From: holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes)
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Organization: Boise State University Math Dept.
Date: Tue, 15 Sep 1992 18:18:13 GMT

In article <BuMG6E.80H@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>In article <1992Sep14.171912.21763@guinness.idbsu.edu> holmes@opal.idbsu.edu (Randall Holmes) writes:
>>In article <BuJyoq.75v@quake.sylmar.ca.us> brian@quake.sylmar.ca.us (Brian K. Yoder) writes:
>>>In article <1992Sep12.220522.17755@wuecl.wustl.edu> jaf@wucs1.wustl.edu (Andy Fingerhut) writes:
[...]
>
>>I suggest Bertrand Russell's history of philosophy.
>
>I have not read that one.  Is it pretty straight, or is it full of Russellisms?
>

I'm not sure what you mean by "Russellisms".  The low opinion which
Rand, and thus Objectivists in general, have of Russell is
unjustified.  I think that Russell is reasonably objective; I haven't
read the book in a long time.  He is always a good writer.

[...]
>
>>>"The Portable Nietzsche" translated byWalter Kaufmann - This is a good
>>>collection of Nietzsche's work.  I really like the "Viking Portable Library"
>>>collections in general.  I also recommend that you avoid translations by 
>>>folks other than Walter Kaufmann, his translations are much better than some
>>>others I have read.
>
>>I think that it is much more plausible to cast Nietzsche as the Enemy
>>than Kant; but Rand was originally a dsiciple of Nietzsche.
>
>Rand thought he was pretty bad too.  She (and other prominent objectivists)
>are often asked about their relationship with Nietzsche, and the answer I have
>always heard from them has been the same...he's a terrible mystic who
>represents a philosophy diametrically opposed to objectivism.  Various folks
>have written about Rand's supposed "Nietzschean Period", but I have never 
>read anything that would lead me to believe she could ever have been considered
>a "disciple".  She mentioned that she read him and liked a lot of things 
>he wrote (as did I), but that doesn't make one a disciple.  Look, the guy's 
>a great writer, but his philosophy is pretty disorganized and irrational.
>

Rand is recognizably a philosophical heir of Nietzsche in certain areas. 

>[...]
>>It involves application of mathematical logic to
>>philosophy, a much more promising route.  Wittgenstein did not do a
>>very good job, however.  Read Bertrand Russell, _Principles of
>>Mathematics_, or _Principia Mathematica_; but this is very technical
>>stuff.  Along the same lines, read W.V. Quine, any book of essays and
>>_Word and Object_.  This is sensible stuff, but always very technical
>>(the applications to daily life are not clear).  Quine never wrote
>>about ethics, alas.  Read Karl Popper on philosophy of science.
>
>Yes, I should have mentioned Popper too.  I wasn't inclined to mention Russell
>and Quine for the very reason that it has nothing to do with reality.  I
>suppose it's important to see that first hand though.

The work of Russell and Quine has _everything_ to do with reality.
The problem with seeing this is that it is at a very high level of
abstraction.  But those very high levels of abstraction influence real
life through developments in mathematics and science.  Lately, it is
getting harder to avoid this conclusion; Russell's type theory (with
intuitionistic logic, horror of horrors for an Objectivist) is
practically useful now in _computer science_, of all places.  A
problem specific to Objectivists is that their account of
"abstraction" is completely inadequate, which further hinders "seeing
the point" in this area.

>
>>An early modern philosopher not mentioned is Spinoza; read _Ethics_
>>with a commentary to tell you what the terminaology really means.  It
>>can't be all bad; Peikoff even gives it a good word!
>
>Actually, I kind of like Spinoza's methodical presentation, which I
>believe is one of the things that Peikoff recommends it for.

Peikoff explicitly commends his ethical system (with qualifications).

[...]
>
>--Brian


-- 
The opinions expressed		|     --Sincerely,
above are not the "official"	|     M. Randall Holmes
opinions of any person		|     Math. Dept., Boise State Univ.
or institution.			|     holmes@opal.idbsu.edu
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta