Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Easy Truth

  1. Another world simply goes against the law of identity. Another world means: A is A (at the same time and perspective) AND A is (not A) (at the same time and the same perspective BUT in another world). Sometimes the mistake is that "another world", is "another perspective of this world". Based on the definition of the universe (not in physics but in philosophy) (per the lexicon) "The universe is the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything". In Physics, when other universes exist, that can only mean that their definition of "the universe", is not "everything". What is meant by the universe can only be "a subset of everything". As in perhaps the universe after the big bang and another before. Then one can ask the OP's question as "is there another everything"? Is there another "all"? But by definition, how many "all" 's are there? The "All" without filters, limitations, exceptions. "All" as in every one of them. How many "every one of them" can there be? Same with totality: 2+2 is 4, or are there other "totals" too? (in another world?) If there is more than one "all", then it contradicts the definition of all or totality. When one states "All living things have a choice to live or die", is there another "all" somewhere else? Are there dead things that are living things? (in another world?) If true, the logicalness would have to be of another world too. Clearly, we can imagine other worlds. Phenomenologically, we live in many worlds, a province of psychology/consciousness, but metaphysically, there is only one existence.
  2. Trying to grapple with this one, but still confused. The "subliminal effect" seems to be an interpretation of perception. But (interpretation/interpreting) is not necessarily a form of consciousness. (but the result of it is) Emotions are a form of interpretation of reality that is not consciously done (chosen) but consciously experienced. In that way, the "subliminal effect" could be categorized as a type of subconscious activity/processing. With this formulation, that would imply that emotions are also a subconscious activity/processing. The problem is that emotions, per se, are something perceived/experienced, not a type of consciousness. On the other hand, "being emotional" could be categorized as a type of consciousness (psychologically speaking), as in panic-stricken, or calm, or fascinated or aroused in this case. But the raw emotions of anger, fear, sadness, sexual arousal etc. is an experience/perception (perceived). So, "subliminal effect" has to be looked at as "subliminal experience", which in this case is the arousal itself. Then that experience can be categorized as subconscious. But one is fully conscious when experiencing the arousal so the question is "what causes one experience to be considered as conscious, but another as subconscious"? What is the key difference? Another complication is: One could say sleepwalking is subconscious. But one is not conscious of doing it. So is that an unconscious or nonconscious experience? From a philosophical/epistemological sense, the validity of "experience" or the truthfulness of the form of consciousness seems to be of most concern. Psychology does not make such a judgment, it is just a study of the states.
  3. Yes, one can interpret the definition in several ways so for communication on this forum it has to be defined. Unconcious (of everything) can refer to "being dead". Or it can simply mean that which one is not conscious "of", which may include what you may have denied. what you have never seen but is out there, or what you were not taught or not interested in knowing, or even mistakes. But then there is the issue of "will", as in "I did this with conscious intent" vs. "I did this through habit". Unconscious can simply mean that which is not conscious, which may include what you may have denied it to be (nonconscious, subconscious, sleep etc.). There are even more definitions but I think I understand where you are going with it and in psychology, it does not mean what it means in philosophy. In philosophy, unconscious seems to refer to "not knowing". (usually needs a target) And being conscious is simply awareness/knowing. I assume someone has compiled the possible meanings so we don't talk about different things. Otherwise, each of us will have to be more verbose, indicating the definition used.
  4. Doesn't (a universal with) metaphysical substance imply "it has a referent", an instance? Then do "errors of knowledge" have metaphysical substance? As in, do contradictions have metaphysical substance? That which is and is not in the same way and at the same time. Does this have a metaphysical substance? The logic question that comes up is "how can that which that has no metaphysical substance, be a "root" metaphysical substance?" "The universal itself is real and we can be aware of it in both its physical and mental aspects". Agreed, but there, you are describing only a universal that has an instance, as in it (the universal) refers to something. When it refers to nothing (metaphical), then there is only a mental aspect. A contradiction is a universal too. But there is no physical aspect, only mental. It is a real concept in the mind (but not real "out there" (metaphysically)).
  5. I am trying to understand this. First, “root metaphysical substance” seems like a concept rather than metaphysical. In other words a “root metaphysical substance” is being labeled as a metaphysical entity, while it looks like an abstraction. If I were trying to see the tree structure (classification): Root metaphysical substance metaphysical substance where no contradictions exist epistemological substance (mental entity) where contradictions can exist Keep in mind: The usage (where) is being used as metaphorical although it would support your view as in there is an overall containing space that both exist inside. But then, there can’t be a root metaphysical substance, because contradictions can only exist in the mental realm (not in the same space). Unless you are using it as a metaphor. Like saying, there is a space where contradictions exist, right next to where contradictions don't exist. That is a contradiction.
  6. 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?
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. Isn't it reasonable to doubt what you said? What is your motive in participating in this forum if its backbone is so useless?
  10. 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.
  11. 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?
  12. 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.
  13. 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".
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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".
  18. 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?
  19. 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?
  20. Litteral interpretation omitting context is meaningless.
  21. I agree with the 4 issue you bring up. I can only hope as we drill down together that I would at some point hit that "area of their knowledge" where it is evident where they have made a mistake. Furthermore, as Branden emphasized, I have to be careful in attacking their self-esteem at that point, almost assuring that it is ok to make mistakes/we all make them etc. (when they have frustrated me, it has been hard to be cognizant of that) I have used the "quote them exactly technique" and I think I will have to stick to it more often than I do. Currently, I use it to either agree or to mock them. I take their idea and take it to its logical conclusion. When the original premise is ridiculous it creates some great comedy. Many times they get angry that I am "putting words in their mouth". I see that quoting them is the key to get around it.
  22. Agreed, mockery is the only thing that has brought him out of his shell, based on his desire to maintain his credibility and reputation.
  23. Yes, The reason is he is very influential in the philosophical community I am in. He talks down to people sort of shutting down the flow of information. I am also interested in the psychological reasons why people evade. If I know how and why others evade, and a method is devised to catch and fix, or prevent, then when I evade, someone can help with my evasions. Most of the problem in the philosophy groups is simply "not knowing"/ignorance. People who have not read up on philosophy come too. It has some positive effect. Just yesterday a religious member of the community said he liked an article on Rand so much that he was willing to read "her stuff" now. This is after 3 years of debating with him. I had not read the article but another objectivist had sent the link out. (something about why Christians should pay attention to Rand) And yes, there is a limit to tolerating them.
  24. That is a serious problem for me. I am in a debate with a skeptic who claims that "everything is an assumption, man-made constructs". I have brought up the law of identity and "existence exists" and his private response is "I don't understand you". The only way I have found to get a response is to have the discussion in public forum and try to "embarrass" him with his self-refuting statements. That has had far better results. Instead of proof maybe my last statement should be "My understanding is that "the impossibility of refutation" ends up being a strong persuader/explainer".
  25. So what did you come up with? Indeed. Is a skeptic pushing for his point that "you can't know anything in fact evading"? In real time? In front of you. If so, I doubt if they are aware of it. I don't think in that sense it is willful ... until I, in the discussion, take them to the point where it is "evident" that they are making a mistake. (there must be a name for that point in philosophy) Then, I would say they are evading. I was hoping there was a way to jar them, but short of a threat of violence, I don't see one. And since that's not going to happen, it is a thorn to live with.
  • Create New...