape vine (HBL, OCONs, Anthem newsletters, etc) that as a result of interaction with Objectivist philosophers a certain giant of contemporary philosophy now teaches VoS to his students. That's just one guy, but the impact is large. Something like half of all professors come from the top 10 PhD programs, if I'm remembering that stat correctly. This prof teaches at a top department, so extrapolating that means 5% of philosophy profs come from his program. And because they are introduce to Rand fairly by someone they esteam highly, this trickles down. Now maybe they teach VoS to their students. That's scenario is maybe a little contrived, but I hope it communicates the message. If just one person at each of the top 10 programs taught Rand basically fairly the impact would be HUGE. That translates into hundreds of thousands of students reading VoS (or ITOE or whatever) a year. And not just reading it but discussing it and writing about it (i.e. thinking about it carefully). And even if zero of them are convinced it is still a victory. Why? Because now Objectivism is part of legitimate intellectual discource.

Now as a corallary to that, imagine what happens when some philosopher has a bad encounter with Objectivism. Philosophers have a lot of stuff to read. Dozens of books and hundreds of articles are written a year on their sub field alone. So if they're going to read Ayn Rand, they need a compelling reason to do so. Now if you're a philosopher, and your only encounter with Objectivism is through someone who appears to know next to nothing about non-Obectivist philosophy, and who can't defend himself adequately in a philosophical debate, where are you going to put Ayn Rand in your "to read" pile? At the top? At the bottom? Probably in the trash.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Well, the Maverick Philosopher has expanded his tracts against Objectivism, and even has a thread about what "existence exists" means.

Harry Binswanger is back at the podium discussing the difference between the Primacy of Existence approach and the Primacy of Consciousness approach to philosophy.

He does chew them out for not being polite, and evidently was not taken aback too much by their comments against his credentials.

[brian0918]

and evidently was not taken aback too much by their comments against his credentials.

He must not have been taken aback by it, because I specifically emailed him about that, and he responded that he had read it.

Edited February 11, 2009 by brian0918

[brian0918]

Harry Binswanger is back at the podium discussing the difference between the Primacy of Existence approach and the Primacy of Consciousness approach to philosophy.

He has also responded here, pointing out that Norsen's challenge to them to show him a non-volitional, contingency has been ignored for the last week. Meanwhile, several more posts on Objectivism have been made by Vallicella and responded to by others, including Norsen, who makes the same challenge [url="http://maverickphilosopher.typepad.com/maverick_philosopher/2009/02/one-fallacy-of-objectivism-.html#comments"here that goes unanswered.

[Atlas51184]

What are the axiomatic beliefs dominating current academic philosophy?

I don't know how to summarize without spending more time that I want to. This is a good two volume book on philosophy from 1900-1975. Something shorter is Dummett's book Origins of Analytic Philosophy. Those two give a great picture of what motivated philosophy pre 1970s. If you want to see the actual stuff they put out, read Saul Kripke's book Naming and Necessity. It is the most influential book of the last 50 years, and changed the direction of the last 30 or so years (changed for the slightly better I think). I was assigned it FOUR times as an undergrad at a top department, so its importance can't be exaggerated. It's short, very readable, and there are some very interesting parallels between the theory of reference he develops and what Rand/Peikoff have to say in ITOE.

Those books will give you a glimpse of the kind of issues of concern, and how they go about philosophizing. As for specific conclusions they reach, the conclusions are sooo distinct and widespread that it brings into doubt the legitimacy of even asking what assumptions unify current philosophy. Its common for two philosophers (who are supposedly working within the same tradition) to reach diametrically opposed conclusions on some question.

[FeatherFall]

Can someone, especially West, explain to me benefit of accomplishing the goal he (West) laid out earlier that HB is supposedly trying to accomplish (I only say supposedly because HB has not been here stating his own goals explcitly, though that does seem to be his likely goal)?

I don't know why Binswanger is on that blog, but I could put forth a couple of possibilities. One is that he enjoys such discussion, another that he is interested in convincing people involved in the Wiki that Rand is an actual philosopher. I'm sure there are other possibilities.

[brian0918]

another that he is interested in convincing people involved in the Wiki that Rand is an actual philosopher.

He said he was unaware of the Wiki debate after having already made several posts on the blog, so that doesn't seem likely.

[brian0918]

Yeesh... Peter Lupu has just posted a 7,000-word tract in response to Travis Norsen's challenge. This guy likes his numbered sections...

[Trebor]

Yeesh... Peter Lupu has just posted a 7,000-word tract in response to Travis Norsen's challenge. This guy likes his numbered sections...

And Harry Binswanger and Travis Norsen have responded. (Binswanger's reply first, then Norsen's immediately after.)

[brian0918]

And Harry Binswanger and Travis Norsen have responded. (Binswanger's reply first, then Norsen's immediately after.)

Binswanger's reply is regarding the original post, not this latest massive reply. Depending on what he thinks of Travis's reply, he may or may not write his own reply.

[Trebor]

Binswanger's reply is regarding the original post, not this latest massive reply. Depending on what he thinks of Travis's reply, he may or may not write his own reply.

Yes, you're correct. Binswanger's post wasn't a reply to the long post by Peter Lupu. Norsen's post following Binswanger's was.

Binswanger, in my view, cut to the chase, the original contention, instead of wading though Lupu's long post, so I read it as a proper "reply."

Interesting discussion; enjoyable to observe.

[John Donohue]

Travis is correct on calling him out to decide to either participate in an illumination of something he does not understand (even if he rejects it entirely) and just plain outright spewing of venom and showing off.

Lupu was just seething with rage and barely holding his water on the claim that Miss Rand had formulated a vitally important and unique theory of concept formation. It was hilarious to read his paragraph on that. I would have loved to have seen the first draft.

Notice how hard they fight for their schisms? I would even say it is the whole point of this tract to establish that Rand's distinction is void without the Kantian distinction on 'contingency.' They seem to hold that unless you elevate 'contingency' you destroy free will. It does not matter any more, but I still say the burden of proof is on them to justify the "modal" logic they so dearly love, not for Objectivism to fit inside it.

I think the Kantians are good Kantians!; they dutifully use the Kantian Apparatus instead of just saying 'my soul is a spark of God's guidance."

The burden is on us to explicate volition as axiomatic per existence absent a mystical source for it. Man and man's brain are finite existents and everything that goes into a choice is driven by tangible matter.

John Donohue

[Trebor]

Binswanger's reply is regarding the original post, not this latest massive reply. Depending on what he thinks of Travis's reply, he may or may not write his own reply.

Binswanger has commented on Travis's lengthy reply to Peter's long post.

Seems pointless for him to respond more fully or directly, point by point, to Peter's post given Travis's reply and what he has now said about the exchange.

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Binswanger has commented on Travis's lengthy reply to Peter's long post.

Seems pointless for him to respond more fully or directly, point by point, to Peter's post given Travis's reply and what he has now said about the exchange.

I tried to post a reply, but evidently they are no longer accepting submissions to that thread by anyone trying to post a reply. At any rate, I do think one of the commentators did bring up an excellent point,so here is the reply I wanted to post:

I think Daniel Barnes brings up an excellent point when he says:

For Travis claims that while they use the same word, in fact Objectivists practice a "radically different" form of logic from the rest of us.

No wonder there are problems. Perhaps you or Travis might like to lay this Objectivist logic briefly out so we can see how it differs in practice from the classic deductive version.

As a long-time student of Objectivism, I can say that yes there is a difference. In the usual deductive logic using premises to conclusion, the conclusion is necessitated by the fact that the information contained in the first premise includes the information in the second premise. In other words, for the syllogism below, the fact that Socrates is a man necessarily (logically) leads to the conclusion:

All men are mortal

Socrates is a man

Therefore Socrates is mortal

This is a standard syllogism, and is a valid form. However, the form itself is not sufficient to say that the conclusion is true (in accordance with the facts of reality). In order to confirm that the conclusion is true, one would have to gage it against the facts of reality. One would have to, in the very least, gage the original premises against the facts of reality -- and that is Miss Rand's admonition to check one's premises.

You see, logic, in Objectivism, isn't just about connecting up premises or concepts or propositions, it's about keeping one's mind consistent with reality -- by choice, because being logical is not automatic. A man can have all sorts of things going through his mind, each one logically following one premise or another, but Objectivism does not consider the series of steps logical unless it matches the facts of reality.

Miss Rand's definition of logic is non-contradictory identification (of the facts of reality as given by observation). In other words, in Objectivism, if your premises or your conclusions fly in the face of reality, then one is not being logical (according to Objectivism).

As an example, someone earlier brought up the claim that we don't have free will because we cannot turn ourselves into a basketball. While it is true that one cannot turn himself into a basketball, he can keep his mind on the facts of reality, because the mind can wander and not stay focused on the facts, even while following perfectly valid chains of logic in the classical sense. In other words, free will is limited to those things one has control over, such as the functioning of one's conscious mind. And, in fact, since logic is not necessitated by the functioning of his own mind, he must use his free will to keep his identifications in line with observations, and if the premises or the conclusion does not match what is observed, then it is not a logical statement, according to Objectivism.

I was not compelled to reply to this thread -- no one made me do it, nor did it come about due to the giggling of my synapses, I chose to post this reply, which is self evident to introspection (a type of observation).

Edited February 14, 2009 by Thomas M. Miovas Jr.

[Tenure]

Thomas, your post is absolutely spot on. Well said, sir.

[John Donohue]

Thomas, all respect and agreement with what you said.

However, even if they were allowing posts, that would get deleted. BillEtc are WAY beyond that. They know we 'believe' what you just said. I myself, and my friend Richard, said it on that blog early on. I gave them that information because it was clear they had not ever heard of it. Was I thanked for providing a basic summary of induction in Objectivist epistemology, even if they rejected it? No, I was ridiculed, called stupid and then banned. One guy said talking to me was like banging his head against a wall.

They not only do not believe what you said, they consider anyone who 'mouths' it is just a parrot, an ideologue, a non-truth seeker and a stupid uneducated hack sycophant of Ayn Rand. And that is being polite even by what they have printed.

To them what you said sounds like the scratchy noise a dirty mouse makes when it is trying to get out of a cardboard box.

Why? Because it is not just that they do not give it credence; they consider it beneath contempt to take such ideas with even the slightest respect. They will not listen to even one 'rah-rah' for induction. Why would they? Hume and Popper have excoriated induction. I had it screamed at me that I was a retarded idiot for not knowing that induction was fallacious. Moreover compared to the weak, sloppy, messy, fallible, hasty stupid induction...they have the grandest of all methods of admitting existents onto the premises of their syllogism with full validity: Divine Revelation.

I am not saying what you wrote is weak or wrong in any way, I wish to repeat.

The irony is, Harry and Travis are attempting to "get to" this same truth. In my opinion, there are two reasons they are being entertained: 1) H and T are using Kantian/AP terminology and chewing on things to a certain degree in THEIR jargonese, and 2) Bill is dealing with "real" Objectivist philosophers (everyone else blocked out) and thinks he is stomping them into the mud, with the whole AP and Presuppositionalist world looking on. Hero.

Disclaimer: I am not necessarily saying Harry and Travis are erring in engaging. I actually think they are scoring points and explicating Objectivism, for all the world to see. That is, if there is one brain left on the railroad to grasp it.

One additional word of warning: Form your own opinion of Mr. Daniel Barnes but I shall simply state mine: I have tangled with him dozens of times. He hates Ayn Rand with the passion of a Christian Apologists's crime dog. He is Greg Nyquists's crime dog. He does not argue fairly and it would be a Miracle of God if his intentions were honorable. He is basically urging them to stop the polite dilly dallying and crush Binswanger and Travis with a rock.

John Donohue

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Bill is discussing the nature of logic in his new post. The problem for me to respond is that I'm not entirely sure what they mean by Modal Argument, unless that refers to a valid syllogistic argument, which it seems he is saying in that new post. I'll have to re-read it thoroughly, but my previous attempt to reply posting, I think, covers what he is saying.

[adrock3215]

I think Thomas named the root of the disagreement throughout the whole discussion. Incidentally, this is the root of every disagreement I have run into with non-Objectivist philosophers. Whereas others focus on deduction, I tend to argue inductively. I have noticed that those who deny free will tend to argue (and think) deductively: "Since the physical universe is determined by the laws of nature, and since the brain exists in the physical universe, then the brain must be subject to the laws of nature. You would have to posit a brain outside of the physical world in order to arrive at your conception of free will." Peter's assertion that Objectivists argue differently and practice logic differently is, like Thomas wrote, true.

Perhaps not the best argument, but I have gotten around some free will denying philosophy students through some version of the following: "All of the evidence I have points to the fact that I have free will; that I could have chosen to marry my wife, or I could have choosen to marry (say) Ashley. I have taken Physics courses through higher-level relativity and quantum theory, yet have never been able to predict what my friend (say) Bill is going to do tomorrow. Oh, and I know him really well too. What evidence do you have that says you did not choose to have this conversation with me, and secondly, how much success have you had in predicting the actions of people around you, despite the fact that you know all known natural laws and forces, i.e. gravity, weak, strong, electromagnetic?" This is likely not the best way to argue it. However, I think that it is impossible for an individual to look at reality and conclude that he or she doesn't have free will. In my experience, I found that's why those who deny free will argue deductively and end at conclusions that are incongruent with observable reality. Am I wrong in making this connection?

That said, I think that Harry and Travis could have presented their posts in a more orderly fashion. Peter Lupu, for instance, presented his post in a more coherent and readable manner. Clarity is important in these types of discussions, and there are posts on both sides that are not clear.

Edited February 14, 2009 by adrock3215

[adrock3215]

Bill is discussing the nature of logic in his new post. The problem for me to respond is that I'm not entirely sure what they mean by Modal Argument, unless that refers to a valid syllogistic argument, which it seems he is saying in that new post. I'll have to re-read it thoroughly, but my previous attempt to reply posting, I think, covers what he is saying.

One would suspect that they use it in the same way SEP would characterize it. Link here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-modal/

[John Donohue]

Yes, that is what they mean by modal.

Objectivism slashes right through the heart of 'families of modal truths' in the way only a philsophy surrendered to Primacy of Existence can. Thus Miss Rand's distinction of the "metaphysically given" and the "man-made."

Platonist cannot abide the discarding of their modalities.

And that's the rub.

John Donohue

[John Donohue]

Adrock I think you are taking the 'ostensible demonstration' route there. It is certainly valid and the way you put it turns the burden of proof back on those claiming you have no free will. We have common sense on our side.

They have a few famous new tools, however. 1) the butterfly effect: 'I can't predict what the deterministic universe will make you do tomorrow because even though I might have access to all the variables, just the tiniest missed variable like an extra flutter of a butterfly's wing in Australia sends causal shockwaves everywhere' so just because I cannot factor in every variable does not mean you have free will; and quantum mechanics/ chaos.

Just thinking out loud.....how about this argument:

"So what?"

In other words, just because everything I do is related by cause and effect to everything happening around me, and just because you call that "deterministic," my response is "so what?"

I guess my next ironic line would be: "I choose to enjoy the illusion my mind is free."

John Donohue

[Thomas M. Miovas Jr.]

Bill is discussing the nature of logic in his new post. The problem for me to respond is that I'm not entirely sure what they mean by Modal Argument, unless that refers to a valid syllogistic argument, which it seems he is saying in that new post. I'll have to re-read it thoroughly, but my previous attempt to reply posting, I think, covers what he is saying.

I just posted the following reply to this thread, it will be interesting to see where it leads or if it will remain up there:

Bill said: “Let's apply the result of the preceding section to the question whether the modal distinction between the necessary and the contingent applies outside the sphere of human volition. The followers of Ayn Rand maintain that it does not, that it applies only within the sphere of the man-made, the sphere of that which can be affected by human will and choice. Whether an argument is valid or invalid, however, is independent of human volition. “

As a long-time student of Objectivism, I think part of the problem between the debaters is that Objectivism does not rely exclusively on deductive logic (modal logic), but realizes that there is such a thing as inductive logic. In fact, Miss Rand defines the term “logic” as “the non-contradictory identification [of the facts of reality as given by observation]”. So that if someone were to say, “All pigs are tigers, ” Objectivists would not consider this to be a logical statement because it contradicts the facts of reality. So, logic, in Objectivism, is reliant on observation; and the observation and the non-contradictory identification of the facts must precede having the premise in the first place.

As to whether or not logic relies on volition, Objectivists claim that it does because a man has no a prior mechanism to keep his mind in proper alliance with reality. In other words, logic – the method of non-contradictory identification of the facts of reality as given by observation – must be performed by a man of his own free will, since it is not automatic.

And volition is verified via introspection, a type of observation – that is, we observe that we have options (such as to post or not to post) and that we can decide to post or not to post. So Objectivists would consider the following syllogism to be valid in the modal sense, but it is not logical in the Objectivist sense:

All of reality is deterministic

Man is within reality

Therefore man is deterministic

This is not a logical statement, according to Objectivism, because the first premise is false, all of reality is not deterministic because man does have free will. In other words, the first premise contradicts the facts of reality, since we observe that we have free will.

[brian0918]

Thomas: He is approving all comments now, so no, yours will not appear on that page. I have already lost a few lengthy comments to this bullshit.

I'd also like to point out that in the most recent post under "One Fallacy of Objectivism", James Baker confuses the proper noun Mama with the concept "mother", despite quoting Travis Norsen on this very confusion. This is what passes for acceptable on Maverick Philosopher. No matter how obviously wrong it is -- if it's against Objectivism, it gets printed!

Edited February 14, 2009 by brian0918

[brian0918]

I stand corrected. Yours did get through, although that's no guarantee that it will stay. As I have already pointed out, Vallicella has deleted comments that have already received replies, leaving the reader to wonder what the reply was to.