Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ayn Rand- Absolutes

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am currently in a philosophy class at St. Johns University and we never learn about people such as Ayn Rand, so in trying to learn her myself, I have a question that is troubling me. Does Ayn Rand believe in absolutes, or does she just believes in the absolute of reason. If she does just believe in the absolute of reason why does she write that a speck of dust in an absolute, is it because we learn that it is a speck of dust through reason. This leads me to another quick question, can't reason be wrong at times or flawed, how do we know our reason as a person is right?

 

 

Thanks,

David C.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am currently in a philosophy class at St. Johns University and we never learn about people such as Ayn Rand, so in trying to learn her myself, I have a question that is troubling me. Does Ayn Rand believe in absolutes, or does she just believes in the absolute of reason. If she does just believe in the absolute of reason why does she write that a speck of dust in an absolute, is it because we learn that it is a speck of dust through reason. This leads me to another quick question, can't reason be wrong at times or flawed, how do we know our reason as a person is right?

 

 

Thanks,

David C.

Personal freedom seems to be an absolute for her; collective interests are not weighed into the balance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/absolutes.html

That might be of a little interest to you if you haven't seen it yet. Absolutes basically are things which just are, they're not open to control or change via people's desires and thoughts. For example, the speck of dust exists whether anybody wants to try to deny it or not and reason works in a particular way even if somebody wants to reject it because they don't like its conclusions.

 

As for why we don't need to constantly walk around doubting if we're wrong about everything and anything: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/context.html + http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/arbitrary.html

Our knowledge is derived from reality, so claims - including "maybe you're wrong!" - require something tying them to reality. "Maybe you're wrong" needs to be supported by evidence in reality of what is the cause for doubt *in this particular instance*, not just that people are capable of error or that something merely doesn't seem to go against the laws of physics. Our conclusions are also predicated on context, meaning that something like the conclusion "water freezes at 32 F" after observing freezing some water isn't wrong if salt added to water means it needs to get colder to freeze - it just means that the original conclusion is about freezing water without salt in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oism ties the discussion of absolutism of nature to the differentiation between man made-mind dependent facts and the metaphysically given facts not alterable in nature by any consciousness. You can relate the Oist conception of identity to this sense of absolutism. The majority of discussion in Oism usually discusses the nature of "contextual absolutes". That is, certain facts are absolutely true within a certain domain of applicability. The similarity of, say, all fish, is a fact. They all fall within a range of measurements that is no more than X, and no less than Y. These truths are contextual and any fish that have not been experienced that fall out of that range is beyond the context of the referencing subject. The subject knows absolutely what range the referenced entities fall in and the context they have been differentiated from.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you all for the feedback, this actually really helped me. I just hit part three of Atlas Shrugged and I can't wait to read it. I actually can't even focus in class because I want to read so much. Just to make sure I understand correctly, Ayn Rand believed reason was an absolute because we gather our reason from reality and reality is an absolute (IE a speck of dust is a speck of dust ), if our reason is wrong it is in fact a contradiction which as Francisco says. When she says the only absolute is reason, is she just refereeing to that being Mans only absolute?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"Ayn Rand believed reason was an absolute because we gather our reason from reality and reality is an absolute"

Pretty much.

 

"When she says the only absolute is reason, is she just refereeing to that being Mans only absolute?"

I think it's basically that reason (and of course, the axioms that form the basis of it) is the one thing not open to doubting or questioning, since it is the sole means of doing any kind of questioning to begin with. The major point being emphasized though is that there is nothing else which just must be accepted without question. No matter how old or popular or appealing or whatever else some other notion about the world may be, it is open to scrutiny (via reason of course) and, if it fails to pass muster, open to be rejected. I'm not sure without exact page reference to check, but I think the context of this statement was talking about within the realm of ideas, so not disqualifying the spec of dust from being an absolute as was mentioned elsewhere.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad we even have to discuss things in reference to terms such as "absolutes" ... in a proper philosophic/scientific culture it adds nothing to a rational conception of reality.

 

At best it serves only to distinguish between delusion/imagination/insanity on the one hand and perception/cognition/identification on the other hand. 

 

 

The answer to "nothing is absolute" is "Things are" or "It is".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's sad we even have to discuss things in reference to terms such as "absolutes" ... in a proper philosophic/scientific culture it adds nothing to a rational conception of reality.

 

At best it serves only to distinguish between delusion/imagination/insanity on the one hand and perception/cognition/identification on the other hand. 

 

 

The answer to "nothing is absolute" is "Things are" or "It is".

If reality were absolute, then we'd have 'absolute' agreement between rational people. But clearly, this is not the case.

 

The alternative, so to speak, is to label those with whom one disagrees as 'irrational'. This, of course is nothing but name-calling....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality is absolute because A is A.  Something cannot be two different things in the same way at the same time.  That would be chaos and the universe would be untelligable.  Think of it this way - To say there is no absolutes is a contradiction since you just stated an absolute.  A horse cannot be a cat or a paper on economics.  A horse is a horse, of course.

 

1+1=2 is an absolute.  A table is an absolute.  Gravity is an absolute (even if it's speed varies based on attributes). 

 

The claim to non-absolute is the claim to break the law of identity, which means play lose and fast with facts.  People who do that usually need to do this so they can either ignore facts for something they believe in (post modern thinking) or construct a philosophy via rationalism from an a priori for the same reason (mysticism or idealism). 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Reality is absolute because A is A.  Something cannot be two different things in the same way at the same time.  That would be chaos and the universe would be untelligable.  Think of it this way - To say there is no absolutes is a contradiction since you just stated an absolute.  A horse cannot be a cat or a paper on economics.  A horse is a horse, of course.

 

1+1=2 is an absolute.  A table is an absolute.  Gravity is an absolute (even if it's speed varies based on attributes). 

 

The claim to non-absolute is the claim to break the law of identity, which means play lose and fast with facts.  People who do that usually need to do this so they can either ignore facts for something they believe in (post modern thinking) or construct a philosophy via rationalism from an a priori for the same reason (mysticism or idealism). 

Social constructs such as 'tables' cannot possibly be 'absolutes' in so far as their definition depends on use.

 

Gravity is not an 'absoliute' because its value depends both upon mass/energy (rt side of equation of GR) and Ricci curvature x metric tensor (on left side of GR). Plus, they're 16 possible (m,n) 4-d coordinates that are possible, thereby giving ten solutions.

 

Post modernism, for its part, questions the perspectives from which different people see different A's = various 'A's, and why.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Social constructs such as 'tables' cannot possibly be 'absolutes' in so far as their definition depends on use.

 

Gravity is not an 'absoliute' because its value depends both upon mass/energy (rt side of equation of GR) and Ricci curvature x metric tensor (on left side of GR). Plus, they're 16 possible (m,n) 4-d coordinates that are possible, thereby giving ten solutions.

 

Post modernism, for its part, questions the perspectives from which different people see different A's = various 'A's, and why.

 

A table is there.  If I put something on it it will hold it.  The fact it was built or what it looks like is a random attribute. 

 

Gravity is a universal law, random speeds based on mass non-withstanding.  It is a law in fact that comes with random attributes that can be studied like anthing else. 

 

Post Modernism is an excuse to ignore facts of reality like the table is really there and if I let go of a ball it will drop which can be understoood only if you know absolutes like the Law of Non-Contradiction.  It's characteristics like mass can only be understood if you have a system of knowledge based on A is A - An absolute. 

 

Don't make the mistake of listening to long constructs philosophers and scientists build on randomn attributes to ignore the elephant in the room.  If nothing was absolute then we would understand nothing, the universe would be unintelligible since we could identify nothing, and we would not know there are no absulutes since that requires an abssolute to think by to utter the statement which is also an absolute.  

 

Knowledge of a non-absolute is a contradiction in terms, just like a "Deterministic Philosophy".  Absolutes is a prerequisite of knowledge.  You need the first to get the second. 

Edited by Spiral Architect
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank-Bill said:

Post modernism, for its part, questions the perspectives from which different people see different A's = various 'A's, and why.

It's simple, it is absolutely true that volition is a conditional-non deterministic fact......

Edit: Ive sent you an article on the ric=0 unicorn...I noticed after posting you said "people see" instead of "people categorize"... Again your mixing perception with conception. How about you make an actual argument for perceptual relativism???

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Weaver said:

The law of causality guaranties the outcome of the rebellion against identity. In the meantime, postmodernism just provides another way to separate those who know A is A, from some others that wish it were not so.

Its not for nothing that Aristotle was called the "master of those who know".....

Edit: from the SEP article:

"Habermas argues that postmodernism contradicts itself through self-reference, and notes that postmodernists presuppose concepts they otherwise seek to undermine, e.g., freedom, subjectivity, or creativity. He sees in this a rhetorical application of strategies employed by the artistic avant-garde of the nineteenth and twentieth centuries, an avant-garde that is possible only because modernity separates artistic values from science and politics in the first place. "

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One can appreciate Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy's opening paragraph on Postmodernism:

That postmodernism is indefinable is a truism. However, it can be described as a set of critical, strategic and rhetorical practices employing concepts such as difference, repetition, the trace, the simulacrum, and hyperreality to destabilize other concepts such as presence, identity, historical progress, epistemic certainty, and the univocity of meaning.

 

While apparently indefinable, it is not indescribable. For those having no truck with the reaffirmation through denial, a friend of Miss Rand once said:

that today's attitude, paraphrasing the Bible, is; "Forgive me, Father, for I know not what I'm doing - and please don't tell me."

 

The law of causality guaranties the outcome of the rebellion against identity. In the meantime, postmodernism just provides another way to separate those who know A is A, from some others that wish it were not so.

Many of the terms that Stanford describes are creations of those who reject 'postmodernism' as such:

 

For example, 'difference and repetition' are from Deleuze, 'trace' and 'simulacra' from both Derrida and Lacan. Ontic univocity is from the scholastic period, again used by Deleuze...

 

Only Derrida claimed to be post modern.

 

More to the point: obviously, asserting A=A and questioning the epistemic certainty of whay we claim to know are distinct endeavors. In a broader sense, Post-modernism is a basic term which describes the historical re-vitalization of questioning what's what.

 

In other words, asserting that a whale is large fish is no less false by asserting A=A.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many of the terms that Stanford describes are creations of those who reject 'postmodernism' as such:

 

For example, 'difference and repetition' are from Deleuze, 'trace' and 'simulacra' from both Derrida and Lacan. Ontic univocity is from the scholastic period, again used by Deleuze...

 

Only Derrida claimed to be post modern.

 

More to the point: obviously, asserting A=A and questioning the epistemic certainty of whay we claim to know are distinct endeavors. In a broader sense, Post-modernism is a basic term which describes the historical re-vitalization of questioning what's what.

 

In other words, asserting that a whale is large fish is no less false by asserting A=A.

 

You imply "asserting a whale is a large fish" has the capability of being "false" or "true"... how can this be (or any falsity or truth for that matter) if there are no absolutes?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

<snip>

 

More to the point: obviously, asserting A=A and questioning the epistemic certainty of whay we claim to know are distinct endeavors. In a broader sense, Post-modernism is a basic term which describes the historical re-vitalization of questioning what's what.

 

<snip>

The point would be more articulate by coming to understand why the law of identity is axiomatic, then grasping its role in the process of epistemic justification which ultimately serves as the foundation of certainty in the field of man's knowledge.

 

Brushing all of that aside, postmodernism should only destabilize the minds of those who have no mechanism in place to protect its continuity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You imply "asserting a whale is a large fish" has the capability of being "false" or "true"... how can this be (or any falsity or truth for that matter) if there are no absolutes?

Well, of course a whale is absolutely a whale! but our knowledhe of whale-ness depends upon a vast storeroom of knowledge as to what might distinguish mammals with fins from fish. To this extent, whale-ness as A+A sounds somewhat like 'An idiot is someone who doesn't know what I learned yeasterday".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The point would be more articulate by coming to understand why the law of identity is axiomatic, then grasping its role in the process of epistemic justification which ultimately serves as the foundation of certainty in the field of man's knowledge.

 

Brushing all of that aside, postmodernism should only destabilize the minds of those who have no mechanism in place to protect its continuity.

Yes, indeed. For example, if Donna Harraway  observes that theories of animal behavior  ie alpha wolves) follow designs set by human social organization, you're indeed 'de-stabilizing' the notion of a 'natural' pecking order.

 

Likewise, if she writes that theories of immunology follow the same ontic misstep of anthromorphism, chaos results in the minds of those not-immunized against such radical post modernism...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, of course a whale is absolutely a whale! but our knowledhe of whale-ness depends upon a vast storeroom of knowledge as to what might distinguish mammals with fins from fish. To this extent, whale-ness as A+A sounds somewhat like 'An idiot is someone who doesn't know what I learned yeasterday".

 

Not sure what you are getting at with this particular response.

 

Your reference to "whale-ness" seems to indicate to me you are really thinking of:

 

a Op A

rather than

 A = A

 

Where in particular, a is not A but a different class of things related somehow (operation Op) to a.  So for example, "a" is an existent such as a whale, is related by an Operation Op (say "fits in the definition", is "consistent with the concept") to "A" a definition or a concept (in the realm of mental content).  In this case a Op A is a relationship between an existent "a" and a concept "A".

 

You could then "play" with A and A', and A'', or whatever, one defining "fish", another defining "swimming things", another "whales".  Some of a Op A will be valid others not.

 

This does not change the fact that

 

a=a

and

A=A

 

and the nature of absolutes, which is that the relationships a Op A and a Op A' are valid or invalid.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you have ever had the opportunity to view a coop of chickens, you would know that the pecking order is another absolute. The second peck you observe is always preceded by the first.

Fine-- chickens are genetically pre-rigged, wolves are not. OTH, crows and bees learn, too. The issue is imposing a genetic order on behavior that closely resembles human pecking orders, which aren't natural.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Not sure what you are getting at with this particular response.

 

Your reference to "whale-ness" seems to indicate to me you are really thinking of:

 

a Op A

rather than

 A = A

 

Where in particular, a is not A but a different class of things related somehow (operation Op) to a.  So for example, "a" is an existent such as a whale, is related by an Operation Op (say "fits in the definition", is "consistent with the concept") to "A" a definition or a concept (in the realm of mental content).  In this case a Op A is a relationship between an existent "a" and a concept "A".

 

You could then "play" with A and A', and A'', or whatever, one defining "fish", another defining "swimming things", another "whales".  Some of a Op A will be valid others not.

 

This does not change the fact that

 

a=a

and

A=A

 

and the nature of absolutes, which is that the relationships a Op A and a Op A' are valid or invalid.

The sentence A=A is either a statement of formal logic devoid of any content OR an assertion that things are just what they seem.

 

My point is that whale-ness is not. Rather, it depends upon a background in biology.

 

In passing, A=A is also used as a rhetorical comment that says, "I see reality as it is, whereas you do not".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Frank said:

Fine-- chickens are genetically pre-rigged, wolves are not. OTH, crows and bees learn, too. The issue is imposing a genetic order on behavior that closely resembles human pecking orders, which aren't natural.

How is it un'natural' ? Unless you mean "not in the wolves nature"... But the difference here seems to be the same already being bandied with. There is no such thing as "unnatural" in the sense that all there is, is nature. But particular things have a specific nature that is not identical to other existents. The latter is the only sense that would make sense in an attempt to repudiate anthropomorphism of a non human species.

The axioms remind us that everything is what it is. But the knowledge of a particulars qualites-attributes is to be identified conceptually via experience. Axioms are timeless, knowledge of particulars is contextual.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
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...