Die hilfreichsten Kundenrezensionen
|
|
2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich:
5.0 von 5 Sternen
Excellent, 26. Juni 2000
Von Ein Kunde
To anyone considering buying this book, I will assure you that in line with Objectivist thought, it is of considerable theoretical *and* practical value. Although I am a Computer Science Graduate of an Ivy League College, I realized that one of my problems with retaining new ideas I come across is that often, I mentally substitute "percepts" (such as guns) for concepts (such as "ammunition"). I am now engaged in a process of recovering my rationality by practicing concept-formation.Here is Rand's theory of concept-formation in my own words. How does you recognize a thing as a car, or as a nightclub, or as "a genetics"? Since this ability to recognize is acquired and can be retained, Rand gives it a name, "concept". For example, how do you know "ammunition" when you see it? How do you differentiante "ammunition" from "furniture"? Your ability to use the most accurate process of recognition will affect your ability to interrelate your knowledge. Your creativity with regard to "furniture" will be limited if your concept is no better than a mental process approximating "looks like something that's big and in my living room". You may find yourself unable to conceive of furniture that does not look like anything in your living room. And as a few reviewers on this page have demonstrated, you may be unable to see differences between higher level concepts such as "Nominalism" and "Objectivist Epistemology" - both may just convey a superficial mental image of objects hanging around in your head, since you haven't risen above the perceptual level. I envy those of you who already correctly conceptualize, for whom the word "coincidence" does not just bring up a mental image of a person reacting to a particular coincidence, but leads you mind to bring up related concepts such as "chance", "surprise", "intention", "planning" and "expectation". It might be why your appreciation of Rand's work is greater.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
2 von 2 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich:
5.0 von 5 Sternen
Context III, 10. März 2000
The identification of the fundamental context of philosophy as the primary science is required when concerning her support of her theories on sensations, perceptions and concepts. These words represent existents. The existents are what they are. It's important to understand that Rand does not present any claims to knowledge about the physical processes which underlie these aspects of consciousness. It is not relevant. Sensations exist. They are irreducible states of awareness produced by the action of a stimulus on a sense organ. This is what the word sensation means; the definition isolates the essential distinguishing features of the process. What happens within the nerves and tissues of the sense organ and central nervous system during the process of sensation is not relevant and not necessary to understand the essential nature of a "sensation". The fact is that through simple observation and the application of rational thought, people are able to know that there is a state of awareness produced by the action of a stimulus on a sense organ. This knowledge does not require a greater knowledge of the science of biology. Further scientific study into the process of sensation may lead to further understanding of the specific, physical details of the process, but does not change the essential nature of the concept. The same analysis stands in consideration of "perceptions" and "concepts". They are used by Rand in the context of philosophy and she uses them flawlessly by maintaining context.It was suggested that the solution to the philosophical mistakes erroneously attributed to Objectivism due to a superficial understanding is to read, read and read some more, but this is only a partial solution to cognitive error and, in some cases, can be more detriment than benefit. Many who read vast amounts without the necessary depth required for a thorough understanding have access to a great deal of facts, but have not increased their ability to integrate concepts into cohesive and valid theories. It is akin to an alien who has visited Earth and traveled all around the world, but who lacks the depth of understanding of human nature that comes from immersing oneself completely in a single culture until it is second nature; or a music scholar who has listened to every recording of the greatest musicians, but never learned to play an instrument. This criticism is general and directed toward no one in particular. The skill of critical thought is not the ability to quote many different books in the manner of rote memorization learned in elementary school, but the ability to identify context and essential characteristics of concepts and theories, and to abstract by non-contradictory identification. This will expand one's understanding of philosophy beyond that of a dilettante's and recapture, for the thinker, the word's original meaning: "love of wisdom". It is not true because I say it. It is not true because Rand said it. It is true because of the nature of conceptual consciousness. To paraphrase a reviewer: "The best support for Objectivism is to have an open, critical mind, always define your terms, identify and maintain context and to think, think, and think some more."
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?
|
|
|
|
|
|
1 von 1 Kunden fanden die folgende Rezension hilfreich:
5.0 von 5 Sternen
Ground-breaking book, 3. Juli 1999
Von Ein Kunde
This is THE reference work on epistemology. Rand explains clearly how we derive concepts from reality and the conversation form of the book is very lively and enlightening. This is a must-have book for anyone interested in philosophy, period. A brillant account of human cognition. This book helped me understand the nature of concepts and how to apply this with real-life concepts.The criticisms about this book are shoddy, to say the least. I usually don't comment on what others say, but this is too silly to pass up. "Scott Ryan" says that Rand's ideas hold the theory of a priori knowledge, but that is patently false. He also says that negation and necessity would be hard to deal with, but that is not obvious at all. Negation, for example, is part of logical operations on concepts, and its differentia is reversing (negating) said concept. "A reader" says that we cannot use measurement-omission unless we know the concepts of length, colour, etc. But that is akin to saying that a baby needs to know what "identity" means before he acquires such. They are all perceptual characteristics which can be used implicitly.
Helfen Sie anderen Kunden bei der Suche nach den hilfreichsten Rezensionen
War diese Rezension für Sie hilfreich?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Die neuesten Kundenrezensionen
|
von Ayn Rand
von Ayn Rand
von Ayn Rand
von Ayn Rand
