LoBagola Posted January 26, 2014 Report Share Posted January 26, 2014 (edited) 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 January 26, 2014 by LoBagola Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Leonid Posted January 27, 2014 Report Share Posted January 27, 2014 By claiming that metaphysically given is contingent they in fact claim that existence has volition on its own. In other words they assert primacy of consciousness. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theestevearnold Posted January 28, 2014 Report Share Posted January 28, 2014 Men have treated industrial progress as the metaphysically given, like an automatic evolution. These men have assumed that civilization will always advance over time. I've read about the Dark and Middle ages. And money doesn't grow on trees. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.