Why was Philosophy in the Dark Ages for 2400 Years?

[dolphin314etc]

Why did we have to wait for Ayn Rand to unravel the perverse conundrums spun by George Berkeley?

Berkeley was basically interested in creating as much chaos as possible in philosophical thought for two reasons: (1) it was the fashion trend of the day and (2) if reason was bankrupt and shown to be bankrupt then faith-based thinking might get more prominence.

Berkeley was like a bomb chucker -- well, him and Hume -- two bomb chuckers.

To summarize their philosophies for the twitter-attention-span generation:

You don't really see what you see, and you don't really know what you know, instead you get to wander in the labyrinth of perverse logic created by Berkeley and Hume following the model of Immanuel Kant, and Rene Descartes, all of which is perfect rubbish and twaddle of the most useless sort.

Then in the 1950's along comes Ayn Rand, and declares "Being is". She also says A = A (the principle of identity).

From these two AXIOMS (you can't argue with AXIOMS), she derives a complete ontology and a complete epistemology that is infinitely superior to anything since Aristotle.

The Dark Ages of philosophy run from the death of Aristotle till the publications of Ayn Rand.

Mankind is wandering all all manner of hopeless confusions, created by mischievious people like Bishop Berkeley.

Now we know what Aristotle knew -- You do see what you see. You do know what you know.

The work of Parker and Veatch in their book Intentional Logic is a natural extension of Rand's thought. The work of Nagel on Scientific reasoning is as well.

My question is -- How did we get into the Dark Ages (2400 years), why did they last so long, and is there any chance we will abandon all reason once again, and go back to thinking that Berkeley and Hume and Kant may have had some valid points, instead of being perpetrators of useless drivel?

As long as phlosophy is taught at universities, all philosophers listed in the encyclopedia will get equal time. Universities are very democratic. They like big departments with plenty of pluralism.

There is a Grand Canyon sized distinction to be made between being student of philosophy (which means mastering a congery of fraudulent conundrums well enough to write essays and get good grades) versus being an actual philosopher which means earnestly and intelligently seeking the truth about the highest things.

Source(s):
Graduate B.A. SJC Annapolis, former professor of logic, and management science, also hold MBA and JD. Actual philosopher, not seeking a grade.
I agree about Parmenides -- He did assert Being Is. Was that about 2400 years before Rand? Yes, about, right?

A = A is not an adequate summary of Ayn Rand's Ontology and Epistemology. It's just one of her two axioms (the other: Being Is).

Rand is far and away the most rigorous philosopher in her strong areas: Ontology and Epistemology. Peikoff explains Rand's thought more clearly than she explains her own position. But it is truly brilliant -- and is recognized not by academics who are "students of philosophy" but by actual philosophers -- like me (aka the Voltaire of River City).

I can't defend Rand's ethics, economics, or social views which I regard as Herbert Spencer warmed over -- pretty puerile stuff.

I can't defend the story of her personal life, which seems to me utterly out of control and beyond excusability. Not a very virtuous woman in my view.

I can't defend her ego, or her Matriarchy called Objectivism, or her reading habits and scholarship.

She was Genius

[Mano]

For me my life experiences are more powerful than any philosophy.

[petitevase787]

Most modern professional philosophers don't consider Ayn Rand as a serious philosopher, because of her lack of rigor. She criticized Kant without even having read any of his books. And her perverse Social Darwinism managed to earn her derision of even many conservatives.

Besides, the philosophical "dark ages" actually began after St. Augustine (c. 400 AD) and ended with Descartes (c 1600 AD) so they lasted only 1200 years.

[dude]

ROFL! Ayn Rand was an egotistical lunatic who still falls into the same trap of almost all philosophers... she thinks there is actual meaning to any human endeavor.

Sorry, The Buddha got it, and hardly anybody since. Not his religious babble, but the philosophy. Nothing matters, suffering is caused by desire, if u want to eliminate suffering, examine yourself

[Molecular Mass]

So you think Ayn Rand was the great calumniator?

That is about the silliest position I've heard for some time. She was a shallow philosopher who took on another shallow philosopher, Berkeley, who had already been dismissed a long time before she came along. Berkeley was simply trying to find a solution to the dualism of Descartes based on spiritual values, and nothing more. Of course his "solution" was silly. But that was know even in Berkeley's time.

At least she fought someone her own size.

And what do you get from her childish attempt at analytical philosophy? A = A is a tautology and adds no new or useful information about the real world. It is worthless information. No one has ever disagreed with any tautology since they are always true. And her false idea that all thought is verbal which can be refuted with any meaningful gesture. But so what?

I guess you think that an actual philosopher is one who memorizes Ayn Rand? You have a lot to learn. I am not impressed with you or your "credentials".

All I hear from you is a lot of anger directed at a straw man fantasy world that doesn't exist.

[David]

Ayn Rand was self-righteous and had a huge ego. She also had some great ideas. She claimed to "KNOW" the absolute and objective meaning/purpose to life, which to me is lacking in logical rigor. I think you're being way too hard on Kant and Hume and Berkeley. Too much emotion. Like Rand. Philosophers should stick to logic and critical thinking that doesn't shut the door on other possibilities. Hopefully you do realize your mistake about philosophy being in the dark ages for 2400 years. That's just silly.

I would say that persecution by the church during the dark ages suppressed a lot of freethinkers.

[fLuXeDuP]

Very few posts have made me laugh out loud to such a great extent. You seriously think Ayn Rand marks the end of a "Dark Age"? Because she says "A = A" and "Being is"? Didn't Parmenides already say that 2500 years ago?

I fear you are the only person who thinks Rand's philosophy is the end of the dark Ages. There is a very good reason why academic philosophers do not take her seriously: she shows a great ignorance of the history of philosophy and most of her argument rest on traditional prejudices and straw man arguments.

Rand wouldn't be able to hold a candle to Kant on her best day.

Cheers.

[boohpear2]

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Y6qRWSwMJs8/Rh...h+copy.jpg

[Fancy Jack]

Philosophy is still in the dark ages, Rand was a groupie, Kant would have done her. Get a job and leave philosophy to the winos.

[Christopher F]

Berkeley is much misunderstood, and Rand did nothing to correct that situation., Berkeley was interested in restoring the philosophical respectability of the common sense view of the world, which in his view had taken powerful and undeserved hits from Descartes, Locke and others.

He wasn't trying to deny that matter exists (much less that being exists), he was trying to explain in what its existence consists.

For some evidence of Berkeley's continuing importance, follow the link below.