Re: Immanuel Kant (1 of 3)
BackVideo Cam Direct Upload
Channel: Entertainment
Uploaded: October 26, 2007 at 8:20 pm
Author: TheCarruths
Length: 00:09:34
Rating: 4.83
Views: 4012
Tags: Ayn Rand Objectivism Mrcropper immanuel kant reason virtue peikoff OPAR philosophy ethics morality catagorical
Video Comments:
elysiumseeker (August 19, 2008 at 11:22 am)
Would you agree that to be a completely free thinker, you must rid yourself of any previous conceptions, as even the axiom of rationality can act as a restriction? Would you also agree, that to experience the infinite nature of existence, we must be able to think for oursleves, unshackled by previous, imperfect ideas. If you do, you are Kantien. If you don't... Well, I'd assume you are not a philosopher.
djangothecat (August 17, 2008 at 8:37 pm)
Not trying to get involved with this debate, BUT, I have read a lot of Ayn Rand and I can guarantee that she has not only read Kant, but probably studied him critically along with most other 'important' philosophers. The reason I am so sure is that in her lecture "Philosophy, Who Needs It?" she recommends reading Kant and many other philosophers who she disagrees with so that each person can make up THEIR OWN mind on who is correct and to know who your enemies are. That is my evidence. Thanks
TheCarruths (August 19, 2008 at 4:12 pm)
I'd suggest reading the full text of that lecture with some scrutiny. Rand's strokes throughout are brushups on basic vocabulary and philosophical synopsis' that would be an embarrassment as a footnote in a syllabus as preamble for a declaration of intellectual conquest. At the point in her career when she started becoming vocal about Kant, she had heard ABOUT Kant, but her assessments indicate either that she had only heard...
TheCarruths (August 19, 2008 at 4:18 pm)
... or found her much vaunted critical mind unequal to the task of understanding his work. His definitive contributions to western thought span nearly 2000 pages of meticulous, exhaustive epistemology. The predicate logic transliteration of his "critiques" is 550 standard pages long and is self-checking. Kant is an epistemologist in the way that Milton is a poet.
TheCarruths (August 19, 2008 at 4:23 pm)
Rand, on the other hand, paints Kant as a paper tiger of doubt and vagueness. Her objections to the dismay he expresses on the limitations of logic are, themselves, vague and doubtful, phantasms of intellectual frustration and the dread that logic may well NOT be a complete, self-validating system. Rand was reacting from the gut to philosophic trends in her day helmed by academic minds far more expert and unflinching than her own.
djangothecat (August 19, 2008 at 4:28 pm)
I'm interested in knowing where you found information that says "at the point in her career when she started becoming vocal about Kant, she had only heard ABOUT him." Is that from a biography or is that your assessment of her assessment. I'm always open to reading and finding out the facts when they are available. Let me know where you found that out.
Thanks
Thanks
TheCarruths (August 19, 2008 at 4:44 pm)
Her assessments are telling in their own right, but Barbara and Nathaniel Branden both commented (at length) on her general ignorance of philosophy beyond the realms of party conversation. Most telling is her livid hatred of Kant, Hume, Hegel, etc (never described in more detail than an epithet and dismissal) when she borrows liberally (and unknowingly) from their ideas. Quick question: apart from Aristotle, who does she credit or give quotation attribution to?
TheCarruths (August 19, 2008 at 4:46 pm)
Either she knows her sources and derides them in a sense of self-satire and was taken far more seriously than she intended, doesn't know her sources and her criticisms are a sham, or knows her sources and obfuscated them to retain the air of "originality" that was, and is, her gospel. Which is preferable: a joke, a sham, or a thief?
JaenVho (June 3, 2008 at 3:03 pm)
Phillebeau, you have a problem. It is called ignorance.
3rdWorldCrusader (May 22, 2008 at 7:09 pm)
its usually said "Cont" not "Cant"