The Philosophy of Baruch Spinoza Thursday, Aug 28 2014 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drakeshelton/2014/08/28/the-philosophy-of-baruch-spinoza

The History of the Ku Klux Klan Part 1 Tuesday, Aug 26 2014 

http://www.blogtalkradio.com/drakeshelton/2014/08/27/the-history-of-the-ku-klux-klan-part-1

The Jews Do Not Control the World Part 2 Wednesday, Aug 20 2014 

More Dialogue with a Randian Sunday, Aug 17 2014 

“First I want to thank you for recommending “North and South” as I just finished watching it and liked it very much.”

>>>I don’t remember suggesting that to you.

“Now to my response, thanks for telling me that your philosophy is ancient Judaism. I’m not super familiar with it but I have some idea.”

>>>To say that you are not super familiar with it, is to say that you have not read the bible. Interesting that you demand I do so much study when you have not read the fundamental religious book of mankind.

“It was my understanding that Augustine was the first to take Plato’s “world of forms” (created about 2300 years ago) and give them a personality. In other words, Augustine (in the 1200s AD)”

>>>What? Mam, Augustine lived in the 4th and 5th century CE.

“was the first to attribute Plato’s “world of forms” to a consciousness which became the Christian God. However, what you write here sounds very much like Augustine’s reification procedure, though much before Plato: “Knowledge in the philosophical sense was directly spoken by the creator [God]…there are also innate forms that all men possess being made in the image of the creator… The fact that human beings can communicate with each other and grasp abstractions and genus concepts proves [Innate forms] exist…”

>>>Sorry you didn’t make the connection to Augustine from what I said.

“You may be asking what could be a scientific and not a philosophic question, but I can answer broadly philosophically. A sensation is the name we give to a human being contacting reality via one of his five senses.”

>>>You are confusing denotation with connotation and you are asserting a tautology.

“A perception is an integration of sensations that is processed by the human mind.”

>>>How does one know when one has validly integrated his sensations?

“Abstract ideas or concepts are an integration of percepts, processed by a human mind, into groupings selected by common denominators.”

>>>By percepts are you referring to memory images? Now can it be proved that all men have remaining images? I can close my eyes and “see” the face of  my family members. I can close my eyes and picture my bedroom. I can “hear” a number of tunes voluntarily. However, I cannot voluntarily call up images of things I have smelled. I cannot call up images of things I have felt. I cannot call up things I have tasted. Even in my dreams I can only recall things I have seen and heard. By my own “experience” I can attest that I do not have all 5 types of images. Some have denied that they have images at all. British scientist Sir Francis Galton (1822-1911), rejected the idea that all men have imagery (Gordon H. Clark, Clark Speaks From The Grave [Jefferson, Maryland.: The Trinity Foundation, 1986], 23; See also Dr. Clark’s Lecture Empiricism).1 Moreover, this theory would require a method of determining a valid from an invalid inference. So the theory is a form of solipsism.

“Since you use this phrase often and unusually, I’m letting you know that when you say that something is ad hoc, I’m taking you to mean that as a synonym for being illogical. Correct me if
that’s not what you mean.”

>>>No. By ad hoc I am talking about baseless assertions. There are a number of articles online about ad hoc reasoning.

“Again on the issue of the reality of abstractions; There are many concepts that we cannot contact directly with our senses that we do not hold as in any way weak or tenuous, i.e., marriage, government, freedom, tyranny, etc. Rand’s view regarding these types of concepts or abstractions is that they are phenomenon of consciousness and are real.”

>>>That is ad hoc reasoning. You cannot assert something that you cannot give an account for.

“You write: “[Rand] …has to [conclude that abstractions exist] because she is a human being with this God given capability. The problem is her philosophy can GIVE NO ACCOUNT FOR IT…”

She wrote an entire book giving her account for it and I again urge you to read it for yourself.”

>>>So let me get this straight. You don’t understand what the answer is so instead of honestly examining your own theory and taking into consideration that you may be wrong, you are throwing book titles at me and demanding me to waste even more of my life on theories that you yourself cannot defend? Sorry, I’m not doing it. I have wasted too much of my life reading lies.

“You write: “You are confusing substance with mode. The issue is not how something exists but if it does.

I have said several times, Rand – and I – believe that concepts exist as phenomenon of consciousness — not as concrete things in reality that you can taste, touch, smell, hear or see.”

>>>Ad hoc reasoning. Saying it exists in the face of devastating admissions to the contrary from your own author, tells me that you don’t want to know the truth. You just want an excuse to live your life the way you want to live it. It is the height of irrationality and bad religion.

“You ask: “What do you mean by this?” “You, yourself quote Rand as saying “It is only…pragmatist, positivist, anti-conceptual mentality—which grants no validity to abstractions…” Even just this quote clearly shows that she grants validity to abstractions.”

>>>Ad hoc! Ad hoc!

“I mean that you yourself quote Rand as contending that abstractions are valid which, given the sense or real that Rand and I mean (you can’t taste, touch, smell, hear or see it), means abstractions are real phenomenon of the human mind.”

>>>Ad hoc!

“You accuse me of being in rebellion to your God, and yes indeed, I am in rebellion against “the creator” as I deny his very existence. We don’t need to discuss Rand and her view of abstractions to establish this fact about me.”

>>>You are avoiding the point. I have demonstrated the fundamental flaw of your movement, the Enlightenment. The Great promise of the enlightenment was that man could achieve knowledge through the use of his own reason. You admitting that you don’t know what to believe is like the black knight scene from Monty Python.

You are probably going to reply that you are an individual with your own sovereign will and have no dependency on the enlightenment. Yet that is exactly how you came to believe what you believe. An educational curriculum and a culture that are products of the enlightenment shaped you and conformed your mind to their ideas growing up. You are not a sovereign individual. You are what all the rest of us are, products of our society.

“I think you may have told me this on the phone, but even if you did not, I am inferring that you have not already read Rand yourself as you are too smart to be misrepresenting her as much as you are doing if you had read her.”

>>>You have not shown that I have misrepresented a single word.

“You write: “…This is getting just down right sad.”

This is what’s called ad hominem which is a logical fallacy that involves attacking the man or person rather than their argument, and you have asserted several ad hominems in our brief discussion.”

>>>That is because you are being belligerent about the quotation where Rand states in clear language that abstractions do not exist. 

“I’m not sure what you mean by that phrase “self evident definition” so I’ll explain: an axiom is a basic starting point in a man grasping reality.”

>>>Logical or chronological starting point?

“It’s something that if it is not true there can be no further discussion about derivative issues. Rand and I consider Existence (reality) and Consciousness (the existence of it) to be basic axioms. Free will is also an axiomatic concept.”

>>>You can only have one axiom. Other premises are to be deduced from the original axiom. Do you see what I mean by ad hoc? When you are faced with problems in your philosophy you arbitrarily assert things with no evidence for them whatsoever.

“You write: “…you dodged his point yet again. Ryan argues…”

I’m going to pass on arguing with your professors or your authorities. I will address arguments that you can formulate yourself.”

>>>That is totally arbitrary. You replied to many things he has said here and now you arbitrarily chose to bypass his argument? Do I sense a bad conscience?

“Rand has an entire theory explaining the objectivity of concepts/abstractions and she does it very succinctly. You keep asking questions about her views yet you insist on not reading her. Rand is not a nominalist (namist), which is what you are describing above where you suggest that without intrinsic forms given by God”

>>>That is only one theory of innate forms. Plato would say they were produced by past lives.I am leaning towards DNA. 

 “then concepts depend on subjective experiences (Nominalism). What you are ascribing to God’s innate forms in the mind of man, Rand ascribes to the natural nature of the human mind”

>>>Natural nature is a tautology.

“needing no supernatural intervention to keep cars on freeways, instead of taking off onto airplane runways etc.”

>>>In all of this paragraph you did not address the question. Yet again you are punting to Rand and then telling me I cannot quote scholars of my own persuasion. How can I not think this is hypocrisy?

“Can there be evidence sans reality?”

>>>What Is reality? What if there is only one substance in the universe and there is no basis to even a subject and a predicate? Then yes, knowledge is meaningless. And the self evident reductio could be denied. The pantheist could heartily agree, yes, knowledge is man’s creation, the true reality transcends all the categories of language. Mysticism.

“Can there be evidence sans conscious minds to consider the evidence?”

>>>But what if the conscious minds are malicious prisons that a demon god trapped us all in and that this human nature we live in is not us but a prison our true essence is entrapped?

“Can there be evidence if man has no free will?”

>>>No. Which is why a pantheist could heartily accept the idea that the realm of man’s knowledge is a lower realm, a malicious imposition upon the original self.

The point I am making in appealing to the pantheist is that your questions do not necessarily require the truth of the asserted axioms.

“This is why these are considered axioms – conceptual starting points — by Rand and myself, as you cannot get beneath them and continue on discussing evidence, proof, persuasion, etc. without them.”

>>>But that does not necessitate the existence of these axioms. That is just an ad hominem argument. It could be that there is no truth. No knowledge at all.

“You write: “You are confusing faith with mysticism.”

What’s the difference, i.e., what are your definitions of each?”

>>>Faith is assent to the truth of a proposition or a series of propositions, without absolute proof. That does not mean that there is no evidence at all. When Yahuwah told Moses to tell the Children of Israel that he was going to deliver them from Egyptian slavery, he gave Moses two signs, the leprous arm and the rod that turned into a snake. They had to exercise faith that the creator would come through on his promises, but it was not a blind faith.

I have compiled numerous prophecies which give strong evidence for the divinity of the bible and the existence of the Hebrew God:

http://olivianus.thekingsparlor.com/textual-criticism/how-do-we-know-which-holy-book-is-the-right-one-10-arguments-for-the-divinity-of-the-christian-revelation-by-drake

Mysticism is the pantheist philosophy I described above. Namely, that the ultimate reality is huperousia, which is a contradiction in terms, since it is no reality if it transcends reality. Thus, the goal of life is to attain a trance psychological state not the truth of a proposition. 

How not to get your ass kicked by the police! Sunday, Aug 17 2014 

In light of the recent race war going on in Ferguson, MO, as this website has predicted for many years, I think Chris Rock’s simple educational video may be of help to some people:

More Dialogue With a Randian Thursday, Aug 14 2014 

“Hi Drake,

To define Rand’s relationship to Aristotle or Clark, or anyone else is not my goal in this discussion. I’m attempting to give you MY understanding of her positions and to understand your own philosophy.”

>>>My philosophy is Judaism. The original religion of mankind. If you are wanting to know my epistemology, it is quite simple. Knowledge in the philosophical sense was directly spoken by the  creator to Abraham, Moses and the Prophets. This knowledge was written down and has been handed down throughout the centuries. However, there are also innate forms that all men possess being made in the image of the creator. Basic moral and linguistic forms. I don’t know the exact nature of these forms but as I have demonstrated they must exist (Pace existence-essence distinction). The fact that human beings can communicate with each other and grasp abstractions and genus concepts proves they exist.

“As I think I already said she disagrees with both Plato’s and Aristotle’s view: that abstractions are inherent in the concrete object and completely divorced from the mind.

 Rand contends that abstractions are caused by an interaction between the object and subject; the perceiver and what he is perceiving.”

>>>What is a sensation and how does a sensation produce perception and abstract ideas?

“RAND: “…abstractions as such do not exist: they are…man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists – and that which exists is concrete.”

The key word to grasp here is AS SUCH and by that she means literally as objects in reality like table, chairs, cats, dogs etc.”

>>>So what you are admitting to is exactly what I predicted. She thinks only nouns are real.

“She does indeed think that abstractions exist in the mind as a mental object.”

>>>Which is all ad hoc. Then she is affirming exactly what she is denying. She says abstractions exist, but only concrete things exist. That is fundamentally contradictory. Typing the words “as such” doesn’t make all this disappear because it doesn’t feel good.

“To repeat, Rand says in her book on epistemology that abstractions/concepts are not real in the same way that a dog, car, or plant are real.”

 

>>>Then only nouns are real.

“However, she considers them real in as compared to something nonexistent like unicorns or fairies.”

>>>More nouns. You’re still hung up in the Neoplatonic web.

“She considers concepts or abstractions to be a REAL content, or phenomenon, of consciousness. This subtle difference seems to be eluding you.”

>>>Of course she does. She has to because she is a human being with this God given capability. The problem is her philosophy can GIVE NO ACCOUNT FOR IT. Ad hoc reasoning.

“You write that if Rand holds that objects and the actions of objects are both real “Then she should have said abstractions exist…”

Why should she contend that abstractions exist in the same way that a dog, car or plant, i.e, as more than existing as a REAL content of consciousness?”

>>>You are confusing substance with mode. The issue is not how something exists but if it does.

“You are asserting that this is a mandatory classification so you must defend it.”

>>>What do you mean by this?

“You, yourself quote Rand as saying “It is only…pragmatist, positivist, anti-conceptual mentality—which grants no validity to abstractions…” Even just this quote clearly shows that she grants validity to abstractions.”

>>>With no account for it. I can account for the fact that she believes in the reality of abstractions. But she cannot on her philosophy. She simply asserts it ad hoc.

“You assert that Rand is confused. I don’t think you are in a position to assert such a claim objectively given that you have not read her.”

 

>>>I have quoted her verbatim to you, and I am not going to give you book reports on books speaking about issues I have already given 15 years of study. That is why I am able to pick apart every single thing you say. Show me something I have not come across and I will be interested in dealing with it. As of yet I have seen nothing that I haven’t dealt with in great detail.

 

“At most you could claim that IF your sources interpretation of Rand are correct “

 

>>>Quoting someone’s words is not the same thing as interpreting them. She said herself that abstractions do not exist. You think by pointing to the words “as such” proves something when in fact, it is simply semantics. You demand that there is something more to her position when in fact all it is ad hoc reasoning. YOU CANNOT ASSERT SOMETHING THAT YOU CANNOT GIVE AN ACCOUNT FOR.

 

“THEN you’d agree with them that she is confused.”

 

>>>The word confused is not mentioned a single time in Ryan’s article. I proved she was confused and that was why I accused her of this. You are trying to create this diversive narrative that I don’t understand her as a way to justify your rebellion against your creator. As in fact, you have not proved that I misunderstood a single word. On the contrary you have justified the exact problem I predicted would be the linchpin of this discussion. As much as she tries to convince her readers she has come up with a solution to atheism’s big problems, she has only used semantics to fool people who do not understand the neoplatonic underpinnings to western philosophy.

“If you want to go beyond appealing to the authority of other scholar’s interpretations”

>>>I did no such thing and you know it. I quoted her words verbatim. You are just creating this narrative to make yourself feel better and justify your naïve female supremacist inclinations.

 “you’ll have to read her for yourself and develop an educated evaluation of her philosophy for yourself.”

>>>You have not shown that I have not done that.

“I don’t think I understand your definition of Classical Empiracist. If you will give it to me I’ll double check my statement that Rand is in that category.”

 

>>>This is getting just down right sad. You know my answer to this. What you are doing is exactly what I have to deal with in my debates with Christians on a regular basis. You are trying to draw this discussion  into a cloud of ambiguity so thick that your position cannot be accurately examined. That way, you can comfort yourself into thinking that you’re position is just too sophisticated for anyone but yourself to understand. I deal with this frequently and it goes to prove the Biblical doctrine of total depravity.

Joh 3:19  “And this is the judgment, that the light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked.

Joh 3:20  “For everyone who is practising evil matters hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.

Joh 3:21  “But the one doing the truth comes to the light, so that his works are clearly seen, that they have been wrought in Elohim.”

“You write: “What you just argued for is innate forms…”

Neither I nor Rand believes in innate forms.”

>>>You admitted that consciousness is a basic axiom. The word axiom can mean a couple different things so I’m guessing you mean the self evident definition. You admitted that free will can be known some other way than the 5 senses. Innate forms. The fact that you have not grasped this yet, does not change the fact that it is true.

 

“You write/compile: “(6) Hedrich writes: “One ramification is that no observation of the physical world can warrant belief in the following precondition for knowledge: “propositions may be true.” Rand contends that some propositions are true and some are false. “That is ad hoc reasoning. Based on what? If experience is necessary for all knowledge then Ryan’s point stands.”

There is no such thing as a logical fallacy (ad hoc reasoning) if there is no such thing as true or false propositions.”

>>>Agreed. But you dodged his point yet again. Ryan argues, “But on the assumption of empiricism, to what physical event could “propositions may be true” correspond?”

“Do you agree with Rand that man is born Tabula Rasa?”

>>>No.  

“You write: “You avoided the main argument of that paragraph.”

If I did it was unintentional. Please ask me your own question directly and I will endeavor to answer it.”

 

>>>I have cited it for you twice now. I’ll do it again.

“This would make communication impossible, as no two individuals could ever verify that the differences in their experiences and sensations are negligible to the meanings each attaches to some word[s]. ”

How could we communicate if my subjective experiences inform what words mean when you have not experienced my experiences?

“You write: “You did not deal with this argument. (9) You write: “…as Rand’s was not even able to demonstrate how she could know herself…”

“She argues that existence, consciousness and identity are metaphysical axioms thus she considers these to be prerequisits of all demonstration and not needing proof as they are the fundamental metaphysical basis for proof.”

>>> I think you are misusing the word axiom. I give no adherence to the definition of axiom as a self evident truth. That is just a cop out way of asserting something with no evidence. The use of the word axiom as in Euclid’s geometric construction is the only meaningful use of that word. An idealist who thinks his mind is the only reality that exists would agree that consciousness exists as a self evident truth. But this is only subjective.  

 

“I’m going to draw a line here and see if we can establish any common ground on just the topics and issues so far raised in this email. If so, I’ll come back and address the rest of your post.

Incidentally, you are at great pains to prove your positions in logic and reason but is that not a contradiction for a person who accepts faith fundamentally?”

>>>You are confusing faith with mysticism.

Onward Police State! Wednesday, Aug 13 2014 

Prov. 28:2 By the transgression of a land many are its princes

The cops have every reason to have a shoot first ask questions later mentality when dealing with most Americans, especially black Americans. People in this society are mostly savages and the blacks for the most part are a moral and economic disease. Ever since the civil rights era, and the sexual revolution this country has indulged in the most savage moral anarchism in world history. Our people have murdered over 53 million children, they have created the modern pornography industry and its accompanying international human trafficking industry. All led by black entertainers and civil rights leaders. Onward police state! Lay them waste!

St. Louis Riots Justified By DeAndre Smith; Let the Race War Continue Tuesday, Aug 12 2014 

http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-vn-deandre-smith-justifies-the-looting-in-ferguson-20140811-embeddedvideo.html

Dialogue with a Randian Sunday, Aug 10 2014 

“(1) Is [Rand] limiting reality to only nouns/beings? Are we to believe that verbs or actions are not real?
She would say objects and the actions of objects are both real.”

>>>Then she should have said abstractions exist which she denies as we shall see. Moreover, then she is not an Aristotelian and thus she is not a classical Empiricist because Aristotle took Genus, an abstraction, out of the category of substance. Thus abstractions are not real.

Aristotle, Metaphysics,

Book 7 Part 4

“Nothing, then, which is not a species of a genus will have an essence-only species will have it”

Book 7 Part 12

“If then the genus absolutely does not exist apart from the species-of-a-genus”

Gordon Clark,

“The species is more truly real than the genus because it is more closely related to individual things: In answer to the question, What? more information is conveyed by stating the species than by stating the genus. To be told that the thing growing out of the ground is an olive is more satisfying than to be told that it is a plant.”(Clark refers the reader to Aristotle’s Metaphysics, 1042a21, 1053b 21 “where genus is removed from the category of substance”)  Thales to Dewey, pg. 95-96

As it cashes out in the end, Rand is just confused.

“(2) Rand is indeed a “classical empiricist”

>>>Actually she makes very clear that the classical empiricist is a savage Attila and clearly departs form him as we shall see shortly.

“as Hedrich says here “…confirms her to have been a classical empiricist.”

>>>That is a verdict of logic concerning one statement Rand made, not a quotation of Rand. In the end Rand doesn’t know what she is but confused.

“Yet strangley you write: “…Rand baselessly rejected empiricism…”

>>>Rand clearly distanced herself from Classical Empiricism:

For The New  Intellectual: The Philosophy Of Ayn Rand,

http://www.proctors.com.au/MRhomepage.nsf/63a0435687dde29b482572630053ce67/ea31d05b8e0f8aee48257a33000e1c92/$FILE/Ayn%20Rand%20-%20For%20The%20New%20Intellectual.pdf

“To negate man’s mind, it is the conceptual level of his consciousness that has to be invalidated. Under all the tortuous complexities, contradictions, equivocations, rationalizations of the post-Renaissance philosophy—the one consistent line, the fundamental that explains the rest, is: a concerted attack on man’s conceptual faculty. Most philosophers did not intend to invalidate conceptual knowledge, but its defenders did more to destroy it than did its enemies. They were unable to offer a solution to the “problem of universals,” that is: to define the nature and source of abstractions, to determine the relationship of concepts to perceptual data—and to prove the validity of scientific induction. Ignoring the lead of Aristotle, who had not left them a full answer to the problem, but had shown the direction and the method by which the answer could be found, the philosophers were unable to refute the Witch Doctor’s claim that their concepts were as arbitrary as his whims and that their scientific knowledge had no greater metaphysical validity than his revelations.

The philosophers chose to solve the problem by conceding the Witch Doctor’s claim and by surrendering to him the conceptual level of man’s consciousness—a victory no Witch Doctor could have hoped to achieve on his own. The form of that absurd concession was the philosophers’ ultimate division into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the Witch Doctor, by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.

Thus reason was pushed off the philosophical scene, by default, by implication, by evasion. What had started as a serious problem between two camps of serious thinkers soon degenerated to the level where nothing was left on the field of philosophy but a battle between Witch Doctors and Attila-ists.”

24-25

>>>So here we see that she is distancing herself from the two main group of philosophy. The Rationalists dubbed Witch Doctors and the Empiricists dubbed Attila-ists.

Rand states,

“It is only the Attila-ist, pragmatist, positivist, anti-conceptual mentality—which grants no validity to abstractions, no meaning to principles and no power to ideas”

36

So here she even defines Atilla-ism precisely as Classical Empiricism.

Rand again,

“The New Intellectual will be the man who lives up to the exact meaning of his title: a man who is guided by his intellect—not a zombie guided by feelings, instincts, urges, wishes, whims or revelations. Ending the rule of Attila and the Witch Doctor, he will discard the basic premise that made them possible: the soul-body dichotomy.”

43

“The New Intellectuals must assume the task of building a new culture on a new moral foundation, which, for once, will not be the culture of Attila and the Witch Doctor, but the culture of the Producer.”

46

So on pages 43 and 46 she clearly distances herself from Classical Empiricism.

(3) You ask: “Are we to believe that sensation has nothing to do with knowledge?” Rand holds that sensation is the foundational base of all knowledge.

>>>That was a question to Ryan not to you/Rand.

“(4) Hedrich asks: “…how is one able to sense his conscious, free will?” Directly or austensively. Rand argues (and I agree) that consciousness is a necessary precondition of all demonstrations, proof, validation, etc. Without consciousness non of these concepts have meaning, in fact, no concepts have meaning. She holds the existence of consciousness as a basic axiom.”

>>>I agree which is why I can’t believe in Empiricism. What you just argued for is innate forms admitting that there is a means to knowledge other than the classic 5 senses.

(5) You write: “self-knowledge would apparently be impossible…” She contends that self knowledge is indeed possible.

>>>That was Ryan speaking and he did not mean that he believed self-knowledge to be impossible, but on the Empiricist theory it is impossible. It was an ad hominem argument.

(6) Hedrich writes: “One ramification is that no observation of the physical world can warrant belief in the following precondition for knowledge: “propositions may be true.” Rand contends that some propositions are true and some are false.

>>>That is ad hoc reasoning. Based on what? If experience is necessary for all knowledge then Ryan’s point stands.

(7) Hedrich writes: “…if truth, knowledge, and language are creations of man…” This is called Nominalism (namism) and Rand is not a Nominalist. She contends that concepts (and therefore prepostions & language) are caused by an interaction between man’s mind interacting with reality.

>>>You chopped up his statement. That statement was directed at Rand’s Tabula Rasa.

(8) Hedrich writes: “…Rand would have argued was born with a blank mind…” This is true, Rand agrees with Aristotle (not from Locke originally) that man’s mind is blank at birth (“Tablua Rasa”).

>>>You avoided the main argument of that paragraph:

Ryan states,

“This would make communication impossible, as no two individuals could ever verify that the differences in their experiences and sensations are negligible to the meanings each attaches to some word[s]. Of course, as Rand’s was not even able to demonstrate how she could know herself, she certainly could not have known any other consciousnesses.”

You did not deal with this argument.

(9) You write: “…as Rand’s was not even able to demonstrate how she could know herself…” Of all of the philosophers in the history of philosophy such a statement was neverl less true. Rand has a sophisticated theory of concept formation which is in her book that I sent you a link to called “Introduction to the Objectivist Epistemology.” I don’t think you can evaluate it properly without reading it. From the quotes from you site from Return of the Primative and Hedrich neither shows signs of grasping her theory.

>>>That is an assertion not an argument. And you avoided the quotation Hedrich gave you from her own work:

“Remember that abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists – and that which exists is concrete.” (The Romantic Manifesto, pg. 23)

I would have to tell a deliberate lie if I said Rand believed abstractions do exist, if she just said “abstractions as such do not exist”. 

“(10) Hedrich writes: “…Rand denied the existence of abstractions…” She most certainly did no such thing.”

>>>Unbelievable! I’ll quote it again,

“Remember that abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists – and that which exists is concrete.” (The Romantic Manifesto, pg. 23)

You are deceiving yourself.

“She, in fact, gave the first fully this-worldly explanation of abstractions/concepts. In the quote where she says that abstractions don’t exist what she means is simply that there is no object that you can touch, for example, that is “man-ness,” “feline,” or canine” there are only particular men, cat’s or dogs that we can touch. She is not denying that man uses abstractions/concepts to apprehend reality.”

>>>Then she is making the exact same conflation that Christian Neoplatonism has made for so many centuries: the noun verb conflation.

“You write: “…I maintain that abstractions are activities; verbs, not nouns…” Rand too contends that concept formation is a (mental) process or action and not a thing (noun).”

>>>Then it exists, directly contrary to her admission that they do not exist and only concrete things exist. You stated, “She would say objects and the actions of objects are both real”. Obviously not. If concrete things are the only things that exist then only nouns/being exist just as I predicted.

I am not trying to blow my horn too loud here but I think I have fingered the issue that solves all of the disagreements in the history of Philosophy. Call me a looney tune, but my prediction on this issue keeps vindicating itself every single time I have a debate about hard core metaphysics.

“(11) You write: “…Rand’s Aristotelian tradition has fooled us into thinking that only nouns are real…”
No where does she say that only nouns or things are real and that processes are not real.”

>>> Rand, “that which exists is concrete.” (The Romantic Manifesto, pg. 23)”

(12) Hedrich: “There is also quite a bit of irony in the idea Objectivists do not think abstractions exist..”
I’ve been in the Objectivist movement since I was 16 and I NEVER have encountered a single person, much less any spokesmen for Rand’s ideas contending that abstractions to do not exist.”

>>>”Remember that abstractions as such do not exist” (The Romantic Manifesto, pg. 23)

Please stop playing a game with your life miss.

(13) Hedrich: “…But as a concept, “existence” is an abstraction, and Rand said abstractions as such do not exist…” I’ve already addressed this above, but again, we can’t taste, touch, hear, see or smell canine-ness only particular canines. She does believe abstractions exist. To understand her you’d need to read her epistemology.

>>>If I said Ayn Rand believes abstractions exist after she says ”Remember that abstractions as such do not exist” (The Romantic Manifesto, pg. 23) I would be lying to myself and to everyone I said that to.

(14) You write: “I agree with Hedrich’s affirmation of innate forms…” This is precisely what Rand denies, i.e., Plato’s explanation of universals or abstractions as existing in another dimension (aka: The World of Forms).

>>>I don’t follow Plato and I explained why. He conflates nouns and verbs.

(15) You write: “I believe that Yahuwah has created man’s brain with innate forms in his thinking…” This is Augustine’s combining of Plato and mysticism.

>>>No it is not. Augustine believed that people think with their souls not their brains. Augustine, On the Soul and its Origin (Book IV) Chapter 25 [XVII.]— The Disembodied Soul May Think of Itself Under a Bodily Form,

You must not, however, suppose that I say all this as if denying it to be possible that the soul of a dead man, like a personasleep, may think either good or evil thoughts in the similitude of his body. For, in dreams, when we suffer anything harsh and troublesome, we are, of course, still ourselves; and if the distress do not pass away when we awake, we experience very great suffering. But to suppose that they are veritable bodies in which we are hurried, or flit, about here and there indreams, is the idea of a person who has thought only carelessly on such subjects; for it is in fact mainly by these imaginarysights that the soul is proved to be non-corporeal; unless you choose to call even the objects which we see so often in ourdreams, besides ourselves, bodies, such as the sky, the earth, the sea, the sun, the moon, the stars, and rivers, mountains, trees, or animals. Whoever takes these phantoms to be bodies, is incredibly foolish; although they are certainly very like bodies. Of this character also are those phenomena which are demonstrably of divine significance, whether seen in dreams or in a trance. Who can possibly trace out or describe their origin, or the material of which they consist? It is, beyond question,spiritual, not corporeal. Now things of this kind, which look like bodies, but are not really corporeal, are formed in the thoughts of persons when they are awake, and are held in the depths of their memories, and then out of these secret recesses, by some wonderful and ineffable process, they come out to view in the operation of our memory, and present themselves as if palpably before our eyes. If, therefore, the soul were a material body, it could not possibly contain so many things and such large forms of bodily substances in its scope of thought, and in the spaces of its memory; for, according to your own definition, it does not exceed this external body in its own corporeal substance. Possessing, therefore, no magnitude of its own, what capacity has it to hold the images of vast bodies, spaces, and regions? What wonder is it, then, if it actually itself appears to itself in the likeness of its own body, even when it appears without a body? For it never appears to itself in dreams with its own body; and yet in the very similitude of its own body it runs here and there throughknown and unknown places, and beholds many sad and joyous sights. I suppose, however, that you really would not, yourself, be so bold as to maintain that there is true corporeity in that form of limb and body which the soul seems to itself to possess in dreams. For at that rate that will be a real mountain which it appears to ascend; and that a material house which it seems to enter; and that a veritable tree, with real wood and bulk, beneath which it apparently reclines; and that actual water which it imagines itself to drink. All the things with which it is conversant, as if they were corporeal, would be undoubted bodies, if the soul were itself corporeal, as it ranges about among them all in the likeness of a body.

http://newadvent.org/fathers/15084.htm

———–

“He and other Neoplatonists take Plato’s “World of Forms” and turn it into a divine consciousness, or personality, and say that this is where man gets universals/abstractions – from the mind of God.”

>>>Which is a confusion of nouns and verbs.

(16) Crampton: “…the senses apparently stimulate the mind of man to intellectual intuition, to recollect the God-given innate ideas that man already possesses…” This is straight Platonism except for the fact that these forms or innate ideas are in the mind of God instead of in another dimension where Plato placed them.

>>>No it is not. On my view the innate form is in the physical brain. There is no cosmic abstraction floating around in a ghost in the shell. I made that really, really clear.

(17) Crampton: “…Human knowledge, then, is possible only because God has endowed man with certain innate ideas.” Rand, (like Aristotle regarding many things in nature when he says simply “thus it is so constituted”), would simply say that man’s mind has this ability to gain knowledge”

>>>Which has already proven to be ad hoc and baseless.

“and that we add nothing to our understanding of this fact by claiming that God created this aspect of man’s nature.”

>>>The Bible is not a book on metaphysics. I don’t claim to understand every little thing about the world. That is a Greco-Roman mindset. It is not a Hebrew mindset. The Hebrew mindset is that the creator spoke with some men in the past and they wrote those things down in a book. That is knowledge. This book tells us how to live our lives. We are judged by our works, not on how well we understand metaphysics. Your position is gnostic in that you are seeking some mental state that will liberate your soul from the lower physical prison of matter.

On the anarchy question: Rand says in the same work page 47,

“b. This second principle represents one’s basic rejection of Attila’s psycho-epistemology. To claim the right to initiate the use of physical force against another man—the right to compel his agreement by the threat of physical destruction—is to evict oneself automatically from the realm of rights, of morality and of the intellect. Perhaps the most obscene legacy of altruism among modern intellectuals is their axiomatic acceptance of brute force and of somebody’s sacrifice as a normal and necessary part of a human society, and their refusal to consider the possibility of a non-sacrificial, non-compulsory co-existence and co-operation among men. Observe that they cannot conceive of “selfishness” except in terms of sacrificing others to oneself, and they cannot conceive of anyone who does not regard such sacrificing as to his own interest This, of course, is a psychological confession about the nature of their own desires and about the Attila in their souls. When they declare that they see no difference between economic power and political power—which means: no difference between an employer and a holdup man, no difference between the United States and Soviet Russia—they are confessing a Witch Doctor’s abject fear of reality, which makes them equate a Producer with an Attila.”

 

>>>First notice a rejection of Atilla. Representing classical empiricism. Second, these principles demand anarchism and really the moral condemnation of humanity. Both government and the human family require compulsion. Children do not chose to exist. They do not choose their childhood environment. Children do not choose their citizenship. Children do not choose the language they speak. They do not choose their educational curriculum. All these things are forced on them and necessarily so. Nature demands Fascism. Thus am I.

Another War in Iraq! Friday, Aug 8 2014 

Next Page »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 168 other followers

%d bloggers like this: