About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


Post 0

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 1:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
First off, I'm obviously new to the site, but I'm also fairly new to objectivism as well, about 3 or 4 months into it. Anyso, a few days ago I was having a discussion with a couple of my friends (one is a muslim, and one a nondemoninational christian) about life and philosophy and all that good stuff. While in the conversation I tried to explain the existence of facts, and that facts exist in reality, and that reason is our ability to interpret and obtain facts. But they couldn't get it. They kept asking questions like,"Facts to who?" and,"Who says that that's a fact?....based on what?". Maybe this shows my inadequacy to prove these facts to them, but the topics on discussion were things like the fact that we are born without any prior knowledge. To this my muslim friend retorts that we are born with instinct, and to prove this he sounds off about motherly instinct,"How does the mom know what the baby wants?" I said that this isn't true, that her knowledge of the child's needs is based on the information she's obtained throughout her life. He doesn't agree.
That was kind of off topic but here's the argument I really want to talk about. My other friend asked me," If a thousand scientists proved that Ayn Rand was wrong using reason, would you agree with them?" I said that it wouldn't be possible, but I fail to be able to prove this to them. A little help would be great.


Post 1

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 4:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Proof requires usage of reason...

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 2

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 4:51pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Going backwards...

1) Scientists don't prove anything. A logician would be the one doing the proving. What would these people be proving Rand wrong about? Her views on homosexuality or epistemology? It makes quite a bit of difference whether you're saying Rand cannot be proven wrong on anything or cannot be proven wrong on the fundamentals of her philosophy.

2) We do have instincts, but they don't count as knowledge.
Knowledge: the psychological result of perception and learning and reasoning. A mother can learn to differentiate between, i.e. gain knowledge about, a child's cries, but she does not learn a protective maternal instinct.

3) A fact is, by definition, independent of an observer. A fact is what is observed, a characteristic of reality. It sounds like your friends are making an argument based on our ability to objectively interpret facts, rather than the existence of facts. Any attempts to argue without acknowledging that reality exists independent of an observer, and by corollary that facts exist independent of an observer, result in a reductio ad absurdum, a logical contradiction. A subjective reality would have no casual laws and your friends would not exist to have the argument with you.

Sarah


(Edited by Sarah House
on 7/09, 4:55pm)


Post 3

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 7:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Let me correct my mistake in the final sentences in my post:

I said that it wouldn't be possible, but I fail to get them to see why.

I aplologize for not being as specific as I needed to be. This was a conversation on philosophy in general, I'm fairly certain my friends wouldn't understand the word epistemology. I did not mean to give the impression that I considered Rand all-knowing or infallible, I took it as a given that I was talking about the basics of objectivism when I made that particular comment about the discussion.

Why don't instincts count as knowledge?

Instinct:

  1. An inborn pattern of behavior that is characteristic of a species and is often a response to specific environmental stimuli: the spawning instinct in salmon; altruistic instincts in social animals.
  2. A powerful motivation or impulse.
  3. An innate capability or aptitude: an instinct for tact and diplomacy.

And why do you say that we do indeed possess instincts?

3) A fact is, by definition, independent of an observer. A fact is what is observed, a characteristic of reality. It sounds like your friends are making an argument based on our ability to objectively interpret facts, rather than the existence of facts. Any attempts to argue without acknowledging that reality exists independent of an observer, and by corollary that facts exist independent of an observer, result in a reductio ad absurdum, a logical contradiction.
This is what I said to them, though not using your words. They question the validity of this statement. I don't know what to say to that. I thought the statement was self-evident. I am reluctant to write them off as unreasonable because I do see intelligence in them, they've just never been shown anything like what objectivism is.

Thank you for your help.


Post 4

Saturday, July 9, 2005 - 10:17pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William,

First I'd like to pass along a little advice. Don't choose/dismiss your friends based on philosophies alone. Many newborn Objectivists go through a friend purge because they feel like they're the only one's who can see the world for what it is. What you will find is there are just as many a-holes/wonderful people that agree with you philosophically as ones that don't. There's more to relationships than philosophy.

An instinct is not knowledge because it is not obtained or learned through the mental faculties of reason or perception. By definition instincts cannot be knowledge.

I say we posses instincts because evidence strongly suggests that we do. Take language for example. The rate at which a child learns languages, especially grammar, far surpasses the rate at which a language can be learned through rote memorization. This has led to the reasonable assertion that humans have a "language instinct," "an innate capability or aptitude" as per your definition. There are many more examples and for more information I recommend looking into sociobiology (aka evolutionary psychology) and books such as Pinker's The Blank Slate and Wilson's On Human Nature.

As for point 3: If they question the objective interpretation of facts that'll take a bit more talking and it's past my bedtime right now. Unless anyone else has an argument handy I'll come back to this point later.

Sarah

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 5

Sunday, July 10, 2005 - 9:34pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
William,
----------------
My other friend asked me," If a thousand scientists proved that Ayn Rand was wrong using reason, would you agree with them?" I said that it wouldn't be possible, but I fail to be able to prove this to them. A little help would be great.
----------------
Well William, how about a lot of help? As Sarah has already said, skeptical folks can either question the objective existence of facts -- or they can question the objective interpretation of facts. And this exhausts the skeptical positions that can be taken by human beings.

As Sarah points out, facts are that which exist independently of observation. Canada is north of Mexico, regardless of individual beliefs. Gravity exists, regardless of individual beliefs. And if someone challenges you on this, invite them to jump off a bridge, while "disbelieving" in gravity (and as a teaser, you can tell them that, after this stunt of theirs, they will never hear from you again about it!).

Well, that settles the "facts exist on their own -- regardless of individual belief" matter. Now, on to objective interpretation of facts. You said that a thousand scientists might come to a conclusion that Rand is wrong. The actual number of scientists is, however, irrelevant.

You see William, truth is not something that is reduced to a Gallup Poll -- this thinking error, by the way, is called social metaphysics. A layman's description of this would be something like the notion that: If enough people believe something, then that makes it true.

But we have already established that truth is not a popularity contest. Truth is not something that rests on beliefs -- it is something that rests on reality. We then just have to discover a way to make belief conform to reality. There are 2 great things that help here, tremendously: perception & logic.

With a proper combination of perception & logic, humans can often arrive at the conclusive truth of a matter. Let me give you an example. If you are playing Blackjack against a dealer, and you have "20" and the dealer has "8" showing, then it is conclusively wrong for you to take a hit (you should ALWAYS stay on "20" -- against an "8").

The reason that this (the "one right thing to do" ethic) can be known conclusively, stems from the dynamics of Blackjack itself. Once Blackjack, along with the probability inherent to a deck of cards, is adequately understood -- then the proper decision can be understood as the one right way to act. Once we perceive our hand in this way, we apply logic to understand that there is only one right answer to the question of whether or not to take a hit.

Going back to your 1000-scientist problem now, we can see that the 1000 scientists can be wrong (leaving Rand right) if they fail to integrate evidence via logical means. If certain experiments led them to think that taking a hit on "20" against an "8" was good, for example (let's just say they tried it 10 times and it worked out, these 10 times), then scientists may make this erroneous conclusion.

But philosophers know, from mere common experience and reasoning, that the conclusion is erroneous -- because they understand the dynamics of BlackJack and the probability inherent to a deck of cards. In this way, philosophy can evaluate the findings of science -- and science cannot evaluate its own findings. When scientists evaluate findings, they speak as philosophers, not as scientists.

Science depends on epistemology for its validity. Another way to say this is that science depends on philosophy for its validity. Science is a special sense of things. Philosophy is a general sense of things. And we have GOT to have a general sense of things in order to validate a special sense of things.

In sum, there won't (ie. there can't) be epistemological findings that contradict the basics of objective epistemology. Objective epistemology is the standard used to in order to evaluate all findings. Rand's words on axioms are illuminative here:

-------------
It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proof or explanation rests.
-------------
... and ...
-------------
It is axiomatic concepts that identify the pre-condition of knowledge ... Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.
-------------

Ed





Post 6

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 11:45amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thank you. You guys have been a lot of help.

Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 7

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 3:10pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Not sure if you’re still looking for help William, but If I may add to what the other discussers have already hit on…

 

You and your buddies might just be having terminology problems. First, about instinct. I don’t think of “knowledge” as something that can include “instinct” because an (inborn) ability or impulse to know or acquire info about X is not the same as actually knowing or acquiring info about X. In other words, it’s one thing to be able to know where Canada is. It’s another to actually know it. Second, about facts. Your friends might be confusing facts with opinions. In one sense, a fact is just a proposition pertaining to reality. Under this view, facts can be either true or false. This is how I’ve seen logicians typically treat the term.

 

But Objectivists take a narrower view of “fact.” For Objectivists, I think a “fact” is a true proposition pertaining to reality. I would take minor issue with some of the other discussers here when they say that “facts” exist independent of the observer. Technically, I think the referent(s) to the fact is what exists independently of the observer. The fact itself is just a proposition, and I think Objectivists would argue that propositions do attach to observers. Rand herself opposed the idea that “objectivity” is something that happens independent of observers (although I forget where she argued this). She viewed it as a special relationship between observer and observed.

 

Anyway, opinions are just interpretations of facts. Opinions ask: what does fact X entail or imply or mean or lead to? Opinions shift us from fact conclusions of “right and wrong” to interpretative conclusions of “better and worse.”

 

Third, If a million monkeys “prove” Rand wrong, then she’s proven wrong. Sounds like your buddies are just testing your flexibility. Surely you’ll agree if someone proves something wrong, then it’s proven wrong. <shrug>

 

Fourth, turn some questions back on your buddies. Ask them how they know what they know. How do they know that mama has an instinct for her kiddies’ needs.

 

Jordan

 


Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 3, No Sanction: 0
Post 8

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 10:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Third, If a million monkeys “prove” Rand wrong, then she’s proven wrong. Sounds like your buddies are just testing your flexibility. Surely you’ll agree if someone proves something wrong, then it’s proven wrong. <shrug>
The argument about this on my part, was that Rand couldn't be proven wrong about her views, using her views. I was telling them that objectivism couldn't be proven to be a bunch of b.s. using reason and reality. Because objectivism is based on unobstructed interpretation of reality using reason, it can't be contradicted using those terms.

On the issue of instincts, I now see the the difference between what I thought it was, and what it actually is. Making the simple mistake of replacing the definition of the word with my definition of the word. As I said, I'm very new to objectivism and I still have bad habits that need to be broken. For this particular one...I've bought a dictionary, and it doesn't leave my side. It's amazing how many words I've been using incorrectly for so long, lol. I've got a lot of work to do :).

In one sense, a fact is just a proposition pertaining to reality. Under this view, facts can be either true or false. This is how I’ve seen logicians typically treat the term.
I understand that it's obvious I'm not as educated as most of the participants in this forum, but I do not agree with this statement. I view a fact as something that's already been proven to be true. I think that a "false fact" is a contradiction in itself, it just doesn't sound right to me. Something is either a fact, or it isn't. Just because a fact isn't proven, or hasn't yet been proven doesn't make it any less a fact. We don't understand everything in the universe. We haven't proven everything in the universe, but that doesn't mean that the facts that exist in the universe, that we haven't proven or discovered, don't exist.

Would I be wrong in saying that any fact, because it is a fact, is proven using the fundamentals(reason, logic) of objectivism? So objectivism is used (maybe not as a whole, but in part) to prove facts?


Sanction: 1, No Sanction: 0
Post 9

Monday, July 11, 2005 - 11:52pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
A fact simply is. It is our understanding, our concepts, that can be true or false.

Post 10

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 7:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

William,

 

Your understanding of “fact” seems to resemble that narrow Objectivist view of fact: a fact is a true proposition. That’s fine, and just to clarify, “narrow” is not meant to be insulting. It’s used to contrast “broad.” I think some logicians accept the existence of “false facts” because they are more concerned with the form of propositions. For example, “Lincoln was shot in 2005” is in the form of a factual proposition, but it is false. Not a big deal. We shouldn’t get bogged down in word choice. The use of the word is what matters. 

Something is either a fact, or it isn't. Just because a fact isn't proven, or hasn't yet been proven doesn't make it any less a fact.

Here I think you have conflated propositions with their referents. It’s common to do, and it’s usually inconsequential, but occasionally it leads to confusion. I suspect we’ll agree that a proposition is either true or false because its referent either obtains or does not obtain. For example, “Lincoln was shot in 2005” is a false proposition because its referent does not obtain (because Lincoln was really shot in 1865). If you want “fact” to refer to the referent of a proposition, then while we may qualify a “fact” as something that exists or does not exist, it doesn’t make sense to qualify that “fact” as true or false. Truth and falsity pertain to propositions, not to their referents.

 

Using the narrower Objectivist view of “fact,” here’s how I would reword that proposition of yours which I quoted above: Even if we don’t know whether a proposition is a fact (i.e., whether it’s a true proposition), that doesn’t make it any less a fact. The truthfulness of a proposition obtains independently of our knowledge of it.

 

Jordan

 

 

 


Post 11

Tuesday, July 12, 2005 - 10:59amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I see my mistake, and thank you for correcting me.

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 12

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 10:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is William Dwyer.  Roger Bissell was kind enough to allow me the use of his computer in order to post the following comment: 

William Bardel wrote,
Something is either a fact, or it isn't. Just because a fact isn't proven, or hasn't yet been proven doesn't make it any less a fact.

Jordan replied, "Here I think you have conflated propositions with their referents. It’s common to do, and it’s usually inconsequential, but occasionally it leads to confusion."

 

I disagree  Propositions can refer to facts, but propositions are not themselves facts. 

 

Jordan continued, "I suspect we’ll agree that a proposition is either true or false because its referent either obtains or does not obtain. For example, 'Lincoln was shot in 2005' is a false proposition because its referent does not obtain (because Lincoln was really shot in 1865). If you want 'fact' to refer to the referent of a proposition, then while we may qualify a 'fact' as something that exists or does not exist, it doesn’t make sense to qualify that 'fact' as true or false. Truth and falsity pertain to propositions, not to their referents.'

 

Right.  But I think that the strict, philosophical view of "fact" is the latter.  A fact is the referent of a proposition.  As Jordan acknowledges, it is truth that depends on a proposition, not fact.


Jordan continued, "Using the narrower Objectivist view of 'fact,' here’s how I would reword that proposition of yours which I quoted above: Even if we don’t know whether a proposition is a fact (i.e., whether it’s a true proposition), that doesn’t make it any less a fact. The truthfulness of a proposition obtains independently of our knowledge of it."
 
Again, a proposition is not a fact. Propositions can refer to facts, but facts exist independently of propositions.  I would, however, agree that the truthfulness of a proposition can obtain independently of our knowledge of it, although, interestingly enough, Ayn Rand apparently did not.  Here is a passage from her correspondence with John Hospers.  She writes:

"You object to my definition 'Truth is the recognition of reality,' and you say: 'No--for truth may not be recognized....  There are truths even when nobody knows them and nobody recognizes them.  Many things are true about the world which nobody yet knows.'  Aren't you confusing 'truth' with 'facts'?  'Truth' is a concept that refers to epistemology, not to metaphysics; to consciousness, not to existence or reality.  'Facts' cannot be 'true' or 'false'; facts are ('existence exists').  'Facts' are the standard of truth or falsehood; it is by means of 'facts' that we determine whether an idea of ours is true or false.  'Truth' is the attribute of an idea in somebody's consciousness (the relationship of that idea to the facts or reality) and it cannot exist apart from a consciousness.  You say, 'There are truths even when nobody knows them and nobody recognizes them.  No, there are 'facts' even when nobody knows them and nobody recognizes them; these 'facts' are potentially the material of truths.  The recognition of these 'facts' by some human consciousness constitutes 'truths.'  You say: 'Many things are true about the world which nobody yet knows.'  Isn't this a colloquial, verbal foreshortening, which is inexact?  To be exact philosophically, one would have to say:  'Many facts exist in the world, which nobody yet knows, and when somebody discovers them, he will be able to form many true ideas which nobody can form at present."

Rand is correct that truth is an epistemological concept, not a metaphysical one - that it is an attribute in someone's consciousness and cannot exist apart from a consciousness.  However, I believe (along with Hospers) that her definition of 'truth' as "the recognition of reality" is not correct, for it implies that in order for an idea to be true, one must recognize the fact(s) of reality to which it corresponds.  Rand's definition equates truth with knowledge, whereas an idea can be true - can correspond to a fact of reality - even when the idea does not constitute knowledge of that fact.  For example, suppose someone were to entertain the proposition, "There is life on Venus."  If life did in fact exist on Venus, then that proposition would be true, even if no one had yet discovered or recognized that life exists on Venus.

So I agree with Rand that truth, unlike fact, is epistemological rather than metaphysical, but I disagree with her that it necessarily constitutes the recognition of reality.  To Rand's credit, she did endorse the correspondence theory of truth, which states that in order to be true, an idea or a proposition must correspond to reality.  But an idea can correspond to reality without constituting the recognition of reality.

Bill Dwyer



Post 13

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:03amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Why aren't instincts classed as knowledge?

Knowledge is just a proposition that is known. 
 .
 You can gain knowledge without experience. Right?

Isn't that "a priori" knowledge?
 
So thereofore an instinct is a known proposition without having experience.

New born babies know to scream when they are hungry. Is that not knowledge?

And once the baby is fed it then learns that when it screams it recieves food .
thus the knowledge becomes "a posteriori"  because now it is based on experience.

Just my $0.02
jbrad


Post 14

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 11:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Josh,

Instincts do not involve higher thought processes. Ssince one does not think about what one does by instinct then instincts are not a priori knowledge.

Sarah

Post 15

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:22pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Sarah,

be careful not to confuse reflex with instinct.

 A reflex is a response to a given stimulus without thought or consideration.

An instinct is a reflex with the importation of consciousness. It is basically a delayed reflex.

In karate, you are taught to defend with certain moves. At first they are awkward but after reptition it becomes instinctive. You now have the "knowledge" to defend.

An intrinsic instinct is no different.You are just born with that certain "knowledge".

how does a new born water buffalo know to run? It just does. It already has the knowledge to run.

Of course, discussing instincts always leads me to question of freewill. But we will save that for another time and place.


Post 16

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 12:33pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is John Searle.  

Ed Thompson and I were just passing notes under the door to each other and he passed a note to me that involved a command to come inside and read his computer screen. As the note was in Chinese (and I don't understand Chinese) I didn't know how to respond to this chicken scratch of his, so I just sat there.

At that point, he got mad and flung the door open, dragging me inside. When I saw what was on the computer screen, I just had to comment. Luckily, Ed was kind enough to allow me the use of his computer in order to post the following comment: 

------------------
So I agree with Rand that truth, unlike fact, is epistemological rather than metaphysical, but I disagree with her that it necessarily constitutes the recognition of reality ... an idea can correspond to reality without constituting the recognition of reality.
------------------

Bill, ole' friend -- you've effectively dismantled the inherent intentionality of human consciousness here.

But ideas are always someone's ideas. Ideas are always about things. Epistemology is know-how (knowing how to know) but, in calling for a truth without a recognition, you sever the tie between mind and reality.

Something cannot, at one and the same time, be both epistemological AND without recognition -- epistemology being the science of successful recognition.

Think of Aristotle's epistemological problem with the propositions predicting the sea battle. A proposition regarding this future event may be seen -- in retrospect -- to have "been" true, at the time it was made.

While, regarding future prospects of a sea battle, it can be known to be true that it would be either one or the other (Law of Excluded Middle), it cannot be known to be already true, on the day before it happened.

As epistemology is about knowing, and truth is epistemological, truth is related to knowing. This is unabashedly conceptualist, but it is objective nonetheless.

John

------------------


[disclaimer: the opinions expressed above are the opinions of the editor (me), and not the named author himself -- send all replies to the editor, preferably inside this thread]

Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 6, No Sanction: 0
Post 17

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 4:25pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is William Dwyer, once again posting via the Bissell epistle.  Ed Thompson just forwarded a message from John Searle, which was a big surprise! 

John, I didn't think you remembered me, since the last time I saw you was as a student in your ethics class at Cal Berkeley circa 1970, when I criticized your argument for promise keeping.  It was not a good argument, you know.  Very rationalistic!  You would do well to study the Objectivist ethics.  Anyway, in my last message, I wrote,

"So I agree with Rand that truth, unlike fact, is epistemological rather than metaphysical, but I disagree with her that it necessarily constitutes the recognition of reality ... an idea can correspond to reality without constituting the recognition of reality."

You replied,

"Bill, ole' friend -- you've effectively dismantled the inherent intentionality of human consciousness here."
 
I don't know what this is supposed to mean.  A person can entertain an idea that happens to be true without knowing that it's true.

"But ideas are always someone's ideas. Ideas are always about things."
 
Of course, ideas are always someone's ideas, but I can grasp an idea without believing that it's either true or false.  Nor do ideas always describe facts.  If they did, there would be no such thing as a false idea.
 
Epistemology is know-how (knowing how to know) but, in calling for a truth without a recognition, you sever the tie between mind and reality."
 
I don't think so; you can be mindful of the content and meaning of a proposition, without knowing whether or not it corresponds to reality.  Recall my example of the proposition, "There is life on Venus,"  which can be true without my recognizing that there is life on Venus!   

"Something cannot, at one and the same time, be both epistemological AND without recognition -- epistemology being the science of successful recognition."

 
By "epistemological" I meant pertaining to human consciousness - to the realm of ideas versus that of external reality - which I think is a legitimate use of the term.  Of course, the content of the proposition, "There is life on Venus" presupposes that I know what its constituent terms mean - what they refer to in reality.  But knowing what they mean does not entail knowing whether the proposition that comprises them is true or false.

John wrote,

"Think of Aristotle's epistemological problem with the propositions predicting the sea battle. A proposition regarding this future event may be seen -- in retrospect -- to have "been" true, at the time it was made.

"While, regarding future prospects of a sea battle, it can be known to be true that it would be either one or the other (Law of Excluded Middle), it cannot be known to be already true, on the day before it happened."


I agree, but who is saying that??  All I'm saying is that an idea can be true without anyone's knowing that it corresponds to reality. 

You conclude, "As epistemology is about knowing, and truth is epistemological, truth is related to knowing. This is unabashedly conceptualist, but it is objective nonetheless."
 
Yes, epistemology is about knowing, but that doesn't mean that epistemology considers only those propositions that constitute knowledge - that it doesn't address such concepts as truth and falsehood.  Truth is not synonymous with knowledge.  All that's required for someone's idea to be true is that it conform to the fact that it purports to describe, not that someone recognize that fact. 

- Bill Dwyer

P.S.  Of course, I realize that Ed Thompson was merely channeling John Searle, so I can't vouch for the authenticity of John's remarks, but it was good to hear from him nonetheless.



Post 18

Saturday, July 23, 2005 - 5:00pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
This is Sarah.

Josh,

No, you've now gone and confused instinct with reflex. In your karate example, defending oneself becomes pseudo-reflexive. If it were instinctive, we wouldn't need the karate class now would we. For example, an infant has a sucking instinct so it can breast feed.

If you want to go and play the definition switching game, have fun trying to get the rest of the world to switch over to your definition.

Sarah

Post 19

Sunday, July 24, 2005 - 6:17amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
John, again (once again borrowing Ed's computer).

Very well, Bill. It seems that the student has become the master. Alas, that fateful in-class dispute has come to fruition.

I'm still wrestling with the promises-are-accepted-and-binding-obligations thing -- after all, it did appear that I had blasted the is/ought dichotomy with that argument! However, as I am now 30 years the wiser, I will take your advice and look into the objectivist ethics.

Bill:
A person can entertain an idea that happens to be true without knowing that it's true.

John:
Okay, okay. Truth is correspondence, and folks can think things that correspond to reality -- before they know that what it is they are thinking about is true.

Bill:
Nor do ideas always describe facts.  If they did, there would be no such thing as a false idea.

John:
Gotcha'! Ideas always describe facts, but there are 2 kinds of facts -- those pertaining to consciousness and those pertaining to objective reality. Most folks use the word "fact" to denote objective reality. In this narrow sense of the term, I would say "objective facts." Call me a pedant, but Russell's def'n of such is awful pertinent:
A pedant is someone who prefers his statements to be true.

The other kind of fact that exists, is the fact of colorful consciousness. In this realm (of consciousness), there are really existing facts. If I imagine a centaur, then it is a fact that I am doing so. The visualization of one -- inside my "mind" -- is a real visualization of one. My idea of the centaur corresponds to the fact of my willed visualization -- though there are no instantiations of this centaur in external reality (my thought being "counterfactual" -- in this instance).

Bill:
Yes, epistemology is about knowing, but that doesn't mean that epistemology considers only those propositions that constitute knowledge - that it doesn't address such concepts as truth and falsehood.  Truth is not synonymous with knowledge.  All that's required for someone's idea to be true is that it conform to the fact that it purports to describe, not that someone recognize that fact.

John:
How true! Knowledge is understood truth (knowing something's true, while -- at one and the same time -- "knowing how you know" that it is indeed true).

Now, its back to the passing of notes under the door with Ed Thompson. This time, maybe I'll try to convince HIM (using Chinese symbols, of course!) that promises are willfully-accepted, binding, obligations -- or, at least, that they become prima facie duty-acceptances, in a hierarchy of possible action plans (and values), in the sense outlined by WD Ross.

Thanks for the debate, Bill. This student was ready, and his master has appeared.

John


Post to this threadPage 0Page 1Forward one pageLast Page


User ID Password or create a free account.