mck@ratex.UUCP (Daniel Kian Mc Kiernan) (04/22/85)
Lines marked with one '>' are Toreks; the rest are mine. >> Ayn Rand asserted that: Logic is the art of non-contradictory >>identification. > >Please clarify the use of the word "identification" in this context. The identity of an entity is its set of characteristics. Indentification is the discovery of these characteristics. Logic is the process whereby characteristics are unveiled from exisiting knowledge. >While we're on the subject of logic, I've been meaning to ask you >about your use of the expression "non-vacuous tautologies". You have >implied in the past (quite a while ago) that there ARE such tautologies. >OK, I'll bite: what do you mean, and what's your evidence for some >tautologies being non-vacuous? The received view in philosophy seems >to be that all tautologies are vacuous. > >I don't disagree with you -- I just wanted to hear you expand on your >provocative suggestion. My suggestion was not intended to be provocative. The word 'tautology' is used to mean two things. In its most general sense, it refers to an assertion which does not add knowledge. Frequently (perhaps most often), it refers to such a statement which is useless and/or misleading. Given the first meaning, a tautology can be useful in making knowledge MORE MANAGEABLE. It can be empty of new knowledge, yet full of insight. >This brings up something about Rand. I've heard that she once claimed >that her whole philosophy followed from Aristotle's principle of non- >contradiction. Did she ever say anything like that? There may be such >a thing as non-vacuous tautologies, but to suppose that THAT much follows >from logic alone strikes me as absurd. Rand et alii are given to bold overstatement, and apparently psychologically unable to admit anything even remotely resembling error. In various forums, I have attacked Rand on various points, and will probably do so again in the future. Still, Rand has moments of incredible brilliance, and I respect her for these. The Randian attempt to derive ethics is in 'The Objectivist Ethics', reprinted in *The Virtue of Selfishness: A New Concept of Egoism*. If I understand it correctly, then it's a botch. > (That Leibniz made a similar >assertion does not reduce the absurdity.) Indeed! That Leibniz made a similar assertion should arouse our suspicions! Back later, DKMcK