Teez

Hi Don, Before I can respond, I need some clarification on some things you have said in your post. Could you please explain what exactly is your position on what you have called "metaphhysically possible"? When you said "Well, it doesn’t. In fact, metaphysical possibility is, in my view, an anti-concept that destroys the distinction between the metaphysical and the epistemological. It wipes out the principle that the metaphysically given is absolute, it leads to the analytic synthetic dichotomy, and it destroys our ability to retain knowledge of non-actualized potentials." and then said: "I say the identification of a potential, whether it is actualized or not, qualifies as real knowledge – it's knowledge about the identity of the thing that has the potential. If the metaphysically possible is the non-actualized potential, then the claim that we exclude the metaphysically possible from our epistemology is an error." ....so its a destructive anti-concept ...but excluding it from epistemology is an error? I dont get it, if you kindly explained that I can resume thinking. Also could you please define what you mean by "existent"? I believe then we can continue with your discussion. thanks

Ok, I will read it and get back to you guys.

Hi DPW, Yeah, I disagree with your definition of "Possible". You said: "Possible" means that there is some evidence for an idea." I think the word "Probable" would fit that definition you mentioned alot better. Possible simply means it doesnt contradict anything known proven laws, axioms, etc. The official definition seems to agree with me on this: From dictionary.com, the definition of possible: "pos·si·ble ( P ) Pronunciation Key (ps-bl) adj. Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances" DPW: "If there is no evidence for it, it is arbitrary." True. But as I am saying, no one is making a positive claim to that. I am just saying, that it is not beyond the realm of possibility. ******************* P.S. I like the fact we are debating this. Thank you again for your time.

Hi all, Thanks for responces - and DPW, I expected there to be more of a concensus between ya'll regarding the core root of the philosophy, which is why I asked what the verdict is. No matter, this is a side issue. I have thought of the best way for me to word this, so here goes: I am not actively saying that there certainly IS an existent that cannot ever be known. I am asking, why are we assuming that our brains have the capability to know (through perception/reason) all existents? Essentially I am saying that what we can perceive/reason is a subset of everything that exists, whereas (correct me if im wrong) you are saying that everything we can perceive/reason is the same set as everything that exists. Let me try another angle, this one an analogy: Suppose I told you, there definately does exist a God, (in the current religious sense), who is omnipotent, the most powerful. Then automatically, that is contradictory, and god in this sense cannot exist. Why? Because if he is omnipotent, then that means he can create an entity more powerful then himself, which he has no control over. But if he is omnipotent, then he must have control over it. But at the same time he can make it such that he doesnt. That is self-contradictory, and thus this concept of god cannot ever exist. Now supposed I told you, ok, but there is a possibility that this concept of god exists. Again, since being possible means that it COULD exist, that still runs into the same problem of being self-contracdictory. So we can say for sure, that this concept of a god can never exist. Now change gears: Supposed I make the claim: Fact: In the universe, there exists a purple planet. Then you could say, ok, where is the proof? I will say "what proof?" and thus the claim is discounted. There is no proof of it. But now suppose I make the claim: In the universe, there is a POSSIBILITY of a purple planet. Then you would say, ok, this is not self-contradicting, (unlike the god argument) nothing is violated metaphysically like in the god argument, therfore yes, it is POSSIBLE to have this. God argument: Impossible. Purple Planet: Possible. It is possible to exist within the realm of this reality. Even though we may never detect it. Thus even though I do not "know" of the purple planet, have never seen it, or detected it, I know that it is not beyond the realm of possibility. That is my question: Realm of possibility. *end of analogy* The god argument shows that such an existent as the omnipotent god is impossible, because it is contradictory. Therefore it is not in the realm of possibility. So my question becomes, why are existents that cannot be known by us considered outside the realm of possibility? ------------------------------ P.S. Don, I like your argument about existents being attached to each other so they all have an effect on each other, and since we can perceive some, that means we can perceive all - in fact this thought occured to me a couple days ago, but I figured let me ask anyway.

Hi all, ...so is there a verdict amongst you?...

Hmmm, Let me re-phrase the question: Is one aspect of reality, that all of it can be known by our perceptions/cognition? (If yes, then our perceptions.cognition will be able to figure out all properties of reality - everything about it. If no, there is the possibility that there are some things that our perception will not ever be able to sense, and/or our cognition cannot understand.)

Hi all, I am new to this forum, and relatively new to the philosopher of Ayn Rand. Maybe ya'll have already been bombarded with newbie questions like the ones I am about to ask, but if its all the same to you, I would really appreciate your input. The problem I am facing comes from the Metaphysics and Epistemolgy of what Mrs Rand was saying: "Axioms cannot be reduced to other facts or broken down into component parts. They require no proofs or explanations. Objectivism’s three basic philosophical axioms are existence, consciousness, and identity -- presuppositions of every concept and every statement." Ok, now I agree with the jist of this - the universe exists regardless of weather or not I am conscience or not - it existed before me, and will exist after me. Reality is there, and through being conscience, we can perceive it, and learn patterns about it and how it works, the physical laws, etc. So essentially: Reality is there regardless of us: Agree Conscienceness doesnt make reality, just perceives it: Agree. But my question is this: Can reality have some aspects of itself that cannot ever be knowable to us through our senses (direct perception and tools) or predictions (reason/cognition)? thank you