|
|
||
 |
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
||
|
|
|
Business & Finance Resource Center The Radical Academy Blogs |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||
|
March 7, 2005 This is in response to the previous communication from M.H. which is posted here. 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. Then a reply to Dr. Dolhenty's comments was subequently sent by M.H., and now Dr. Dolhenty replies to his new e-mail communication. M.H.'s comments are indented and in red type. Dr. Dolhenty's replies are in black type. Dear M.H.: Thanks for your reply to my previous communication. Here is my reply to your most recent one:
OK, in a way you are correct, but... to say that "existence presupposes proof" doesn't get us anywhere. It is simply a statement made without proof of its truth. To say it is an "axiom" is simply to say it is, in someone's opinion, to be "self-evident," which can be rejected by the skeptic, or that it is a "universally recognized truth," one which can be and is rejected by many philosophers. An axiom can also be considered to be a proposition "assumed" to be true, as occurs in mathematics, for instance. Or, in the worst case, an axiom is a matter of "faith," something which, of course, Rand would reject outright. There is no way that the philosophy of Objectivism can "prove" that existence "exists" to those that want to deny it. The philosophical tradition of Classical Realism simply says that one must accept that one exists and that an external world exists for the sake of being able to continue any rational discussion. The proposition that "beings exist" is a spontaneous conviction of common sense and that's it. This is not a discovery made by Ayn Rand, but one that goes back over two thousand years. As we, in the Classical Realist tradition, say: "There is a world of real existence which men have not made or constructed. Accept that and we can continue to discuss; deny that and we have nothing to discuss."
I agree completely with your first sentence. I have to take exception to your second sentence. As far as I know, matter can only give rise to matter. What other can it give existence to? Non-matter? But objectivists, as far as I can determine, don't believe in non-matter or, to be more precise, non-materiality. If they accepted any concept of non-materiality, that would be "spirituality," and, I understand at this point, spirituality is not an accepted Objectivist concept in the sense in which it is commonly understood. An acceptance of the possibility of nonmaterial existence would leave them open to the possibility of God! Heaven forbid! I am not "equating" spiritualism with supernaturalism. But don't you think that "spiritualism" is beyond "materialism"? I mean, after all, something is either material, or it is spiritual. If something "spiritual" exists, can it be merely a part of the material world? If so, it is basically material as well. This is the quandary that Objectivism has got itself into, in my opinion. It wants to be both "material" and "spiritual" at the same time, but without distinguishing the categories at a fundamental level. That may be good literature; it is not good philosophy. If our ability to think, to speculate, etc., is not simply mechanical matter in motion, then what is it? Spiritual? Nonmaterial? Pray, tell me, because that is exactly what I have been asking Objectivists to explain, and they have ignored me or refused to answer. As I stated in a previous essay regarding this subject, there are three choices: (1) Only matter exists and everything is the result of matter (no spirituality of any sort); or (2) Only ideas or mind exists and everything is nothing more than consciousness (no real materiality of any sort); or (3) Both material and immaterial being exists, so metaphysical materialism and metaphysical idealism are to be rejected and Classical Realism (which asserts that both exist in some form in some context) is true and should be accepted as the perennial philosophy (which, in fact, it has been for over two thousand years).
First, you spelled "Acquinazing" wrong, which makes me suspect. Ignoring that, I don't know what you mean by the "two worlds context." Or by saying, "where's the beef"? Is this some sort of rhetoric or is there a real question here? Aristotle did not believe in two worlds; in fact, his philosophy rejected Plato, who was his teacher, who did believe in the two world theory. Nor did Aquinas (correct spelling), as a philosopher, believe in the two world theory. Where this matter comes into this discussion escapes me. Sorry about that.
Well, I will overlook your logical fallacy here (the ad hominem attack on Antony Flew and, probably, on John Hospers), something which Rand claimed to disapprove of, by the way, but which she did herself all the time, and I will not respond to this particular comment since there is nothing there of substance to really respond to.
Ah! If you don't think the universe is mysterious, then you are, indeed, in my view, not paying attention to what's going in modern empirical science. And, again, Ayn Rand, was woefully ignorant of developments in science. I don't need Nathaniel Brandon to tell me that. However, in this regard, I will look forward to this book by David Harriman who is going to debunk much of modern physics. That should prove interesting. And, by the way, Classical Realism has no problem with modern physics or quantum mechanics, and can integrate it fully within its philosophical framework. Let's see if Objectivism ala Peikoff can do that.
Well, that's strictly a matter personal opinion, not a philosophical issue. No, I will not spend 600 bucks (is that really the price?) to read Peikoff's history of western philosophy. I consider Peikoff to be a lightweight philosopher (if a real philosopher at all!), and that is just my personal opinion, not a philosophical issue.
The "cult" idea, I am sorry to say, comes to the fore, precisely because of Rand's own behavior and, now, because of Peikoff's behavior. As I've said before, when anyone deems their doctrine to be the only "way of truth" and then begins to "excommunicate" those who disagree with the declarations of those "on high," such as Leonard Peikoff proclaims, then, I submit, that particular belief system is well on its way to becoming a cult or something akin to it. This did occur, even in the early stages of the Objectivist "movement," and, as far as I know, continues on today. And I do know the difference between Objectivism and pragmatism and have no idea why you raised this issue in your comments. In regard to the basic premises of Objectivism, I would agree with them as long as they are in agreement with the basic premises of Classical Realism (which they are mostly, but Rand did not "discover" them in the first place).
I agree there is a place for revisionism in history as long as history is being revised to tell the truth or correct previous errors of fact or interpretation. However, I don't know what you are referring to regarding the holocaust or WW2. So I will not reply to that specific comment.
No, I never confuse certainty with dogmatism. I have no idea why you would accuse me of that, since there is nothing previous to justify it. There is certitude available to some extent: "I exist"; "An external world exists"; "This world can be known to some extent by the human mind"; etc., etc. Dogmatism is an essentially neutral term which can be used either to mean a set of beliefs or as an epithet against a statement of beliefs which are set in concrete. So I am confused as to how you are using the term here and making any distinction between certainty and dogmatism. Furthermore, I don't know what religion or atheism has to do with the issue here.
There is nothing to "prove." And I accept your apology regarding the confusion. Yes, I can be benevolent when asked to be so.
I'm sorry, based on reading her books, her essays, and what others have to say about her, I find this difficult to believe. She was, from all the resources I've consulted, rather Black-and-White in her judgments. She was fond of dismissing people as "irrational" or worse, "immoral," when they disagreed with her, from what I have heard, and even used more personally damaging adjectives when she was really upset.
By nonrational, I mean any source of "knowledge" which is claimed to be obtained through sources other than the physical senses or reason, and which does not violate the laws of thought or being or the protocols of logic. This does not mean such "knowledge" is true, which is why I have it in quotation marks. It simply means it is "acknowledged" as "true" by someone somewhere. In regard to the "existence vs. consciousness" matter, I consider that to be a nonsensical issue. If Ayn Rand had really read and understood the history of philosophy (which she didn't, by the way), this particular issue would have been dismissed as a non-issue. Keep in mind, she had to resort to metaphors -- Attila and the Mystics -- neither of which she genuinely researched -- to make her point. These may come across as good "literary" devices, but they are not "philosophical" paradigms. Rand was, I admit, an excellent novelist, but she was, I am sorry to say, not a philosopher equal to many others who came before her.
No problem here.
I am sorry, here you have really lost me. In fact, I find this particular paragraph somewhat, dare I say, irrational? What does Hospers have to do this matter? What do cats and elephants? You've lost me.
Well, developmental psychology is pretty much a matter of fact these days. Rand, as she often admitted during her life, never read the literature regarding any aspect of empirical science. She never really understood human psychology, if the resources I have consulted are accurate. In fact, she seemed to dismiss psychology in general, something which, in my opinion, is almost unforgivable in a philosopher. But that's just my opinion.
Well, again, you've lost me here. What historical lies are you referring to? What agenda are you promoting here? I cannot even begin to organize a reply to this sort of -- how do I say it nicely" -- nonsense?
Sorry, but you will have to point out the lies, line by line, in fact, if you want to make your point. You've made an accusation, but you don't provide the evidence. That's a violation, I believe, of Objectivist philosophy.
Well, I agree about Noam Chomsky. I reviewed his most recent book for his publisher and gave it one star on Amazon.com, only because I couldn't give it a zero star. However, it is a far cry from Chomsky to the Brandens. Again, you commit the logical fallacy of ad hominem when you refer to Nathaniel Branden and that "other parasite" Barbara. I would think a serious Objectivist would do better than that. Need I remind you that Ayn Rand herself was dedicated to the "logical," not the "logical fallacy"? Would Rand have given her blessing to your use of the terms "parasite" and "leeching"?
You do not believe in the concept of God. OK, got that. No problem. That's what Rand believed. Peikoff is her physical and intellectual heir and that's a fact. It may also, of course, be her biggest problem. Let's face it, Objectivism is split between the Peikoff faction and the Kelley faction. Which variety will eventually be dominant? I have no idea. Nor do I care. And that's because Objectivism, as defined by Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff, even though it shares some principles with Classical Realism, is not and never will be the 'Perennial Philosophy" of commonsense realism which began with Aristotle and continued to grow, develop, and become more refined through medieval, modern, and recent history. And Classical Realism, along with its corollary "Classical Liberalism," is continuing to attract contemporary adherents. Sorry, I don't know what Muhammad Ali has to do with this discussion, so I can't respond to that point.
That's the way it should be. We agree to disagree without being disagreeable. That's exactly how arguments should proceed. 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.