humanities.philosophy.objectivism

On Fri, 07 Mar 2008 22:58:30 -0800, vonvegas wrote:

>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?

I can only grant you that Rand was trying to be a Direct Realist.
There is no question about that, the entire basis of her philosophy
screams "Direct Realist."

But she can't be a Direct Realist based on her theory of percepts, no
matter how loudly she screams it.

And to answer your quote about apprehending reality, notice that
"reality" is not absent from the title Indirect Realism, for which
reality is apprehended, indirectly. Notice that she did not say
"direct awareness" in your quote, not yet. She slides deftly into
Direct Realism in the next statement, or tries to.

Now take your quote and substitute in Rand's definition of "percept."
It becomes, "It is in the form of groups of sensations automatically
retained and integrated by the brain that man grasps the evidence of
his senses and apprehends reality." At this point you don't even have
Direct Realism, that doesn't come until the passage after the next,
which is, 'When we speak of "direct perception" or "direct awareness,"
we mean the perceptual level.' She is striving toward Direct Realism
there; however, in the context of the preceding statements it only
means that we have direct perception and direct awareness of these
integrations of sensations called percepts. That is indirect
perception of reality through percepts, not directly via perception.

A Direct Realist account would only allow for perception, not
percepts, which is direct perception of reality not perception via
percepts.

There is a definite problem with appealing to science, real or
imagined, when answering the problem of perception, unless one
actually wants all knowledge to come by inference.

> >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?

If someone wants to throw the first punch and bring up "schizophrenia"
with regard to my theory, which is exactly what happened, then that
leaves it wide open for a counter-punch. Maybe someone was just being
too hard on me. Ya think?

--
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