Objectivism and Existentialism

Robert,

When you interpret someone, you have to be mindful of the full context of his or her remarks. You know Rand's philosophy, and you know that she couldn't possibly have meant her statement the way you took it. She clearly doesn't believe that when a person dies, the world goes out of existence in a metaphysical sense. That would be the primacy of consciousness, solipsism and radical subjectivism a la Berkeley, of which her philosophy is the exact antithesis. A little common sense, please!

- Bill
(Edited by William Dwyer on 5/30, 5:11pm)

Post 21

Friday, May 30, 2008 - 5:35pm

That may be, but I take what people say literally unless they clearly indicate what they say (or write) should be taken otherwise.

I speak (and write) literally. I expect others to do the same. If I want to joke around I will mark what I say (or write) as a joke.

If this were a Heinlein World I would be a Fair Witness.

Bob Kolker

Post 22

Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 8:46am

That may be, but I take what people say literally unless they clearly indicate what they say (or write) should be taken otherwise.

Well, Rand clearly indicated that it should be taken otherwise by everything else that she had said and by her entire philosophy. So, why are you interpreting her "literally," when you KNEW that she didn't mean it the way you took it?

- Bill

Post 23

Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 10:17am

I knew no such thing. I knew what she said. I took what she said at face value which is the way I operator (unless I am clearly and explicitly told that what is said is not to be taken literally or at face value). I do not read between lines. I do not guess what -might- be intended. I am no mind reader. I only see what I see, hear what I hear and read what I read.

Please do not tell ME what I KNEW or did not know. I will tell you what I knew or did not know. You should disabuse yourself of the notion that you can, without error, determine another person's state of knowledge or intention. You can't. You can only guess. The tendency to psychologize is annoying at best and can do harm at worst. All you know for sure is what YOU see, what YOU hear and what YOU think. Anything else is a guess.

Bob Kolker

Post 24

Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 2:41pm

Dear Robert,

So, you were posting to this list without the slightest knowledge of Rand's philosophy. Is that what you're telling me? You didn't have a clue that Rand's metaphysics were objectivist rather than subjectivist. Fascinating!

- Bill

Post 25

Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 5:54pm

Firstly, incredible discussion. Much thanks to Stephen and Nick.

To Mr. Kolker's post #15

The toaster is broken.

You said we can lengthen our lives somewhat. Why not exponentially?

Perhaps it is not for you. I do not know your age. The natural process of death you described is not for me. "Death by natural cause" is a long lived myth whose last breath will be taken before my time. There are only unknown and unfixed causes of death. But being causes they can be identified and therefore interrupted.

I wish to live... indefinitely. I may not have two eyes in 1000 years or think of myself as human, yet this consciousness will call itself Doug for as long as it likes.

The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with death (unless we are talking in terms nearing the ultimate death of the universe), because a system can last indefinitely as long as there is an outside source of energy it can feed on.

There is no wisdom in Nature and nothing natural (i.e. traditional) should be automatically granted as beautiful, good, or necessary. We do not so much defy Nature, as realize her intent to keep our feet so near the ground never was.

I love the Twain quote, "I do not fear death. I had been dead for billions and billions of years before I was born, and had not suffered the slightest inconvenience from it." Were I dead I wouldn't have the capacity to care. However, being alive I can see that there is no contest between the alternatives.

I speak with certainty only because I believe this sci-fi world is a possible reality we near. I predict it is my generation or the next that will make this leap.

(btw, glad to see you posting)

Post 26

Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 8:03pm

I am telling you I took Rand at her word.

It is as simple as that.

I do not understand how someone as smart as Rand could claim the world began when she was born and ceased to exist when she dies. That is absurd. The planet is over four billion years old and is likely to last for another five billion years.

Are you saying I should not take Rand at her word?

Bob Kolker

Post 27

Saturday, May 31, 2008 - 8:29pm

The second law of thermodynamics has everything to do with death. You cannot outlast the cosmos, which being a closed system will tend to maximum entropy.

In the shorter run, ever time a cell divides the telemeres on the chromosomes shorten so after about fifty divisions or so, the cell will reproduce with genetic errors that lead either to cancer or apoptosis. And that is why we cannot increase our lifespan expontially.

In the slightly longer run our species will not outlast the sun. In a billion or so years the sun will start to fuse helium primarily and it will get much hotter and boil the oceans away. If the Sun could talk it might say: My name is Inago Montoya, prepare to die.

If you think you or any other human will be immortal, think again. The physics and the biology are against that. Nature is what it is. You cannot beat physical laws. No one can.

With all our great advances in medicine human life span has not increased much since 1950 when the problem of infectious disease was met by antibiotics. We are not beating cancer and we are certainly not beating Alzheimer disease. The major increase in human life expectancy came with decent hygiene (clean water and good waste disposal) and antibiotics, most of which are losing their effectiveness. Fancy medicine has had a remarkably small effect on life expectancy. Life style and cleanliness are much more important.

Plan your life reasonably. Eat right, exercise, don't smoke, don't drink alcohol excessively and you will have most likely 70 plus to 80 healthy years barring accidents, wars or natural disasters. Also keep your hands clean by frequent washing.

Our species was not evolved to last. It has evolved for reproductive success. After we have swum upstream to spawn, nature loses interest in our further survival (in a manner of speaking). We are not selected for longevity, but for making viable babies.

So far genetic manipulation and modification have not produced the medical breakthroughs that were once expected. Until we can grow spare vital organs in a vat, I think we should take take of our Original Equipment. And there is no way to replace our brains. When the brain goes, we go with it.

I am 72 and in good health. I ride my bike a lot and eat according to a healthy diet

don't smoke (I gave up cigarettes in 1962). My blood pressure is good and my heart works fine. Unless I get cancer I expect to live another ten years. Then things will start breaking down. That is how it goes.

Bob Kolker

Post 28

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - 12:12am

In post 25, I write "The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics has nothing to do with death (unless we are talking in terms nearing the ultimate death of the universe)..."

In 27 Kolker writes, "The second law of thermodynamics has everything to do with death. You cannot outlast the cosmos..."

Glad to see we agree =\

In 27 Kolker writes, "Nature is what it is. You cannot beat physical laws. No one can."

I can understand how you missed that I also made this point in 25. My wording was clumsy. Again, glad we agree... but you missed my point.

Here is a straw man of your line of reasoning that if it were uttered some time ago. "Men have never flown. Despite many bold imaginations, clever machines, and deadly stunts, over the centuries we have barely hovered momentarily. Nature is what it is. We are earth-bound creatures. Eat well and exercise so you may jump high enough to enjoy a few gulps of fresh air."

We have landed on the moon... or if by chance you don't believe that (it being oddly common) we fly. Men fly. The Wright bro's did not literally defy nature, yet our notions of how she wishes us to exist were forever changed. "Impossible" things will yet become possible. Yet this does not threaten the premise of natural law.

You brought up a theory of aging that I was somewhat familiar with. Thank you for the clear summary. This cause sounds a lot like a process that could be halted and modified. Think of the catalytic molecules that could be engineered with a good dose of progress in nanotechnology. It seems like you've lost hope in these micro-scale ambitions. Simply because they've yet to pan out? How strange. Reminds me of that urban myth of the Commissioner of the Patent Office suggesting "Everything that can be invented has been invented."

The sun's death is another story. Galactic space travel seems more debatable than inevitable. I hear certain theories allow for it, but at incredible expenditures of energy. I'm more than satisfied with a few million years.

Lastly, you believe that all that exists is physical. How can it be so hard to believe that consciousness could be transferred reliably from one form to another? Sorry, I haven't had patience to read through the many posts with Bill on this topic. But it seems to me this sort of transfer would be easier to do within your view.

Post 29

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - 12:23pm

Bob, Rand was not writing or speaking for someone with your unusually structured brain. It is unseemly for you to insist on taking her literally when she obviously wasn't taking herself literally. Why? Because you know all this but refuse to connect the dots, which you are very capable of doing. For you it's a little work, true, and for me no work at all, but that's the way it is.

--Brant

Post 30

Wednesday, June 4, 2008 - 8:01pm

Response to post #15

Here is the definition of existentialism I got from Merriam-Webster:

... centering on analysis of individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad
====================

Is there anything in this definition I find false or absurd? Yes.

First of all, the universe is -- at least in part -- fathomable. Secondly, there is certain knowledge to be had regarding what is right or wrong or good or bad.

So, basically, the whole philosophy of existentialism -- in the least, its very foundation -- is false and absurd.

Ed
(Edited by Ed Thompson on 6/04, 8:02pm)

Post 31

Sunday, June 8, 2008 - 8:08am

Robert Malcom:
Observe - the mindlessness of the unprincipled, who see dots but no line...

Me:

Nature supplies the dots. We supply the lines we think fit best. (so to speak). And not all dot systems are reasonably connect able.

Bob Kolker

Post 32

Monday, June 9, 2008 - 10:46am

How post-modern.
(Edited by Doug Fischer on 6/09, 10:47am)

Post 33

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 12:05pm

Not post modern. It is a simple recognition of the fact that a finite number of specific facts -do not- uniquely determine a theory which explains them and predicts other facts. Example: Up to a certain point (back in the 18th century) what was known about heat could be explained by the caloric theory (heat is a fluid) and the kinetic theory (heat is the motion of the small parts of a substance). It was only later discoveries that discredited the caloric theory.

The dots to be connected are the known specific facts. The lines that connect them are hypotheses about the nature of the facts (and entities) which are known.

Google

Bob Kolker

Post 34

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 3:58pm

Indeed. But "we provide the lines" is to say the lines do not exist -- while the dots do. Which seems to mean 1) the dots needn't be second guessed and 2) theories and systems cannot be objectively valid (they only seem to be). Keep in mind, you've rendered the dots to the level of fact and not perception.

To be rather bold, "All you know for sure is what YOU see, what YOU hear and what YOU think. Anything else is a guess" should be, "All you know for sure is THAT you see, THAT you hear and THAT you think. Anything else is a guess." "What"'s enjoy no self-evident privilege over "why"'s.

Theories can erode "facts". Example: All those theories of the very small (Atomic, Spec. Relativity, and Quantum) do great violence to common sense estimations of time and matter. (That sounds really familiar. Dawkins?) Common sense itself deserves a place under evolution's microscope.

Is this agreeable?

Post 35

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 4:07pm

I should make it clear that when I say exist I mean more accurately, objective validity. I'd prefer to avoid that discussion if it can be done.

Post 36

Wednesday, June 11, 2008 - 4:23pm

You say:

Theories can erode "facts". Example: All those theories of the very small (Atomic, Spec. Relativity, and Quantum) do great violence to common sense estimations of time and matter. (That sounds really familiar. Dawkins?) Common sense itself deserves a place under evolution's microscope.

I reply:

Common sense has a vital role to play in dealing with reality at man-size scales. It is the basis of our survival in ordinary environments. Unfortunately it does not work for the very small, the very large or the very fast. Classical physics based on intuitively grasped common sense ideas failed radically in the atomic and subatomic domain. Einstein's theory of relativity and its success as a predictor shows that space and time are not what common sense would dictated.

Theories do not erode facts. They live or die on facts. If a theory predicts correctly it is a good theory. If it predicts incorrectly it is just wrong.

Bob Kolker

Post 37

Friday, June 13, 2008 - 7:29am

In clearing away old papers from my library table, I came across something that displays further a certain basic idea in common between Sartre and Rand. In Note 7 of this thread, I had mentioned that

In his The Transcendence of the Ego (TE) (1936�37), Sartre writes:
Consciousness is aware of itself in so far as it is consciousness of a transcendental object. All is therefore clear and lucid in consciousness: the object with its characteristic opacity is before consciousness, but consciousness is purely and simply consciousness of being conscious of that object. This is the law of its existence. (40)

In Being and Nothingness (EN) (1943), Sartre writes:

All consciousness is consciousness of something. . . . Consciousness in its inmost nature is a relation to a transcendent being. (21�22)

These fragments that I have torn from their settings in Sartre�s larger story of consciousness and being have some likeness (and difference) with Rand�s view of self-conscious consciousness in Atlas Shrugged (1957). I mean this statement of Rand's:

A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. (1015)

The paper by Sartre I had on table is titled �Consciousness of Self and Knowledge of Self.� This is a lecture he gave to the Soci�t� Fran�aise de Philosophie, which was published in its Bulletin (April-June 1948). The translation is by Mary Ellen and N. Lawrence. These statements pop out:

�Consciousness is consciousness of something. . . . Consciousness implies in its being not-conscious and transphenomenal being, of which it is conscious.

. . .

�A consciousness which would be in itself consciousness of nothing would not have any meaning.�

A good study would be to follow in detail Sartre�s reasoning, in which these statements are parts, to his famous strange conclusions about consciousness and to uncover exactly the places of failure according to Rand�s full conception of consciousness.

Of related interest: Plato-Rand Note.

Post 38

Sunday, June 15, 2008 - 4:55pm

Bob K.,

I ask you to ponder - mere seconds is all it should take - at the possible meanings I may have hoped to convey by putting quotations around the word: facts. Yet another second of introspection should reveal that when you replied, "[theories] live and die on facts", you revealed what you truly mean when saying that you read something literally. All you mean is: you read something just once.

You have done little more than agree with my premises and pretend my conclusions came elsewhere.

You can do this. I believe in you. Oh wait. I shouldn't entertain concepts as existing. There is no Robert. Only firing neurons and other tissues that oft' speak that incoherent phrase: I reply.

Post 39

Monday, September 28, 2009 - 4:46am