how is reality absolute?

[Marc K.]

Nope. Where have I said in that there is no absolute?

Here:

there is no absolute knowledge.

and here:

In fact there's nothing inherently absolute -- by any definition of the term -- re reality at all.

I was trying to clarify what it means to say that reality is absolute from an Objectivist POV.

It means that reality exists and it is all that exists. It may be redundant in the same way that "individual rights" is redundant, but it is essential in a day and age when it is often asserted that unreality and the supernatural exist.

IMO it's an incoherent idea.

If you aren't going to acknowledge when your statements are self-contradictory, then your opinion isn't going to count for much.

[gags]

This topic is a dead dog. I wasn't arguing anything particularly, I was trying to clarify what it means to say that reality is absolute from an Objectivist POV. What I got as clarification was it meant other Objectivist concepts -- primacy of existence, independence of consciousness, etc. IMO it's an incoherent idea.

This topic was dead right from the beginning because you have refused to define your terms after being asked several times.

[trivas7]

It means that reality exists and it is all that exists. It may be redundant in the same way that "individual rights" is redundant, but it is essential in a day and age when it is often asserted that unreality and the supernatural exist.

Has it occurred to you that something other than objective reality could possibly be absolute? What precludes this other than the dogmatic belief that nothing but objective reality exists?

You happily conflate objective reality and the idea of the absolute just like Miss Rand does; I'm suggesting you do so unwarrantedly, without justification,

Edited May 8, 2008 by trivas7

[Chops]

Has it occurred to you that something other than objective reality could possibly be absolute? What precludes this other than the dogmatic belief that nothing but objective reality exists?

What exists that is not part of reality?

[EC]

Has it occurred to you that something other than objective reality could possibly be absolute? What precludes this other than the dogmatic belief that nothing but objective reality exists?

No. There is nothing else. Existence is all there is. Are you trying to posit that the supernatural or alternative "realities" exist? If so, provide proof, or rational people will simply dismiss it for what it is-- the arbitrary.

[RationalBiker]

What precludes this other than the dogmatic belief that nothing but objective reality exists?

Rational thinking precludes this. This thread will be closed in short order if you don't posit some coherent representation of your argument with some evidence.

[cmdownes]

How is the idea of being absolute congruent with the notion of objective reality? In what context is this the case?

I think this is really the root of the misunderstanding here. When Ayn Rand talks about absolutes, she just means objective truths. That's it. It's no more complicated than that. She's not appealing to a notion of absolute truth that has anything in common with a Platonic or Kantian notion of inaccessible ultimate truths (things in themselves or what have you). Nor is this anything to do with a Hegelian notion of the absolute as the ground of being. Absolutes are just objective truths.

Rand isn't even making a substantive claim by using the word "absolute" in this way, let alone conflating anything at all. She just doesn't have a notion of the absolute in the way you seem to be trying to employ it.

[Plasmatic]

What Miss Rand is really saying is: "Objective reality exists, and only objective reality exists -- because I say so.

No , what Rand is saying is if reality wasn't objective and absolute one couldn't "say" anything meaningful at all. Which is why the idea that there are no absolutes is self refuting and inconsistent.

I was trying to clarify what it means to say that reality is absolute from an Objectivist POV. What I got as clarification was it meant other Objectivist concepts -- primacy of existence, independence of consciousness, etc.

The reason for this is because knowledge is hierarchical and contextual. In the chain of concept formation the starting point is absolute objective existence. To say that things are what they are and are not what they are not is to affirm that the metaphysically given is absolute,that reality [being all that exist or is real], is the origination point of of your conceptual content. Therefore To claim that reality is absolute is simultaneously to claim the law of identity and that existence has primacy. it is all connected in the hierarchical chain from existence. That reality is absolute has nothing to do with the fact that things change . Your confusion is a result of misunderstanding time. Time is the observation of relative change between objective existents. This does not mean that because I grow old my identity is not absolute. My identity in the "context" of rational animal

does not change. That's the point . Things are what they are and they are defined by their essential characteristics which is always in a specific context.. This is a consequence of the absolute nature of reality. Things change as a consequence of being related to one another absolutley as existents with identity acting according to their nature .

[Maggie]

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 of the fact that our senses aren't perfect, that they can be tricked or incorrect? I understand that our senses are the only way we accumulate information from the world, and if they are faulty, or at the very best slightly imperfect (which is true), the implications have a strong effect on the fundamental way in which we view reality. But the fact is, we cannot step outside of ourselves and know, with perfect certainty, what objective reality is. We are inherently subjective beings. But this can go either way...We can either assume that the universe exists exactly as we percieve it, autonomous from our existence, or we can infer that it is somehow different. Neither of these assumptions is necessarily incorrect...there's just no way to know..and this kind of unavoidable perceptual agnosticism is problem at the core of rand's philosophy.

[DavidOdden]

What of the fact that our senses aren't perfect, that they can be tricked or incorrect?

What does that mean? Are you saying that our sense organs don't do what they do?

[softwareNerd]

What of the fact that our senses aren't perfect, that they can be tricked or incorrect?

They can be tricked? How do you know that for a fact?

[gags]

What of the fact that our senses aren't perfect, that they can be tricked or incorrect? I understand that our senses are the only way we accumulate information from the world, and if they are faulty, or at the very best slightly imperfect (which is true), the implications have a strong effect on the fundamental way in which we view reality.

I'm very curious about this statement. Can you give me some examples of how our sense can be tricked, how they are incorrect, and how they are imperfect?

[Adjutor]

Nope. Where have I said in that there is no absolute?

This topic is a dead dog. I wasn't arguing anything particularly, I was trying to clarify what it means to say that reality is absolute from an Objectivist POV. What I got as clarification was it meant other Objectivist concepts -- primacy of existence, independence of consciousness, etc. IMO it's an incoherent idea.

Okay, I don't claim to be a Rand expert, or particularly well-read on philosophy, but it is painfully obvious that understanding what she meant by absolute in the context of those axioms is not a difficult task. This leads me to believe one of two things. Either you are incredibly stupid, or you are a troll. In either case, you really should just go away. Stupid people can't change the absolute reality of their condition, and trolls aren't welcome.

[KendallJ]

Okay, I don't claim to be a Rand expert, or particularly well-read on philosophy, but it is painfully obvious that understanding what she meant by absolute in the context of those axioms is not a difficult task. This leads me to believe one of two things. Either you are incredibly stupid, or you are a troll. In either case, you really should just go away. Stupid people can't change the absolute reality of their condition, and trolls aren't welcome.

um, dude. That post is like 6 months old.

And its author hasn't been seen on the board in about 2 months.

Edited September 19, 2008 by KendallJ

[trivas7]

Okay, I don't claim to be a Rand expert, or particularly well-read on philosophy, but it is painfully obvious that understanding what she meant by absolute in the context of those axioms is not a difficult task. This leads me to believe one of two things. Either you are incredibly stupid, or you are a troll. In either case, you really should just go away. Stupid people can't change the absolute reality of their condition, and trolls aren't welcome.

I've since become aware that the entire premise of my question hinged on an intrinsic understanding of knowledge and a mystical understanding of the meaning absolute; entirely based on the denial of reality and the law of identity. Purely irrational on my part, I'm afraid. Your rejection of my stupidity is entirely justified.

[Zavier]

To avoid starting a redundant thread, I'll just necropost this here:

What is the standard best argument against those who say we cannot know anything for sure? I have a friend that has a philosophy degree, and is quite the fan of Kant. He's subsequently very socialist. We have some pretty interresting (heated) conversations over cards. (I'll briefly mention how infuriating it is to argue against someone who has a degree, and views you as some lost fawn who will eventually come to the same conclusions that he has, and thinks your opposing arguments are cute, but mostly to be ignored.)

It seems that the root of Kantian philosophy is that facts aren't facts because there is no way to be sure that the information we receive is accurate. When he says "How can you be positive that you are not dreaming right now?" and I reply that if I were dreaming, then I would be able to change what I perceive as reality merely by thinking about it or willing it so and I cannot. He just responds "but can you really, really be sure?" Is he just being obtuse or is there a better way of stating this in epistemological terms? Repeating the axioms don't help. He's just not a primacy of existence kind of guy.

Sorry to present this as a personal battle, but I'm sure this gets played out elsewhere.

[Greebo]

Is he just being obtuse or is there a better way of stating this in epistemological terms? Repeating the axioms don't help. He's just not a primacy of existence kind of guy.

Sorry to present this as a personal battle, but I'm sure this gets played out elsewhere.

Next time you're playing cards, lay down a hand of crap and insist that you have 4 of a kind, kings. If he disagrees, tell him that you see 4 kings in front of you. If he says, 'No, it's just crap', ask him, "how can you be sure?"

[Clawg]

What is the standard best argument against those who say we cannot know anything for sure?

"We cannot know anything for sure." is the equivalent to "I know something about reality: I know nothing about reality."

It's a contradiction because A = A.

He cannot refute that without using logic, i.e. assuming that A = A.

Edited November 12, 2008 by Clawg