Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

johnybesmith

Regulars
  • Posts

    1
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Country
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

johnybesmith's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. An argument that is often brought up when discussing the Objectivists' axioms is that any attempt to refute them depends on their existence. But what if a man in my dreams denies that he exists, does this imaginary man then exist because his refutation requires his existence? If not, wouldn't the same apply to the "real" refutations? Also, in Galt's speech Ayn Rand says: "A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms". Why is this? The definition of consciousness, according to Ayn Rand, is: that which identifies existents. If consciousness exists, and it identifies itself, why is this a contradiction in terms? One might argue that in order for us to be able to identify ourselves, we have to undergo a series of integrations based of observation of the outside world, but is it really necessarily so? What is essentially needed is stimuli, but that doesn't necessarily have to come from "reality" as we perceive it, the "Mad Scientist Argument" (which states that the things you perceive are simply the products of electrical impulses that a scientist sends to your brain) could account for this, as well as a scenario such as the one presented in "the Matrix" (the Universe is the creation of a computer program). In OPAR, Peikoff addresses these issues claiming that they are "stolen concept" fallacies, that in order for us to arrive at the concepts of "scientist" and "computer programs", we have to undergo a series of complex integrations of sense data. But who is to say that these sense data have to come from our perceived reality, again these stimuli could be the products of electrical impulses sent by the scientist, or the computer program etc. I understand that these axiomatic concepts cannot be proven as such, since in order for us to prove them we have to step out of existence as we know it, but wouldn't it be better to then say: to the extent that we can know anything, 1) Existence exists, 2) Consciousness is conscious, 3) Identity is existence
×
×
  • Create New...