| | Bill:
I'm relieved to know it's not his grammar.
If it was, would argument in support of that include examples?
For example, did Hayek believe that knowledge was absorbed through the soles of his feet, and only extended to his knees? If he did, it does not change one word or idea expressed by him on other, untelated topics. It would be moot. Yes, those ideas depend on how his mind actually works, but he wasn't putting forth on that topic. He could be wrong on that topic, and still be totally right on the topic he was writing about his entire life...which was not that.
What specifically is it about Hayek's 'philisophical theories of the nature and scope of knoweldge' that Randians object to? Was he too much of a Durkheim worshipper(unseen yet all seeing "S"ociety, which alone can furnish the minds and moulds necessary..." when he was writing Road to Serfdom, Fatal Conceit, Constitution of Liberty, etc? Ie, his actual interaction with us, as folks outside of his skin.
Or is it, because when we claim to be able to look into his very soul, we find him philisophically impure, as in:
Hayek recognizes that his epistemology undermines the idea of free will because it implies that the mind's operation is determined by the evolutionary interaction of the matter that comprises ourselves and the world around us. I point out, however, that Hayek responds to this implied determinism by explaining that it can have no practical impact on our day-to-day lives because, as he demonstrates, the complexity of the mind's evolution prevents us from ever knowing how we are determined to behave. Instead, we can only know our mind at the instant we experience it My interest in Hayek's theory of economics and self government, his contribution to the theory of man's interactions with man, are not impacted by his incomplete wonderings about automatic transmission repair, male erectile disfunction, or his religious belief about how the human mind 'really' does what it does. The latter is his meta-theory, not his theory. It is his incomplete religious belief on the topic of 'how his mind does what it does' and not 'what it does.' Could it be, he was wrong about ...how he actually did what he did? Ie, that which he didn't spend all his life writing about?
I can live with that. If I can only accept the utterings of True Believer /Knowers on the topic of 'how the human mind really works', then indeed, I'm a heretic in that wound way too tight clearly a church.
As much as I admire Rand, this says more about my uneasiness with the jarring army of 'Randians' that have sprung up in her wake, worshipping her. AS thumpers, to me, projectng litmus tests against ideas, seem just as crazy assed/cultish as bible thumpers. I think it says more about 'we just can't help it' then anything else. We love our parochial theories of everything -- to death.
regards,
Fred
|
|
