Tag: Bertrand Russell

Rand vs David Hume 1.1

Ayn Rand misrepresents Hume, from “Philosophy Who Needs It?[1] Chapter 2: Philosophical Detection, paragraph 10”:

The story so far: According to Hume and deductive logic, inductive logic is uncertain, or “probable” [2]. Because Rand’s epistemology of knowledge and certain truth is, essentially, inductive logic[3]; Hume and deductive logic directly contradict Rand. Drama ensues.

First sentence: “‘Don’t be so sure- nobody can be certain of anything.[4]’”

In the previous chapter, Rand says we “got this from Hume and many, many others”[5]. Despite the quotation marks, she is the actual author. It is a false, incorrect paraphrase of Hume’s Problem of Induction plus an anachronistic paraphrase of Bertrand Russell.

A) “Nobody can be certain of anything.”

  1. “… certain…” Certain refers to a conclusion proven with deductive logic, e.g. 2+2=4 is certain. Certain also means a psychological commitment to a belief, e.g. “I am certain I parked right here!” That is a different topic.
  2. “…Nobody can be certain…” If deductive logic is certain, then people using deductive logic can be certain. Therefore, Rand’s phrase is a) not logical and b) not a paraphrase of Hume.
  3. “Nobody can be certain of anything.” Rand’s phrase is reminiscent of the adolescent emotional hyperbole “you never let me do anything!” and is of similar nature; as though Hume said, “Inductive logic is probable”; to which Rand replied, “You’re saying nobody can be certain of anything!” and then wrote down her own words and said they came from him. Rand’s paraphrase is false.
  4. If Rand is referring to Russell’s Paradox, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory and/or Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory, then her paraphrase is anachronistic and not from Hume.

B) “Don’t be so sure…”

  1. This is an semi-accurate paraphrase of Bertrand Russell: “Do not feel absolutely certain about anything[6]”. The topic is our psychological certainty, which we can choose  to be absolute about. Rand leaves out the “feel” part.
  2. This phrase is not about inductive logic. The uncertainty of inductive logic is not a choice; if that were the topic, the correct word would be “can’t”- “Can’t be so sure”.
  3. Russell said this after Russell’s Paradox, Gödel’s Incompleteness Theory, Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Theory and centuries after Hume, therefore Rand’s paraphrase is anachronistic and not from Hume.

Rand presents her straw man as though originating with Hume when it does not. Rand’s straw man misrepresents the issues Hume was concerned with. Rand’s straw man  is false, incorrect emotional hyperbole.

 

 

[1] Rand, Signet, Penguin Group, Penguin books USA 1984

[2] http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/induction-problem/

[3] Rand For the New Intellectual page 29 Signet, New American Library, 1957

[4] Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, pg 36 Mentor, New American Library, 1979

[5] Rand, Philosophy Who Needs It? Chapter 1 Philosophy Who Needs It? p. 4 Signet, Penguin Group, Penguin books USA 1984

[6]https://books.google.com/books?id=dVBpAwAAQBAJ&pg=PA553&lpg=PA553&dq=do+not+feel+absolutely+certain+of+anything+Russell&source

Rand vs Bertrand Russell 1.1a

Rand’s argument against Russell is not rational.

“… the disastrous, paralyzing, stultifying consequences are the greatest single cause of mankind’s intellectual erosion… As an illustration, observe what Bertrand Russell was able to perpetrate because people thought they ‘kinda knew’ the meaning of the concept ‘number’.” (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Pg 66 and 67).

Rand accuses Russell of perpetrating something. “Perpetrate” means to commit a crime or violent act. That is not what Bertrand Russell did. Rand presents the false premise that Russell’s work in mathematics and logic was foisted on an uneducated public instead of being evaluated by mathematicians. That is not true. What Rand calls an example of the greatest single cause of mankind’s intellectual erosion is cited by many as one of the foundations of modern mathematics – Russell’s Paradox.

Rand cannot disprove Russell’s logic, so she resorts to ad hominem attack. Rand’s argument against Russell is not rational.

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

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy/plato.stanford.edu is my immediate source on Russell, but any error in paraphrasing is my own.

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