Jacob86

Come on! I've been waiting to hear your response on the issue and that's all you have to say!? (Tongue in cheek) Aren't you going to refute them or correct them? What do you think it is that makes them doubt any of the three...in any context?

That is more a sort of statement of the Law of Identity. But the three laws are all corralaries (sp?) of each other. Identity: A is A Non-Cont: A is not non A Excl. Midd: Either A or non A

I agree that there are certain contexts in which it cannot be "used" in a pragmatic sense- ie. in contexts where there is not a necessary "either/or" dichotomy. However, are you saying that it is therefore useless except for in fanciful philosophical games?? This is the impression I get. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

These issues are very fundamental ones to Epistemology. The three basic laws of Logic (Identity, Non-Contradiction, and Excluded Middle) are massively important to any discussion on Epistemology. Therefore, I'd like to get a good idea as to where the participants in the conversation stand on them- so as to have a more productive conversation. I don't mean this in a condescending manner at all- but I HIGHLY suggest reading up on them. It's not very complicated, shouldn't take too much time, and it's extremely beneficial to one's worldview.

I'm sorry, I should have asked this in my individual replies to each... Could you give one or two brief examples of what you mean by "Rationalsim" and/ "deducing theorems to your heart's content"?

So, would you agree with Jethro that the LEM is not necessarily valid? If so, I'm assuming then, that you disagree with Plasmatic's response to my same question?? (Just trying to get a good idea of where everyone stands...I don't want to assume one person's position for another's)

Why is that?

So, does everyone else agree with Jethro that the LEM is not valid???? Just curious.

To be perfectly honest, I never was aware of the fact that "reductio ad absurdum" was a form of argument- let alone the form of the one I was applying. (That is until I just looked it up in response to this). Thanks.

Real quickly; could you tell me whether or not you would accept the argument given concerning absolute truth? So I can know where you stand? Thanks. Well- whatever the probability is of random molecules bumping into each other in such a way as to cause a chemical reaction in our brains which would produce an idea which happened to correspond accurately to reality. I haven't attempted to run the figures, but I assume it's rather low. Regardless, even if it happened to be HIGH probability, it is only probability and chance; and therefore any degree of certainty would be impossible in such a world. Therefore all propositions would be suspect- including the proposition that nothing but physical matter exists. I still don't know what you mean by "concrete examples". If you mean referents to reality they are A ) The idea that only physical matter exists and B ) The fact that we have the ability to reason. The form of the argument is basically as follows: "If A is true, B cannot be true. B is true. Therefore A cannot be true." It's not rocket science.

The allegory assumed that such a trip was impossible. It did not assume that the boy was certain of his idea or that he had any special revelation- only that he was considering/questioning the possibility. However, as all allegories, it is incomplete and insufficient, so I'd rather move on. I believe I've made my intended point with it. Hm. I disagree, but I will suspend a full response until I see Plasmatic's (or others') responses to this (unless of course it takes too long for them to respond..) haha.

Agreed. ..And love the quote. By prevention I mean "disallowing it to stand in a discussion". What I'm getting at here is that they defined "absurdity" in such a way as to make it "absured" to question the definition of "absurdity". "Absurdity is the idea of anything outside of our experience- therefore to question whether or not there is anything outside of our experience is absurd and furthermore it is absurd to suggest that a different standard of absurdity be used because in order to do so, one must commit the absurd act of postulating something outside of our experience"

Please see my elaboration on the allegory in the above reply to Plasmatic. The allegory is not being used to PROVE the existence of Supernature (let alone a "fourth dimension")...as the allegory does not assume either party to be necessarily right or wrong (as I intended it). The point of the allegory was to demonstrate: 1)The intellectual right of the boy to question the assumptions of the village (even if he ended up being wrong). And 2) the circular reasoning of the village philosophers in their definition of "absurd"-- even if they ended up being right.

I mentioned it as an allegory for what seemed to be the case in this discussion so far- not as a means of condescension. (And I apologize if it came across that way). In the allegory, it is POSSIBLE that the boy is wrong. The emphasis was not on the right or wrong position of each side, but rather on whether or not the boy was being absurd in asking the questions. Another way to put it is: "Does the boy have an intellectual right to ask such questions?" OR still another observation would be that "the village philosophers were defining absurdity in such a way that prevented the ability to question their definition of absurdity..which is circular reasoning". Regardless, we can leave that behind for now because I think you hit the nail on the head when you suggested that a discussion on Epistemology is in order. Based on what you have said here, I agree that there must indeed be some extreme clarifications on epistemology and what is meant by "absurd". [As a side note, I want to express my appreciation of your willingness to evaluate the issue and attempt to identify the necessary point of disagreement (epistemology here) in order to establish common ground... rather than declaring the discussion irrational and not worth your time]. When I first began this thread, I had what I THOUGHT to be a good amount of understanding about what Objectivism teaches. As discussion has continued, it has become obvious that what I thought was meant by certain terms or concepts and what I thought was being used as fundamental assumptions in Objectivism are not the case. Let me start by asking you WHY the Objectivist (or you in particular) starts with perception? Also, in order to clarify terms, by "perception" do you mean what is commonly referred to as "empirical evidence" / "induction"? If you mean something different could you briefly elaborate on the difference? I think I have an idea as to your answer, but I do not want to assume anything so I'd like to hear your explanation. Thanks again for your civility in the discussion.

Imagine a highly intellectually advanced village which lived in the shadow of Mt. Everest. The inhabitants, though very wise philosophically, had never seen any other part of the world. They reason that "Existence exists" and that Mt. Everest and the surrounding area which they experience is the sum total of all existence and the necessary existent. Now imagine a young boy comes into the picture and suggests that there might be more to existence than they thought. At first they accuse him of denying the axiom. Eventually he helps them distinguish between existence as such and that which they hold to be existence as such (Mt. Everest). Then he posits that other parts of reality may exist, to which they swiftly reply "absurd!" based on the fact that they have no empirical evidence to suggest such a thing (they are not able to cross the mountains and have never met anyone from across the mountains). Is it really absurd? Or is it a knee-jerk reaction to protect the most precious piece of their worldview (the center) regardless of caring whether or not it is accurate. I am not necessarily accusing YOU of such a knee-jerk reaction, but I am asking you to consider that refusal to have the discussion because of seeming absurdities seems to suggest such insecurities. If it really is that obvious of an absurdity, then it should show itself to be irrational fairly quickly...so you don't have much to worry about..right?

I'm sorry. I do not at all wish to misrepresent your argument. To be clear- you are saying that "even in a reality in which only physical matter exists, people would still be able to evaluate arguments"? Is this correct? What is your reasoning for this? I have given fairly strong reason(imo) to believe that it is impossible. Do you see a hole in my argument?? Not quite. I haven't yet posited a thorough supernatural explanation for it (to be honest, I still see it as much of a mystery in some ways). I.e. I am not saying "THIS is how reasoning works supernaturally:......". I'm simply saying that in order for reason to "work" or be valid, there must be a "Supernature" or more than the physical universe- regardless of any attributes about it and how it works and interacts with physical nature, this much must be true: that it exists. Even if we know nothing else about it, by virtue of Logic, it must exist.

I'm not sure what you mean by "entirely rationalist argument" or why you think that my argument is lacking in some way. Let me put a smaller version of a similar argument forth and see if you would reject or accept it.. This is an argument against someone who believes that "there is no absolute truth" If there is no absolute truth, than no proposition about reality is true. The proposition that there is no absolute truth is a proposition about reality. Therefore, the proposition that there is no absolute truth is not true. LNC Therefore there is absolute truth. LEM (LI throughout) This does not necessarily tell us any details about what is absolutely true. But it does tell us that there is absolute truth and that any worldview which denies absolute truth is irrational and must be rejected. Do you disregard such an argument? If so why? If not, what is the difference between this argument and the one pertaining to Naturalism?

Perhaps then, we have some deeper epistemological differences to work through as well.. And I appreciate the patience..and honesty. No, you are assuming your definition of those words. If by "natural" I mean "all that exists", then the idea of "Supernature" is illogical and self-contradictory (there cannot be anything above and beyond "all that exists"). But that is not what I mean by nature. By nature I mean "the physical universe". Therefore the idea that something exists above and beyond the physical universe is not self-contradictory. In fact, when I first read Rand's and Peikoff's objections to the Supernatural, I was thoroughly un-impressed. They assumed that other philosophers meant what they meant by the terms "universe" and "nature". They assumed that by "nature", philosophers meant "all that exists" and by "supernature", philosophers meant "all that exists beyond all existence". It's almost offensive that Rand thinks those philosophers are so stupid. And it's likewise offensive when that objection is made to me as if I have no grasp on the Law on Non-Contradiction whatsoever. No offense taken though.

And I am saying that if nothing but physical matter exists, then that process is impossible. You are saying "but it must be possible". I am saying, "exactly. Therefore, more than physical matter must exist".

I will only respond in general here to clarify the nature of the argument (further argument concerning "reasons to doubt the physical universe as the Necessary Existent will be forthcoming). I began this discussion with that "paradigm" in mind- although admittedly, I had not worked it out explicitly as I did in that post and therefore I was probably less than clear up front. However, the main angle of my argument has been to discuss the suitableness of the physical universe as that thing which "must exist" in and of itself. Obviously, I currently hold that it is not suitable and I hold that this necessitates a Being called "God" which is suitable. BUT, in an argument one cannot spell everything out at once- so rather than posit my entire view on God as a necessary Being, I have instead attempted to take the route of "Socratic" type questioning about physical nature. Along the way, there have been some very annoying "hickups". -One has been objections launched against my view of God based on straw men. When these were launched, I had to "step aside" from the main Socratic form of the argument in order to dismantle the straw men. -Another has been what I described in that post- the accusation that by questioning physical nature, I am questioning existence as such. This is usually accompanied by very sarcastic denunciations and implications that I am an idiot. -Another is the most recent one (which you referred to), where part of my idea about God (the idea that a mind could exist apart from a physical body) is said to lack any evidence and is therefore declared arbitrary and not worthy of consideration. Allow me here to point out two different ways that we could mean "arbitrary" 1) The idea lacks on evidence in the physical universe. This begs the question though. You assume upfront that "arbitrary" is synonymous with "not in physical universe" and then when asked to consider something beyond what you experience in the physical universe you reject that notion as absurd. 2)There is no reason whatsoever for the idea and the person positing the idea does not claim to have a reason. *Here when I say "You" I mean the general response from Oists on this forum. Me:"Hey guys, you should consider this idea that theres a God!" You: "why?" Me: "Because it's neato!" You: "Do you have any reason to believe in that idea?" Me: "No. But it's a really cool idea so you should consider it!" I agree. This would be arbitrary. And stupid. But that is not an accurate representation of what I am doing. Yet, I am being accused of it and that is extremely frustrating (on top of the frustration of the other two "hickups" listed above) A more accurate representation would be: Me: "I would like to talk to you about reasons to believe that there is a God" You: "Irrational!" Me: "I know a lot of similar ideas have been irrational but I would like to talk about some rational ones" You: "Prove it!" Me: "Well lets start with a premise which we both hold and go from there" You: "I'm waiting!" Me: "How about the law of Cause and Effect?" .......A plethora of misunderstandings and straw men and accusations that I'm violating the axiom of Existence......... You: "You want me to believe in a God for which there is no reason to believe. Arbitrary!" Me: "I'm not yet asking you to believe in God- I know that we haven't fully discussed reasons for believing in Him. I'm asking you to consider the validity of the other things I'm saying (which I believe will ultimately lead to proving that there is a God)" You: "I'm WAITING!" Me: "I've been trying but it seems we are talking past each other and not getting anywhere. Maybe we should define out terms a little more and get specific about what we are talking about" You: "GOD IS ARBITRARY! You're insisting that I consider something that is ARBITRARY!" The SAME discussion could be had by someone trying to convince someone else of the Laws of Logic and the same annoying responses, misunderstandings, strawmen, and demands for immediate evidence could be used to either evade the subject...or wear out the opponent. Let me add that in reference to the rest of your post: I am lead to think that I am right in saying that the Objectivist automatically assumes physical nature without scrutiny BECAUSE of the fact that the majority of Objectivists on this forum have been utterly incapable of speaking about explanations for physical nature without breaking out into hives thinking that Existence as such is being questioned. However, if you (or anyone else) is the exception to that, very well; there should be no further discomfort in regards to asking about whether or not there are explanations for physical nature. There should be no more accusations that I am attempting to "step out of existence" in this discussion about possible explanations for physical existence.

Yes, indeed we CAN. But that is because we live in the world where Naturalism is false. What I have stated in my argument is that the ability to reason demands that more than the physical universe exists. What you are saying is akin to someone saying that they don't believe in the Laws of Logic, but that they still have the ability to reason and therefore Logic is not necessary for reason. What mistake have they made? They have mistaken "belief in Logic" in the first premise with "the actuality of Logic" in the second. Or, in other words, they have mistaken the Subjective use of Logic for the Objective use of Logic. Subjectively, one must not "believe in Logic" in order to reason accurately (though it would obviously be helpful). However, Objectively, accurate reasoning is dependent upon Logic whether anyone ever realizes it or not. So it is with my argument. The ability to reason is Objectively dependent on the fact that more than the physical universe exists- whether or not any individual ever Subjectively realizes that it is so. Hahaha. But the Determinist is right. "IF everything is deterministic cause and effect at the smallest level, then everything is deterministic cause and effect at all levels". "All levels" are dependent upon the smallest level and therefore cannot be thought to gain any magical powers simply because they are at a different level. This isn't a problem for MY worldview, it's a problem for the Naturalist worldview. (Remember, I do not hold that premise). You say the Objectivist overcomes this problem by being "more empirical than that". I'd say he overcomes this problem by being less logically consistent than that- and subsequently evading the fact that part of his worldview (Naturalism) does not cohere with his "empirical" observation that he is indeed reasoning. This insistence that "somehow, free will emerges at the human level" smack awfully of mysticism. The Determinist reasons (rightly) that: if Naturalism, No reason. But then ignores or evades the empirical experience of reasoning. The Objectivist reasons (rightly) that: If experience of reason, ability to reason. But then ignores or evades the fact that their worldview (Naturalism) contradicts this experience. My worldview holds "Supernaturalism" (the idea that more than the physical universe exists) and therefore has no such need to pit reason against experience on this issue.

Yes, indeed we CAN. But that is because we live in the world where Naturalism is false. What I have stated in my argument is that the ability to reason demands that more than the physical universe exists. What you are saying is akin to someone saying that they don't believe in the Laws of Logic, but that they still have the ability to reason and therefore Logic is not necessary for reason. What mistake have they made? They have mistaken "belief in Logic" in the first premise with "the actuality of Logic" in the second. Or, in other words, they have mistaken the Subjective use of Logic for the Objective use of Logic. Subjectively, one must not "believe in Logic" in order to reason accurately (though it would obviously be helpful). However, Objectively, accurate reasoning is dependent upon Logic whether anyone ever realizes it or not. So it is with my argument. The ability to reason is Objectively dependent on the fact that more than the physical universe exists- whether or not any individual ever Subjectively realizes that it is so. Hahaha. But the Determinist is right. "IF everything is deterministic cause and effect at the smallest level, then everything is deterministic cause and effect at all levels". "All levels" are dependent upon the smallest level and therefore cannot be thought to gain any magical powers simply because they are at a different level. This isn't a problem for MY worldview, it's a problem for the Naturalist worldview. (Remember, I do not hold that premise). You say the Objectivist overcomes this problem by being "more empirical than that". I'd say he overcomes this problem by being less logically consistent than that- and subsequently evading the fact that part of his worldview (Naturalism) does not cohere with his "empirical" observation that he is indeed reasoning. This insistence that "somehow, free will emerges at the human level" smack awfully of mysticism. The Determinist reasons (rightly) that: if Naturalism, No reason. But then ignores or evades the empirical experience of reasoning. The Objectivist reasons (rightly) that: If experience of reason, ability to reason. But then ignores or evades the fact that their worldview (Naturalism) contradicts this experience. My worldview holds "Supernaturalism" (the idea that more than the physical universe exists) and therefore has no such need to pit reason against experience on this issue.

I have not set up a dichotomy- I don't know what you're talking about. I have made a distinction between reality as it is apart from my mind AND reality as my mind comprehends it. In other words, I have made a distinction between the Objective and the Subjective- which seems like a rather healthy and yet ironically unpopular distinction amongst "OBJECTIVists".

HAHAHAHAHA! Yes! You have just proven my argument. lol. I DON'T believe that the physical universe is all that exists and therefore I am not beholden to the logical implications of that argument. Go back to the first premise which says "IF only physical matter exists...". I do not hold that premise. You and all Naturalist do- and therefore it is your worldview and the worldview of Naturalism which is falling apart. Not mine. (By "Naturalism", I mean the idea that only physical matter exists). This was an argument to show the irrationality of a worldview. The reference to a particular concrete which you demand is the fact that we can indeed reason and that therefore any premise which logically implies the inability to reason is false. Please re-read this carefully until you understand what I am saying: "Objectivists claim that the ability to reason objectively is a given – which cannot be proved or disproved and is beyond question. Agreed. But they then proceed to espouse a world-view (Naturalism) which logically Contradicts this ability (as shown above). This [the fact that Naturalism is contradictory] does not negate the ability, but it does negate those parts of the worldview which contradict the ability. I will likely be accused of making an argument for or against the ability to make an argument. This is not what I have done. I have taken a common assumption from the worldview of most Objectivists and shown that it demands the inability to make an argument- which means that it is illogical and should be discarded from a rational worldview. This “it”, this “common assumption” which must be discarded is “Naturalism”- or the idea that only physical matter actually exists. "

The quickest response is that Rand refers to the act of reasoning as a volitional one- and volition is not possible in a purely physical world because as shown above, the only forms of action or change (even in one's own brain) would be results of cause and effect- which leaves no possibility for volition. Think about the common objections "you only believe that because you're _______" ...fill in the blank. The objection is that the belief is based on mere cause and effect. If you fill the blank with "republican", the objection is that you are not considering the issue (whatever it may be) "objectively" but rather being influenced (in a cause and effect manner) because of the fact that you belong to a certain political group. Make sense?