Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Man-made and metaphysically given package deal

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made from Philosophy who needs it


A typical package-deal used by professors of philosophy, runs as follows: to prove the assertion that there is no such thing as necessity in the universe, a professor declares that just as this country did not have to have fifty states, there could have been forty-eight or fifty-two—so the solar system did not have to have nine planets, there could have been seven or eleven. it is not sufficient, he declares, to prove that something is, one must also prove that it had to be--and since nothing had to be, nothing is certain and anything goes.
The technique of undercutting man’s mind consists in palming off the man-made as if it were the metaphysically given, then ascribing to nature the concepts that refer only to men’s lack of knowledge, such as “chance” or “contingency,” then reversing the two elements of the package-deal. From the assertion: “Man is unpredictable, therefore nature is unpredictable,” the argument goes to: “Nature possesses volition, man does not—nature is free, man is ruled by unknowable force--nature is not to be conquered, man is.


So you take the metaphysically given and the man-made and package them. Then you reverse the two elements. So the metaphysically given becomes something that didn't have to be, and the man-made becomes? 


I don't follow. Why do they assert man is unpredictable? because of his volition? I thought that's what most philosophers deny. And what does the argument "man is unpredictable, therefore nature is unpredictable" have to do with reversing the metaphysically given and the man-made? 


And how does the argument go to "Nature possesses volition, man does not..."



Most people believe that an issue of this kind is empty academic talk, of no practical significance to anyone--which blinds them to its consequences in their own lives. If one were to tell them that the package-deal made of this issue is part of of the nagging uncertainty, the quiet hopelessness, the grey despair of their daily inner state, they would deny it: they would not recognize it introspectively. But the inability to introspect is one of the consequences of this package deal.


I've posted about this. I continuously see it throughout Rand's texts. I've met a lot of people who would think that's empty academic talk and they're showing no signs of quiet hopelessness, nagging uncertainty or a grey despair. Sure, I can't extrospect into their own mental state and I could be wrong. But I don't think Rand had direct access to their emotional states either. So why is she concluding this? What logical deliberation am I missing?

Edited by LoBagola
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...