trivas7 Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 In a world where everything changes and living organisms evolve subject to speciation what/where is the firm, absolute reality Miss Rand refers to? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 Things exist, they have certain properties and not others at any particular moment, they act in certain ways and not others at any particular moment. That they change is but proof that reality is absolute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greebo Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 In precise philosophical terms, the first two Axioms followed by objectivists cover this: 1) The Axiom of Existence 2) The Axiom of Identity. y_feldblum summed it up - but in specific terms: #1) Existence is - if there is no existence, we aren't here, so wtf are we doing talking about existence? #2) A thing that exists exists as itself. A rock is a rock, not a tree. A river is not a solar system. Objects have intrinsic properties to which they must adhere. Otherwise, you could not walk down the sidewalk for fear that the sidewalk would turn into a hungry lion. Rand distinctly dislikes any philosophical premise that disagrees with #1 and #2, and quite practically so. If #1 and #2 were not true, then the only way you could deal with reality would be by curling up under a blanket in the corner of your room for the rest of your life, with your fingers in your ears screaming LA LA LA LA LA to block out the insanity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
softwareNerd Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 In a world where everything changes and living organisms evolve subject to speciation what/where is the firm, absolute reality Miss Rand refers to?What do you mean by "change"? and why do you see this as contradictory to identity? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 2, 2008 Report Share Posted May 2, 2008 In a world where everything changes and living organisms evolve subject to speciation what/where is the firm, absolute reality Miss Rand refers to?The world where everything changes and living organisms evolve subject to speciation, the wind blows and the rain falls. Firm, absolute does not mean immutable, static. It's gonna rain, so you absolutely better learn to deal with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lex_aver Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 In precise philosophical terms, the first two Axioms followed by objectivists cover this: What do you mean, followed? In a world where everything changes and living organisms evolve subject to speciation what/where is the firm, absolute reality Miss Rand refers to? Yes, things change, but not randomly or unpredictably. Anything that is has particular properties that make it distinguishable from anything else. Moreover, when something changes, these changes are constrained by its potential - what it can become. You don't observe chaos of unclear, constantly and randomly changing flux, do you? On the contrary, you observe the Universe comprised of things that can be studied, along with the laws that drive any changes in them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 What do you mean by "change"? and why do you see this as contradictory to identity? I'm suggesting that Miss Rand conflates the idea of the absolute with objective reality illicitly. Perhaps she meant that objective reality is necessary, or the metaphysically given, but do those metaphysical properties of reality equate to absolute? I'm suggesting that Miss Rand began with her conclusions and tried to argue back to true premises when she cut off any access to an absolute separate from empirical reality. How is the idea of being absolute congruent with the notion of objective reality? In what context is this the case? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 In precise philosophical terms, the first two Axioms followed by objectivists cover this: 1) The Axiom of Existence 2) The Axiom of Identity. But I can subscribe to these axioms without imputing the characteristic of being absolute to things or objective reality as a whole; in fact I don't know what it means to do so. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 But I can subscribe to these axioms without imputing the characteristic of being absolute to things or objective reality as a whole; in fact I don't know what it means to do so. No actually you can't, because A is A. It means things exist, you exist, and you know it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 No actually you can't, because A is A. It means things exist, you exist, and you know it. Nonsense: there exists something, I don't know what it is. Things are designated conventionally, identity is nominally real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 Nonsense: there exists something, I don't know what it is. Things are designated conventionally, identity is nominally real. Why don't you know what it is? Do you not trust your senses or your ability to reason from the data accumulated by them? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 The world where everything changes and living organisms evolve subject to speciation, the wind blows and the rain falls. Firm, absolute does not mean immutable, static. It's gonna rain, so you absolutely better learn to deal with it. By absolute I take to mean perdurable through time. Perhaps Miss Rand is referring to the universe as a whole ala Spinoza. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 Which of your observations of reality, specifically, lead you to the conclusion that your observations are of unreality? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 Why don't you know what it is? Do you not trust your senses or your ability to reason from the data accumulated by them? What re the axioms of existence and identity imply that objective reality is absolute? What does this even mean? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 (edited) What do you mean, followed? Yes, things change, but not randomly or unpredictably. Anything that is has particular properties that make it distinguishable from anything else. Moreover, when something changes, these changes are constrained by its potential - what it can become. You don't observe chaos of unclear, constantly and randomly changing flux, do you? On the contrary, you observe the Universe comprised of things that can be studied, along with the laws that drive any changes in them. How is change congruent with being absolute (which I take to mean perdurable through time)? How is an ever changing absolute world anything but an incoherent idea? Edited May 3, 2008 by trivas7 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 By absolute I take to mean perdurable through time. Perhaps Miss Rand is referring to the universe as a whole ala Spinoza.I suggest that you start over, find a passage from the writings of Ayn Rand, and ask about that. I don't know how to address the general level of misunderstanding and confusion that you have regarding what Rand actually said. I recommend that you not try to "interpret" her writings, and instead you try to read and understand them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 Things exist, they have certain properties and not others at any particular moment, they act in certain ways and not others at any particular moment. That they change is but proof that reality is absolute. What do you mean by absolute in this context? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 I suggest that you start over, find a passage from the writings of Ayn Rand, and ask about that. I don't know how to address the general level of misunderstanding and confusion that you have regarding what Rand actually said. I recommend that you not try to "interpret" her writings, and instead you try to read and understand them. from Galt's speech: "Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute; a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or diie is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute." What does Miss Rand mean by absolute here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
y_feldblum Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 What do you mean by absolute in this context? Existing and having identity independently of anyone's wishes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 from Galt's speech: "Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute; a speck of dust is an absolute and so is a human life. Whether you live or diie is an absolute. Whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute. Whether you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looter's stomach, is an absolute." What does Miss Rand mean by absolute here? It means it--whatever it is-- exists regardless of anyones knowledge or opinion of it. It means a thing is what it is, regardless of anyone's knowledge of that fact or not. It means A is A. It means things can't magically transform into other things without a rational causal relationship. I could restate the same thing a million different ways and it would still answer your question--which, by the way, is an example of an absolute principle-- so I don't don't understand why you can't grasp this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 It means it--whatever it is-- exists regardless of anyones knowledge or opinion of it. It means a thing is what it is, regardless of anyone's knowledge of that fact or not. It means A is A. It means things can't magically transform into other things without a rational causal relationship. I could restate the same thing a million different ways and it would still answer your question--which, by the way, is an example of an absolute principle-- so I don't don't understand why you can't grasp this. This won't do, 'absolute' doesn't mean the primacy of existence nor the law of identity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
EC Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 This won't do, 'absolute' doesn't mean the primacy of existence nor the law of identity. No it means unchanging within a given context. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DavidOdden Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 What does Miss Rand mean by absolute here?In that passage, Rand (Galt) is addressing moral relativism and the refusal of men to use their minds to judge. She reminds the reader that willfully ignoring reality and denying knowledge does not change the fact that one side is right and one is wrong, and that the greater evil is the denying of reality -- compromise, the embracing of contradiction. Facts are not contingent on interpretation and evaluation; whether you have a piece of bread or not, is an absolute, a fact of reality that doesn't depend on point of view. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Koustubh Posted May 3, 2008 Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 This won't do, 'absolute' doesn't mean the primacy of existence nor the law of identity. Look at the quotes in the Ayn Rand Lexicon on Absolutes here. My understanding is that the concept "absolute" represents the primacy of existence and its consequences, such as the possibility and method of achieving certainty. It has nothing to do with change over time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trivas7 Posted May 3, 2008 Author Report Share Posted May 3, 2008 No it means unchanging within a given context. Now we're getting somewhere. Within what context specifically is it legitimate to speak of unchanging objects? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.