RoR: Forum

Rebirth of Reason

Forum : Article Discussions : The Inescapable Importance of Philosophy: the Root of and So...

Monday
May 17, 2010

The Inescapable Importance of Philosophy: the Root of and Solution to our Problems by Bob Palin

Have you ever wondered why seemingly intelligent, articulate people cannot seem to come to a consensus on the important issues facing our nation today? Or even on what the issues should be? Whether it’s the economy, foreign policy, immigration, gay marriage or any other issue you could name, the diversity of opinion is... (Read more...)
Discuss this Article (22 messages)

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 6:10am

That was nicely, said, Bob. You summarized well a set of statements that we all generally accept.

Before, I disagree, allow me to underscore the strongest congruences between your observations and my own.

And before I do that, I want to point out that we, too, like Hegelians, argue a dialectic. We debate thesis versus antithesis, though we rarely reach a synthesis. It is not just we here on RoR, of course, but generally, a a culture, we find less motivation in long replies that agree point-by-point, substantiating with new views what was said once. Rather, we all like to argue. I don't know why. Maybe it is the secret Hegelian influence in public education.

Anyway...

... Rand developed a system based on objective reality, reason, rational self-interest, capitalism and romantic realism. She named her philosophy “Objectivism.” ... What makes Objectivism especially important is that it treats philosophy as science. ... But Rand’s is the only philosophy compatible with the United States’ founding principles of inalienable rights, individualism, reason and freedom. ... The real root of our problems is bad philosophy. The only solution is good philosophy. [Ayn Rand] has given us a blueprint to understanding nature and our place in it, a blueprint that if followed could lead to a true golden age for man.

Objectivism is a rational-empirical philosophy. As such, it is a philosophy of and for science. The scientific method can be taught as three, five, or even fourteen steps. (See the Scientific Method website created by Norman W. Edmund, founder of the Edmund Scientific company.) But, as you would say, Bob, science begins after philosophy. Aristotle's "Metaphysics" only came "after physics" in placement of scrolls and manuscripts as he developed his lectures. Logically, metaphysics comes before physics. The scientific method assumes an objectivist epistemology, as well.

Benjamin Franklin is not remembered as a scientist -- though does get a nod as an "inventor," more of a tinkerer than a thinker. Not only was he inducted into the Royal Society of scientists for his work in electricity. He was called upon to investigate Franz Mesmer's claims of "animal magnetism." Also on the committee were Lavoissier and (ironically) Guillotine. Neither do we learn of Franklin as a capitalist philosopher. (The Road to Wealth here.) However, that essay appears almost verbatim in Max Weber's work, The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Weber relied on it to define a change in that Protestant Ethic which pointed to the development of capitalism in a way that the early religionists (Zwingli, Calvin, Luther) could never have foreseen. The point is, as you say, that objectivism, rational-empiricism, is the philosophy of the Enlightenment, supporting both science and capitalism.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 6:38am

Have you ever wondered why seemingly intelligent, articulate people cannot seem to come to a consensus on the important issues facing our nation today? ... He agreed with me on every single point I made. In spite of this, his conclusion was the exact opposite of my mine. Exasperated, I asked him how he could possibly agree with me on every point but disagree with my conclusion. He explained very matter-of-factly, “We have different philosophies.” My friend had identified for me the very root of our disagreement. And he was right.

The question, then, is why do people have the philosophies they do? You cannot logically argue a person out of a position they were not logically argued into. You assume that by speaking the truth, you will convince, convert or persuade others into accepting your views. You think that if you do this enough, the world will change. You think that Ayn Rand accomplished this, at least in some way, and her achievement suggests that further success is possible.

You might agree that you do not need to change "everyone's" mind but only influence (or provide) the philosophy of a handful of significant creators, prime movers, who will reshape our global society.

You might even see yourself as an example. Every regular poster here on RoR, the Atlas Society, the ARI, Objectivist Living, Noodlefood, or any other gathering can sing Amazing Grace. But that is not the anthem they sing when the real capitalists meet in Davos, Switzerland. In fact, part of what makes them successful is not having an anthem to sing -- their individual philosophies are tolerated by their peers who accept them on those terms.

You characterizations of cultures echoes Ayn Rand's easy sketch from the introductory essay, "For the New Intellectual." From AP History in high school in 1966 -- when I also took the Basic Principles of Objectivism course -- through my recent publication in The Celator about the great fairs of medieval Champagne, history looks more like this to me:   http://vimeo.com/3860805

I am not much for music. Rachmaninoff, Chopin, and Mozart sound as nice as Constance Demby and Sarah Brightman. Among my disks is one from Scientologists called "The Joy of Creating" -- nice music, modern jazz, very uplifting.  Got anything like that?

Do you know the works of Edward de Bono? It might be suggested that if we were all more creative, we would find better solutions, perhaps even see problems before they overwhelm us. I mentioned elsewhere seeking a doctorate by investigating misconduct and fraud in science. I recently read a book, Creativity: Ethics and Excellence in Science by Mike W. Martin. Dr. Martin suggests that "creativity" is not "lateral thinking" or an ineffable gift, but simply the mundane modes we all know so well, but only applied better. Martin's thesis is that all scientific creations are ethical inventions, i.e, realizations of morality with moral consequences. It is an interesting idea, one that I find consonant with Ayn Rand's consideration of morality as a Crusoe concept.

That is a specific innovation from Ayn Rand that I have carried successfully into the classroom. I don't think that I changed anyone's life, but I did seem to get through to several or many the idea that alone on an island you do need morality if you are to survive.

(Edited by Michael E. Marotta on 5/18, 7:09am)

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 5:06pm

When someone immigrates to the United States and upon being accepted as a registered resident is asked what their name is (or going to a judge to register a name change), the name that they state becomes their name, not a pseudonym.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 7:25pm

"Under Aristotle’s philosophy of reason, Greece flourished as the cradle of Western Civilization."

Historical note: Aristotle was the last important writer of the Hellenic era. The acheivements of Greek civilization came before him. This is of contemporary interest to Objectivists. ARI buys into Rand's top-down theory of cultural history (as does this article), so they cultivate academic philosophy. The Atlas Society and Tracinski, by contrast, go for a bottom-up pop-cultural approach. I'm optimistic that at least one of them is right.

Re #2: if you're talking about Rand, the biographers say she adopted her name after she had been in the US for a while, so it was indeed a pseudonym.

Tuesday, May 18, 2010 - 7:42pm

Peter just a nitpick if I may, Aristotle, according to how historians popularly categorize ancient Greek civilization, belonged to the Classical era, not the Hellenistic era which began after the death of Alexander the Great.

Btw, good essay Bob!

(Edited by John Armaos on 5/18, 7:43pm)

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 12:55am

people read anothers lifes work and expect in a moment to be tranformed into anothers view of themselves. if these people only took the word philosophy to heart and actually observed what others thinking did to influence their own existence they would have their own philosophy and identity themselves.
Blindly following a philosopher is just as hazardous as wantonly pursueing a prophet.The results will rupture ones ego. To learn and prosper from eithers reputation one has to remain the subject of the precedents teaching and patience.
Suppose a dustty stalwart of your past with the moniker of Sir lawrence of Arabia appeared in your future. Would you change your ego to adjust for your reasoning? Or would you take your knowledge of the mans past and adjust your future?
Suppose philosphers and prophets had one reasoin in life. to speculate and prosper long after you leave. HRB

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 6:05am

Good essay, Bob.
It reminded me of a quote I read recently:
"A good part of the answer to the question "Why philosophy?" is that the alternative to philosophy is not no philosophy, but bad philosophy."
Thanks,
Glenn

Wednesday, May 19, 2010 - 9:15pm

Excellent article, Bob.

Bravo.

Ed

Thursday, May 20, 2010 - 3:47pm

I posted a reply to an old essay that came to top at log-out, Jeff Landauer on "Aristotle and the Highest Good." I wrote:

According to the common knowledge bank at Wikipedia
It is during this period in Athens from 335 to 323 BC when Aristotle is believed to have composed many of his works.[5] Aristotle wrote many dialogues, only fragments of which survived. The works that have survived are in treatise form and were not, for the most part, intended for widespread publication, as they are generally thought to be lecture aids for his students. His most important treatises include Physics, Metaphysics, Nicomachean Ethics, Politics, De Anima (On the Soul) and Poetics.

Citations include
Jonathan Barnes, "Life and Work" in The Cambridge Companion to Aristotle (1995), p. 9.
Terence Irwin and Gail Fine, Cornell University, Aristotle: Introductory Readings. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Publishing Company, Inc. (1996), Introduction, pp. xi-xii.
McLeisch, Kenneth Cole (1999). Aristotle: The Great Philosophers. Routledge. p. 5. ISBN 0-415-92392-1.
Bertrand Russell, "A History of Western Philosophy", Simon & Schuster, 1972

And according to the New Advent Catholic Encyclopedia
(1) "Ethica Nicomachea"; (2) "Politica". The "Eudemian Ethics" and the "Magna moralia" are not of directly Aristotelean authorship.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01713a.htm

So, what "Aristotle" said or did not say must be separated from the historical Aristotle. It might not make much difference, but we are sticklers for details. I agree that Aristotle represented the high point of learning at that time. If you actually read him on factual topics, such as the shape of the Earth, you know that after an introduction, he catalogs what was said before by significant philosophers, then he gives his observations and reasons.

Peter Reidy used the word "Hellenic" not "Hellenistic" and maybe that means something. To me, the Mycenaean Era ran from perhaps 1600 BCE to 1100 BCE, from the arrival of the Dorians to the fall of Troy. Then followed the Heroic (or "Dark") Age until about 750 BCE, when people woke up, looked at the alarm clock and said, "Hey, honey, they Archaic Age has begun! Let's study philosphy,mint coins, choose tyyants and rent ourselves out as hoplite mercenaries." The Archaic Age ended in 480 BCE with the Persian Invasion. (Maybe it ended in 500 BCE with the collapse of the Ionian Revolt.) The Hellenistic Era, does begin with the Death of Alexander. When it becomes the "Roman" Era is subject to question. Some look at the Roman Conquest of Greece, but the Greeks themselves long considered not the peninsula but all of "Helliadas" from the Crimea to Spain, including both shores of the Mediterranean, so you might have to look at the Roman conquest of Egypt... if not Mauretania, when the daughter of Mark Antony and Cleopatra, Cleopatra Selene married King Juba II..

All of that being as it may,I have to agree with Harley Robert that one follows a philosopher best by not following them.

So, I ask Bob Palin the one question he must be waiting to answer: "How?"

Wednesday, June 2, 2010 - 6:32pm

Well regardless, I don't agree with Peter's characterization, which I interpret it to be an implication there were no important achievements in the ancient Greek world after Aristotle:

"The acheivements of Greek civilization came before [Aristotle]."

There's two centuries of scientific and artistic achievements in the Hellenistic era (after Aristotle). From Ptolemaic Egypt with scientists like Hiro inventing Steam power and mathematicians like Euclid, to Archimedes of Syracuse. Sculptures took on the most realistic form in this era, and schools of philosophy and medicine were still open all over the Greek-speaking world in the Hellenistic and Roman eras. Some Greek-speaking cities reached there zenith during this time, cities like Pergamon and Ephesus. And new cities were flourishing with scholars and artists like Alexandria.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/02, 7:56pm)

Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 8:51am

Yes, but the original article stated "Under Aristotle’s philosophy of reason, Greece flourished as the cradle of Western Civilization." The only plausible reading of this is the (inaccurate) claim that Aristotle came first and the rise of Greek civilization came later. Even if you limit yourself to acheivements that came after his time, to state that his influence caused them is only a post hoc.

Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 9:36am

Peter I think you're not giving enough credit to Aristotle for profoundly contributing to the Greek culture that proceeded him. I wouldn't say reason just sprang forth in its complete ideal form with nothing else prior to build upon it when Aristotle came around. Obviously there was an evolution of thought for Aristotle to draw upon. But I'd say Aristotelian philosophy was better than what came before, and because of this it had profound effects on Greek civilization. I will say that we probably owe much of the scientific achievements in the Hellenistic era to Aristotle to which ancient scientific inquiry I would say reached its zenith at this time. Archaeological discoveries like the Antikytheria device I think gives another concrete example of just how far their scientific and technological knowledge had come. Without Aristotle and his emphasis on developing a universal method for scientific inquiry including logic and sensory perception, you wouldn't have had an Alexander the Great that performed so well as a general because he relied on Aristotle's teachings of observation and then deliberation to defeat his opponents, to then have this culture spread throughout the eastern world that lead to the development of scholarly cities like Alexandria, Pergamon, Ephesus, with scientists like Hiro and Euclid etc. I'd say what came before Aristotle was profound because it was unique in the ancient world but it was small, limited mostly to Athens, what came after was an explosion in scholarly thought throughout the Mediterranean world.

Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 9:53am

What you present here is a testable hypothesis: Hellenistic science and technology descend from Aristotle. I'd have to see your data. The best way to show this would be to show that later Greek scientists explicitly cited him. Second best would be to show that their contemporaries reported this. You might know of others. James Lennox, an Objectivist and an expert on Aristotle's biology, notes that even his biology fell fairly quickly into obscurity after his death. To show that he was influential in fields that he didn't work in (or where he was dead wrong, such as cosmology and mechanics) would be a hard sell, but you're welcome to try.

Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 1:17pm

Hi Peter, I see that you have dropped the idea that Greek civilization achievements were limited to the classical era (before Aristotle) and in fact, the achievements in the Hellenistic era far surpassed what was accomplished in the classical era.

Since we've gotten that out of the way, as far as the influence that Aristotle had on the Hellenistic era I meant that this influence was more of his methodological approach to science and logic, not necessarily the actual scientific theories he put forth. In antiquity Greek scholars did not differentiate between philosophy and science, if you were one, you were the other. Since Aristotle had put forth the most comprehensive and superior methodology for scientific and logical inquiry up until that point, and the scientific progress that occurred after him in the ancient Greek speaking world I think you would now agree is evident and far superior to what transpired before, it's hard to not make the connection this was the logical conclusion of Aristotle's philosophy. Alexander the Great was taught by Aristotle, we know that Alexander used observation and careful deliberation to defeat his opponents, indeed this was within Aristotle's philosophy that the world could be understood through detailed observation and cataloging of phenomenon. We know what Alexander's legacy was, using the best military tactics the classical world had seen, tactics borne out of a philosophy that the world can be understood through observation and deliberation, leading to the inevitable conclusion of Greek culture spreading throughout most of the known world. Asking for specific incidences of Hellenistic scholars referencing Aristotle I think is unnecessary. Philosophical ideas when they gain traction permeate throughout society as a meme. Do scientists for instance today specifically cite philosophers who contributed to the scientific method in their papers? When a car company unveils the latest model, do they cite Henry Ford as their inspiration? Is it necessary to understand that without Henry Ford, there would be no Toyota, and you don't need Toyota's sanction of Henry Ford's contribution to understand the evolution of automotive knowledge and where it began? To not make the connection is simply being too concrete bound. For the most part you're not going to find people exhibiting specific behavior as a manifestation of their accepted philosophical principles while referencing the originator of those principles.

It's also difficult to ascertain how much value scholars from antiquity really put on specific cite references, something that is a more modern approach to research, but even this is red herring, Aristotle's contribution was in the methodology, not that actual scientific data. There's also the lack of source material that survived from antiquity, we don't for instance even know who invented the Antikytheria Device, nor was there any known reference to it. When it was discovered and only finally understood what it was only a few decades ago, no one had known the ancient world had reached that level of technological sophistication.

Thursday, June 3, 2010 - 1:41pm

Very well, if you say Aristotle's methodology, not his particular doctrines, was influential in Hellenistic times, show me the evidence for that. You say you aren't going to do this by either of the means I suggested, so use one of your choice. No amount of hand-waving and boilerplate Randian assertions is going to do the job.

"Do scientists for instance today specifically cite philosophers who contributed to the scientific method in their papers?"
Not every time, but historians can and do document this. Science and Liberty by Timothy Ferris, which I read recently and recommend enthusiastically, is a good example.

"When a car company unveils the latest model, do they cite Henry Ford as their inspiration?"
Same answer: no, but we can document a line of descent from Ford's innovations to the contemporary car industry.

Finally, I did not say that Greek acheivements were limited to the classical (Hellenic) era. Palin did. Take it up with him.

Friday, June 4, 2010 - 8:48am

Peter:

No amount of hand-waving and boilerplate Randian assertions is going to do the job.

Peter I'm disappointed to hear you use this inflammatory and unnecessary language. No need to resort to arguments from intimidation. I believe I am giving a reasonable argument for Aristotle's influence on the ancient Greek world. If you want to have a serious discussion on Aristotle then please leave the nonsense at the door.

"When a car company unveils the latest model, do they cite Henry Ford as their inspiration?"
Same answer: no, but we can document a line of descent from Ford's innovations to the contemporary car industry.

Well then we can do the same for Aristotle. Aristotle had one of the two most famous schools of philosophical inquiry in the classical era, his Lyceum or the Peripatetic school was more focused on observation rather than speculation and research rather than intuition. He opened a library which later libraries were modeled after in Pergamon and Alexandria. The library of Alexandria was organized by a student of Aristotle, Demetrius of Phaleron, a city founded by Alexander the Great, Aristotle's pupil, and the city that fostered the most scholarly thought and produced some of the best scientists in the Hellenistic era. Aristotle developed the best method for scientific inquiry, the scientists that succeeded him in the Hellenistic era exhibited the fruits of these philosophical principles, the only possible philosophical principles that could lead to any meaningful scientific success. The entire Hellenistic period of Ancient Greece can be attributed to the Macedonian, Aristotle, who taught his pupil Alexander the Great. Here we have a clear time-line of events that shows the consequence of Aristotle's teachings, which helped shaped the way the Hellenistic world would look like.

Finally, I did not say that Greek acheivements were limited to the classical (Hellenic) era.

Of course you did, this is what you wrote:

"The acheivements [sic] of Greek civilization came before [Aristotle]."

It of course begs the question, which achievements and which Greek civilization? You obviously meant to say that the only time period where Ancient Greece meant a damn to anyone was the time before Aristotle.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/04, 1:21pm)

Saturday, June 5, 2010 - 1:15am

Just because Ayn Rand chose not to follow no man is reason to exhibit contempt. as an example I can not even get my own daughters to tie their own shoes exactly like I tie mine. How ever it is a proud moment to observe that they have. Using their own volition so to speak.
If one is to be simply a follower how is one to remain objective. This Memorial Day weekend was spent reading, the Swordless Samurai. A biography of Toyotomi Hideyoshi authored by Kitami Masao. Edited with an introduction by Tim Clark. St. Martins Press. 2007.
Pretty thread bare ,yet it isn't.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 - 7:34am

If you don't like me to say "hand-waving", don't hand-wave.

If all the figures you name were following up on Aristotle, you'd think that at least some of them would have said so or that at least a few of their contemporaries would have noted the fact.

This reminds me of a point James Lennox made in his review of Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical: the difference between credible claims of influence and coulda/mighta/musta speculation is documentation. He gives the example of Darwin. Historians had a pretty good idea that Darwin was familiar with Malthus, but scholars could not state this as a fact until a manuscript came to light in which he said so. Science and Liberty, which I mentioned earlier, is another case in point. When Ferris claims that various Enlightenment figures (Paine, Jefferson, Smith) were influenced by Newton, he quotes them saying that they were.

In light of the sketchiness of documentation from ancient times, I would also accept point-for-point verbal similarities between Aristotle's texts and his putative followers' (which we nowadays call plagiarism). The assertion that only [Aristotelain] philosophical principles ... could lead to any meaningful scientific success is just what I'm questioning.

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 - 11:40am

Peter:

If you don't like me to say "hand-waving", don't hand-wave.

If you want an honest an sincere discussion, drop the insulting language. I'm not going to ask again. If you don't care to show a little respect why would any self-respecting individual continue a conversation with you?

If all the figures you name were following up on Aristotle, you'd think that at least some of them would have said so or that at least a few of their contemporaries would have noted the fact.

Peter the idea of scientists citing previous works and scholars in their own work is a recent modern addition to science. Please tell me which ancient scientists cited any sources for the philosophical principles they adopted? And what about the founder of the Library of Alexandria? Who was he? Who taught him? Which Hellenistic city produced some of the best scholars from that era? Who founded the city? Who taught him? The answers to all of this is from my previous post, and how do you respond? BLANK OUT.

The assertion that only [Aristotelain] philosophical principles ... could lead to any meaningful scientific success is just what I'm questioning.

Then please tell me Peter, WHICH ancient Greek philosophical principles did the Hellenistic era scientists draw from? Platonic? Aristotelian? Who? Which philosophy held that the world could be understood through observation and which one developed a formal structure for logic and recognizing fallacies in argumentation?

It's a matter of the available options Peter, you tell me who was their influence? No one? They didn't draw upon anything that was learned from the past and completely re-invented the wheel each time even though by extension these empires were created by Aristotle's student? Can you offer an explanation why the Hellenistic era produced some of the best scientists and mathematicians not seen before in antiquity?

If you have something better to offer, then please offer it. But if you're going to play the philosophical skeptic, where no truths can be known, then this conversation is pointless.

Good day.

(Edited by John Armaos on 6/08, 11:45am)

Tuesday, June 8, 2010 - 4:44pm

Randian, how is the term used?

I'm not aware of anyone who sincerely labels himself a Randian. As far as I know it is used as a slur to label someone who unyieldingly follows Ayn Rand as a cult personality, as a guru who can say no wrong.