how is reality absolute?

[EC]

Now we're getting somewhere. Within what context specifically is it legitimate to speak of unchanging objects?

Not unchanging objects, unchanging ideas. The context of this is logical evaluation of the metaphysically given.

[trivas7]

Not unchanging objects, unchanging ideas. The context of this is logical evaluation of the metaphysically given.

Now you're confusing me. Are you saying that when Miss Rand says "Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute" [from Galt's speech] she is really talking re ideas?

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.

What makes you think this? What has certainty to do re it?

[EC]

Now you're confusing me. Are you saying that when Miss Rand says "Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute" [from Galt's speech] she is really talking re ideas?

Not exactly, but they are both absolutes regardless of knowledge because existence exists. But in regards to human knowledge of such things absolutes are about ideas or conceptions of our perceptions of reality.

[softwareNerd]

Trivas, David explained the meaning of the quoted passage in his post above: reality is absolute means that you cannot wish it away by the mere wish, nor can evasion change the reality that one evades. So, any discussion on whether things can change has nothing to do with what Rand said in that quoted passage.

Edited May 3, 2008 by softwareNerd

[Greebo]

What do you mean, followed?

Rationally believed in as fundamental.

Followed does imply something else - sorry - bad choice of words.

so I don't don't understand why you can't grasp this.

Too much studying of modern "philosophers"?

[EC]

First off, none of what I say should be taken to represent Objectivism or Ayn Rand's views--they are just my own contextual understanding of such things.

But I realized that the concept "absolute" is being used in two different contexts in my previous replies. First, there is the metaphysical absolute, such as existence exists which is always true--absolutely. That it exists absolutely is a direct corollary that it exists. Change is irrelevant because change is a function time and time is simply a relationship between existents existing absolutely, i.e., as specific entities.

"Absolute" can also be used epistemologically. This is when a consciousness grasps absolute facts of reality via its senses and/or abstracts new ideas from this data. "Absolute" in this sense means knowledge that is known to be factual within the the scope of the identifying consciousness's context.

[trivas7]

Trivas, David explained the meaning of the quoted passage in his post above: reality is absolute means that you cannot wish it away by the mere wish, nor can evasion change the reality that one evades. So, any discussion on whether things can change has nothing to do with what Rand said in that quoted passage.

I'm not convinced. No dictionary definition of absolute that I'm aware denotes what Mr. Ogden wants to attribute to it: 'absolute' doesn't mean the converse of "moral relatiivsm" nor does it mean independent of consciousness.

Edited May 4, 2008 by trivas7

[y_feldblum]

Are you interested in Ayn Rand's philosophical principles or in dictionary definitions?

[DavidOdden]

I'm not convinced. No dictionary definition of absolute that I'm aware denotes what Mr. Ogden wants to attribute to it: 'absolute' doesn't mean the converse of "moral relatiivsm" nor does it mean independent of consciousness.

Your comment is completely without merit. If you dispute my synopsis of what Rand said in that part of Galt's speech, you can present your evidence that I am in error. You apparently don't have an actual question for discussion, and you're just trolling, looking for a way to impugn Rand's writing. I suggest that you get yourself a decent dictionary, learn what the word "absolute" means, and then systematically present the evidence to support your veiled accusation that Rand has misused the word "absolute". The line of questioning that you have been conducting here is incoherent.

[RationalBiker]

In a world where everything changes and living organisms evolve subject to speciation what/where is the firm, absolute reality Miss Rand refers to?

How do you know "everything changes" and that "living organisms evolve subject to speciation"?

[Koustubh]

I'm not convinced. No dictionary definition of absolute that I'm aware denotes what Mr. Ogden wants to attribute to it: 'absolute' doesn't mean the converse of "moral relatiivsm" nor does it mean independent of consciousness.

Here is the definition of absolute from the merriam-webster dictionary

...

4: having no restriction, exception, or qualification <an absolute requirement> <absolute freedom>

5: positive, unquestionable <absolute proof>

...

7: fundamental, ultimate <absolute knowledge>

...

9: being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships <an absolute term in logic> <absolute music>

Meanings 4, 5, 7 are what the concept "absolute" has to do with certainty.

Meaning 9 is what it has to do with primacy of existence

And none of the meanings (including the ones I omitted) even mention time or change.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Koustubh

[Chops]

trivas, might I recommend that since this appears merely to be a series of drive-by one-liners (which, as David Odden has observed, smell strongly of trollishness), that you instead propose this into the debate forums, set up the rules of your proposed debate, establish your claim, and go at this one-on-one with someone. Otherwise, you're going to be getting answers from 15 people for every one of your comments, and ultimately, you'll get swamped.

This will allow you to make full arguments back and forth, and perhaps go somewhere. At current, there seems to be a distinct disagreement on definitions, and without an agreement on that, no ground can be made either way.

Edited May 4, 2008 by Chops

[trivas7]

Here is the definition of absolute from the merriam-webster dictionary

...

4: having no restriction, exception, or qualification <an absolute requirement> <absolute freedom>

5: positive, unquestionable <absolute proof>

...

7: fundamental, ultimate <absolute knowledge>

...

9: being self-sufficient and free of external references or relationships <an absolute term in logic> <absolute music>

Meanings 4, 5, 7 are what the concept "absolute" has to do with certainty.

Meaning 9 is what it has to do with primacy of existence

And none of the meanings (including the ones I omitted) even mention time or change.

Mine is a very simple question: which of these definitions applies when Miss Rand characterizes reality as absolute? I dispute that meanings 4, 5, and 7 have anything to do with certainty nor that meaning 9 has anything to do with the primacy of existence, BTW. You're reading Rand into the dictionary by doing so.

I'm contending that to speak of reality as a whole as absolute is an incoherent idea at best. Hegel, e.g., did the very same thing.

[DavidOdden]

I'm contending that to speak of reality as a whole as absolute is an incoherent idea at best.

Which statement of Rand's do you find to be incoherent at best? Provide the evidence that it is incoherent.

[trivas7]

How do you know "everything changes" and that "living organisms evolve subject to speciation"?

I know that everything changes because nothing in my experience remains static, unchanging. I know that speciation takes place because science tells me so. I've read that anecdotally Miss Rand hated the idea of evolution. I would challenge you to ask yourself why.

[EC]

I've read that anecdotally Miss Rand hated the idea of evolution. I would challenge you to ask yourself why.

Where have you heard this? Cite or link to a source please.

Edited May 4, 2008 by EC

[Ifat Glassman]

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?

I read some of your posts. Consider this question:

Atoms exist possessing a certain unchangeable nature. But yet the atom is at constant movement, changes energy state, bonds with other atom etc'. The interactions change, but some properties remain, and the laws of the interactions are fixed.

Another thing to consider: If nothing was fixed, I mean nothing at all, you would not be able to think at all. Consider that every word you use is referring to something that exists (like the word "dog" or the word "change") - and since by the same word you are referring to the same thing (when you use the word today, or tomorrow, or in a year) it implies you yourself admit that there is something of certain unchangeable nature that exist. If not - what would the word be pointing at?

Good luck!

[softwareNerd]

I know that everything changes because nothing in my experience remains static, unchanging. I know that speciation takes place because science tells me so.

No, you don't know that in any absolute sense, because -- by your own admission -- you're going to change your mind about that... everything changes.. in every sense!

I've read that anecdotally Miss Rand hated the idea of evolution.

This is false. It's been discussed in another topic. Since Rand was not a biologist, she did not hold a firm opinion on the subject. In an article reprinted in "The Ayn Rand Letter", she says...

I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.

However, read the next few lines and you will see that she accepts the theory in the way that most laypeople accept it: as the thing that experts propound and that with no reason to be doubted. Further, in the same article, she makes a speculation about the "missing link" that would only make sense in the context of the theory of evolution.

In her journal, she wrote:

We may still be in evolution, as a species, ...

In another article, Rand alludes to evolution thus:

...reality has obliged him. He does not have to wait for tens of thousands of years, for evolution, for a reunion with wildness, ...

Your "ask yourself why" hints at some unstated conclusion that you have drawn. Well, now you know that conclusion is incorrect, since Rand was as pro-evolution as any other reasonably educated layperson.

Anyway, back on topic, I don't understand what point you're trying to make. Are you suggesting that Rand claimed that change did not take place? That people do not live and die? That cars do not move? That cats do not yawn? To suggest that is ridiculous. Frankly, it is ridiculous for any sane person to assert that change does not happen. Or are you suggesting that Rand used the word absolute incorrectly, or in a non-standard way, or what?

[Clawg]

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.

Surprisingly many people behave that way.

[trivas7]

I read some of your posts. Consider this question:

Atoms exist possessing a certain unchangeable nature. But yet the atom is at constant movement, changes energy state, bonds with other atom etc'. The interactions change, but some properties remain, and the laws of the interactions are fixed.

Another thing to consider: If nothing was fixed, I mean nothing at all, you would not be able to think at all. Consider that every word you use is referring to something that exists (like the word "dog" or the word "change") - and since by the same word you are referring to the same thing (when you use the word today, or tomorrow, or in a year) it implies you yourself admit that there is something of certain unchangeable nature that exist. If not - what would the word be pointing at?

Good luck!

Thank you for your on-point responsiveness. I believe that what is fixed is our concepts, not things themselves. i can't wrap my head around the idea that something with an unchanging nature is in constant movement and perpetually changing its energy state. But apparently that's not a problem for you.

What is it exactly that you think is fixed to respond to your last paragraph? I opine it is the concept, not the object that remains static. Clearly we do in fact think, so it's to rewrite reality to suggest otherwise.

[trivas7]

No, you don't know that in any absolute sense, because -- by your own admission -- you're going to change your mind about that... everything changes.. in every sense!

No, I don't know that in any absolute sense -- because all knowledge is contextual, there is no absolute knowledge. Do you never change your mind?

[EC]

Like I've said over and over again-- concepts are absolute within a certain context. If they weren't no communication would be possible because the meanings of the concepts we are using would keep randomly changing. The context we are using right now is, the English language, Objectivism, and reality.

[EC]

You know what forget words, ideas, and concept for a minute. Do you not agree that you, I, and the rest of the universe exists? If so they all exist absolutely. That doesn't mean we are going to live for ever, we are changing, we will both die. The universe exists eternally and absolutely. That doesn't mean it doesn't change forms. But it exists, absolutely, and eternally.

[trivas7]

Like I've said over and over again-- concepts are absolute within a certain context. If they weren't no communication would be possible because the meanings of the concepts we are using would keep randomly changing. The context we are using right now is, the English language, Objectivism, and reality.

Yes, I believe you. What is fixed is the concept, not the object.

You know what forget words, ideas, and concept for a minute. Do you not agree that you, I, and the rest of the universe exists? If so they all exist absolutely. That doesn't mean we are going to live for ever, we are changing, we will both die. The universe exists eternally and absolutely. That doesn't mean it doesn't change forms. But it exists, absolutely, and eternally.

So what do you mean by "exist absolutely"? What has it added to your account of reality that not saying so leaves out?

[softwareNerd]

Do you never change your mind?

Sure I do. Do you ever change the topic!