|Against my better judgement I enter this pseuds' playground a second time. I find it inconceivable that Daniel could be so confused as to say the following, but giving him the benefit of the doubt & assuming he's posting in good faith, I'll address it. Daniel says:|
Merlin cited Rand
"If logic has nothing to do with reality, it means that the Law of Identity is inapplicable to reality. If so, then: a. things are not what they are; b. things can be and not be at the same time, in the same respect, i.e. reality is made up of contradictions. If so, by what means did anyone discover it?"
I agree this does seem to contradict what Linz and MSK are maintaining ie:.
Linz wrote Post 157:
"There's no need for lengthy treatises here. Logic is not intrinsic to reality. Logic is the human method, the epistemological tool, by which we grasp reality. It is not a reality-intrinsic, metaphysical entity. Reality is not 'logical'—it simply is."
But then, what Linz has written here does not even seem to sit with what he has written elsewhere:
"As Robert Nola from this university's Philosophy Department once put it to me, 'Logic has nothing to do with reality.'...these views in their own ways, of course, represent subjectivism, to which Objectivism is diametrically opposed.... "
Saying logic is not intrinsic to reality is in no way the same as saying logic has nothing to do with reality. Au contraire. Logic is "the art of non-contradictory identification." Of what? Of reality (contrary to Nola). It presupposes an identifying agent—us. Reality is not an agent of identification; reality is what the agent identifies ... by the process, the method, that is logic. You cannot say an epistemological method is intrinsic to the metaphysical reality to which it is applied!
Logic takes its cue from reality (contrary to Nola) to be sure, in that, for instance, we observe something cannot be something else simultaneously & in the same respect, but that doesn't mean reality is exercising logic; we create the discipline of logic in identifying the impossibility of contradictions, drawing out its implications & stating it all in formal terms. This is the opposite of the subjectivism of the Nola type that says reality has nothing to do with any of it & that we just make it all up. His argument, quite explicitly, was that the rules of logic were independent of reality & that any silly word game of the type beloved of pseuds constituted logic as long as it observed the forms of logic.
Daniel, the answer to intrinsicism is not subjectivism—it's objectivity, which rejects both. Objectivity is an interactive thing—the human mind interacting with all the rest of reality. Logic is objectivity's tool. Logic is possible only to a conceptually conscious being—man. To say it's inherent in all of reality is in effect to argue for a conceptually conscious super-man: God. Phil Donahue was quickly slapped down by Rand when he tried something similar on in one of his interviews. Putting the case for a god, he asked her if she wasn't impressed by all the "order" in the universe? Her answer was something like, No! There's no such thing as an "orderly" universe in the sense that if the universe were DISorderly it couldn't exist.
The universe simply is. Logic is our way of making sense of it.