humanities.philosophy.objectivism

Malrassic Park wrote:
> On Wed, 05 Mar 2008 16:16:02 -0800, Charles Bell
> wrote:
>
>> On Mar 5, 5:59 pm, Malrassic Park wrote:
>>

> Psychology is irrelevant. Every time you criticize me I can criticize
> your position right back because ITOE contains so highly defective a
> theory. For example, "A percept is a group of sensations automatically
> retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in
> the form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses and
> apprehends reality." (5) Analyze her statements carefully, you will
> find the theory known as Indirect Realism, which Rand used in order to
> justify Direct Realism.
>

Let's be clear. The Indirect Realist claims that what we know, when we
do, is our mental content. Thus Locke and Kant, for example, are then
stuck with trying to explain that if what we know is only our own mental
content then how can we make valid claims about the external world?
The Direct Realist, OTOH, says that we know, *via* our mental content,
the external world directly,
So the difference between Indirect and Direct Realism boils down to
whether whats is known is the mental content (Indirect Realism) versus
that which the percept is of, reality (Direct Realism).

Now I grant you that Rand's words are somewhat ambiguous. I repeat
somewhat ambiguous. But in accord with an even anemic principle of
charity of interpretation, I cannot agree, primarily on the basis of the
below emphasized portion of her quote, that your interpretation is a
fair one.

Now please carefully look again at the Rand quote which you've provided
as evidence for your conclusion, but this time with my emphasis added:

"A percept is a group of sensations automatically
retained and integrated by the brain of a living organism. It is in the
form of percepts that man grasps the evidence of his senses *AND
APPREHENDS REALITY*".


Her overt statement that what is known (apprehended) is reality makes it
reasonably clear to me that she's not thinking of knowing the contents
of our minds, as opposed to reality. If I'm correct, then your quote,
far from being evidence of an Indirect Realist account is of course the
very opposite. But perhaps you have other evidence than what you
provided here and to Socks in your 3/6/8 post?

>Because she then goes on to say, 'When we
> speak of "direct perception" or "direct awareness," we mean the
> perceptual level.' (5) Talk about schizophrenic. Which is it, Direct
> or Indirect Realism? Or both?


Maybe you're just being too hard on her?

Vonvegas