The essentialism/antiessentialism debate revolves around what an object
is. Is it the actual thing or is it a linguistic object and hence
abstract and conceptual? I think it is a fascinating debate. Realize
when humans talk about the sun, moon, and starts there are no such
things in a person's head. The cranium just isn't large enough. Words
must stand for and represent supposed objects. What we do then is
mentally assemble objects together.
I am a reductionist. When analysing I like to reduce to the greatest
possible detail, taking nothing for granted. I take as little as
possible on faith. But for any problem there is a set of "givens" or a
starting point from which to draw subsequent premises. Recognizing and
using givens, then, as an entry point to analysis, does not mean
anything is being taken on faith. A person must start somewhere.
Sometimes one can start in the middle and work both directions.
Givens however, can be questioned infinitely, qualified and requalified
again and again. How far is established not by the essential nature of
the given, but by the perseverance and will of the analyst, and at what
point he feels satisfied. That is a valuation.
When reducing, things change. One stands away and sees a forest. Moving
closer there are individual trees, then leaves, then chlorophyll. Many
cascading environments exist, one within the other. So what is reality?
There is no reality without context. Often times when people make
reality statements what they are doing is asserting a context. They set
boundaries for logic and reason. How do you know what you think is
right? What is your criteria for right? Is it alignment with what other
people say? External validation? Or is it because you have tested all
your premises and assumptions, and you are happy with the way you think
as a rational human being?
I had a very interesting debate concerning real versus ideal. Where does
one end and the other begin? There is no explicit line, and my argument
is when the vagueness and arbitrariness of this line is legitimately
brought up, the realist must yield. At that time it is necessary to
consolidate valuations, acknowledge valuations are being made, then move
forward with whatever is being done.
>From: "Jerry Mitchell" <jmitch12@tampabay.rr.com>
>Date: Tue, 28 Aug 2001 23:44:22 -0400
>
>> 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.
>>
>
>I wasnt familiar with the term so I did some searching. Heres what I got:
>
>http://www.xrefer.com/entry/343888
>
><snip>
>Essentialism, in philosophy, is the doctrine that things have essential
>properties, properties without which they would not be the things that they
>are. Many philosophers hold that the essence of water is its real essence;
>the essence of water is H2O. So the stuff in my glass has an essential
>property, a property without which it would not be the stuff that it is; if
>the stuff in my glass did not have the property of being H2O, then it would
>not be water.
>
>Anti-essentialists hold that there are no essential properties (properties
>without which things would not be the things that they are) independently of
>our definitions and ways of classifying things. Being a rational animal is
>an essential property of humans, but this is merely because we have chosen
>to define 'human' as 'rational animal', because we have chosen to
>classifying something as a human just if it is a rational animal. And things
>do not have essential properties independently of our definitions and ways
>of classifying things. AJ
><snip>
>
>Am I to understand about this Anti-essentialist view that "there are no
>essential properties independently of our definitions and ways of
>classifying things". This goes to the heart of Rand's theory of concept
>formation. Heres an example of how one forms a concept. Imagine if you have
>3 balls. One is light blue, one is dark blue, and one is red. You notice an
>attribute that is similar between 2 of the balls that the 3rd doesnt
>possess, even though this attribute differs in magnitude. You mentally
>isolate this attribute and tag a lable on it, in english this label is
>"Blue". The attribute does in fact exist in reality, it does in fact exist
>for all people with the proper machinery to detect this fact (those
>colorblind may not detect it, but a lack of information isnt a
>contridiction). Man disnt make this up, this attribute is in fact an
>"essential" attribute of blue. It IS blue. In the example they use above, if
>you remove the attribute "H2O" from "water", you dont have water anymore. If
>I'm off base on this, please explain. I really am interested in this branch
>of philosophy. Thanks!
>
>Jerry
>
>P.S. I only push this to the list because it looks like others might be
>interested in this aspect of philosophy, if anyone thinks that its better
>served to discuss this elsewhere, just let me know and Ill drop it here.
-- 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