Questioning Fundamentals

Can someone explain (in detail) what does "Objective Reality" actually mean, is there a coherent explanation for this fundamental statement you all seem to have?

Post 1

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 6:27pm

Finally a more reasonable message.

See http://www.whatisobjectivism.com/explained/page3.htm
for my explanation on this matter for beginners. This should be of considerable help.

Also see this introduction by William Thomas :
http://www.objectivistcenter.org/objectivism/faqs/wthomas_faq-metaphysics.asp

Do post again here if you have further questions.

Post 2

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 6:31pm

"Objective Reality" is actually redundant, and has no more meaning than simply "reality". We sometimes use this phrase to recall what we all know that reality is objective, as opposed to subjective. In other words, reality is as it is, not as we wish it to be. For detail, please see Reality is Absolute, Existence Exists, and Objectivity in the Objectivism 101 section of this site.

Post 3

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 6:36pm

Hi Steve,

Haven't I seen you somewhere before? LOL!

I don't know that I can explain it in philosophical terms as I am not an academic philosopher. As a very interested lay person however, I can give a simple definition because it is actually incredibly simple .. so simple that you'll laugh and wonder why it has such a big name. LOL! Or why it seems redundant in everyday language to refer to reality as Objective reality.

You probably have heard lots of jokes or even 'real' talk about the world existing only as a figment of someone's imagination. I'm sure someone else can quote the names of the schools of thought that believe to varying degrees that the world only exists as some 'ideal' that isn't what is presented to us in the here and now (you, your desk, your computer, etc). There are variants in which people believe that what they experience is more like a dream, that they have varying levels of control over 'their' dream and what not.

Some people really do believe that whatever they experience is created solely in their mind .. which kind of makes you and me and everyone else here on this forum a figment of their imagination. :)

This is sometimes (always?) called a 'Subjective' reality, that is to say, reality exists only by virtue of the person experiencing it. I find that awfully hard to swallow.

Objective reality, based on my dictionary reading and all ... :) assumes that this earth, the solar system, the Universe is something real, whether or not we perceive it at all. If neither you or I were here, this earth, the solar system and the Universe would still exist. We can touch it, feel it, observe it, study it, and manipulate it to some degree. That chair you are sitting in is some real object, as is your computer and your body .. as is mine, and everyone elses here.

I think where the term Objective reality gets confusing is that in general usage, being Objective is something humans do. Okay, not enough humans are objective, but it implies that someone is processing information or events and able to make some kind of judgement about it.

So, to say Objective Reality almost implies that reality itself, the world, the Universe whatever is somehow being rational, somehow doing something to be making these Objective evaluations and according to Objectivists, that is simply not the case. AS much as we would like to think that the world is 'being fair' or 'acting' in accordance with some master plan, we have no proof of that.

The world and Universe does exit. We can see that it exists, we can observe, experiment and unlock the secrets of nature, our world and reality but it isn't considered by Objectivists to be a living and reasoning entity. It just is. And it's up to each individual to explore as they will, knowing that we have discovered some aspects of this world, some of its natural laws, consequences of our own actions as it relates to nature, etc.

So, Objective Reality is the term used to describe what our physical world is, the parts we have discovered and the parts of it that are still a mystery which we do have the power (of our reasoning minds) to continue to explore and unravel.

Hope that was helpful. :)

Joy

Post 4

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 7:37pm

Hi Joy. That's a succinct explanation. Not sure why you were asking me the same question earlier, as you seem to have the basic idea.

Post 5

Tuesday, November 5, 2002 - 8:08pm

LOL! I came to the conclusion above only after the exchange we had. When I read your article, I was very confused, as I explained in that thread. For whatever reasons, when I read your article, I got a different impression because of the difference in terms used generically versus philosophically. To me, in an everyday basis, reality is just reality. To have it suddenly called 'Objective reality' with a generic definition of 'objective' to guide me, it came across as something very different.

And then when Admin chimed in saying things here were implicitly Objectivist ... well, that confused things even more as if indeed some things were implicit, it makes sense that it would simply be 'reality' because we would of course assume it was the real world we were speaking of. So obviously, an Objective Reality was something different. LOL!

Can I make it anymore convuluted?

And I did agree with Steve questions regarding the questionging of perceptions of reality.

We don't all see it the same way. One person can see a glass half empty, another can see it as half full. They both mean the same thing, represent in same thing in reality, but their perceptions are different as when it is translated half-empty sounds more negative than half-full even though they truly mean the very same thing.

I thought that was the point Steve was making and I do see that as a valid question.

Joy :)

Post 6

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 3:59pm

Thank you,
Contrary to what people might already think of me (given that I've have 'shaken the cage' so to speak), I not for one minute believe that "reality" is any figment of the imagination, (in a very Moorean way) I see my hands in front of me, and I know they are there. Some of you might call this an "objective" claim. But, surely *this* reality is the one I perceive - since this is the only access I have to [it].

However, what I am on about in a more subtle way is what the nature of an "objective reality" might be. And I consider surely it must be something immune to the sullying effect of perception, since ones perception of reality differs from anothers, but since there is no reality I know about (and have no evidence for)that is immune to perception I know of no objective reality, and so I contend there isn't one. Most certainly in more subtle theoretical aspects, lest not in any semantic sense. If you doubt this claim, ask yourself what a dogs reality might be, and what difference an objective reality might be to the dog. If you want to place "humans" in some priviliged position above other animals in regard to "reality" you'd better come up with a good argument.

Let me establish *my* normative foundation if you like. It is one that has been described (probably by Quine most famously) as Naturalism. That is that there is no a priori nor experiential foundation outside of science upon which science can be grounded upon. And so, science is both the measure of what there is, and how we know what there is (epistemology). But these claims themselves must be subjected to the same scrutiny that they imply upon any claim of science - therefore they are normative ones.

And that said, I am a fallibilist, science is changeable, as we have seem (Ptolemy was superceded by Copernicus, and Newton in turn, there are endless other examples) so any "objective" reality that might exist certainly exists outside and independant to any human mind. This isn't to say there doesn't exist SOME reality, but that reality certainly isn't accesible by us and the term "objective" is merely a predicate describing a subject, the claim for which, we have no independant basis for analysis.

What this in essense calls for is the dumping of any subjective/objective distinction, and for a naturalising of epistemology. Of course we need some starting point and empiricists presuppose (I'm not talking about trying to prove) the existence of the external world, but the tenets of empiricism are themselves findings of natural science.

What all this amounts to is that I sympathise with the objectivists agenda, but in order to naturalise epistemology and ontology (the study of what there is, or perhaps what there might be for those that hadn't heard that one), or align it as closely as possible with actual reality, their naturalisation requires that they contain one another. What this means is any epistemology ought to aim to provide a scientific account of method and evidence that we do and ought to rely on in supporting claims about what exists and how it behaves.

A translation of the objective/subjective distinction might be this, I am presuming all objective claims are true claims.

One is a belief in some fundamental distinction between beliefs which are grounded in meanings independant to matters of fact (objective). The other is beliefs grounded in fact (subjective).

Hence, the claim that '1 + 1 = 2 is objective' is an objective claim, note there is (apparently) no appeal to empirical (sensory) evidence for this claim, ie; it prima facie, exhibits some desired immunity to sensory shortcomings.

However, the fact that 'democracy is better than dictatorship' is a subjective claim. Why because, I suspect you would want to claim the truth of any objective claim is logically true? And the latter certainly may be true in our books but it doesn't exhibit any properties that might lend to the idea that it is "logically true".

You might disagree with this, if you do you need to outline a robust methodolgy that adequately makes a distinction between matters of fact that are objective and matters of fact which are subjective. You also have to explain how you might account for some objective claims that (in some possibilities) might be false - since you are discarding the possibility of a synonymy between objective truths and logical truths.

It increasingly looks like objectivity is some kind of vague form of idealism. But I'm sure you won't want to call yourselves Platonists in regard to reality.

I'm not looking to convert anyone. I'm just asking you to consider the possible inconsistencies of your own beliefs... I'm doing it all the time. Isn't this what philosophy is about - and objectivism is supposed to be philosophy isn't it? Blind belief in the foundational claims of any belief system is dogmatism - and I'm sure none of you want that label.

kind regards
steve

Post 7

Wednesday, November 6, 2002 - 4:27pm

What you are referring to is the analytic/synthetic dichotomy. Peikoff disproves it in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.
(incidentally, the example you give is not even right : 1+1=2 does refer to observable facts, including the axiom of identity, the existence of addition, and so on)

Once again, I invite you to read the two introductory links I provided you on the question of the objectivity of reality.

Post 8

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 2:30am

I'm afraid Peikoff wasn't the first to reject the analytic synthetic distinction, it was Quine several decades before him in Two Dogmas of Empiricism. In response to Carnaps positivism of the day.

The example I gave was a simplistic example of a necessary or tautological truth, which is supposed to highlight the fact that an analytic statement is one where the predicate is contained in the subject. However in hindsight I would have been better sticking to an english sentence. Such as Quines classic "All bachelors are unmarried men". And yes you are correct, that was my point. But not quite "observable facts", its a little more subtle that that. Quine argues from a sensory stimulus point of view or what he calls "observation statements", where all language and hence all concepts are learned. Hence everything (semantically) is synthetic. He outlines this in laborious detail in Word and Object.

However, the funny point is that you haven't picked up on the points upon which we agree, ie, that there is no foundational knowledge, (a priori knowledge), and that the analytic synthetic distinction holds no empirical water. On these points I agree with you. Check out the original refutation of Kants distinction, Quine, Two Dogmas (I know you'd like it), Peikoff just regurgitated something us analytic philosophers have known for decades. (aha you see there is some common ground)

The problem is your treading on the slippery slope if you want to hold on to a realist ontology whilst rejecting the analytic synthetic distinction, - this is something I'd happily never call myself "a realist" - such a naive label. ;-) (empirical constructionist of sorts I guess at best) - I don't believe as absolute TRUTH any kind of theory about the world, I merely have to hold it empirically adequate for my head to be satisfied. Hey, this is statistically sound at least, look at the revisionary nature of science.

I think as an objectivist, you want to go deeper than semantics however, (analytic philosophy and Quine, Frege, Davidson, Lehrer et al. has essentially reduced ontology to a linguistic, in fact Quine makes no bones about this.) Epistemological theory certainly in analytic philosophy is tending toward coherentist approaches as opposed to the older style correspondance theory.

So..., my reasons for rejecting the analytic synthetic distinction are quite different from yours. I think you're going to need metaphysic to rely upon, because if we agree that analytic statements don't tell us anything about reality, they are tautological right (so, just logical truth), definitional in a sense. If you want to argue for an objective reality (or a 'necessary reality' which sounds better and at least more plausible to my ears anyway, you're going to have to look to some ontological attribute or set of attributes that you can pin reality on. ie, there is *something* out there that is red, (this is Quines again), but that something, is more than just a 'bound variable' it is a real thing!!!

Armstrongs little book (he's an Australian realist) I think it's called An Introduction to Universals, might be a good place to start.

Anyway, perhaps some progress Francois? No offence meant, I've always been a bit of a shit stirrer. ;-)

s.

Post 9

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 2:42am

"I don't believe as absolute TRUTH any kind of theory about the world, I merely have to hold it empirically adequate for my head to be satisfied. Hey, this is statistically sound at least, look at the revisionary nature of science."

You're mincing words. Objectivism acknowledges the necessarily revisionary nature of any form of knowledge. No one said anything about "absolute TRVTH" (pun intended). Science itself is based on Reason, so it cannot contradict Objectivism.

If you would read the material I gave you, you would be much more able to compare. I am not going to discuss with you every single point of Objectivism and how they compare to your Philosophie Du Jour. *sigh*

Post 10

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 9:53am

I'm still working through the language used here. LOL! Somehow bigger words don't make any of this more clear.

I think I'll have to post this in sections because of the 8k limit so here goes ... in response to Steve's post where he said:

"However, what I am on about in a more subtle way is what the nature of an "objective reality" might be. And I consider surely it must be something immune to the sullying effect of perception, since ones perception of reality differs from anothers, but since there is no reality I know about (and have no evidence for)that is immune to perception I know of no objective reality, and so I contend there isn't one. Most certainly in more subtle theoretical aspects, lest not in any semantic sense. If you doubt this claim, ask yourself what a dogs reality might be, and what difference an objective reality might be to the dog. If you want to place "humans" in some priviliged position above other animals in regard to "reality" you'd
better come up with a good argument."

The first thing that jumps to mind is that you are saying that a person doesn't and can't have a completely perfect objective view of reality, that a person can come close perhaps if he is exceptionally intelligent,quite objective and quite scientific in his observations/perceptions and conclusions?

That there isn't one 'vision' of reality that is objective that many men can see in the same way?

Isn't this like what Plato believed with forms and all that? Or similar at least, that man can perceive reality correctly enough to function and even flourish, but that 'real' reality, the perfect unobstructed view of reality lacking in any misinformation or prejudice is something outside the capabilities of our senses and mental processing?

I can understand that and it's something that almost makes sense to me. However, I'm not sure how important that is in the overall scheme of things.

I don't know that there would be a need for that argument. Reality isn't defined by how it is perceived by each individual or even other creatures. I think that is the point Objectivists make. Objectivists do believe it is possible to discover the world and we have in fact begun the process. Yes science evolves as we do, as we learn more, invent more, and discover more. It is ever expanding and it seems natural that as we do continue our research, previous beliefs will be upended. Exploration and discovery is like that. You have to start with something to even begin questioning.

I think there is a difficulty in equating our individual perceptions of reality WITH reality or believing that our collection of perceptions regarding reality is something that we must totally perfect in each individual case. A dog's reality is just that, a collection of
perceptions according to the nature of that creature.

How a dog perceives his environment is hard wired by the nature of the creature he is. He can only act and react within a very limited set of boundaries determined by genetics and instinct: his nature as a dog.

The difference here is that man is different from dogs or any other creatures by the fact that we can sit here and have this conversation about reality -- we can ask questions about the nature of reality and how we perceive it. Animals can't because they lack one thing that humans have -- that ability to ask questions about reality which comes from our reasoning power.

I have a nice big tree in my yard.

It looks pretty nice to me, I can tell you that the trunk diameter is about 6 feet, and a true measurement would give me an actual number in whatever units I care to have it measured in. (And we have developed various standards by which to be scientific for exactly these purposes.)

My kids like the tree, they can climb the lower limbs, they have discovered it can hold their weight and that they can't seem to catch the squirrels that constantly run up and down the tree.

Our neighbor's dog seems to be real fond of that tree as well, chasing chipmunks to it all the time. He likes to sniff around the tree as well, so he knows who's been in the neighborhood.

The tree however is just the tree. It has not changed what it is because of our different perceptions. My husband could extract some DNA and tell me something about the tree in scientific terms that would tell me it's a tree of whatever type it is (Maple I think).

There isn't some objective truth to be revealed only to certain creatures or levels of perceptions.

The tree is the tree is the tree and how we each perceive it is dependent upon many things, which doesn't affect the tree being the tree. Or me knowing that the tree exists in my yard.

I think what you are saying is that my body of knowledge, or my kids body of knowledge, or the dog's body of knowledge is insufficient to give an objective description of the tree?

That an individual cannot fully comprehend all the minute aspects of what that tree is in every describable way?

I'm not sure that is what you are saying, but I'll assume for the sake of discussion that someone has said it. :)

For our individual purposes of living life, we wouldn't need to know every single detail about that tree in order to make use of it, describe it, or otherwise have that tree in our lives.

By that I mean, it's enough for the dog to know that he can read scent there, chase chipmunks there, and whatever. That's all the frame of reference he needs to know about that tree and his nature is such that he can't even know more about it.

A human on the other hand, would have a lot more knowledge and that knowledge will have come from many different sources -- direct experience in that I could touch the tree, examine the leaves, put a bit of matter under the microscope, have it examined by a scientist who has gotten together with other scientists to generate a standard language to describe such things.

I also know by experience or learning from others that I could cut the tree down, burn it, or fashion it into functional furniture for my needs.

While I personally may never know every single atom of the tree by direct identification, I know enough about the tree personally to fill my needs, and others know enough about the tree as it relates to matters of classification, function, composition, etc.

Ultimately, I think you are attaching some other significance to the word 'objective reality' .. one that I don't think Objectivists have or do.

Post 11

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 2:52pm

"You're mincing words"

You obviously are unable to make the distinction between your "objective reality" which is according to your philosophy an absolute fact (isn't this what Rand says?) And the fact that we actually have no access (and never will have) to that reality because by definition IT IS INDEPENDANT to us. Contrasted with the idea that you can make the claim in the first place. There is a circularity in the argument which I will explain.

My claim that I don't accept *any* claims about the world as absolute (logical or otherwise) truth (differs from you ie, you accept at least one claim as absolute truth, the claim that there IS an absolute objective reality) my claim turns on the idea that knowledge of any objective reality is independant to me hence I can't know about it.

What I can accept however are the empirically adequate, instrumentally reliable theories (epistemic and ontic) given to us by science (for reasons I have outlined) which are always up for revision. I don't ever want to say these in anyway match or correspond directly to any "objective reality". How could I ever possibly know that because remember objective reality is INDEPENDANT to my mind?

The fundamental difference between you and I (and this is where YOU are mincing YOUR words) is you believe *a priori*, the fact that there IS an "objective reality" - even tho the actual meaning of this is obscure or at least somewhat oxymoronic (as has been argued ad infinitum). However I will take it prima facie, that it means some reality (the real one presumably) exists independant to us.

If reality is as objectivism suggests, independant of our minds - then this is ONLY known *a priori* since there can be (by definition) no empirical evidence of the fact BECAUSE IT IS INDEPENDANT TO US. But strangely the philosophy (objectivism) calls for the disposal of claims to other a priori knowledge.

Point to some empirical evidence that supports the objectivists claim - well of course there can't be any because the claim would lose it's force, it would cease to be a fact INDEPENDENT TO HUMAN MINDS.

The claim therefore is foundational in nature - that is, it makes a claim as fact to something that we have absolutely no epistemic access to, and that no empirical evidence can support.

Can you not see the logical problem you have here. The argument is circular, you want to claim both that the objective reality is independant of our minds but that there is an objective reality - how do we know, um??? perhaps you just made it up Cartesian style. Of course there is no evidence for an objective reality (there can't be it is independant to our minds) but one exists (I'm sure)...

******
"If you would read the material I gave you, you would be much more able to compare"
******

I did when you listed the references, thank you.

******
"Science itself is based on Reason"
******

No, science is based on observation and experiment, this is called empiricism. Thus science is an empirical endeavour.

Logic is based on reason, and science in some way attempts to map it's findings into logic (note, this is largely a failed endeavour - see Logical Positivism, passim)

******
"No one said anything about "absolute TRVTH" "
******

Do you NOT hold as absolutely true, that an objective reality exists?

"Reality exists as an objective absolute" Rand (from the reference you gave me, thank you) if reality does not exist as an absolute truth, what does it exist as? I can't seem to get any clarification from your references on this point.

I'm not sure what your problem is - it's starting to look personal and not based in the argument - I can accept that I might be frustrating but hey I'm allowed to question the foundations - isn't that something you guys stand up and shout loudly about?

The point is the epistemology and ontology of Quine, Davidson, Lehrer in many ways lend credence to some objectivist ideas, it's just that they subsume the issues under naturalism (which I explained above), and acknowledge the fallibilism of science (and hence naturalism) you don't actually need to hold the claim that an objective reality exists, it doesn't actually tell us anymore about the world. You just need to admit that it is a normative claim (which it is - why not ask Peikoff.)

Sure some kind of reality probably exists independant to us - didn't Sartre call it the 'plenum', so what, it's not one that we will ever know about, and I'm sure as hell not game enough to predicate it. For all I know reality could be red. ;-)

steve.

Post 12

Thursday, November 7, 2002 - 6:01pm

Obviously, there is such a thing as reality, that exists independently of any observer. People use their senses to perceive reality, and some people's senses are different from others--for example, some people hear better than others. But it's still the same reality that we're all perceiving, even though it might look slightly different to each of us.

Go Joy!

Post 13

Saturday, November 9, 2002 - 1:28pm

Steve wrote:

"I'm not sure what your problem is - it's starting to look personal and not based in the argument - I can accept that I might be frustrating but hey I'm allowed to question the foundations - isn't that something you guys stand up and shout loudly about?"

Steve, I think you have a very firm grip on the relative arguments in modern philosophy. You seem to be conversant with many different positions and contentions over metaphysical and epistemological foundations, and this thread is certainly about Fundamentals. I have to take note however, that you have made quite an error of assessing Objectivism in the paragraph above. Objectivists do not "stand up and shout loudly about" questions of reality that are painfully obvious. One of the key elements of the philosophy that Francois has taken great pain to present, is the acceptance of the axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness.

As for the remark that Objectivists create reality "au style cartesien", it is preposterous and shows no understanding of any fundamental premise of the philosophy. Objectivism is a systematic philosophy. It is one of the newest systematic philosophies to have emerged, and it did so independently of academic philosophy. It is in no way comparable to cartesian philosophy that is predicated on the acceptance of the prior existence of consciousness. Objectivism is a form of Aristotelianism in that it accepts the prior certainty of existence. Your confusion over this issue would be dispelled if you were to take a closer look at the facts and understand it as a systematic way of thinking through philosophical issues. One of the problems with philosophies such as your own, that are sceptical in their nature, is that they cannot account for the easy flow through the different branches that constitute it as a philosophy. What I see you doing in your sceptical approach is compartamentalizing philosophy. Your difficulty accepting objective reality will indeed hamper any argument you attempt to make in the more concrete areas that philosophy treats.

It must be very difficult for you to have to USE reason while you attempt to refute it. It must also be dreadfully boring to have to try and prove that reality includes YOU when you refute reality. Your whole argument about the independence of reality crumbles when you have to consider that it includes you rather than excludes you. I think that what you mean when you say independent is that reality is that which is outside of you and exists without you. Not at all. In Objectivism, the metaphysical is EVERYTHING including you, your thoughts, etc.

You are asking many questions that Objectivists do not countenance. Objectivists follow Aristotle in demarcating metaphysical questions that are valid from those that are not so. To question that reality is objective may give you a decent job in academics, and you may be able to fool alot of people for a long time:) But you won't be able to fool Objectivists into believing that your empirical observation and evidences can be anything more than empirical observations of an objective reality that exists. Try to get an Objectivist to believe in any of the sceptical arguments that you offer, and you will see that a victory is quite improbable. A philosophy such as Objectivism, that begins with an axiomatic approach to existence, identity, and consciousness, cannot easily be refuted. You can however, very easily dismiss its arguments and you may misunderstand them, as many have done. You may even misrepresent them as I see you doing in your posts above.

You wrote: "Sure some kind of reality probably exists independant to us - didn't Sartre call it the 'plenum', so what, it's not one that we will ever know about, and I'm sure as hell not game enough to predicate it. For all I know reality could be red. ;-)"

I find this statement very ambiguous. You say "sure" then you say "probably" and then you give an example from Sartre which has no relevence to the objective reality argument discussed here). Then you say that reality will never be anything that we will know about, but you are somehow "sure" that it must exists in some form, and you quote a blind prophet and seer Tiresias (Oops, Sartre) Then you mention the words "game" and "predicate" in the last clause. I think these two words more than anything else exemplify what you like about philosophy. It is all just a big game, right? Objectivists don't think that philosophy is a game. Ayn Rand compared philosophers to detectives searching for philosophical premises (which are like clues to the scene of a crime). The metaphor that I would use to describe your philosophy would not be a detective. In fact I would probably be more likely to use the metaphor of Gamster, or criminal. Your philosophy IS the crime that Objectivism wants to detect expose and put on trial! Good luck hiding.

Post 14

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 11:23am

Steve is quite justified in questioning the claim that reality is objective when that claim is made by a philosophy that explicitly champions a radically empiricist epistemology.

If the term �objective reality� is understood to mean that reality is utterly independent of experience, Objectivism is making two mutually incompatible claims, one �metaphysical� (or more precisely, ontological), the other epistemological:

1) That reality is independent of experience.

2) That all knowledge about reality is derived from experience.

It follows from claim (1) that if reality is in fact independent of experience, it would be impossible to derive any knowledge about reality based on that experience.

On the other hand, it follows from claim (2) that if all knowledge about reality is derived from experience, it would be impossible to claim that reality is independent of that experience.

Therefore, the above two claims are inconsistent. If Objectivism is to maintain its insistence as an integrated philosophy, one or other of these claims must be discarded.

Post 15

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 12:48pm

How can independence prove that two things cannot be in relation ? If I am not dependent on my fianc�e, she can't be my fianc�e ? That is just a silly non sequitur.

Reality is objective, outside of the mind. That entails both that our experience does not create reality, and that we can grasp reality thru outer-directed methods (interpreting certain kinds of experiences). Any other position is inherently contradictory.

Post 16

Sunday, November 10, 2002 - 12:51pm

"No, science is based on observation and experiment, this is called empiricism. Thus science is an empirical endeavour. "

And observations (and logic, which is also part of science) is a rational method. Stop evading my point.

""Reality exists as an objective absolute" Rand (from the reference you gave me, thank you) if reality does not exist as an absolute truth, what does it exist as?"

Reality is everything that exists. It is not "an absolute truth", since it is not a proposition. Geesh ! How sloppy can you be ?

"I'm not sure what your problem is - it's starting to look personal and not based in the argument - I can accept that I might be frustrating but hey I'm allowed to question the foundations - isn't that something you guys stand up and shout loudly about?"

NO, you are NOT allowed ! I have told you that before that you are out of line, but you are both arrogant and refuse to see that ? Do you routinely go on Christian boards and deny the existence of God ? Do you expect they would care about you either ?

Post 17

Monday, November 11, 2002 - 11:01am

Francois wrote: �How can independence prove that two things cannot be in relation? If I am not dependent on my fianc�e, she can't be my fianc�e? That is just a silly non sequitur.�

Bonjour, Francois. I assume that the above is a reply to my post re objective reality. If so, thank you for providing me with an example that nicely supports my argument.

For a start, I never claimed that independence proves that two things cannot be in relation. What I did say was that if reality is claimed to be independent of experience, certain implications follow. In which case my argument can hardly be a non sequitur.

As to your example, you have precisely illustrated my point. You are in reality an engaged person, and this fact of reality is dependent on your relationship with your fianc�e. Likewise for her. That�s a matter of fact. We also know that she is your fianc�e. That�s a matter of epistemology.

If she were no longer your fianc�e, your status in reality would change, and it would change as a result of your changed relationship with her. Again, likewise for her. And clearly enough, we would have to revise our knowledge about you and your former fianc�e.

Without going into the technicalities of perception etc, this analogy � and I offer it only as an analogy, not a proof � can be applied to the relationship between observer and observed, subject and object.

As such, the best that an empiricist could claim is that there is an interdependence between subject and object. Positing the issue as a choice between dependence and independence is a false dichotomy � there really is a third way.

All the best for your impending nuptials.

Post 18

Monday, November 11, 2002 - 12:17pm

"Positing the issue as a choice between dependence and independence is a false dichotomy � there really is a third way."

OK, now you're mangling basic laws of logic. Are you just ignoring the law of excluded middle, or are you an idiot ?

"As to your example, you have precisely illustrated my point. You are in reality an engaged person, and this fact of reality is dependent on your relationship with your fianc�e. Likewise for her. That�s a matter of fact. We also know that she is your fianc�e."

Talk about missing the point. I am still physically and mentally independent from her. She is outside of my sphere of personhood. That doesn't mean I can't be engaged to her.

Apart from misunderstanding the law of excluded middle, is there any concrete argument in your post ? All I see is a reformulation of "I'm right". We're gonna be turning in circles for a long time if this is all you can do.

Post 19

Monday, November 11, 2002 - 1:59pm