How we Know what we Know (or) Keuss Doesn't Know He Doesn't Know
David Keuss Commentary: Objectivism Part II
It pains me to think anyone would consider the ideas of Hume could to be used as a mechanism to forward "truth," but such considerations taken up by leaders of faith don't surprise me. Purporting Faith as a vehicle to knowledge isn't very conducive to providing any useful knowledge as it provides nothing useful (apologies for my use of the utilitarian in this example) to actually "know." Faith is a priori, it's a claim to knowledge sans any direct experience with reality. Such is the case with hellfire preacherman David Keuss.
David Keuss's blog has drawn my interest because it's a typical example of the desperate attempts of faith bound mystics to make a case for the efficacy of faith as a means to "knowing." He even introduced a naive invitation for Objectivists to read Hume, whom he uses as an example of the truth of his assertions (as if we should all just accept Hume's treatment of man's nature as true).
Keuss makes an attempt to severely critique Objectivism's maxim of the Law of Identity, which he gleaned from an unnamed website:
The assumption that we have knowledge by ourselves (individuals, i.e., objectivism [or] collectively, i.e. postmodernism) of reality is absurd. It does not follow to say that because we have seen things the way they are today, or for any matter of time (besides all time), that that is real reality. If you are an objectivist, consider this your invitation to read David Hume.
Indeed...
I am perfectly content to leaving religion to it's own devices, sing to it's own choir, even recruit through it's own dismal merits, but when it's purported poobahs make the mistake of attempting to force Objectivism, and Rand, into intellectual surrender (through claims of "dubious"ness) of it's cultural influence through sheer ignorance and dishonesty, it's time to take heed and squash it.
To Hume, I'm not using reason to write this, as reason is merely an "inert" (Hume, Treatise) attribute to the nature of man, which can never produce or prevent an action (Hume, Treatise).
According to Hume, knowledge filters in through a process of conditioning and habit. We are not self directed, we are conditional pawns, ruled by our passions and emotions, from which all knowledge is acquired. Yet Humes claims our perceptions exist in perpetual "flux," we can't truly grasp anything, so even that "knowledge" is suspect.
Why Keuss would attempt to reconcile Hume to Baptist Fundamentalism isn't explained. I can only assume he found the "flux" factor, and inert nature of reason enlightening and conducive to his cause for faith.
To Keuss, faith is seen as the antidote and cure for the disease of reason, to wit:
"How does one accept that reality is real? Only by God telling you so, or rather, forcing you to believe so when He saves you from your sins (Romans 10:9-10). To start from your perceptions filtered through reason (or those of others) proves nothing, again. It means nothing at all. You have no way to tell someone that you are not in the Matrix, in an Islamic God universe, or in a reincarnation cycle apart from God telling you. "
And:
Another dubious Objectivist claim from one of their sites:"But since whatever exists has identity, i.e. definite and delimited properties, it is always possible to contrast it with other things, conceptualize it, establish standards of measurement, and thereby begin to reason about it. "
This assumes identity without proving it (I am saying it isn't an argument, but an assertion about reality, which is a philosophical/religious assumption without proof itself).
I submit that Keuss is unable to prove he exists, so it naturally follows that his claims to knowledge from direct connection to God are suspect.
What's to stop anyone adhering to this principle from thinking: "God told Andrea Yates to drown her kids in the bathtub to keep um from the devil!"
What Keuss devises is a basic form of Subjectivism which cannot criticize the above action by Yates unless he can claim to have better knowledge from God (which, of course, can't be proved empirically, so any messages from The All Mighty are as viable as any other. Call it "Divine Message Relativism.")
I would encourage David Keuss to actually read "Philosophy: Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand, instead of scouring the Internet for interpretations of her work. But does the book actually exist unless God tells him so??
Existence is independent of our knowledge of it. Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification, not the other way around.
Naturally, Keuss doesn't allow dissenting comments on his blog, so he doesn't have any, accept his own, such as:
Lessing's Ugly Ditch is another problem for Objectivism. How can reason be sure that one time events of the past are real, or valid to reason?
Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would heartily agree.
It pains me to think anyone would consider the ideas of Hume could to be used as a mechanism to forward "truth," but such considerations taken up by leaders of faith don't surprise me. Purporting Faith as a vehicle to knowledge isn't very conducive to providing any useful knowledge as it provides nothing useful (apologies for my use of the utilitarian in this example) to actually "know." Faith is a priori, it's a claim to knowledge sans any direct experience with reality. Such is the case with hellfire preacherman David Keuss.
David Keuss's blog has drawn my interest because it's a typical example of the desperate attempts of faith bound mystics to make a case for the efficacy of faith as a means to "knowing." He even introduced a naive invitation for Objectivists to read Hume, whom he uses as an example of the truth of his assertions (as if we should all just accept Hume's treatment of man's nature as true).
Keuss makes an attempt to severely critique Objectivism's maxim of the Law of Identity, which he gleaned from an unnamed website:
The assumption that we have knowledge by ourselves (individuals, i.e., objectivism [or] collectively, i.e. postmodernism) of reality is absurd. It does not follow to say that because we have seen things the way they are today, or for any matter of time (besides all time), that that is real reality. If you are an objectivist, consider this your invitation to read David Hume.
Indeed...
I am perfectly content to leaving religion to it's own devices, sing to it's own choir, even recruit through it's own dismal merits, but when it's purported poobahs make the mistake of attempting to force Objectivism, and Rand, into intellectual surrender (through claims of "dubious"ness) of it's cultural influence through sheer ignorance and dishonesty, it's time to take heed and squash it.
To Hume, I'm not using reason to write this, as reason is merely an "inert" (Hume, Treatise) attribute to the nature of man, which can never produce or prevent an action (Hume, Treatise).
According to Hume, knowledge filters in through a process of conditioning and habit. We are not self directed, we are conditional pawns, ruled by our passions and emotions, from which all knowledge is acquired. Yet Humes claims our perceptions exist in perpetual "flux," we can't truly grasp anything, so even that "knowledge" is suspect.
Why Keuss would attempt to reconcile Hume to Baptist Fundamentalism isn't explained. I can only assume he found the "flux" factor, and inert nature of reason enlightening and conducive to his cause for faith.
To Keuss, faith is seen as the antidote and cure for the disease of reason, to wit:
"How does one accept that reality is real? Only by God telling you so, or rather, forcing you to believe so when He saves you from your sins (Romans 10:9-10). To start from your perceptions filtered through reason (or those of others) proves nothing, again. It means nothing at all. You have no way to tell someone that you are not in the Matrix, in an Islamic God universe, or in a reincarnation cycle apart from God telling you. "
And:
Another dubious Objectivist claim from one of their sites:"But since whatever exists has identity, i.e. definite and delimited properties, it is always possible to contrast it with other things, conceptualize it, establish standards of measurement, and thereby begin to reason about it. "
This assumes identity without proving it (I am saying it isn't an argument, but an assertion about reality, which is a philosophical/religious assumption without proof itself).
I submit that Keuss is unable to prove he exists, so it naturally follows that his claims to knowledge from direct connection to God are suspect.
What's to stop anyone adhering to this principle from thinking: "God told Andrea Yates to drown her kids in the bathtub to keep um from the devil!"
What Keuss devises is a basic form of Subjectivism which cannot criticize the above action by Yates unless he can claim to have better knowledge from God (which, of course, can't be proved empirically, so any messages from The All Mighty are as viable as any other. Call it "Divine Message Relativism.")
I would encourage David Keuss to actually read "Philosophy: Who Needs It" by Ayn Rand, instead of scouring the Internet for interpretations of her work. But does the book actually exist unless God tells him so??
Existence is independent of our knowledge of it. Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification, not the other way around.
Naturally, Keuss doesn't allow dissenting comments on his blog, so he doesn't have any, accept his own, such as:
Lessing's Ugly Ditch is another problem for Objectivism. How can reason be sure that one time events of the past are real, or valid to reason?
Iran's President, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, would heartily agree.
posted by Teresa at 9:37 AM
1 Comments:
some excellent comments - and a nice surname (Keuss)
Post a Comment
<< Home