Am I an Objectivist?

[The Sailor]

Ok as I said in another post, I'm not educated, but I'm also not stupid, but I am confused. I never attended college, but very interested in the topics on this board, and would like views on what you think I am, I need a label. A little on what I think:

I am retired U.S. Navy, enlisted when I was 17 in a very technical rate, Operation Specialist. I have been around the world several times, seen hundreds of places and cultures, thousand of people. The one thing I have come away with is this: No matter what kind of bazzare thought you can come up with, somewhere in the world - some just did it or are doing it or just got through doing it.

For example take this statement "Some one got their head cut off", now I don't know where or when or who, but I know it happened, I don't need proof, I simple know. The world is a big place and with 6 billion plus folks onboard, trust me it just happened or is happening now, or is about to happen.

So why can't this type of thinking be applied to science, or if it is, what type is it, because that is what I am.

I also see the word impossible bantered around alot. I don't like that word. Here is the difinition of impossible:

Impossible \Im*pos"si*ble\, a. [F., fr. L. impossibilis; pref.

im- not + possibilis possible. See Possible.]

Not possible; incapable of being done, of existing, etc.;

unattainable in the nature of things, or by means at command;

insuperably difficult under the circumstances; absurd or

impracticable; not feasible.

I think that word needs to be changed to "beyond current human understanding" or at least the difinition.

So do my beliefs fall under the preview of Objectivism or philosophy or some other view.

[AisA]

Well, as a starting point, I will ask one question.

Can a thing be what it is and not be what it is, at the same time and in the same respect?

[dondigitalia]

Your beliefs are not compatible with Objectivism. Just because I can think, "Someone just sprouted wings and flew across the Atlantic without the aid of an airplane," does not mean that "somewhere in the world - some just did it or are doing it or just got through doing it."

Basically, you are asserting one of two things:

1. Man's consciousness has the ability to create reality.

OR

2. Knowledge can come to us through supernatural means.

Both views are in opposition to Objectivism.

This thinking cannot be applied to science because it does not involve evidence of any kind and requires that one draw conclusions based on faith, not proof.

I think a lot of your confusion regarding the concept "impossible" lies in the context in which it is used in this forum. Most of the time, it refers to metaphysical possiblity, which is not the referent commonly meant in conversational English. There is a whole thread on the subject under Metaphysics and Epistemology.

[The Sailor]

I believe very little of what I hear and about half of what I see, in my view perception is not alway correct. In other words if the thing I see can not be eqauted to my current perceptions of prior life perception, then I view it as something new. So I guess my answer is "what it is", however I also believe in the impossible, there are a lot of NEW things I don't know about, doesn't mean they don't exsist. I am constantly looking for new things.

[The Sailor]

Ok thanks DON, getting closer so I am not an Objectionist, but you missed quoted me.

Your beliefs are not compatible with Objectivism. Just because I can think, "Someone just sprouted wings and flew across the Atlantic without the aid of an airplane," does not mean that "somewhere in the world - some just did it or are doing it or just got through doing it."

it is

Some one did it or is doing it or is about to do it

There is no time element to this, how do you know that in the future say 3,000 years from now evolution won't make it possible for a man to have wings and fly accross the atlantic without an airplane. Just because science disproves it now, doesn't mean anything. Science said flying was impossible once, braking the sound barrier, to produce sound accross the air waves, etc... the impossible became possible.

[dondigitalia]

I believe very little of what I hear and about half of what I see, in my view perception is not alway correct.  In other words if the thing I see can not be eqauted to my current perceptions of prior life perception, then I view it as something new.  So I guess my answer is "what it is", however I also believe in the impossible, there are a lot of NEW things I don't know about, doesn't mean they don't exsist.  I am constantly looking for new things.

First off, I think a more accurate statement would be:

My interpretations of perception are not always correct.

Our senses NEVER lie.

If I interpret the rest of your post correctly, it is covered in the book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." Ayn Rand points out that an individual can act only within the context of his/her knowledge. If you believe something is impossible, and then later find a case where the "impossible has happened," what is or is not possible has not changed. It is only your knowledge of what is or is not possible that has changed.

Just because I BELIEVE something to be possible, doesn't mean that in reality it is possible. The same holds true for the impossible.

P.S. I think this thread is more relevant to "Metaphysics and Epistemology" than science. Hopefully one of the mods will move it.

P.P.S. If you are sincerely interested in learning about Objectivism, I would suggest you buy a copy of "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology." Epistemology is the foundation of all philosophy, and this seems to be an area in which you need some clarification. Amazon has VERY good prices on used books.

[dondigitalia]

Ok thanks DON, getting closer so I am not an Objectionist, but you missed quoted me.

I did not misquote you. I copied and pasted. You rephrased the second time around. The rephrased statement was much more clear.

P.S. I think you mean Objectivist, not Objectionist.

[The Sailor]

Don your right, I misquoted me, my appologies. Back to my original question, since I am not ObjectiVist, then by your difinition I am "Metaphysics and Epistemology" are these folks more inline with my views or someone other group.

I do agree with number one of your statement:

Basically, you are asserting one of two things:

1. Man's consciousness has the ability to create reality.

OR

2. Knowledge can come to us through supernatural means.

I think Man does create his own reality, don't believe there is a real reality. Only a reality that we all agree upon.

"Man has set foot on the moon" now I have no personal proof of this, only proof provided by some one else that altered my reality and changed it. Convinced me beyond doubt. Some one just decided this was possible and made it a reality. A thousand years ago this was beyond human reality. There was no scientific evidence that this was possible, so where did the idea come from and how did come to be reality, I think because some one did it and we all agreed upon the new reality. same with science, until some one thinks it, science won't prove it. Is my position more clear. I do believe in science, just not a end all be all.

[Richard_Halley]

Don your right, I misquoted me, my appologies. Back to my original question, since I am not ObjectiVist, then by your difinition I am "Metaphysics and Epistemology" are these folks more inline with my views or someone other group.

Metaphysics and Epistemology are subjects, not philosophies/people.

I think Man does create his own reality, don't believe there is a real reality. Only a reality that we all agree upon.

You will find that the "folks" who are "inline" with this view are called Kantists/Kantians. If you want to find out why they (and you) are wrong, you should read Rand's non-ficiton and Peikoff's OPAR.

Furthermore, you should note that your own views are contradictory...

The idea that your perception can be wrong is not compatible with the idea that reality does not exist. I advise thinking it over some more...

[The Sailor]

Metaphysics and Epistemology are subjects, not philosophies/people.

My apologies, again , I remind you that I am not educated. Thank you for the clarification. I have already been reprimanded on my grammar, via email, and well add this to my apologies. I do the best I can, and well make an effort to correct my grammar. I hope that everyone will overlook my future faults, in grammar. I thank you in advance.

Education and Intellect are not the same thing. If you believe they are, you are only educated.

Furthermore, you should note that your own views are contradictory...

I do not agree. Just because my view or interpretation of perception does not agree with yours, still does not prove a real reality. Only more perceptions.

You will find that the "folks" who are "inline" with this view are called Kantists/Kantians. If you want to find out why they (and you) are wrong, you should read Rand's non-ficiton and Peikoff's OPAR

I did read over the views of Kantists, or what I could find on the Internet. I can only assume, you are attempting to say, I am non-intellectual. What I read seems to indicate that point. I am not a dreamer, I do believe in science. it refines perception.

[dondigitalia]

Education and Intellect are not the same thing.

I think most of us in this forum would agree with this.

I do not agree. Just because my view or interpretation of perception does not agree with yours, still does not prove a real reality. Only more perceptions.

I don't think Halley was saying your "interpretation of perception" is contradictory to his. I think he meant that you hold two separate beliefs which contradict each other.

He is right. If your perception of reality can be incorrect (as you stated a few posts back), then logically, there must be a correct reality as an alternative. Then you come back and say that there is no real reality, and that man creates his own reality.

Both cannot be true, which is why you have a contradiction to resolve.

I did read over the views of Kantists, or what I could find on the Internet. I can only assume, you are attempting to say, I am non-intellectual. What I read seems to indicate that point. I am not a dreamer, I do believe in science. it refines perception.

Whether you are a dreamer or not is irrelevant. The idea that man has the power to create his own reality IS Kantian. This doesn't mean that we are asserting you agree with all of Kantian philosophy, just this one point. It is the base of his metaphysics, however, and metaphysics is the base of all philosophies.

edit: Sailor, I would like to add that the reason we know for certain that there IS a reality is because the concept of existence is axiomatic. This means that in any attempt to prove that existence does not exist, you must use existence. Reality is inescapable.

[Richard_Halley]

Don's statments in response to Sailors last post will suffice as my own.

[The Sailor]

Hmm... Let's try this again. I do see your point.

My apparent contradiction seems to be based on weather there is/is not, a real reality. I say no, there is not, a real reality. There in, lye the rub, because I said "My perception can be wrong" and later said "There is no real reality"

My perception could be wrong as compared to other perceptions, by other people, not as compared to reality. Reality is the perception we are comparing.

Example: 15 people look at the sky and see the color blue, at the same time, another 15 people look at the sky and see the color red. Who is correct and what is reality. You will never know. Science may say one group is correct and the other incorrect, however, this is based on more perception by other people (the scientist). Who is to say they are correct. Scientist uses equipment and experiments based on other scientists perception of what is real.

If way back when, the definition for red and blue was reversed, we would still have the same dilemma. So what is the reality, it is what we as people have agreed upon and constantly changes, because, we created it.

[Richard_Halley]

Example: 15 people look at the sky and see the color blue, at the same time, another 15 people look at the sky and see the color red. Who is correct and what is reality. You will never know. Science may say one group is correct and the other incorrect, however, this is based on more perception by other people (the scientist). Who is to say they are correct. Scientist uses equipment and experiments based on other scientists perception of what is real.

Firstly, this is an argument that we can never know reality. not an argument that there is none. In fact, you have spoken of many existants such as "sky," "scientists," "people," "equipment," etc... and compared our perception with reality, thus indicating that you believe there to be a reality.

I make this distinction because, once we agree that existance exists, I can easily prove that we can perceive it.

Does existance exist?

[dondigitalia]

Example: 15 people look at the sky and see the color blue, at the same time, another 15 people look at the sky and see the color red. Who is correct and what is reality. You will never know. Science may say one group is correct and the other incorrect, however, this is based on more perception by other people (the scientist). Who is to say they are correct. Scientist uses equipment and experiments based on other scientists perception of what is real.

How can you argue that the concept "blue" specifies a specific sensory perception experienced by an indivual when light of a specific wavelength reaches his/her eyes. Whether one individual experiences "blueness" in the same exact manner as another is neither knowable nor relevant. The point is we all know that when we say "blue," we can wave our arms at the sky or a bunch of blueberries and say, "This is what I mean by blue."

Modern science has given us the ability to measure "blueness" or "redness" with great precision. We can say without question that if someone looks at the sky and says, "This is what I mean by red," then either their sensory apparatus is flawed (colorblindness), they are lying, or their definition of the concept "red" is incorrect.

If way back when, the definition for red and blue was reversed, we would still have the same dilemma.

Prevention of this problem is one of the functions of philosophy, epistemology specifically.

So what is the reality, it is what we as people have agreed upon and constantly changes, because, we created it.

Reality does not change according to human agreement. The reason most of us agree on what is real (most of what is real, anway) is because our senses are infallible and ALWAYS behave in the same manner (excepting disease, interferance by drugs, or injury of some kind).

This involves another axiomatic concept, which is "identity."

The light that reaches Earth through the sky would still have wavelengths that fall in the blue spectrum regardless of human perception. Unless you have an argument that proves this statement false, you must accept the Law of Identity.

A is A.

A cannot be non-A.

[The Sailor]

Does existance exist?

Yes. I concede, that it does. My argument to the statement on no reality, refers to the perception of reality.

Modern science has given us the ability to measure "blueness" or "redness" with great precision. We can say without question that if someone looks at the sky and says, "This is what I mean by red," then either their sensory apparatus is flawed (colorblindness), they are lying, or their definition of the concept "red" is incorrect.

This goes to my point. Who created these precision instruments? Man created them. Based on the current knowable reality to achieve the results he perceives to be correct....perceived reality, agreed upon by many, proved by the same means, and presumed to be truth. When I say man creates his own reality, this is what I mean. When new instruments are created, based on new perceived realities (knowledge) then more of our own existents is revealed, and new realities are created or maybe exposed is a better word.

The best minds, equipment, mathematics, and instruments of the day, still can not answers the questions of why are we here, where does the universe end, is moving beyond the speed of light attainable...etc...because man has not created the reality or defined it, to the point needed, to answer these questions.

Some will say these things are un-knowable (impossible, again, I hate that word), I do not blieve this, I think everything is knowable.

Now that we have gone off on this tangent, which I assume, helps in determining what school of thought defines my views. Back to my original post, can we decide which school of thought, I most closely related too now.

[dondigitalia]

When I say man creates his own reality, this is what I mean.

In that case, you should say, "Man creates his own methods for measuring aspects of reality."

That is a true statement.

Now that we have gone off on this tangent, which I assume, helps in determining what school of thought defines my views. Back to my original post, can we decide which school of thought, I most closely related too now.

I don't think this is something anyone can decide for you. Only you have access to all of your ideas, thus only you can decide which philosophy is closest to your current beliefs. I would advise you, however, to concentrate on learning proper methods of determining the validity of your ideas rather than trying to find a school of thought that conforms to you.

Ayn Rand asks two questions: "What do I know?" and "How do I know it?"

What you seem to lack is a proper how, which is why we keep referring you to Ayn Rand's writings on epistemology, and Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand.

If you insist on searching for a philosophy that "falls in line" with your current ideas, the only advice I have to give you is to research as many philosophers as you can and find out for yourself. Only you know everything that is in your head, and only you can evaluate what matches up.

I will give you a little bit of advice here: Start with learning about Metaphysics. It is the base of all Philosophy. Then learn about Epistemology. It is the base of all knowledge. Next comes Ethics, then Politics, then Aesthetics. It's not something you are going to be able to figure out in a day, or a week, or probably even a year. Most people study Philosophy for several years before they have enough understanding to make the kind of decision you are asking us to make for you.

[Richard_Halley]

Yes. I concede, that it does. My argument to the statement on no reality, refers to the perception of reality.

Ok, if you think that existance exists, than you are on the right track...

Now consider, for a moment, our method of perception... our senses. How do they work?

Use the example of the eyes. Light bounces off of an object and into our eyes... a physical apparatus in our eyes measures the wavelength of the light and sends a signal to our brains, representing color. This has all been a physical process and is infalliable. The same sort of process works with the other senses.

[AshRyan]

Moved from "Science" forum to "Basic Questions" forum.

[Bowzer]

If you insist on searching for a philosophy that "falls in line" with your current ideas, the only advice I have to give you is to research as many philosophers as you can and find out for yourself.

I don't think that this is a good method. There are very few good philosophers worth reading (99% of them are Objectivists anyway). Anything else will just corrupt your thinking. I have seen many basically rational individuals trash their minds after studying academic philosophy. They either became discouraged with the entire field or they had lost their ability to think rationally. It isn't so bad if you go at it alone but if you take philosophy courses in college, prepare for a barrage of tidal waves, no, tsunamis of pseudo-problems baked on top of foggy half-thoughts all of it smothered under the weight of 2,000 years worth of irrationality.

Ayn Rand was knowledgeable in the history of philosophy but it was not her method of founding her ideas. Her method was exactly that of the epistemology that she later formulated: reality-orienation. Even if you disagree with her, this is the only proper method of formulating your own ideas; at least use her as an inspiration.

I think that a basic background in the history of philosophy is a good thing and I also think that much of it should be gathered from the original works. When it comes to validating your ideas, however, you have to put the books down and either introspect or look out at the world.

[dondigitalia]

Bowzer-

If you read my entire post, you will see that the portion you quoted was not really what I was advising him to do; rather, it is the best way to go about finding a philosophy that fits with his current beliefs.

My actual advice was: "concentrate on learning proper methods of determining the validity of your ideas rather than trying to find a school of thought that conforms to you"

P.S. Are you named after Bowzer from Super Mario Bros?

[Bowzer]

If you read my entire post, you will see that the portion you quoted was not really what I was advising him to do;

O, I wasn't trying to put words in your mouth, I was just using your quote as a launchpad. I wanted to make it clear what the proper method for formulating your own ideas is.

P.S. Are you named after Bowzer from Super Mario Bros?

I get that a lot and you may be too young to know him but my alias comes from Bowzer in the doo-wop comedy group Shanana. That's his picture as my avatar. Don't worry, I don't really look and act like that. I'm quite familiar with Bowser from the Mario games (which I LOVE).

[Ronin]

Sailor, I think if you read "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", it would give you an "all-round" understanding of Objectivism. Chapters 1 through to 6 would give you the answers to your questions.

I would also like to add that by studying the basics of Objectivism, you will probably get a whole lot more out of this forum. I say this because I have been studying Objectivism for quite a while now and it is my veiw that most people that post on this forum have advanced knowledge on the subject and really know their stuff in regard to this philosophy. By advancing your own knowledge on the subject, you may realize that you are aligned to Objectivist points of view more than you currently know.