|
Does a philosophy need to be integrated? If it is reflective of real life, how logically consistent and coherent can it be? If real life is absurd, how relevant is a philosophy that is neat and well-organized?
The existentialists have said that systematic philosophies are like the homes one looks at in magazines which display beautiful homes. They are nice to look at but not really good places in which to actually live. The foundations may crumble when real people need them the most. When we actually meet people in the street, the beautiful structures of systematic philosophies are of little use. How valuable was Objectivism to Ayn Rand when she was having her personal crises with the Brandens?
When people integrate knowledge into a system or an edifice, it is like putting pieces of a jigsaw puzzle together. Each piece has to fit into a proper slot and relate to the other pieces already there. If a piece doesn’t fit, one can leave it out. Perhaps it isn’t true, not knowledge worthy of this puzzle. Or, maybe it is the one piece of information which disproves the entire system. How can one tell? There is also the temptation to force pieces to fit where they don’t belong. Does free-will belong in a system where reality is objective and governed by unbroken cause and effect? Isn’t it just an example of wishful thinking; something that is not very objective?
One can say there can be no contradictions. Okay, what does one do, then, with paradoxes? Are they to be ignored? Goedel’s incompleteness theorem is based on a logical version of the Liar’s paradox, and it holds up. Serious logicians take it seriously, but many Objectivists sort of dismiss it. It doesn’t fit with their complete and closed system, or edifice. Can there be uncertainty? Do Objectivists take Heisenberg seriously? No, his views also don’t fit into their patterns, their integrations. Do racist bigots accept that all humans are, qua human, equal? No, that doesn’t fit into their integrations. Is there some way to know that Objectivism is better than systems or edifices of bigots? Or, is there no difference?
One can’t verify logic with logic. According to John Hospers, one can only vindicate its use. Is this for the only means to derive knowledge from the senses?
And, what about those senses? Our eyes have a blind spot for which we compensate by filling in the gaps with hallucination. Empirical evidence is not very pure. Therefore, it seems logical that evidence abstracted from empirical evidence must also be suspect. And, since deductive reasoning is circular and supported by inductive reasoning, which is inconclusive, what is certainty?
When Objectivists place so much emphasis on logic and reason, are they merely looking for another god to replace the one they rejected? Is their integrated system just another secure place where they can try to find comfort, escape from a world that doesn’t make sense, that is perhaps beyond rational comprehension? Is it a safety net, a security blanket, training wheels, crutches on which to lean? Are Objectivists afraid to face a life without such devices? Can they admit that life is absurd, that there is no pre-existing meaning or purpose for man, that man is truly free to put his own meaning into the world?
Well, I’m waiting for someone to discuss this with me. David Kelley said that discussion and debate should be encouraged. Yet, David Kelley hasn’t come to this board to discuss and debate. Does he not really believe what he said? Was it all nice sounding words to make the edifice more pretty? Are he and his friends going to call my posts “baiting” and condemn me, perhaps ban me from this board like Kelley was banned from the ARI? Like I was banned from Michael Stuart Kelly’s and Joseph Rollin’s board? Will they dismiss me saying that I really haven’t mastered Objectivism and Objectivist philosophical literature yet? Or, will they just ignore me, as they have been doing nicely, letting me stew in my own jucies?
Bis bald,
Nick
|