(Nick)I think we are both right, but I am seeing the glass half full. You are seeing it half empty. You are thinking of constraints and limitations, what we can’t do. Existentialists see challenges while essentialists see boundaries. Essentialists are what they are, and there is nothing they can do about it. Existentialists are still in the process of becoming. Yes, a table is an object that we cannot change into a teacup just with wishes and whims, but it can become a shelter if the roof is falling and we need to hide under it. It can become firewood if we need it for that purpose. In that way, can control reality to some extent.
(John)I can't argue with that but I don't think Rand suggested you can't change your life or change the things around you. Only that the laws of nature are what they are and that reality is objective. The table, changing it to a form of shelter or firewood still works within the laws of nature. It's still after all wood no matter what you do with it. The properties of the object do not change depending on the individual perceiving it, i.e. reality is not subjective.
(Nick)It’s true that the properties of objects don’t change and reality is not entirely subjective, but we can sometimes make more conducive to our flourishing survival. We can act on it, like subjects, rather than be acted on by it, like objects. Even Rand allows that we can control nature while obeying it. My contention is that controlling it is a way of creating it, not just discovering it, and it is not entirely objective if it is partly our creation. It becomes part of us, like the soil a farmer works becomes part of his efforts, not something alienated from him.
(John)And I still maintain you can't jump to the moon, and I would bet my entire net worth, that you will never jump to the moon, and I will be safe in knowing I will never lose that bet with you.
(Nick)Perhaps I can not ever jump from here to the moon. However, if that is not my life’s goal, then it is not a limitation for me. What I am limited by will be determined by my choice of projects. I will be responsible for them, not some law of nature which controls me, keeps me from being free.
(Nick)The essentialist may wake up, get dressed, eat breakfast, and go to work, but the Existentialist WAKES UP! GETS DRESSED! EATS BREAKFAST! AND GOES TO WORK!
(John)Yeah, you know reiterating the same phrase in caps doesn't tell me what the difference is. I still don't get it.
(Nick)I told you that life is more exciting for the Existentialist because he or she is working without a net, without training wheels, without a crutch or security blanket. The essentialist is merely going through the motions, following a pre-existing path, subjugated to a God or a society or a dogma, or logic, but the Existentialist forges his or her own path, taking risks, creating himself or herself with each decision. He or she is in the driver’s seat, not merely a passenger. The general behavior may be the same for routine things but the attitude is different for someone who is free. The glass is half full. Live is more challenging as well as more scary. There is fear and trembling and nausea, but there is also authenticity and commitment. That’s what I was trying to show with the caps.
(Nick)That’s the problem. There is internal consistency in many racist frameworks. And, they can say their initial premise, that their race is superior to other races, is axiomatic. I think we can prove, with logic, that such a framework is irrational, as the bartender does in my post about the Bigot at the Bar, but lots of people are impervious to logic, as is the bigot in that post.
The larger argument is that knowledge must be more than just pragmatic, as it is with the carpenters. It has to be independently true, true a-priori, or there is really nothing objective about it.
(John)No it would not be axiomatic, why would it? How is the premise whites are superior to blacks a self-evident truth? I maintain it is not, and it is not the same thing at all.
(Nick)People during the American Revolutionary War and the Civil War maintained that it was. There are still white supremacists around who maintain it is. Simply disagreeing with them using self-evidency and no rational argument will not prove anything.
(John)And what is an a-priori truth?
(Nick)”A-priori” means “prior to experience” or “beyond experience.” Tautologies such as “A is A” or “bachelors are unmarried males” are considered a-priori because we need not have empirical data to determine if they are true. Some philosophers, like Wittgenstein, say they are true but meaningless. They don’t tell us anything about the outside world, like whether or not it is raining outside. For that, we need synthetic or a-posteriori, empirical truths. But some philosophers, like Kant, think empirical truths are impure, they are influenced by our feelings and preconceptions. People see what they want to see. Kant tried to combine empirical and rational, and so does Rand. Rand rejects the rational/empirical and the analytical/synthetic dichotomies. She simply rejects them. She doesn’t try to solve the problems they present.
(Nick)There are paradoxes which seem to challenge the law of identity. And, there are even logical arguments which seem to refute logic, stolen concept or not.
(John)Such as what? I don't think so.
(Nick)The liar’s paradox is one. A mathematical version of it was used by Kurt Goedel to demonstrate that systems of logic cannot verify themselves using rules generated within their own systems. This means that systems of logic cannot be consistent and closed. The liar’s paradox is: I am lying. If it is true that I am lying, then the statement is false, but then it is also true. It conflicts with the law of non-contradiction.
(Nick)If there is no evidence for the existence of something, it doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist. Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack.
(John)I think what you mean to say is absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yes I am well aware of that. But we're talking about axioms here. Axioms are known from experience. I nor anyone else has ever had the experience of observing or seeing evidence of a unicorn so your analogy is a very poor one, and borders on sophistry. I maintain that free will is a self-evident truth because I and many people have experienced it. That's what we mean by a self-evident truth.
(Nick)No, axioms are simply starting points, not supported by anything. And, you can’t prove you experienced free will. It could have simply been your ignorance of what caused your behavior. We can’t always put our finger on what makes us do things, but that doesn’t mean there aren’t reasons for your actions. If there are reasons for your actions, they are not free. They are determined by those reasons, those causes. If you deny that there are causes for your actions, then you are in conflict with Rand’s adoption of causation, as she herself is. And, even if you say some things are random, not determined by causation, this also argues against free will, since free-will has to be determined. The only way out of this is to construct a first cause kind of argument making man the first cause and then showing how man is unique. It has to be done with more than a declaration that the uniqueness of man and his free-will is self-evident.
bis bald,
Nick
|
