Abelard

Case 1: Nick's derivation is more aptly described as a distortion.

Let’s recap. Merlin challenged me to find, in Rand’s own words, where she said anything like “Reality is objective if it exists prior to being known.”

I provided “…something exists which one perceives,…”,  “…reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness,…”, and “Reality exists as an objective absolute—facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.”

If this is a distortion, Nathaniel Branden, in his opening lecture of “Basic Principles of Objectivism,” in 1964, makes the same distortion when he says the first principle of Objectivism is that reality is “independent of anyone’s knowledge.”

Case 2: What Nick and O'Neill assert is Rand's position is almost the opposite of what Nick quoted from Rand to support the assertion.

Nick and O'Neill: "Knowledge does not grow out of personal experience."

Rand: "It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, ..." [italics mine].

 

First, allow me to go back to the original O’Neill quote to put the questioned sentence in context. Second, allow me to place my italics in both the O’Neill quote and the Rand quote.

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. Quite the opposite. Certain basic truths are self-evident, in the sense of being implicit within experience itself.”

Rand: : "It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, ..."

In post 25 Nick writes:

1+1=2 is an a priori truth. It is true prior to experience. 

'1 stick + 1 stick = 2 sticks' comes from experience. '1 cow + 1 cow = 2 cows' comes from experience. '1x + 1x = 2x' comes from experience. '1+1=2' is an abstraction from these

cases and hence comes from experience.

1+1=2 is an instance of A =A, since 2 is defined as 1+1. A is A is a fundamentally given principle which lays the foundation for knowing itself. And, nobody has ever experienced, with senses, a “1” or a “2”.

Bis bald,

Nick

But we've experienced, with our powers of conceptual awareness (which are "fed" by our perceptual awareness), a "1" and a "2" and oh so many more intangible abstractions.

Kant pointed out that perceptual awareness, empirical experience, is presupposed by time and space, a few intangible concepts required before we can even have experience.

There could never have ever been an abstraction -- if there weren't ever a perception in the first place. It's like what Aristotle and Rand said, if it weren't for perception -- then nothing would be in our heads.

There are several things in our heads which we never perceived. Perhaps unicorns are abstractions, but where did we perceive the laws of logic? Where did we perceive the idea of perfection, as in the perfect line or circle? Yes, there is a symbol which represents the idea of two objects, but what does a two look like? We have seen individual men, but what kind of features does “man” have? Is there such a thing as the generic man, or is this just an abstraction?

His stuff is not as simple as you seem to think, Ed. Yes, Quine has done some work on making the line between analytical and synthetic less distinct. He did a better job than did Peikoff, but other contemporary philosophers are challenging him. It’s not like just thinking straight, reading Flew, will make everything obvious.

BTW, Ed, this is not a response to my post number 16 in this thread, which was my response to your post number 15.

 bis bald,

Nick

Kant pointed out nothing - he merely made a claim, which itself is unsustainable, tho supported by most contemporary philosophers and, it seems, by you...

You said, “There could never have ever been an abstraction -- if there weren't ever a perception in the first place.”

I said, “Kant pointed out that perceptual awareness, empirical experience, is presupposed by time and space, a few intangible concepts required before we can even have experience.” This means, Ed, that there would never be a perception if there were not the concepts of time and space. You completely evaded this point.

I also asked where we perceive the laws of logic, perfection, and the concept of two, without the objects or symbols which we’ve attached to it. You haven’t really answered these questions. You said, “We didn't (and that was my POINT).” Well, Ed, these are examples of things which get into our heads, or were there to begin with, without our perceiving them.

Potentiality is also something about which we can only guess, with differing degrees of certainty. It’s all very pragmatic, and Rand did not like pragmatism.

You said, “This is an abstraction, but that doesn't mean that it doesn't exist ('generic man' just doesn't PHYSICALLY exist).” Well, Ed, if all we are doing is giving names to entities which have similar features, then we are nominalists. Rand did not like nominalists.

I'll only respond to that thread if you first respond satisfactorily to me here and now on these points. Another way to say this is that I'm not willing to fully engage you at the level that you are willing to engage me -- at least not until I can be more sure that you are reasonable enough for a hyper-reasonable guy like me to continue to engage (at that level). Your reasonableness is in doubt. I'm testing the waters by fetching for a response to THIS POST.

Your response will be duly noted -- and you will be judged accordingly (on whether I should continue to engage you).

I don’t think you would like it much if I said something like this to you. It’s arrogant, holier than thou. Rand would not like it. She would say that she doesn't live to please you, to live by your standards. (Have you read her "I" speech from Anthem?) She would probably say, “Then don’t engage me anymore, Ed. I think you are dishonest and a coward. I really don’t want you bothering me.” And this will give you the “out” you are looking for.

I routinely put more effort into my posts than you do into yours. I am reasonable, more so than someone who claims, as you did, that using people is not really using people. I answer your posts fully and then you evade me. You try to put the blame on me rather than accepting it yourself. You, Ed, are not worth my attention.

Bis bald,

Nick