CJM
-
Posts
65 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by CJM
-
-
Correspondence is the relationship between what we count as true and what exists. Contradiction is the relationship between what we count as false and what exists. There are no contradictions in reality; contradiction is an entirely epistemological phenomenon.
Correspondence comes from a process of causation external to consciousness. The identity of a thing is its perceived and unperceived attributes. The identity of a knower includes its means of perceiving, which determines which of a thing's attributes are perceivable. The attributes which are perceived are part of the things identity. Because sensing and perceiving is a process of causation external to consciousness contradiction at this stage is not possible and correspondence is automatic and deterministic. If you see that a stick in water appears bent that is an absolutely faithful rendering of all of the relevant facts of the stick, the water and your perspective. Concluding that the stick in itself is bent is an error of inference not of perception. The appearance is objective and a proper method of inference which does not lead to contradiction is objective.
Identity applies to attributes. If we cannot know identity, as you seem to agree, how can we know the identity of attributes?
Whatever you choose to consider, be it an object, an attribute or an action, the law of identity remains the same.Also I was not suggesting your perception is a contradiction, just your position and thus your arguments on this subject.
Okay guys, I am done here, since I simply won't have the time to reply properly after today, I won't do it at all.
Thanks to the people who took the time to reply, however I am surprised with the amount of contradictions in the info I was given between different people, and the fact I was bombarded with strawman arguments as well as ad hominem ones. There also seems to be a certain crowd who couldn't muster up more than feebly repeating the arguments of others where they did not apply. I found this odd for the champions of individualism and reason, but whatever. On the whole I found the majority of the responses highly stimulating and interesting.
A lot of the issues I had with the Ehtics has been cleared up, though my problems with reconciling causality and free will remain, as well as my obvious problems with the epistemology. The arguments I had on detail didn't seem to be properly understood by anyone, so that is probably my error. Try to think of it as like Zenos dichotomy paradox(lol, obviously not the Tortoise and achilles one, I am tired) without an appeal to infinity but the fact that our senses cannot perceive the absolute detail of anything as it exists.
I will come back and read this in the hope something does come up that clears up the problems I raised , or if you want to call me illiterate or a troll or something else of that nature it will also be perfectly worth your while. I won't reply though, because I feel doing it half assedly would be an insult to you and pointless for both of us.
Cheers.
-
An alternative is an object or action, where if you choose one, you cannot choose others. They are mutually exclusive.
How did I bring up a false definition in saying we can weigh up alternatives that are not physically possible to carry out?
This is what this sentence should say, the edit function wasn't working for some reason.
-
Knowledge of things as they are in reality is not equal to things as they are in reality, but the things that are known have a correspondence with reality as perceived.
What correspondence, if we know no things as they are in reality?
Where does this correspondence come from if we know no things identity?
And "correspondence" is a very ambiguous word to use here., it will need a definition.
It seems to me that you are trying to hold that we can hold objective Knowledge, which must conform to reality, while also claiming we cannot know things as they are in reality. This is a contradiction.
-
Yes, You're a troll. Go away.
Great, rational argument to solve the problem of causation and free will.
You are an exemplary rational figure.
-
I'm sorry, my mistake. I assumed you speak English, and you know that when you place a concept in parantheses, that is short form for saying that's what the concept is, and that this helps people avoid writing another sentence. And that when you write the name of a person after something, that's short form for saying that this person said that thing.
Obviously you don't, you don't even realize that the two are different. (Either that, or you're being facetious, which annoys me, especially since I asked you not to be.)
My advice is that you should practice the language on easier subjects (like sports, the weather, read newspaper articles about current events), and when you get better at it, come back to this forum and ask your questions.
Do some reading.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bracket
Parentheses have many uses, you tool.
Now if you are done attempting your ad hominem argument, would you mind addressing the actual arguments?
-
Because for you "things as they are in reality" means an indefinite, potentially infinite inventory of the universe in order to meet the standard of knowing something in its totality.
What exactly does "things as they are in reality" mean to you so?
Is it not identity? Well?
Are you smoking crack Rockefeller?
First, let me address the issue. It is meaningless to say that although our knowledge "seem" non-contradictory, it is not. It implies rejection of reason (and thus, logic). Because it is by means of reason one "sees" whether one's knowledge is contradictory or not.No it does not, if our perceptions are wrong. If our perceptions are wrong our reason may function perfectly and still lead us to believe that our knowledge is non-contradictory. So your point immediately falls flat on it's ass.
Now, let me point out the bigger issue. At first CJM didn't reject the idea that non-contradictory knowledge is attainable. But later, when he was pointed out that this contradicts with his notion of fallibility of the senses, he tried to have it both ways. He is very careful not to accept this contradiction openly. Instead, in his quote above, he is trying to smear up his previous (implicit) acceptance of non-contradictory knowledge.Non contradictory knowledge, IF this knowledge is meant to be objective, is unobtainable. I would never claim otherwise and never did.
After I pointed him out that he is attacking a "straw man" because he misapplied Objectivist ethics, he is trying to play down his statements by calling them "just an interesting discussion". Of course, he still claims it is not a "straw man", while at the same time conceding that he was deriving "implications of Rands ethics". He is trying to have his cake and eat it too.I never claimed this is what Rand said, or argued. I consistently stated they were implications of her ethics, and never anything else.
On the other hand, when I was asking a question and not making a statement, I also made this clear. Questions aren't strawmen.
Observe another attack on a "straw man". I clearly pointed out to him earlier that a rational man will consider "how much he values" and "his evaluation of risk" while making a choice whether to fight for a (top) value or not. Ignoring that point, he still attacks the (never-mentioned) idea that a man must fight even if the odds are insurmountable.Maybe thats why I made the specific statement IF THE ODDS ARE INSURMOUNTABLE???! Did you miss that part? That would imply that said man had evaluated the risk and found it insurmountable. Jesus titty fucking christ. This was also after I had stated I was doing nothing more than discussing implications of following Objectivist ethics.
He projected it as if that notion was the only thing hindering his acceptance of the fact that man's primary choice is life vs. death,Projection? This was nothing I said, it was an assumption on your part. Do you know what they say about assumptions?
Because this was an assumption on your part, I won't target the rest of the stuff you just posted for obvious reasons.
The attacks on a "straw man" continue in the issue of "free will". He brings up a false definition of alternatives. According to him, an alternative could both be physically possible or impossible. After I pointed him out that he is rejecting the standard (as well as Objectivist) notion of 'alternative' in context of choice, he comes up with garbage he had already spewed earlier:An alternative is an object or choice, where if you choose one, you cannot choose others. They are mutually exclusive.
How did I bring up a false definition in saying we can weigh up alternatives that are not physically possible to carry out?
You need to buy a dictionary badly.
The problem here is his invalid concept of "replay". I will merely point out to what I wrote earlier in this thread:"[This] confusion comes from picturing consciousness as a mere spectator to our thoughts and mental activity. But that is impossible because it would mean that consciousness is completely detached and outside the material universe. In this case, consciousness would have to be a mystical presence devoid of any existential form. Of course, this leaves several other questions unanswered too, if consciousness is free from existence, why does it have an identity? Why does it "attach" to one human body? What is volition?
The fact is that you can't divorce man's soul and his body. Consciousness is a process actively interacting with the environment. You can't separate mental actions such as making a choice from you consciousness, and somehow claim that your choices are not yours."
I have never claimed consciousness is a spectator or not physical or material. In fact that would go AGAINST what I am arguing. I clearly was talking about PHYSICAL VARIABLES not changing.
Holy shit, could you be any more wrong up their on your high horse?
-
And how can you ever know what the 'whole' of something is? What authority can tell us "Okay, you're done now. There is nothing more to know."? There is no such authority, nor can any such standard of completeness be perceived or inferred. Only an omniscient knower could comprehend the totality of something, because 'totality' requires knowing that thing and the entire universe in relation to that thing to rule out the possibility of another yet unknown attribute. This is how totality invokes the indefinite and the infinite.
Not the infinte, and yes that is my whole fucking point!
'Objective' means based on reality and derived by a reliable method. 'Objective knowledge' is actually redundant, it is like saying 'valid knowledge'. Why was a particular statement ever counted as knowledge if it was invalid? 'Invalid knowledge' is a contradiction in terms. 'Objective knowledge' merely emphasizes the source of the knowledge, the method of its derivation. Other sources of knowledge such as 'mystical knowledge' are not knowledge because the method is not reliable.If it is based on reality and derived by a reliable method, how is it notknowledge of things as they are in reality?
-
We CAN gain objective knowledge about the world, they are right. You are wrong in your arbitrary assertion that 'objective' is synonymous with 'total'. I am merely the first person to corner you on this fundamental.
There you go with the "totality" again, invoking the infinite. I have already pointed out the problem with this, numerous times. Furthermore, the unknown does not invalidate the known. The unknown has no epistemological relation to the known, that is what makes it unknown.
This quote is perfectly accurate. The only problem here is your insistence on your idiosyncratic definition of 'objective' as total knowledge of something.
Total has nothing to do with infinity.
How do you not get this?
1. Things exist in reality. Correct?
2. These things have identity. Correct?
Edit: I may as well finish this
3. This identity is finite and real, and entails the totality of the thing. Totality is just the thing, the shole of it.
4. To know something objectively is to know it as it exists
5. To know something objectively is to know it's identity
Do you disagree with any of these?
The problem is that you are taking totality as meaning something it does not, as demostrated by your ridiculous "infinity" remarks.
Totality just means the whole of something, as it exists in objective reality. Do you get it?
OBJECTIVISM DOES NOT HOLD THAT WE KNOW THE EXTERNAL WORLD AS IT IS!We CAN gain objective knowledge about the world, they are right.I think now would be a great time to hear your definition of objective knowledge, which you failed to define earlier.
-
OBJECTIVISM DOES NOT HOLD THAT WE KNOW THE EXTERNAL WORLD AS IT IS!
Because I'm talking about Objectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand and you have a incorrect understanding of what that is.
"Rand rejected representationalism". I said starting point. Rand's viewpoint is indeed not representationalism, it is Objectivism. It is a new formulation with relevant similarities to representationalism.
You might want to tell that to all the people who think we can gain objective knowledge about the world on this forum, because you are the first person to hold this.
You said closest starting point. You what Objectivism held was
a kind of indirect representative realism.Representative realism is totally contradictory to Objectivism.
It seems like you are the person who holds an incorrect understanding of Objectivism, telling me a contradictory philosophical position is the closest starting point and claiming it doesn't hold that we can gain objective knowledge about the world.
What do you mean we only know the parts partially? I have already pointed out the problem with this, numerous times. These partial parts of parts have parts, which we cannot perceive in totality. This continues to the level beyond what we can perceive.
A man’s consciousness can acquire objective knowledge of reality by employing the proper means of reason in accordance with the rules of logic. When a correct cognitive process has been followed it can be said that the output of that process is objective. In turn, when the mind conforms to mind-independent reality, the theory of conceptual functioning being followed can be termed objective.Taken from rebirth of reason. So who is wrong? Me, most of the people on this forum, and this website, or you Grames?
-
Your problem is that you use the word 'total' at all, regardless of the meaning.
No it is not.
BECAUSE OBJECTIVISM DOES NOT HOLD THAT WE KNOW THE EXTERNAL WORLD AS IT IS! WE only can know it partially, in our jargon 'contextually'. In your jargon 'imperfectly'.Knowing a part as it is in objective reality is still knowing it objectively. How do you not get this?
If you know a part in objective reality, you need to know the totality of this part. Otherwise you do not know it objectively at all.
Rand rejected representationalism, I have no idea what you are taking about.
-
This is the weakness of your version of the correspondence standard of knowledge. Some limited correspondence is enough, total correspondence received all at once is both impossible and unnecessary.
You misunderstand the use of the word "total". Either our knowledge of a thing in reality corresponds totally or it does not. If it does not, our knowledge isn't objective. You can't know half or a quarter of a thing objectively to be true, because you can't know the totality of that half or quarter. You cannot know a half or quarter of this half or quarter to be true either, because you cannot perceive the totality of that half or a quarter of a half of a quarter.
What you seem to be suggesting I am saying is that for us to know anything about anything, we must know everything about everything, this is not what I am saying at all. For us to know anything as it is in objective reality, to know it as it is, we must know it in totality, because this is what it is in objective reality. This same reasoning applies to a part of thing, to any aspect, to anything.
I do not mean to know anything about a table, we must know the total table down to parts we cannot perceive. But we must know the total of the anything. I cannot make it clearer than that.
Understand what I mean by total correspondence?
And don't capitalize objectivity, just the proper noun Objectivism.I will capitalize whichever words I like, sir.
You do? Knowledge can be derived from subjective experience? Amazing. Well, it must be the describing the result as "objective" knowledge that seems contradictory. It is not contradictory because "objective" has a specific meaning that highlights the difference between 'good subjective' and 'bad subjective'.Yes, objective has a specific meaning. It is something that is true independent of mind. To know something objectively is to know it as it is in objective reality. You cannot gain objective knowledge through subjective experience, that's a contradiction.
"Veil of perception" Ha! Why didn't you just come out with the most complete and jargon filled description of your understanding of the problem in the first place? Several people here are quite capable of conducting a technical debate on philosophical issues. You are also insisting on a particular meaning of 'objective' that you import from somewhere else. No wonder you can't understand what people here are saying, you haven't acknowledged the vocabulary differences.To a large extent I have, but I may be missing some. My meaning of objective is the standard one and works perfectly in conjunction with your up to the point of concept formation, as I see, so there is no reason to be worried about that when talking about perception.
Perception is also finite, automatic and deterministic. (And I'll add: it is also partly learned as a skill and not entirely given as a body part is given to us)Free will causes fallibility. In this sense then, sensation and perception are infallible without invoking a standard of perfection or omniscience.
Yet again, why does it being automatic and deterministic mean that it must be infallible?
This is the problem.
In Objecivism, 'objective' means based on reality and derived by a reliable method. Sensation and perception are deterministic and causal, and so totally reliable. 'Objective' and 'objectivity' are in action primarily problems in creating concepts and reasoning with them, contrasted with arbitrariness in the forms of rationalism and mysticism (which are other forms of subjectivism or the 'bad subjective', as objective is personal and thus still a type of subjective.)If they are based on reality and the sources are held to be totally reliable, then my definition of objective(objective being used in it's standard sense here) knowledge fits perfectly.
How on earth can representative realism be the closest starting point when it claims we cannot know the external world as it is, when Objectivism holds that we can? How does that make ANY sense?
-
Why would you *want* to act differently? On top of that, the question is pointless because it is not possible to time travel.
I agree that it is a pointless question, I wasn't the one who asked it.
If what you perceive IS reality, isn't that a representation of reality? And obviously that has nothing to do with how much about reality you know. Things don't exist *as* blurry, just as much as things don't exist *as* sharp. Those are concepts, which can be wrong/inaccurate/meaningless. But you do know the thing you are seeing exists.Yes, it is a representation of reality, and it has everything to do with what we know. If what we perceive is a representation, it isn't reality. Again, what "we perceive is reality" is a statement that has a few different interpretations. It can mean
A. That what we perceive is itself reality. This statement tells us nothing about our perceptions, merely what they are based on.
B. That out perceptions are an accurate representation of reality.
Because all you see IS reality as it is.Yes, but what your perceptions are not.
Does objective reality mean to you reality with all its tangible objects and every single property of those objects, such as size and weight?Yes.
Sure It's still an automatic process, though.So what.
You don't seem to have anything to say about my seismograph analogy.You don't seem to have anything to say about the fact that the neurons can send the wrong signals to our brain leading to incorrect perceptions.
I don't know what Objectivity is. Define it, and state how it is relevant. If you meant to say Objectivism, it is not true that consciousness is held to be subjective.Yes, I meant Objectivism. In this very thread, I have been misinformed on this issue then. Consciousness requires thought, which is held to be volitional. I was under the impression(given to me by a member here) that volition implied it was subjective.
Yes, you did. Here it is:What in that statement led you to believe that was a "definition" of causation, and not something it necessarily entailed? Be careful with your assumptions.
If you did not mean to say it, then please, start paying more attention to what you are posting, or take responsibility for your errors. I have no intention to overlook your inability to write in a precise, unambiguous manner, and guess what you mean to say. If you write it, I take it as if you meant it.It is quite funny that the problem here arose from you attempting to guess what I was saying. Note the following sentence
A is A(Aristotle).Now, would you jump to the conclusion that I have just defined Aristotle as the law of identity? This came from a fuck up on your part, not mine.
As I said, watch those assumptions, otherwise you are likely to get some pretty strange ideas of what anybody believes.
It was caused. By me. And I was caused. By my parents' decision to have me. As I said, there is no contradiction between causality (as it is defined, in reputable sources, including Objectivist Epistemology) and free will (as AR defined it). You claim there is, back up your claim.Radn defines free will as our minds freedom to think or not, or choice to think or not(we shall ignore the glaring problem that choice denotes forethought).
She claims that at any point in a mans life, he is free to think or to evade the effort. "Free" implies that it is not controlled by obligation, that it is not caused. If it is necessitated by cause and effect, it is in no way free. Nothing can happen without being caused, that is causality, cause and effect.
If the choice to think is caused by external factors(do not say it was caused by me, "me" is caused, as you said, by factors outside your control-your parents decision) then how is it to be called free?
Unless the factors outside our control changed, we would not change, and the choice would not. To hold differently breaks the chain of causality.
-
Wrong. Reading comprehension failure on your part. THAT is NOT what objective knowledge is because it is impossible. If there is objective knowledge, and there is, it must be something else.
Oh, and what is it so?
Knowlegdge is what is known. Objective, in reference to Objectivity, means the world as it is, independent of our minds.
If Objective knowledge is knowledge of the world as it is, then things as they are and things as we perceive them MUST correspond, otherwise it isn't freaking Objective.
Go.
There is 'good subjective' and 'bad subjective', but knowledge can be derived from the subjective, distorted material we have to work with.I agree.
I said: So you are refuting the standard definition of 'objectivity'!CJM said: I do not see how I am, could you elaborate?
'Objectivity' means that recognition of a fact is observer-independent. Given that, what should I make of your following statement:
"Just because there is a standard does not mean it is objective." (Reminder: the "standard" that you were referring to is man's non-contradictory knowledge derived from perceptual data.)
Therefore, you are clearly refuting the idea that non-contradictory identification implies objectivity.
Please let me know whether you agree with the definition I provided. If not, then also explain why you still hold that objective evaluation is impossible.
Just because data may seem fully and wholly non-contradictory to us does not mean it is, I may not have taken your use of the word "standard" as to be as large a part of your argument as it was. I was merely using it as criterion, which was most likely a mistake while responding to your argument if you had previously defined it as something else which I missed.
Your last sentence is correct and made me smile. But on whole, you are attacking a straw man. Rand never said it is proper to act on an unidentified "feelings" (that life would be miserable). It's about rationally evaluating choices that you have. For instance, the choices could be: "life of pain and misery" vs. "a very risky attempt to save your top value". A rational man's choice in this matter will depend on how much he values and his evaluation of risk. Therefore, it is not a suicide in the loner sense - it's dying in an attempt to save your top values.I am not setting up a strawman, this is just an interesting discussion on the implications of Rands ethics, nothing more.
Having said that, I think it is OK for man to choose death if the only alternative is an unavoidable painful survival (e.g. if a man looses all his limbs etc.), but that is a separate issue. Morality applies only to life. Ayn Rand characterized Objectivism as "a philosophy for living on earth."A man may choose death yes, but there is no more reason for him to fight for his values than to swallow a cyanide pill if the odds are insurmountable. Just like there is no more reason to push a loved one out from a train whole sacrificing your life than their is to swallow a cyanide pill. In fact, you'd be better off taking the pill, if you are fully rationally self interested because your end will most likely be a whole lot less painful.
Thus? Do you now see why a rational man holds life as his highest value?This rejection had nothing to do with that, it was about whether a mans life being his standard of value made it his standard of value. Whether that is switching metaphysics and ethics around doesn't have anything to do with man holding his life as it's highest value.
Seems like you are moving behind rather than ahead. Now you reject the idea of not only choice but also alternatives. Tell me, if you are asked to clap your hands in next 5 seconds, what would you do? Aren't both alternatives - clapping and not clapping - physically possible?I have not rejected the idea of either of either. You claimed choice required the possibility of alternatives(or at least implied it)
It is a contradiction to say "I could not choose any others". Either you made a choice or you didn't.I simply pointed out that one can weigh up alternatives and choose a course of action even if the alternatives you were weighing up are not physically possible to carry out. That implies an assumption we cannot posit impossible actions.
If that is not your premise, do you care to explain where does the statement "I cannot chose other [values]" come from?It comes from being asked a ridiculous question. To assume that I could choose other values, my identity would have to act against it's nature.
I could not have done what I did not do, and I could only do what I did. If you were to replay a choice over and over again without changing any physical variables, how could I choose differently? How?
What points did I miss? I know I skipped the "keyboard is an elephant", because it
A. Makes no sense. Everyone has numerous instances where people have perceived thing
s in totally different ways to them.
B. Doesn't just have to do with the senses, but concept formation.
Now then, Ayn Rand is not suggesting that the organs of perception are infallible. What she observed is that the different forms in which some people perceive reality are precisely that: a difference in the form of perceiving the same objects of the same reality.Are you basically saying that what Rand meant when she held that what we perceive is reality is not that our perceptions represent reality, but merely what we are perceiving is?
How does that then lead her to conclude that our perceptions can lead us to Objective knowledge? Objective reality being objective reality doesn't do anyhting for the problem of the veil of perception.
All sensory input is objective. To claim otherwise is to claim that our senses are not what they are and can do something other than what their structure/identity dictates.No it isn't. It is just to claim that what they give us are imperfect, subjective perceptions rather than objective ones.
Do you people have a different idea of what perception is? I take it to mean, from my reading of Rand, what is referred to as sensation in modern Psychology. The physiological stimulus detection that occurs when our sense organs sense external stimuli and translate them into nerve impulses sent to the brain. Correct?
-
With our consciousness. That's why you know what you're thinking or feeling, even though there isn't a special sensory organ for it. You perceive it.
Consciousness(as I understand the way you and her are using it in this context, to choose to think or not) is held to be subjective and volitional in Objectivity, so therefore what we perceive isn't objective anyway.
Is that your final answer on what causality is? Something caused by factors outside our ontrol?No I did not say this is what Causality is.
I'm gonna have to disagree. In fact, I just caused this post, so the relationship between my decision to cause it, and it's magical appearance on your screen (the causality), was clearly within my control. It's an instance of causality, and yet here I am, controlling it as I'm typing.And where did this decision come from? Was it not caused?
What they see IS there and it is valid. The wavelength isn't altered. The wave enters your eye. Neurons react to the light. The neurons fire a signal to the brain. You see something. Up to this point, nothing was wrong in the *same way* a seismograph cannot be wrong. Next, you interpret what it is that is being seen. This is where being wrong is applicable.You are assmuning the wrong signals cannot be sent to the brain. There is no reason for thinking this.
I will leave your analogy for the moment as this seems to be a bigger problem.
So you are refuting the standard definition of 'objectivity'! Please provide your own definition if you disagree with the standard one.I do not see how I am, could you elaborate?
I know. But even if you continue using sacrifice in your undefined sense (rather than the Objectivist sense), the issue remains the same: is it proper for man to die protecting his top values - such as his freedom, or his beloved?And I addressed that issue in my previous posts. Let me repeat: man's nature as a rational being implies he lives in a certain way - as a heroic being, not as a tortured soul. Therefore, it is proper for man to die fighting for that without which he is unwilling to live.
So, was this another deliberate attempt to steer away and not address the point?
You clearly did not know, and the sense I am using it is not undefined. I am not taking words and using them while giving them my own definitions.
Rand argues that we only hold these as values in how they relate to our own lives. If you are sacrificing yourself for another only because you feel life without them isn't truly life/living as a heroic being you are doing nothing but committing suicide, and may as well do it in a way that does not save them if it is more convenient for you. You are not dying for a person or cause, but for yourself.
I reject that argument given to you (whosoever gave it) - it is an attempt to reverse of ethics and metaphysics.So if we ignore that argument, then I presume you agree that if man holds life as his highest value, then it should be his standard of value.
I accept this rejection.
It is a contradiction to say "I could not choose any others". Either you made a choice or you didn't.I fail to see how it is a contradiction. I can choose to stand up without remaining seated being a possibility, even if I do not know that it is not a possibility.
Choice requires that we sum up alternatives and come to a conclusion. It does not require that the alternatives which we do not choose be physically possible to carry out.
Your confusion comes from picturing consciousness as a mere spectator to our thoughts and mental activity. But that is impossible because it would mean that consciousness is completely detached and outside the material universe. In this case, consciousness would have to be a mystical presence devoid of any existential form. Of course, this leaves several other questions unanswered too, if consciousness is free from existence, why does it have an identity? Why does it "attach" to one human body? What is volition?The fact is that you can't divorce man's soul and his body. Consciousness is a process actively interacting with the environment.
No it does not, that is not how I perceive consciousness at all.
You naively demand a perfect and total correspondence between things in themselves and our knowledge of them.This is not what I demand, this is what you demand. THAT is objective knowledge, which you claim is possible.
his is a demand for omniscience,I am aware, that is my problem with it.
Consider just this one answer of yours: "Yes it does. The thing itself is not blurry. Out perception of it is." How the hell did you ever come to know that things in themselves are not blurry? What means of checking was employed? Was it not also sensation/perception? Why, yes it was.Of course it was, and I am not claiming that this position isn't subjective and distorted(distorted to a degree).
-
2046, if ya can't understand, you can't. Everything you just said has been tackled already.
We don't perceive with our sensory systems.With what, then, do we?
could/should, seems to. You should watch that, because this way your second sentence has no logical connection to your first.I can't speak to what Objectivism "seems" to hold, to you (not because perception is subjective, but because you are, and as a result, have the ability to make up anything you want ant think it's Objectivism-which by the way is proof enough of free will), but I agree that anything could be a person's highest value, including their child, murdering a few thousand people, or a car.
How is this not contradictory to the Objectivist doctrine of holding your life as your own highest value? Two things cannot be your highest value.
An ultimate value is that final goal or end to which all lesser goals are the means—and it sets the standard by which all lesser goals are evaluated. An organism’s life is its standard of value: that which furthers its life is the good, that which threatens it is the evil.Without an ultimate goal or end, there can be no lesser goals or means: a series of means going off into an infinite progression toward a nonexistent end is a metaphysical and epistemological impossibility. It is only an ultimate goal, an end in itself, that makes the existence of values possible. Metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon that is an end in itself: a value gained and kept by a constant process of action. Epistemologically, the concept of “value” is genetically dependent upon and derived from the antecedent concept of “life.” To speak of “value” as apart from “life” is worse than a contradiction in terms. “It is only the concept of ‘Life’ that makes the concept of ‘Value’ possible.”
The "free will is self evident" statement rests on the validity of percepts. If you don't believe we can perceive objectively, then you don't believe we can make choices.This isn't true. Why could we not be able to make choices if we did not perceive objectively?
And my final point is that you (or anyone I'm aware of) have not demonstrated a contradiction between causality and free will. I don't see why there would be one. If I had to guess, you're misunderstanding what free will is, and assuming that it implies that men have the ability to reverse cause and effect, inside their heads.Unless objectivists hold a COMPLETELY different idea of what free will entails, unless they have given the name "free will" to another concept, I am not.
If volition or will is caused by factors outside our contol(causality) then how can it be said to be free?
-
The part where you decide I am claiming Objective knowledge.
The part where you decide that I have said my opinions are not based on reality.
opinions become fact when based in reality because reality exists consistently. If your opinion cannot be taken back to reality and proven there its pointless conjecture and likely wrong. What you are aiming to do is make it so you cannot be proven wrong by disengaging proof.Opinions by their very definition are beliefs that cannot be proven, so I am not sure how much validity your statement holds.
Also none of us gets why our sense are subjective. what i see through my eyes is consistent and backed up by the views of other objective senses from em and others. whats more is that my perceptions are consistent with respect to time. Maybe my yes are tired and i see something incorrectly for a moment but that incorrect perception is not consistent and is quickly disproved by correct perceptions.They may appear consistent, but this doesn't solve the problem of absolute detail or physiological perfection.
-
Oh no, I accept that your opinions aren't based on reality. In fact, that's exactly the point. If your opinions aren't based on reality and yet you claim that they are in accordance with the facts of reality, then you are committing fallacy of the stolen concept. If your claim is that they aren't in accordance with the facts of reality and don't need to be, then why are you here arguing about them?
A. Again you get muddled up. Nothing was said about being "based on reality". It was that they WERE objective reality.
You said, while we were discussing whether I was claiming I knew Objective Reality
You are claiming to know itB. I have never said my opinions are not based on reality.
I feel the need to stop replying to you. You not only do not seem to understand my arguments, it is apparent you are very confused about your own.
-
Pardon me if I interperet your unwillingness to answer to the contradiction of your skepticism as an inability to do so.
I have already answered it. You refuse to accept that I am not claiming my opinions to be objective reality. I cannot do anything about this refusal on your part.
-
They can't be in error because error simply cannot apply to a thing that is causally determined.
Yes it can. Define your use of "error".
Blurry eyesight doesn't mean what you're seeing is "wrong".Yes it does. The thing itself is not blurry. Out perception of it is.
A seismograph cannot be wrong,Uh what? Of course a seismograph can be wrong, they are all the time. You are assuming it has been constructed perfectly. Out sense organs are not constructed perfectly.
but it is possible that it is providing data other than the kind you want it to. Maybe you calibrated it in a way that provides meaningless information. So if the reading comes out as 1 but a properly calibrated seismograph is reading as 7, you would only say the 1 reading is "wrong" because it isn't operating as you want it to. But the seismograph isn't wrong, it is doing *exactly* what you told it to do.Again I fail to see your point. You seem to assume that our sense organs develop perfectly.
You specifically probably say being colorblind is an example of your sight operating wrongly. "Oh one person sees gray, another sees red, that means it's subjective!" But you're not seeing anything "in contrast to [some]thing as [it] exists". Red is not an intrinsic property, neither is gray.No, they are subjective properties we assign to things.
A colorblind person receives the same wavelengths as everyone else. And anything after that cannot be wrong for the same reasons a seismograph cannot be wrong. The only time any "wrongness" can occur is when you interpret what you're seeing.Seismographs can be wrong, if they are wrongly constructed. They also do not give us perfect information. Only a highly limited estimation. I don't get your analogy at all here.
Yes a colourblind person receives the same wavelengths, what does this have to do with their perception? How could they possibly not? The difference is then in how these wavelengths are perceived.
-
Objectivity and magic are incompatible by definition.
Is not understanding facetiousness an Objectivist trait?
It is self-refuting because if certainty is not possible, then you could not ever have discovered that statements aren't either 100% correct or 0% correct, or whatever the hell else you think.Re-read my post and try again.
And if you are not certain, then you aren't certain that certainty isn't possible and statements could be 100% correct or 0% correct or 58.3% correct and you wouldn't be able to know if they were or if they weren't, including not being able to know if you're able to know or not.Do you understand what the word certainty means?
("How can one form such concepts as 'mistake' or 'error' while wholly ignorant of what is correct?")Being uncertain does not mean you are "wholly ignorant".
So the question remains, if you think you can't know ANYTHING, why are you still here?You need to take a moment, re-read what I wrote and try to reply when you actually understand what I said.
Is English not your first language? I am sorry for being harsh if it is not.
-
A self-refuting statement as has been pointed out to you at least three times. Why are you still here?
Because it is only self-refuting in your minds, a magical place where I am claiming that I know things objectively.
That statement is not self-refuting. It is only self-refuting if you believe statements are either 100% correct and in-line with Objective reality or diametrically opposed to it, and that someone is claiming the former.
-
If you don't know it, why do you think it? What claim of proof or existence do you have? You feel it's true so it's true? You are claiming to know it, and when presented with that contradiction you retreat and say that you don't know it. You can't eat your cake and have it.
I am not claiming I know it at all. I am not claiming to know ANYTHING the way you claim you can which is objectively.
I am not trying to have said cake. I am most certainly not trying to eat it.
-
More poor guesswork on your part. I contributed enough to demonstrate that your assertions have no value.
Good job. Having soundly defeated me, you can ride off into the sunset until I bring up something worthy of you like you said you would a post ago.
Or you could explain how it is concept stealing to suggest that perception is subjective and imperfect, while including your own.
You could explain why subjective knowledge means an assertion has no value.
You could explain how in the sweet jesus a determinist universe forces people to believe that perception is subjective and prevents them believing it is objective. This is the most hilariously inept attempt at an argument, so also the one I'd most love to see you tackle.
Or, and this might be shocking, you could attempt to refute a single one of the problems I originally brought up.
1. How our perceptions can be objective. And no, pretending I am claiming objective knowledge(when I am not) and that it is thus a fallacy won't do.
2. Why a rational person cannot hold a value to be of greater importance than their own life/ a certain type of life.
3. How voltion can be a type of causality. How it is free if it is caused, hot it is at all if it is not subject to causality.
Anyhting? No.....? Nothing at all?
-
You know that you can't know reality?
Correction. I think that I can't know reality as it is stands objectively.
There is a large difference.
A few problems I have with Objectivism
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
Just before I leave
Not being certain does not mean I cannot form subjective opinions in relation to your first point. A satisfactory answer would give me ample reason to hold these subjective opinions.
I can also come to an imperfect and subjective conclusion, it need not be objective and it most certainly need not be true, I just have to believe it.
G,night.