Ayn Rand's Evidence

[CapitalistSwine]

I was also a little disappointed in Rand that she didn't provide footnotes and so on, and wondering why that was.

From the works I have read so far the one with the most citations and footnotes that I am aware of is Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

[DavidOdden]

I was also a little disappointed in Rand that she didn't provide footnotes and so on, and wondering why that was.

What do you think the function of a footnote is, and how would that apply to Rand's writing?

[ctrl y]

From the works I have read so far the one with the most citations and footnotes that I am aware of is Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal

I don't own that. I see on the Amazon viewer that there is a "Recommended Bibliography," but I don't see a section of citations and footnotes.

[ctrl y]

What do you think the function of a footnote is, and how would that apply to Rand's writing?

The function of a footnote is to inform the reader of the source of a piece of evidence. That would apply to Rand's writing by informing the reader of the source of a piece of her evidence.

Edited July 13, 2010 by ctrl y

[Blinky]

I still don't fully understand why the claim that emotions stems from cognitive appraisal is not in the realm of science. I think that it may be otherwise (examples of other theories here) and that by experimentation one can discern between those possibilities. I have to say that I think that some kind of cognitive theory of emotions is largely correct (i.e. something as AR claimed), but as far as I know some experiments suggests that processes described by other theories may be in play as well (at least in some occasions).

As a reasonable first stab, "grasp of fact" is what "knowledge" means. I assume you understand "fact"; understanding of causality would be an example. Or, knowledge that cats have hair, or that nightshade is a poisonous plant.

Thanks

[dream_weaver]

The function of a footnote is to inform the reader of the source of a piece of evidence. That would apply to Rand's writing by informing the reader of the source of a piece of her evidence.

When she says what she means, and she means what she says, footnotes become redundant at that point.

She offers the validation for the axioms she begins with. While they are perceptually 'self-evident', their conceptual grasp is a product of intellectual effort.

Man's fundamental, and power of choice, to focus, extended into a thought process is to maintain the tie between his mind and reality, or not to do so.

[ctrl y]

When she says what she means, and she means what she says, footnotes become redundant at that point.

She offers the validation for the axioms she begins with. While they are perceptually 'self-evident', their conceptual grasp is a product of intellectual effort.

Man's fundamental, and power of choice, to focus, extended into a thought process is to maintain the tie between his mind and reality, or not to do so.

I'm sorry, but this does not make sense to me. To me, this just reads like "You see, we begin with the axioms, then -- Look! A squirrel! -- So, Objectivism is true." I hope that's not offensive to you, but that's what it comes across as. Perhaps if you explained in more detail how these axioms help in getting to her conclusions, it would make sense to me.

[DavidOdden]

The function of a footnote is to inform the reader of the source of a piece of evidence.

But that is only applicable when a piece of evidence derives from another publication, not from ordinary observation.

Pop quiz: how many footnotes did Plato or Aristotle use in their writings?

[DavidOdden]

Perhaps if you explained in more detail how these axioms help in getting to her conclusions, it would make sense to me.

How does this have any bearing on the question of footnotes; or have you abandoned your quest for footnotes?

[dream_weaver]

I'm sorry, but this does not make sense to me. To me, this just reads like "You see, we begin with the axioms, then -- Look! A squirrel! -- So, Objectivism is true." I hope that's not offensive to you, but that's what it comes across as. Perhaps if you explained in more detail how these axioms help in getting to her conclusions, it would make sense to me.

No, it is not offensive.

Rather it underscores that the reducing of the higher level abstractions to their perceptual roots is a challenging undertaking for many. To expect others to do it for you, may deprive you of the valuable experience of developing the skill via personal practice, depending on the number of individuals that struggle to intercede on your behalf.

[CapitalistSwine]

I don't own that. I see on the Amazon viewer that there is a "Recommended Bibliography," but I don't see a section of citations and footnotes.

There isn't a "section", but she puts sources for a number of her historical claims and comments throughout the book, she cites a good number of pieces on history and economics of the times she is speaking about. For much of her work these things are not necessary, as David Odden stated. He also brings up the point that many philosophers do not have citations or footnotes, I don't really see why this standard should be applied specifically to Rand especially when she is more direct and to the point (along with being able to have an extraordinary amount of depth in her comments, because she thought things through very carefully, and they are without contradiction) than most Philosophers have been in the past.

One must also keep in mind much of her philosophy is unique, the source being her own mind, and not others, who at times got near the mark but strayed, in which there is not point bringing them up except to make specific philosophical points. <--This is something she did regularly, Kant and Marx (particularly Marx) and a good deal with non-philosophers when discussing politics etc. If you read things *carefully* and understand objectivism fairly well you will see how all of the ideas and claims link up and that the proper foundations have in fact been made for her suppositions much of the time.

Edited July 14, 2010 by CapitalistSwine

[JeffS]

I'm sorry, but this does not make sense to me. To me, this just reads like "You see, we begin with the axioms, then -- Look! A squirrel! -- So, Objectivism is true." I hope that's not offensive to you, but that's what it comes across as. Perhaps if you explained in more detail how these axioms help in getting to her conclusions, it would make sense to me.

You need this.

Objectivism is a logical philosophy whose principles are arrived at by reasoning from three axioms. Rand did not need to provide citations for much of what she wrote because what she wrote is a logical progression from those three axioms, or is otherwise self-evident.

[ctrl y]

But that is only applicable when a piece of evidence derives from another publication, not from ordinary observation.

I will grant that some of Rand's claims derive well from "ordinary observation." Others do not.

Pop quiz: how many footnotes did Plato or Aristotle use in their writings?

I think standards are higher now than in 400 B.C. I pulled a philosophy book off my shelf. Nozick's Anarchy, State, and Utopia has a bibliography that is six densely typed pages long. And another: William Lane Craig's Reasonable Faith has a couple of pages of bibliography at the end of every chapter. And another: George Smith has twenty pages of endnotes in Atheism: The Case Against God. Every modern work of philosophy that I could find had some sort of notes.

Edited July 14, 2010 by ctrl y

[ctrl y]

How does this have any bearing on the question of footnotes; or have you abandoned your quest for footnotes?

If all of her claims follow from A is A (and no other information), then we're done here and no footnotes are required.

[ctrl y]

You need this.

Objectivism is a logical philosophy whose principles are arrived at by reasoning from three axioms. Rand did not need to provide citations for much of what she wrote because what she wrote is a logical progression from those three axioms, or is otherwise self-evident.

Not having read it, I am skeptical about the possibility of demonstrating some of Rand's claims from the axioms - without the help of footnotes, citations, and the rest of it - just by structuring the argument a certain way. But my interest is piqued, and I will give it a look.

[DavidOdden]

I think standards are higher now than in 400 B.C.

Ah, yes, the appeal to herd "standards". Actually, you're confused about the relevance of footnotes. My first academic mentor wrote her doctoral dissertation of over 300 pages in a quite technical area without any footnotes. The use of footnotes is an arbitrary and rhetorically bad device. Since it was not necessary for Rand to burden her writing with footnotes, she would not do so for the purpose of satisfying the "standards" of modern academicians. All you've done is state the well-known fact that Rand was not a professor at a university.

[ctrl y]

Ah, yes, the appeal to herd "standards". Actually, you're confused about the relevance of footnotes. My first academic mentor wrote her doctoral dissertation of over 300 pages in a quite technical area without any footnotes. The use of footnotes is an arbitrary and rhetorically bad device. Since it was not necessary for Rand to burden her writing with footnotes, she would not do so for the purpose of satisfying the "standards" of modern academicians. All you've done is state the well-known fact that Rand was not a professor at a university.

I meant standards of evidence, not standards of volume of footnotes. Surely you would not agree that Rand's work doesn't meet modern standards of evidence.

Edited July 14, 2010 by ctrl y

[DavidOdden]

I meant standards of evidence, not standards of volume of footnotes. Surely you would not agree that Rand's work doesn't meet modern standards of evidence.

No, in fact, I do not agree, and surely you should know that after wasting 4 pages of threadspace. You seem to think that, by modern standards, all that matters is that one point to hundreds of other people who support or disagree with your claims, and that constructing a coherent philosophy is not a valid intellectual enterprise. I reject your assumption.

[ctrl y]

No, in fact, I do not agree, and surely you should know that after wasting 4 pages of threadspace. You seem to think that, by modern standards, all that matters is that one point to hundreds of other people who support or disagree with your claims, and that constructing a coherent philosophy is not a valid intellectual enterprise. I reject your assumption.

Well, I also reject that assumption, because (1) it has nothing to do with pointing to other people, and everything to do with pointing to evidence; and (2) I have no idea where the part about constructing a coherent philosophy came from.

Edited July 14, 2010 by ctrl y

[Mindy]

One must also keep in mind much of her philosophy is unique, the source being her own mind, and not others, who at times got near the mark but strayed, in which there is not point bringing them up except to make specific philosophical points. <--This is something she did regularly, Kant and Marx (particularly Marx) and a good deal with non-philosophers when discussing politics etc. If you read things *carefully* and understand objectivism fairly well you will see how all of the ideas and claims link up and that the proper foundations have in fact been made for her suppositions much of the time.

I have to contest that point, that much of her philosophy is unique. Her systematization of the ideas of Aristotle with the best of Enlightenment and other thinkers, building a system that begins at the most fundamental level of thought and reaches the spires of ethical theory, and that puts piers under the American Constitution is her achievement, not specific, new ideas. May I suggest that if you've learned your philosophy from reading Rand, you can't begin to appreciate this point. It is something I've been pondering for years, in fact, and I am not someone who learned their philosophy specifically from Rand's writings.

As to the original complaint of the OP, and the reflections of one or more posters who wondered why Rand couldn't have provided some footnotes to support her positions, I want to say "for Pete's sake! Would the debates of the empiricists, and Plato's and Aristotle's epistemologies, and Bacon's writings, etc. fit into footnotes?

There is a lot out there in intellectual history and philosophy that the questioner doesn't even know exists. "Just give it to me in a footnote" is both an audacious presumption, and a piece of intellectual folly.

-- Mindy

[knast]

Objectivism is a logical philosophy whose principles are arrived at by reasoning from three axioms. Rand did not need to provide citations for much of what she wrote because what she wrote is a logical progression from those three axioms, or is otherwise self-evident.

That's false.

Ayn Rand did NOT deduce her philosophy from the axioms. Not only did she not do it, it cannot be done even if you tried to. To see this for yourself just try to deduce the fact that reason is man's basic means of survival, or that man have rights, or that selfishness is right, or that honesty is a virtue, or any other idea from the fact that A is A (or any other philosophical axiom). If you try then you will discover that it cannot be done. It is impossible. A is A only says that whatever exist, it is what it is. It does not say what there is out there, what man's nature is, how man survive, if man have rights, if there even are any rights, etc.

The truth is that Ayn Rand INDUCED, with few exceptions, her philosophy. See for details: Understanding Objectivism, Objectivism Through Induction, Induction in Physics and Philosophy.

Edited July 14, 2010 by knast

[ctrl y]

As to the original complaint of the OP, and the reflections of one or more posters who wondered why Rand couldn't have provided some footnotes to support her positions, I want to say "for Pete's sake! Would the debates of the empiricists, and Plato's and Aristotle's epistemologies, and Bacon's writings, etc. fit into footnotes?

There is a lot out there in intellectual history and philosophy that the questioner doesn't even know exists. "Just give it to me in a footnote" is both an audacious presumption, and a piece of intellectual folly.

I feel like you're trying to intimidate me. It seems like a rather simple issue. Rand made claims that seem to need support from outside her work. I don't think bringing up Bacon et al. has any real relevance, except to scare off people who wonder whether Rand might possibly have benefited from citing sources for those claims.

Edited July 14, 2010 by ctrl y

[DavidOdden]

Rand made claims that seem to need support from outside her work.

Stop whining. This question has been asked and answered, and now you're just trolling.

[ctrl y]

Stop whining. This question has been asked and answered, and now you're just trolling.

Well, the answer you seem to be referring to is that all of the claims in question are just obvious, and they're not. But yes, technically, that counts as an answer. I suppose I could just head off into the sunset at this point with the same impression that I started this thread out with. I'd rather wait and see what else people come up with, though, if anything; what new vistas are opened by current exchanges, what novel propositions are made by new participants, and so on.

Edited July 14, 2010 by ctrl y

[DavidOdden]

Since you're just trolling, I'm closing the thread.