15-Apr-2011, 01:07 PM
Recently I had an interaction with some of my FB friends about Ayn Rand,her novels & her philosophy.The Principle of Reason that crops up in following discussion is,for a philosophy novice like me,a ruse for propagating theistic world view.
For me,Russel's philosophy of `The world IS,it simply exists,no reason is required for it's existence' is satisfactory enough.
As to the `why' question,physics is on it's way to answer it,as precisely as humanly possible,one of the prime candidates being the Superstring Theory.
Your opinions,views are needed friends.
Vinayak Joshi:-[/b]
I have some strong objections to Randian philosophy & the theme of her novels,one of them being that her philosophy has been reduced to a cult,the very antithesis of her argument for reason & individualism.A cult primarily destroys your individuality,makes you blind to reason.And Rand had the misfortune of seeing the `cultification' in her lifetime.In sixties,the `Collective' that formed around her,& venerated her to the status of a leader had the potential of giving rise to a fascist movement.
Her philosophy of Objectivism is fallacious.The fallacy lies in the belief that absolute knowledge & absolute truth are achievable through reason.Once achieved,they are a means to telling absolute moral from absolute immoral & so on.So once `absolute knowledge ' is discovered through reason,it is unchallengiable & whoever dares so,is stamped with a flawed reasoning & excommunicated,giving rise to cult.
Objectivism does not stand the scrutiny of rationality.Reason is basically a human activity,& by definition it is therefore a flawed,biased concept.There is no way human endevour is going to touch absolute truth,the reality of nature.With this knowledge in mind,you are tolerant of the flawed concepts around you.with Objectivism,anyone not confirming with your idea of absolute truth is flawed,giving rise to intolerance.
Moreover her fascination for Capitalism is not acceptable to me.Of course it is an individual preference.
Sunday at 1:31pm · Like · 2 people
Renukadas Balkrishna Deshpande @Vinayak Joshi--Nicely put. Although at one time I was also fascinated by Ayn Rand's too powerful narrative which carried her message across with a bang, over time many of her premises are being proved as not universal truths. But you'll agree this is bound to happen with every philosophy. And as for the deification of a human figure, or the elevation of any philosophy to fundamentalism, is human creed, because it is human need. Remember there were temples to the 'Goddess of Reason' in post-revolution France, defeating the very purpose of the Revolution and the Philosophes. The only statement of yours I object to is the one about reason being inherently a flawed concept because a human activity. All theology, logic and most of the philosophy is based on the abstract PRINCIPLE of reason, which is manifest through all Creation and is not merely a human activity. I'd be delighted to discuss this further, but Shubhuji has to allow the digression. Further, even though anything absolute is not achievable and all that can be achieved is but an approximation to the absolute, yet the absolute exists abstractly, as Plato's Theory of Ideas proves.
Subhu Khaire:-You are right, VJ.. she has many a times played around with words and one notion seems to be in quite a contrast with another. What I liked though, perversely, is the idea of taking free will to the extreme.. and destroy oneself in intellect as well as personal life. I never though quite understood why she had to have an affair with Howard Roark (Thanks for correcting me, RDji..re the character name..) when she has defined Pride as she has done:as more than just a feeling. To her, it was a fundamentally positive estimate of oneself... and she started the affair b4 she even KNEW Roark..
Shubhu Khaire u can go ahead, RDji.. w/o worrying about digression: Digression is what makes threads all the more interesting, isnt it ..?
Sunday at 5:10pm · Like · 1 person
Renukadas Balkrishna Deshpande:- Ayn Rand designated her individualism as the ONLY source of all her emotions and her pains and pleasures.The rest existed only for the sake of that all-consuming individualism. Reflect, and you'll find that she did not need to KNOW Roark or anyone else because she was merely gratifying herself. In a way, she has consummated what Jane Austen began in her Pride and Prejudice, and the Bronte Sisters carried through through their Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights.. and carried it beyond its logical extreme.
Vinayak Joshi :-REASON manifest in all creation?Please elaborate.
All theology,logic & philosophy ARE human activities!Unless one argues that theology is handiwork of some supernatural force!
Reason has to be a human activity,cannot exist independent of human existence.
I also would like to know how absolute exists abstractly.
Renukadas Balkrishna Deshpande:-@Vinayak Joshi- Thanks for reverting.I'll try to answer your questions as follows. 1. You see, there are two aspects of everything, per se,that is, on account of itself, and its perception through the senses. Kant maintained in his theory of knowledge the doctrine of extreme empiricism. For him, things existed only in mind and had no existence of their own. As such, every perception is necessarily limited to the mind which must have the limits of individuality. As such, the very idea of objectivity becomes absurd. As, for example, air has two aspects of existence, one, as it exists and flows and touches the skin and enters into our nostrils, and second, the feel of air that our minds experience. Would you say that air does not exist for a sleeping/unconscious person for he does not feel it? So, the perception of reason is a human activity, and as such, is ridden with the limits of human mind. But I was talking about the Principle of reason, manifest in the answer of the eternal question "Why?" about the whole of the creation, for which a Creator or a Will is posited in lieu of an answer which so far eludes empiricism. Therefore, reason as a tool of deduction is a far different concept than the principle of reason which keeps the subnuclear particles in an atom together in spite of the forces of mutual repulsion of like charges, and in general, keeps things 'going'. 2. I won't argue that theology is a divine creation because that would be the too obvious mistake of putting the cart before the horse, the grammar before language. Theology is a completely human handiwork, and much imperfect at that, as all the bloody history bears witness, but the awe and human curiosity which begot theology in the first place is based on the principle of reason. St. Augustine has elaborated on this. (For a short version read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy). Further, logic is a human activity but you must agree that unless there is an underlying system, two plus two would not be four in the first place. That which makes mathematics certain, I call Reason. In fact, the medieval English writings defending the institution of kingship like Locke, Austen, and later even Rousseau all had strong appeal to this principle of reason. 3. Plato had come up with the idea that every single manifestation is but an approximation to an abstraction, which can exist only in mind. Such as every bed a carpenter made is not the perfect bed, the perfect bed is an idea existing in the mind of the carpenter alone. This is a very valid theory. In medicine, unless you formulate an ABSTRACT idea of health and a healthy body in the preclinical years, you cannot have a reference point in relation to which to define diseases. Further, an absolute zero kelvin temperature does not exist in nature, but mathematically, it does. So the idea of the absolute exists in the divine mind, that is, the possibility that in ideal circumstances all parameters should so coordinate themselves that the absolute becomes a reality, hence it is said that the absolute exists in abstraction. Hope I have clarified. If not, I will have wasted your time.
For me,Russel's philosophy of `The world IS,it simply exists,no reason is required for it's existence' is satisfactory enough.
As to the `why' question,physics is on it's way to answer it,as precisely as humanly possible,one of the prime candidates being the Superstring Theory.
Your opinions,views are needed friends.
Vinayak Joshi:-[/b]
I have some strong objections to Randian philosophy & the theme of her novels,one of them being that her philosophy has been reduced to a cult,the very antithesis of her argument for reason & individualism.A cult primarily destroys your individuality,makes you blind to reason.And Rand had the misfortune of seeing the `cultification' in her lifetime.In sixties,the `Collective' that formed around her,& venerated her to the status of a leader had the potential of giving rise to a fascist movement.
Her philosophy of Objectivism is fallacious.The fallacy lies in the belief that absolute knowledge & absolute truth are achievable through reason.Once achieved,they are a means to telling absolute moral from absolute immoral & so on.So once `absolute knowledge ' is discovered through reason,it is unchallengiable & whoever dares so,is stamped with a flawed reasoning & excommunicated,giving rise to cult.
Objectivism does not stand the scrutiny of rationality.Reason is basically a human activity,& by definition it is therefore a flawed,biased concept.There is no way human endevour is going to touch absolute truth,the reality of nature.With this knowledge in mind,you are tolerant of the flawed concepts around you.with Objectivism,anyone not confirming with your idea of absolute truth is flawed,giving rise to intolerance.
Moreover her fascination for Capitalism is not acceptable to me.Of course it is an individual preference.
Sunday at 1:31pm · Like · 2 people
Renukadas Balkrishna Deshpande @Vinayak Joshi--Nicely put. Although at one time I was also fascinated by Ayn Rand's too powerful narrative which carried her message across with a bang, over time many of her premises are being proved as not universal truths. But you'll agree this is bound to happen with every philosophy. And as for the deification of a human figure, or the elevation of any philosophy to fundamentalism, is human creed, because it is human need. Remember there were temples to the 'Goddess of Reason' in post-revolution France, defeating the very purpose of the Revolution and the Philosophes. The only statement of yours I object to is the one about reason being inherently a flawed concept because a human activity. All theology, logic and most of the philosophy is based on the abstract PRINCIPLE of reason, which is manifest through all Creation and is not merely a human activity. I'd be delighted to discuss this further, but Shubhuji has to allow the digression. Further, even though anything absolute is not achievable and all that can be achieved is but an approximation to the absolute, yet the absolute exists abstractly, as Plato's Theory of Ideas proves.
Subhu Khaire:-You are right, VJ.. she has many a times played around with words and one notion seems to be in quite a contrast with another. What I liked though, perversely, is the idea of taking free will to the extreme.. and destroy oneself in intellect as well as personal life. I never though quite understood why she had to have an affair with Howard Roark (Thanks for correcting me, RDji..re the character name..) when she has defined Pride as she has done:as more than just a feeling. To her, it was a fundamentally positive estimate of oneself... and she started the affair b4 she even KNEW Roark..
Shubhu Khaire u can go ahead, RDji.. w/o worrying about digression: Digression is what makes threads all the more interesting, isnt it ..?
Sunday at 5:10pm · Like · 1 person
Renukadas Balkrishna Deshpande:- Ayn Rand designated her individualism as the ONLY source of all her emotions and her pains and pleasures.The rest existed only for the sake of that all-consuming individualism. Reflect, and you'll find that she did not need to KNOW Roark or anyone else because she was merely gratifying herself. In a way, she has consummated what Jane Austen began in her Pride and Prejudice, and the Bronte Sisters carried through through their Jane Eyre and Wuthering Heights.. and carried it beyond its logical extreme.
Vinayak Joshi :-REASON manifest in all creation?Please elaborate.
All theology,logic & philosophy ARE human activities!Unless one argues that theology is handiwork of some supernatural force!
Reason has to be a human activity,cannot exist independent of human existence.
I also would like to know how absolute exists abstractly.
Renukadas Balkrishna Deshpande:-@Vinayak Joshi- Thanks for reverting.I'll try to answer your questions as follows. 1. You see, there are two aspects of everything, per se,that is, on account of itself, and its perception through the senses. Kant maintained in his theory of knowledge the doctrine of extreme empiricism. For him, things existed only in mind and had no existence of their own. As such, every perception is necessarily limited to the mind which must have the limits of individuality. As such, the very idea of objectivity becomes absurd. As, for example, air has two aspects of existence, one, as it exists and flows and touches the skin and enters into our nostrils, and second, the feel of air that our minds experience. Would you say that air does not exist for a sleeping/unconscious person for he does not feel it? So, the perception of reason is a human activity, and as such, is ridden with the limits of human mind. But I was talking about the Principle of reason, manifest in the answer of the eternal question "Why?" about the whole of the creation, for which a Creator or a Will is posited in lieu of an answer which so far eludes empiricism. Therefore, reason as a tool of deduction is a far different concept than the principle of reason which keeps the subnuclear particles in an atom together in spite of the forces of mutual repulsion of like charges, and in general, keeps things 'going'. 2. I won't argue that theology is a divine creation because that would be the too obvious mistake of putting the cart before the horse, the grammar before language. Theology is a completely human handiwork, and much imperfect at that, as all the bloody history bears witness, but the awe and human curiosity which begot theology in the first place is based on the principle of reason. St. Augustine has elaborated on this. (For a short version read Bertrand Russell's History of Western Philosophy). Further, logic is a human activity but you must agree that unless there is an underlying system, two plus two would not be four in the first place. That which makes mathematics certain, I call Reason. In fact, the medieval English writings defending the institution of kingship like Locke, Austen, and later even Rousseau all had strong appeal to this principle of reason. 3. Plato had come up with the idea that every single manifestation is but an approximation to an abstraction, which can exist only in mind. Such as every bed a carpenter made is not the perfect bed, the perfect bed is an idea existing in the mind of the carpenter alone. This is a very valid theory. In medicine, unless you formulate an ABSTRACT idea of health and a healthy body in the preclinical years, you cannot have a reference point in relation to which to define diseases. Further, an absolute zero kelvin temperature does not exist in nature, but mathematically, it does. So the idea of the absolute exists in the divine mind, that is, the possibility that in ideal circumstances all parameters should so coordinate themselves that the absolute becomes a reality, hence it is said that the absolute exists in abstraction. Hope I have clarified. If not, I will have wasted your time.
![[+]](http://nirmukta.net/images/collapse_collapsed.png.pagespeed.ce.5RZPmzb2DR.png)
I was reading Tintin at that age !