StrictlyLogical

Plasmatic: For background and for consistent definition/understanding what do we take facts as such to be? Premises: A "statement of fact" has as a referent something in reality. We can have knowledge of/about statements and about reality. What is the referent of the concept "fact" (as such) according to Objectivism? I.e. If I simply and baldly say "A fact according to Objectivism IS x" (here there are no modifiers as to "type" or species or particular fact, what is meant is the broadest concept subsuming anything which validly should be considered "a fact") Can you expand x? Eiuol, if you can answer this according to your understanding of Objectivism that would also be appreciated.

The specific thing I said about consciousness not creating reality etc. is a metaphysically given fact.

The "primacy of existence", when used to mean that man's consciousness serves to understand/identify etc. existence and does not serve to create or give rise to existence (this is not a statement about man's ability to will his physical appendages to act... which is a separate issue) I would take to designate a fact of reality.

Q1: The concept "individual" does not only mean i.e. is not limited to, as referents which are valid, concrete existing individuals... i.e. people alive now. The concept "individual" includes all people who ever lived, all people who will or may ever live, even fictitious people (as long as they comply with the definition of individual), hypothetical people, etc. The concept is not limited to specific concretes, the way "people in this room" (were there a specific word for that) would be limited. Q2: Ordering presupposes an "orderer". Relationships exist amongst existents but "ordering" is over and above mere existence. Predators eat prey. Prey feed predators. These facts do not form a hierarchy or an ordering but there are relationships and causality. By hierarchy I assume what is meant is something akin to importance or primacy as a qualification of the state of existence itself ... i.e. the claim would be that A exists MORE than B or A's existence is metaphysically more important than B's existence or Metaphysically more primary than B's existence. A and B exist. There are relationships between A and B. That's it.

From my understanding she is characterising certain concepts, i.e. labelling them, as metaphysically "first level" concepts, meaning that those particular concepts have referents which are not other concepts in a chain of higher to lower concepts which eventually refer to the existents, but which directly refer to existents (although not necessarily a specific concrete one). So "individual person" would be a "metaphysically first-level concept" whereas "politics" or "philosophy" are concepts which are not "metaphysically first-level concepts". At first I thought the terms "metaphysically primary" and "metaphysical hierarchy" as used by the members here were implying characteristics in reality of entities themselves. i.e. that the members were asserting the existence of some mystical or intrinsic ordering in reality itself, which of course would be rationalism akin to Platonism.

I do not know why you use terms like "metaphysically fundamental" and "epistemologically fundamental". The quote simply says (and you may need to imagine replacing man with some other thing) that you can observe a random number of characteristics of a kind of thing which characteristics are themselves not fundamental or distinguishing but which are a result of other fundamental and distinguishing characteristics of the kind of thing. This is consistent with your last quote: the essence of a concept consists of the characteristics of the unit which are both fundamental and distinguishing. Something the units of a concept possesses are characteristics some of which are fundamental some are not, some of which are distinguishing, some of which are not. The essence of the concept (here anyway) is defined as the collection of those characteristics which are both fundamental to the units and distinguish the units. In some ways Man being a living thing is fundamental... the choice to live or die is important to what a Man is... but such a characteristic is not distinguishing as against other living things, so the essence of man does not really include that he is alive and can die. Which is why in the particular example re. the concept Man, Rand chooses "rational faculty" as the essence.

I think you still don't get what I am saying. There is no such thing as "true for me". Agreed? I assume yes. This is because something IS true or not.. the "for me" is incoherent/irrational. When something in reality IS conscious, it IS conscious, not for it, nor for me... not just from my point of view or from its point of view... it is a fact of reality from all points of view in the sense that POINTS OF VIEW are irrelevant to the FACT of its existence. Something IS conscious or it is NOT. To be clear, I am not saying something can be conscious without a first person experience. First person experience is a necessary and some would argue sufficient condition or attribute of consciousness. Conscious things experience their consciousness by means of a first person view, i.e. in the manner of a first person view... but that does not mean consciousness IS the view by which they experience it. If the concept consciousness referred to the first person view as such, i.e. the experience of being aware, it would be incoherent to say THAT thing, THAT person is CONSCIOUS... why? Because it would not BE CONSCIOUS TO THE SPEAKER... this would be an irrational outcome. Can you genuinely try to see what I am getting at?

Rand's term is "faculty of awareness". This is an existent, an attribute of reality, something I can point to which things either possess or not. I think Rand's term is accurate. I believe you are saying that the concept "consciousness" does not include the faculty of awareness but refers only to "awareness" as such. My claim as to the concept consciousness is not so much opposite of yours, since it encompasses yours and more. as I said earlier I think the concept "consciousness" encompasses both the faculty of awareness and is a valid term for when we refer to that awareness as such. Rand is right on this one.

Objectivism holds that Government's sole responsibility is protection of individual rights. Objectivism holds that in a proper society the citizen's delegate the right of retaliatory force to the Government in order for it to fulfill its sole function. If Government acts in any way other than to protect individual rights, and in particular, if it initiates the use of force against any individual (instead of in retaliation) for any reason, it is to that extent immoral and invalid. For clarification, an imminent threat of physical harm by A on B constitutes initiation of force by A on B, which the Government must respond to protect the rights of B. In your example, to the extent, that a person's action of killing a Dog for fun, are indicative or provide evidence of the mental instability of the individual and the actual threat they may pose to other individual's, such information may have weight in determining if people are in actual danger. Coupled with other evidence such as gruesome drawings of people on leashes being killed, diary entries planning to treat people like dogs... etc. the killing of Dogs could be a fact which leads to a conclusion such that the Government would have to step in. The MERE fact of a person killing a Dog for kicks does not amount to evidence of an actual threat to other human beings and the Government must not intervene.

I just wanted to make an observation on a Friday leading into, hopefully a great weekend.. We have all heard the statement "The truth will set you free". This is somewhat of an insipid bromide, and it pertains mostly to the relief of the cessation of evasion, self-denial, or dishonesty. Relief from the guilt and the stress/worry of being caught or from being in a state of dis-integration. The relief from the self inflicted problems of vices is not like setting one's self free, it's more like taking one's hand out of the burning fire he never should have idiotically placed his hand into. For us Objectivists however this statement, used in a different context, reflects a reality few non-Objectivists, if any, would understand. We all (almost all) were raised in and indoctrinated with religion, false dichotomies, evasion, disintegration, duty, rationalism, intrinsicism,.. these all create actual mental prisons. Prisons in the sense that they restrict freedom of thought and action in ways which are not rational, valid, properly justified, nor in accordance with reality, and from which the prisoner, to the extent of his ignorance, is helpless to escape. When one discovers the truth, the Axioms, what morality IS, what rights are, i.e. Objectivism, even though the structures around us remain, the religions, the statism, the public consensus in irrationality etc., one nevertheless has been literally, albeit only mentally and spiritually, set free by that discovery. In this way the truth HAS set you free. On a Friday perhaps it is a nice thing to remember in the face of all of the coercion and unjust initiation of force upon your lives... .at least you have found a way, the truth, to free yourself from the mental and spiritual prison you once occupied! Have a great weekend!

There are newbies out there... can you clarify Objectivism's position on the role of government ... in particular relating to your examples Eiuol? It is after all the "Objectivism Online Forum"... We don't want to confuse them now do we?

Nicky raised a perfectly good point which was addressed to Eiuol. Eiuol should address it. Eiuol, can you remind us, what is the Objectivist position on the proper role of government? Is it, as Nicky says, that government should be limited in its role to protecting individual rights? If so how does this position apply to the use of property which does not harm any people, e.g. animal abuse?

Good points generally. Anyone want to weigh in on why Cartesian doubt was and is a failure i.e. a deeply flawed approach according to Objectivist philosophy? Peikoff did a wonderful job handing Rene Descartes his A$$ in his lectures on the History of Philosophy... I cannot paraphrase LP with sufficient accuracy or eloquence but I believe it is brilliant and important as well as relevant to this discussion.

Objectivists have a unique view of self-interest, we have read and thought much about the fundamental alternative of life and death, what it means to flourish, that life's purpose and reward is happiness (in the full sense of the term) and that all of these things are tied with and defined by Man's nature... i.e. qua Man. I believe any assessment of an animal, if it is to avoid anthropomorphizing the animal, must also be based on the animal's nature, i.e. qua particular animal. What does it mean for that animal to flourish, what is it's natural qua animal life? This obviously is not simple nor universally applicable and must be done in a way that makes sense to the animal's existence as that animal. For the aspect of captivity alone, this will depend on factors such as intelligence, normal range of activity/migration, how travel affects the animal physically and neurologically, etc etc. I would assume keeping an eagle on the ground with its wings tied to its sides would not be conducive to the eagle flourishing qua eagle. Restricting an earthworm to the ground, however, would lead to its flourishing just as well as enclosing it in a 500 foot tall enclosure with cliffs for it to crawl up to... which it never would.

I think you may be using a rationalist's concept of "certainty". At the very least you are diverging greatly from Objectivism in regard to what certainty, rationally tied to reality means: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/certainty.html And really this bit on the arbitrary is a good read: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html I would suggest this also to Eiuol given his assertion that a arbitrary statement can have some cognitive value outside of using it "as proof of something". An arbitrary statement has no cognitive status or value whatever. Statements about what constitutes "the arbitrary" of course are valuable... as are statements about poison, fallacy, and immorality... as a warning of what to avoid.

I would not use the term "pragmatic". That I believe is something entirely different. "Rational" is a sufficient concept. It is irrational to invoke the arbitrary. Only a rationalist deems that arbitrary things are possible... In fact possibility requires some probability greater than zero i.e. some evidence. So far from arbitrary, things are possible precisely because something in reality amounts to evidence that it is actual. As for the axioms these are logically necessitated by your mere contemplation of them, by your seeking knowledge, your mere existence etc. Again, you could "say" you do not exist, but that would be irrational, incomprehensible, and meaningless. The axioms are rationally indisputable.

Think again.

Minarchy Thanks!!!

Hey: Can you add "Minarchist" to the spell check dictionary... it keeps changing it to Monarchist... which although funny, is a little annoying.

Welcome to the forum. As you have seen there are many different characters here. I look forward to another!

That's the sanest thing I've read today on this forum. Thank you. You understood my point perfectly and its intended scope.

We agree on what is happening in reality... we are not in a disagreement over the existence, properties, manifestations, reality of brains, biology, physics what they do and that there are some of these systems which have subjective first person experiences. I will of course recognize we do not agree with the limitations of scope/breadth of the concept/word "consciousness" as regards to which and how much of those things the concept covers. Since you claim not to be a rationalist I assume you know the difference between reality, what is, what is happening and concepts, ideas, abstractions, words.. which refer to reality. We agree on reality disagree on the scope of a concept i.e. what it refers to.

That's not the point. The point is length of life only... i.e. literally the "time before you die" is not equivalent to "life as the standard". THIS is not meant to provide an answer but to point to the fact that more than one variable must be taken into consideration. Addressing the question of Ice cream and its affect on the quality of life and potentially life span was merely an illustration. This is not an example of question begging. I think the proper question is not so simple as "what value to pursue". Really ...is the question "IS ice cream as such a value"? No It is what actions give the most values... single actions can affect multiple values, some related to health, others pleasure, others happiness, achievement etc... One cannot assume that everything under the sun one can do or obtain must be categorized in and of itself "a value" or "a disvalue". That would be absurd. Things and actions have value, you evaluate those things and actions by the balance sheet of values they provide or erode. As such "fresh water" when drowning is not valuable, "fresh water" when you are dehydrated is. IS fresh water as such a "value to pursue"? Really now.

I think we are all in agreement as to what in reality is occurring. And now I understand better some people's use of the term (and concept) "consciousness". Of course I must be contextually aware of the speaker or presenter but I think I will have a better chance of understanding a statement surrounding consciousness by remembering that there are different ways to use the term, and I'll be better equipped to identify its particular use in the context.

If I recall correctly we both are of the view consciousness is a process or function of non-supernatural material existence. It is true that the function/process is not the material, but the material is functioning, it is being conscious. My point is that there may be different senses that the word "consciousness" is used. It IS an experience but it is an experience THINGS (complex things like brains) have/do. So arguable "consciousness" is a property that can be attributed to a thing doing it. THAT man is conscious. Brains have the property of "consciousness"... So in this sense the concept encompasses what it is and the experience we have of it. The other possible sense is that "consciousness" only refers to the subjective first person experience of the processes. I WOULD say "what it is like to be conscious" but the last part "to BE conscious" would be a misnomer, things only experience consciousness. i.e. consciousness is ONLY an experience not a process not an attribute of reality, purely subjective.