Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

CJM

Regulars
  • Posts

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by CJM

  1. Because I never claimed we did not do what you responded and told me we did, making your response entirely redundant and off point? Why is it an objective ecaluation, and not subjective? Yes, but there is no reason to think the opposite should necessarily be true. It would be to perceive reality in a biased and subjective way. Acting does, being willing does not, as I already pointed out. I tackled it in response to someone else, sorry about that. "But anyway, if living a certain kind of live is to be your highest value, then sacrificing yourself for someoneelses life is still contradictory to it." Okay. How does that make it relevant? I would define it in much the same way. No they do not. How do your eyes give you absolute data? Can you perceive the keyboard in front of you in absolute detail? No you cannot. Yes I can choose my values. However I could not choose any others.
  2. How can it be valid AND inaccurate? Highest value is all I mean by ultimate. Self-causation implies that it is not caused by outside factors. Otherwise it is not self-causation, merely causation. So it is a causa sui, and comes from nothing? I mean, it has to be one or the other, there isn't actually a middle ground here, unlike most other areas.
  3. Volition is not contradictory to a lack of believe in free will. Wait, does Objectivism use this word differently too? Woah, my position is definitely not that existence does not exist, where did you get that? I am sorry if I gave that impression.
  4. Strangely enough, I don't base my beliefs based on what makes me feel good. So I won't be adopting the beliefs that my sense organs are infallible super machines or that I somehow hold free will despite being nothing more than a collection of my genetics and past experiences anytime soon(not to mention the insane idea free will entails that the same person in the same circumstances could make two different choices with no changing variables.) just because they seem nice. The fact that you attempt this appeal to emotion is not a good sign for someone who considers themselves an Objectivist. Not really. If holding your life as an ultimate value merely means identity or self interest, then ethically it can mean ANYTHING. That identity could be one of a rapist, altruist....literally anything. Note: this is kind of off point on my part. But anyway, if living a certain kind of live is to be your highest value, then sacrificing yourself for someoneelses life is still contradictory to it.
  5. You need to turn on your humour meter. Also Rockefeller what do you mean "no she would not?" Yes she would and so would you. The person I was replying to was arguing a rational person would not sacrifice their life for someone else.
  6. And your sense organs may not be accurate aswell? If not, why not? How do you get from A to B. Something being your standard of value does not entail that it must be your ultimate value. If volition is possible and controlled by our brain, a casually determined physical object, then how is it free?
  7. Coleecdting data from objective reality and collecting objective data about reality are two very different things. Lets not get carried away here, I am not changing my manner of writing to reflect the fact that I believe all knowledge to be subjective. That is unnecessary. Yes. Being a standard of value and being an ultimate value are two very different things. Perfectly would be perceiving objective reality as it is. Being willing to act against does not necessitate moving towards in the way you used it. If you sacrifice your life for a value, you are holding that value as a higher value than your life. This contradicts holding your own life/existence as your highest value. Not perfect. My lawnmower is not perfect. It is reliable. Whether it is different or not is irrelevant to whether we can gain objective knowledge through it. There is no confusion. It may be possible for me to choose my values, or it may not, depending on how you choose to define choice. Why infinite, why not absolute? I believe most peoples conception of free will to be an illusion. It is not different from making an incorrect judgment. No I am not, did you just copy what the guy above you wrote? Absolute detail.
  8. That simply isn't true. My senses being imperfect does not imply that I could gain no knowledge whatsoever. I could however, only gain subjective or imperfect knowledge, and only approximations of objective reality(however accurate they may be). Oh really, how does my example illustrate that now? Not perceiving the whole picture(as you agree) is a fault. We are ignorant of detail. Deatails are left out(as you agreed). If this is the case(as you agreed), how is our knowledge perfect and objective? I have no idea where causatio comes from originally. God, the devil, Russells teapot. That's akin to asking how the world started. Causation is merely cause and effect. Nothing is an unmoved mover(except obviously, the unmoved mover, whatever that may be.)
  9. This has nothing to do with Kant and Hume. The defense of free will in objectivism, from my reading is that volition is causation. Where does this volition come from, eh? Is it subject to causality? If it is then seemingly it is not free. Is it a causa sui? That is a ridiculous concept antithetical to reason. You have made no true defense of free will, or denial of determinism (or Kantian/whatever other generalization you wish to lump me in with). I know there can be only one, and no this is no problem to me. Lets go through this step by step. Rand holds that ones own life should be their highest value. Correct?
  10. Above is an example for you. Our sensory organs cannot perceive the whole of what we focus on. Our eyes cannot see things if they are too far away. They cannot perceive objects in reality if the lighting is wrong. If we are to gain objective knowledge, true objective knowledge, through our senses they would have to work perfectly in perceiving reality. They do not, they are limited physically. Working "in their nature" means nothing in terms of gaining objective knowledge through our senses. How do they either connect us to reality or not? Either they work perfectly or not at all? As for perfectly, I am using it to say that we are perceiving, without fault(hence perfection) objective reality, as it is. Sorry if that was unclear.
  11. But if life is to be held as the ultimate value, as Rand(I believe, if I am wrong please let me know) holds that it is, nothing else can be held to the same level or higher of value. Thats a contradiction in terms. Hence they do not work perfectly, perfect example. We do not see "the whole picture" even looking at the simplest things. The "whole picture" exists in objective reality. This isn't about how they are defined, this is about hierarchy of values. Not at all. This has a large amount to do with how "free will" and "choice" are defined. I would rather not turn this into a free will debate as focus on the problem of volition as a casual agent in objectivism, but if you wish to I will.
  12. Hmm, I can't seem to multiquote, sorry if this gets muddled. 1.Metaphysically:Yes, I do not disagree with this. 2. Etymologically: Here I have misunderstood? It was my understanding that it was not just knowledge, but objective knowledge that our senses could percieve. 3. Free will: This doesn't really do much for the problem of causality I mentioned. 4: Ethics: Yes. But why can't a rational person hold something else of higher value than their own life? Yes, this is my problem. If what our senses tell us about reality IS objective reality, then our senses must work perfectly. We must be physiologically incapable of error in sense perception. Logically this seems ridiculous. I don't "know". It seems a logical supposition that peoples senses do not work with perfection, that what we percieve is subjective. My sensory organs do not work exactly the same as another persons. Imperfect in relation to objective knowledge. But this is an ethical question. Why is it immoral to hold something else of higher value than your own life? Your childs life, your liberty, a teapot? Working very well is not the same as working perfectly. What I mean by act imperfectly is that, if our senses are to give us objective knowledge about the world, e.g. I am perceiving my laptop screen as it is, in objective reality, then they must act perfectly and be infallible. If they act imperfectly, the knowledge is subjective. I am under the impression that Ayn Rand holds that we gain objective knowledge about the universe through sense perception, correct? Uh, what? Why would someone who held something other than their own life move towards self destruction? That is a strange argument. Doing the exact opposite could easily be in the best interest of said value. I fail to see how you arrived at this conclusion. Ayn Rand would seem to disagree. I did not say they were unreliable. So Rand does not hold that we can gain objective knowledge about reality through sense perception? They don't have to lie, they merely have to work imperfectly. Our sensory organs aren't magical, they are just organs, parts of our physical being. Why should they work perfectly? I fail to see why the origin is so important. Why can't a rational agent hold something to be of higher value than it's own existence? Yes.
  13. On Objectivist Epistemology The validity of the senses, this is one I can't get my head around. Rand seems to hold that our perception of reality is objective reality. Is this so? This makes no sense to me, as it seems to suggest physiological infallibility on mans part. What we perceive is not objective reality, since our sensory systems act imperfectly. On Objectivist Ethics Objectivism seems to hold that a persons life should be their highest value. I see no reason why a rational person could not hold something else, e.g. their child's life to be of greater value than their own. On Objectivist Metaphysics The problem of free will and causality. This is the biggest stumbling block for me, as one who holds no belief in free will. The arguments I have found against this problem have seemed very weak to me. Free will is held to be self evident in Objectivism, but an argument brought for it seems to be that choice and free will are not contradictory to the law of causality, but a part of it, that volition is causality. Seemingly volition is a causa sui? Any help on these problems would be greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...