On Apr 18, 5:52*am, "D. Peter Maus" wrote:
On 4/18/11 06:58 , Barry wrote:

* * And there you have it: A dismissal based on someone's upbringing. You
freely discuss her upbringing, and you argue that her upbringing frames
her beliefs.

Well, that is often the case. The theology of Karl Barth, for example,
can only really be understood within the context of Nazi Germany. His
distrust of 'systematic theology' was part and parcel of an attempt to
defend the Lutheran church against the corrupting influence of Nazi
ideology. It's clear that Marx's philosophy takes as its starting
point the Hegelianism and Pietism of his youth, imbibed at home and at
school /university.

* *Granted. But the context of upbringing, and indoctrination at
rearing does not preclude the debate of the writings, themselves on
their own merits. Context permits understanding of motivations,
perhaps. And even subtle nuances in the content under contest. But
it does not, perforce, allow for the abject dismissal on context alone.

* *Which is what is presented in this thread.

* *One can, one must, debate the merits of the content on the
content. Not on the personality of the author.





* But you do not argue the points she puts forward. You
gratuitously, *dismiss them as flawed. But you offer no reasoning as to
why. Which could produce a fruitful, and intersting, discussion.

* * But you do not argue her points. You argue the personality of the
author.

Fine. I will play ball (as you quaint colonials say)
instead.

(Matter snipped.)

"In epistemology, she considered all knowledge to be based on sense
perception, the validity of which she considered axiomatic,[86] and
reason, which she described as "the faculty that identifies and
integrates the material provided by man's senses."[87]"

86.^ Peikoff, Leonard (1991). Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.
New York: E. P. Dutton1991, pp. 38–39; Gotthelf, Allan (2000). On Ayn
Rand. Wadsworth Philosophers Series. Belmont, California: Wadsworth
Publishing, p. 54
87.^ Rand 1964, Rand, Ayn). The Virtue of Selfishness. New York:
Penguin.p. 22

I have to tell you that a European *first year philosophy student
would have problems with that. You do not have to be Derrida or
Foucault to realise that one cannot be absolutely objective.

* *Nor has anyone asserted that one must. *She as merely asserted
that the input is sensory, and that reason collates the
understanding. If there is objectivity, a theoretical possiblity,
but practically rare, so much the better. If there is not, then that
must be sussed at the time of discussion. But the lack of absolute
objectivity does not invalidate the text.

* *There is hardly objectivity in any of the postings here. And yet,
there is a distinct bias in one direction to many of those deemed
good and acceptable, vs those that are not.

* *The difference is the point of debate. Not cause for dismissal.

The

concepts of post-modernist discourse theory and social construct
suggest that the empirical evidence of our senses is mediated through
a social construct much influenced by a variety of mental baggage. The
later Wittgenstein and his followers realised that the 'verification
principle' at the heart of logical positivism was not universally
applicable. We are, in fact, in the realm of probability theory
here....everything has to be banced on a gamble, an assumption (though
some assumptions have better odds than others). I do not think that
Ayn Rand could accept that, for she wanted certainties where none
existed.

* *Again, reason for debate of her content. Not dismissal based on
her personality, upbringing, or influences.

Again, you didn't read what I wrote, truncated it and presented
nothing
of your own. Because it is a work of fiction we cannot debate its
content.
All we can do is argue the philosophy being presented. That's why
I've
asked you over and over to start the argument in support of the
pholosophy
and ignore the story. The truth of the philosophy cannot in any way
depend
upon the story. It is a work of fiction.

* *Put that another way, there is nothing in her background that
precludes her from presenting true, meaningful, correct, or
important observations and conclusion. The presentations must be
debated on their face value. Not evaluated by her background and
upbringing.

Yes, but "Atlas Shrugged" is a work of fiction. It rests upon her
philosophy but does not support it. There are several types of
fiction. Some are intended to just be a good read while others
are intended to present a truth about the world. Ayn intended
the latter. One must extract the philosophy then evaluate it
on its own merits. If it is found wanting then one is left explaining
why the author believed it. Even if the philosophy is true then
the author's life history can explain how she came to her position.

* *Or more simply...one may say a true statement, even if one's
background does not support the saying of true statements.

* *It is the statement, itself, that must be debated for it's truth
or falseness. Not the background of the speaker. Or else, we have to
dismiss nearly all writings by those who write fiction, or those who
have overcome their upbringing.

And again, we can't argue "Atlas Shurgged" because it is a work
of fiction. What we can argue is the philosophy presented. I've
asked you over and over to start doing so. I've even given you a
brief counter and you deleted it complaining that I didn't present
any.

* *Rand presented theses in Atlas Shrugged that are roundly
dismissed, here, by virtue of her upbringing and the context of the
formation of her values.

Not true. I have tried to explain how she came to hold her beliefs.
I dismiss her philosophy because it is unsound. I've given hints and
made some statements straight out wich you dismiss without reason
because I don't want to discuss the book but rather the philosophy
presented in the book. I doubt you can't argue the philosophy so are
reduced to misunderstanding what I've written. I actually presented
an argument similar to Barry's in response to RHF. It would have
been much easier had you just started arguing the philosophy rather
than complain about Ayn's life history being prejudicial to her
beliefs.

But no one is debating the content of the
writing, itself. Only her motivations inferred from the politics of
the work, against her background.

* *The debate about her background is a valid debate. But it is not,
in fact, about the work. And it's the work that has made the bold
statements, here.

The work isn't worth debating. The philosophy is minimally worth
it. Please start arguing the philosophy. The author stackes the
deck in favor of her philosophy; that's how these things work. The
philosophy has to stand on its own.

On 4/18/11 09:09 , Gary Forbis wrote:
Because it is a work of fiction we cannot debate its
content.



Nonsense.

All allegory is fiction. And it's debated every day. 2001 was a
work of fiction and it was debated at the college level. 'the
prisoner' was a work of fiction, and in some schools, there have
been courses dedicated to it since 1968.

Brave New World was fiction. It was debated in every school I
attended.

The Republic was a work of fiction, and it may, in fact be the
most debated work in history, beyond The Bible.


An Inconvenient Truth was a work of fiction. And yet....well, Gore
won't debate that topic, will he....sorry, bad example.



That a work of fiction can't be debated on its content is utter
rubbish.