SpookyKitty

I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree.

As I've said before, when someone says that the senses are "self-evident", what I understand by that is that they are saying that "always, if it appears (from sensory perception) to be the case that x, then it is (in reality) the case that x". People itt have been arguing for this proposition by instead trying to defend the much weaker claim "always, if it appears that x, then it appears that x" and then insisting that the two are identical. I don't think Rand ever addresses the question of how the evidence of the senses can justify higher level knowledge. The only thing that concept formation might explain is how one goes from true sensory claims to true claims at a higher level, but that the senses themselves can be trusted in the first place is never satisfactorily established. And if sense perception is the basis of all knowledge, and if that basis itself is questionable, then all knowledge is dubious.

No concepts definitely do not refer to "appearances", they refer to things that actually are. Both the concept and the appearance of an apple refer to actual apples. Neither the appearance nor the concept are themselves the actual apple.

I never said that the concept of a straight pencil is what the reality is. The concept reflects the reality, and the reality is that the pencil is straight. No the concrete and the actual are not identical. Hallucinations are concrete. But they are not even remotely actual. As I've said, the abstractions merely represent the actual reality, but they are not themselves the reality. Sorry to say it but your whole argument is once again a strawman.

I think that there is a flaw in the argument that bases the justification of all knowledge in the senses.

You are confusing the issue of where thought begins with the issue of on what basis or justification a given piece of knowledge is said to be true. That we begin to understand the world by thinking about sensory data is an utterly vacuous and unimportant claim. We know that the Earth goes around the Sun. But if I were to ask you on what grounds do you believe that this claim is true, you would point to a vast array of experimental results and observations (all of them sensory), wouldn't you? And aren't the senses in this way the evidential basis of all knowledge?

To reiterate @New_Buddha I agree that the senses give us absolute evidence about appearances. But one cannot translate this into infallible evidence about reality. It is reality I care about, not appearances. Furthermore, the sense organs need not have volition in order to "fool" you. It is more that they lack the ability to fully convey reality.

@human_murda I understand where you're coming from. You're saying that the fact that there is sensation at all implies that at least something exists which causes that sensation. Fine, but this has nothing to do with whether the senses can be trusted. When I see a black kitty, I don't want to merely know that I see a black kitty, and I wouldn't be satisfied with merely knowing that something is causing me to see a black kitty (reality, dream, hallucination, the matrix, Descarte's Demon, or whatever) What I would really like to know is whether or not there really is indeed an actual black kitty causing the sensation of the black kitty. When one says that the senses are "self-evident" I take that to mean that whenever it appears to me that x, it turns out that, in fact, x. This rarely happens, so I don't think that the senses are "self-evident". If by "self-evident", you mean that the senses allow you to deduce the fact that "something exists", then that's just bullshit. I mean, imagine if I'd built a computer and said "This computer can predict the future!", and when we tried it out, it simply said "Something exists". I would then proclaim, "Aha! It said something which is true, which makes the computer 'self-evident', and it can therefore infallibly predict the future!". Total nonsense.

And merely stating the contradictory position doesn't make for a good argument. Nowhere did I claim that somehow the sentence "Sun goes around the Earth" is identical to the actual sensations that the sentence represents. Your argument is a strawman. Actually no, you are wrong, because this argument completely ignores causality. Motion that is observed in a non-inertial reference frame is, as a matter of fact, not real and therefore merely an appearance. The difference with actual motion is that actual motion has a cause, and causal connections in Newtonian physics are mediated by (real) forces. The motion of the Earth around the sun is caused by gravity. The apparent motion of the sun around the Earth (due to the rotation of the Earth) has no actual cause. When you say that "Non-inertial reference frames are not incorrect. They are not appearances. They are actual physical fact. No physicist would say that non-inertial frames are incorrect or exist outside reality. Just don't use them to derive forces." You have to be careful because non-inertial reference frames are, in fact, incorrect, precisely because one has to introduce fictitious forces in order to account for the observed motions in those frames. The only sense in which they are correct is the wholly vacuous one in which the apparent motion that is calculated in a non-inertial reference frame will indeed be the observed motion. In other words, saying that non-inertial reference frames are correct (in any way other than the vacuous) is like saying that, in the optical illusion with the two lines where one appears to be shorter than the other, there is no illusion at all because one of the lines in fact appears to be shorter than the other. To summarize this very briefly, you seem to be taking the "factuality" of an appearance and the undeniable certainty that what appears to be the case is what appears to be the case and ascribing this tautological certainty to the senses. But when talking about the validity of the senses, I am not at all concerned with their ability to present to us facts about mere appearances, but facts about the actual reality behind those appearances. Thus, the argument that what appears to be the case does indeed appear to be the case (even though it may not be strictly speaking true) has no bearing on the matter whatsoever.

How you get from the evidence of the senses to the highest abstract propositions is one matter. But the question of why you can trust the senses and to what extent is a wholly separate matter, one not adequately addressed by Objectivism.

That is the question, innit? But no answer is better than a wrong answer. Don't have much scuba experience, so I really couldn't say.

It appears to. But it doesn't actually. Do you understand the difference between appearance and reality?

I never said that we don't begin with appearances, just that your argument that the senses are self-evident is fallacious.

I have really thought about it. And it seems I am even more right than I was previously. Ok. Uh, I still don't understand what you're trying to say.

This is pure tautology. You are saying that the senses only give knowledge of appearances and not reality. But appearances are nothing more than what the senses provide. How is this relevant to the argument?

This harkens back to Aristotle and Descartes. Aristotle said that since all knowledge is based on other knowledge, then it must ultimately rest on something which is self-evident (as opposed to being based on some other item of knowledge). And since nothing of substance can be deduced from a tautology, this item (or items) must not themselves be tautological.

*****Topic Split from Do Objectivists see self evidence differently from academic philosophers?***** It isn't at all clear to me why the senses are self-evident. My senses fool me all the time. They tell me that the sun goes around the Earth even though I know that to be false.

He would be assassinated or overthrown immediately for this. Dictators never rule alone. There's always a powerful oligarchy lurking in the background.

You haven't been dragged off to Mars against your will. There's just simply no way of going back at any time during your lifetime.

@Eiuol Consider the equivalent scenario, except now you're on a one-way trip to Mars and there is no possibility of return whatsoever.

No, they're just a less extreme example.

That's not even an answer. Why is human dignity not worthy of being mentioned?

Well no actually I am right. Factually right. In every place I've ever worked, in the employment contract, the company I worked for has reserved the right to change the terms of the contract unilaterally. They are only required to notify you of these changes and THAT'S IT.

That's a cop out. As a part of a job, an employee is often required to attend seminars and engage in ridiculous activities in order to boost morale and promote "synergy".

The same one you are, I suspect. I don't think I am conflating the two. I agree with both. What about healthcare? Surely, it is impossible for a seriously ill/injured person to survive on their own. Are doctors required to perform services for these patients even if they can't pay? I never made any such assumption, I just recognize (same as you), that there are some situations where a human can't realistically be expected to survive. I don't see why you think that someone can survive in the US (for example) if they remain unemployed for a long period of time. Also, whatever implications follow from your argument, the implications are there whether you intended them or not. That's how logic works.