Ogg_Vorbis

Reality can't be an arbiter of anything. My chair, an existent that possesses the attribute of reality, can't be an arbiter of anything. The idea that reality is an arbiter of truth comes from Logical Positivism.

If you have a problem with my response, take it up with me rather than looking for sympathy with your friends. What exactly do you want to know that I didn't cover already?

Reality has no more authority than your chair has authority. Come to think of it, the view that reality somehow possesses authority would be a type of monism. When you say reality possesses authority, it suggests that there's a single, underlying truth or structure that dictates how things are and how we should understand them. This aligns with the core principle of monism, which emphasizes the unity and coherence of reality. In the context of Objectivism, this view corresponds with Logical Positivism, which emphasized the importance of verifiable propositions based on sense experience. The world we experience through our senses was seen as the ultimate authority, and statements that couldn't be empirically verified were considered meaningless.

That kind of assertion tends to discourage discussion. Retrograde motion of the inner planets didn't change anybody's minds. Continuing to look at the retrograde motion didn't teach anybody anything.

What bad arguments? And why would I try to bring up Hegel? Sciabarra is with the New York school of dialects. Its logic points are listed in various places online. You read the book in which my name is mentioned in the foreword, so it would be pointless for me to try to fool you with Hegel.

He's right. but I didn't say Hegelian dialectic. With a bias against me as a liar, there's no point in taking this any farther.

That is formally true. But in reality, Chris Sciabarra wrote a book called Ayn Rand: The Russian Radical (which has my name in the foreword, btw) proving (or not) that Ayn Rand's politics contains dialectical statements. I read the book when it first came out. Did you? It's not a correct or incorrect interpretation unless you can determine it first-handed by reading the book, not through formalized statement about X and X-prime. Those are classic formal statements.

Clear writing with defined terms and examples aims to minimize the need for extensive reinterpretation. However, even the most precise writing can have layers of meaning or subtle implications. Readers might also infer things not directly stated in the text based on their own background knowledge or experiences. Certain text may contain open-ended ideas that are intended to encourage independent thinking. I'm not saying that's the case with Objectivism, I'm just mentioning the idea. But even well-defined Objectivist concepts can be complex and require some explanation or rephrasing. Chris Sciabarra, for example, was attracted to Objectivism because he found that Rand's political writings contain dialectical elements. How do I know this? He told me this via an email exchange we had. These dialectical elements may not be apparent to other readers. But if they are claimed to exist by someone with high credibility, as Sciabarra had, then they at least deserve to be debated about or discussed. See http://www.rogerbissell.com/id11cccc.html The page contains a review called: Dialectical Objectivism? A Review of Chris M. Sciabarra's Ayn Rand: the Russian Radical, by Roger E. Bissell: Reason Papers, No. 21, Fall 1996. I guess Rand wasn't quite so clear and explicit after all.

I posted a link to Harriman's ideas of the concept of "space." Here it is again. https://objectivistmedia.com/presentations/physicists-lost-in-space Reality, which is a thing, can't be an authority. An authority is a human or human-created source of information that has gained large amounts of credibility. But reality is *like* an authority in that its information can be challenged. If we didn't have the ability to challenge reality's authority, we'd still believe that the sun revolves around the Earth on the basis that reality, imbued with the authority given to it by us, makes it appear that the sun revolves around the Earth. I'm not saying that Peikoff and Harriman are the ultimate authorities on these issues. I'm saying that their conclusions are accurately based on the application of Randian metaphysical principles to physics. If they set themselves up as the authorities, it is because they consider Rand (not reality) to be the ultimate authority. For Harriman to talk about 'space' in the Einstein context is simplistic. It is best to call it the fabric of space-time. Objects follow the curvature of this fabric along a geodesic rather than being pulled toward an object such as the Earth. P.s. I still don't know what "mental preparedness" means in the context of this philosophy. As I said above, it reminds me of the attitude of soldiers preparing to go into battle. But most people aren't soldiers. So what are we mentally preparing for?

https://objectivistmedia.com/presentations/physicists-lost-in-space David Harriman traces the history of the concept "space" in philosophy and physics up to Einstein, and finds it to be invalid.

I agree. Existence in this philosophy refers to things that exist whether they are physical or mental. But then we go down the rabbit hole of David Harriman and Leonard Peikoff declaring that science should only deal with topics approved by the ARI eliminate quantum mechanics, relativity theory - any physics that followed after Isaac Newton. Harriman also says that the concept of "space" is invalid.

I don't know what "mental preparedness" means in this philosophy, but it reminds me of soldiers on a battlefield expecting an attack soon, or an order to attack.

I think full, optimal focus means uninterrupted concentration on a single topic for a period of time without interruption from random thoughts and imaginings. For example, I might be reading something on this forum that reminds me of something else. So my focus is interrupted by an internal train of thought and memory.

An exception can hopefully be made for those with a medical condition called brain fog. In that quote I see an either-or distinction being made between optimal consciousness and suspension of consciousness, but nothing about degrees of focus. I can see where Albert Ellis would be concerned about this, as he was not a promoter of black-and-white thinking, either-or thinking, or absolutism. These mental states will produce some unfortunate emotional side-effects. For example, constant black-and-white thinking can produce anxiety, frustration, anger, and chronic stress. The negative emotions will then encourage more black-and-white thinking. What do you mean by "a general state of self-control"?

Leonard Peikoff in OPAR goes into more detail about this: This is the kind of thing I'm referring to. "Full awareness of reality." I don't see degrees of focusing in that statement, but full focus. I agree that there are degrees of focus. But if someone else in charge at the ARI said that there were degrees of focus, I don't know about it. Perhaps NB stated something like that in one of his post-NBI books? Using full focus at all times is asking for someone to employ a superhuman degree of intellect.

Looks like a semantic different here. I'm not sure, however, why you had to use the words "you" and "your" seven times in the last paragraph. No need to get personal. I suppose it has something to do with Objectivism. Too much reason, rationality, or as Rand liked to call it, "focusing" -- well, it's impossible to be focused all the time as she advised people to do. Psychological studies show that office workers take several small open-eyed naps during the afternoon. "When man unfocuses his mind, he may be said to be conscious in a subhuman sense of the word, since he experiences sensations and perceptions." “The Objectivist Ethics,” The Virtue of Selfishness, 20. So the only way to be human, and to avoid the accusation of being subhuman, is to be focused all the time. This is not rational.

Hello, Over the past 5 days I have lost my entire philosophical framework which was Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand. I have come to realize huge issues with the ethics, and now the rest is also starting to unravel. I have spent a great deal of time researching other philosophy, and I feel somewhat ashamed at how ignorant I was. I feel human again, it's hard to explain. I feel almost like I had abandoned myself. Trying to use reason to justify every desire is not only impossible but it slowly destroys your capacity to desire anything. I could never figure out what I wanted, or how to justify it, when I had a sudden realization precipitated by a single comment from a PhD philosopher friend of mine when discussing 'life as the standard of value'. I had desires, but I wasn't listening. All I had to do was listen. I was warned by Objectivists that pursuing things for their own sake, for the enjoyment in itself, would come at a price. That is the hell to which you are cast. You may enjoy yourself, only if permitted .Only if it is incidental to the pursuit of 'rational values' that are 'proper for man's life'. Rational values... whatever is for your life. Apparently enjoying yourself is not enough. I have spent hundreds of hours studying Objectivism. I feel I know it inside and out. And now, I am on the other side, so I can at least critique with a deep knowledge. Perhaps that is the only good thing about this. Objectivism gave me the vision of happiness being important, for which I will forever be grateful, and it also made me interested in deep questions, which is a gift as well. But in a sense, it has stolen years of my youth with its moralization. A deep sense of guilt whenever I could not identify a reason behind a desire, and a stiffling of any natural ambition, natural pleasures of life, in the name of reason and not living irrationally. Whim worship, I feared it like the plague. I do think Rand had a point about some things, but her ethics is a linguistic bait and switch. She sets up a good case for some basic ground rules for how a human may better survive, but that is all. She gives you no reason for living, and all her ethical values, are in fact, only instrumental values for life-as-survival. She soon linguistically bait and switches that for a life-as-experienced which she calles 'life qua man' and then she ossiclates between the two as it is convenient. That is just one of the problems. I'm anxious to discover other answers to life's questions. So here I am. I may have a lot of silly questions in the future. Bare with me.

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.

Greg Nyquist linked Peikoff's desperate attempt to subordinate science to HIS philosophy to ancient Greek philosophy: https://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2010/09/objectivism-metaphysics-part-12.html

I'm arguing that Existence exists isn't related to the idea that existents exist among other existents. I postulated a universe (an existence) in which the only existent was a hydrogen atom. The rest was just me trying to use a lot of words starting with E, hopefully while using the concepts in a consistent way, and putting 'permanence' together with 'change' in a way that makes sense. Permanence, being, is the laws of nature that make change predictable to us. "Beingness," which may not be a traditional concept in ontology, points to the quality of lawfulness in existents. I was also showing that I can play the ontology game too, even without lots of followers whom I neither want nor need. But now that you mention it, 'Existence exists' would be nothing but an empty tautology without Being to give it metaphysical permanence. I wouldn't except a monism of Being. But existence without Being is chaos, or non-existence. As for philosophers catching up and getting with the scientific program, Objectivism, with its reliance on the validity of the senses, can't make sense of any physics after Newton. David Harriman, author of The Logical Leap, and Leonard Peikoff say that modern physics must comply with Objectivist principles. But if it does, Relativity and QM will vanish overnight. https://aynrandcontrahumannature.blogspot.com/2010/09/objectivism-metaphysics-part-12.html This Dave Harriman, mentioned by Peikoff, is an amusing enough fellow. His attacks on relativity, quantum mechanics, big bang theory, etc. are filled with clever quips and amusing juxtapositions. Consider what he has to say of space:

Kant agreed with shifting away from Being.

From this forum’s homepage: "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live" ”Man MUST act for his own rational self-interest.” MUST. Okay then, MAKE me. Because last I heard there are only two things that people MUST do: pay taxes, and die.

I don't see that concept being derived from objective fact here http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/productiveness.html. I see where she calls non-thinkers (the majority of men) "blanks" and "brutes." And I see a lot of Rand telling people what they MUST do, as if they had to listen to her.

Well, the way I see it anyway, is like this: Rationality: she got it from Aristotle Productiveness: she got it from Locke. Pride: she got it from NB who was a psychology student during a time when "self-esteem" and "self-actualization" were trending in universities. ------------ Euclid was meant for blind obedience, because people were blindly obedient to his geometry until the early 19th century. People identify things all the time, but that doesn't make them correct.