All Activity

So Atman is (in) the Self and Brahman is (ultimate) Reality?

In asking the "what would Ayn Rand..." question, I am presuming that she and you were both seeking the truth and each would change one's mind according to facts and logic when presented with them. So if she could grasp your reasoning as valid, she would revise her ideas, or if she could refute your reasoning, you would revise. Those Objectivist philosophers: If it weren't merely the result of coincidental independent work and they didn't credit you, it's a serious injustice that engenders unpleasant resentment. Life is tenacious, especially human life. Before thermodynamics could eventually wipe out humanity, the unending power of reason will find a solution, including maybe discovering laws that supersede (but not contradict) thermodynamics.

It's an axiom that one uses in "denying" its very existence by choosing to type out that question. Read Peikoff's OPAR to understand the answers to your questions.

If I can't prove that free will doesn't exist, does that mean it does exist?

State your proof that free will does not exist. Just as you would state your proof that Martians do not exist. Or that the sum of angles in any triangle in a Euclidean plane is 2R.

Are you asking me to use free will to prove that free will doesn't exist?

I used an AI Chatbot to define Martian, just to show that free will isn't necessary to define it. I also used it to answer your next two questions: Here's a breakdown of "establishing" a fact or truth, and why it matters: Facts vs. Truths (Nuances): Facts: Facts are generally considered objective observations about the world that can be verified through evidence or experimentation. They are often phrased as statements that can be proven true or false. (e.g., "The Earth revolves around the Sun.") Truths: Truths can be a bit more subjective and encompass broader concepts or ideas that may not be definitively proven but widely accepted. They can involve moral principles, cultural beliefs, or existential questions. (e.g., "Love is important for a happy life.") Establishing Facts and Truths: Evidence and Verification: "Establishing" a fact or truth involves providing evidence or justification for it. For facts, this might involve scientific experiments, historical records, or reliable data. For truths (especially those with a subjective element), establishing them involves building consensus, providing strong arguments, or appealing to shared experiences. The Process of Discovery: Facts and truths often pre-exist their establishment. We discover them through observation, exploration, or critical thinking. The process of establishing them makes the knowledge more reliable and widely accepted. Why Does Establishing Facts and Truths Matter? Reliability: Established facts and truths provide a foundation for building knowledge and making informed decisions. They help us understand the world around us and navigate complex situations. Communication and Agreement: Establishing facts and truths allows for clear communication and shared understanding. It sets a common ground for discussions, debates, and decision-making processes. Progress and Innovation: Established facts pave the way for new discoveries and innovations. When we know something is true or false, it helps us direct our research and development efforts. Example: Imagine a new archeological discovery. The artifacts themselves exist (fact), but their significance and meaning need to be established through research, interpretation, and comparison with existing knowledge (establishing a truth about their historical context). Overall: While facts and truths might exist independently, establishing them through evidence, verification, and reasoning strengthens their credibility and allows us to use them effectively. It's an ongoing process that contributes to the advancement of knowledge and understanding.

How do you know there are no Martians? Must you have proof to know that? How do you know that there cannot both be and not be Martians at the same time and in the same sense? How do you know that is true? By proof? How do you know you have typed some questions? Do you need a proof to know that is so? I'd say one does need memory, working and semantic, to think anything up at this level of posting, and one needs thinking to know anything. But surely we know lots of things without proof of them. To know that the sum of the angles of any triangle is 2R requires proof. But to know that any triangle is trilateral does not require proof. To know I'm writing this does not require proof. To know I selected to do this instead of not doing it does not require proof. To know, to the contrary, that I did not freely select between those two options would require proof. What is the proof that I don’t have free will? where free will is exemplified by my having the ability to make this post or not and choosing to make it. What is the proof that humans have no free will? If there is no such proof, then what is plain is true: they have some free will.

I suppose I should skip to the end: the whole purpose of "proof" is to establish truths for the purpose of guiding people's decisions, which presupposes that people make them. So without free will there is no need of "proof."

These Hours of Resonant Existence Tomorrows

Truth is to fact as meaning is to definition? I suspect agreement on that question is needed before unpacking either the definition or meaning of the concept and /or qua concept that there is a discernible referent.

In principle , for the sake of argument, as a thought experiment etc ,yada, the external world could be mere appearance of a universe of entities whose attributes are not fully accessible to you the observer. Can an analogous proposition be made against awareness, could your awareness be manifest in other manner?

What does it mean to "establish" a fact or truth? As opposed to the fact or truth simply existing. Why does it matter whether a fact or a truth is "established" or not?

Evidence or argument establishing or helping to establish a fact or the truth of something.

If there's no free will, how do you define "proof"?

What is Ayn Rand's proof that free will exists? Or any other Objectivist's proof? To say "Ayn Rand defined it" is not an answer, since it is possible to define things that don't exist such as "Martian": extraterrestrial beings originating from the planet Mars.

Thanks to this "cognitive guardian", more and more people can now keep in mind that if a thing exists, then it exists 🤷‍♀️ IMO, the "axiom", if there is any, is this: Conscious experience of determinate objects. Notice that I didn't say "consciousness of determinate objects." I said "conscious experience of determinate objects". The difference is not insignificant: - The referent of "experience" is just that: experience (regardless of its type, origin etc.); no other assumptions are made. - The referent of "consciousness of" is: an existential relationship between a physical object and a faculty of consciousness. Objectivism starts with the latter, i.e. with an existential fact, rather than with the former. Quite a feat! If someone sees nothing wrong with this, then he should stick with whatever makes him happy.

"Advaita . . . it's pure metaphysics." But any philosophical metaphysics has epistemological, ethical, and political implications, even if not explicated. If Advaita is "much like poetry", and less like philosophical metaphysics, then, yes, Advaita could be interpreted to suit a given ethics. Yes, "existence" as an axiomatic concept "collects", subsumes, contains, refers to all things that exist, at the same time that it underscores and reiterates the fundamental fact that if they exist, they exist. This repetition is a reminder and a cognitive guardian against the absurdity of denying that existence exists, i.e., that existence does not exist. One of Rand's innovation is her axiomatic conceptualization of reality as: "Existence exists. Existence is identity. Consciousness is identification." Without explicit grasp of these axioms is why "they've been fighting for millennia over what exists".

Sounds like Allister wears a red hat.

Via the Harry Binswanger Letter, I learned of a fantastic editorial from the British press regarding the situation in Iran and what the West ought to do. In "Iran Is About to Start a Nuclear World War -- and the West Is Determined to Lose," Allister Heath makes the following statement, which would have been obvious decades ago, but is controversial today:I agree that the West should take care of Iran's military while the Iranians deal with this guy and his buddies. (Image modified from image at Wikimedia Commons, license.)If Joe Biden were a serious president, he would announce that the mullahs in Tehran have crossed a red line, that they are an existential menace to civilised nations. He would declare that enough is enough, that no country can shoot hundreds of drones and missiles at one of its neighbours with impunity, that no government can go on funding terrorism, rape, torture and murder on an industrial scale. He would understand the need to deter other rogue states through a show of strength. He would state that the Iranian regime must be treated like the global pariah that it has become, that all of its proxies must be destroyed, and that, above all, it will never be allowed to get anywhere near nuclear weapons. He would put together a coalition, including as many of Iran's Arab neighbours as possible. He would impose extreme sanctions. He would allow Israel to finish off Hamas. He would help hit Hezbollah. Heath contrasts this with the actual policy of evasion and appeasement the West is continuing instead, which he demonstrates is a serious danger by placing this conflict within its broader context of warmongering by the authoritarian regimes in Russia, China, and North Korea: "[T]he Islamic Republic is the weakest link, the least difficult one to deal with today, if we had the sense to act." I highly recommend reading this rare jewel of clarity and urgent call to action, and publicizing it by whatever means one has. -- CAVLink to Original

Ogg, you may recall that Rand worked with different sorts of 'musts' (as do we all) if you recall what you read in her essay "Causality versus Duty." That all animals must die is a must from a necessity in nature. That one must pay taxes is a man-made must. Another division of "musts" is between the unconditional ones and conditional ones. The latter are of the if-then form: "If such-and-such is to be accomplished, then condition so-and-so must obtain." So there are four kinds of 'musts'. For man-made and conditional, we have: "If you don't want to suffer the penalties of a legal violation, you must pay your taxes." For nature-given and conditional, we have: "If there is to be a fire here, there must be oxygen" and "If you are to breathe, there must be oxygen" and "If you want to live and enjoy yourself, you must do certain things and not others." For man-made and unconditional, there is apparently no such thing (maybe you can think of one). For nature-given and unconditional, we have: "Angular momentum must be conserved" (meaning only it always will be conserved come what may).

Even though things like X-rays are out of the reach of our senses we can infer their existence from evidence. So what's the noumenal domain needed for? Sounds to me like it's nothing but a cover for bullshit.

In my opinion, it doesn't. I briefly explain why in this post.

It may be humorous to non-Objectivists that Objectivism recognizes that a baseball bat can be used to hit a baseball. But when Leonard Peikoff declares that science must conform to HIS philosophy, and you find out that his philosophy can’t accept 20th century science because it doesn’t agree with whatever Peikoff’s senses tell him is true, it ceases to be funny. It becomes hilarious. This is what happens when philosophy rejects the noumenal domain, the realm of amazing possibilities that lies just out of reach of your senses.

That is to say, logic and lawfulness comes, not from us as with Kant, but from outside of us. And since this determination of order comes through the senses, it appeals to the idea that all reality, not just the macro realm, must conform to the same logic and lawfulness that we perceive. Therefore, Objectivists such as Harriman or Peikoff, who are following their philosophy's conclusions to the letter, will declare that quantum particles cannot behave a-causally. Nor can they come into and go out of existence.