organon1973

(BTW, in two weeks expect: ancientathensonline.com. No site is up at present.) Reason is the faculty of men to establish Truth by means of Thought. In relation to logic. To start: Deduction. Deduction is the application of a general truth to a particular instance. For example: All cities are big. Paris is a city. Therefore: Paris is big. Make sense?

Just a brief note, as editing is unavailable: In the opening post, my comment should have read: "Do you mean, at some point, however far back in the past, [the matter within it] had to be created by someone or something?"

The Ayn Rand Institute eStore has lectures by Objectivist thinkers at a price (per lecture) as low as $0.99 (and there are many at that price). Check it out: https://estore.aynrand.org/.

I.e. All theists are mystics, but all mystics are not theists. This particular mystic is a theist.

I should elaborate on the exchange in the opening post to this thread. The 'mystic' in the exchange would agree that the matter in this particular pencil likely originated in a tree of some kind, and that that tree also came from somewhere, likely without mystic contribution. His statement is meant to mean that he believes the matter within that pencil (even though it may have changed its form any number of times since creation) must have had -- in the first instance -- its origin in the creation of its matter by God, very likely when 'He' created the universe.

This would imply that most laymen believe the universe is eternal, and had no creator (a creator that, at some point, created the universe out of nothing). Do you think this is the case?

I imagine the particular genealogy would depend on the pencil -- but in all cases, stellar fusion was involved.

"This pencil, for example -- it had to come from somewhere." "Do you mean, at some point, however far back in the past, it had to be created by someone or something?" "Yes." "Out of nothing?" "Yes." "I see. Does this apply to all things that are in the present, all things that exist right now?" "Yes, I think so." "So, in general, if something exists, it had to be created at some point." "Yes, that's right." "Well, clearly the next question is, does God exist?" "Yes, of course he does." "And again, if something exists, it had to be created at some point in the past." "Yes..." "Then who created God?" Silence. "And that creator -- who created Him?" Silence.

With the modification of "some existential entity" to simply "something" (and this includes emotional responses about which is introspecting), and "must ultimately rely on" to "must have as its subject", i.e.: "There is always something that any mental process must have as its subject" ...I would agree. One is thinking about something, one is imagining something, one is perceiving something. To suggest otherwise would be to imply movement can exist separate from that which moves.

By this, do you mean that all cognitive processes have in common that they have content? If so, yes, of course, I agree. But the content involved in a given cognitive process will vary, depending on what that process is.

Has anyone read Descartes in the original? I am curious as to his meaning with, "Cogito, ergo sum." Did he mean: I think, and thus come into being? (Which would, of course, be nonsense.) Or did he mean: I think, and in the experience of my own thought grasp the fact that I exist (for I could not think, if I were not)? (Which would be fully rational.)

The content of consciousness has different constituents -- e.g., sensory data, emotion (unrepressed emotion, that reaches the mind), thought, memory -- but are not all of these things of which one is directly aware, when the process is in process? ( : ) )

Hi Jay, Consider an emotion about which one is introspecting, e.g. anger, or regret. An emotion that one feels is part of the content of your consciousness, but the awareness of it is not provided by the senses -- it is a biopsychological phenomenon that hits conscious awareness directly.

Introspection can involve direct awareness, but again -- is not a sensory process. Free will is to the choice to think or not. While sensory awareness is automatic, identification, thought and integration are not. Introspective awareness is not automatic -- it requires an active motivation to review one's prior conscious processes. One cannot review a conscious process while it is in progress -- it happens afterward. But certainly, the rationality of a prior thought process can be judged -- e.g., as logical or not so, as objective or not so.

Introspection is not a sensory process, but does involve awareness -- it involves consciousness examining itself.

With the slight modification in brackets, agreed. And introspection is not a sensory process, to which Rand's definition limited the data of Reason, if I am correct. Now: Was the definition she offered in the Romantic Manifesto meant to be exhaustive, and a formal definition of Reason? I do not know -- and doubt it. Of course she was (deeply!) aware of introspection, and that Reason was applicable to the data thus gathered.

Pardon? The term "sensory input" generally refers to data received from sensory modalities.

What is Reason? It is the faculty that establishes Truth by means of logic. Rand offered as a definition of Reason, "The faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." Yet she also wrote (in the Romantic Manifesto), and correctly, "Nothing is outside the province of reason." Her definition of Reason, though, wholly excludes the data of the processes of consciousness, of which one is aware introspectively and which is not available to the senses (the health or dysfunction of which is the subject of the science of psychology).

There is an Objectivist who has lectured on psychology, who indicated in his pre-lecture summary that, while the axiom underlying the other sciences had been defined ("Existence exists"), the axiom(s) of psychology had not. I disagree with this -- but to understand why, we must first consider what psychology is. Psychology is the science that studies health and disease in the context of a consciousness that directs its own operation. What, then, is the essential characteristic of the healthy mind, which is lacked by the diseased mind, to whatever degree it is healthy or diseased, respectively? It is a commitment to Identification, to an integrating activity of mind that halts before no door and has no higher value that the clear grasp of that which is. Identification -- once more -- is the fundamental trait of the healthy mind, to the degree it is healthy, and its antithesis, evasion, is the fundamental trait of the diseased mind, to the degree it is diseased. Identification is the raison d'etre -- the for what -- of consciousness, and it is the degree to which this is consistently practiced (or not practiced) that determines the degree to which a mind is healthy or not so. To repeat: Psychology is the science that studies health and disease in the context of a consciousness that directs its own operation. And what is the other axiom Rand offered in Atlas Shrugged? "Consciousness is Identification." And it is Identification, or the lack thereof, that determines the health or illness of a mind, or consciousness, which is the subject of psychology.

But One Day More In each man's life, there comes a day When he that breathes, will breathe no more – When heartbeat's rhythm at last fails, When pale death stands before his door. And eyes no more can see the sun, And arms no more make love's embrace – No longer laughter will he know, No longer see the earth's fair face. Then might he wail, “But one day more! “One day to know the world again! “But one more day, to walk this earth! “One day, to know the work of men! “For there are things I have not done! “A man that I have never been! “O, never have I lived life full! “O but one day to live again! “To live with Passion, Joy and Pride! “To be the man I once dreamt of! “Who did not yield his life to loss! “Who in his soul matched gods above! “But one day more, give me but this! “To see the deep blue of the sky! “To know the bliss of life well-lived! “But one day more before I die!” But old eyes fail, and heartbeat stops, And into death's embrace he goes, Crying throughout, “But one day more!” But the grim scythe he does not slow. You men who live and breathe today! Recall his wail, “But one day more!” And know each day, of years, of life, That guiltless Joy that life is for. And let there be, on death's black day, No crying wail, “But one day more!” Look back upon a life well-lived And proudly pass that final door. © John Rearden.

Is there a reason to choose to live? I agree that this choice is not an ethical choice, as the choice to live is prior to ethics. Ethics tells one, given that a man wants to live, how he must live. But is there no reason to choose to live? Yes, the choice is pre-ethical. But nevertheless, there is guidance in choosing to live. The choice to live is not arbitrary. Why? Because the valuing of pleasure over pain is hard-wired -- and the nature of the world is such that happiness, rather than suffering, is the rule. So although it is not an ethical choice, it is a rational choice. And it is unique in this way. This choice is the anteroom of ethics. Consider a man for whom this is not the case -- for whom life is suffering, with no prospect of change. In this case, the rational choice might be to not continue in life -- and he could not be faulted for not wanting to continue in a life that is pain. Your thoughts welcome; be well.

Can it be said that in fact there is a reason to choose to live, namely that the preference of pleasure over pain is built-in, and one's universe (given this is the case) is of a nature where pleasure (i.e., happiness) rather than pain (i.e., suffering) is the rule, rather than the exception? (E.g., given that one lives under a political form where such is the case.) What do you think?

Can it be said that energy and matter interact by means of charge?

But mustn't correspondence (of a proposition, to that which is) be validated, before one knows it as truth?

All truths of which one is certain are facts, but not all facts are true. Truth (the propositional grasp of fact by a rational consciousness) requires validation by such a consciousness. What do you think?