On 4/18/11 13:07 , Barry wrote:
On Apr 18, 1:52 pm, "D. Peter 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.

You have just contradicted yourself. We are all chidren of our times.
How can you possibly divorce a person's upbringing from their
opinions?

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.

But her problem is that she leaves it at that. She is a bigger
materialist than Marx!



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.

It does if your entire epistemology is rooted in absolute objectivity!


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.

I'm not talking about objectivity as a means of defining bias. It goes
deeper than that. this is a debate about the nature of reality itself!


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.

We have moved on from the personality issue. I was raising a
fundamental objection to her concept of objectivity.


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.

But in a discussion of social construct, how do we avoid our mental
baggage?


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

A true statement? Now that opens a conceptual can of worms!


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.

I'm sorry but you are still talking at cross purposes. I want to
debate 'objectivism' versus 'post-modernism'. You don't seem to
realise that.

Yes, you do. But only in the context of the author's background.
That is only relevant if we are discussing the author.

I see perhaps I've not been clear.

My point in jumping into this thread is that the sum of the
discussion, your own position excluded, has been that the film's
release has been roundly dismissed, as has Rand's work based on her
background, the conflicts that would appear to have risen between
the work and her background, but not the work, itself.

In the context of this thread, the condemnation being of the
teller, not the tale. And using the condemnation of the teller to
dismiss the tale.

This is as absurd as dismissing the humor of Groucho Marx because
he was chronically depressed. Or dismissing the speeches of Ted
Kennedy about the need of the society to uplift the poor because he
was raised as a child of privilege.

The work stands on its own. Regardless of the author's past. Or
even her own philosophy. You seem willing to debate at least the
substance of the themes of the work. And kudos to you.

That would make, in all, two, who have participated in this
thread, so willing. The rest are just abject dismissals without
addressing the content.


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

I am trying to deabate the content. What did you think I was trying to
do?



Look, forget the first part of my posting and please re-read the
second, after the quote and citations. Then we might be both singing
from the same hymn sheet....


I see where you're coming from. And your points about
specifically Rand's thinking and the philosophies engaged, here.



Do you have a view on the post-modernist critique of rationalism and
structuralism?



Yes, I do. And thank you for asking. But my philosophies are not
at issue here.

What I have a problem in all of this, here, is this statement,
which is in fact at the core of this thread:


But in a discussion of social construct, how do we avoid our mental
baggage?


We, in fact, can. No one says it's easy. But it is possible. But
why must we? You have your baggage, I have mine, Rand had hers. And
from what I've read, quite a porter of it. So, what? In a practical
and honest discussion, the baggage cancels itself out so that facts
can be debated. But even that's not the issue that brought me into
this thread.

It's the tale, not the teller, that's been at issue in the
thread. Specifically, the dismissal of the work based on the
author's upbringing. My point in all of this is that there's been a
cheap sophistic attempt to dismiss the work, largely because it
doesn't suit the tastes of a political body. And the argument has
been couched in rhetoric that seeks to tie the baggage of the author
into the the merits of the work. This is not a valid disposition.
Else, we must dismiss everyone who's ever written, because of their
own conflicting baggage. Including Lenin, Plato, Nietzsche, or
Groucho Marx.