I don't agree with Peikoff very much. Objectivism is just another form
of essentialism, and I do not like essentialism.
I agree analytic truths are necessary, as are other abstractions,
reality being one.
>From: "Mitchell, Jerry (3337)" <Jerry.Mitchell@esavio.com>
>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 13:34:59 -0400
>
>Is the statement "Reality is subjective" objective? :) Also, is the
>authority making the claim capable of "enforcing" it?
>
>Seriously, this is based on the analytic-synthetic dichotomy and was
>debunked quite well by Leonard Peikoff (based off Rand's work). Heres an
>intro on the argument.
>
>http://www.olist.com/essays/text/ioe1/09.html
>
>Heres a taste
><snip>
>Peikoff presents several features of the distinction between the two types
>of propositions, which I'll summarize.
>
>a. To deny an analytic truth is to endorse a self-contradiction, but to deny
>a synthetic truth is merely to endorse a falsehood.
>
>b. Analytic truths are necessary, they could not have been otherwise.
>Synthetic truths, by contrast, are contingent. States of affairs that
>contradict those described by synthetic truths are conceivable, or
>imaginable, or logically possible.
>
>c. Analytic truths are independent of experience. Synthetic truths depend on
>experience, they must be established by reference to specific facts.
>
>d. Analytic truths provide no information about reality, they follow from
>mere linguistic convention. Synthetic truths do provide information about
>reality, and are therefore unprovable.
><snip>
-- http://www.geocities.com/dmcdivitt_________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.com address at http://mail.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Fri Oct 12 2001 - 14:40:20 MDT