musenji

The ">" statements are his: > I agree that A is A in terms of existence: that a thing can only be > itself. I also agree that no contradictions are possible when it > comes to A being A, because the word contradiction implies that > someone has defined it, and then we are dealing in definitions. Actually, your --first-- sentence there includes the meaning of the law of non-contradiction. A contradiction does not imply human definitions. It simply means for an existing thing (any thing) to be both what it is, and NOT what it is. > I disagree. Look up contradiction in a dictionary. So the law of non-contradiction means, first and foremost: "a thing cannot be both itself and not itself". > Of course I agree with this, so long as no sentient beings are involved. > I disagree with the use of the term "contradiction." I also disagree that this > point even needs to be made: if I agree that "what is is what it is" then "is > not" does not exist, does it. To me, it is the same point as the previous: A is > A. If A is A, then obviously (DUH!) it is not B. So, guys, I think the crucial point here is that he thinks that if sentient beings are involved, a thing can somehow become itself AND not itself.

I actually read it about half a year ago! I'm not a voracious reader of fiction, so my standards of comparison are probably somewhat limited, but I thought his description and setting development were quite rich. I found the plot to be engaging, and the characters very well-developed, consistent, and often fascinating. There were several points in the book when I couldn't wait to see what happened when character X met character Y, to see how their "natures" would interact. As for philosophy, there is mention of Christian writings, and some use of Christian metaphor (though to tell you exactly what would spoil some of the plot). But, I remember a passage that was particularly individualistic, about the sanctity of the individual mind. I read a rumor somewhere that Steinbeck had met Rand, quite possibly in-between the publishing of Grapes of Wrath (1939) and East of Eden (1952). I can't seem to find the reference now...ah! Here. **** Objectivist Shoshana Milgram (professor of English at Virgina Tech) said in an interview with the Ayn Rand Institute: "Last December I spoke at a session entitled "Problems in Literary Research," about my detective work on the parallels between a passage in John Steinbeck's East of Eden and Roark's courtroom speech. I'd noticed the similarity many years ago, when I taught the Steinbeck novel, and I've been trying to discover how and when Steinbeck might have encountered Ayn Rand or The Fountainhead. A highlight of my investigation-in-progress was a phone call from Thomas Steinbeck, whom I'd contacted: he told me that his father had indeed known Ayn Rand."

Hi all.. I wanted to make absolutely sure, so: (the > statements are mine) > I'll try to state your position accurately: the fact that I have to use my > senses to know reality, means I can never really know it for what it is. I > can't abandon my senses; I am stuck with them, and because they are limited, > my perspective is limited. This means I can never have objective knowledge > of anything (objective knowledge being knowledge that is not limited by my > perspective). The only objective knowledge would be knowledge that involved > no actual --means-- of knowing, and therefore objective knowledge is > impossible. Correct? That's a pretty good bit of feedback. That about sums it up, though it's not comprehensive, and there's a lot more to it. > I think if the discussion is going to get anywhere, we'll have to take it > slowly, a piece at a time, and from the ground up. Agreed. > Existence exists. Yes. Physical existence exists. Matter. Ideas exist, too, as chemical reactions in the brain. > To be, is to be something. Yes. I am something. So is everything. > A is A: a thing is itself. To the person calling A "A," yes. > Non-contradiction: A cannot be non-A at the same time and in the same > respect; there can be no contradictions in reality. Yes and No. Now we are talking about definitions. Definitions are a human invention. They are subjective, biased. A connot be non-A to the person who has defined A as A. But A may not be A to me as it is to you. Even the word contradiction implies "terms," and terms are not something that exist independent of humans. (I'm thinking....I'm thinking...I'm pretty new at this level of argument. I get the feeling, though, that no matter how rigorous my arguments are, he won't accept them. I don't think he is correct that we're dealing with "definitions and therefore subjective bias" yet. I think maybe I just need to re-word the last two points without variables.) Okay, here's my reply. **** > > To be, is to be something. > Yes. I am something. So is everything. Glad we agree. :-) > > A is A: a thing is itself. > To the person calling A "A," yes. We're not bringing people or labels into it, yet. All this is saying is that an existent (an existing thing), this "something which exists", is what it is. Which is to say, it will have the same attributes, the same qualities, regardless of whether or not someone has defined them. (That's all.) Edit: typo, and for accuracy

AUGH AUGH AUGH.... So, I got a reply from friend 2. Now, if I'm correct, this will automatically merge into my last post. Either way, here is his reply: ******************************************* Beautiful! We don't disagree! We just see the same things differently! (It's interesting that I am saying this in the context of what we are talking about - and I should note that I'm not trying to contradict you or make a point or make a joke! I really do agree with what you said in the last email! ) > No, if objective knowledge is possible at all, it has to be possible for a > single man. And I think it is. This statement sums it up. This is what I am talking about. As an individual, what I say and believe is certainly objective: I have no choice but to believe my beliefs: they are what I know. This is my only option: to believe what I know. Objective knowledge is possible only in terms of individuals: knowledge becomes subjective the minute you bring other people into the mix, because you are dealing with differences in perception/perspective – and each rational person has no choice but to believe what they believe: to construct their definition of "what is" in terms of their own experience (and no one else's). How can knowledge be objective (to anyone but yourself) when it is entirely based on and limited by an individual's perspective/senses/physicality/experience? It is only possible in a world where there is only one possible perspective/sense/physicality/experience – which is not at all possible. To use the example I used earlier, but tweaked: If my experience of reality is void of hearable sound (I am deaf), then I would not include hearable sound in my definition of reality (though sound obviously exists physically in the form of waves). Having never heard sound, I would have every right, based on the evidence presented to me, to believe that no such thing as hearable sound exists (though sound obviously exists physically in the form of waves). Let's say that I know sound exists in the form of waves, and that I can "feel" sound in the form of vibrations. But, I cannot hear it. You can write me a letter and tell me that you "hear" sound waves with your ears. You can tell me this, and I might re-arrange my definition of reality to include your definition of sound, having been presented with evidence to convince me it is true. However, this would not change the fact that sound as I know it is different from sound as you know it. You experience the reality of sound by hearing it, while I experience the reality of sound by feeling it or seeing the waves on a graph on a screen. Sound to you is not the same as sound to me, and our "illustrations" or "definitions" of what reality is as it relates to sound still differ. What is more, if I decided that your rationale for believing in the existence of hearable sound was (ahem) "unsound," then I would have every right to say: "It is not possible to hear sound," based on my experience of the world. You could say: "I hear sound." But that's not good enough evidence. You could say: millions of people hear sound. But that's not good enough evidence. You could say: there is this thing called music, and people listen to it. But that's not good enough evidence. You could say: there is a record industry that makes millions of dollars a year off of people listening to music. But that's not good enough evidence. You could cite scientific research on the biology of hearing. But why should I believe that which I have never experienced myself? Scientific research is based on assumptions, predictions, and occurrences: but I didn't do this research, so why should I believe it? MY reality (based on my definition of "what is") CAN be different from YOUR reality (based on your definition of "what is"). * * * What you seem to be talking about when you talk about "objective knowledge" is what I would call the quest for truth. Truth is the actual. To seek truth is to seek to know "what is" – independent of perception. Thus the question: is truth knowable? Of course, the answer is no. Knowable truth is a contradiction. Without perception, we cannot observe, and without observation, we cannot know. Truth is not something that exists independent of human thought and definitions. Matter may exist without us, regardless of definitions and perceptions, but truth does not. Truth is a construction of the human intellect. Truth is an idea, not a physical thing. Truth itself IS a definition. Do you believe that any one person can know "what is" without the use of perception? Can a person step out of their body, lose their experience, forget all they know, and step away from this existence? Can a person do this, and see the universe, as if from above, clearly, and know that it is true, that what they are seeing is REAL? Can we leave existence in order to view it? > Either way, the final arbiter of the dispute is reality. Who is Reality? How is he/she going to tell me the truth? >Not subjective whim or intrinsic revelation, but an objective outlining of the facts. Who is so arrogant that they claim to know the facts, without perspective, without experience, without examples by which one can compare? Who views this world but is apart from it? You must claim to be a God, to do so. This is the definition of self-righteousness - and the term is pejorative for a reason. To be right you must know the truth, to know the truth (objectively, without perspective) is impossible. You can only be "right" when within a system of definitions and assumptions that are agreed-upon. Something to note: not all knowledge deals directly in the existence of matter. I suppose I'm arguing more about the nature of objectivity, and not about the nature of existence, or of things in existence. I don't disagree that a tree is what it is regardless of human thought – the mass is what it is. I'm arguing that human thought determines what defines "tree." So this isn't about matter. It's about definitions. Sorry so long. I don't know if that will be especially coherent or not. Take from it what you will. ********************************************* I'm banging my head on the wall, here... He thinks we agree, when we couldn't disagree more. I'm thinking of simply recommending that he read ItOE, but I feel somewhat like that's ducking and running, when I ought to be able to formulate a rebuttal. I'm going to read what he said a few times, and re-read ItOE myself... I think concept-formation is the point at which this argument originates. He thinks that concepts are an arbitrary construct, and I think they are abstract integrations of concretes. Or maybe it lies at the validity of the senses--he thinks that because we have to utilize a means of perceiving reality (the senses), that necessarily means what we perceive is "distorted", not "real reality in itself". I'm thinking of asking, "Do you mean that, even if I refuted what you just said, point by point, you would be justified in ignoring what I say because logic is really just an arbitrary creation of humans that has no actual bearing on reality as such?" [Edit] Or maybe: "If no objective communication is possible between people, how do you account for the existence of computers?"

Hey, I've gotten an email back from friend 2. It read, simply, "Would you agree that Unicorns exist, in reality? (I'm hoping your answer here is no.)" I answered by saying "No, I would not agree that real unicorns exist. I have never seen, or even heard tell of, evidence for the existence of an actual unicorn." I got a phone call from him, but asked that we keep it to writing. I'm not nearly as good at arguing orally, and the last few times we've had arguments in person, we just ended up angry at each other. He did say, over the phone, that he agrees that a thing is what it is, regardless of our specific awareness of it. He wondered if I had gotten his point and was moving on, or was sticking on that point. (Which scared me cause the arguments I absolutely HATE are the ones where both people end up saying: "No, YOU didn't listen to MY point!!") He then went through an explanation as to why, whenever we discuss "reality", we have to keep in mind that the definition is based on "subjective perspective". Actually I've forgotten how he got to that point, but it confused me a bit. Today, however, I came up with the following: *** I think I have an important point to note. What does it mean for knowledge to be objective? Does it simply mean that people agree about it? I don't think so. If all one person really has is a subjective whim, then adding someone else's subjective whim doesn't suddenly make it objective--simply because they agree. Which is to say billions of people can agree on a point, and that point can still be wrong. No, if objective knowledge is possible at all, it has to be possible for a single man. And I think it is. So. How can a single man know if his knowledge is objective? First, the definition of "objective" as it pertains to knowledge is "corresponding with reality". So, it either has to be based directly in observations that he has made, or based on a rational (often logical) process following from those observations. I'd better define logic, too, then: the process of non-contradictory identification. And this is the crucial point: any new knowledge a man obtains has to be integrated into his system of current knowledge, without any contradictions. Since there are no contradictions in reality (A cannot be non-A at the same time and same respect), any knowledge that is objective must also necessarily contain no contradictions. If one arrives at what he believes to be a contradiction, then he must check his premises, or basic assumptions. He will have to re-evaluate the conclusions he has made. And this is where we can introduce other people into the equation: if another person presents to me a conclusion that seems to contradict one of mine, it is essentially no different than if I suddenly realized two of my own conclusions were contradictory. So both people have to check their premises, see where they line up, where they disagree, and WHY they disagree. It may be that both of their knowledge was objective for the facts they had observed, and one of them simply had access to information that the other didn't. Or it may be that one of them retained a contradiction within his own heirarchy of knowledge, that he had not yet resolved. Either way, the final arbiter of the dispute is reality. Not subjective whim or intrinsic revelation, but an objective outlining of the facts. Introduce wish or faith as a thing of primary importance in an argument, and that argument becomes a futile endeavor (if by success you mean eventual agreement), as probably most significant arguments between people unfortunately are. *** ..And I just sent that on over, so we'll see what happens.

No, she's not angry with me at all. She actually said that her housemates aren't into philosophical discussion, so she appreciates the change of pace. And the letter actually included points on epistemology as well, but I'm leaving those alone for the moment. Okay, so I showed this thread to another friend, who came up with the following: >Nice. My first reaction is this: > >Yes. Of course, there is only one reality, external and physical, A >is A, existence exists, and so forth. Now let's talk about >perspective and definitions. > >We use our various senses to identify and integrate and define what >reality we come into contact with. Since we all do not experience the >entirety of reality all at once (or ever), we all have a different >perspective on what reality is: we define it based on subjective >experience (experience can only be subjective, because no 2 >experiences are exactly alike, no 2 people exactly the same). If >defining something is to take a part of our experience and illustrate >it verbally in objective terms, then definitions are an attempt to >translate the subjective into the objective, the untranslatable into >the understandable. > >If my experience of reality is void of sound (I am deaf), then I would >not include sound in my definition of reality (though sound obviously >exists physically). If I had never heard of the concept of sound, I >would have every right, based on the evidence presented to me, to >believe that no such thing as sound exists (though sound obviously >exists physically). Because we cannot collectively define reality, we >must maintain that reality is only what it is to us, and not what >someone else defines it as. Therefore, MY reality CAN be different >from YOUR reality. > >Eh? It made me laugh, and I thought "oh, damn you, you always make it so difficult" (half humorous, half serious--it does seem sometimes like he just wants to tear ideas down). And actually later I got a little discouraged, not having come up with a reply, but then I read a bit of Tenure's facebook battles, which gave me some solidarity. So, my reply: "Of course, there is only one reality, external and physical, A is A, existence exists, and so forth." Assuming you really do agree with me about the above, then: "Because we cannot collectively define reality, we must maintain that reality is only what it is to us, and not what someone else defines it as. Therefore, MY reality CAN be different from YOUR reality." No, it can't. If you accept, as definition of reality, "all that which exists", then to say "my reality" at all is a contradiction in terms, because the definition does not depend upon specific human awareness--does not rest on the particulars that any one person knows about reality. For instance, I don't have to know Galaxy M-33 exists, to include it in my definition of reality. It's not even necessary that I've heard of it. I believe the reason for this lies in the way humans form concepts. The process of concept-formation includes measurement-omission. When I form the concept "tree", I do this by separating the percepts of trees from other percepts by their differences, and grouping them with each other according to their similarities. When integrating the concept "tree", I ignore the differences between particular trees. This means that the concept does not only include the trees I have personally seen, but also all trees that exist, have ever existed, or will ever exist, regardless of my lack of having seen them personally. So it is with existence/reality. My definition of reality does not only include all those aspects which I am aware of, but all aspects of reality. Think of the silliness of saying something like "My reality did not exist, before I was born." Reality existed long before I was born; I observe parts of it, now. As to the deaf person, it's the same deal. Setting aside the fact that you can show deaf people that sound exists (because you said a person who had never encountered the idea of sound), it's still not a valid point...the definition of reality includes all that which exists, regardless of whether any particular person is capable of observing it. Yes, that person might not have any idea that sound exists, but sound still exists. The error is in saying "but it doesn't exist for HIM", because existence doesn't exist "for" anyone; it simply exists. Okay, so before I fire away, is there anything to correct? Add? ......Is this something that is more the province of a blog? Or would it be okay for me to keep posting progress in this thread?

Thanks! By "final" I meant "the last one in this post".

Hi all! I'm Ben Hoffman. I've been in chat for a while, and have posted here, but only a few times in fringe areas (turns out I posted over a year ago in an anti-Objectivist video games thread). So this post will be my introduction. So. I'm having an argument with a friend over e-mail. I don't know if this is an appropriate posting or not, but what I'm basically looking for is a review, and primarily of my final reply, because I have not yet sent it. In advance, I suspect some of you may say it is a hopeless cause, but I have had very little practice with philosophical arguments, so it is valuable to me. The first comment is hers: >> I believe that as mere humans it is impossible for all of us to experience the same reality. I think we may have different definitions for "reality". I define "reality" as "all that which exists", regardless of human knowledge or consciousness, so by that defintion, it is impossible for there to be more than one reality. Does your definition differ? Do you believe that there is an existence out there, but we simply can't have accurate, trustworthy knowledge of it? Or that, because people have limited knowledge based on their own experiences, their "realities" are different? I know lots of people say things like "my reality is different from your reality". IMO, that is an incorrect use of the word, and they ought to replace "reality" with "perspective". >>Yes, I'd agree that "perception" is a better use than "reality." And I think >>people who say "my reality is different from your reality" are mostly right-minded >>people. In those cases I think "perception" is much better. However, let's take, >>for instance, schizophrenics. For them, there actually ARE people there they are >>talking to. Delving into metaphysics, as I do (since I do believe in God), who's to >>say there actually aren't beings there that they can see and talk to? We know very >>little about schizophrenia and obviously less about God and metaphysics. In any >>case, God or no god, I'd say this is an actual reality for them. And perhaps this is >>all only searching for agreed-upon definitions, which is at least half of philosophy, >>or at least the basic groundwork before you can begin to philosophize. I actually said "perspective", not "perception". However, perception would be more correct when speaking of strictly sensory forms of knowledge, as opposed to worldviews. When I say that existence exists, and things are what they are, apart from any viewpoint of these things, I mean that if Sammy and Betty are walking down the street, and Sammy starts hearing loud voices while Betty cannot, then there is a difference between these two people--not a difference in external reality. Either Betty is hard of hearing in the moment, or Sammy is hearing voices when there is nobody actually speaking. Which is to say that one of them is accurately perceiving reality, and the other is not. How do we find out who is correct? Look at the external reality. If there are soundwaves of voices, then Betty is hard of hearing. If there aren't, Sammy is hearing voices inside his head, not from an external source. The key axiom this rests upon is Aristotle's axiom that A is A: a thing is what it is, and all things must act according to their nature. And the corollary law of non-contradiction: that a thing cannot be both A and non-A at the same time and in the same respect. This means that the voices either are, or are not, coming from an external source. There either are, or are not, sound waves that cause the voices in Sammy's head. It can't be both. The reason that it's an --axiom-- is that it's a self-evident truth of reality. In any attempt to refute it, you have to accept that it is true. If one tries to argue that A can be non-A, at the same time and in the same respect, then language quite literally has no meaning, and therefore his argument is a sham. The concept "tree" can mean the same thing as the concept "jump" (ignoring the labels themselves, thinking of just their referents). Words would therefore have no meaning, because they would have no objective validity, because they're not describing things that are what they are, and are not something else entirely. If a thing can be both a rock and a human heart, simultaneously, then none of these words has any meaning at all. If Sammy and Betty are walking in the desert, and Sammy sees a building where Betty does not, the physical reality outside their minds is the same. The difference is inside their heads, not outside. Reality, first and foremost, is that which physically exists. And a thing such as a building cannot both exist and not exist at the same time. ...That's what I have. Thoughts?

Aren't there only 30-some levels? Very cool game. Thanks John!

In addition to my request to Zoso (to further explain the relation between Chrono Trigger and the Bible), I have something else to note about Chrono Trigger. The Kingdom of Zeal was not a capitalist state. The "Enlightened Ones" were essentially looters, and elitist looters at that. They discovered the strength of Lavos and used it to gain knowledge and power. Yes, they developed a technologically (and magically) advanced culture, but it was all based on Lavos, a power they couldn't control or totally understand. This was ultimately what destroyed them--actually a good example of D'Anconia's maxim about inheriting wealth...if a man is worthy of the wealth he inherits, it will serve him, but if he is not, it will destroy him. In addition, the game shows that people went on to flourish even without Lavos' power, meaning they didn't have to loot to build a civilization. Regarding the machines in the year 2300...It doesn't show how they got to that state, but if I remember correctly, the Mother Brain said something that implied a connection with Lavos. Lucca made it clear that technology is not evil--the robots only act as they are programmed to act. The following is only speculation, but perhaps Mother Brain was influenced by Lavos, and in turn influenced the rest of the robots.

Hey ya'll, I'm new here...so, hi, and all that. I also do not see the Biblical allegory in Chrono Trigger, unless you're referring to the three Gurus, named after the three wise men from the Bible. I'd be interested in hearing more, but perhaps via email to spare the forum. I have a game for you guys that has not been mentioned...Dragon Warrior IV, for the old NES. Besides being a great game, it has Objectivist/capitalist qualities. There are 5 "chapters" to the game... In one of the chapters, you play as a merchant who works at a weapon shop, but dreams of owning his own shop in Endor (which is essentially the NYC of this game). A ways into the chapter, you can hire two party members who stay with you for 5 days only, and then leave...if you want them back you'll have to pay more. In another chapter, you play as a princess who is holed up in her castle, and decides to go out on her own adventure instead of living a prescribed life. She actually kicks her wall down to get out!! These are just the philosophical things...it's a very fun game in general...but it costs so much now (it often goes for $60ish, and even $30-$40 for just the cartridge. It does surprise me that someone on this forum suggested downloading a game to play via emulator (which is a breach of rights unless you actually OWN the game). Someone already made the points I was thinking of making about FF7, so I guess that's all!