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 2.
/rimshot
Punch him right in the face. Ask him, "Did that feel real to you?"
First "sentence": "Objectivism logics is flawed from the perspective of its principles because it relies on reason as the ultimate means for man to determine reality."
What is "Objectivism logics" supposed to mean? What does "flawed from the perspective of its principles" mean? What does "ultimate means for man to determine reality" mean? What does he think anyone is "determining"? He has made sweeping arbitrary assertions employing floating abstractions as he manipulates words with no meaning, and which in his mind are not intended to mean anything other than his vague feelings.
All his first "sentence" says is that for some unexplained reason [sic] he rejects Objectivism because 'something' about it entails "relying on reason as the ultimate means" for something unspecified but suggesting that consciousness dictates and determines what reality must be. What besides reason is available to know anything (let alone "determine reality")? He doesn't say but has previously invoked religious faith. He rejects Objectivism because it dismisses his vague fantasies. He rejects reason because he rejects standards of assessing claims to knowledge and for not giving him the mental content he wants.
So let him, and let him go somewhere else with his nonsense. There can be no discussion or arguing with someone who insists on his own arbitrary pronouncements, rejecting standards in advance because he demands acceptance of the arbitrary pronouncements.
Second "sentence" : "This [reason] is entirely subjective because you cannot reason to fundamental absolutes such as are we here by purpose or accident."
What in his mind is a "fundamental absolute"? He doesn't say, but illustrates it with a false alternative of "purpose or accident". What happened to 'causality' and 'identity' that he left out? Whose "purpose" and what is a metaphysical "accident"? He doesn't say, but his previous religious injunctions reveal he believes in the "purpose" of the supernatural, a meaningless use of words in an arbitrary decree that explains nothing, only turning back inwards on his own feelings without cognitive meaning.
Third "sentence": "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."
What does he think the axiomatic concept "existence" means in Objectivism, and what does he think Ayn Rand meant by the formulation "existence exists"? As a mystic who rationalized feeling as primaries he doesn't have a clue. What is "'existence exists' has holes in the bottom of the pale" supposed to mean? His inability to spell is the least of it. What is the "where" "containing principles" supposed to mean? What does he think "principles and corollaries and postulates and theories, etc." that he dismissively jumbles together mean, and what does he think the connections between them are and their basis is? He doesn't say, but he clearly has a rationalistic mentality of arbitrary manipulation of ideas with equivocations cut loose from meaning in reality and has no idea what Ayn Rand is talking about, let alone the entire scientific revolution, and how it is the diametric opposite of his own free-floating mystic mentality.
No, there isn't anything interesting or serious about his rambling nonsense. It isn't even sophomoric philosophy. Nor is it honest. Specific points he has questioned previously have been answered and he ignores it as if nothing has been said, without even an honest acknowledgement. He doesn't listen and he doesn't discuss. He only repeats his mystical gibberish attacking a philosophy of reason he doesn't understand and doesn't want to, based on nothing but his own mystical, meaningless pronouncements -- which is why he doesn't belong here.
Herb wrote that Jame seems to believe "we cannot reason until we know everything". Jame said that previously, but not in this nonsensical post. His insistence on omniscience as a standard of knowledge, which he thinks is attainable by his own arbitrary mysticism, which meaningless dreamy fantasy is not knowledge at all. It is only one form of his attack on existence and identity, this time as the definite and specific means of human conceptual knowledge based on finite sense experience of the real world.
That our human form of knowledge has a definite and specific form, limited to what it is by specific abilities we have, is not a "problem" of epistemology remaining unresolved. It does not require that we wait until "we do know everything", nor is such omniscience -- unlimited knowledge with no limits to its own identity -- possible at all.
aimed at me, and went from there. . my mistake. . I was
speaking from my point of view, about my having no objections
to objectivism, etc. -- j
.
.
The commenter I refer to is the one quoted by Herb in the Post above, and you're trying to tell me that he "has NO objections to objectivism", even though in the quote in the Post he directly states "Objectivism logics is flawed"... ."because it relies on reason".
john, if you're going to follow my comments to make unrelated repartee or to make replies to them that attempt to misrepresent what I say---well that's generally just frowned on.
https://books.google.com/books?id=7io...
repartée in his search for truth. . applied reasoning has
made the commenter moderately wealthy, so that he has
been able to retire and seek that repartée online.
and your participation is very fine, as is that of many others.
the commenter, by the way, has NO objections to objectivism.
he does, however, object to having his exploratory nature
identified as "limitations in the area of applied reasoning." -- j
p.s. I distinctly remember that acute on the second e in
repartée -- why can't I find it in the online dictionaries?
Susanne???
.
the reason which is characteristic of objectivism requires
factual evidence for decisions. . when facts are unavailable,
decisions are made using inductive logic, based on probabilities
or estimates from the rest of the facts. . the simple fact
that existence is there is an adequate foundation for
a rational philosophy, but he doesn't like that.
so, we disagree. . go for it, Herb! -- j
.
Load more comments...