Posted on 10/10/2007 8:12:38 AM PDT by Hank Kerchief
Another untempered selective hit piece on Hume without any sense of perspective. Hume’s salient characteristic is no more “little confused fuzzy pictures” than America’s is slavery. Hume’s major effect, as evidenced by college philosophy curricula throughout the West for decades, is to further pull metaphysics out of Dark Age mysticism and into the realm of rational analysis. Someone needs to tell this author that Ayn Rand wasn’t born until after Hume died.
This author has a personality trait of Rand that is shared by many of the more suggestible Oists. With them it is never “X was wrong about Y because...”, but rather, “The monstrous X was deceitful or ignorant of the absurd Y which is the origin of all evil in the world...” It leaves one wondering if “Histrionicists” isn’t a better term for them.
This piece does at least give a reasonably concise summary of how Rand’s metaphysics differs from Hume’s, though I might have worded some things differently.
My comments were not to imply Berkley was not important. I do not quite understand this:
“Berkley was the first philosopher to make the claim that language can be used for a variety of things besides describing things.”
I cannot believe you mean by this what it seems to mean. When was it ever not known that language is used for many things besides “describing thing.” Anyone familiar with Aristotle’s epistemology would know that a large part of it is describing the different uses of language, of which “describing things” was just one of many.
Perhaps I’ve misunderstood what you intended.
Hank
Sounds familiar. Teach the controversy.
Put me on the philosophy list please. Thanks.
Hume also influenced Kant to give up his Rationalist ways, or as Kant said, to wake up from his dogmatic sleep. Kant perhaps was the greater influence on what eventually leads up to postmodernist thought.
I knew Brit was an older gentleman, but wow....(chuckle)
He’s really holding up well.
Paul Feuerabend — “the Norman Mailer of philosophy”.
You must be commenting on a different article. This one never implies, “Hume’s salient characteristic is no more “little confused fuzzy pictures”. Maybe you didn’t notice this is part 1 of a 4 part article.
Where did you get, “This piece does at least give a reasonably concise summary of how Rand’s metaphysics ...”
Rand’s metaphysics?
Rand never wrote metaphysics.
In all her writing, the word only shows up about 25 times. In almost every case it’s in reference to what she regards as a wrong or mistaken metaphysics. Here is all she ever wrote about metaphysics [quoted from her works]:
Metaphysics: Existence exists—A is A.
... the fifth branch of philosophy, the basic one, the fundamental of the science of fundamentals: metaphysics?
In metaphysics, this meant a fundamental change in emphasis: from God to this world, the world of particulars in which men live, the realm of nature.
These answers are the province of metaphysics—the study of existence as such or, in Aristotle’s words, of “being qua being”—the basic branch of philosophy.
In philosophy, the fundamentals are metaphysics and epistemology. On the basis of a knowable universe and of a rational faculty’s competence to grasp it, you can define man’s proper ethics, politics and esthetics.
The essentials are: in metaphysics, the Law of Identity—in epistemology, the supremacy of reason—in ethics, rational egoism—in politics, individual rights (i.e., capitalism)—in esthetics, metaphysical values.
Her entire explicit metaphysic can be summed up as, “existence exists, and A is A (the law of identity)” which means only that there is an objectivie existence independent of consciousness.
One of my major criticisms of Objectivism is that it has no thoroughgoing metaphysics, and no ontology at all.
By the way the author is not an Objectivist and does not promote Objectivism—especially as it is held and practiced by those who do call themselves Objectivists today.
Hank
You are on the list.
“Hume also influenced Kant to give up his Rationalist ways, or as Kant said, to wake up from his dogmatic sleep.” Yes, that’s what Kant said, but he was a subjectivist and his philosophy is filled with philosophical rationalism.
Kant perhaps was the greater influence on what eventually leads up to postmodernist thought.
Yes. Please see the previous article in this series.
“The Roots of Revolution”
http://theautonomist.com/aaphp/revolution/revolution6.html
“By the way the author is not an Objectivist and does not promote Objectivism”
For him to deny Hume’s positive impact on the evolution of “his” philosophy is ignorant. To deny Rand’s is just laughable. He can call himself what he wants, but he is Objectivist in ideas, tone, and even word choice.
I suppose his next article will be a similar hit piece on Rand. For completion’s sake, he can afterwards write a hit piece on himself.
It seems clear to me that Hume was what we now call a liberal. Perhaps he was the father of liberalism.
Hume's "philosophy" is literally the very opposite of learning. How ironic that it finds its most enthusiastic adherents within the walls of institutions of "higher learning".
Words used to have very clear meanings.
Not really. Language is constantly in flux and words are a nomenclature.
Articles critical of Objectivism:
Beyond Objectivism—Introduction
Beyond Objectivism—Knowledge of Particulars
Beyond Objectivism—Measurement
Beyond Objectivism—Retaliation
Beyond Objectivism—About Force
Ayn Rand, Beauty, Love, and Tenderness
Articles critical of today's Objectivists:
An Atheist's Defence of Christianity
OINO's Paranoid Fear of Christians
OINO Death Wish
OINO True Believers: It is easier to believe than to think
Ayn Rand—Autonomist
Individualism—Not Objectivism
Saving The World
Sorry that you'll probably be disappointed they aren't what you call "hit" pieces.
Hank
fyi
Red Herring Alert. Do you disagree with either of my points? The idea that the same text can have different meanings regardless of authorial intent is a longstanding hermeneutic truism.
I haven't studied philosophy. What was Locke's deal?
John Locke was the Father of Liberalism
Yes, but it was 19th century European liberalism, which much close to American Libertarianism than what is called liberalism today. Today’s liberalism is closer to socialism than Locke’s Liberalism.
Hank
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.