Questioning Fundamentals

Well for a place that I ended up by accident this turned out to be very interesting. After reading over the whole exchange I have to say I feel a little sad, although I am not sure for who. I have been recently contemplating what I think and feel and how that can and does relate to others thoughts and feelings. It seems obvious that I think my beliefs are right or else I would not hold them, but I struggle with the fact that others have similar conviction in their beliefs and no matter how ridiculous I think they are I cannot help but feel that they could still be right (you know, unlikely but still perfectly possible). What I have just read made a few things clearer. I just saw some apparently very educated people basically reduce themselves to name calling rather than engage in an actual discussion. It has certainly encouraged me to gaurd against too great of a personal investment in what I believe. I will admit that I am young yet but I witness in academia that most people make good points and bad points and that we should try to weed out one from the other and take something good from everyone. I think people usually getting tripped up by having a few good ideas and then trying to make the whole world fit into their way of thinking. I hope I never think I've figured the world out cuz thats the day that I'm wrong forsure, or I become god I guess. I'm trying to be a little light hearted here on purpose.

I think the main point is I encounter so many people telling me their particular brand of 'truth' and I have come to see that their probably just as wrong as I am. Everyone in history has been completely convinced of something and almost all of them were wrong, actually maybe they were all wrong. So it just stands to reason that we are too. I just think we need to see this fumbling around in the dark as a co-operative venture and work a little more nicely with one another. It would probably make the job a little easier.

Post 41

Monday, February 10, 2003 - 2:40pm

After reading the entire exchange between the Objectivists and the Subjectivists, I noticed some confusion about the meaning of the word "axiom." In Mathematics, the difference between axioms and definitions blur substantially; for example, in Euclidean Geometry, the parallel postulate is assumed, which turns out to imply that the sum of the measures of the angles of any triangle 180 degrees. However, this axiom can be jettisoned to give rise to Non-Euclidean Geometries, in which this is not the case. Despite this, both of these geometries are useful in describing separate phenomena. In this sense, neither geometry is "wrong", because it is a matter of what you are talking about-- a system in which the angle sum of a triangle is 180 degrees, or not.

I think that the problem lies in the subjectivists' confusion of a mathematical "axiom" with Rand's "axiom." A mathematical axiom simply restricts the reader's attention to a structure which has certain interesting properties-- there is nothing permanent or immutible about them. This was not always the case-- before the invention of Non-Euclidean Geometries, academicians assumed that Euclidean Geometry described reality perfectly-- that it was a type of "physical mathematics" (perhaps this is where the confusion started).

Contrastly, Rand's "axioms" are, in essence, needed for two individuals to debate the fundamentals of Objectivism (or anything, for that matter); as the Objectivists have stated in several places already, it is very difficult to engage in a logical argument about existance if (i) nothing exists with which to argue about, (ii) there is no logic with which to argue, and (iii) there are no beings possessing consciousnesses to engage in a debate.

To a certain extent, this is true in mathematics as well. Of course you cannot prove every true statement in a system with a countable number of axioms-- Godel has already proven as much. But I challenge anyone to try to prove anything remotely consistent without assuming that A is A; you won't get very far starting with 0 = 1. Also, if no rules of logic are observed, there is no way in which one can prove anything. Finally, it would seem that if there were no consciousness in the universe to invent and discuss mathematics, there wouldn't be much to mathematics to begin with.

In a larger sense, all of the sciences proceed by first assuming that some objective reality exists, and then endeavoring a way to try to measure or otherwise describe the world. In short, any argument which purports to refute the existance of reality based upon science is not valid, since science itself assumes the existance of an objective reality. In short, no person has any business being a scientist without first being an objectivist. After all, what is a scientist but one who attempts to understand this objective reality in terms of mathematics and logic? So if anyone wishes to propose an argument against Objectivism, please note that mathematics, logic, and all fields which employ the scientific method cannot be used as premises.

Post 42

Saturday, March 15, 2003 - 4:45am

I want to thank Objectivists for this site. I appreciate the freedom open for others to express their opinions, and for individuals such as myself to read them. I have longed to witness a discussion such as this one.

I will state where I stand because there is a chance that you may wonder what effect this discussion has had on witnesses such as myself (even though I am a stranger to this site).

I found validity in both the Subjectivist and Objectivist arguements. However, in my search to act in a manner consistant with a logical, coherent philosophy, I have personally struggled to find anything of use in the Subjectivist view other than this absolute truth: I am an ignorant, fallible being.

Nevertheless, I have an incredible imagination. I am creative. And my potential to create possibilities are worthy of respect. I believe all individuals are responsible for the philosophies their practices portray.

Therefore, I think the Objectivists' pursuit is an honorable pursuit. It shows initiative to address a crucial aspect of human life - responsibility.

Since I happened upon this site, I have begun to read up on Objectivism for personal gain. I hope to seek a greater understanding of the possibility of what my responsibilities consists of.

Again, thank you :-)

Post 43

Monday, March 17, 2003 - 7:04am

The axioms

Existence (what is...), identity (...is something...) and consciousness (...I perceive it).

Steve seems to be a skeptic, believing that it is a fact that there are no such thing as facts, that he is certain there is no such thing as certainty.
All of steve's arguments are self refuting and based on little study (and understanding) of objectivist positions. I'm open to discussions but I demand at least a basic understanding of objectivist views before an attempt at refutation .

Steve doesn't acknowledge the law of identity either, that A is A and cannot be both A and non-A (for non-objectivists, a thing cannot be both something and nothing). Also he doesn't exercise logic either (the art of non-contradictory indentification) because the contradictions are evident in all his posts, yet he doesn't seem to acknowledge them. He also attempts to appeal to 'higher authorities' to explain his view but doesn't attempt to show how he came to the conclusion that there are no axioms.

All of his beliefs make the task of debate frustrating and has sadly reduced people of intelligence to pesonal attacks and hostility. My advice is to concentrate on pointing out the conbtradictions of his argument and also whenever arguing use the 'Rand razor', what are your premises? It will make the process of debate easier and less frustrating.

Steve's premise's are identitcal to skepticism, and most skeptics use complex (and at times amusing) arguments against facts and logic. I welcome discussion but when someone refutes the self evident fact of existence it is usually impossible to engage in any intelligent discussion with them.

Post 44

Saturday, October 25, 2003 - 8:13am

Brendan said:

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.

Objectivism makes no claim that "reality" is independent of experience, in the sense that it cannot be experienced or that it does not include experience. The objectivist view is that reality is what it is, whether it is experience or not, and our experience of it in no way changes its nature. Reality is the object of objectivism.

But I've noticed in all of this discussion a confusion of terms that really needs to be explicated. It is a confusion objectivists themselves are guilty of, including Rand, Peikoff, and Kelly. If more people would introduce themselves to classical logic, many of these confusions would go away. One of the confusions is meaning and connotation of words.

This is what the objectivists should have made explicit:

Existence - All that is. Includes, rocks, trees, the solar system, the physical universe, justice, nostalgia, objectivism, Santa Claus, and the Tooth Fairy.

Reality - All that is the way it is Reality and existence have the same "content" (extension, particulars) as existence, but reality differentiates that content based on what the ancient logicians called, "mode of existence." Rocks, trees, the solar system and the universe exist physically (sometimes called material existence), justice, nostalgia, and objectivism exist as ideas, but not as physical existents, Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy exist but only as fictions.

Material existence is all that exists whether anyone is aware of its existence or knows anything about it. Its nature and all that exists materially exists independently of our knowledge or awareness of it.

Physical existence is all we are directly conscious of (that is, perceive). The objectivists fail to distinguish between material and physical existence which is minor, but still a mistake. Life, consciousness, and volition all exist independently of any particular persons awareness of them, but are not physical in the sense that we can be directly aware of them. They are material, because the exist "objectively" but we cannot directly perceive life, or consciousness, or volition.

Objectivists usually mean by existence, "physical" existence, but sometimes "material" existence, and sometimes, "reality." The failure to make these concepts explicit (they need not use the same words) has caused them much trouble.

The important point is, material existence is what is independent of our knowledge of it, and the truth or veracity of our knowledge of it is determined by its nature, not anything we think or believe about it. In this sense, material existence is absolute, as opposed to contingent. Everything else that exists is contingent, because it depends on human volition for its existence. All knowledge, all science, all works of art, all fiction are contingent in the sense they depend on human action (mental or physical) for their existence and their nature.

Can we begin here?

Regi

Post 45

Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 5:19am

Hi Reginald,

I’m going to be incommunicado for a while, so unfortunately I can only make a few brief comments.

“The objectivist view is that reality is what it is, whether it is experience or not, and our experience of it in no way changes its nature.”

That’s what I meant when I said Objectivism considers reality independent of experience. My apologies if this was unclear.

Thanks for pointing out the distinctions between existence and reality, and material and physical existence. They certainly clarify the issue. Although Rand did make a distinction between the “metaphysical” and the “man-made”, I’m not sure how she understood this distinction as it relates to her notions of existence and reality.

“Material existence is all that exists whether anyone is aware of its existence or knows anything about it.”

I guess the problem I have with this statement is that it’s a knowledge claim about the world, but it also claims that such knowledge can be true in the absence of a knower. I don’t see how this possible.

I suppose that’s one reason why Kant drew his distinction somewhat differently, between noumena and phenomena, with the former the claimed cause of our experiences in the phenomenal realm. Since the noumena is unknowable, this appears to sidestep the above problem, although later commentators claimed that Kant’s noumena was in fact a knowledge claim.

Sorry to be so brief. I have to pack. Maybe we can catch up in future.

Regards,

Brendan

Post 46

Sunday, October 26, 2003 - 7:14am

Brendan,

Hope you have an enjoyable successful trip.

Your question is a common one, which I frankly believe is almost never adequately answered. I suppose that is why it keeps being asked. In spite of that, I believe the answer is much simpler than supposed.

You quoted me, Material existence is all that exists whether anyone is aware of its existence or knows anything about it.

Then you stated, I guess the problem I have with this statement is that it’s a knowledge claim about the world, but it also claims that such knowledge can be true in the absence of a knower. I don’t see how this possible.

I think this is a misunderstanding about the statement, which does not say "knowledge can be true in the absence of a knower," at all. What it means is this, even though most of the world believed the earth was the center of the universe for a long time, and most also thought it was flat, the actual nature of the universe and the world was what it was all along, whether anyone knew it or not.

As for the statement being a, "knowledge claim," it is, if you mean, it is the claim of knowing, "... existence is all that exists whether anyone is aware of its existence or knows anything about it."

The question you have comes from confusing two different kinds of knowledge.

One is knowledge about existence itself. Some people have a lot of such knowledge, some very little, some none at all (or at least, very little).

The other is knowledge about the relationship between different people's knowledge of existence and existence itself. Whether one knows a great deal, very little, or nothing about existence, the nature of existence is the same in any case. If all the people with any knowledge about existence die, existence will still be what it is.

Of the two kinds of knowledge, then, we can say (1) existence is not dependent on a knower, but (2) knowing that definitely requires a knower.

Furthermore, the knower (2) must be a rather sophisticated knower, with a fairly extensive knowledge of existence and its nature before the knowledge that, "existence is what it is whether known or not," can be understood.

Regi

Post 47

Tuesday, October 28, 2003 - 8:20am

Regi,

I think you made the point clear. You should of posted a year ago to save this thread.

Brendan,

In other words, it is the job of your consciousness to perceive reality not to create it or invent. Or, "Wishing won't make it so."

This is what is meant by "Reality or existence is independent of consciousness."

A person can believe all he/she wants that the earth is flat but the reality of it is independent of that thought.

Post 48

Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 4:37am

"you don't actually need to hold the claim that an objective reality exists, it doesn't actually tell us anymore about the world."

Hmm. So, let me get this straight, Steve.
1. You acknowledge the existence of "the world"

2. You acknowledge that it is "independent" fo us.

3. Then you go to claiming that we can known NOTHING about "the world", because it is independent of us.

I just love reading your posts. You REALLY want to convert us all to Quine, don't you? (He's your personal Jesus, I suppose).

I'm not going to waste the time refuting you, but I just wanted to get clear on your premise. "Because we gain information about Reality, we can know NOTHING about reality."

That's cute.
Have fun, solipsism-boy.

Post 49

Sunday, December 7, 2003 - 5:19am

Just a clarification:
Why is it that this board seems to get huge numbers of people like Steve? Word games a plenty, with no substantive discussion whatsoever. Basically, verbal masturbation. And WHY is it when us "lowly" Objectivists don't just rolll over and play dead (IE, go subjectivist), he always -- in EVERY thread to which I've seen him post -- goes into that same tired spasm about "I have a graduate degree! Lookit me! I'm an academic! College philosophers hate you guys! You guys suck! We're CERTAIN that there's no such thing as Certainty! yeah, lookit me!"

How does somebody like that actually continue to survive? By accepting the evidence of an external Realty (which is, by the way, what ALL the available evidence points toward.) Basically, Steve shows himself to be a rather noisy (and unconsious) figment of my own imagination, if any of his premises are actually accurate.

The problem here is that "opponents of objectivism" are either disgusted by the notion of rational self-interest, terrified of Capitalism, or just to damn cowarardly to acknowledge that Reality is -- REAL.
Makes me wanna puke.

Post 50

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 7:48am

Well said, Henry. Most people's dislike of Objectivism is based on purely emotional grounds - a priori commitment to religious language, hatred of the good (selfishness and progress), or in rare cases, more eclectic notions they were taught in school or by their parents. I have encountered few people who argue against Objectivist positions on purely intellectual grounds, which is too bad because such things are worthwhile.

Then again, I don't uphold contextual certainty, so you might consider me as part of those "people like Steve" you were ranting about. So far, we don't seem to agree about much. (^_____^)

Post 51

Tuesday, December 9, 2003 - 9:19pm

Actually, Francois, I think we agree on the pivotal points: Reason as tool of cognition, Individual rights, and non-initiation of force, to name a few.
Actually, I respect you far more than Steve, and would even if we didn't agree on ANYTHING. He tends to (from what I've seen), just spam the board endlessly with "I hate Objectivism and you Objectivists suck!" type posts, which is pathetic in the extreme.
If he had a coherent style of argumentation, that would be different, but the stuff I've seen is just pathetic.

I don't see the issue of contextual certainty to be all that pivotal, certainly nothing to invoke "moral sanction" over (grin!)

Hey, Francois, let's be pals, okay?
(grin!)

Post 52

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 7:10am

"I don't see the issue of contextual certainty to be all that pivotal, certainly nothing to invoke "moral sanction" over"

Well, I'm glad you think so. I don't think it's all that important, in practice.

"Hey, Francois, let's be pals, okay?"

OK ! Put on your winter clothes and we'll go storm the castle ! (^______^)

Post 53

Wednesday, December 10, 2003 - 5:33pm

Hey Francois!
Where was that "winter clothes" reference from? Was that Tolkein?

Post 54

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 4:43am

Uh, no. It was from me.

Post 55

Thursday, December 11, 2003 - 3:28pm

Hmm...good catch-phrase! :)

Post 56

Monday, December 15, 2003 - 4:56pm

Help me here, was the grand result of this thread that reality is real? Sheesh, talk about long-winded...

Post 57

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 12:28pm

Well, yeah....(grin!) :)

Post 58

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 1:27pm

Stop whining. Many people vehemently refuse to agree with the proposition that "reality is real" (and yes, I've encountered some). It's not trivial at all.

Post 59

Tuesday, December 16, 2003 - 7:44pm