Dale's reply (not mine):
Empiricism I took Rand's definition.
“[Philosophers came to be divided] into two camps: those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge of the world by deducing it exclusively from concepts, which come from inside his head and are not derived from the perception of physical facts (the Rationalists)—and those who claimed that man obtains his knowledge from experience, which was held to mean: by direct perception of immediate facts, with no recourse to concepts (the Empiricists). To put it more simply: those who joined the [mystics] by abandoning reality—and those who clung to reality, by abandoning their mind.” “For the New Intellectual,” 30, Ayn Rand Lexicon.

In my opinion, empiricism is one of those terms that is thrown around loosely, like "pragmatic." Ayn Rand was using it in a strict philosophical sense. I found this quote below while looking up the philosophical definition of empiricism.

"To develop an empiricist account of science is to depict it as involving a search for truth only about the empirical world, about what is actual and observable.... It must involve throughout a resolute rejection of the demand for an explanation of the regularities in the observable course of nature, by means of truths concerning a reality beyond what is actual and observable, as a demand which plays no role in the scientific enterprise." (Emphasis Added)
-Bas Van Fraassen

This quote seems to be what Rand was driving at. The way I read it, science must reject broad explanations and only concern itself with stating what is. If taken literal, which Rand would do, this would means science should reject Newton and Einstein’s theory of gravity and just catalog what is observable.

ok, you get a point for first , no third ribald comment of the day. DK is two ahead of you

Great. I am interested in the feedback. No, on posting on his blog....

You are not reading what I am thinking! LOL

I had to print this out. Will get back to you with my husband's comments. did you post this comment on his blog?

quit giving me reasons to to give you a point

I'm giving a point for this based on size alone...

khalling,

It has been some time since I dusted off my Locke. I pulled him from my library and went through my bookmarks and offer the following remarks for the benefit of those not versed and the discussion.

“An argument from what has been, to what should of right be, has no great force.” Locke eliminated scripture and custom as justification, leaving only natural rights as legitimate basis for governance. This is the primary thrust of his work.
There is no natural political power, only that which has consent of the governed is legitimate. The natural condition of men is that of perfect freedom to order their actions, and dispose of their possessions and persons as they see fit, within the bounds of the law of nature; without asking leave, or depending upon the will of any other man. {You do not lose those natural property rights, the right to dispose of said property just because you enter society.}
A state also of equality, wherein all the power and jurisdiction is reciprocal, no one having more than another; there being nothing more evident than that creatures of the same species…should also be equal one amongst another without subordination or subjection. This is the basis for all of our rights and the only legitimate reduction or accommodation to civil society or the social contract are those to which we give tacit approval by our tolerance and our presence, since we are free to leave. This was his argument for the social contract, but he believed that the people have the right to establish and set the limits of the power of government and thus the rights the people saw proper to relinquish to the government for the sake of civil society. He stated however that when the government violated the peoples trust and exceeded the legitimate authority they granted, the state was at war with the people. Therefore the people have the right to throw off the government and regain all of their natural rights and if desirous rebuild a society from that basis. The only means he could find for the method of determination of what constituted the point at which a people should throw off tyrannical government was a democratic one (majority rule).

Locke’s arguments are interesting in that he was religious and he used scripture to counter erroneous religious arguments, but he saw religious freedom stemmed from natural rights; rights or, natural rights do not come from religion, or government. The foundation of his philosophy, the primary is therefore natural law. Mill’s On Liberty made many of the same arguments on the basis of natural rights without resorting to any religious arguments because he was clearly antagonistic towards any religious arguments and religion in general. Freedom of conscience was vital to both. For Mill it was for its own sake. For Locke it was for spiritual salvation.

So Objectivism is very much a modern atheistic cousin to Lockean philosophy with more definition and specificity. It is not at odds generally, and digs deeper for more solid foundation in areas Locke did not. Particularly in the area of ethics as the article makes note and more focus on minority rights, the ultimate minority being the individual. They still share much. I agree with the articles thesis. She expanded on the basis of the right to property and its definition, but the basics, the general premise was shared by Locke.

I find only one minor thing in the essay which I do not fully agree with or perhaps understand regarding Locke’s status as an empiricist. Why the following narrow definition?
“This is distinguished from empiricism which holds that man’s only source of knowledge is his sense without recourse to concepts.”
It seems to me that concepts and abstractions are products of the mind which may occur to an empiricist before or after empirical testing. An empiricist may have to rely upon concepts he has no empirical proof of until he has evidence in contradiction. Does this make one less than an empiricist if in your hierarchy of reason you still place empirical evidence when ascertainable above concepts? A concept is an idea, a thought, a generalized idea about a class of objects, an abstract notion, it can be an extrapolation based upon knowledge derived from sensory experience. I think an empiricist can fall back on concepts provided he is without sensory evidence to the contrary. He just can’t claim it to have empirical evidence or grant it the same gravity. I believe everyone must in those circumstances.

I have condensed and paraphrased Locke in some places above where possible without distorting meaning.

Well that’s my twenty five cents worth… inflation you know…
Respectfully,
O.A.

I say 'mine' a lot. I frequently get admonished for it, but I do it anyway. I've even broken up with boyfriends when coming home from a trip I found out they'd taken my car to get it washed or the oil changed etc. It's 'mine' and I did not give you permission to take it.

I've also used the 'it's not yours so you have no rights to it without permission' on nieces and nephews. I've been called a 'b' because of it but my property rights are respected.

I like the stealing analogy with turns

"use your brain and figure it out, you can do this." I say that to kinders all the time too... or if another kid blurts out an answer when it's not his/her turn... "Um...I want to know what her brain knows, not what your brain knows...it's HER turn and you just stole it, so now you get skipped when it comes around to you..." I'm a piece of work.

hey, am I meandering on my own post? lol

our big fat rule with the kids is-"THINK!" we said to our kids, our nieces and nephews, any kid that came into our house-my husband was the go-to dad for explaining algebra and calc.

If I had a dime for everytime I've caught a kid touching somebody elses stuff and said, "Excuse me...is that YOURS?" or "If it's not yours don't touch it!" It's my big fat rule. (I say that a lot too..."Okay..who can tell me what my big fat rule is??" lol It's a wonder I haven't been talked to.... but hey..saying big and fat together in one sentence...get's their attention every time..

excellent Rearden quote. Every two year old uses that phrase as soon as they learn to string words together. Parents spend alot of time correcting their children to not use it. they're brainwashed by 2 years old to share. I didn't like saying no to my kids, so when they stuck their fingers into light sockets or opened a cabinet door, I moved them away and said a resounding "mine!"

Okay....I could understand it! (I think...if I didn't 100% it sure isn't the fault of your husband's writing skills...well done!) My dictionary came in handy though.
I think it boils down to this Rand quote, "Man’s mind is his basic means of survival—and of self-protection. Reason is the most selfish human faculty: it has to be used in and by a man’s own mind, and its product—truth—makes him inflexible, intransigent, impervious to the power of any pack or any ruler. Deprived of the ability to reason, man becomes a docile, pliant, impotent chunk of clay, to be shaped into any subhuman form and used for any purpose by anyone who wants to bother."

Somewhere in Atlas she mentions something like ... you either have a love of life or you don't. Those who do will pursuit their own happiness and use their mind to do it and those who don't will use guilt and force to benefit from those who do, making the ones who love life their slaves. Property rights are either being stolen or taxed out of existence (which is another form of theft)... I'm not sure where I'm going with this, just thinking on the keyboard. I'm heading out for the day but I will mull this over some more while I'm out and about. Very interesting article and I will add Locke to my million mile reading list. :)
A Hank Rearden quote comes to mind, "It's MINE."

yea, just darn ;)

Darn, I've got to go... not enough time to give this what it deserves... I will read it in the morning.
Have fun,
O.A.

ok then, I'll just chat with myself.
"It took centuries of intellectual, philosophical development to achieve political freedom. It was a long struggle, stretching from Aristotle to John Locke to the Founding Fathers. The system they established was not based on unlimited majority rule, but on its opposite: on individual rights, which were not to be alienated by majority vote or minority plotting. The individual was not left at the mercy of his neighbors or his leaders: the Constitutional system of checks and balances was scientifically devised to protect him from both. This was the great American achievement—and if concern for the actual welfare of other nations were our present leaders’ motive, this is what we should have been teaching the world."
“Theory and Practice,”
Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, 138, Ayn Rand Lexicon
This is the only reference I can find where Rand wrote about Locke. Considering the blistering debate we have had this week on BORING patent rights, I find it essential to salt that discussion with this paper and Rand's analysis. (I am giving credit to LS for the use of the term "salt", which was an apt metaphor on another post)