absloute / objective

Hey guys!

I am wondering how one can regard reason as one's only epistemological absolute if one can only have objective knowledge of the world. If one doesn't know absolutely everything there's to know, it still doesn't disturb one to know something, but how can one regard reason as absolute if one doesn't have absolute knowledge (if e.g. one doesn't know if there are aliens on Planet XYZ).

My guess is that the word absolute is used in two different contexts and meanings

1. In the sense of using it as one's only epistemological absolute, as the only absolute means to knowledge

2. In the sense of regarding knowledge as absolutely certain

Can you please help me understand the difference and validity of the idea?

Thanks,
Tok!

Post 1

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 5:48pm

You answered your own question:

Q: How can one regard reason as absolute if one doesn't have absolute knowledge?

A: In the sense of using it as one's only epistemological absolute, as the only absolute means to knowledge.

Of course, "epistemological method, as the only means to knowledge" is equivalent.

You also wrote:

In the sense of regarding knowledge as absolutely certain

One meaning of "absolute" is "having no exceptions, thus not to be doubted or questioned." Some knowledge is that way, e.g. all humans must have nutrition to stay alive.

Post 2

Wednesday, January 24, 2007 - 6:47pm

Tok,

While Merlin did a great job responding to the 2 senses of "absolute" that you mentioned, I've got something to add in response to this ...

... how can one regard reason as absolute if one doesn't have absolute knowledge (if e.g. one doesn't know if there are aliens on Planet XYZ).

I think in this quote by the word "absolute" you mean synoptic knowledge, otherwise known as omniscience. A lay-man's definition of this might be "seeing from a God's-eye view."

It almost always helps to understand a concept by what contrasts with it. The concept that contrasts with "absolute" is "relative." So, either reason is relative, or it's absolute -- and for reason to be relative would be absurd. So reason is absolute -- a proof via reductio ad absurdum (though I'm missing a premise or 2 showing how it's not possible for reason to be relative).

Another way to say it is that reason is non-relative.

Ed

Post 3

Sunday, January 28, 2007 - 11:49am

Tok:

If one uses the term 'absolute' as hinting at omniscience as a required meaning in epistemology, good question! - If one does not...bad question.

In O'ism, reason is considered an 'absolute' simply because it's the ONLY (dare I say 'rational'?) method for 'knowing' anything. The point is, if it's in conflict with any other supposed type-of-knowing (hard to call the latter a 'method', btw), to ignore reason as priority over the other is to be non-'objective', and is asking for compounded epistemological-decision probs as well as life-sustaining ones.

LLAP
J:D

Post 4

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 9:16am

"Absolut" is a vodka. Vodka is a Russian beverage. "Objective" refers to Rand's philosophy. Rand is a Russian writer. So, these terms mean essentially the same thing, and you may use them interchangeably.

- Bill

Post 5

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 3:32pm

I can see their next ad already:

"Don't get fashionably 'Subjective' vodka; get OBJECTIVE Vodka...It's the Reality Thing!" or "Don't settle for 'relatively good', get the Absolut good!"

LLAP
J:D

Post 6

Tuesday, January 30, 2007 - 7:58pm

I much prefer Ketel One :)

Post 7

Wednesday, January 31, 2007 - 7:01am