William O Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Most Objectivists would probably assume that empiricism is inconsistent with forming broad abstractions. ("Empiricism" here is used in the sense of the psychological tendency defined by Rand which focuses too heavily on concretes.) I think that this assumption about empiricism is false, because empiricists have historically appealed to broad abstractions as a foundation for their empiricism. To illustrate, here is an example from Hume: If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion. Hume is here drawing a fairly broad abstraction known as "Hume's fork," but his overall argument is clearly empiricist. What makes his argument empiricist rather than rationalist in spite of the fact that it is based on a broad generalization is that the broad generalization tends to disintegrate rather than integrate what we know. Empiricism does not necessarily differ from rationalism in that it contains principles, but in that any principles it does adopt tend to force us to rely more on concretes, e.g., the reduction of the entities we observe to sensory impressions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Now a skeptic claims there is no logic nor knowledge and yet uses logic (or pseudo logic) to "support" his "conclusion" which he takes (implicitly if not explicitly) as a kind of "knowledge". I think Objectivists in a similar manner understand that Hume's sensualism is a repudiation of concepts and abstractions, certainly so when he claims so many concepts as meaningless because they cannot be "perceived" or "imagined" "directly", while at the same time recognizing that Hume himself is using (presumably unknowingly) abstractions and concepts to make his "arguments". As far as I know Hume himself would reject broad abstractions (if he not explicitly already do so... but I am not going to search for a quote) while ostensibly forming invalid concepts and "relying" on them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O Posted May 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 Now a skeptic claims there is no logic nor knowledge and yet uses logic (or pseudo logic) to "support" his "conclusion" which he takes (implicitly if not explicitly) as a kind of "knowledge". I think Objectivists in a similar manner understand that Hume's sensualism is a repudiation of concepts and abstractions, certainly so when he claims so many concepts as meaningless because they cannot be "perceived" or "imagined" "directly", while at the same time recognizing that Hume himself is using (presumably unknowingly) abstractions and concepts to make his "arguments". As far as I know Hume himself would reject broad abstractions (if he not explicitly already do so... but I am not going to search for a quote) while ostensibly forming invalid concepts and "relying" on them. So you think it's basically a stolen concept fallacy? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 At least a stolen concept is not denied as such, only its base (or lack thereof) in the context is evaded. I would guess that Hume would deny he was using concepts because they do not exist, claiming he was only using words (recall nominalism)... sounds evoking fading images...not concepts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 the issue is that it's not an either/or scenario as no one can practice empericism or subjectivism 100%. Empiricists might based things on concretes but if they totally abandoned abstractions they would function on the level of an animal. If subjectivists didn't embrace facts or certainty then they couldn't even form a coherent argument or thoug StrictlyLogical 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O Posted May 12, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 the issue is that it's not an either/or scenario as no one can practice empericism or subjectivism 100%. Empiricists might based things on concretes but if they totally abandoned abstractions they would function on the level of an animal. If subjectivists didn't embrace facts or certainty then they couldn't even form a coherent argument or thoug I disagree with your claim that someone can't be 100% empiricist, because empiricism is a specific psychological trait of which there are clear examples. An empiricist uses abstractions just like everyone else - a person without abstractions isn't an empiricist, they are some sort of invalid. The difference is that the empiricist is much more reluctant than is objectively necessary to draw an abstraction. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StrictlyLogical Posted May 12, 2015 Report Share Posted May 12, 2015 I disagree with your claim that someone can't be 100% empiricist, because empiricism is a specific psychological trait of which there are clear examples. An empiricist uses abstractions just like everyone else - a person without abstractions isn't an empiricist, they are some sort of invalid. The difference is that the empiricist is much more reluctant than is objectively necessary to draw an abstraction. I think Spiral is speaking of a particular kind of empiricist, a sensualist like Hume who rejects concepts. Aristotle was an empiricist in the sense that he believed knowledge was gained from perception, but being an empiricist does not mean on has to dispense with concepts, on the contrary, conceptualization is what is necessary to turn raw perceptual data into knowledge. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
William O Posted May 13, 2015 Author Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 I think Spiral is speaking of a particular kind of empiricist, a sensualist like Hume who rejects concepts. Aristotle was an empiricist in the sense that he believed knowledge was gained from perception, but being an empiricist does not mean on has to dispense with concepts, on the contrary, conceptualization is what is necessary to turn raw perceptual data into knowledge. I agree that Hume's epistemology is pretty similar to how an animal's mind functions, so that would be a good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spiral Architect Posted May 13, 2015 Report Share Posted May 13, 2015 Someone can be an empiricists obviously, I was just saying they cannot practice it 100% without sever consequences. It's like denying reason - Obviously you can do that but you have to use some reason to live or you would cease to be. 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.