Does Objectivism encourage open, inconclusive, individual thought?

[Chops]

*** Mod's note: Split into new topic - sN ***

Question: Does objectivism encourage open, i.e., inconclusive, and individual thought? Or, is A=A the "objective?

Welcome to the boards.

You've got it backwards. A=A isn't the objective or goal of Objectivism. A=A is one of the foundations of Objectivism. Individual thought (the only kind of thought that's possible) is certainly encouraged, as long as those thoughts adhere to reality. Rationalizations and "floating abstractions" detached from perceivable reality are wrong. Fantasy can be perfectly acceptable as long as its nature is understood and kept in mind: that it is fake.

What do you mean by "inconclusive thought"?

Note: your question probably belongs in another thread.

Edited December 5, 2007 by softwareNerd
Added "topic-split" annotation

[DavidOdden]

If I understand the intent of the question, Objectivism requires open-ended unconcluded thought. In order to reach a final conclusion, there are numerous stages of less-than-knowledge that you have to go through, to validate the conclusion. Initially there are many imaginable facts that can be related to a topic and many imaginable conclusions. It is only by expanding your actual knowledge and integrating it that you can exclude alternatives. However, some (nihilist) epistemologies hold that you can't ever reach a conclusion, which is of course false.

[skip]

*** Mod's note: Split into new topic - sN ***

Welcome to the boards.

You've got it backwards. A=A isn't the objective or goal of Objectivism. A=A is one of the foundations of Objectivism. Individual thought (the only kind of thought that's possible) is certainly encouraged, as long as those thoughts adhere to reality. Rationalizations and "floating abstractions" detached from perceivable reality are wrong. Fantasy can be perfectly acceptable as long as its nature is understood and kept in mind: that it is fake.

What do you mean by "inconclusive thought"?

Note: your question probably belongs in another thread.

Hello Chops, Thank you for the note. You are correct in my view, A=A is one of the foundations. I find it interesting that you say that individual thought is encouraged "as long as these thoughts adhere to reality". What kind of individual thought is that? Are you to tell me what my reality is? The statement is self limiting, confined to judgement, and subject to interpretation. Not trying to be contrary, just trying to understand.

[skip]

Hello Chops, Thank you for the note. You are correct in my view, A=A is one of the foundations. I find it interesting that you say that individual thought is encouraged "as long as these thoughts adhere to reality". What kind of individual thought is that? Are you to tell me what my reality is? The statement is self limiting, confined to judgement, and subject to interpretation. Not trying to be contrary, just trying to understand.

Hello again Chops, I did not answer your question re. "inconclusive thought". For me, that would be thought, i.e. exploration without conclusion as its destination. Skip

[skip]

If I understand the intent of the question, Objectivism requires open-ended unconcluded thought. In order to reach a final conclusion, there are numerous stages of less-than-knowledge that you have to go through, to validate the conclusion. Initially there are many imaginable facts that can be related to a topic and many imaginable conclusions. It is only by expanding your actual knowledge and integrating it that you can exclude alternatives. However, some (nihilist) epistemologies hold that you can't ever reach a conclusion, which is of course false.

Hello David, Thank you for the note. The intent of the question is to help me determine how my various beliefs differ.

I believe, as well, that it is a mind's responsibility to conclude through rational thought and experience. That said, it seems to beg the question of how final and firmly held should a "conclusion" be? Until more data or experience is received, or until the next moment in time? Is it important to "know" the "answer" or to have an idea of it? Is it not more important to stay "on the train then to get off"? Skip

[DavidOdden]

That said, it seems to beg the question of how final and firmly held should a "conclusion" be? Until more data or experience is received, or until the next moment in time?

The conclusion (if it reaches the point of certainly and not just probability) should be utterly firm and unchanging. You may think that this is the wrong way to go, but here's why it isn't: it encourages actual caution in making a claim. For example, there's a certain experiment that you can perform that would allow you to measure the circumference of the Earth assuming that the Earth is round. But that experiment would in fact support the conclusion that the earth is flat and of arbitrary size, if the sky is curved.

I recommend chapter 5 of Peikoff's OPAR, because it has an excellent account of the "certainty" problem. The basic moral of the story is that rational certainty begets rational certainty. Even though it is important to know what the answer is, it is more important to not fake reality, meaning in this case, to feign knowledge. If in fact you don't know A and you cannot definitively rule out the alternative B, you should not claim to know A to the exclusion of B, and that should impell you to find out which is the actual fact.

Very approximately, it is better to know 5 things than to suspect 100.

[progressiveman1]

It is only by expanding your actual knowledge and integrating it that you can exclude alternatives.

...The conclusion (if it reaches the point of certainly and not just probability) should be utterly firm and unchanging.

At what point do you know that you have excluded all possible alternatives and have reached the latter conclusion?

[DavidOdden]

At what point do you know that you have excluded all possible alternatives and have reached the latter conclusion?

As you will recall from OPAR ch 5, you are aware of the possible alternatives and the evidence that makes them possible. Then it is a matter of integrating the sum of your knowledge, to evaluate the relationship between the facts that you know and the conclusions that it supports. There will be some conclusions which get knocked out of consideration because you know a fact that runs counter to that claim. For your conclusion to be certain, the competing conclusions have to be shown to be false (which you know by this proces of actual evaluation).

[progressiveman1]

As you will recall from OPAR ch 5, you are aware of the possible alternatives and the evidence that makes them possible.

But that's just repeating what you already said. I asked at what point do you know that you are aware of all possible alternatives. That's an important question because certainty entails an unchanging stance.

Also, I should mention I don't have access to OPAR. I'll keep trying.

[Curious Capitalist]

I recommend chapter 5 of Peikoff's OPAR, because it has an excellent account of the "certainty" problem. The basic moral of the story is that rational certainty begets rational certainty.

I originally found this forum because I was writing a paper on objectivist scientists, which was an almost impossible subject on which to find information. I wanted to see if "rational certainty" influenced the direction of objectivist science, only to find few objectivist scientists to use as examples. There were a fair amount of social scientists, mathematicians, linguists, but very few professed objectivists in the physical sciences. As I was trying to disprove a theory of a professor that said Aristotelean objectivist certainty (A=A) prevents the essence of discovery required to make good scientists, I had hoped to find more examples where objectivism was conducive with scientific skeptical inquisition. I ended up having to change the topic of the paper late in the game because of insufficient research, and I began to think that "rational certainty" does indeed hinder science.

I think my only issue with objectivism on the whole is the idea of what's considered "rational." I have yet to read Peikoff's OPAR, and have only read a scant amount of Rand's nonfiction, but I'm learning a lot from these boards. However, the idea of the rational, to me, seems more subjective than anyone is willing to admit. One can make a rational argument for state-sanctioned murder, or segregation, or genocide--in fact, many have to great success. Did Hitler rise to power on a collective irrationality of the people, or a rational certainty of their own power and superiority? Germans had few rational reasons to doubt their superiority, as they were technologically innovative and produced some of the greatest minds of the modern era and certainly felt greater than the lowly position in which they found themsevles after WWI. However, their rational certainty in their own power led to millions upon millions of deaths, and in the end proved their superiority to be anything but certain.

I've always been a huge fan of astronomy and considered pursuing a career in it until I realized that I was no genius at calculus; but I have learned that many of the discoveries made in the universe defy all rational thought that we have, and these discoveries are reshaping our knowledge of existence. Rational certainty is completely absent from the center of a black hole or in dark matter, and probability and statistics, the measure of most rational predictions, are subject to great inaccuracies.

I am really hoping that someone can illuminate this entire subject for me. How is rational certainty better than rational skepticism? Doesn't skepticism encourage more discovery and acquisition of truth than certainty? And, wouldn't that make skepticism the more rational mode of human thought? I just look at religious thought and how it relies on certainty and rejects skepticism, as the latter threatens its ultimate power to control the faithful. I also look at science and how skepticism has driven its progress, along with the entire progress of man, from the discovery that the world is indeed round to the dismissal of a divine being. Is my certainty that more truth lies in skepticism rational?

[DavidOdden]

I asked at what point do you know that you are aware of all possible alternatives.

Let me rephrase that, then: the concept "possible alternative" implies "awareness".

Also, I should mention I don't have access to OPAR. I'll keep trying.

Do try. It's cheap and easily available. Spend a few bux. I actually think that if you read through the discussion of "possible", "probable" and "certain", you'll see why possible implies aware.

[JMeganSnow]

You don't have to be aware of all imaginable alternatives. Part of *proving* a proposition is demonstrating a causal connection. If you can show that A definitely *causes* B instead of just being *followed* by it, then no alternatives ARE possible. They no longer exist in a state of having some evidence for them and none against them: the sheer fact that you demonstrated B is caused by A means you have evidence against ALL alternatives. What are the "possible" alternatives to the fact that lightning causes thunder?

[JMeganSnow]

Are you to tell me what my reality is? The statement is self limiting, confined to judgement, and subject to interpretation. Not trying to be contrary, just trying to understand.

YOUR reality?! ALL REALITIES HERE ARE MY REALITY!!!

There's only one reality. If you find that too confining, I advise you to commit yourself to an insane asylum so you can have someone else take care of the consequences of you trying to live in a fantasy world that doesn't exist. You are essentially complaining that the fact you can't, say, grow wings by wishing or walk through walls is limiting your self-expression. You're free to disbelieve it, but you're not free to make reality anything other than what it is. Objectivism is about embracing this fact, A=A, among others, because we don't find life in an insane asylum to be a desirable option. But, by all means, please take a swan dive off the Empire State Building because you believe you can fly. Make sure you aim for the concrete.

I did not answer your question re. "inconclusive thought". For me, that would be thought, i.e. exploration without conclusion as its destination.

Without a conclusion as its intended destination, or without a conclusion as its actual destination? Thinking without actually reaching a conclusion right away is a part of life, as David mentioned. Thinking while intending to never reach a conclusion is pointless and stupid. It's like constantly and intentionally only watching the first 45 minutes of any movie, then refusing to see it through.

That said, it seems to beg the question of how final and firmly held should a "conclusion" be?

Absolutely, and forever, but we're not talking about tentative "the evidence suggests" sort of stuff here. That's not a conclusion, that's a stop on the *way* to a conclusion.

[Curious Capitalist]

YOUR reality?! ALL REALITIES HERE ARE MY REALITY!!!

There's only one reality.

There's no way I can argue with this logic. However, I think skip may be talking about individual perception, which is completely different from person to person. A seven foot man would have a far different perception than that of a four foot one. There may be worlds the shorter man is not even aware of, like the dusty top of book shelves, thus limiting his knowledge reality. Sure, there is only one reality, but infinitely different perceptions of it. I think this may be what was meant by "my reality," though I could be wrong.

[DavidOdden]

I have yet to read Peikoff's OPAR

You can imagine what my recommendation is.

One can make a rational argument for state-sanctioned murder, or segregation, or genocide--in fact, many have to great success.

No, you can't. If you'd like to try, I would be happy to show you where the argument leaves the realm of the rational. Let me suggest that one of the most important point to extract from OPAR Ch. 5 is the impotence of the arbitrary. I never fully appreciated how thoroughly the admission of the arbitrary has infected western thinking, until I worked through that chapter.

Rational certainty is completely absent from the center of a black hole or in dark matter, and probability and statistics, the measure of most rational predictions, are subject to great inaccuracies.

Are you sure about that??

How is rational certainty better than rational skepticism?

I hope we don't reify the expression "rational certainty" too much. There is a massive equivocation out there in philosophy land about certainty, where some people see certainty as being a mere emotion. We don't care about people having that emotion, what we care about is what objective knowledge state is "certainty". I've taken to using the elaboration "rational certainty" just to make clear that I'm refering to the actual knowledge state "certainty", and not the emotion.

So "certainty" describes a relationship between evidence and a conclusion. Skepticism can either describe an epistemological nihilist doctrine (boo) or simple doubt. A rational scientist won't doubt a conclusion just because it's an intrinsic virtue to be a skeptic, he will doubt a conclusion because he knows of an actual fact that says "Here is something that I know that constitutes a reason to reject the conclusion". This is also good scientific behavior. It is in fact essential to moving from the possible to the certain -- you have to openly and honestly confront the facts of reality and determine whether they snuff your hypothesis or support it.

The evil epistemological doctrine of skepticism holds that knowledge is simply impossible. A corollary of that position is that truth actually doesn't exist (or: they redefine truth in some kind of subjective or sociological way).

I just look at religious thought and how it relies on certainty and rejects skepticism, as the latter threatens its ultimate power to control the faithful.

And that is due to their claim that faith and emotion are also sources of knowledge, which they manifestly are not. (plug for OPAR 5 again).

[Shinja]

"Then it is a matter of integrating the sum of your knowledge, to evaluate the relationship between the facts that you know and the conclusions that it supports. There will be some conclusions which get knocked out of consideration because you know a fact that runs counter to that claim. For your conclusion to be certain, the competing conclusions have to be shown to be false (which you know by this proces of actual evaluation)."

I think that the problem some people are having with certainty is the possibility that one could make an error and create a chain of thought which deviates from the truth. But if this happens it would become apparent when you apply whatever it is to reality and then you can go back and review your thinking and discover your error.

[Curious Capitalist]

David, thanks for such a thorough explication of my post, as it helps me understand better the questions I have and their possible answers. However, it really only inspires more questions. I know, I will definitely make it a priority to check out OPAR post haste.

The only question that you failed to answer is how can one define what is "rational"? My emphasis on skepticism was not a nihilistic value devoid of meaning, nor do I consider it "evil" (seeing the word as Nietzsche did), but rather something that when used rationally can lead to discovery the likes of which certainty cannot. To me, it seems that the epistemological doctrine of certainty holds that knowledge is simply complete, preventing the desire for further discovery. I am certain that I have no rational certainty to know what occurs in the center of a black hole, therefore I am rationally skeptical of my own knowledge, therefore it makes me want to discover the truth. If I believe that I already know the truth, based on reason and previously acquired knowledge, the certainty, to me, still feels like faith: "I believe this because of that, and I need not question either." I have no room for faith in anything other than myself and my ability to learn. And, isn't the belief in rational certainty still an emotional belief, as it inspired you to consider skepticism "evil"?

I believe that I'm just getting lost in matters of semantics, which comprises a great deal of philosophy to begin with. I am confused as to the objective definition of "rational," "certainty," "skepticism," and now, "evil."

[hunterrose]

The only question that you failed to answer is how can one define what is "rational"? My emphasis on skepticism was ... something that when used rationally...

...wait, how are you defining "rationally"?

To me, it seems that the epistemological doctrine of certainty holds that knowledge is simply complete, preventing the desire for further discovery.

Certainty of knowledge is contextual, not "complete" in the sense I *think* you mean. Different contexts of knowledge hold different discoveries. A certain person can still check her facts or desire to broaden the context of her knowledge.

Whatever else it means, being certain doesn't mean being all-knowing or infallible in one's conclusions.

[DavidOdden]

The only question that you failed to answer is how can one define what is "rational"?

"Using reason". Note that I've defined it, but that's not the same as fully explaining the nature of "reason". See OPAR ch. 5 (entitled "Reason").

To me, it seems that the epistemological doctrine of certainty holds that knowledge is simply complete, preventing the desire for further discovery.

OTOH, to actually get to the state where a conclusion is certain does take a lot of work. Being certain about one thing does not mean that you're certain about all things. For example, I invite you to research the question of what the capital of the state of Washington is. Gambling, I assume you don't know already. There are very many ways to find out the answer, and pretty quickly you can actually become certain. At that point, it would be inane to insist on continuing research into the topic.

For me, certainty serves the very important role of separating scientific inanity from fruitful action. Moving yourself out of the stage of "suspicion" to actual knowledge, of being certain and being able to rely on some conclusion, that is the foundation of scientific progress. No experiment will tell you anything at all if it isn't founded on a certain foundation (like: how do you measure temperature, and are you certain that you're actually measuring temperature?)

If I believe that I already know the truth, based on reason and previously acquired knowledge, the certainty, to me, still feels like faith: "I believe this because of that, and I need not question either."

Well, we don't care what you believe, we only care about what is. Have I mentioned OPAR? Turn to p. 172 ff, and note Peikoff's use of "certain" (apart from the homophonous word meaning "a particular) -- it's not a description of the experimenter's subjective emotional state, it's a description of an objective fact of an idea. If you've followed rational methods to get to your conclusion, then if you feel certain because your conclusion is certain, you have a justified feeling of certainty.

And, isn't the belief in rational certainty still an emotional belief, as it inspired you to consider skepticism "evil"?

Nah, it's an objective characterization of a relationship between evidence and idea. As for skepticism (in the nihilist sense), I call it evil simply because it is evil. I'm not getting all hopping mad. It's true that there is a dominant cult of non-evaluation especially in academics, but if you'd prefer, I can just say that the ideas of the skeptics (like Pyrrho, Hume) are evil. Evil is simply the opposite of good.

[RationalBiker]

Sure, there is only one reality, but infinitely different perceptions of it.

And that is key, there is one reality. The fact that there are different perceptions of it does not justify the validity of those perceptions. A man may perceive that using crack cocaine 5 times a day, 7 days a week, 52 weeks a year is going to make him a smarter, stronger man. One does not have to validity to "his" reality simply because his perception is different.

Edited December 9, 2007 by RationalBiker

[JMeganSnow]

Sure, there is only one reality, but infinitely different perceptions of it. I think this may be what was meant by "my reality," though I could be wrong.

It is possible that this is what skip meant, however this is a common corruption of people attacking the concept of objectivity, so care should be taken not to allow this position to gain ground in any way, shape, or form. If you mean "perception of reality", then say "perception of reality", but people don't say that because they understand on some fundamental level that if objective reality exists, the forms of one's perception are immaterial and saying that "people have different perceptions" in those circumstances excuses nothing.

[skip]

There's no way I can argue with this logic. However, I think skip may be talking about individual perception, which is completely different from person to person. A seven foot man would have a far different perception than that of a four foot one. There may be worlds the shorter man is not even aware of, like the dusty top of book shelves, thus limiting his knowledge reality. Sure, there is only one reality, but infinitely different perceptions of it. I think this may be what was meant by "my reality," though I could be wrong.

Thank you, you are correct.

[skip]

YOUR reality?! ALL REALITIES HERE ARE MY REALITY!!!

There's only one reality. If you find that too confining, I advise you to commit yourself to an insane asylum so you can have someone else take care of the consequences of you trying to live in a fantasy world that doesn't exist. You are essentially complaining that the fact you can't, say, grow wings by wishing or walk through walls is limiting your self-expression. You're free to disbelieve it, but you're not free to make reality anything other than what it is. Objectivism is about embracing this fact, A=A, among others, because we don't find life in an insane asylum to be a desirable option. But, by all means, please take a swan dive off the Empire State Building because you believe you can fly. Make sure you aim for the concrete.

Without a conclusion as its intended destination, or without a conclusion as its actual destination? Thinking without actually reaching a conclusion right away is a part of life, as David mentioned. Thinking while intending to never reach a conclusion is pointless and stupid. It's like constantly and intentionally only watching the first 45 minutes of any movie, then refusing to see it through.

Absolutely, and forever, but we're not talking about tentative "the evidence suggests" sort of stuff here. That's not a conclusion, that's a stop on the *way* to a conclusion.

Is this interpretive type of thinking and emotional response of yours rational? Why the fear and anger? I hope you do not represent objective thinkers. And yes, I will aim for the concrete, it makes sense. You do not need to respond to me again.

Edited December 11, 2007 by softwareNerd
Merged two post that were really one.

[Chops]

Hello Chops, Thank you for the note. You are correct in my view, A=A is one of the foundations. I find it interesting that you say that individual thought is encouraged "as long as these thoughts adhere to reality". What kind of individual thought is that? Are you to tell me what my reality is? The statement is self limiting, confined to judgement, and subject to interpretation. Not trying to be contrary, just trying to understand.

When I says "as long as these thoughts adhere to reality," I mean that no conclusion can be reached when reality is not the foundation. The moment that a thought breaks from the chain of thoughts connecting it to reality, is the moment that any following conclusion is falsified. One is free to think about things like unicorns, flying goats, and other such fantastical non-existents, but the moment one BELIEVES in them is the moment that thought breaks from reality.

Since OPAR has been mentioned in this thread several times, I'll use the skyscraper analogy from it. Every concept, in order to be valid (as a valid expression of a part of reality), must be tied to reality. Just as the top floors of a skyscraper only stand on the floors beneath it, until the ground floor which is rooted to the Earth, so a concept can only stand if each reliant concept (and each of their reliant concepts, and so on) connect to reality (the ground).

So when I say that A=A is one of the foundations (along with Existence exists and consiousness), concepts start with those, and in order to be valid, must be able to be logically connected to those three concepts.

As JMegan said, "There is only one reality." Perception of reality does not alter reality, but perception of reality obviously can differ from one to another, so that introduces context (applying your knowledge to your conclusions). No one expects anyone to know everything, and be capable of integrating everything in the universe into every conclusion. But one must ensure that every thought fits consistently with their previously validated conclusions. To use a simple example from ITOE, consider a baby, first observing the world, a baby might see a man, and conclude that man is "something that moves and makes noises." This is a valid definition, within the context of the baby's knowledge. That baby might then see a dog, and noticing that the dog and the man are different, but both make noises, will conclude that a man is something that moves on two legs and makes noises. This is another valid definition (within the context of the baby's knowledge). These thoughts all connect to the baby's perception of reality. If the baby were to somehow think that man could fly as well, without viewing it happen, it would be an invalid conclusion, as it breaks from reality as perceived and integrated with the baby.

Useful reads for this are Chapter one of OPAR (Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand), and the entirety of ITOE (Introduction of Objectivist Epistemology). The OPAR read is certainly faster, since it's basically a summary of ITOE, if you're looking to read more about what all this means. These both address these ideas in MUCH more detail.

Edited December 11, 2007 by Chops

[Thales]

I skimmed this thread, and I'm going to add a quibble, not so minor. It's not A=A, it is A is A. A=A means they are numerically the same, or the same in some way, where as A is A means identical to, one-and-the-same. A thing is what it is, and nothing else. It has an identity and this identity must be faced and dealt with, because it is immutable at any one time and in any one place. Magic is not permitted, because things act according to their nature and can only act according to their nature (their identity).