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 unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 13, No Sanction: 0
Post 20

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 7:33amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Nick: "AR implies, through Galt, that man does already know ultimate truths, like existence exists, even if existence is not a material existent....In Rand's model, reason is man’s tool that enables him to perceive the facts of reality but he derives those facts logically from self-evident axioms already in him as a result of his nature as a rational creature, even though he has no inherent knowledge."

Wrong, Nick. Rand doesn't hold that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are known by man before he actually perceives anything. She holds that those axioms are *implicit* in all perception and are the base of all knowledge. You can't claim any knowledge at all without validating those axioms. You seem to think that Objectivism is a rationalistic system, when in fact it isn't.

*Now* I'm done.

Post 21

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 9:54amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Wrong, Nick. Rand doesn't hold that the axioms of existence, consciousness, and identity are known by man before he actually perceives anything. She holds that those axioms are *implicit* in all perception and are the base of all knowledge. You can't claim any knowledge at all without validating those axioms. You seem to think that Objectivism is a rationalistic system, when in fact it isn't.

 

Axioms are truth statements. “Existence exists” is a conceptual proposition. If it is implicit in all perception, then it cannot have been perceived. It has to be inherent in the faculty which perceives, consciousness. Recognition of it is knowledge of it, so it is knowledge prior to perception.

 

Jon, I see you skillfully removed Galt’s quote from my post when you reposted it. He said, "The extreme you have always struggled to avoid is the recognition that reality is final, that A is A and that the truth is true." Galt’s speech goes on to explain that existence exists, implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, the faculty of perceiving that which exists. “Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it.”

 

bis bald,

 

Nick

 

 


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 22

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 12:11pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
First, Nick, it didn't take much skill to do that.

Second, the quote itself proves my point. Galt's saying that implicit in your knowledge about anything is that there's a *property* (identity) of *something* (existence) of which *you're aware* (consciousness). These are the axioms that necessarily underlie all perceptions and precede the knowledge of propositional truths. We experience those facts at the time as we begin to interact with our surroundings as infants. But it's not possible to conceptually identify that "existence exists" that time. Rand obviously doesn't mean that you have inherent conceptual knowledge--that's a rather bizarre reading of that quote, especially in the context of her other writings on epistemology. I recommend you read the beta version of David Kelley's The Logical Structure of Objectivism if you wish to understand this further. Somehow, I doubt it.
(Edited by Jon Trager
on 8/16, 12:11pm)


Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 4, No Sanction: 0
Post 23

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 1:01pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Developental psychologists such as Piaget have greater credibilty than Rand, Branden, and Piekoff when talking about concept formation and cognitive stages humans go through from infant to adult. I recommend you read him if you wish to understand this further. Somehow, I doubt it.

BTW, Jon, you keep saying you are finished, yet you keep coming back. How much credibility do you have?

bis bald,

Nick


Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Sanction: 5, No Sanction: 0
Post 24

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 1:24pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
I've already read Piaget, Nick.

And I'm sure you're not claiming that my explanations are somehow undermined by the fact that I keep posting after I say I'm leaving. You seem smarter than that.

Post 25

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 4:14pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Jon, you're doing an admirable job of replying to Nick. I just had a bone to pick with one of your statements. You wrote,
Second, the quote itself proves my point. Galt's saying that implicit in your knowledge about anything is that there's a *property* (identity) of *something* (existence) of which *you're aware* (consciousness).
Actually, Rand wouldn't put it quite the way you have. She would say, "There is (existence) something (identity) of which you're aware (consciousness). She wouldn't call identity a "property" of something. She would say that the concept of something (i.e., of a particular existent) is the concept of identity. But, other than that, I concur with everything you've said. Nick simply doesn't get it. He quotes Galt,
"The extreme you have always struggled to avoid is the recognition that reality is final, that A is A and that the truth is true."
and comments,
This implies that man does already know the truth, like someone in Plato’s model, and that reality is the final arbiter, that man can compare what he knows “with” reality to test for its truth, like Plato checks outside realty with an inside, otherworldly, reality.
It doesn't imply anything of the sort. What a bizarre construction! First of all, Galt is not speaking to every single person, as if all of humanity were struggling to avoid recognizing reality; he is speaking to a certain type of person who is evading the knowledge that he or she has already acquired. Secondly, the knowledge he's referring to is knowledge that's acquired from experience with this world, not from some otherwordly reality.

If Nick is as familiar with Rand's philosophy as he says, then his ability to draw reasonable inferences from what he reads is so lacking, it's embarrassing. And if he is able to draw reasonable inferences, then his knowledge of Objectivism is so meager that his self-proclaimed familiarity with it is a sham. In either case, it doesn't appear there's much to be gained by debating him.

Nick, if your problem is lack of knowledge about Objectivism, then I would recommend reading Peikoff's OPAR as well as Rand's ITOE. If you've already read them, then Objectivism is probably not something you're going understand, even at the most basic level. But then I doubt that you really want to understand it.

Bill

Editing: For some strange reason, I referred to Nick as "Ed" in a couple of places. My apologies to both Eds for that unfortunate faux pas.
(Edited by William Dwyer
on 8/16, 10:00pm)


Post 26

Wednesday, August 16, 2006 - 5:53pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
There is nothing bizzarre about my interpretation of Rand's path to knowledge. I posted, below, the 4 paths to knowledge recognized by conventional wisdom in philosophy. Rand matches up most closely with path number 3, which is Plato's view. Yes, Rand differs a little from Plato, but she is closer to him than she is to any of the other descriptions on that list, whch most philosiphers consider to be complete.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 27

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 12:15amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Editing: For some strange reason, I referred to Nick as "Ed" in a couple of places. My apologies to both Eds for that unfortunate faux pas.
I feel vindicated for the time I criticized your intelligence and misspelled intelligence.

Of course, neither you nor Jon nor Ed are as familiar with Rand's philosophy as I am, so your attempts to bait me won't work. You should try somethng else.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 28

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 6:58amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the compliment, William. And you're right that AR would say, "There is (existence) something (identity) of which you're aware (consciousness)." I'm glad you corrected that.



Post 29

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 7:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Thanks for the compliment, William. And you're right that AR would say, "There is (existence) something (identity) of which you're aware (consciousness)." I'm glad you corrected that.

And, Rand is saying, through Galt, that everybody has this axiomatic knowledge as a precondition for contextual, non-axiomatic knowledge, which can be perceived through the tool of reason, (as if reason doesn't have to be developed first.)

And, all this is simply true because it is true. Some people might see this as mysticism.

bis bald,

Nick


Post 30

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 8:42amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"And, Rand is saying, through Galt, that everybody has this axiomatic knowledge as a precondition for contextual, non-axiomatic knowledge, which can be perceived through the tool of reason, (as if reason doesn't have to be developed first.)"

No, she's not, as I've already explained. Your interpretation of Galt's quote is incorrect. The idea that AR posits that individuals have innate ideas like "existence exists" that precede the acquisition of contextual knowledge is a rationalistic view that contradicts all of her epistemic writings. You can keep on believing otherwise though.

Post 31

Thursday, August 17, 2006 - 10:27amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
"And, Rand is saying, through Galt, that everybody has this axiomatic knowledge as a precondition for contextual, non-axiomatic knowledge, which can be perceived through the tool of reason, (as if reason doesn't have to be developed first.)"

No, she's not, as I've already explained. Your interpretation of Galt's quote is incorrect. The idea that AR posits that individuals have innate ideas like "existence exists" that precede the acquisition of contextual knowledge is a rationalistic view that contradicts all of her epistemic writings. You can keep on believing otherwise though.


 

You need to read her epistemic writings more closely, and my writings. Where do I claim Rand has a rationalistic view? In ITOE, 75, she says, “It is axiomatic concepts that identify the precondition of knowledge: the distinction between existence and consciousness, between reality and the awareness of reality, between the object and the subject of cognition. Axiomatic concepts are the foundation of objectivity.” In “The Left: Old and New,” NL, 84, “Reason is man’s only means of grasping reality and of acquiring knowledge—…” In The Objectivist Ethics,” VOS, 13; pb 20, “Reason is a faculty that man has to exercise by choice.” (Remember, I’ve asked before what guides that initial choice to choose reason.)

 

BTW, did you read the frst contradiction in y post about a few of Rand's contradicitons? It comes from her epistemic writings. She says axiomatic concepts are beyond specification in terms of attributes, then she talks about how "consciousness" has two attributes: content and action. (I love pointing out contradictions.) 

 

Bis bald,

 

Nick

 

 


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1


User ID Password or create a free account.