Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Allen Atsea

Regulars
  • Posts

    22
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Allen Atsea

  1. Arrghhh. . . I responded hastily before. I snapped that last comment out as I was rushing to get the hell out of my job. I obv. wasn't working at the time but still . . . I needed fresh air and sunshine!!! OK, looking at time in a semi-classical framework (i.e. in special relativity) --> doesn't the existence of different frames of reference in which the flow of time is different, show that the flow of time cannot be pinned down, objectively? Which frame of reference is the objective one? But there are precise differences between Earthly frames of reference where distance and time are concerned. How can you Honestly dismiss them just because they are small in size? This is like saying that whenever I add 2 and 2 I get 4. And whenever you add 2 and 2 you get 6. I can always know how you perceive the addition of integers in your frame of reference by always adding 2 to the perceived outcome of my own arithmetic. Do we share an objective concept of mathematics in this case? Do we share an objective concept of integers? Yes, but the price for our universal perception of the laws of physics is that our perceptions of other "observables" (in quotes, because as I mentioned in my last post, time isn't considered an observable in QM -- but we can use distance/energy as observables in this case) vary from frame of reference to seperate frame of reference.
  2. Time is not the instrument we measure with; it is what we measure. The instrument would be a clock. The microscope is to the cell what the clock is to time. I agree with almost everything you said, Cap, having some background in physics as you obviously do as well. I agree with it all (and salute your inclusion of the Lorentz transformation into the discussion )except your above statement is a little off I think, but discussion re the measurement of time is admittedly a sticky wicket. I'd just add that time has no operator in quantum mechanics. In QM, time is not an observable, it is a parameter. A clock measures movement -- it is the movement of the hands on the clock that are what you observe -- not time itself. So, does a clock really measure time? Or is time a operator-less parameter while the position of the clock's hands are what we really measure?
  3. I agree that the axioms are induced. As I cede my existence as being necessary to at least participate in this discussion, I haven't denied existence by saying it takes a perceptual leap of faith, in the absence of logic, to accept the Objectivist axioms. I would also like to point out that I was not denying the axioms, only questioning how they were produced. Aside from the primary axiom, Existence exist, take the corollary axiom, To exist is to have identity. The latter is another induced axiom derived through perception. We experience consciousness as being something unique to and distinct from other things, things which are not a part of our consciousness, i.e. things external to our minds. But that is not to say that our brains do not draw possibly artificial distinctions through existence, consciousness as we know it, could not function without doing this, whether the seperate identities we attribute to objects are artificial or not. Because consciousness relies on this does not make it true necessarily. We can rely on our perception of reality only to determine whether this is true or not, and we cannot use logic, as this is the unprovable foundation of logic. So, suppose hypothetically that as existence surely exists, our perception of it leads us from recognizing that it is truly a gestalt, and that everything we perceive as being a piece or a constituent part of existence is an effect of the brain's need to classify and group things, a survival mechanism if you will, to ultimately distinguish between things that bring us life and things that bring us death, when the truth is, existence has no real parts, it is irreducible and therefore not completely knowable in any terms that extend beyond itself as a whole, i.e. existence is existence, and existence is only existence. Back to my original point re: faith vis-a-vis Objectivism, it therefore requires a leap of faith to believe that an understanding of reality is possible in terms of analyzing its constituent pieces, knowledge of which may or may not constitute actually knowing reality. To rely on the fact that perception does distinguish elements of reality from other elements of reality as an unquestionable fact about the nature of reality, is to overlook an equally valid assumption: that our experience of discrete identities may be more a fact about the nature of perception.
  4. 1.) To critique a point about Objectivism is to deny my own existence ? -- if only you could hear how that sounded on the outside looking in. 2.) The Problem of First Principles is an argument not a principle. 3.) I didn't create it, Aristotle did. 4.) The Objectivist axioms are not rationally justified -- a possible path to rationally justifying them would be to imply them from a propositional corollary, as I think you are suggesting. (However, this has difficulties too.) But Rand doesn't even approach this as a possibility towards maintaining the rationality of the system: "One knows that the axioms are true not by inference of any kind, but by sense perception." Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 8 Therefore saying that they are implied by later propositions is not the method of validation Rand employed though I applaud you for feeling intellectually obligated to do so. 5.) My point is that the principle axioms of Objectivism are by definition, explicitly illogical -- logic was not used to claim them as being self-evident. Are they deduced? No. Are they adopted because implied by corollary propositions? No. Did they evolve from Ayn Rand's sense perception in some undescribed fashion? Yes. Are they therefore removed from logic? Yes. 6.) You are using logical implication to try to prove me wrong. However, Rand herself says that this is not whence her principles sprang. 7.) The principle axioms of Objectivism were derived in an illogical manner. QED
  5. This is fundamentally axiomatic to you but you cannot logically justify your faith in its truth. If you could, you'd need to adopt new principle axioms from which Objectivism's principle axioms would logically follow. Aristotle evolved the idea of "self-evident" principle axioms and Rand ran with his idea in developing her system without any improvement upon it. The fact is, in order to accept Objectivism one must accept its "self-evident" principles, principles which by their very nature, must be illogically adopted in an act of faith (belief without logical justification).
  6. Since you're repeating yourself, I guess I'll repeat myself: I agree that the chain of propositions that proof of the Problem of First Principles depends upon ultimately leads to an unverifiable axiom. However, because an axiom is adopted without deference to rational explanation does not disprove it. It merely indicates that it is not capable of being explained. A logical train of thought cannot be infinitely long, can it? At some point, logical inquiry must be arbitrarily ended in order to prove anything. So, you are making an incorrect assumption regarding logic and offering no proof that the proof of the PoFP I demonstrated is false or self-refuting. I recommend reading Aristotle if you still think this is a self-refuting argument.
  7. Tom, logic is divorced from the process of adopting principle axioms. This is why Ayn claimed her axioms were "self-evident" instead of logically validating them. That was my point, but I'm officially outta the argument. . . now. . . as tempting as it may be to me to jump back in. . . but I won't swear that I won't be overcome by the impulse to do so. Anyway, I'm pretty sure OPAR explicitly rejects the notion God (noticed you stated god's existence as a fact of reality) in the section on the nature of the arbitrary, if you still have your book opened there: "one can demonstrate that the idea of God contradicts all the fundamentals of a rational philosophy. Thanks to such a process of integration, what was initially arbitrary attains cognitive status - in this instance, as a falsehood." Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, p. 166.
  8. I was being ironic when I called it a 'thingie' since you seemed to have temporarily forgotten that your philosophy was built with logic when you stated: "Proof does not always require demonstrating that a proposition is valid, based on other propositions. That is only a special case of proving something." Game? Where is this coming from? You're hung up on the fact that I assume reality does not exist because I'm at intellectual odds with an aspect of Objectivism? This even though I've stated several times that I do think reality is objective. I didn't realize Objectivists had exclusive claim to thinking reality was objective.
  9. You have a way of doing that, that doesn't require logic? "All truths are the products of a logical identification of the facts of experience." -Leonard Peikoff, "The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy," Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Expanded Second Edition, p. 112. My discussion of proof relates to logic. You know, that thingie Objectivism employs. (Its axioms aside) Objectivism brings this special way of proving something to bear on the rest of its structure and claims to be devoted to it. I'm with Felipe in that I'm really not interested in arguing this anymore on this forum.
  10. Right, I read Rand's assertion that her axioms were implicit in all propositions, even false ones. This does not change the fact that acceptance of her axioms is illogical and therefore must be done in faith (belief divorced from logical proof). Yes, I've made a faithful choice not to be a nihilist. I still understand that I have no logical basis for doing so. But it is much more fun than lying in the fetal position. I've obviously made a choice to move beyond the problem of self-evidence / first principles in living my own life. And I'm ready for in-depth study of Objectivism and other philosophical systems now -- though I'll focus on Objectivism for now. And I don't want this argument to become counterproductive to my use of the forums in my studies. Basically I'm saying that we simply may not be able to see eye to eye on this issue at this time, no matter what arguments we make. This issue, while of high importance to me, is something I'd like to work on resolving as I continue with my studies.
  11. I already explained it earlier in the thread: I'll add that this presents a disconnect in the use of logic in developing a coherent system of thought, between using logic to prove everything else in, say Objectivism, and being unable to use it to produce its foundation. Other Rational philosophers have produced systems of thought based on unprovable self-evidents, e.g. Descartes's Cogito ergo sum. So the adoption of self-evidents it is to an extent arbitrary, or based on individual preference without logical justification.
  12. Flaw as I am using it = insurmountable limitation in offering explaination It's logic that is flawed. See the Problem of First Principles, http://www.friesian.com/founda-1.htm Sorry it's a link from the Friesian School But keep in mind that Aristotle is the one who identified this argument.
  13. And I also now wish I wasn't so belligerent in making my point.
  14. Taking something as self-evident without being able to prove it or explain it is not an act of faith? Felipe, I ask you to cede that this is a flaw inherent in all logical systems of thought. This is a shortcoming of logic itself. So, Objectivism isn't any worse off than any other philosophical system in this regard. Maybe I just mean to say that a certain level of skepticism is always good.
  15. Rand asserts that valid axioms don't need explanations and can be taken as self-evidents, so it's a moot point for an Objectivist to make isn't it? I fail to see how a rational explanation of an axiom could fail to prove that axiom and yet still be considered a rational explanation of it. I agree that the chain of propositions that proof of the Problem of First Principles depends upon ultimately leads to an unverifiable axiom. However, because an axiom is adopted without deference to rational explanation does not disprove it. It merely indicates that it is not capable of being explained. So, your above argument offers no proof that the proof of the PoFP I demonstrated is false or self-refuting. My aim is not to prove that reason is invalid. I'm suggesting that to adopt Objectivism as a philosophical system -- a system that asserts that man is capable of knowing the facts of reality -- the Objectivist inductee must accept unprovable axioms (self-evidences) that are therefore chosen without possible verification. That said, since no one else caught this -- the ItOE passage I quoted was related to axiomatic concepts not axioms (Problem of First Principles is applicable to logical propositions -- not merely concepts). My mistake. But this nevertheless still leaves the issue of Rand's self-evident concepts and axioms. I read what she said about them. Still a weak point in the philosophy I think.
  16. Rand accepts the proposition you quote as well if you read the comment from ItOE I posted. Maybe she wouldn't have used the term 'faith' but she explains her system is being ultimately based on axioms which cannot be proved, and have no rational explanations for being accepted as true. Ergo, to accept them is act on belief or faith, not reason. It's actually an idea that goes back to Aristotle -- it's a logical issue that no one has been able to clear away and it was clearly recognized by Rand as well as being an unavoidable logical issue which rationally forbids proving primary axioms using reason. To prove a proposition you must provide a reason for finding it to be true. You do this by providing another proposition to rationally justify the first. The proposition you create to justify your original proposition then requires a proposition of its own in order to be proved. The logical result of building axiomatic systems this way is that eventually you will have an infinite regress of propositions, unless you arbitrarily (without reasonable justification) chose a proposition to be your primary, unprovable proposition. Therefore primaries by definition have no rational explanations. The Problem of First Principles isn't derived from a set of fundamental axioms. I gave a rational proof of it above. Therefore, I can rationally accept it as being a true and adopt it using reason instead of faith. It follows from defined logical propositions. Ultimately, though the acceptance of reason requires an unreasonable judgement. In accepting Objectivism you have accepted Rand's reasonless judgements as to what is "self-evident" as well. If you don't believe me, check her premises. She followed Aristotle's route in dealing with this logical issue (irrational or reasonless acceptance of propositions supposed by Ayn to need no proofs because they were "self-evident"): QUOTE(ITOE 2nd Ed. @ pg 55) An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
  17. Each means something different to me but I do agree with your statement as well and consequently I recognize the value in wearing socks sometimes. Especially when my fee-tee's are cold. That lame joke aside, the second statement doesn't mean anything to me because the word 'fee-tee' doesn't mean anything to me. But if you're asking whether the idea "reality" has meaning for me, the answer is yes. So, I'll say Sentence#1 means something to me and Sentence#2 is meaningless to me. I Believe that reality exists and that I am a part of it. I have my own principle axioms regarding reality, but they are unprovable. I realize this and so I am not bound to them. To accept Objectivism I would have to discard my idea that philosophical systems are adopted in faith and accept, as unequivocally true, any Objectivist primary principles regarding reality which (to Quote ItOE, 2nd Ed. @ pg 55): "cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest." I.E. Objectivism would demand I accept its unprovable (therefore potentially false) and literally unquestionable principle axioms on Faith Alone -- that's what Rand's judiciously worded skirting of the Problem of First Princles is really saying to me. There is no reasonable explanation as to why I should do this. I am ultimately left with an appeal from Rand to accept what she perceives as being self-evident, absolute facts about the world, as the unchallengeable foundation of my own view of the world. I've got ItOE and OPAR being overnighted to my house, but is this issue addressed with any more depth anywhere else in her philosophy? If someone could find something to tide me over it'd be much appreciated.
  18. I concede that I made a leap of faith in accepting a world-view that values reason and holds that reality exists -- made that leap before I read about The Problem But yes, I'd be lying if I said I viewed my founding principles as provable truths rather than beliefs accepted in faith. The Problem of First Principles is a corollary I accept as being true (provable) and reasonable and in accordance with what I've learned and accepted so far. I'm optimistic about what humans are capable of achieving, however, and I don't see the PoFP as a justifiable excuse for nihilism or anything like that. I would like to participate in forum discussions constructively in order to keen and expand my own thinking and developing philosophy. I'm in agreement with a lot of what I've read regarding Objectivism so far -- esp. regarding its take on ethics -- and I'd like to learn more, which is another reason I'm interested in participating in discussions on the forum, along with being impressed by the depth of discussion that goes on here. I should have mentioned that I'm curious as to whether people see the Problem of Firsts as being a problem for Objectivism and what their thoughts are on it -- because from my perspective it's a sound, logical conclusion to arrive at. But maybe that should be posted elsewhere?
  19. As someone presently at odds with Objectivism over the Problem of First Principles, I assert that reason is unavoidably dependent on faith. The Problem of First Principles makes adoption of the founding axioms of any system of thought an act of faith. This is the case with Catholicism and it is the same with Objectivism as well -- because the first principles of a coherent system of thought are irreducible and unprovable by reason. Faith (unprovable belief in the truth) in the self-evidence of founding propositions is required in order for them to be adopted. Reason cannot verify these principles. Bearing this in mind, it is as reasonable to adopt the first principles of Catholicism as it is to adopt the first principles of Objectivism, when the foundations of these and any philosophical systems (the paramount principles upon which all else is built within the system) are examined and found to be occluded from verification via reason. Faith, for example, is the door to not only Catholicism but other rational systems of thought, including science. Of course, science IS a preferable system as compared to Catholicism -- even if neither system's fundamental principles can be proven. And this is why: The quality which redeems science over Catholicism, a quality science shares with other rational, logical philosophies is that its receptive to examining and solving the problem of its first principles. In fact, this is one of its highest goals. This is in stark contrast to Catholicism, which is unconcerned with this task. It lacks any need for verifiable First Principles capable of being reasonably proved. In fact, to the contrary, acceptance of Catholic principles by faith or belief alone has arguably become part of the Catholic institution, a requisite rite of passage. The Catholic Church has dealt with the Problem of its First Principles by making the Problem of these principle's irrational acceptance (the need for belief or faithful acceptance without reasonable verification) a well-defined philosophical end. Thus faithful belief in Catholicism's primary principle earns for the Catholic the aim of the philosophy: spiritual migration to Heaven.
  20. You could change "another individual" to "other individuals" to make it plural but it doesn't make much difference as using their as a non-gender-specific singular pronoun is widely accepted. Interesting (maybe) tidbit: "Singular "their" etc., was an accepted part of the English language before the 18th-century grammarians started making arbitrary judgements as to what is "good English" and "bad English", based on a kind of pseudo-"logic" deduced from the Latin language, that has nothing whatever to do with English. (See the 1975 journal article by Anne Bodine in the bibliography.) And even after the old-line grammarians put it under their ban, this anathematized singular "their" construction never stopped being used by English-speakers, both orally and by serious literary writers. So it's time for anyone who still thinks that singular "their" is so-called "bad grammar" to get rid of their prejudices and pedantry!"
  21. I'm reading the Critique of Pure Reason now and I'm also dabbling in Objectivism -- I'm good friends with a knowledgable Objectivist and learning a lot from our discussions, and I've read several ARI articles, Objectivism synopses, and have slated ItOE as the next book I will read . I want to study Kant's and Rand's philosophies comparatively. I have an idea on a priori, a posteriori knowledge re: the metaphysical views of both philosophers that I'd appreciate other's views on. For Kant, a priori knowledge (analytic knowledge) was knowledge inexorably tied to the nature of reason or mind itself, e.g. concepts like time, space, which are conditions of perception imposed on us by our own minds. I'm familiar with the Randian dismissal of Kant's Analytic/Synthetic dualistic approach to viewing knowledge in this manner. And I'm familiar with her approach which denied that human perception impinged on our ability to perceive things in themselves, absolutely, i.e. her theory of concepts. I realize that to adopt Kant's view lands you on a slippery metaphysical slope. Kant's philosophy attempted a dissection of reason itself and the difficulty in avoiding a logical ouroboros in any serious examination of reason here is clear. Still, I find it presently impossible to deny with certainty that perception is not colored by a prior, analytic truth. The brain is a physical, ordered structure that demonstrably imposes itself on our perceptions -- from our perceptions regarding the speed at which time passes to inferring distance and 3 spatial dimensions via the 2-dimensional patterns of light that strike our retinas. With Kant, a comprehensive understanding of the human brain and its functioning may one day dissolve his dichotomy and make deeper inquiry into what he labeled a priori or analytic knowledge possible. The Randian avoidance of Kant's aforementioned distinction, vis-a-vis denying that perception at least MAY be affected by the brain, seems irrational and maybe a facile way of stepping over an important metaphysical issue. It troubles me as a new student of Objectivism. I'd appreciate any comments. Thanks!
×
×
  • Create New...