An argument against Objectivist metaphysics/epistemology.

[01503]

I was having a discussion with a friend. She made some points I knew to be wrong, but could not answer.

1. Objectivism is good in theory, but not in practice. (I pointed out that nothing can be both good in theory AND practice.)

2. How can I be so sure that existence exists? (I tried to argue that what we see is based off chemical reactions in our brain, and those reactions presuppose reactants.) She asked how I knew this to be true. She pointed out that everything was based from presupposed notions.

How can I respond to this?

[aleph_0]

Well, you must be absolutely certain that your own consciousness exists. And you do not create the events of your consciousness (You do not cause yourself to see the things you see--they appear to you; you do not cause yourself to feel the things you feel--they impose themselves upon your consciousness. To prove this point, you may stab her in the hand and ask whether she caused herself to see you with the knife, and whether she caused herself to feel pain. If she concedes that it’s true or possible, you can argue that you then are [possibly] blameless.).

So you now have at least a clear set of distinct existents. Yourself, and things which are not yourself. I'll leave it to you (or others) to prove the nature of these things.

[Editted for grammar; no substance changed.]

Edited August 9, 2008 by aleph_0

[EC]

1. Objectivism is good in theory, but not in practice. (I pointed out that nothing can be both good in theory AND practice.)

Your answer was (and is) incorrect; in reality there is no practical/theory dichotomy, i.e., for something to be good in theory it must be good (or true) in practice. If something wasn't good in practice by what rational criteria could it be considered to be good in theory?

2. How can I be so sure that existence exists? (I tried to argue that what we see is based off chemical reactions in our brain, and those reactions presuppose reactants.) She asked how I knew this to be true. She pointed out that everything was based from presupposed notions.

How can I respond to this?

By refusing to argue or debate with someone who doesn't accept the basic axiom that existence exists and that she knows it. These facts presuppose any rational discussion with regards to ANY given topic, including discussion about existence as such.

[softwareNerd]

She pointed out that everything was based from presupposed notions.

How can I respond to this?

Ask if she thinks "notions" exist. QED.

[tito]

Haha! QED! Last time I used that was when in a mathematics exam, I had no idea what to do, so I wrote a load of nonsense and appended QED to the end.

[softwareNerd]

2. How can I be so sure that existence exists?

Here's the thing though: I bet that while she isn't sure, she acts like she is. So, one polemical approach is to put her on the spot to explain why she does so.

For instance, if someone she loves fell down at home, with a stroke, would she reach for a phone and punch 911 or does she reach for a banana and punch it with her finger? Why? How can be sure that she should not be reaching for the banana? Not only is she assuming that the phone exists, but she is also assuming it has a specific nature -- some qualities that the banana does not have. If someone else reached for a banana in such a situation, would she think it was just as logical for that person to have different notions about phones and bananas?

She might ask, couldn't it all be imagined? Or, if she's modern, she might say: couldn't it all be a simulation? If these are the doubts she has, then I'd suggest she is not questioning "existence exists" as such. Even if it is all a dream or a simulation, those things would still be existents and would even imply other existents: like a dreamer or a simulator.

Edited August 9, 2008 by softwareNerd

[01503]

Here's the thing though: I bet that while she isn't sure, she acts like she is. So, one polemical approach is to put her on the spot to explain why she does so.

For instance, if someone she loves fell down at home, with a stroke, would she reach for a phone and punch 911 or does she reach for a banana and punch it with her finger? Why? How can be sure that she should not be reaching for the banana? Not only is she assuming that the phone exists, but she is also assuming it has a specific nature -- some qualities that the banana does not have. If someone else reached for a banana in such a situation, would she think it was just as logical for that person to have different notions about phones and bananas?

She might ask, couldn't it all be imagined? Or, if she's modern, she might say: couldn't it all be a simulation? If these are the doubts she has, then I'd suggest she is not questioning "existence exists" as such. Even if it is all a dream or a simulation, those things would still be existents and would even imply other existents: like a dreamer or a simulator.

I guess the question she was really asking was "how can we know anything?"

[rks]

2. How can I be so sure that existence exists?

She is not serious. A person who really believes that existence doesn't exist, wouldn't survive everyday life!

[StrictlyLogical]

Instead of trying to prove existence exists to her, perhaps you could perusade her by proving the notion that "nothing exists" canot be true, and that she cannot hold such a notion, or permit herself to think it.

By this I mean that you do not push for her to believe the positive, only hold her to the fact that she cannot believe the converse.

E.G.

Tell her the following:

Imagine holding the thought in your head: "It is possible I know nothing" This is contradicted immediately by the realization that you AT LEAST know you just had a thought that perhaps it is possible you know nothing, which of course proves you know SOMETHING and that is you just had a thought. (whatever that means it cannot be nothing)

Imagine holding this thought in your head: "It is possible nothing exists" Upon having this thought, you immediately realize that YOU just had a THOUGHT which immediately contradicts the possibility that NOTHING exists because you realize that there is at least a YOU and a THOUGHT. (whatever they are they cannot be nothing)

Irrespective of any objective truth to "existence exists" or whether or not you can be sure of such a thing in your own mind, please be reminded that you CANNOT rationally hold the converse thoughts in your head, namely, A: "It is possible I know nothing" and B: "It is possible nothing exists"

Once you have proven to her what she cannot think and cannot hold as possible truths, she then has to decide for herself what she wants to think and hold as truths, what she will permit herself to think, or whether she refuses to think at all.

[Ifat Glassman]

I was having a discussion with a friend. She made some points I knew to be wrong, but could not answer.

1. Objectivism is good in theory, but not in practice. (I pointed out that nothing can be both good in theory AND practice.)

2. How can I be so sure that existence exists? (I tried to argue that what we see is based off chemical reactions in our brain, and those reactions presuppose reactants.) She asked how I knew this to be true. She pointed out that everything was based from presupposed notions.

How can I respond to this?

OK, #1: Good for what? First she needs to explain some more what she means by "good in theory but not in practice". So good for what, what does it mean that it is good in theory, or good in practice? Her claim is vague.

#2 What would it mean to be "sure"? What does it mean for something to be true? Ask her about the meaning of the words she is using. Eventually she would have to recognize that the meaning of "true" is an idea that matches reality. This assumes there is a reality against which you can check your ideas to be true or false. So she is relying on the axiom "existence exists" in every attempt to investigate the axiom's validity. She has to, because the axiom is self evident in any attempt to think or deal with the world.

So how can she be "sure"? She already is, by asking this question.

[agrippa1]

I guess the question she was really asking was "how can we know anything?"

How can who know anything?

[01503]

How can who know anything?

"We" as in "humans". Homo sapiens.

[agrippa1]

"We" as in "humans". Homo sapiens.

When someone asks you "how do I know I exist?" the correct response is "who's asking?"

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Be careful, when making arguments that resemble "I think, therefore I am" (in this case, "you asked, therefore you are"), not to put Descartes before the horse.

[StrictlyLogical]

Be careful, when making arguments that resemble "I think, therefore I am" (in this case, "you asked, therefore you are"), not to put Descartes before the horse.

You just wanted to use the pun didn't you?

I think what people on this thread are proposeing is not as involved as "I think, therefore I am" it's more like

"Something" (specifically I, whatever that is..) "thinks" (whatever that is) "therefore at least something IS"

[Steve D'Ippolito]

You just wanted to use the pun didn't you?

Caught red-handed.

[ctrl y]

I was having a discussion with a friend. She made some points I knew to be wrong, but could not answer.

1. Objectivism is good in theory, but not in practice. (I pointed out that nothing can be both good in theory AND practice.)

2. How can I be so sure that existence exists? (I tried to argue that what we see is based off chemical reactions in our brain, and those reactions presuppose reactants.) She asked how I knew this to be true. She pointed out that everything was based from presupposed notions.

Two questions before I start assuming stuff: Is your friend a Christian? Does she use terms like "presupposed" or "presupposition" a lot in debate?

[01503]

Two questions before I start assuming stuff: Is your friend a Christian? Does she use terms like "presupposed" or "presupposition" a lot in debate?

She is a Christian, and I am pretty sure she didn't use "presupposed" or the like at all.