Nicko0301

Thank you very much for illuminating this subject for me. I unfortunately have been tainted by the influence of Skepticism (it's an old habit). That is why I am so attracted to Objectivism: because it is the only rational philosophic system I have encountered that assuages my sometimes baseless skepticism. I owe a great deal to Miss Rand in this regard. I have yet to read only Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, The Virtue of Selfishness, and For the New Intellectual; so I do not possess a grasp of the more subtle aspects of Objectivism (namely, concept formation).

I feel as if I am awaiting the newest installment of my favorite soap opera! Seriously, though, I am looking forward to this.

Could you please elaborate on that?

I would like to thank everyone for their assistance in this matter. All of these posts have been very helpful. I eagerly await any further elucidation.

I hear Objectivists state that by attempting to deny the three axioms, one is unintentionally affirming them; namely, they cannot be disproven. Can anyone provide information as to why this is so? For example, if one denies the primacy of existence, how is he implicitly confirming the axiom?

Also, excuse my initial posts horrendus spelling errors. I was very tired when I wrote it.

I am not under treatment for a mental disorder, nor do I have one. I am simply trying to resolve a question that occurred to me a few days ago. I know intuitively that my conclusion was erroneous; I just couldn't quite put my finger on my mistake. Hence I posted it as a topic for discussion. I appreciate everyone's responses--they are clarifying the issue for me. However, you don't have to be so rude as to intimate that I am psychologically unsound. Thank you.

Thank you for point the first part out. No, I of course didn't mean that the world is previously constructed and then "reconstructed." That was poor syntax on my part.

Ah, alright. I suppose the question that I meant to ask, but somehow forgot, was: are the things which I am seeing only being seen in my mind? If sensations are being sent from my various senses to my brain, is it not all occurring in the brain? Or is it that I am simply aware of what is there?

Do you think you could possibly expound on the first part of your post? I'm afraid I don't exactly follow.

Yes, they are of course caused. However, the causes and the actual image that I see (hear, taste, sound, and smell) are not the same thing then, are they?

I will do my best to keep this succinct. (This issue has been bothering me lately, and it strikes me as absurd, only I can't quite put my finger on the cause of this absurdity) Since our senses pick up information of the world around us--and since this sensory information is carried to our brains vie certain nerve processes--could it not then e argued that the things we see, taste, touch, hear, and smell are only a sort of mental reconstruction of what exists objectively, but not the thing itself? (I know, by the way, that this is very Kantian in nature.)

I will try to make this as succinct as possible. (Disclaimer: some may find this laughable or absurd, but it has been bugging me incessantly and thus I need some feed-back.) If my senses receive stimuli from reality and send aforesaid stimuli to my brain via certain nerves and what not, could it not then be argued that what I am seeing, hearing, tasting, feeling, and smelling are some sort of mental reconstruction of the external world? Any insights would be tremendously appreciated.