Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
jacassidy2

Episteology Inside Metaphysics?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Hey Thinkers

I hope the small handful of thinkers that remember my presence and posts about a year ago - people who seemed to appreciate my take on ideas in metaphysics and epistemology - ideas strongly influenced by Ms. Rand and Mr. Peikoff - will comment, and perhaps criticize the following ultra-basic observation that may have implications for the debate over the primacy of existence over consciousness.  People like Boystan, Jankns, SoftwareNerd, Eiuol, Nicky and others (my memory of the spelling may be wrong).  OR, I may have failed - this may just be a cute observation that is a play on words in the false name of concepts I have confused.

This occurred to me while thinking about a more concrete issue while I was trying to fall asleep.  I was thinking about the Aristotelian axioms in metaphysics as examined by Ms. Rand and Mr. Peikoff - existence, consciousness, and identity.  I always struggle with whether the order should be existence, identity, and consciousness in the context of the historic underlying argument in western philosophy (often not identified explicitly by philosophers, but there none the less) between the primacy of existence vs. consciousness. If the last sentence was not familiar to you, be careful before you post in this thread because its subject is a most fundamental issue in Objectivism.

Here is my most basic, Chardonnay inspired, thought.  Isn't the entire study of epistemology a study of the identity (characteristics/attributes/functioning/cause and effect consequences) of consciousness - outside of that part of the identity of consciousness that is solely the realm of physics and medical neurology?  I hope this last distinction keeps me from falling into the mind-body dichotomy pit, but am I falling into the common mind-body dichotomy by even asking this question?  Falling for or recognizing he historical silliness of categorizing identity into levels of importance based on perception vs. reality - primary being things like extension/space and density/mass versus things only perceivable without historically current measurement like taste and color, making a false distinction in perception? If so, how does one Objectively recognize the difference between the underlying neuro-physicality (organs and their support) and the consequence of senses, perception, and reason that we recognize as human consciousness? Should epistemology be the study of that link or only its consequence in awareness and its consequence in reasoning? 

I feel like a freshman in asking this question, but I seem to have phrased it in a way that debate and tearing apart can help clear up some of languages shortcomings .  I consider myself, in avocation at least, a Rand scholar after 38 years of off and on study.  Please help me discover the obvious connections I've identified and, if necessary, point out the flaws I have noticed in these relationships of ideas.  Thanks, Jack

Edited by jacassidy2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, jacassidy2 said:

If so, how does one Objectively recognize the difference between the underlying neuro-physicality (organs and their support) and the consequence of senses, perception, and reason that we recognize as human consciousness? Should epistemology be the study of that link or only its consequence in awareness and its consequence in reasoning? 

It appears that you are asking what is the relationship between epistemology on the one-hand and and psychology/neurosciences on the other - and how to demarcate between the two?

Edited by New Buddha

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/24/2017 at 10:00 AM, New Buddha said:

It appears that you are asking what is the relationship between epistemology on the one-hand and and psychology/neurosciences on the other - and how to demarcate between the two?

And what is the demarcation?

There is epistemology, psycho-epistemology, and then psychology. Does psychology encompass epistemology or are they separate disciplines. I say that because I believe Rand considers psychology to be the study of consciousness. But not consciousness as states of consciousness as in sleep etc. but "conscious of".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×