Category: Rand not logical

Greenspan contradicts Rand’s philosophy 1.5A, II.1 and II.2

Part II: Greenspan contradicts Rand’s philosophy.

  1. Bank reserves, Greenspan vs Brandon
  2. Inflation, Greenspan vs Rand

II.1:Bank reserves, Greenspan vs Brandon

Many people incorrectly think banks loan part of the customer’s deposit and keep part as a reserve. For example, Nathaniel Brandon, a psychologist writing in the same book as Greenspan’s essay, published by Ayn Rand,

“… Banks do not have unlimited funds to loan; they are limited in the credit they can extend by the amount of their gold reserves.”v

Mr. Greenspan, a trained economist, is clear that is not the case,

“This enables the banker to loan out more than the amount of his gold deposits…vi”. “… holds claims to gold rather than gold as security…vii”. Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

Many people think a gold standard will regulate the supply of money. For Mr. Brandon, the requirements of production must be within how much gold already exists,

“On a gold standard… the supply of money and credit needed to finance business ventures is determined by objective economic factors… the principles governing money supply…viii”

In Ayn Rand’s philosophy, the “objective” economic factor in this case would be the presence or absence of the physical gold.

Mr. Greenspan says gold based banks do the opposite, as they

“create bank notes (currency) and deposits, according to the production requirements of the economy.”ix Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

For Mr. Brandon, the limited supply of gold money tells banks to slow down business activity:

“… in response to the shrinking availability of money… funds are more difficult to obtain… curtailment and contraction of business investment.x ”

For Mr. Greenspan, slow business activity tells banks to limit the supply of money,

“But when business ventures financed by bank loans are less profitable and slow to pay off, bankers soon… curtail new lending… restrict financing…xi ” Greenspan contradicts Brandon.

Once Greenspan is deciphered, the meaning is highly controversial for people who think a laissez faire gold economy automatically does the right thing; that is – the amount of gold available is what determines “the production requirements of the economy”; that people shouldn’t decide production requirements and create currency to match. The idea that money has to be deliberately manipulated to make the economy work is offensive to them. Many people who want a gold standard, want it because they think it prevents human interference with the natural order of things.

Those people are strongly represented in the fan base for Ayn Rand. Greenspan didn’t want to offend them. But he also had to reassure bankers that Objectivism was on their side. So he used technical terminology that regular folks wouldn’t recognize and simply left out any explanation of actual practices.

II.2: Inflation, Greenspan vs Rand

Greenspan advocates “created bank notes” generated by extending credit, based on debt.

This contradicts Rand, who wrote,

“The most disastrous loss… is the loss of the concept that money stands for existing, but unconsumed goods.”xii

Rand disapproves of

“…paper money which is used as a claim check on actually existing goods- but that money is not backed by any goods, it is not backed by gold, it is backed by nothing. It is a promissory note issued to you in exchange for your goods to be paid by you… out of your future production.xiii” “… this dear readers is the cause, the pattern, and the outcome of inflation.xiv”

Rand denigrates what Greenspan advocates. Bank notes are also called promissory notes. The ones the Borrower spends are created out of nothing, cost the banker nothing and are backed by nothing except the future production of the market, which must generate enough income for the Borrower to pay the loan. Yet these promissory notes are in the marketplace competing with actual gold. It is the definition of inflation in a gold economy.

Rand’s philosophy requires money to represent savings from past production. Money based on future production is a major violation. Rand and Greenspan contradict each other.

Rand was wrong when she said,

“Only one institution can arrogate to itself the power legally to trade in rubber checks: the government. And it is the only institution that can mortgage your future without your knowledge or consent: government securities (and paper money) are promissory notes on future tax receipts, i.e., on your future production.”xv

Greenspan asserts the bank based on gold can do the same thing. Merchants and communities don’t have knowledge of, or consent to, the risk these bank notes represent. Greenspan contradicts Rand.

Ayn Rand authorized the publication of Greenspan’s contradictory essay in her magazine and book as appropriate for her economic philosophy; therefore, Ayn Rand contradicts herself.

vPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viiPg 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

viiiPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

ixPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xPg 78 Common Fallacies About Capitalism, by Nathaniel Brandon, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xiPg 97 and 98 Gold and Economic Freedom, by Alan Greenspan, Capitalism the Unknown Ideal, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1967

xii133 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xiii133 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xiv128 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

xv129 Inflation and Egalitarianism, Philosophy Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Books USA1984

Talking to Rand Fans 1.3A, B, and C.

Talking to Rand Fans, 1.3A. Introduction, The Virtue of Selfishness, 1.3B and C are further below.

Sentences 1 through 4i:  In Rand’s first four sentences are elements of Rand’s rhetoric which can be found throughout the Objectivist canon. Rand’s rhetoric may affect a Rand Fan’s ability to converse with other people.

Sentence One: “The title of this book might evoke the type of question that I hear once in a while, ‘why do you use the word “selfishness” to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people for whom it does not mean the things you mean?’”

  • Rand introduces the first strong, negative emotion, “antagonizes”.
  • Rand tells us that she is important. People ask her questions. Her words cause strong reactions in the general public. “So many people” are “antagonized”; instead of puzzled. Or dismissive.
  • Rand has been told that her definition of “selfishness” is different than most English speakers.
  • Rand is aware that her use of words is not emotionally neutral.
  • Rand’s world is a world of conflict. There are so many antagonists out there.
  • The population of this sentence is Rand, several questioners, the many people who have been antagonized and the reader. There is no single individual in Rand’s rhetoric. It’s crowds of people.

Sentence Two: “To those who ask it, my answer is, ‘For the same reason you fear it.’”

  • She introduces another strong, negative emotion in the second sentence, “fear”.
  • She makes an accusation based on a ridiculous assumption. Who reading the phrase “Virtue of Selfishness” felt fear? Nobody. It is purely a product of Rand’s rhetoric.
  • Since nobody felt fear, there is no way to know what reason she is talking about. We are more in the dark than when we started.
  • She says she is deliberately antagonizing people.
  • Rand claims to be responding to people’s questions. She didn’t start this.

Sentence Three: “But there are others who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, but who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved.”

  • She introduces more people.
  • She introduces a third strong, negative emotion in the third sentence, “cowardice”.
  • She makes an accusation of moral cowardice for simply asking what she means.
  • Her new characters are not capable of “formulating” or “identifying” what Rand is talking about. Rand is saying that these folks are without the necessary intellectual ability to understand her profound issues and clever reasoning. Or she is saying that she is incomprehensible, but that is unlikely.
  • These new people aren’t using rational thought, but “sensing” things accurately- seemingly in contradiction to Rand’s philosophy of rationality.
  • Rand’s new friends agree that questions are for cowards.
  • If these people do not ask questions and cannot verbalize her reasoning or discuss the issue, Rand cannot know they sense cowardice; and she cannot deduce an inability to formulate or identify from their silence. Perhaps they are fictional people.
  • She claims her choice of words is due to a “profound” moral issue; reminding us that she is an intellectual, plumbing depths others cannot formulate or identify.

Sentence Four: “It is to them I will give a more explicit answer.”

•     She deigns to inform the stupid, but not the cowards. The ignorant people and the cowardly evaders show up repeatedly in Objectivist material. The premise of her philosophy is that it is objectively true, meaning you can see it. Therefore, everybody already agrees with Ayn Rand; except through lack of knowledge or suicidal pretense. There is no other reason for questioning Rand, for it is simply not possible to have any other concept of reality. “Only through ignorance or evasion can a man project such an alternative.”ii

Summing up the first four sentences: In a barrage of emotions and accusations, Rand has just told us what she thinks of people who question her. If you ask a Rand Fan questions, they have already been told you are a moral coward and an antagonist. Or you are ignorant and inarticulate. If the conversation doesn’t go well, maybe one of the reasons is Ayn Rand’s rhetoric.

Next: Talking to Rand Fans 1.3B, continuing a close analysis of The Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness[1], sentences 5 through 8.

The story so far: Rand is explaining the meaning of the word “selfishness”.

Sentence 5: “This is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice.”

  • Since “semantic” means “having to do with signification and meaning” and Rand is explaining the meaning of a word; then this by definition is a semantic issue. Rand’s statement does not make sense.
  • The word “mere” is used frequently by Rand to impart disparagement.
  • The phrase “mere semantic issue” is a cliché which means that semantics are a petty concern. Since we see below that Rand feels the issue is one of the most important facing mankind and not “mere” at all, the cliché is not applicable.
  • She disparages “semantics” because the field of semantics contradicts her theory that language has no meaning beyond words which refer to things.
  • She disparages “choice” because it implies there is more to words and concepts than the mechanical application of her “Logic of Non-contradictory Identification”[2]. As she says elsewhere, “This does not meant the content of concepts depends on an individual’s subjective (arbitrary) choice. The only issue open to an individual’s choice in this matter is how much knowledge he will seek to acquire… …of the facts of reality.”[3] (Parenthesis in Rand’s original.)
  • The word “arbitrary” is often used by Rand to disparage individual choice and subjectivity.

Sentence 6: “The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word ‘selfishness’ is not merely wrong; it represents an intellectual ‘package-deal’ which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.”

  • Rand provides no evidence for her assertion that mankind, comprised of all humans on earth, possesses a unified belief system which, as a whole, can develop or be arrested.
  • Rand’s assertion that the morality of the human race is arrested is contradicted by Rand’s usage of the word selfishness. Since Rand’s use of the word is not the popular usage and her ethics are in opposition to the “package deal” about to be explained, her morality and the morality of people who share her views must not be arrested. Since she, and they, are human beings; mankind cannot be said to have arrested moral development. Her statement is meaningless.
  • Her statement assumes the premise that morality “develops”.
  • She believes the way most people speak English is wrong.

Sentence 7: “In popular usage, the word “selfishness “ is a synonym of evil: the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.”

  • She packs the sentence with negatively charged words- “evil, murderous, brute, tramples, corpses, no, nothing, mindless”. While it is her choice to do so, she ascribes it to “the popular usage”.
  • She chooses repellent imagery of violence which arouses strong emotional response- “murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses’’. She blames the other side for this, hoping that if you reject the imagery, you should reject the other side.
  • The level of hyperbole invites ridicule of the purported popular usage.
  • She creates a straw man for her argument. Suppose the image of “selfishness” for most people was: a child who refuses to share and ruins a birthday party by eating all the cake. That example would not support her claim for a synonym of evil. Or suppose the image of a pathetic miser, calculating and scheming alone with his gold. That would not support her characterization of “mindless whims of the immediate moment”. Neither of those examples suit her violent rhetorical style; yet, both of those examples fit the popular usage of “selfishness”.
  • Rand disparages choice as transient conviction, mindless and a word she frequently uses for it, “whim”. By nestling her disparagement within the purported popular usage, she creates a false agreement with her premises.

Sentence 8: “Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one’s own interests.” (italics in Rand’s original)

  • The Oxford Dictionary of the English Language provides a different definition[4]. Rand’s statement is false. This is the only fact-checkable statement in eight sentences and it is false.
  • A “dictionary” definition of any word is merely a documentation of how that word has been used by people[5]. If people change their use of a word, dictionaries change their definitions. When Rand draws a distinction between popular usage and a dictionary definition, she is making an error.
  • Since dictionaries are a record of popular usage; if this sentence were true, then Rand’s description of popular usage in the previous sentence would be false.
  • No word has an “exact meaning”[6]. Rand’s statement is nonsensical.
  • If Rand’s definition were true, it would mean that the moral development of the entire human race would not have been arrested if only somebody had read the dictionary.
  • If Rand’s definition were true, the people who read dictionaries and the people who write them would not be subject to arrested morals. Therefore, mankind as a whole would not have arrested morals. Rand has contradicted herself.

Talking to Rand Fans 1.3C: Summing up the first eight sentences of the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness.

In these eight sentences, Rand refers to people 29 different ways. She makes six references to herself: she hears questions, her use of the word selfishness is known to other people, she uses selfishness differently than other people, she has an answer, she has an actual reason, she gives a more explicit answer.

Of the 23 references to other people:

  • 13 references are negative: People who are antagonized, fear the word selfish, are moral cowards, cannot formulate her reasons, cannot identify profound moral issues, have arrested moral development, are the populous which uses “selfishness” incorrectly, pursue immediate gratification. Also, murderous, brute, corpses, uncaring, and mindless.
  • Nine references are neutral: People who question her- three times. Then; many people, people who have a different meaning for selfishness, a person with ends, a person with interests, living being and those who do not question her.
  • Six of the nine neutral references are associated with a negative reference, e.g. a questioner (neutral) is also a moral coward (negative), “many people” are “antagonized”, etc.
  • Only one reference to other people could be interpreted as positive: the people who do not question her because they sense moral cowardice. However, this reference is associated with the negative references of being unable to formulate reasons or identify moral issues.

The first eight sentences of the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness are an introduction to Ayn Rand’s violent, demeaning rhetorical style. Verbal abuse is what Rand Fans are used to. If you question a Rand Fan and get an aggressive tirade of insults, violent imagery and hyperbolic bombast- Ayn Rand’s rhetoric might be why.

[1] The sentences are all from pg. vii, Introduction, The Virtue of Selfishness, Ayn Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1964

[2] pg 11, Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library, 1967

[3] pg 56, Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library, 1967

[4] Oxford Unabridged

[5] pg. 34, 35, Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action,Harcourt Brace & Co. 1992

[6] ibid

[7] pg 56, Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library, 1967

ipg. vii, The Virtue of Selfishness Introduction, Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1964

iipg. 157, Piekoff, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library 1967

Rand vs South America

Ayn Rand tells this storyi. She claims to know the protagonist. This is a paraphrased version of what she wrote.

  • A factory in South America was operating at 45% of capacity. An “American” college kid was hired to turn things around. The kid noticed the wages were very low and decided the workers didn’t have enough incentive. He suggested paying by the piece. The wise, old factory manager told him it wouldn’t work, but agreed to try.

  • At first, productivity skyrocketed. But at the end of week three, having made what used to be a months salary, the workers went home and took a week off. When they returned, nothing could keep them from taking a week off each month. So the plan was discontinued.

To Rand, this is an example of the South American’s “anti-conceptual mentality… a passive refusal to think abstractly”ii. Taking time for one’s own interests, instead of earning more money in a factory, is a sign of a mental defect.

The idea that a healthy life requires time with family and friends, time to reflect or pursue social activities; or that people find such things interesting, exciting or even demanding is rejected by her philosophy as a symptom of the “neurotic… desire to escape from reality”iii which leads people to participate in “family picnics, ladies’ tea parties or “coffee klatches”, charity bazaars, vegetative kinds of vacation- all of them times of quiet boredom for all concerned, in which the boredom is the value” allowing them to avoid the “the new, the exciting, the unfamiliar” and the demands of “discrimination, judgement, awareness”iv.

Rand’s philosophy holds that “productive work is the central purpose of a rational man’s life”v. People should go to work because being productive is a goal in and of itself; productive meaning in the marketplace. It is not considered that the employees might now have the time for the productive activities of their own lives.

Rand sums it all up with the decision to stop the plan, implying it is a rational decision. The facts in the story indicate otherwise. The factory was operating at about half capacity, so the goal was to double the rate of production. Since the employer wanted to keep the new plan, the goal must have been achieved; which means an additional 50% more units were produced for the same amount of wages, even with a weeks worth of capacity still to be utilized. More employees could have been hired for the off week with the same high productivity plan. But, apparently the idea of people with time for themselves was so offensive; the factory went back to the old, less profitable system. The employer would rather make less money.

That the story doesn’t make sense, makes it all the more an expression of emotional reality, like a fairy tale or stories from myth or religion. The fabled employees’ sins were to reject her morality’s rewards and demands- the reward of a bigger paycheck and the demand of servitude. When the South Americans chose personal time off, they chose to be immoral. The immoral behavior was both halted and punished by taking away the increased wage.

Rand’s morality tale is well understood by workers in the US. “In a new survey conducted over the first few days of 2015: nearly 42 percent of Americans said they didn’t take a single vacation day during 2014…”vi

One survey found 40% will not take all the vacation days due to themvii for fear of job related consequences. These concerns are not all self imposed, “nearly a fifth of all managers…, said they considered employees who took all of their leave to be less dedicated.”viii Vacationing workers try to compensate; according to one survey, “three in five (61 percent) employees who have taken vacation/paid time off admit working at least some while on vacation.”ix

Fear is not the only reason for refusing time off. Much as in Rand’s fable, economic pressure plays a part. “Many full-time employed Americans get at least ten vacation days, and our survey shows only 13 percent of adult Americans could afford to actually take that many vacation days for the year.”x

Another reason is that Rand’s morality is shared by many people in the US. One study “…found that Americans have a complicated view of taking time off, often thinking of it as a guilty pleasure rather than a worker’s right.”xi Voters in Europe secured 20 to 30 days paid vacation by law, US voters have approved zero legally required vacationsxii. US citizens criticize political leaders for days off, to the point Barack Obama ran on a promise he would not take vacations.xiii Since his election, his vacation habits have been a contentious subject in the media.

i     The Missing Link, pg 37, Philosophy: Who Needs It, Ayn Rand, Signet, Penguin Group, 1984

ii      ibid

iii    The psychology of pleasure by Nicholas Brandon Virtue of Selfishness, pg 64, Signet, New American Library, 1964

iv     The psychology of pleasure by Nicholas Brandon Virtue of Selfishness, pg 65, Signet, New American Library, 1964

v      Objectivist Ethics, Ayn Rand, Virtue of Selfishness, pg 25, Signet, New American Library, 1964

Rand contradicts herself 1.9

Rand contradicts and violates her own philosophy of epistemology.

Rand claims “Modern Philosophers” are attacking her ideas with their “…favorite category (and strawman)… “The Borderline Case.”.. Modern Philosophers’ favorite examples of this “problem” are expressed by such questions as:… “If you had never seen any swans but white ones, and then discovered a black one, by what criteria would you decide whether to classify it as a “swan”, or to give it a different name and coin a new concept?”…”

First, Leonard Piekoff provides the guidelines of Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology:

“Since a word is a symbol for a concept, it has no meaning apart from the content of the concept. And since a concept is an integration of units, it has no meaning apart from its units. The meaning of a concept consists of the units which it integrates, including all the characteristics of those units.” (italics in original)

“Observe that concepts mean existents, not arbitrarily selected portions of those units. There is no basis whatsoever- neither metaphysical nor epistemologically, neither in the nature of reality nor of conceptual consciousness- for a division of the characteristics of a concept’s units into two groups, one of which is excluded from the concepts meaning.”

“Metaphysically, an entity is: all of the things which it is. Each of its characteristics has the same metaphysical status: each constitutes a part of the entity’s identity.”

“Epistemologically, all the characteristics of the entities subsumed under a concept are discovered by the same basic method: by observation of these entities.i”

Mr. Piekoff emphatically tells us. A concept such as “swan” is the whole package. You can’t just pick out one thing about the swan and say it doesn’t count. The all-black bird is a different thing from the all-white bird and requires a name of it’s own, according to Objectivism.

Now for Ayn Rand’s response to the “strawman” of the Black Swan:

“In the case of black swans, it is objectively mandatory to classify them as “swans,” because virtually all their characteristics are similar to the characteristics of a white swan and the difference in color is of no cognitive significance.”

Rand says the answer is “objectively mandatory”, but she ignores her own philosophy that a word sums up the entirety of the concept’s observed characteristics. She arbitrarily decides to disregard a characteristic, an act Peikoff describes as “without basis in metaphysics, epistemology, the nature of reality nor of conceptual consciousness”. The statement that the difference in color is of no cognitive significance ignores the thousands years history of citing the swan’s white color as it’s most important featureii, the Conceptual Common Denominator, to use Rand’s termiii.

Rand also ignores historical facts, because the issue of the Black Swan is not a strawman. Black Swans presented an actual “problem” for scientists. In 1697, Europeans first encountered a Black Swan in Australia. Scientists decided to coin a new concept and give the bird it’s own monotypic genus “Chenopis” instead of classifying it in the genus “Cygnus”. In other words, not a swan. Apparently, the color had cognitive significance for those scientists. For 90 years this opinion held, until John Latham determined that it was indeed a swan and it’s genus was changed.iv The scientific deliberation shows that Rand’s facile pronouncements come from ignorance.

Rand contradicts and violates the criteria of her own philosophy for categorizing observations. Rand falsely accuses “Modern Philosophers” of creating a strawman. Rand makes ignorant pronouncements about a subject that took scientists 90 years to decide.

i Pg. 133 Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Piekoff , Intro to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor, New American Library, 1967

iihttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan

iii Pg 18 Intro to Objectivist Epistemology

iv https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_swan

Rand vs S. I. Hayakawa

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents the position of the other side.

Defining the words “intensional” and “extensional” Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action says: “The intensional is the map, the extensional is the territory…. The map is not the territory. The word is not the thing… “ (pg. 19 and 20). Some things only have a definition and no concrete extensional existence, such as… “the mathematical point which has a position but occupies no space and the mathematical circle which is a closed figure in which all points are equidistant from the center… Actual points occupy some space and actual circles are never exactly circular…” (pg 122)

Compared to Rand/Piekoff, Objectivist Epistemology: “By extension of a concept, the theory’s advocates mean the concretes subsumed under that concept.”

When Rand says “concretes subsumed” she means the concrete things observed in the real world which inspired the concept in the first place (pg 21). However, since mathematical points and circles have no concrete extension, concretes cannot be “subsumed” and cannot be the extensional meaning intended by the theories advocates. Therefore, she misrepresents the other side.

And then she says, “by the intension of a concept, they mean those characteristics of the concretes which are stated in the concepts definition…” (pg. 141) However, since geometric points and circles have no concrete characteristics in their definitions, that cannot be the intensional meaning intended by the theories advocates. Again, she misrepresents the other side.

The nature of the misrepresentation is that her premise of concretes is assumed to be a premise the other side shares when it does not.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979 Ch. 2, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

S I Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, Harvest edition, Harcourt Brace & Co, 1992

 

Rand proves I don’t exist.

Rand’s philosophy proves there is no word for “me”.

According to Rand’s philosophy of Objectivism:

Pg 12: Every word we use… …is a symbol that denotes a concept…

Pg 11: A concept is a mental integration of two or more units…

Pg 7: A unit is an existent regarded as a separate member of a group of two or more similar members.

Pg 6: …an “existent” – something which exists.

According to Rand’s philosophy, there must be two of anything before we can have a concept of it or a word for it. Therefore, according to her philosophy, there can be no words for single things.

For example, there is only one of me. There is only one sky. There is only one sun and one moon. None of these things could have a word or a concept according to Rand’s philosophy until another sun, moon, sky or me was discovered. Then only the similarities would be the basis of a concept or word (Pg. 17). My individuality would not be part of that concept.

Therefore, Rand proves “I” do not exist.

Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, New American Library, Mentor edition, 1979.

 

Rand vs Science 1.4

Rand’s philosophy misrepresents Positivism.

The Positivist process of falsification tries to identify and observe any possible evidence which contradicts the predictions of a theory, especially “predictions which are ‘risky’ (in the sense of being intuitively implausible or of being startlingly novel) and experimentally testable”. http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/

Rand’s philosophy rejects falsification, pg. 159, claiming it requires us to: “evade the facts of experience and arbitrarily to invent a set of impossible circumstances that contradict these facts.”

“Risky, implausible and novel” are not the same as impossible. Their predictions must be testable, therefore not impossible. Her argument is false and misrepresents Positivism.

Ayn Rand, An Introduction to Objective Epistemology, Signet Edition, New American Library. Also Ch. 2, the Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy by Leonard Piekoff.

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ is the source for the quotes and my paraphrasing of the practice of falsification.

Close analysis 1.4

The close reading of the beginning of the Introduction to The Virtue of Selfishness continues:

Sentence 8: “Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of ‘selfishness’ is: concern with ones own interest.”

  • Her statement is false. That is not the exact meaning.
  • Her statement is false. That is not the definition in the Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language, which is “regard for one’s own interest or happiness to the disregard of the well-being of others.”
  • Leaving out half the definition is a lie by omission.
  • She is setting up a straw man, to create a false choice.

Sentence 9: “This concept does not include a moral evaluation; it does not tell us whether concern with one’s own interests is good or evil; nor does it tell us what constitutes man’s actual interests.”

Sentence 10: “It is the task of ethics to answer such questions.”

  • Abstract concepts do not perform tasks. It is the task of people to answer such questions, and those answers are called ethics. Cart before horse.

Sentence 11: “The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interest might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).”

There are several statements in this sentence, all of which are false.

  • She states the image of a selfish person killing others for personal gain is “created”, thus fictional; when daily news, the history of mankind and personal experience lead rational people to accept that there are such people in the world.
  • She states the image of the brute is a deliberate rhetorical trick to mislead; when there is no evidence of that and none is presented.
  • She states the “Ethics of altruism” create, answers and makes men accept; when abstract concepts don’t “do” anything. People do things.
  • She states Altruist tenets are that concern for one’s own interest is evil, no matter what that interest is. But, since Altruism is a Christian philosophy concerned with benefits to the personal soul after death through salvation for good works, concern for one’s own interest is what prompts Altruism and therefore cannot be evil in that system.
  • When Rand leaves out the fact that Altruism is a Christian belief, she is lying through omission.
  • She states Altruism accepts her position that selfishness is in fact to one’s own interest; when Altruism considers the long term effect of selfish behavior as counter-productive for the selfish person.
  • She states renunciation is for the sake of neighbors; when it is for the sake of one’s own soul.

Now that Rand has set up two straw men with her false definition of selfishness and her misrepresentation of the Christian philosophy of Altruism, she uses them as though they are the only ethical options for us. That false choice drives the rest of her philosophic argument.

(Analysis of sentence 11 has been previously published)

Close Analysis 1.3 One sentence, seven false statements

From the Introduction to “The Virtue of Selfishness” by Ayn Rand.

Sentence 11: “The ethics of altruism has created the image of the brute, as its answer, in order to make men accept two inhuman tenets: (a) that any concern with one’s own interests is evil, regardless of what these interest might be, and (b) that the brute’s activities are in fact to one’s own interest (which altruism enjoins man to renounce for the sake of his neighbors).”

There are several statements in this sentence, all of which are false.

  • She states the image of a selfish person killing others for personal gain is fictional; when daily news, the history of mankind and personal experience lead rational people to accept that there are such people in the world.
  • She states the image of the brute is a deliberate rhetorical trick to mislead; when there is no evidence of that and none is presented.
  • She states the “Ethics of altruism” create, answers and makes men accept; when abstract concepts don’t “do” anything. People do things.
  • She states Altruist tenets are that concern for one’s own interest is evil, no matter what that interest is. But, since Altruism is a Christian philosophy concerned with benefits to the personal soul after death through salvation for good works, concern for one’s own interest is what prompts Altruism and therefore cannot be evil in that system.
  • When Rand leaves out the fact that Altruism is a Christian belief, she is lying through omission.
  • She states Altruism accepts her position that selfishness is in fact to one’s own interest; when Altruism considers the long term effect of selfish behavior as counter-productive for the selfish person.
  • She states renunciation is for the sake of neighbors; when it is for the sake of one’s own soul.

Close analysis 1.2 Intro to The Virtue of Selfishness

Sentences 5 through 8[1]:

Sentence 5:

“This is not a mere semantic issue nor a matter of arbitrary choice.”

  • She introduces the words “mere” and “arbitrary”. These words are used frequently by Rand to impart disparagement.
  • She disparages “semantics” because it implies choice in language use, contrary to her philosophy that language is a mechanical translation of sensory data[2].
  • She disparages “choice” because it implies there is more to words and concepts than the mechanical mental processing of sensory data. As she says, “This does not meant the content of concepts depends on an individual’s subjective (arbitrary) choice. The only issue open to an individual’s choice in this matter is how much knowledge he will seek to acquire… …of the facts of reality.”[3]

Sentence 6:

“The meaning ascribed in popular usage to the word ‘selfishness’ is not merely wrong; it represents an intellectual ‘package-deal’ which is responsible, more than any other single factor, for the arrested moral development of mankind.”

  • She believes all of mankind are morally arrested.
  • She believes the way most people speak English is wrong.
  • Her topic is the most important factor affecting all mankind’s moral problem.

Sentence 7:

“In popular usage, the word “selfishness “ is a synonym of evil: the image it conjures is of a murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses to achieve his own ends, who cares for no living being and pursues nothing but the gratification of the mindless whims of any immediate moment.”

  • She creates a straw man by using an extreme example. Suppose the example of “selfishness” for most people was: a foolish child who ruins the birthday party by eating all the cake. The rhetorical argument would be necessarily different.
  • She uses repellant imagery which arouses strong emotional response- “murderous brute who tramples over piles of corpses’’
  • She ascribes the repellant imagery to other people, the “popular usage”. She is as shocked as you are…
  • She packs the sentence with negatively charged words- “evil, murderous, brute, tramples, corpses, no, nothing, mindless..”
  • She continues to denigrate choice as “the mindless whims of any immediate moment”.

Sentence 8:

“Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word ‘selfishness’ is: concern with one’s own interests.” (italics in original)

  • The Oxford Unabridged Dictionary of the English Language has a different definition of that word[4]. Her statement is false.
  • The “dictionary” definition of any word is a documentation of the historical popular usage of that word[5]. When Rand draws a distinction between popular usage and a dictionary definition she is making an error.
  • No English word has an “exact meaning”[6], contrary to Rand’s philosophy wherein all words have a one-to-one meaning with an objective sensory data point[7].
  • When Rand claims a word’s exact meaning in her philosophy and the word’s dictionary definition in the real world are the same thing, she is making an false claim.

To sum up the first eight sentences:

Rand refers to herself twice. She refers to other people 15 times:

People who question her- three times. Then people who are antagonized, people who fear her words, people who are moral cowards, people who cannot formulate ideas, people who cannot identify profound moral issues, people with arrested moral development, people who define “selfishness” incorrectly, a murderous brute, corpses, no living being, a person with ends, a person with interests.

10 of the 15 references to other people are negative. Five are neutral. None are positive. Four of the five neutral references are associated with a negative reference, e.g. a questioner (neutral) is also a moral coward (negative).

Rand makes one objective statement which is false.

[1] Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction, pg. vii

[2] Intro to Objective Epistemology pg 11

[3] Intro to Objective Epistemology pg 56

[4] Oxford Unabridged

[5] Hayakawa, Language in Thought and Action, pg. 34, 35.

[6] ibid

[7] Intro to Objective Epistemology pg 56

Talking to Rand Fans 1.3A

Introduction, The Virtue of Selfishness, Sentences 1 through 4i:

In Rand’s first four sentences are elements of Rand’s rhetoric which can be found throughout the Objectivist canon. Rand’s rhetoric may affect a Rand Fan’s ability to converse with other people.

Sentence One: “The title of this book might evoke the type of question that I hear once in a while, ‘why do you use the word “selfishness” to denote virtuous qualities of character, when that word antagonizes so many people for whom it does not mean the things you mean?’”

  • Rand introduces the first strong, negative emotion, “antagonizes”.
  • Rand tells us that she is important. People ask her questions. Her words cause strong reactions in the general public. “So many people” are “antagonized”; instead of puzzled. Or dismissive.
  • Rand has been told that her definition of “selfishness” is different than most English speakers.
  • Rand is aware that her use of words is not emotionally neutral.
  • Rand’s world is a world of conflict. There are so many antagonists out there.
  • The population of this sentence is Rand, several questioners, the many people who have been antagonized and the reader. There is no single individual in Rand’s rhetoric. It’s crowds of people.

Sentence Two: “To those who ask it, my answer is, ‘For the same reason you fear it.’”

  • She introduces another strong, negative emotion in the second sentence, “fear”.
  • She makes an accusation based on a ridiculous assumption. Who reading the phrase “Virtue of Selfishness” felt fear? Nobody. It is purely a product of Rand’s rhetoric.
  • Since nobody felt fear, there is no way to know what reason she is talking about. We are more in the dark than when we started.
  • She says she is deliberately antagonizing people.
  • Rand claims to be responding to people’s questions. She  didn’t start this.

Sentence Three: “But there are others who would not ask that question, sensing the moral cowardice it implies, but who are unable to formulate my actual reason or to identify the profound moral issue involved.”

  • She introduces more people.
  • She introduces a third strong, negative emotion in the third sentence, “cowardice”.
  • She makes an accusation of moral cowardice for simply asking what she means.
  • Her new characters are not capable of “formulating” or “identifying” what Rand is talking about. Rand is saying that these folks are without the necessary intellectual ability to understand her profound issues and clever reasoning. Or she is saying that she is incomprehensible, but that is unlikely.
  • These new people aren’t using rational thought, but “sensing” things accurately- seemingly in contradiction to Rand’s philosophy of rationality.
  • Rand’s new friends agree that questions are for cowards.
  • If these people do not ask questions and cannot verbalize her reasoning or discuss the issue, Rand cannot know they sense cowardice; and she cannot deduce an inability to formulate or identify from their silence. Perhaps they are fictional.
  • She claims her choice of words is due to a “profound” moral issue; reminding us that she is an intellectual, plumbing depths others cannot formulate or identify.

Sentence Four: “It is to them I will give a more explicit answer.”

•     She deigns to inform the stupid, but not the cowards. The ignorant people and the cowardly evaders show up repeatedly in Objectivist material. The premise of her philosophy is that it is objectively true, meaning you can see it. Therefore, everybody already agrees with Ayn Rand; except through lack of knowledge or suicidal pretense. There is no other reason for questioning Rand, for it is simply not possible to have any other concept of reality. “Only through ignorance or evasion can a man project such an alternative.”ii

Summing up the first four sentences: In a barrage of emotions and accusations, Rand has just told us what she thinks of people who question her. If you ask a Rand Fan questions, they have already been told you are a moral coward and an antagonist. Or you are ignorant and inarticulate. If the conversation doesn’t go well, maybe one of the reasons is Ayn Rand’s rhetoric.

For sentences five through eight, please see “Talking to Rand Fans 1.3A, B, and C.”

ipg. vii, The Virtue of Selfishness Introduction, Rand, Signet, New American Library, 1964

iipg. 157, Piekoff, The Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Ayn Rand, Mentor, New American Library 1967

Rand untruth 1.2

Ayn Rand’s incorrect definition leads to an error in logic, which makes her ethics a false choice.

Rand defines selfishness as “concern with one’s own interest”[1]. The form of this statement is “selfishness = (A)”. She gives us the mutually exclusive opposite choice of altruism. Altruism is (non-A). She puts it as a choice between black and white[2], as well as between good and evil. It is two-valued, Aristotle logic.

This conflicts with the form of her definition of altruism when she says “altruism claims ‘action taken for the benefit of others is good, while action taken for the benefit of one’s self is evil’”[3]. The form of this definition is “altruism = (B + not-A)”. In other words, if self benefit is (A) then benefit for others (B) is distinct from the prohibition of self benefit (not-A).

Altruism is (B) or (not-A) in some of her definitions and (B + not-A) in another definition. It cannot be all three. She is in contradiction of herself.

Rand falls into contradiction because she has given only half the definition of the word “selfishness”. The full definition of selfishness in the Oxford Unabridged is: concern for one’s own interest to the exclusion of concern for the interests of others[4].

The form of the full definition is “selfishness = (A + not-B)”. This form is consistent with her definition of “altruism = (B + not-A)”.

Both full definitions have two variables: one’s own interest (A) and the interests of others (B). Those variables each have two possible states: care or not-care. Therefore the situation has four possible permutations to choose from:

(A + B): Care for self and also care for others at the same time;

(not-A + not-B): Not care about self, nor care for others (nihilist);

(not-A + B): Not care for self and only care for others (altruist);

(A + not-B): Only care for self, while not caring for others (selfish).

Ayn Rand presents the choice as between selfishness and altruism only. Some would see that as two-valued, some as Aristotle’s. Because she brings up good and evil, some would call it Manichaeism.  Regardless, it is a false choice.

Her erroneous logic arises from her incorrect definition. Her incorrect definition is an untruth due to omission.

(Altruism is a non-A morality promulgated by “the Witch Doctor” in For the New Intellectual, pg 17 & 18, Signet edition, New American Library)

 

[1] The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction

[2] The Cult of Moral Grayness

[3]  The Cult of Moral Grayness

[4] oxford unabridged

Rand contradicts herself 1.3

Rand’s concept of capitalism is overly broad according to her philosophy.

According to Rand’s philosophy, “The requirements of cognition forbid the arbitrary integration of concepts into a wider concept by means of obliterating their essential differences[1]”

She gives the example of running. Running is a characteristic. Running is not an entity in and of itself. People run. In her philosophy, classifying running people, running clocks and running stockings together as “running things” is an error because it makes the action of running the “higher order concept” over the entities with that characteristic .[2]

According to her, the consequence of this error is “the panic of facing an immense, undifferentiated chaos of unintelligible data – which means: the regression of an adult mind to the perceptual level of awareness, to the helpless terror of primitive man.”[3]

A business structure of capital investment is an activity characteristic of people in just the way running is. It is one of many very different activities in an economic system, which is one system among many in a society of very different people.

Rand proposes the capitalist attribute to be the entire economic system. By obliterating essential differences, she imagines a capitalist legal system, a capitalist medical system and a new entity, the capitalist state[4]; not merely operating on capitalist principles, but existing only as a function of capitalism. The state would be an attribute of the capitalist ideal.

Rand’s proposal is that the concept of capitalism is the higher order concept above the entities which have that characteristic. That is a violation of her philosophy.

 

[1] Page 95 the cognitive role of concepts

[2] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology pg 95

[3] Intro to Objectivist Epistemology pg 95

[4] The Virtue of Selfishness, The Nature of Government

An irrational statement by Ayn Rand

An irrational and ungrammatical statement by Ayn Rand from “Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection” (excerpt):

“…if nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of everything he pleases…[1]”

Seeing Rand’s logical error is easy by replacing the adverbial clause: “If nobody is anywhere, then everybody is nowhere” would be correct. “If nobody is anywhere, then everybody is everywhere” would be incorrect. Try to imagine everybody everywhere at the same time nobody is anywhere. Not possible.

In the same way, when Rand makes “everybody can be certain of everything” out of “nobody can be certain of anything”, she is committing a logical and grammatical mistake. “If nobody can be certain of anything, then everybody can be certain of nothing” would be correct.

Her irrational statement is part of an irrational paragraph, which will be presented in the next post.

[1] “Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection” pg 14. Signet, Penguin Books, 1984.

Talking to Rand fans 1.2

If you are talking to a serious Ayn Rand fan (called an Objectivist) and they get angry for no apparent reason, maybe it’s because Ayn Rand called you an evil liar.

She explains to her fans that people can have (A) correct mental concepts which “… may be a product of genius, perceptiveness, ingenuityi” or (B) wrong mental concepts, which “may be a product of stupidity, deception, malice, evil…”.ii

(A) Correct mental concepts, such as Rand’s ethicsiii

  1. are logically derived from the objective reality we see around usiv, by “observing the differences and similarities of the existents… From a child’s grasp of the simplest concept… to a scientist’s grasp of the most complex abstractionsv.” .
  2. Everybody applies the same logic to the same reality, so all our concepts must be the same; “even if the scope of his knowledge is modest and the content of his concepts is primitive, it will not contradict the content of the same concepts in the mind of the most advanced scientists.”vi
  3. It is not possible to disagree, for “a man cannot conceive the opposite of a proposition he knows to be true… vii.

(B) People who contradict Rand have wrong mental concepts, which happen in two ways:

  • “… (a) human errors of knowledge or (b) human errors of evil.”viii
  • “…only (a) ignorance or (b) evasion can enable a man to attempt to project such an alternative”ix,
  • “… (a) he can make innocent errors through lack of knowledge, or (b) he can lie, cheat and fakex”.

(a) If you think you disagree with Rand, Objectivists generously first assume that you are ignorant or stupid. The ignorant are innocent, because “errors of knowledge are not breaches of morality”xi.
(b) If you demonstrate knowledge of the issues and show you are not ignorant, Objectivists realize you agree with Rand, as does everybody from child to scientist; yet you deliberately refuse. You are liars, cheats, fakes and evaders.

  1. “…if he evades the facts of the issue and struggles not to know, morally, he is as black as they come.xii” .
  2. “The source of all his evils… not blindness, but the refusal to see. Not ignorance, but the refusal to know.xiii”
  3. “…rationality is a matter of choice.. the alternative his nature offers him is: rational being or suicidal animalxiv”.

So if an Objectivist gets angry, maybe it’s because you are ignorant and stupid; or you secretly agree with Ayn Rand and deliberately choose to evade reality because you are suicidal; and/or you secretly agree and you are lying because you are evil.

Footnotes:

i Philosophy who needs it pg 27. There are three different kinds of concepts in Rand’s philosophy. This essay deals only with the first two types. 1) Concepts about the natural world; 2) subsequent logically derived “man-made” concepts such as justice, capitalism, math, science and Rand’s philosophy; and 3) arbitrary man-made concepts such as national borders or the number of states in the Union.

ii Philosophy who needs it pg 27.

iii Pg 28 Philosophy Who Needs It? The Objcectivist Ethics, The Virtue of Selfishness pg. 14 et al.

iv Pg 62 Philosophy Who Needs It? ch. 7

v Pg 55 Intro to Epist Chpt 5 Definitions.

vi Pg 56 Intro to Epist Chpt 5 Definitions.

vii Piekoff, Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy pg 157 Intro to Epistemology

viii Rational life in an irrational society? Pg 73 The Virtue of Selfishness

ix Piekoff, Analytic/Synthetic Dichotomy pg 157 Intro to Epistemology

x Pg 27 Philosophy Who Needs It?

xi The cult of moral grayness pg 76 The Virtue of Selfishness

xii The cult of moral grayness pg 76 The Virtue of Selfishness

xiii That’s a really good quote. I can’t find right now. I stand by it.

xiv Objectivist ethics: Pg 23 The Virtue of Selfishness

Rand vs Bertrand Russell 1b and 1c

Russell’s Paradox proves Rand wrong and falsifies her philosophy with objective evidence.

http://plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source for the explanation of Russell’s Paradox, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

(This post, intended to show that Rand’s epistemology is not logical, seems to be perceived as an attempt to show logic to be false since it contradicts Rand’s epistemology! Judging by the comments, anyway.)

Part B: Russell’s Paradox vs Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology.

In Rand’s Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, mental concepts are “classifications of observed existents according to their relationships to other observed existents”i. Rand’s philosophy taught that to have mental concepts require us to observe fundamentalii essential distinguishing characteristicsiii in real life which share a “Conceptual Common Denominator”iv. In Rand’s philosophy, logic is “the art of non-contradictory identification”v of those observations; the result of that process is a mental concept.

Russell’s Paradox proved you shouldn’t just describe a “set” and apply logic to it, because you can get contradiction. Until Russell, “it was initially assumed that any well-defined condition (or precisely specified property) could be used to determine a set.”vi. Rand’s ideal of a mental concept is that old-fashioned kind of set theory.

Russell’s Paradox logically proves Rand Rand’s logical epistemology is false in three simple steps:

1: Some concepts contain themselves. For example, the concept “things which are not a table” (called a “contrary” in Rand’s philosophyvii), is itself not a table so it describes itself. You could say, “this concept is not a table” and write it down on a list of things which are not tables.

Another example of a concept that contained itself would be that on a list of everything in the universe, the first thing would be “this list”.

Both of those concepts would be contained in a big list labeled “concepts which contain themselves”. Let’s call this big list concept “A”, and we can write “concept A” in the list first thing; because it contains itself, too.

2: Other concepts do not contain themselves. A list of teacups doesn’t include the list as part of the set of teacups. The concept of a foot is not a foot. Mankind is not a man.

Those three examples are contained in a big list titled “concepts which do not contain themselves”. This list must be concept “not-A”, but…

3: Does that last concept contain itself or not? Can we write “this concept” on the list? Is it “A” or “not-A”? If the concept does not contain itself, we should write it down – which means it does contain itself (there it is on the list), but then it cannot fit it’s own definition as a concept which does not contain itself, so it shouldn’t be on the list and there is contradiction.

By proving the objective definition of sets can lead to logical contradiction, Russell’s Paradox proves Rand’s objective definitions of concepts can result in contradiction. Rand’s Objectivist Epistemology is proved false.

Rand vs Bertrand Russell Part C:

Rand vs Bertrand Russell Part C (Revised):

Russell’s Paradox demonstrates Objectivism is false with real world examples. We can look at actual lists like above and see that A is not-A if it is A, and can be A only if it is not-A. Rand’s assertion that all real things can be logically categorized as A or not-A is demonstrated to be false by objective evidence. Try it at home! Get some pieces of paper and make the actual lists and put labels on them. The last list can’t get a label.

The solution to the riddle is that there are rules we have to make up for logic to work right (axioms), and one of them is that sets can’t contain themselves. Even though we can make a list with the words “this list” on it, we can’t use it for logic. The concept we can see right in front of us can’t be used in a logical system, which falsifies Rand’s Objectivist philosophy of logic.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source for the explanation of Russell’s Paradox, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

iPg 62 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

iiPg 59 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

iiiPg 55 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

ivPg 18 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

vPg 46 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979

viStanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

vii Pg 77 Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Mentor Book, New American Library, 1979