Abelard

Ed, you say a number of things which trouble me, one of which is the following:

Our nature co-exists "with" us (actually, it IS us). It never pre-exists. Pre-existing is something Platonic. There is no seperation of a man from his nature.

Yes, Plato believed in a pre-existing reality, but so did Rand. And, in one way, so do I. Objective reality is independent of man. It exists prior to man and is discovered by him. If no man existed, there would still be a reality and nature of man just as there would be gravity even if nothing falls. There would be sound even if no sensing thing is there to hear it. It is not minds which bring things into existence or come into existence with the coming into existence of things. According to Rand, A is A does pre-exist what A is. It is essence prior to existence.

Now, in some places, Rand sounds almost like a nominalist, like an existentialist. She says, in ITOE, that ultimate truths and values, while objective, are experienced. This would mean that they are derived subjectively. She said, “Man is the measure, epistemologically—not metaphysically. In regard to human knowledge, man has to be the measure, since he has to bring all things into the realm of the humanly knowable.” This is consistent with something Sartre would say, that reality is meaningless without man, that man puts meaning into the world. According to Sartre, it doesn’t pre-exist us. It is existence prior to essence.

I hold that there is a pre-existing nature to man but that it also becomes and can be self-determined to an extent. This would be necessary for free-will. It is freedom within objective parameters. So, I try to combine essentialism, that essence is prior to existence, with its opposite, that existence is prior to essence.

BTW, Ed, can you address the point I made about how time and space would have to pre-exist sense-empirical experience. Do you see how this might conflict with what Rand says about how we get knowledge first from sense experience and then integrate it with our reason?

Bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 8/31, 12:02am)

Concepts are "derived" from other things because an objective essence or nature exists there and is discovered or perceived by a conscious

The essence of X per Rand and even others is not equivalent to the full nature of X. The essence of X is its attributes that are most important to its nature. What is most important in Rand's view is determined by humans. It is not "given" by X itself. Even in Aristotle's view, in which essence is a part of X per se, it is not the entire nature of X. He, as have many others, distinguished between essential (or necessary) properties and "accidental" (unnecessary) ones.

I understand the difference between essential and accidental properties, Merlin. Socrates and I are essentially the same. We are both humans and are mortal. He has a beard which is an accidental property that I don’t share with him. We still have the same human nature, the same essence.

Apparently, you didn't read my Intentional Conceptualism thread. In this statement, you have merely chosen the flipside of the Realism-Nominalism coin (you're taking the Aristotelian position of the moderate realist).

 

I did read your post, Ed. I just disagree with it. Yes, I think Aristotle is a kind of realist, but he is also a sophisticated nominalist. Perhaps you didn’t read my post on the paths to knowledge. Number 2 is Aristotle, but number 3 is Plato and closer to Rand then number 2.

Bis bald,

Nick

4.  Are universals merely the form in which humans conceptualize (ie. the "mode" of cognition)?

**If yes, congratulations!  You're an "intentional conceptualist" - the type of thinker Rand was, though she never explicitly stated it in such sufficiently illustrative terms - you realize that "units are things viewed by a consciousness in certain existing relationships" and that "units do not exist qua units" either in your mind OR outside of it - you realize that units have existence by way of THE INTERACTION of a mind with reality (they're not in the mind or out in reality; they are in the relation of mind to reality;

This is not Rand’s position. It is not Objectivism. Reality is objective if it exists prior to being known. Yes, you say existence is identity. This is just the existence exists principle which implies two corollaries 1.) that something exists which one perceives and 2.) that one exists possessing consciousness, the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

To exist, according to Rand, is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes “…Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.”

Reality is what it is. To know truth is simply to recognize reality for what it is, and this is done with reason, the faculty which perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality provided by man’s senses. So, there is that which is perceived, objective reality, and the perceiver, the consciousness which perceives that one objective reality, even though this sets up an operational dualism. Saying that consciousness and reality are part of each other and interact is what some of the Asian philosophies do by becoming one with the whole. Rand really objected to that.

I don’t think I’m being incorrigible, Ed. I think I understand this stuff, to the extent it can be understood, and you are being incorrigible.

Bis bald,

Nick

Nick,

This is not Rand’s position. It is not Objectivism.

Prove it.

I did. I explained that reality is objective if it exists prior to being known. That is what “objective” means, independent of one’s wishes and whims. I explained that existence exists, according to Rand, implies two corollaries 1.) that something exists which one perceives and 2.) that one exists possessing consciousness, the faculty of perceiving that which exists. This is Rand’s position. It is not the same as your position, that units have existence by way of THE INTERACTION of a mind with reality.

So, there is that which is perceived, objective reality, and the perceiver, the consciousness which perceives that one objective reality, even though this sets up an operational dualism.

Prove it.

I did, above. However, you can check in Atlas Shrugged or on page 124 o the paperback version of For the New Intellectual. “Existence exists—and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.” This is the operational dualism, the perceived and the perceiver.

Saying that consciousness and reality are part of each other and interact is what some of the Asian philosophies do by becoming one with the whole.

Prove it.

Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism all try to avoid the western dualism of self v. reality by making self part of reality. Rand really hated this because it conflicted with her egoism. She also didn’t like the constant process of samsari, which conflicted with her essentialism, her static, objective realty which is discovered, not brought into existence by an interaction of consciousness and reality.

I think I understand this stuff, to the extent it can be understood ...

Prove it.

Nick, your bold conjectures are getting tiresome. If Rand (in ITOE) rejected moderate and extreme realism, and she rejected moderate (classical conceptualism) and extreme nominalism -- then what in the hell DID she accept? You say that she didn't accept Intentional Conceptualism -- but you offer no argument (you merely make bold conjecture, without supportive reasoning).

You are wrong. I did tell you that, in the post on paths to knowledge, Rand’s position was closer to number 3, Plato’s position, than she was to Aristotle’s position. This s what in the hell she DID accept. The supportive reasoning for this is that for Plato and Rand, truth (existence) is what corresponds to Truth (essence), what “matches” the image.

O’Neill sums it up best:

For Rand, a knowledge of ultimate reality exists, not merely a posteriori, relative to particular experience, but a priori, as certitude which lays the foundation for knowing itself. Knowledge does not grow out of personal experience. Quite the opposite. Certain basic truths are self-evident, in the sense of being implicit within experience itself. They are neither chosen (which would be subjectivism) nor derived on the basis of contextual knowledge (which would be relativism). They are projected as a sort of paradigmatic vision of ultimate reality. All men recognize these truths, because a recognition of such truths is implicit in the nature of man as man. Man is rational by definition: he is the animal who is possessed of intuitive insight—an insight which can be suppressed but never successfully denied.

This is what Rand meant when she had Galt say, “The extreme you have always struggled to avoid is the recognition that reality is final, that A is A and that truth is true.” It is that people already know but tend to deny or avoid recognizing reality for what it is, like you avoid recognizing that I have proven my statements and demonstrated my understanding

Bis bald,

Nick.

Ed T. said that Rand held that universals are the form in which humans conceptualize. Nick replied:

This is not Rand’s position. It is not Objectivism. Reality is objective if it exists prior to being known.

Ed is far closer to the truth than Nick. "Objective" per Rand pertains to the relationship between consciousness and the rest of reality.

Nick quotes O'Neill:

For Rand, a knowledge of ultimate reality exists, not merely a posteriori, relative to particular experience, but a priori, as certitude which lays the foundation for knowing itself. Knowledge does not grow out of personal experience.

That is a gross misunderstanding of Rand.