Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Content Count

    408
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    2

Easy Truth last won the day on February 1

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

About Easy Truth

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

675 profile views
  1. Easy Truth

    What does 'valid' mean?

    SL, I did get the book per your recommendation, came in yesterday. We'll see how much I understand. Ideally, if people can indicate specifically where I turn toward that direction, it may be helpful to myself and others that may have the tendency. In this thread, the idea of "valid" and "truth" are inescapably abstract. I am sitting in a room, with tables, chairs, walls, curtains, shelves, monitors computers and keyboards and other things, I hear cars, the fan and the click of the keyboard, I feel the breeze of the fan, I feel the chair and the floor, I can't identify a smell only air doing through my nose (so there is "nothing" smell). Now, that is true and that is valid. Is it that simple?
  2. Easy Truth

    What does 'valid' mean?

    I agree with what you have said. I made a fundamental mistake in assuming that "knowing" meant holding as a concept. And that if you know, then you know "it" as a concept. I went back in the thread and saw I was confused by the fact that to know that "it" exists, is to know that "it" is "something". To know that "it" is something is to have integrated it as a referent of the concept something. I thought it meant that "it" is a concept, rather than it being a particular of another concept.
  3. Easy Truth

    What does 'valid' mean?

    Then I have a fundamental question about the issue of conceptualization. Supposedly, it is not automatic. Yet for anything to come into your "mind's eye", doesn't it have to be categorized as "something". The fact that it is something implies that it has been identified. I can never "see" a particular "nothing" fly by. Any perception has been transformed into a particular/referent of some concept (at a minimum the concept "something"). Or is there an exception with percepts where they are not integrated as "something", yet "known"? This is an area that is hard to give examples as anything one perceives, at one point was simply an unconnected perception/unidentified at all. (a pre-something). I can only conclude that, by the time I point to anything, it has been integrated as "something" and later with more accuracy something more specific like a table or chair etc.
  4. Easy Truth

    What is 'reason'?

    Isn't it reasonable to doubt what you said? What is your motive in participating in this forum if its backbone is so useless?
  5. Easy Truth

    What does 'valid' mean?

    Does "objective" have any relevance in this context? Yes. They're valid because a sensation is always of something, which is an instance of consciousness as being conscious of something. But they are not true because (as you point out) they aren't actual identifications - they're just there, as far as consciousness is concerned. My understanding is that a sensation that is not identified, is not "noticed", at least no noticed for long. I read somewhere, that the Indians watching Columbus's ships approaching did not notice them at all. They did not fit in with anything they had ever seen before.
  6. Easy Truth

    Fallacy of Logical Omniscience

    I suppose I would need more examples. Perhaps there is one in her novels? I tend to think that "to know that it can be integrated" is to try to integrate, see that it can be done. And then reverse the effect. But it is too late to refuse to integrate it, it already got integrated. You can only revise/replace it with "unknown" which I don't know how that happens. The only time that I know of evasion, I have seen it, I have done etc. is due to major emotional duress. When one encounters a very difficult truth. A mother does not want to identify a dead child, or when one can't admit the truth or their whole view of life falls apart (the idea of starting all over can be intolerable). It can happen with admitting a deep disappointment, loss, or paralyzing terror. I would go as far as saying that some kinds of evasion have survival value. A wounded person in war who represses the pain of being shot has a better chance of survival than one who feels the pain and goes into shock and dies. Also, paralyzing terror can cause an inability to take action, and a temporary illusion of safety can be the best way forward. I suspect this (the OP's) is a type of evasion with a different characteristic. It must be a type of dishonesty to oneself. What is hard to believe is that it can happen without an emotional impetus (a strong fear of the truth). What other motives can there be?
  7. Easy Truth

    Fallacy of Logical Omniscience

    I thought, by evasion, you had meant a "not knowing (as in missed knowledge) that you should know". So you mean a reversing of a conclusion with the intention to do so. I make the distinction because "being in denial" is usually associated with a semi-conscious (hidden) denial. Rand's description can also mean: a "refusal to identify" before the "knowing, rather than an identification that is refused after the knowing/concluding. Mainly because of the phrase "blank out". "Blank-out", can mean a blindness toward an area of knowledge too. The idea of it meaning an awareness that is turned into unawareness is interesting and new. I was thinking of an example where A and B are having a discussion and B brings up a fact that could prove A completely wrong. A decides to refuse the truth of what B said evading the humiliation. In this case, A knows the truth. Although evading B, he knows the truth. (He has NOT evaded the knowledge although he evades declaring to another). Although the next day, he forgets it somehow. Then it would be seen as willful evasion. What about when someone sees your point but says something like "I will have to tell you my objection tomorrow, I am not too clear on it today". The awareness (I suppose context) that they have today they agree with you, or does their doubt mean that they didn't, in fact, agree with you? ---- As I thought about it more, I believe that evasion, as in revising the fact, is a subspecies of dishonesty.
  8. Easy Truth

    Fallacy of Logical Omniscience

    Very eye-opening. The fact that "truth" is (solely) in the form of concepts. I thought that "hot", "loud" and "red" were perceptual. From what I can see, it's not an intentional evasion. The demonstration of evasion seems to be "you should know it" but you don't, or "one should know it but does not". If so, it can only be known in hindsight, after one "knows".
  9. Easy Truth

    Fallacy of Logical Omniscience

    If the man does not know #3, is this immoral, or amoral? Or perhaps even moral based on his hierarchy of values making this piece of knowledge valueless?
  10. Not sure, he was embarrassed when I said simple things like: Him: The important question is does "Absolute Truth" exist? Me:-For some reason, you can't recognize the "truth" right now. How would you recognize it when you see it later on? He basically pushed for the idea that knowledge is all assumptions. My jabs using self-refutation were: Me:-To say that "we are not equipped to know the truth" is to claim that you know a truth. Now, where did this truth come from? Me:-The statement "Induction can never lead to absolute truth" is a statement indicating an absolute truth. One not so comical but bizarre exchange was: Me:-Is an arbitrary assumption after reflection, after evidence, after the impossibility of refuting it still an arbitrary assumption? (which amazingly he doubled down, said yes) Me:-How can someone convince another that "they can know" when they have decided to "assume" that "knowing is always assuming". He attacked truth and falsehood as too simplistic Me:-So instead of "true" or "false" your preferred system of logic has "who knows" and "what do I care"? He said I was using the argument for faith: I have faith so I know the truth and since he does not "he should repent". Me:--You believe truth is arbitrary assumptions, you're the one who has faith in your so-called truth. (I don't know how obvious that was to people) I was hoping that the "audience/participants" could see the ridiculousness or contradictions in his statements which would force him to explain his assertions otherwise end up looking stupid. My straight explanations are ignored in a private setting (between me and him) sometimes with abusive comments like "you're just not educated enough" or something to the effect of "the best minds in the world disagree with you". But it ended well with him graciously thanking me for "the information" which I interpret as a major improvement.
  11. The open debate (not one on one) happened today and oddly enough, the one thing that I thought was the easiest to push through met with the heaviest resistance. (The topic was about the need for Philosophy and the nature of Truth) The law of Identity. "It is just a matter of opinion" "Everything changes" "I feel cheated that I can never know the real truth because everything changes" "Identity may be true but only for that instant for that object with those properties. " "You can't capture sameness, words don't match things completely" "Objective reality changes all the time as we invent new ways to measure things. At one time the world was objectively flat." "There are different kinds of truth." "Social truths are more important that insignificant ones like something is itself" Later followed by attacks on induction. Keep in mind the majority are Marx lovers. I am in a Bernie Sanders enclave. A few of them will clap when Marx is mentioned. Fortunately, they don't believe in the initiation of force, so I'm safe. In the end, one thing that was very successful was when I asked if I could read a paragraph (did not mention author) "In order to live, man must act; in order to act, he must make choices; in order to make choices, he must define a code of values; in order to define a code of values, he must know what he is and where he is—i.e., he must know his own nature (including his means of knowledge) and the nature of the universe in which he acts—i.e., he needs metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, which means: philosophy" They were fascinated by it.
  12. Easy Truth

    Breaching Morality

    One's psychological health would be at risk. One would start living in an unsafe world. If one "can't" be moral, the view of mankind will be that no one can be moral, "morality is impossible". At any moment, you may be stolen from, or worse, harmed physically. Even if everyone (or most people) are (actually) moral and safe, they have to be looked at with suspicion because they are out of control "like me". (the immoral me) I wonder how a sociopath integrates that. "No one is moral, and it is ok".
  13. Easy Truth

    Anything For Anybody Is Everything

    I would first have to differentiate the "knowing" that is ascribed to an animal. Or even an insect for that matter. As in doesn't an ant "know" where the nest is? Isn't that a type of grasping of facts? Also, is Rationalism at the core of skepticism?
  14. Easy Truth

    Anything For Anybody Is Everything

    Granted, he is evading the truth. But is this a mistaken conclusion on his part, based on unchecked premises, or is it as if he knows the truth and is obfuscating or hiding it? People, even without any exposure to Russel will say similar things to that. The expectation or their definition of "knowing" is infallible knowing. "If you know but are fallible, you don't "really" know." Is the fundamental argument against it "Well, how else (other than fallible knowing) do you expect to know?" How does one explain "knowing" that includes, limitations and fallibility within several paragraphs?
  15. Easy Truth

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    Litteral interpretation omitting context is meaningless.
×