|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
March 4, 2005 After Dr. Dolhenty's comments about the philosophy of Objectivism were published on March 1, 2005, M.H. of California, sent an e-mail critical of his comments. He has replied to him via e-mail and also published the contents here. M.H.'s comments are indented and in red type. Dr. Dolhenty's replies are in black type. Dear M.H.: Thank you for contacting us. Here is my response to your comments.
Thank you for the compliment and I'm sorry you're disappointed regarding my recent comments about Objectivism. But, as the old saying goes, "I call 'em as I see 'em," and I don't criticize other philosophies lightly. In general, I am sympathetic with many of the tenets of Objectivism, but I do not consider Ayn Rand a "god," nor Leonard Peikoff as her prophet.
Well, it all depends on what one means by "refuted." I have read Smith's book (twice, in fact) and, while he presents his case well, I remain unconvinced that his overall argument is sound.
We do? Can that be "proved" in any absolute sense? Please tell me how one goes about "proving" that one's own self exists or that an external world exists? We Classical Realists do not even attempt to "prove" such a proposition. We simply say that such a "fact" arises as a "spontaneous conviction" that, if not accepted as true, simply makes all further discussion impossible. While we accept the existence of self and the external world, we make no attempt to "prove" it, since such a "proof" cannot be derived. We can provide "evidence" for the truth of the proposition, but "evidence" is not "proof."
This, I am sorry to say, is simply not true. There is no such "scientific" evidence. There may be "suppositions," but there is no conclusive evidence. And if "mind" arises out of matter, then mind is, in fact, nothing more than matter itself. There goes any possibility for Ayn Rand's idea about the "spiritual" aspect of man that she, herself, refers to in her books. "Spiritual" would be devoid of any meaning. Or, at least, the use of such a term would be confusing.
Why not? And, no, it really does not beg the question in a strict sense, because a theist would and could argue that we are dealing with two different aspects or realms of reality here and they are not mutually exclusive. Different contexts, in other words. The principle of non-contradiction only applies within a same context. Most people forget (or ignore) the full statement of the principle (or law) of contradiction which actually says: "A thing can not BE, and NOT BE, at the same time -- in the same respect, or from the same point of view, or within the same CONTEXT." The latter part of that principle is too often overlooked.
I certainly would not say that existence rises out of consciousness -- within this context of reality with which we are familiar in our ordinary experience. Regarding the "web of evidence," that is not a "proof," but an accumulation of evidence which tends to support a particular proposition. This, in fact, is just what seemed to have convinced one of the world's most distinguished philosophers (although you may not think so, but he is regarded as such), Antony Flew, to change his mind after teaching atheism for over 50 years. Here is the story as we published it in January of this year: "This may be the biggest news story for philosophy in 2004, making headlines around the world and putting not a few philosophers and scientists in a state of intellectual shock. British philosopher Antony Flew, one of the world's most prominent atheists and a promoter of atheism for over 50 years, has decided that the existence of God is possible and may even be necessary. Flew, now 81 and a professor emeritus of philosophy at the Unviersity of Reading, said that scientific evidence supports the theory that some sort of intelligence created the universe and this was the only explanation for the origin of life." My understanding, based on the details of the story as reported in the various media, is that Flew considered exactly the "web of evidence" which was being generated, not only by biological science but by quantum physics. I suspect this is not the end of the matter, as other scientists and philosophers are re-evaluating their views. But, we'll wait and see. It's a really "mysterious" universe out there, something, by the way, which, I think, Rand failed to appreciate.
I would personally question whether Peikoff has made any truly "original" contributions to philosophy. I have read his major defense of Objectivism, a number of his essays, and have seen him speak and in interviews. Personally, I was not impressed. But that is beside the point. I tend to side with the David Kelley camp when it comes to "authentic" Objectivism. The Objectivist who has written for us since 1994, and whom I regularly consult about matters Objectivistic, also supports the Kelley view of Objectivism. One of the problems with Peikoff (and to some extent with Rand herself), is that Objectivism seems to take on the appearance of a religious "cult," what with absolute acceptance of the "dogma," and "excommunications" of those who don't accept the dogma as laid down by the "authoritative" source, and "condemnations" of any who question the pronouncements of the "leader." Strikes me as rather totalitarian, something I think genuine Objectivists should deplore. This, it seems to me, puts Objectivism in the category of a "fad," and, if so, it may suffer the same fate as the fad of Logical Positivism (which I suffered under in graduate school and, being an Aristotelian, was totally shunned by my fellow students and professors). After all, Logical Positivism was the "truth" incarnate, and any other philosophy was "irrational." I predicted then, back in the 1960s, that Logical Positivism would die and it did. Try to find a Logical Positivist now. The same fate awaits the newer fad of "Deconstructionism," and the sooner the better.
Branden still claims to be an Objectivist. But he also thinks, as does Kelley, that Objectivism is an "open" system, subject to modification as new knowledge is acquired. My understanding is that Peikoff subscribes to the "closed" system paradigm, which really places it in the position of being a religious "faith" or "doctrine," rather than a philosophical quest.
OK. I'll look forward to reading it.
Yes, there is much, much more. Unfortunately, I am running out of steam at this point and it is getting late. I am not sure what you mean by "sort of right." Is that an equivocation? I didn't know Objectivists would ever say that someone was "sort of right." It's my understanding that you are either "right" or "wrong." Am I confused about that? Maybe so.
Well, there are three possibilities -- I say "possibilities." The source for a proposition may be rational (arrived at through the use of reason as we commonly understand it, based on experience, of course). Or it may be "irrational," in the sense that it is self-contradictory or fallacious in some other way, or simply the result of brain damage, or something else(hallucinations, perhaps?). Or the source is "nonrational," that is, can not be attributed to reasoning and experience, but comes from some nonrational source, which may be true or not (and we probably cannot determine that anyway).
I happen to be a strong supporter of Dr. Szasz's positions and have been recognized as such by his own website. See my series on "The Psychiatric Game" which appears on the RA website. I have rejected the concept of "mental illness" for over forty years and was one of the first young philosophers to be outspoken about it and, of course, subjected to much criticism.
You will have to ask Branden about this matter. I believe in voluntary mutual aid because we live in a society, which is man's proper living environment -- Aristotle said "We are political (social) animals," and he was right. There is, I hate to inform you, no such person as an "autonomous" individual, except in a bodily sense. Like it or not, we are in many ways the product of the society in which we were raised. This does not mean we are doomed to this, but our very language is a social phenomenon and that language influences our thought processes and ideas (and here Rand was really off the base - she had no understanding or knowledge of developmental psychology) - which is a point Branden makes, and I agree with. For the record, I am not a supporter of the Welfare State, nor have I ever been.
Exactly. It's too bad that Rand apparently overlooked this point and Peikoff seems to ignore it.
Well, Branden has a lot to say I think is important. And he lived through the hightimes of the Objectivist "movement." Ah, ha! Now don't try to bring me around with the "real scholar" treatment. I have quoted many people in my various works. It doesn't matter whether I agree with them or not. A true scholar must be open to all kinds of possibilities. The world has not become encased in concrete yet. As I suggested before, the world is a very "mysterious" place and new "mysteries" appear on a regular basis.
I understand. Thank you for the discussion. You now have it on the record. Best regards, Jonathan Dolhenty, Ph.D. Enrich Your Life With a Philosophy Book...
|
|||||||
|
Ask the Academy Main Index |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
||
|
|
||
[Homepage] [Newsletter] [Search] [Support the Academy] [Link to Us] [Contact the Academy] [Citing Articles from Our Website] [Privacy Policy & Disclaimer]
Copyright 1998-99, 2000-01, 2002-03, & 2004-05 by The Radical Academy. All Rights Reserved.