| | Neil, Mary, Francois, Henry, ethan, Rick,
Ayn Rand said:
"The truth or falsehood of all of man's conclusions, inferences, thought and knowledge rests on the truth or falsehood of his definitions."
She added parenthetically the following:
"(The above applies only to valid concepts. There are such things as invalid concepts, i.e., words that represent attempts to integrate errors, contradictions or false propositions, such as concepts originating in mysticism—or words without specific definitions, without referrants, which can mean anything to anyone, such as modern "anti-concepts." Invalid concepts appear occasionally in men's languages, but are usually—though not necessarily—short-lived, since they lead to cognitive dead-ends. An invalid concept invalidates every proposition or process of thought in which it is used as a cognitive assertion.)"
[Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, "Definitions," p.65]
At the end is one of the most important sentences in all of Ayn Rand's philosophy: An invalid concept invalidates every proposition or process of thought in which it is used as a cognitive assertion.
Neil identifies himself as a, "theist," and defines "mysticism" thus: The "epistemological" definition of mysticism is: "In its most important sense, the terms refer to the union with God which is seen as the ultimate goal of the Christian life. This union is not to be thought of in rational terms, but more in terms of a direct consciousness or experience of God."
A theist is one who asserts there is a, "diety," or God. Both Neil and Mary have flatly refused to tell us what a "God" is, meaning it is a word with no definition at all. It is certainly a candidate for being an invalid concept.
As for mysticism. Neil provides the very narrow meaning used only by theologians and those religious philosophers like Augustine, the schoolmen, and Aquinas, but certainly not any of the other philosophers, and certainly not by the Greek philosophers who preceded them all and invented the concept of mysticism:
"mysticism (Gk., mysterion, from mystes, "one initiated in the mysteries or secrets of a truer reality"). 1. The belief that the ultimate truth about reality can be obtained neither by ordinary experience not by the intellect by only by the MYSTICAL EXPERIENCE or by nonrational MYSTICAL INTUITION. The nature of reality is inexpressible and cannot be experienced in any ordinary experiential and rational way. 2. The nonrational, nonordinary experience of all-inclusive reality (or often of a transcendant reality) whereby the separateness of the self is merged with that reality usually regarded as the source or ground for the existence of all things. Mysticism believes that rational knowledge stresses differentiations, distinctions, separation, individuation; it distorts reality, and is therefore illusory."
[Dictionary of Philosophy, by Peter A. Angeles, p. 182]
Ayn Rand's use of the word mysticism was not her own private meaning at all. It is exactly the meaning it has always had in all of history since the Greeks invented it. It is an inclusive concept, the referrants are every variation of supposed knowledge derived by any means other than reason from the evidence, and applies to all religious and philosophical varieties, from the so-called "mystic wisdom" of the Vedas to the Christian concepts of "inspiration," and "revelation," to the mystic notions of "a priori" knowledge and mystic idealism in philosophy.
Pythagoras was the father of all modern versions of mysticism in both religion and philosophy.
There is hardly a philosopher Ayn Rand had more contempt for than Bertrand Russell (with the exception of Kant, of course), but Mr. Russell was a first rate mind, even if his own philosophy was mostly nonsense. He had an uncanny sense of history, however, and especially of the influence of philosophy on historical events.
Russell, as Neil mentioned, used mysticism in precisely the same way Rand did, because he understood the meaning of that word. Here is something from his History or Western Philosophy "Pythagoras", p. 37:
"The combination of mathematics and theology, which began with Pythagoras, characterized religious philosophy in Greece, in the Middle Ages, and in modern times down to Kant. Orphism before Pythagoras was analogous to Asiatic mystery religion. But in Plato, Saint Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Descartes, Spinoza, and Kant there is an intimate blending of religion and reasoning, of moral aspiration with logical admiration of what is timeless, which comes from Pythagoras, and distinguishes the intellectualized theology of Europe form the more straightforward mysticism of Asia. It is only in quite recent times that it has been possible to say clearly where Pythagoras was wrong. I do not know of any other man who has been as influential as he was in the sphere of thought. I say this because what appears as Platonism is, when analysed, found to be in essence Pythogoreanism. The whole conception of an eternal world, revealed to the intellect but not to the senses, is derived from him. But for him, Christians would not have thought of Christ as the Word; but for him, theologians would not have sought logical proofs of God and immorality. But in him all this is still implicit."
(I'm sure Rand never read this and would have found it amazing. I think she would have made changes in her epistemology if she had.)
In any case, it is obvious Mr. Parille's major points, that Ayn Rand did not really understand (or used her own meaning) of mysticism is totally incorrect, and his use of the undefined and therefore invalid concept of "God," totally "invalidates" his little screed.
Ayn Rand was not a student of religion. It is likely she didn't understand all of the subtle rationalizations of religionists. Why should she. Once you have established something is bunk, there is no need study every variation and permutation of it. When you discover you have stepped in to cesspool, you don't stop and study it, you get out of it as quickly as you can.
Regi
|
|
