Nicko0301
-
Posts
88 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Nicko0301
-
-
You may be unaware Nickos that The Matrix thing is kind of a running gag. I'd be suprized if insult was intended.
No, I didn't know that. In that case, I apologize for reacting angrily. I thought that he was just trying to be derisive.
-
You're probably just in the Matrix
'
It's alright if you want to be an insensitive idiot, but could you please refrain from such asininity in regard to this thread? Seriously, if you have nothing useful to contribute, why post?
-
Not really.
I imagine your anxiety is caused by a feeling of things being arbitrary.
That's what philosophy exists for. To prove to you that this is not all arbitrary, that you are in control of your own life.
I think as your personal philosophy solidifies your anxiety will diminish.
Thank you. Indeed, I'm currently reading OPAR and it is enormously helpful.
-
Not really.
I imagine your anxiety is caused by a feeling of things being arbitrary.
That's what philosophy exists for. To prove to you that this is not all arbitrary, that you are in control of your own life.
I think as your personal philosophy solidifies your anxiety will diminish.
Thank you. Indeed, I'm currently reading OPAR and it is enormously helpful.
-
Not long ago I decided to dig in and read some of Kant's work. My attitude was essentially "I'll see for myself". However, I quickly became unsatisfied and unsure with that approach. Not necessarily because I felt overwhelmed or confused by his writing. But because it became apparent that I lacked a lot of crucial information about the time period and context he worked in. His definitions and the philosophic view when he uses the word "reason" and "freedom" I suspect are surprisingly different than what I'd assume them to be today. I haven't given up on ever reading his work, but it's something I realize I'm not properly prepared for and it's best to set it aside for now.
Does anyone have recommendations regarding reading or a companion to help grasp Kant's work in it's total context?
Although I haven't read it myself, I do know of a succinct primer on Kant's work. It is entitled Kant: A Very Short Introduction. It is available on Amazon for about ten dollars. It's about 160 pages in length and contains information on his uprbringing and ideas.
-
In what way do you consider the Universe to be odd?
That's just the thing: it is difficult to articulate the feeling. It is just this feeling I get when I look at the world. I'll invariably think to myself,"How weird that all of this exists," and "Why does this exist?" Then I'll be stricken by an acute anxiety.
I'm sure this all sounds rather strange.
-
For some reason, I cannot contemplate certain subject--like philosophy, physics, existence etc.--without a concomitant sense of anxiety. I believe that everytime I begin to reflect on these matters, I am reminded of how odd the universe ultimately is. I subsequently become overwhelmed by a sense of uncertainty and fear. Objectivism has, to a certain extent, assuaged my discomfort; but it is still inevitably recurrent.
I was just wondering if anyone out there has experienced anything similar (I doubt it), or if anyone has and insights/advice.
Thanks.
-
Read the first post in the thread notes on "The Evidence of the Senses" for a very brief extract of Kelley's essentialized review of philosophical history. Dr. Kelly got his doctorate under Richard Rorty, Dr. Peikoff under Sidney Hook. These were mainstream and highly regarded academic philosophers and they would not permit doctoral students they were advising graduate with an inadequate or incorrect understanding of what Kant wrote and his influence. This interpretation is correct and in no way unique or idiosyncratic to Rand, and it predates Rand. Rand picked it up by reading on her own in the original german, and reading other philosophers that came after him. What is unique to Rand is her critique of Kant.
Compare with the Wiki entry on Kant. Yes Kant actually wrote those crazy things and people swallowed it.
Thank you, Grames. I suppose I was just astonished when I originally read Rand's synopsis of Kant: I couldn't believe that what she was describing was actually an accepted philosophy. But apparently she was indeed correct.
(Incidentally, Kant's philosophy was the inspiration for "The Matrix.")
-
(I should preface this inquiry by saying that I am new to Objectivism. I have only read The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, The Virtue Of Selfishness, and For The New Intellectual; so obviously I have only a somewhat superficial understanding of Objectivism and philosophy in general. Nevertheless, Miss Rand's philosophy has been extremely helpful to me in many ways, and I certainly plan on further study.)
Rand is extremely critical of Immanuel Kant. From what I gather she was antithetical to his view on the mind and its functions. Essentially, Rand says of Kant's view, the mind is responsible for distorting the material provided by one's senses, thus, in effect, creating reality (if I am incorrect in describing her interpretation, please let me know). My question is this: is her assessment correct? Is there anyone who has read Kant and can explain why Miss Rand came to this conclusion?
Thanks all.
-
I imagine that this claim is more an expression of great frustration and pain of seeing friend after relative after co-worker more or less abandon reason. Though I have no idea if the original poster has observed this, I see this way too often. I think as Dagney Taggart did in Atlas shrugged, that maybe I shouldn't expect rationality anymore. With this whole global political situation really makes it difficult to be optimistic. It is only made worse when people of your own age who should have no trouble accessing a world of information via the internet just choose to not seek facts or reason.
Precisely: the post was made in a moment of exasperation. I mean, it is bad enough that most of my generation (let's be honest, we can generalize a bit) is lacking in values, that they prefer to do drugs than even attempt to think; but when I hear the ones who do think--however poorly--utter such nonsense, I can't always restrain my frustration.
-
Why does man put such emphasis on the truth? Namely, why is the concept of truth of such significance to man? People generally dislike deception, and I am personally disconcerted by ideas such as nihilism. But why is this generally the case?
Also, what would it do to a person if he held the idea that absolutely nothing was knowable or true? I, for one, don't know how anyone could carry on like that.
-
So I was perusing through my copy of The Prince when I stumbled upon this exerpt:
"Yet the way men live is so far removed from the way they ought to live that anyone who abandons what is for what should be pursues his downfall rather than his preservation; for a man who strives after goodness in all his acts is sure to come to ruin, since there are so many men who are not good. Hence it is necessary that a prince who is interesting in his survival learn to be other than good, making use of this capacity or refraining from it according to need."
I think this is a very telling statement, for it evinces a belief in the conventional view of morality (i.e. that it is impracticable and that were anyone to consistently lead a righteous life, they would ensure their own demise). Furthermore, it demonstrates that even the greatest of minds are not immune to this pernicious view of morality.
-
David Mccullough's books are recommendable. He has written several biographies (most notably John Adams), as well as books on particular events (such as the American Revolution and the construction of the Panama Canal).
Also, although I am somewhat loath to do so, I would also suggest that you read A People's History Of The United States, by Howard Zinn. I am reluctant to suggest it because Howard Zinn is a Marxist, but he does do a very nice job covering the country's labor history, which is a topic in American history that is seldom discussed but is nonetheless very important.
-
I agree that it was wrong for me to make such a generalization, so I'll recant my original statement (namely, that my entire generation is "stupid"). However, it isn't as if I said what I said because one person held these (mystical) opinions. Nearly everyday I hear someone in my age group say something similar to the aforesaid comment; or--equally as bad--I see them evince incredible ignorance, apathy, and cynicism. So it can at times be difficult not to generalize.
-
What generation are you talking about. My generation, let's say 25 to 30 years olds, in my experience, are smarter than any other generation before them. I would imagine with the increasing amount and quality of information at their disposal, younger generations are even smarter.
Incidentally, scientific studies of the issue confirm my observations. So, unless you wish to keep this thread a bitching fest about how stupid Marxists are, in which case I'll leave you to it, I challenge you to come up with arguments that support your condemnation of an entire generation.
The one who made that inane statement is about twenty years old.
And when I used the term "stupid," I was not referring to a lack of intelligence per se, but to an overall lack of common sense and reasonability. You can excavate all of the studies you want on intelligence, but they are ultimately meaningless. I know plenty of seemingly intelligent people who are immersed in this sort of mystical nonsense. (Although, I can't help but question the intelligence of someone who believes that drivel.)
Also, please try not to be so sensitive. I wasn't referring to you specifically.
-
The following is a quote from a Marxist (or, as he prefers to be called, a "Maoist Third-Worldist") idiot with whom I am aqcuainted through Myspace:
"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us the 'Universe',
a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts
and feelings, as something separate from the rest - a kind of optical
delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for
us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few
persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this
prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures
and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this
completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part
of the liberation and a foundation for inner security"
You know, when I read Rand for the first time, I couldn't bring myself to believe that the characters which she depicted in her novels could be anything more than an example of hyperbole. There just can't be anyone in reality, I thought to myself, who is like Elseworth Toohey or his ilk. However, it seems as if everyday I encounter these imbeciles; they lurk in the message boards of various websites, waiting for the apt time to confidently announce that there is no reality and that everything is an illusion.
It is so madenning! How do people allow themselves to descend to such insanity?
-
Leave Zarathustra alone!!!
LOL
-
hmm, you know the longer I live, the more I see the effects of dysfunctional family backgrounds on people - as I saw it with me - even on mature adults.
I'm beginning to think that it's the rule, rather than the exception!
What's worse is that these adults seem to just extend their own 'bad' childhoods through to their own children. It just continues.
I think that somewhere along the line, a maturing person has to decide that "the buck stops here."
And get past it - somehow take charge of his own life. That's easy to say, but can take years of thought, introspection, and behavior-changing, to achieve.
For me, it was all about finding (re-discovering?) value in myself, and building on that. Nothing and nobody was as powerful a help than Nathaniel Branden's literature on Self Esteem.
Also, if it's any help to you, Nick, I had my own very simple little saying I kept telling myself : Psychology is what was 'done' to me; but Philosophy is what I 'do' to myself.
There were things you had no control over, at that time, but that control in choosing your personal, life long values, is in your hands now.
Thank you for the suggestions, whYNOT. I completely agree with your assessment of adults. They seem to have no trouble in shattering the lives of their children.
Salman Rushdie, one of my favorite writers, once wrote the following on this issue:
"Children are the vessel into which adults pour their poison."
-
Hello Nicholas. A few thoughts; I hope they're of some help.
There's nothing wrong with contemplating deep questions, such as the nature of existence and how we know. Quite the contrary, that's a reflection of your (and mine, and everyone else's) need of philosophy, something you seem to be quite aware of already, to your credit.
My own suggestion, if you haven't already, would be to read Miss Rand's fiction, all of them: Anthem, We the Living, The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, even her short stories. Fiction, unlike a philosophical treatise, helps to show (versus explain) the importance of philosophical ideas, their consequences in the lives of individuals. Plus, you'll find her works to be inspirational. You'll be like the young boy on the bicycle who finds Howard Roark sitting on a hillside. (You'll have to read The Foundhead to know what I'm talking about.)
After, or while, you're reading her fiction, I'd suggest reading her non-fiction works, such things as her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (How we know.) and various essays, such as "Philosophy, Who Needs It" which is available in the book of essays, Philosophy, Who Needs It. (Many of her essays, originally published for periodicals, are now available in various paperback, non-fiction, compilations. Check out the Ayn Rand Institute and the Ayn Rand Bookstore.) I'd also recommend Dr. Leonard Peikoff's book, Objectivism, the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, his systematic presentation of Miss Rand's philosophy of Objectivism.
It is not true that you are no longer capable of taking any pleasure in life, regardless of the fact that it might feel that way now. Emotions are not tools of cognition; they do reflect, however, your own thinking and conclusions. (If you hold the view that you are permanently incapable of ever attaining a life worth living, then you're going to feel that way as well, and that can become self-fulfilling.) In a sense, emotions do not reflect the facts, but what you think, or have concluded, to be the facts -- about the world and yourself, etc.
Dr. Harry Binswanger's talk on "Emotions" might be of some help in understanding emotions. So too, check out Dr. Ellen Kenner's site as well as Dr. Hurd's site. For every emotion, there's a subconscious evaluation (read what Dr. Kenner has to say re emotions and the implicit value-judgements), an evaluation that may be correct or not. Knowing what those evaluations are can help you to discover them in yourself and reflect upon the veracity of your subconsciously help, automatized, value-judgements, and change them if necessary.
Be careful what you tell yourself, what conclusions you draw with respect to yourself and the effect that your past has had upon you. Challenge them; don't let any assessment, especially significant ones, pass without critical reflection and judgement. You're young and you have your life ahead of you. Invest in your own happiness, in pursuing a life that you value. In time, the ugliness of your past will move further and further behind you, replaced with your own joy in your existence. No, such will not change the past; nothing can do that. But it will change your present and your future, and put a new perspective on the past.
I'd also suggest taking a look at the Unofficial Index of Dr. Peikoff's Podcasts. You can browse the index, or your can view it in its entirety using the "Print View" option and then use your browser's search function to look for interesting topics. Then listen to Dr. Peikoff's own comments.
Best wishes.
Thank you so much for your warm response, Trebor. I have read much of Miss Rand's works (The Fountainhead, Atlas Shrugged, For The New Intellectual, and The Virtue of Selfishness), and I have indeed found great inspiration in them. I know what you mean by the youth in The Fountainhead, by the way. When I read that part of the book, I couldn't help but think that Rand was addressing me personally. (There is a similar character character in Nietzsche's Thus Spoke Zarathustra, but I digress). Objectivism consoles me very much: it lets me know that, although I do not know the answers, I am capable of finding them out.
-
I am knew to this forum (I signed up some time last week) and have yet to formally introduce myself; so I thought that now would be the appropriate time to do so. (I am posting this introduction in the psychology section because I also intend to disclose some personal hardships with which I have been struggling.)
My name is Nicholas, but feel free to call me Nick. I am a nineteen-year-old college student--studying political science--from Miami, Florida. I am not a terribly exciting person, at least not by prevailing standards; I enjoy reading, writing, and weightlifting. I dislike clubs, parties, and ostentation. I am not anti-social, I simply prefer to socialize with those with whom I am famliar and comfortable. In other words, I am the quiet type.
For years now I have been consumed by this inexorable, unavoidable philosophical crisis (that is the only way I can possibly describe it). It would be serviceable at this point to enumerate some antecedents which I believe are of relevance. I am the child of a very dysfunctional family. There was never any physical abuse, but my mother and I were subjected to continual emotional abuse and disparagement at the hands of my mother's husband and his parents--my the people in question are indeed my father and grandparents, but I am loath to refer to them as such. Not surprisingly, the constant dysfuntion had a very harmful effect on me. Late in elementary school I began to act out (I was disobedient, inattentive, disruptive, and angry). I was subsequently expelled from school and put on a very heavy regimen of psychiatric drugs (read antidepressants). To make a long story short I remained on those pills for almost a decade. When I finally--per doctor's approval--ceased to take the medication, nothing odd seemed to occur, at least not initially. Gradually, however, I began to feel increasingly more and more angry and embittered. I realized that nothing in my life had actually changed; it was the same unsatisfactory, albeit more bearable life, as before, only now I wasn't being drugged into believing otherwise. To put it quite simply, I felt as if I had been deceived my entire life. (And I still harbor this same sentiment.)
This brings me to the aforesaid philosophical crisis. Within a few months of being free of medication I began to contemplate deep questions, such as what is the nature of reality and existence and how is it that we know. And that is essentially where I am today. The questions are more diverse, but they are ultimately reducible to those fundamental inquiries (namely, what is it, why is it, and how do I know it?).
In all aspects of my life these questions are present. Perhaps they are not in the forefront of my mind, but they are there as an undertone, spoiling each and every one of my experiences. I have alienated many people, I find it hard to connect on an emotional level, life for me holds no real enjoyment and I feel this perpetual sense of uncertainty. Uncertainty about what life is, why it is, and about how I am to live mine.
I like to think that this crisis is a result of nearly two-decades of emotional abuse and neglect. Indeed, I reminisce daily about those painful childhood days. I often suspect that I was so mishandled by my parents that I am no longer capable of taking any pleasure in life. Perhaps nearly ten years of unremitting subjection to powerful psychiatric drugs has prompted serious physical damage to my brain, and that this, coupled with the even greater emotion abuse that I endured, has quite literally made me incapable of attaining a life worth living.
In any case, I have rambled long enough. If anyone has any advice or words of inspiration, I would love for them to share. I kind of need it.
-
There are conventionally two criticisms which detractors hurl against Ayn Rand: that she misrepresented the philosphies that she was critquing, or that she simply did not even read philosophy in depth--or at all. (I have heard it said, for instance, that all of Rand's understanding of Kant was derived from tangential references made to Kant by Nietzsche.)
I have a difficult time believing these allegations. As for the first accusation, I suspect that Ayn Rand simply took each philosophy (altruism, Pragmatism, Logical Positivism, etc.) and, by explaining it in a very accessible, unpretentious manner, demonstrated how truly absurd it was/is. Thus modern philosopers abhor her: because she cut out their equivocations and convolution and accurately presented the actual philosophy, with all of its implications. And the accusation that she did not actually read philosophy seems untrue.
If anyone out there has any comments or insights, feel free to share.
-
First, I'm asking about what "know" means, not what "know" means in a specific instance. In other words, I'm trying to determine what you would say the concept "know" refers to generally. Lemme give you a hopefully more obvious example. I might ask what "human" means, and then I'd want a definition that correctly identifies humans, and not just certain humans in a particular context.
Second, notice that you start by defining "know" in terns of "being certain" but then you paraphrase that as knowing with absolute certainty. But that's redundant, if "know" means "be certain" (and "absolute certainty" would be redundant -- being "certain" is sufficient).
It is a mistake, IMO, to frame the question in subjective terms, specifically in terms of the subject's emotional state (this is what I take away from the expression "I am certain"). Instead, you should frame the question in objective terms, that something is certain. Specifically, what is certain is a particular proposition or conclusion. You, then, must judge the conclusion. The conclusion describes a state of affairs, for example "This is a cat", and either that conclusion correctly describes a fact of reality (is true) or does not (is false). This is the basic correspondence theory of truth -- "To say of what is that it is not, or of what is not that it is, is false, while to say of what is that it is, and of what is not that it is not, is true".
Now maybe we can return to your concern, which I will paraphrase: "What method do we use to judge propositions as correctly describing reality?". The very short answer, and the subject of Chapter 5 of OPAR, is "reason". I strongly urge you to read that chapter. Probably the most important idea that you will get from there is the impotence of arbitrary claims in epistemology, specifically, that a claim lacking evidence simply cannot be considered, and that even addressing the BIV claim is an affront to the concept "knowledge".
Huemer's book Skepticism and the Veil of Perception is aimed at dismantling skepticism, and he does address many of the common skeptic absurdities including BIV, in a generally comprehensible manner.
Thank you so much for assisting me with my thinking. I should be ashamed that my thoughts are so muddled and my statements so ambiguous!
I will definitely read the books that you so kindly recommended.
-
No criticism intended, but your initial questions point towards a different conclusion, namely that you're asking a question about the ontology of "seeing", i.e. is seeing in the brain (as opposed to in the toe, or on Mars or in the air). But this clarification tells me that you're really asking a more basic question, the classic BIV (brain-in-vat) question.
I think the best way to start answering the question "how do we know with certainty that what we see does exist?" is to answer the question "what does it mean to 'know' something?". What do you think it means to "know" something?
Yes, I asked my original sight question in order to help me out with the BIV conundrum.
To "know" in this instance means to be certain of something (in this case, how do I know with absolute certainty that the things I am experiencing are actually "there").
Rationally I know that the whole BIV scenario is absurd. There is just this inexorable, pointless skepticism which haunts me, questioning the most obvious aspects of my knowledge.
-
I personally know people who both hear voices and/or see objects that other people don't, and regularly see a psychiatrist for medication. I was serious, not trying to be rude. Sometimes a question is a question, it is not a means to "intimate".
Schizophrenia and manic depression can cause these symptoms.
Well, no, I am neither Schizophrenic nor bipolar. My question was more of an attempt to ascertain how we know certainly that things actually exist independent of our perceptions. It might seem laughable and unreasonable, but I wanted to discuss it. Perhaps I am overly skeptical on a subconscious level, or something.
Immanuel Kant
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted · Edited by Nicko0301
I don't see the distinction. Kant is still attacking the notion of self-interest, which is congruous to the position Objectivists hold toward him. He is saying, in essence, "It's alright if one fortuitously accrues some benefit, but personal gain shouldn't be what induces one to action."
I still think that is pretty despicable.