humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:19:53 -0800, vonvegas wrote:
.
>Malrassic Park wrote:
>> On Thu, 06 Mar 2008 00:30:45 -0800, vonvegas wrote:
.
>First of all Mal, thank you for answering most of my questions. I
>understand why you got a little crotchetty at the end and refused to
>answer any more. You must have (correctly) felt that under the weight of
>my many questions, you were doing all the "giving" and getting little
>useful in return.
> But such is the price of fame, Mal. :-)

It looked like you were about to ask me to define "is."

>And besides, your answering my questions, surely did give you something,
> as you were perhaps forced to think more deeply about how to
>intelligibly answer such inevitable questions.
.
>Secondly, tho I cannot yet profitably discuss the core of your theory
>(the subject matter is very difficult, and I need time to digest) I can
>perhaps meanwhile offer you something of value on some peripheral
>issues beginning with this:
.
>Mal to Vonvegas:
> >Induction means reasoning from facts, or "data" of experience to use
> >your geek computerese language.
.
>And Mal also wrote:
> >I reject Rand's use of the term "data" and other computerese "geek"
> > words. And I know that she read some books published in the 1950s
> > which used similar computerese terminology and which explored topics
> > having to do with the mind. I believe this school of thought (if
> > that's what it is) which "led to" ITOE originated back in the 1930s.
> > I reject Rand's use of the term "data" and other computerese "geek"
> > words. And I know that she read some books published in the 1950s
> > which used similar computerese terminology and which explored topics
> > having to do with the mind. I believe this school of thought (if
> > that's what it is) which "led to" ITOE originated back in the 1930s.
> > other computerese "geek"
> > words. And I know that she read some books published in the 1950s
> > which used similar computerese terminology and which explored topics
> > having to do with the mind. I believe this school of thought (if
> > that's what it is) which "led to" ITOE originated back in the 1930s.
.
>Well, I dunno if your attributing to Rand a computer geekness is
>appropriate, for it certainly is completely mistaken when you similarly
>accuse me of such geekness.
>The word "data" in the philosophical context surely predates geekness.
>I'm no lexicographer nor have I much interest in really pursuing this
>subject but I can tell you from personal knowledge/experience that sense
>datum philosophy has been around for quite a while.
>Since you mentioned Rand's reading in the 1950's books rooted in the
>1930's I remind you that Husserl and the Logical Positivist of the
>Vienna Circle (Schlick, Carnap, Neurath, etc.) were publishing around
>then. They were all deeply influenced by Russell, especially via
>Wittgenstein, and Russell for sure was talking sense datum in 1903! I
>don't think he was a computer geek. Furthermore, he, in turn, was much
>influenced by Moore and (I think) Perry, before him.
>So my point is, that unless you know everything she read in the 50's, I
>doubt you can conclude from whence her terminology sprang. And it seems
>needlessly damaging to your credibility to engage in such criticism
>unless you have something besides what you've so far articulated.
.
You quoted me three times, was that for good luck?

There was 'sense datum' talk going back to the 1830s, not just 1903.
I'm saying that the particular thrust of the discussion Rand engaged
in, the cog. sci., only went as far back as the 1930s, and she
definitely got her hands on some of that material having a strong
interest in the nature of the mind and theories about the nature of
rational/conceptual thought processes. Her terminology originated
in other writings from that period, not from 1903 or 1830. If she
answered the problem of concept-formation in a half-hour [ITOE 307] it
was only because she had been boning up on such questions for years.

People borrow their technical jargon from the technology of the day.

--
We usually go over the top w/ our new found freedoms.
Unfortunately, her 'followers' are as radical as Pat
Robertson's. Discernment goes out the window.
- A youtube poster