Friday, December 28, 2012

OTI post #10

Contiuing my interposed introduction of my OTI work, which began with a new section 1.2 and the first part of section 1.3, here is the the second major subsection within 1.3 of the Introduction.
This part is a bit more... choppy... in that it does not follow OPAR's nice linear structure but goes left-right-left-right stepping fashion, spiralling back here and there as required. This is all to the good - I see for myself why this is required, and besides this is what Dr Peikoff prescribed in lecture 2 in his discussion of the contrast between an OTI hierarchy and and OPAR hierarchy (about half-way through, just before and continued after the technical difficulties he had to recover from in the middle of the lecture).

Remember also that this much is a once-over to get an overview that can be used to guide a more in-depth examination and induction. It is not intended to provide all the real chewing that is required. Again, this is for the OTI-vs-OPAR hierarchy.

Sunday, December 23, 2012

OTI post #9

Continuing my interposed beginnings, here is another installment. It is not all of what I have numbered as 1.3, because that section is large and admits of being broken up into separate subsections (as in fact it is).

This extract only grounds the practice of starting in philosophy as babies, by looking at the world, even though we are now many years into life. After that I then begin looking at the three axioms in a bit more detail, give a quick indication of the validity of perception in defending their self-evidency, and so on.

By the way, the two lecture series on The History of Western Philosophy have turned out to be far more useful than I had imagined they would be. I owe quite a lot of my growing understanding to learning from them, especially the part one on the the founders from Thales to Hume. In particular, they ram home how vital the question of Universals is and why getting Objectivist Epistemology into the universities is a necessity if there is to be a future for civilisation. The discussions of Objectivism given at the ends were also valuable, and have heavily influenced what I have written (in some places, I figured out things for myself, then listened to the lectures, and discovered to my delight that I was not in danger of contradicting Objectivism). Together, they also give a far greater context to how and why Dr Peikoff wrote what he did and how he did in OPAR. I strongly recommend you buy the MP3s: link to part one, link to part two.

Saturday, December 15, 2012

OTI post #8

Given the long time since I've done any OTI work, from me always finding unsatisfactory how I began it and my procedures for working, I reviewed what I wrote so far.I didn't like how it simply dove in and started with a context that was taken rather arbitrarily, and had no connection as to why the axioms of Objectivism were indeed the proper places to start. For instance, how I addressed that back then, in post 5, has always struck me as seriously wrong somehow. There was something wrong right from the get-go.

I figured out what it was: a grossly inadquate context and non-use of the spiral theory of knowledge. My old introduction in post 1 had three parts: reasons, two elements of context, and an outline of methodology. I retain the reasons, but I am breaking up the rest, beginning with interposing a sequence on the search for foundations that leads to a basic discussion of the axioms. Then I will give Objectivism up to epistemology a once-over and use that to ground the proper context and methodology for the real chewing to come later.

So far I've done that first interposition, and have started work on the once-over. Here, then, is the first installment of that new work.