[Does Objectivism encourage open, inconclusive, individual thought?]

YOUR reality?! ALL REALITIES HERE ARE MY REALITY!!!

There's only one reality. If you find that too confining, I advise you to commit yourself to an insane asylum so you can have someone else take care of the consequences of you trying to live in a fantasy world that doesn't exist. You are essentially complaining that the fact you can't, say, grow wings by wishing or walk through walls is limiting your self-expression. You're free to disbelieve it, but you're not free to make reality anything other than what it is. Objectivism is about embracing this fact, A=A, among others, because we don't find life in an insane asylum to be a desirable option. But, by all means, please take a swan dive off the Empire State Building because you believe you can fly. Make sure you aim for the concrete.

Without a conclusion as its intended destination, or without a conclusion as its actual destination? Thinking without actually reaching a conclusion right away is a part of life, as David mentioned. Thinking while intending to never reach a conclusion is pointless and stupid. It's like constantly and intentionally only watching the first 45 minutes of any movie, then refusing to see it through.

Absolutely, and forever, but we're not talking about tentative "the evidence suggests" sort of stuff here. That's not a conclusion, that's a stop on the *way* to a conclusion.

Is this interpretive type of thinking and emotional response of yours rational? Why the fear and anger? I hope you do not represent objective thinkers. And yes, I will aim for the concrete, it makes sense. You do not need to respond to me again.

[Does Objectivism encourage open, inconclusive, individual thought?]

There's no way I can argue with this logic. However, I think skip may be talking about individual perception, which is completely different from person to person. A seven foot man would have a far different perception than that of a four foot one. There may be worlds the shorter man is not even aware of, like the dusty top of book shelves, thus limiting his knowledge reality. Sure, there is only one reality, but infinitely different perceptions of it. I think this may be what was meant by "my reality," though I could be wrong.

Thank you, you are correct.

[Does Objectivism encourage open, inconclusive, individual thought?]

If I understand the intent of the question, Objectivism requires open-ended unconcluded thought. In order to reach a final conclusion, there are numerous stages of less-than-knowledge that you have to go through, to validate the conclusion. Initially there are many imaginable facts that can be related to a topic and many imaginable conclusions. It is only by expanding your actual knowledge and integrating it that you can exclude alternatives. However, some (nihilist) epistemologies hold that you can't ever reach a conclusion, which is of course false.

Hello David, Thank you for the note. The intent of the question is to help me determine how my various beliefs differ.

I believe, as well, that it is a mind's responsibility to conclude through rational thought and experience. That said, it seems to beg the question of how final and firmly held should a "conclusion" be? Until more data or experience is received, or until the next moment in time? Is it important to "know" the "answer" or to have an idea of it? Is it not more important to stay "on the train then to get off"? Skip

[Does Objectivism encourage open, inconclusive, individual thought?]

Hello Chops, Thank you for the note. You are correct in my view, A=A is one of the foundations. I find it interesting that you say that individual thought is encouraged "as long as these thoughts adhere to reality". What kind of individual thought is that? Are you to tell me what my reality is? The statement is self limiting, confined to judgement, and subject to interpretation. Not trying to be contrary, just trying to understand.

Hello again Chops, I did not answer your question re. "inconclusive thought". For me, that would be thought, i.e. exploration without conclusion as its destination. Skip

[Does Objectivism encourage open, inconclusive, individual thought?]

*** Mod's note: Split into new topic - sN ***

Welcome to the boards.

You've got it backwards. A=A isn't the objective or goal of Objectivism. A=A is one of the foundations of Objectivism. Individual thought (the only kind of thought that's possible) is certainly encouraged, as long as those thoughts adhere to reality. Rationalizations and "floating abstractions" detached from perceivable reality are wrong. Fantasy can be perfectly acceptable as long as its nature is understood and kept in mind: that it is fake.

What do you mean by "inconclusive thought"?

Note: your question probably belongs in another thread.

Hello Chops, Thank you for the note. You are correct in my view, A=A is one of the foundations. I find it interesting that you say that individual thought is encouraged "as long as these thoughts adhere to reality". What kind of individual thought is that? Are you to tell me what my reality is? The statement is self limiting, confined to judgement, and subject to interpretation. Not trying to be contrary, just trying to understand.

[How old are you?]

Just curious about the ages of forum members.

Hello SN,

I am a new member and Ayn Rand's work has been important in my life. I am older and enjoy the "questions". The survey of ages brought a couple of "hasty generalizations" /thoughts on participation in Objectivism Online, 1.2% for over 60 not being a surprise:

Interest and energy are elements of a young mind a young spirit. Passion, a natural for younger individuals, and possibly being a product one's spirit, needs more attention/energy as one gets older. "Older" minds tend to seek closure. (Not to be confused with wisdom.) "Younger" minds enjoy the exploration.

Then again, it could just be the PC environment!

Thanks for the survey.

Question: Does objectivism encourage open, i.e., inconclusive, and individual thought? Or, is A=A the "objective?

skip