Jacob86

umm.. agreed. I love how I explicitly and repeatedly state that I am DEFENDING the LNC and then get accused of denying it. LOL! I deny your ground for the LNC for the same reasons that we would both deny the Altruist's grounds for Capitalism. In doing so, we are not fighting against Capitalism, but for it. Objectivist Epistemology is to the LNC what Altruism is to Capitalism.

I agree with the purpose of what he is saying: The lack of omniscience is not equal to the lack of knowledge, per se. In other words, one need not know everything in order to know some things- and even the fact that we may be wrong on some things does not negate those things which we are right about. I am a VERY strong supporter of this view toward knowledge. However, if there is to be any order in the "Epistemological Universe", we must make clear distinctions between "what we know to be true with certainty" and "what we think to be true by conjecture". We must have strict and clear criteria for distinguishing "certain fact" from "conjecture" and even "probability". According to the Prime Objectivist Criteria (Perception), the idea that logic (or anything else) is universal is merely a high probability at best, and simple conjecture at worst. The fact that you observe no contradictions now and then conclude that contradictions are impossible (on that basis alone) is no less arbitrary than a child observing that when he cries he gets milk and then concluding that it will always be so.

Wouldn't it be "arbitrary" to speculate ANYTHING about the unperceived?? Including the idea that "contradictions don't exist"? What ground do you have for this speculation? And on what ground do you hold such a speculation to be so certain as to make it an axiom in your philosophy?

So, you are aware of your own subjective experience of applying those concepts- but what objective ground do you have to believe that you are applying accurately? The way you have left it turns the whole thing into a subjective experience.

But Man is Metaphysically rational. Metaphysically, every man is rational. And, a man could be a man without opposable thumbs, or hair, or teeth, etc... But an animal which has no capacity for rationality would not be considered a man (according to that definition).

I've read all the above. This may be the process by which everyone DISCOVERS logic, but it cannot be the way that logic is VALIDATED for the reasons that I have repeatedly listed. By perception, you may know that logic is true concerning that which you have perceived, but there is no way to know that the idea of logic applying to the unperceived is valid. The validity of the universal application of logic cannot be established by perception- unless one is omniscient and has the entire universe available to his perception all at once.

I'm saying it's valid because it can't not be valid. If it is impossible for something to be false, then it is necessary that that thing be true. Or, another way to put it: If there is a necessary requirement for anything to be true, then that requirement is necessarily true. I'm really just saying, in my own words, what Objectivists say about Axiomatic truths. Do you contest such axiomatic reasoning? If so, why? I'm not sure what you mean here... could you elaborate? I can assure you that I very much do not find pleasure in argument for argument's sake, and I certainly do not think that I am confused. If you think I am confused, teach me. If you are not sure what the discussion is about, perhaps you are confused and you can go back to the original post and then ask clarifying questions for further assistance.

I agree with all of that. But I am saying that one cannot know that this is true by perception alone. "A concept is like an arithmetical sequence of specifically defined units, going off in both directions, open at both ends and including all units of that particular kind." How do you know that this is true? How does one know that a "[concept] is open at both ends and refers to all units of that particular kind"? Was this piece of knowledge perceived somewhere? And if not, how can it be considered valid knowledge according to the Objectivist doctrine?

When you say "use" you are referring to the SUBJECT, consciously thinking about "the laws of logic" explicitly. When I say "use" I am talking about the OBJECTIVE validity of the laws- whether the Subject is explicitly thinking about it or not. Again, I am NOT talking about how we, as subjects, come across ideas. I am talking about how an idea, as an object, can be considered to be valid or not-- particularly the idea that "contradictions do not exist". Oists keep stressing that "we begin with perception as infants and build from there". But this is a chronological beginning- not necessarily a logical/systematic beginning, which is what I am after.

Conceptual differentiation & integration is what I meant as the things that logic is required for. Rand even hints at this in the opening of ITOE by discussing the implicit use of Identification of attributes in the process of abstraction. Of course, in animals, there is a sort of "sensational" differentiation, but that's not what I was referring to. In order to abstract a quality, one must first identify it (implicitly) and in order to identify it, one must implicitly apply the laws of logic to it: It is A. It is not B. It is not A and B. The only reason I brang it up was in response to someone else asking "what else (in addition to differentiation & integration) I considered to be required for knowledge. This is the part that I am taking issue with though. If I only use perception, I cannot know anything about that which I have not perceived. I'm just trying to be consistent here. If I can only have knowledge which has come from what I have perceived, then I cannot know that "contradictions do not exist" concerning that which I have not perceived. I'm not saying that logic isn't "testified to" or "evidenced in" perception-- it certainly is. But, perception alone is not sufficient to establish a universally true idea- like logic.

The very thing that makes differentiation and integration possible: logic. Not only is it necessary in the formation of knowledge, but in order to KNOW that it is valid (i.e. why should we use it in forming knowledge?) one cannot use perception to justify its universal validity. One must simply use its axiomatic nature/ logical necessity/ inescapability. And if one can (and must) use logical necessity in order to know that logic is valid, then logical necessity is one other way (in addition to perception) to gain knowledge.

Exactly. I agree with all of that. However, there are two things I would add. 1) one bit of knowledge you have is that those functions are accurate- or at least that there is an accurate way to use those functions. They are not just arbitrary or automatic. I am after how you KNOW (or rather, WHY you know) that those functions are objectively accurate. 2) If those functions are necessary in order to form any bit of knowledge, then they are also a source of knowledge in addition to perception. BTW, I would say that "those functions" are simply functions of logic. So, 1) Why do you know that the use of logic is objectively warranted? This cannot be answered by perception because the use of logic assumes universal applicability (meaning that it applies to the unperceived). and 2) If the use of logic is necessary in order to form any bit of knowledge, then it is also a source of knowledge along with perception.

I read you'r later post with the other quotes, but I still don't understand what (or perhaps why) you are asking here... I was quoting 2046 from the post right above mine who said "You don't reach the laws of logic by perception alone. I don't know where you're getting this stuff from"

I agree. What I am saying is that you can't know ANY of that by perception alone. Perception alone would give you nothing but percepts- which would be nothing but subjective experiences unique to you as the subject... from which you would never be able to rise above in order to "objectify" and see that the object of your perception is identical to the object of another's perception. Everything would simply be phenomena on your perceptual field.

And does a volitional consciousness apply ANYTHING other than perception in order to validate the laws of logic?

Umm, re-read what I said. "If Oism teaches that 'you don't reach the laws of logic by perception alone' then 'perception alone' is not the only source of knowledge. One or the other" This isn't about my premise. This is about A or ~A. Either "you don't reach the laws of logic by perception alone" (A) Or "perception is the only source of knowledge" (~A) Both are statements from Objectivists on this forum (NOT "my premise"). Both cannot be true. Pick one.

I don't have time at the moment to read that section but I will later today. I very much DO want to understand. I am mostly taking issue with the idea that "Perception is the only source/ground of knowledge" If Oism teaches that "you don't reach the laws of logic by perception alone" then "perception alone" is not the only source of knowledge. One or the other.

Agreed. IF logic can be an objective ground for ANY bit of knowledge, then perception is not the SOLE ground for all knowledge. Perhaps you will emphasize that logic must be "applied to concepts *based* upon perception". But this leaves the question "how does one know that logic is even valid?" One cannot use perception to know that logic is valid concerning the unperceived. The only possible objective ground for the validity of logic is logical necessity (the fact that it cannot be gotten around). Because it is. I cannot perceive your perception and you cannot perceive my perception. No. Not logic alone. I am not saying "I'm for logic and against perception". I'm simply saying that you must have both as grounds for knowledge. Logic, by itself, can give you *some* (not all) objective knowledge. And Logic coupled with perception also gives you objective knowledge. But perception without logic gives you nothing but percepts. You are confusing the difference between Epistemology (objective grounds & truth criteria) and Cognitive Development (How I subjectively discovered this piece of information). In respect to Cognitive Development, I agree that chronologically I came to "A is A" after a LOT of perception. In respect to Epistemology, perception is not and cannot be an objective ground for the validity of "A is A". If you still want to insist that the validity of logic is objectively based in perception, then please explain how, by perception alone, you know that logic applies to that which has not been perceived. If you cannot (and you can't), then perception is not the objective ground for logic. You're right. We discussed it in a different thread in the middle of a completely different topic and it didn't seem to get a full treatment, so I wanted to start a thread for this specific issue.

Yes. I have read ITOE. Yes, I know what it says about concept formation. And, Yes, I agree with what it says... about concept formation. But I do not agree with what it says about epistemology. It's a GREAT book on concept formation (how we happen to develop concepts from infancy, on). It's not so great of a book on epistemology (the study of proper truth criteria). Objectivism mixes the two so that there is no distinction between "how I come to discover truth" (SUBJECTIVE) and "how I test my ideas in order to make sure they are true" (OBJECTIVE). It basically says "because we start subjectively with perception in truth discovery, therefore perception is THE sole foundation to objective truth criteria". There are (at LEAST) two problems with this though: 1) Perception alone does not give you any knowledge. Perception must be used in sync with logic (IDENTIFICATION-- re-read p.6 middle paragraph) in order to form concepts and thus knowledge. 2) Perception alone cannot be an objective ground for logic because logic applies to all which has not been perceived.

I agree. But I am arguing that this process involves something (logic) in addition to perception such that this thing (logic) is ALSO a source of knowledge in addition to perception. Perception+ Nothing = Perception (Percepts) Perception+Logic= Concepts Logic+Nothing= Logic (A is A) It seems as though the Oist position is as follows: Perception + Nothing = Concepts... which is to say that Perception=Concepts.

I completely agree. But it has yet to be demonstrated that any of the above is possible by perception alone. For instance, where did you perceive the following? "If the underlying similarity doesn't exist the concept you might have used simply does not apply." I agree that this is true. But, not because I've perceived it. It doesn't seem like the type of thing that one CAN perceive-- and if you have perceived it, please point my perception in that direction. If you didn't perceive it, how do you know it? Might it be because it is simply logically necessary?

How does it give you knowledge that there are other X's? And how do you know that the other X's will have the same similarities as those you have perceived?

Eh, disregard that aspect of the post then. I'd rather not muddle the conversation by beginning to debate "who claimed what and how" ,etc.. It probably would have been better for me to leave that part out in order to avoid that.

I'm sorry, this was very confusing to try and read. I understand that you are speaking generally when you say "I" or "you" so feel free to just do that or the other. From what I can understand of this, it seems that it still doesn't give us a ground for knowing anything about the unperceived.

What's the difference? And how does this change the issue? If your only *source* of knowledge is perception, then you can only know that which has been perceived.