An objection to Objectivism
Yesterday (12-15)jame464 wrote an interesting comment. He/she immediately go negative points and I wrote an answer. However, I thought that this would be an important topic for discussion. So, here is jame464 comment and my reply. I'd be interested what other Gulchers have to say.
jame464: Objectivism logics is flawed from the perspective of its principles because it relies on reason as the ultimate means for man to determine reality. This is entirely subjective because you cannot reason to fundamental absolutes such as are we here by purpose or accident. I believe that a philosophy that says "existence exists" has holes in the bottom of the pale where it contains all its principles and corollaries and postulates and theories, etc.
herb7734: It seems to me that you are saying that we cannot reason until we know everything. That is a problem in the realm of epistemology which remains open-ended until such time as we do know everything. But, failure to know-all does not preclude one's ability to use reason particularly because of the very statement that you make. What do you propose instead?
jame464: Objectivism logics is flawed from the perspective of its principles because it relies on reason as the ultimate means for man to determine reality. This is entirely subjective because you cannot reason to fundamental absolutes such as are we here by purpose or accident. I believe that a philosophy that says "existence exists" has holes in the bottom of the pale where it contains all its principles and corollaries and postulates and theories, etc.
herb7734: It seems to me that you are saying that we cannot reason until we know everything. That is a problem in the realm of epistemology which remains open-ended until such time as we do know everything. But, failure to know-all does not preclude one's ability to use reason particularly because of the very statement that you make. What do you propose instead?
Previous comments... You are currently on page 5.
Let's take the first two words used in the comment you quote; 'Objectivism logics'. I've done some searching, but I haven't been able to find any references to 'logics' (sic) that derive from Objectivism. But I did find some stuff about things like 'cause and effect', you know where some guy says that A has to happen before B, tough things like that. Even though some old guy back in BC times apparently figured that out before Ayn Rand was born, those Objectivists do claim to use it.
But never mind the 'minor' inconsistencies. Just think of it as the commenter has discovered a new form of logic(s). I call it 'cloud logic(s)'. The way it seems to work is that one goes through this big process associated with rational reason and gets a result, only to discover that answer doesn't 'FEEL' right. So what to do? Well, with 'cloud logic(s)' it's simple. One just simply looks through their imagination till something's found that 'feels' right, and Tah-Dah. That's it! Feelings problem solved.
When you integrate perceptions into concepts, you begin the process of reason.
Rather than debate our opinions here, I suggest that anyone interested in this begin with _Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology by Ayn Rand. Otherwise, we are going to be reinventing the wheels of Plato, Aristotle, and all of their successors. This is all known stuff, like chemistry or accounting.
If this is to be a fruitful discussion, it should be based on working knowledge... "the kind of information they hide in books."
So, too, here.
Allow me to recommend Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology as the place to start with these questions.
Absolutes are absolutely relevant. The problem is that not every truth is absolute, yet people find a truth and cling to it as if it were. Absolutes exists; and identifying them is the foundation of realism and reason.
It sounds like a variant on the stolen concept. In order to make the argument one must recognize that- “Existence exists---and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.” 1
“Existence exists—Consciousness is conscious---A is A. (This converts axiomatic concepts into formal axioms.)” 2
“An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.” 3
“There is no such thing as a state of consciousness without a person experiencing it. What does one mean by ‘state of consciousness’? A state of a faculty possessed by an entity. Consciousness is not a primary object, it is an independent existent, it’s an attribute of a certain kind of existents.
You cannot project what you mean by a state of consciousness---neither by synonyms nor in any way---without referring to the person or the animal who possesses that consciousness: an entity of whom consciousness is a faculty. It is not possible to protect it.
Now why isn’t it possible? Because such a thing as a state of consciousness is obviously a derivative concept---derivative qua attribute. It’s a primary, as far as the conceptual chain is concerned, but in regard to observation, you have no way of experiencing or observing a state of consciousness without the entity which experiences it. It’s a concept that could not enter into your mind or your language unless in the form of faculty of a living entity. That’s what that concept means. Therefore to ask, “Well, I know I have states, but how does it prove that I am?”---is a question that’s not worth discussing.
Incidentally, I know a lady who once gave the proper answer to that kind of question, the kind of question you have been confronted with, so let me quote her with the appropriate answer, Some young college student said to her, “I don’t know whether I exist.” which is the same issue. She said, “You’d better find out, because I don’t want to be talking to myself.” And that’s about the seriousness this question deserves.
The consciousness of self is implicit in [any grasp] of consciousness.” 4
All quotes from “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.” (Expanded Second Edition)
1 pg. 3-4, 2 pg. 59, 3 pg. 55, 4 pg. 251-252
To ask a question or pose an argument is to recognize the fact of your consciousness, your existence and that of whom you address. The corollary implicit in this, is the acknowledgement that one can discern facts/axioms of existence from one’s consciousness…one’s senses. Res ipse loquitur. Quod erat demonstrandum.
Respectfully,
O.A.
To say there is a problem with "existence exist" is to be absurd because it denies one's very existence to even raise the question.
Rule Two - Always know the difference between Occam's Razor as the final choice and Obam's Razor as the only choice offered.
I cheered at this line. :)
I'll stick with reason as the tool I use in reality. Other methods don't have a good track record.