Meaning of Absolute

I would like to check my understanding of objectivisms meaning of "absolute"

Since human knowledge is contextual and not omniscient, as long as we have integrated a new item of knowledge fully into our context then we can say that new item is an absolute.

The opposing idea of an absolute is an item of knowledge that is forever true and outside the realm of reason.

Is this correct? Anyone like to elaborate?

Post 1

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 5:28pm

"Since human knowledge is contextual and not omniscient, as long as we have integrated a new item of knowledge fully into our context then we can say that new item is an absolute.

The opposing idea of an absolute is an item of knowledge that is forever true and outside the realm of reason."

Am I reading this right, or does it sound bass-akwards to anyone else?

How can something that's "forever true" be "outside the realm of reason," thus the antithesis of "absolute?"

Post 2

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 6:24pm

Absolute is all that is 'out there'... since all that is, is knowable, because it is measurable, all can therefore be known - but, since there is too much to know at once, knowledge is contextual, meaning to the extent whatever is known, it is absolute within the context of the limitation in which it is known.

Post 3

Tuesday, September 6, 2005 - 10:40pm

Hi William.

An absolute under Objectivist meaning is the metaphysically given as opposed to the man-made. The metaphysically given is not open to validation. It simply is. It is thought of conceptually by man in the form of axiomatic concepts.

How our thinking reflects absoluteness is in its nature. The mechanism of how the mind works (reason, memory, emotions, concept formation from sensory input, etc.) is absolute, since the way the mind is built is a metaphysical given. The knowledge contained in any one mind, however, is contextual, since we are limited in our experience, have volition and lack omniscience. We also grow, age and die.

Where did it all come from? That is a question Objectivism does not try to answer. In Objectivism, you use your mind in the manner it exists, not in any other. This means developing it as a faculty of understanding what is, not trying to use it to obtain "revelations" from "beyond existence" or any other such drivel. The nature of the mind is absolute. The way it is used by a person is not.

Metaphysical. Man-made.

If some day the genesis question is ever answered, such answer will be based on what we have, not on any invalidation of it.

Also, there is no such thing as an "item of knowledge" "outside the realm of reason." That postulation is called primacy-of-consciousness (and there are many variations of this).

Did that help?

Michael

Post 4

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 3:26am

Hey William, it starts with: A is A.

Things are what they are independent of our perception of them. A thing or an event is absolute in the sense that it is what it is and can be nothing else. Epistemology (in the case of Objectivism: Reason) is our way of identifying those things and events. It's right in there that you are getting confused. It's not easy.

The first thing I would try to establish is whether you buy the idea that A actually is A independent of what you might think. After you integrate that you can deal with your personal epistemological experience.

Post 5

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:54am

Am I reading this right, or does it sound bass-akwards to anyone else?

How can something that's "forever true" be "outside the realm of reason," thus the antithesis of "absolute?"

I beleive your interpretation is not what I meant, the word "and" does not mean "thus", it means and. I am refering to claims of truth that are outside the realm of reason.

Post 6

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 9:59am

Absolute is all that is 'out there'

An absolute under Objectivist meaning is the metaphysically given

This does not sound right. The concept of absolute is an epistemological concept, not a metaphysical one.

Post 7

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 10:50am

William,

The concept of absolute is an epistemological concept, not a metaphysical one.

Now you start to get to the crux of the matter.

One characteristic of the fundamental axiomatic concepts is that they are all interdependent on each other.

They are separated as concepts so that we can reflect on them and use them as initial building blocks for integrating other concepts, but they do not exist separately in actual fact.

a. There is an existence outside of our heads and experience.
b. We need our heads and experience to know it.

These are two absolutes, but they are not cut off from each other. They are actually two intertwined ideas, like two facets of the same gemstone.

Thus a "metaphysical concept" always includes a mind to hold it, making it an "epistemological concept" also. The "metaphysical fact" on which the concept is based does not need a mind. Such "fact" is how the "concept" comes to be called absolute. However it is the fact that is absolute. The concept merely reflects this. We do not create such fact. It is what comes before our awareness. Ayn Rand called it "the given," except that there is no "giver." (It was just a rhetorical expression in this case.) The concept is merely how we experience the fact from sensory data.

Michael

Post 8

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 1:53pm

William writes:
>I would like to check my understanding of objectivisms meaning of "absolute"...

This is an issue I have discussed here often. Basically, what Ayn Rand means by "absolute" or "absolutely" is what the average person means by "fairly" or "roughly" etc. Somewhat boringly, I usually demonstrate this with the following example:

(Introduction To Objectivist Epistemology, "Exact Measurement and Continuity")
AR:"... you can always be absolutely precise simply by saying, for instance: "Its length is no less than one millimeter and no more than two millimeters."

So: If you said something's length was "no less than one millimeter and no more than two millimeters" (ie: between one and two millimeters), the average person might say you were being "fairly precise". Ayn Rand, however, would say you were being "absolutely precise". See how it works?

Rand obtains her various "absolutes" via her contextual theory of knowledge. This basically means you can say you are "absolutely certain" of something *within the context of your present knowledge*. Translated out of philosophic speak into the colloquial, this simply means "to the best of your knowledge". So if, for example, there was an Objectivist living in the 17th C, when it was believed that a substance called phlogiston caused fire, he could legitmately say that he was "absolutely certain" that this was true. It was true to the best of his knowledge at the time.

So when you hear the term "absolute" used in Objectivism, as in "I am absolutely certain" there is always the unspoken caveat "...to the best of my knowledge"!

Whether you consider this use of "absolute" is a profound and original philosophic insight or a mere word-game is up to you.

- Daniel

Post 9

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 2:57pm

I liked Daniel's approach, but I think the Objectivist's "absolute" takes on more than just the meaning Daniel identifies.

From the Lexicon,

"Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absoloute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute...." (Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 216; pb 173.)

"'There are no absolutes,' they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute." (Ibid., 192; pb 154).

So it looks here like the "A=A" crowd might also be on point. An absolute is just something that is capable of being either true or false. Again, I like Daniel's approach too.

Jordan

Post 10

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 3:28pm

Jordan cites:
"Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absoloute and so is a human life. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute...." (Galt's Speech, For the New Intellectual, 216; pb 173.)...

Hey Jordan

Thanks for your comments.

I see what you mean, but I think the problem then becomes: a speck of dust is absolute, a human life is absolute, a human death is absolute, the Empire State Building is absolute, when it was half built it was absolutely half built, its demolition would be also absolute, a cloud of gas is absolute, a brick is absolute, my partially completed answer to a question is absolutely partially answered, my final answer to a question is absolutely finally answered, my non-answer is an absolute non-answer, a copy of Atlas Shrugged with a page missing is absolutely missing a page, that page itself is absolutely missing, in-between 1mm and 2mm is absolute, the in-between is absolute...etc. All these things are part of reality, part of existence too.

See what I mean? If that's the case, what *can't be* described as "absolute"...? This is what I mean about apparent solutions that on closer examination boil down to verbal illusions.

best

Daniel

(Edited by Daniel Barnes
on 9/07, 3:33pm)

Post 11

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 4:20pm

"I beleive your interpretation is not what I meant, the word "and" does not mean "thus", it means and. I am refering to claims of truth that are outside the realm of reason."

I see this "and/thus" detail as superfluous and inert. But, I'm now oddly fascinated. Please, define one truth which lay outside of reason. Then describe how this conclusion is reached, sans the reason needed to reach it.

Can you see the problem with your original question yet?

Post 12

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 4:26pm

William suggested that as a possible *opposing* view. He�s asking, �are those who reject absolutes saying that �an absolute is an item of knowledge that is forever true and outside the realm of reason.�? It doesn�t have to be coherent, it�s just his guess at what an opposing view might be.

Post 13

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 6:58pm

Teresa,

I will restate it with an example and use that to show what I was talking about.

Leonard Peikoff gave an example in OPAR (p173 paperback) and here it is in my own words.

In science, at one point in time it was concluded that A blood types were compatible. A later discovery showed that in some cases between A blood types there was an undesireable reaction. The cause was a newly dicovered factor, the RH factor.

Thats the super trimmed down version.

Here is what I meant by the opposing view of an absolute:

Suppose some person made the claim on the intial discovery that "A Blood types are compatible, always and forever". The new discovery would contradict this "absolute". The problem is that the generalization is taking an event outside of its context. So to make that kind of generalization would detach it from its context, and since Reason has a context, the statement would be "outside the realm of reason".

This is what I meant when I said "forever true"(dropping context) and "outside the realm of reason"(because context was dropped).

Post 14

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 7:24pm

William suggested:
>Suppose some person made the claim on the intial discovery that "A Blood types are compatible, always and forever". The new discovery would contradict this "absolute".

But why would you need to make such an odd claim in the first place?

- Daniel

Post 15

Wednesday, September 7, 2005 - 8:24pm

William,

All we know about reality boils down to the five senses and our integrative conceptual faculty.

If it cannot be inputted in some manner into the brain through the five senses (mainly sight and sound, but the other three also), where it can be integrated, then further integrated, then further and so on, it is not knowable.

The nature of the stuff inputted is absolute.

The concepts we integrate from it are not - they are subject to change.

However, basic axioms do not change, nor can they be further refined, since they are so basic, simple and all encompassing.

Michael

Post 16

Thursday, September 8, 2005 - 5:04am

Jon, William -

Aaaaah, gotcha. I was afraid William's argument was drifting into the realm of "unknowable."

Post 17

Thursday, September 8, 2005 - 8:18am

Hi Daniel,

See what I mean? If that's the case, what *can't be* described as "absolute"...? This is what I mean about apparent solutions that on closer examination boil down to verbal illusions.

Yes, I see what you mean. William offers what can't be described as absolute in mentioning Peikoff's "always and forever compatible bloodtypes." (sounds romantic doesn't it?) I could get into discussing how Peikoff is rejecting induction here in a similar way that Popper does, and that Peikoff adopts a solution similar to Popper's, but I'm pressed for time.

Jordan

Post 18

Friday, September 9, 2005 - 11:44pm

Jordan writes:
>Yes, I see what you mean. William offers what can't be described as absolute in mentioning Peikoff's "always and forever compatible bloodtypes." (sounds romantic doesn't it?)

Heh....;-)

>...Peikoff is rejecting induction here in a similar way that Popper does, and that Peikoff adopts a solution similar to Popper's...

Doesn't really suprise me, it would just be worded differently. I'm pretty sure Piekoff understands the problem.

- Daniel

Post 19

Saturday, September 10, 2005 - 11:20am