Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Describing the nature of a thing is not attempting to get behind it or beneath it, as in attempting to explain why existense exists, or explaining the cause of consciousness as if it were not actually an aspect of the nature of conscious being. Describing the nature of a thing only explains exactly what it is one is talking about when they use the concept. Didn't Rand spend considerable effort explaining exactly what she meant by existence and what she meant by concsiousness?

 

I totally agree our individual conscious experiences are alike, even if we cannot directly perceive another's consciousness. It is unlikely that similar creatures with similar attributes could have attributes deriving from that nature that would be very different. The difference would be exactly what  you point out, differences in the physical and neurological aspects of a man, not consciousness itself.

 

Well I greatly admire Rand and appreciate the advances she made in philosophy. In some ways, because she was so affective, she inadvertently (and through no fault of her own) brought a halt to philosophical progress. Most of those who have discovered her philosophy are so dazzled by it, they think they have discovered all there is to ever be known about philosophy, and ceased all new philosophical enquiry.

There is not a big market right now for new, objectively pursued, philosophical enquiry. It is easy to be dazzled by something so brilliant. I would hardly attribute Miss Rand to being causal in the halt to philosophic progress. It is the pragmatic and empiricist flavors that are effectively halting the philosophic progress and currently dominate the transmission belts that have done all but proved that philosophy is ineffectual; evidence Miss Rand uses throughout her works to concretize just how effective philosophy is.

 

I do not regard the entity/matter question crucial. If we agree that matter exists, and that all existents are material, the rest is somewhat simantic. Philosophical issues are not resolved by agreement in the end, but by how each of us conceives reality, and we will only be right, philosophically, if what we think is in agreement with reality, not each other.

 

"Sculptures, pans and bags are just reshaping that matter to fit one's purpose." Yes, certainly, but here's the problem. What is that is reshaped to fit one's purpose? Yous say it is "matter." If matter is entities, shouldn't it be "Sculptures, pans and bags are just reshaping other entities to fit one's purpose?" That's why I say, in the end the issue seems like it could be semantic.

 

Thank  you so much for the link. I'll definitely have a look.

But the sculptures, pans and bags are not reshaping the other entities. The one for whom the purpose is to be realized is the one who does the reshaping of the raw materials into the finished goods.

Matter (whatever physics discovers it to be) has no concern with the historic usage of a concept, even the concept of "semantic".

 

Edited: Added

Edited by dream_weaver

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is not a big market right now for new, objectively pursued, philosophical enquiry. It is easy to be dazzled by something so brilliant. I would hardly attribute Miss Rand to being causal in the halt to philosophic progress. It is the pragmatic and empiricist flavors that are effectively halting the philosophic progress and currently dominate the transmission belts that have done all but proved that philosophy is ineffectual; evidence Miss Rand uses throughout her works to concretize just how effective philosophy is.

You have that right, but there has never been a big market for the truth, and it's not going to get bigger. It's not the market that matters, because philosophy is not a social issue, it's an individual issue. Just learn the truth and live by it. You'll be despised for it, but you'll live successfully and happily. Those who'll despise you don't matter.

 

I definitely do not blame Rand for the halt in philosophic progress, I blame her sycophants. I totally agree with the rest that you wrote. You've given me much confidence that there are still independent minds.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You completely miss the point.  Man's perception (sight, smell, touch, taste, sound) of entities is as different from a dog's, as from a moth's as from a bat's as from a dolphin's as from an ant, as from a blind mole, etc.

Well, maybe. I miss a lott of points, sometimes intentionally.

 

I am very curious to know how you know what a dog's perceptioin is, or a moth's, or a bat's, or a dolphin's, or an ant's, or a mole's. Are  you clairvoyant, do  you have ESP. How can you possibly know what a dog, or moth, or bat, or dolphin or mole perceives? Unless you can enter into the consciousness of other beings, it is impossible. If you can really do this, if you really have such a mystic power, why are you wasting your time arguing about petty Objectivist views?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"How can you possibly know what a dog, or moth, or bat, or dolphin or mole perceives?"

 

Hmmm, Science?

 

Again, you miss the point.  Dogs have a better sense of smell and can hear at different frequencies than man.  Bat's have echo location.  A blind mole obviously has no eyes, but seems to live quite well in his world.

 

Different sensory organs will give you a different PERCEPTION of the Universe.  However, man is not limited to perception - he thinks conceptually.  He knows that the IR and UV bands exist.  He can test dogs for responses to frequencies above his own etc. etc.

 

I think you have adopted a set of definitions which are entirely your own, and are tying to fit the proverbially round peg in a square hole on this web site.  This will be my last response to this post.

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You have that right, but there has never been a big market for the truth, and it's not going to get bigger. It's not the market that matters, because philosophy is not a social issue, it's an individual issue. Just learn the truth and live by it. You'll be despised for it, but you'll live successfully and happily. Those who'll despise you don't matter.

 

I definitely do not blame Rand for the halt in philosophic progress, I blame her sycophants. I totally agree with the rest that you wrote. You've given me much confidence that there are still independent minds.

Philosophy, per se, is not applied socially, but the individuals which comprise it, their philosophies shape the social environment. A willingness to accept compromise undermines the political principle of individual rights, thus eroding a proper understanding of how to implement it judiciously over time.

 

When vandals deface the property of the wealthy with graffiti denouncing the 1% (as it was referred to), look to how the business man is upheld in the public eye. Are these folks lashing out at their 'hero' or their 'villain'? I don't want to get to far off topic here, but it relates to this point you bring up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...