Presuppositions and Philosophy
Posted by Ranter 8 years, 9 months ago to Philosophy
I solicit your comments on the following:
Ayn Rand's philosophy has no room for any source of knowledge other than science. All possible philosophies start with unprovable assumptions called "presuppositions." Ayn Rand's is no exception. It is not possible to develop any philosophy without such assumptions. All philosophies are integrated philosophies. I cannot accept ANY philosophy as absolute truth, but I can accept most of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I guess what objectivists are saying is that there is no place for me in objectivism. In another post, I made this comments and noted that it proved my point that Objectivism will never prevail because religious people will always be excluded from the discussion, and they are a very large majority in this country..
Ayn Rand's philosophy has no room for any source of knowledge other than science. All possible philosophies start with unprovable assumptions called "presuppositions." Ayn Rand's is no exception. It is not possible to develop any philosophy without such assumptions. All philosophies are integrated philosophies. I cannot accept ANY philosophy as absolute truth, but I can accept most of Ayn Rand's philosophy. I guess what objectivists are saying is that there is no place for me in objectivism. In another post, I made this comments and noted that it proved my point that Objectivism will never prevail because religious people will always be excluded from the discussion, and they are a very large majority in this country..
Ayn Rand defended objective truth as a relation between facts and conscious awareness based on reason and sense perception, not a religious intrinsicist notion of the "Absolute".
Not only are the axioms not mere "unprovable assumptions", she did not rationalistically deduce her philosophy from either axioms or assumptions as an arbitrary system of thought floating in the air.
You don't determine for Ayn Rand what was not "possible" for her to have done and should cease lecturing us on what Objectivism, which you don't understand, must be in accordance with rationalistic projections.
All philosophies are not "integrated philosophies". Philosophical questions are hierarchically related, whether recognized as such or not. Many philosophers have been eclectic or groping without regard to systemization or even consistency.
Religious people are not "excluded from discussion". Religion is excluded from Ayn Rand's philosophy of reason. She explained in detail why. It does not "prove your point". Objectivism can prevail if and when religion does not, which depends on the understanding of individuals. Those who claim to "accept most of Objectivism" while simultaneously believing in faith and the supernatural are inconsistent. Whatever it is they claim to "accept" without understanding in contradiction with religion, it isn't Objectivism.
I'm personally sorry if that makes you uncomfortable, but this is a site for Objectivists and those interested in the philosophy of Ayn Rand.
A philosophy starts with logical axioms of common knowledge that aren't arguable, like: I breathe air without thinking. Every other human I know and see also breathe. The harder I work, the more I breathe. Humans that are held under water, die. Humans that can't breathe, die. Humans that are choked so they can't breathe, die. Dead people don't breathe. I need to breathe air to live.
Religion says that if one is not a witch and believes in God and Jesus, and is held under water longer than others can hold their breath, that when they are brought out of the water they will still be alive. If one is a witch, they will die when submerged and held under the water. No one that the church has ever ordered to go through this test has ever come out alive. The church is always right when it thinks someone is a witch and has never suspected an innocent person.
You'll say--No one believes that anymore. I'll answer, Yes you do, you still believe that if you believe in God and accept Jesus as your lord and savior and ask him for forgiveness for being a human, that after you're dead, pumped full of formaldehyde and buried for thousands of years, that your God will bring you back and let you live with him in a supernatural dimension forever.
If that is humans' futures, then I don't think we'll last much longer.
When one begins from a preferred assumption it then becomes a matter of making the facts fit rather than establishing through a process of reason (non-contradictory integration with established premises) what the facts are.
The pursuit of truth is a lost cause for those who presume to already possess it without an understanding of the process of reason by which it is derived and distinguished from arbitrary beliefs.
To know explicitly is to understand the process by which knowledge is obtained and conceptually integrated into a non-contradictory whole. Attempting to derive the benefits of objectivism without understanding objectivism is a crapshoot.
is a good starting point for some of this discussion.