Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Reason vs. faith as tools of cognition?

Rate this topic


Guest Guest_John

Recommended Posts

Forget late-comers like Jerome, Thomas, and John Paul II. Go to The Holy Bible, at least in one of its life-forms, "The Revised Standard Version." Specifically turn to "The Letter to the Hebrews," Chapter 9, Verse 1:

"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

That passage states the how and what of faith. "Conviction" here means belief, so this verse is saying, in part, that faith is belief in things unknown through sense-perception. That is the what of faith.

Then how does one decide what to believe? The first part of the verse answers that: By looking inwardly at your hopes -- in other words, wishful "thinking."

Summary: Faith is believing in what you want to happen, when no evidence based on sense-perception would support such a belief.

Faith and reason, like religion and science can't really be compared with each other because there is no common ground. One is metaphysical (something that doesn't really exist) and the other is physical reality.

Was surfing for the latest on observing quantum wave collapse and it dropped me into this forum somehow. I read Ayn Rand's books long ago, Atlas S. at about age 14 so I have some familiarity with the philosophy, if that's what you call it. My question as a newcomer is about metaphysics and how it fits in to objectivism. I don't get the connection between a rather realistic point of view and the supernatural. After reading a few posts, I take it other members of this forum might agree. Answers?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 135
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

My question as a newcomer is about metaphysics and how it fits in to objectivism.  I don't get the connection between a rather realistic point of view and the supernatural.  After reading a few posts, I take it other members of this forum might agree.  Answers?

You're right. The belief in God is only one specific example of a Metaphysical theory. It isn't the Objectivist one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Objectivism (which we do call a "philosophy"), "metaphysics" is defined as the study of the nature of reality. So an Objectivist would say that a belief in the supernatural, versus the belief of a fully intelligible, actual universe, would be two competing metaphysical viewpoints-- one of them correct, and one incorrect, but neither encompasing the totality of the study of metaphysics. To claim that "metaphysical" means "something that doesn't really exist," then, would be surrendering all of metaphysics to the people who think systematic, objective knowledge of reality is unobtainable-- or to the people who think that, perhaps, knowledge of physical reality is obtainable but knowledge of the workings of the human consciousness is for some reason beyond our grasp, or simply nonexistent. But those people aren't Objectivists-- we have a theory of metaphysics of our own, mostly derived from Aristotle but with even the elements of the supernatural present in his formulations removed (and refuted).

So to answer your question specifically, any belief in the supernatural would not be a realistic point of view, since supernatural means "beyond the natural" or "transcending that which exists" or "not real." Assuming by "realistic" you mean "rational" (rather than Plato's so called "realism" which is, somewhat ironically, an argument for the existence of the supernatural. But that's a whole other topic! :P )

EDIT: Oh, and there is common ground between faith and reason in the sense that they are both contending means by which people can supposedly arrive at knowledge. They can be compared, then, and evaluated based on whether either or which one is a valid means of gaining knowledge. That takes the argument out of Metaphysics and into Epistemology-- the study of the validity of knowledge. Faith in epistemology is roughly the equivalent of the supernatural in metaphysics. Reason in epistemology is objective reality in metaphysics. But the two branches are closely interelated, so some of the terms are used interchangably, especially in informal discussions.

Faith and reason, like religion and science can't really be compared with each other because there is no common ground.  One is metaphysical (something that doesn't really exist) and the other is physical reality.   

Was surfing for the latest on observing quantum wave collapse and it dropped me into this forum somehow.  I read Ayn Rand's books long ago, Atlas S. at about age 14   so I have some familiarity with the philosophy, if that's what you call it.  My question as a newcomer is about metaphysics and how it fits in to objectivism.  I don't get the connection between a rather realistic point of view and the supernatural.  After reading a few posts, I take it other members of this forum might agree.  Answers?

Edited by Bold Standard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

In Objectivism (which we do call a "philosophy"), "metaphysics" is defined as the study of the nature of reality.  To claim that "metaphysical" means "something that doesn't really exist," then, would be surrendering all of metaphysics to the people who think systematic, objective knowledge of reality is unobtainable-- or to the people who think that, perhaps, knowledge of physical reality is obtainable but knowledge of the workings of the human consciousness is for some reason beyond our grasp, or simply nonexistent.  But those people aren't Objectivists-- we have a theory of metaphysics of our own, mostly derived from Aristotle but with even the elements of the supernatural present in his formulations removed (and refuted).

EDIT:  Oh, and there is common ground between faith and reason in the sense that they are both contending means by which people can supposedly arrive at knowledge.

You say that the objectivist theory is unique. Does that mean it does not rely on the scientific method? Why is reality any different from "the nature of reality?" Why do you think the workings of the human consciousness is beyond our grasp? If you investigate the research on neural networks, you may change your mind. How can one learn anything from faith? (a logically unsubstntiated belief). Otherwise the matter would be fact, or evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that the objectivist theory is unique.  Does that mean it does not rely on the scientific method?

Metaphysics and philosophy in general are the prerequisites to forming scientific theories. Philosophy comes first then science. For instance, no scietific theory can violate the Law of Identity, a thing is what it is, nor can it violate causality. If a theory violate one of those two, and some poor interpretations of QM do (especially those involving wave-function collapse) then they can simply be rejected as wrong in the sense that their predictions can NOT exist in reality. Another example whould be that a physical singularity can NOT exist.

Why is reality any different from "the nature of reality?"
I think he just used the phrase inadvertently. Reality is all there is.

Why do you think the workings of the human consciousness is beyond our grasp?

I think you might have misinterpretd him here. But regardless, the consciousness as such is beyond our grasp, at the present time, in the sense of how it arises from brain funtions.

If you investigate the research on neural networks, you may change your mind.
Just a caution, don't think that consciousness is just workings of the brain, it is an "emergent" quality of the brain, but it is NOT the brain. Nor does that imply anything supernatural. Consciousness has an identity, and it is what it is.

How can one learn anything from faith? (a logically unsubstntiated belief).  Otherwise the matter would be fact, or evidence.

They can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just a caution, don't think that consciousness is just workings of the brain, it is an "emergent" quality of the brain, but it is NOT the brain. Nor does that imply anything supernatural. Consciousness has an identity, and it is what it is. 

I agree that conciousness is not a physical object but "emergent quality" is not very definitive. Neural network research is uncovering the mechanisms of consciousness. The current theory is that a central nervous system that reacts to external stimuli creates the brain activity we call consciousness. The great challenge is to replicate the effect in machines.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The current theory is that a central nervous system that reacts to external stimuli creates the brain activity we call consciousness.
That's not a theory, or even very current. That's simply physical reductionism, an idea which has been around for centuries.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You say that the objectivist theory is unique.  Does that mean it does not rely on the scientific method?  Why is reality any different from "the nature of reality?"  Why do you think the workings of the human consciousness is beyond our grasp?  If you investigate the research on neural networks, you may change your mind.  How can one learn anything from faith? (a logically unsubstntiated belief).  Otherwise the matter would be fact, or evidence.

Hi lindagarrette. I appreciate your interest in these forums, even if it is somewhat accidental.

It looks like you misread what Bold Standard wrote. If you read it again, you should note that he mentions the belief that "the workings of the human consciousness is for some reason beyond our grasp" as being an attribute of people who are not Objectivists. In fact, an important aspect of Objectivst epistemology is that man's consciousness can be conceptually knowable. If you're interested in that subject, I suggest you read the chapter "Concepts of Consciousness" in Ayn Rand's book "Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology".

Otherwise- I think you're preaching to the choir. Objectivists fully acknowledge that faith is not a tool for discovering the truth, and therefore reject conclusions supported by faith as opposed to reason. In fact, Ayn Rand wrote an essay titled "Faith and Force: The Destroyers of the Modern World".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, I don't get a chance to get online except about once a week, but if Lindagarrette is still around, thanks for the reply to my post. Sorry if my first post was a little unclear- it can be a challenge to cram the entirety of a philosophical principle into a short statement in a message board- but that challenge is one of my favorite things about posting here.

As to the scientific method, as another poster mentioned- "the scientific method" is a concept created by philosophers. And not all philosophers agree on what that method should entail, or what its foundation should be. For example, it's not uncommon to hear psychologists argue about whether their methods should be derived from "logical positivism" (the philosophy that says all knowledge is impossible) or "existentialism" (the philosophy for people who don't really want to bother with philosophy, which can essentially mean anything you want it to mean). [i mention this example in particular because I'm visiting my mom who is a psychologist, and was earlier perusing a copy of a book by Maslow discussing that topic.]

At any rate, that was my point when discussing the idea of consciousness being "beyond our grasp" as well- not to imply that Objectivism endorses that idea by any means! But simply to say that Ayn Rand recognized that there are many competing, conflicting philosophical points of view on a given issue, and in presenting her views, she was always careful to distinguish her positions from other views, and to be very clear on *why* her conclusions were different from the others. ..That's not a practice that is entirely unique to Objectivism, but there are plenty of philosophies that present their view of metaphysics, epistemology, aesthetics, or whatever it is- and then go on to explain that theirs is the only possible view on the subject. Therefore, someone can leave a class in Religion, with the conclusion that metaphysics is all a bunch of superstitious mumbo jumbo- with the rational alternatives (having existed in various forms for centuries) having been totally glossed over. Or someone might leave a lecture on Marx's theories of politics convinced that they must become an anarchist, since the foundations of all systematic political thought are so appallingly irrational and inconsistent. That is the opinion of someone who's never heard of, or doesn't understand, the arguments for individual liberty, personal property, and capitalism (not as interpreted by a Marxist, but as they actually are in reality).

But all the same, Objectivism is a philosphy which offers positive, definitive answers to the issues with which it deals. The workings of the human consciousness, according to Objectivism, ARE within our grasp, and subject to analysis- through introspection as well as physiological studies and through all methods at our disposal by which we may gain better understanding. As one poster mentioned, we are still a long way from understanding the primary or underlying origins of consciousness- just as we're a long way from understanding the basic "fabric" of the universe in physics. But that doesn't mean that we don't know the things that we *do* know regarding these issues. [I know that "what goes up, must come down" even if I don't understand exactly by what means and how quickly gravity works through long distances in space, for example. But just because I don't know now, doesn't mean I can't find out.]

Is "the nature of reality" a redundant concept? Well, maybe- but what concept isn't? Yes, nature IS reality. Reality is nature. Also- light is color, and color is light. But within a given ray of light, a spectrum can be derived with colors of different frequencies. When I said "nature of reality", I could have said "nature of nature", but what I meant was "specific rules, or laws of nature, which govern reality, as it does and must exist."

Any statement containing knowledge could be called a "tautology", since all knowledge is interelated and refers back to the same reality. But what's the use in calling it that?

And finally- I believe one can never learn anything from faith. Ayn Rand, and anyone who is an Objectivist believes knowledge cannot be derived from faith or anything other than reason. But when a Christian tells you that there is a God, a Devil, and an afterlife- and you ask them, "how do you know?" They will respond, "I know because I have faith." (or something that means the same thing)

You say that the objectivist theory is unique.  Does that mean it does not rely on the scientific method?  Why is reality any different from "the nature of reality?"  Why do you think the workings of the human consciousness is beyond our grasp?  If you investigate the research on neural networks, you may change your mind.  How can one learn anything from faith? (a logically unsubstntiated belief).  Otherwise the matter would be fact, or evidence.

Edited by softwareNerd
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a fair charge---my apologies for whining. Won't happen again.

...

If forum members here would not state mischaracterizations regarding Catholic doctrine, I will not have to discuss those details.

...

I am curious: why do you wish to exclude Aquinas? I see no reason to, as it was my study of Aquinas (among others) that made a theist out of this atheist. ... Perhaps a better way of starting such a discussion would be for you to give me an example of what you perceive to be such a conflict.

Apology accepted.

If there weren't mischaracterizations regarding Catholic doctrine, would you have a reason to be here?

The reason I wish to exclude Aquinas and Church doctrine is because I've seen it muddy the waters to make them seem deep. In exchange, I can offer that no one will be able to use Objectivist literature in their defense either. What do you say, mano a mano, mind vs. mind?

Fine, as you wish. Reason is the faculty directing the process by which we ascertain truth, the facts of reality. The process the faculty of reason directs is the process of non-contradictory identification, its name is logic.

Faith, on the other hand, is an act that negates the necessity of any process whatsoever, by definition--it is the act of believing something without referring to any facts of reality. Do not say that faith requires some facts of reality, because it does not. I can feel your future quibbles with this definition, so I must clarify it.

Though many people use the term "faith" to denote the belief in something on the grounds of some supporting facts of reality, the essence of faith is a leap, a leap outside reality into non-reality. When the facts of reality do not support one's desire, a leap of faith can be one's ticket to bliss.

One might say "I have faith in Bill O'Reilly's ability to be a pompous idiot," but there are facts of reality that support this claim. As is the case with usage of the term "capitalism," "faith" is also misused. Faith, by definition, denotes willful blindness; do not pretend that it does not.

Faith, in the realm of philosophy, is dogmatic devotion to a set of principles that cannot and should not be verified as valid by the facts of reality--having faith in them takes them out of the realm of knowledge, by definition.

Faith, as any child could tell you at least at an implicit level, does not lead to acquiring truth, but to believing in any fairy tale fantasy your mind might fancy.

So, if reason requires the use of the process of non-contradictory identification, which leads to truth, and faith requires no process, no thought, whatsoever, leading to belief, how, in God's name, could faith not be the antithesis of reason?

In my response to you, I did not quote anyone nor use concepts that only I understand. I began with definitions of reason and faith and then discussed. Please do the same in your response.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felipe,

You asked, "If there weren't mischaracterizations regarding Catholic doctrine, would you have a reason to be here?"

Yes. As I stated in a much earlier post, I came here because I am discussing Objectivism with an Objectivist acquaintance. Since it's been years since I studied Objectivism, I figured I would read posts on various topics here to re-acquaint myself with the philosophy. (It is very frustrating, as you no doubt know, to spend time discussing anything with someone who has misconceptions of the subject at hand. I wished to avoid that, and so far it's been useful.)

As for the rest of your post, I agree with your assertions. However, the existence of God can be arrived at by reason, by observing facts of reality. And yes, this is what Aquinas sets out in his "five ways". The belief in God is reasonable. Is faith required at some point? Yes, I'm not denying that. But reason and faith do not contradict one another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My assertions? My friend, if you make claims you must prove them.

Again, I ask that you not refer to other "authorities." Throw Aquinas and his "five ways" out the window.

And, since you've made a claim that "God is reasonable," I ask you to prove that as well. Also, you asked that I start out by saying how faith and reason are contradictory. I did. Yet, you disagree and not only do you fail to disprove my statements, but you state nothing in your defense.

So, either show how my statements are mere assertions, or show that faith and reason are not contradictory--you can't keep dancing around the cold brick wall of reality headed straight for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Felipe,

"You can't keep dancing around the cold brick wall of reality headed straight for you"? Shzeesh...no need to be melodramatic.

I see no reason to "Throw Aquinas and his "five ways" out the window". His "First Cause" states, as can be ascertained by reason, that finite entities need causes. Scientific observation does not support the idea that matter can cause itself to come into existence---it is caused. Nor can there logically be an infinite regression of causes. There needs to be, logically, an uncaused cause: an entity that has as part of its identity "being"---existence---itself. "Reality" includes this entity.

Science also shows us, at both the macro and micro level, that there are specific "laws" which govern the physical universe. In other words, design, not randomness.

The existence of universals also indicates a reality that is not measurable by merely scientific means.

Objective truth means "existing outside of mind". If the human mind is simply the result of random chance, then any theory or philosophy a human comes up with is purely subjective. Self-awareness (consciousness) is not necessary for survival, as no other animal has it, yet they survive. How does consciousness evolve from non-consciousness, and why? What is the purpose of consciousness?

Reality exists regardless of your ability to perceive, measure, or acknowledge it. Reason and faith are simply two different ways of perceiving reality. You did not give me an example of how they contradict (they can't).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Are you not able to argue on your own two feet? Do you need Aquinas and his 'five ways' to prove your point? Can't you state your case simply using reason and logic?

I agree with your point that scientific evidence does not support the idea that matter can cause itself to come into existence--but this DOES NOT IMPLY that it is caused by some other entity. This is an assertion on your part. Your entire argument is based on this false assertion that existence needs a cause.

Not only is there no evidence that the universe came into being out of nothing, but there can never be such evidence--the concept "universe" denotes everything that exists, so to say that "something" caused "everything that exists" to exist is a contradiction: Nothing exists outside "the universe" to be able to "cause it" to exist.

One more time, second verse same as the first: the universe refers to everything that exists, so to say that "something caused the universe" is a gross contradiction.

Also, you admittedly state that the universe is not ruled by consciousness, yet you create this fictitious super-entity that CAN create the universe.

As to your comment on "design," this design you speak of also does not necessitate the existence of a "first-causer"--it is merely the consequence of the fact that things are what they are and nothing more, and that these things will always interact in the same way because their nature never changes--"design" is a manifestation of the law of identity.

Yes, "objective truths" are the metaphysical facts of reality that are oblivious to our whims or desires or consciousness. Also, "consciousness" refers to a broad range of types of consciousness. I know what you meant by self-awareness, but self-awareness is not synonymous with consciousness, it is synonymous with "conceptual consciousness."

Your logic as to the evolution of consciousness is flawed. The human mind IS NOT the result of random chance, the human mind is an emergent property that came to be out of necessity--out of the need for survival. We weren't cavemen one day and men the next--through thousands of years, our ancestors needed more and more conceptual power to survive because they were less and less equipped to adapt to nature (her animals and environment), so they learned to adapt nature to their needs. Have you not noticed that the human animal is one of the weakest animals in the kingdom (compared to all animals of similar size as us)? Other animals didn't need conceptual consciousness because they possessed an identity (power, quickness, efficient teeth, etc.) that allowed them to adapt to nature. The choice facing us and the choice our ancestors faced is: adapt your environment to your needs or nature will devour you--in this sense conceptual consciousness arose out of the necessity to survive, contrary to your assertion.

Again you assert that faith and reason don't contradict each other, without proof. I did not give you an example because I showed the essence of each concept and showed that in every possible example where faith is used to gain "mind content" vs. every possible example where reason is used to gain "mind content," only one brings us truth where as the other brings us fantasy--nothing can clearer than this. How can a leap out of reality to bring you truth about reality?--you're outside of reality by the very leap you've taken!

Edit: Let me add that we have agreed that within the entities that exist, none possess the ability to come to be out of nothing nor the ability to create other entities out of nothing--nor can there be, a thing cannot not exist one instant and exist another. So, in the entire universe, there is no entity that can do this. When you then say that thus "the universe must have been created" you have in essence stepped outside existence into non-existence in your search for this 'super-entity" that caused the universe to exist and further proceeded to violate the rule the governs all entities: the law of identity.

Edited by Felipe
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on this statement.  In your replies, please be very clear as to your definition of "faith" and "reason."

As someone presently at odds with Objectivism over the Problem of First Principles, I assert that reason is unavoidably dependent on faith.

The Problem of First Principles makes adoption of the founding axioms of any system of thought an act of faith. This is the case with Catholicism and it is the same with Objectivism as well -- because the first principles of a coherent system of thought are irreducible and unprovable by reason.

Faith (unprovable belief in the truth) in the self-evidence of founding propositions is required in order for them to be adopted. Reason cannot verify these principles.

Bearing this in mind, it is as reasonable to adopt the first principles of Catholicism as it is to adopt the first principles of Objectivism, when the foundations of these and any philosophical systems (the paramount principles upon which all else is built within the system) are examined and found to be occluded from verification via reason.

Faith, for example, is the door to not only Catholicism but other rational systems of thought, including science. Of course, science IS a preferable system as compared to Catholicism -- even if neither system's fundamental principles can be proven. And this is why:

The quality which redeems science over Catholicism, a quality science shares with other rational, logical philosophies is that its receptive to examining and solving the problem of its first principles. In fact, this is one of its highest goals.

This is in stark contrast to Catholicism, which is unconcerned with this task. It lacks any need for verifiable First Principles capable of being reasonably proved. In fact, to the contrary, acceptance of Catholic principles by faith or belief alone has arguably become part of the Catholic institution, a requisite rite of passage. The Catholic Church has dealt with the Problem of its First Principles by making the Problem of these principle's irrational acceptance (the need for belief or faithful acceptance without reasonable verification) a well-defined philosophical end. Thus faithful belief in Catholicism's primary principle earns for the Catholic the aim of the philosophy: spiritual migration to Heaven.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The Problem of First Principles makes adoption of the founding axioms of any system of thought an act of faith.
Do you concede that acceptance of the "problem of first principles" -- indeed the acceptance of your very existence (maybe I'm imagining this post) -- is a matter of faith? Even if you have faith in the existence of reality, do you concede that it is merely your faith?

As a corollary, of what interest is a forum such as this? Why should the faith of others be of any relevance to you? What's the point of any discussion at all?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you concede that acceptance of the "problem of first principles" -- indeed the acceptance of your very existence (maybe I'm imagining this post)  -- is a matter of faith? Even if you have faith in the existence of reality, do you concede that it is merely your faith?

As a corollary, of what interest is a forum such as this? Why should the faith of others be of any relevance to you? What's the point of any discussion at all?

I concede that I made a leap of faith in accepting a world-view that values reason and holds that reality exists -- made that leap before I read about The Problem :thumbsup: But yes, I'd be lying if I said I viewed my founding principles as provable truths rather than beliefs accepted in faith. The Problem of First Principles is a corollary I accept as being true (provable) and reasonable and in accordance with what I've learned and accepted so far.

I'm optimistic about what humans are capable of achieving, however, and I don't see the PoFP as a justifiable excuse for nihilism or anything like that. I would like to participate in forum discussions constructively in order to keen and expand my own thinking and developing philosophy. I'm in agreement with a lot of what I've read regarding Objectivism so far -- esp. regarding its take on ethics -- and I'd like to learn more, which is another reason I'm interested in participating in discussions on the forum, along with being impressed by the depth of discussion that goes on here.

I should have mentioned that I'm curious as to whether people see the Problem of Firsts as being a problem for Objectivism and what their thoughts are on it -- because from my perspective it's a sound, logical conclusion to arrive at. But maybe that should be posted elsewhere?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I made a leap of faith in accepting a world-view that values reason and holds that reality exists
Allen, I know what I mean when I say "reason" and "reality", but I do not understand what you mean. I'm not "trying to be difficult", but I'm really serious when I ask: what is the difference between your statement that I just quoted (above) and the following:

I made a leap of faith in accepting a world-view that values reason and holds that fee-tee exists

Does the second statement mean something different from yours? If so, why?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Allen, I know what I mean when I say "reason" and "reality", but I do not understand what you mean. I'm not "trying to be difficult", but I'm really serious when I ask: what is the difference between your statement that I just quoted (above) and the following:

I made a leap of faith  in accepting a world-view that values reason and holds that fee-tee exists

Does the second statement mean something different from yours? If so, why?

Each means something different to me but I do agree with your statement as well and consequently I recognize the value in wearing socks sometimes. Especially when my fee-tee's are cold. :thumbsup:

That lame joke aside, the second statement doesn't mean anything to me because the word 'fee-tee' doesn't mean anything to me. But if you're asking whether the idea "reality" has meaning for me, the answer is yes. So, I'll say Sentence#1 means something to me and Sentence#2 is meaningless to me.

I Believe that reality exists and that I am a part of it. I have my own principle axioms regarding reality, but they are unprovable. I realize this and so I am not bound to them. To accept Objectivism I would have to discard my idea that philosophical systems are adopted in faith and accept, as unequivocally true, any Objectivist primary principles regarding reality which (to Quote ItOE, 2nd Ed. @ pg 55):

"cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component

parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest."

I.E. Objectivism would demand I accept its unprovable (therefore potentially false) and literally unquestionable principle axioms on Faith Alone -- that's what Rand's judiciously worded skirting of the Problem of First Princles is really saying to me. There is no reasonable explanation as to why I should do this. I am ultimately left with an appeal from Rand to accept what she perceives as being self-evident, absolute facts about the world, as the unchallengeable foundation of my own view of the world.

I've got ItOE and OPAR being overnighted to my house, but is this issue addressed with any more depth anywhere else in her philosophy? If someone could find something to tide me over it'd be much appreciated.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

... my fee-tee's are cold.  :D

I asked for that :) , didn't I?

If you got OPAR and ITOE, those would be the best if you're looking for a formal statement of why "Existence Exists".

However, if you're looking for proof of reality, no book will give you that. Book? what's that...never hear of such a thing? Heard? What's that? Just imagination. Imagination? What's that? My head hurts. Head? What the ... it doesn't even exist. "It?"...

If a friend asked me to give him a book that proved reality exists, my best argument would be to pick up the nearest one and hit him over the head with it. Then, it'll be his faith that I'm hitting him, and my faith that I'm not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

To accept Objectivism I would have to discard my idea that philosophical systems are adopted in faith and accept, as  unequivocally true, any Objectivist primary principles regarding reality which (to Quote ItOE, 2nd Ed. @ pg 55):

So, it seems to me you've accepted as your axiom that philosophical systems are adopted on faith. Of course, according to the logic of that axiom, that axiom itself is groundless (because it too must be accepted on faith). Is the self-contradiction in your idea apparent now? In other words, how do you know it's true? You don't. You only accept it on faith. It's a self-refuting position in the same manner that Pyrrhonian skepticism is self-refuting. "I know that I know nothing." For the same reason that you should recognize this claim to be self-refuting, your position on philosophic axioms is too (because ultimately your view reduces to this sort radical skepticism). Now that just clears out a wrong conception, but doesn't get us to the right view. You go on:

I.E. Objectivism would demand I accept its unprovable (therefore potentially false) and literally unquestionable principle axioms on Faith Alone -- that's what Rand's judiciously worded skirting of the Problem of First Princles is really saying to me. There is no reasonable explanation as to why I should do this. I am ultimately left with an appeal from Rand to accept what she perceives as being self-evident, absolute facts about the world, as the unchallengeable foundation of my own view of the world.

These are issues dealt with in both OPAR and ITOE. You have a certain conception of proof and faith that is leading you to this conclusion (that axioms are necessarily "unprovable"; "potentially false"; etc.). It's a context that you'll have to examine closely. If you root out the underlying premises in your current view and reconceptualize the issue, you'll find your concerns will "dissolve" (to use contemporary philosophic parlance). But, this will require a good, honest look at some deep seated premises. These premises may be operating at an implicit level, and will not necessarily be easy to excise.

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, it seems to me you've accepted as your axiom that philosophical systems are adopted on faith.

Rand accepts the proposition you quote as well if you read the comment from ItOE I posted. Maybe she wouldn't have used the term 'faith' but she explains her system is being ultimately based on axioms which cannot be proved, and have no rational explanations for being accepted as true. Ergo, to accept them is act on belief or faith, not reason.

Of course, according to the logic of that axiom, that axiom itself is groundless (because it too must be accepted on faith).

It's actually an idea that goes back to Aristotle -- it's a logical issue that no one has been able to clear away and it was clearly recognized by Rand as well as being an unavoidable logical issue which rationally forbids proving primary axioms using reason.

To prove a proposition you must provide a reason for finding it to be true. You do this by providing another proposition to rationally justify the first. The proposition you create to justify your original proposition then requires a proposition of its own in order to be proved. The logical result of building axiomatic systems this way is that eventually you will have an infinite regress of propositions, unless you arbitrarily (without reasonable justification) chose a proposition to be your primary, unprovable proposition. Therefore primaries by definition have no rational explanations.

Is the self-contradiction in your idea apparent now? In other words, how do you know it's true? You don't. You only accept it on faith. It's a self-refuting position in the same manner that Pyrrhonian skepticism is self-refuting. "I know that I know nothing." For the same reason that you should recognize this claim to be self-refuting, your position on philosophic axioms is too (because ultimately your view reduces to this sort radical skepticism).

The Problem of First Principles isn't derived from a set of fundamental axioms. I gave a rational proof of it above. Therefore, I can rationally accept it as being a true and adopt it using reason instead of faith. It follows from defined logical propositions. Ultimately, though the acceptance of reason requires an unreasonable judgement. In accepting Objectivism you have accepted Rand's reasonless judgements as to what is "self-evident" as well.

If you don't believe me, check her premises. She followed Aristotle's route in dealing with this logical issue (irrational or reasonless acceptance of propositions supposed by Ayn to need no proofs because they were "self-evident"):

QUOTE(ITOE 2nd Ed. @ pg 55)

An axiomatic concept is the identification of a

primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed,

i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component

parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all

knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly

perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or

explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations

rest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Rand accepts the proposition you quote as well if you read the comment from ItOE I posted. Maybe she wouldn't have used the term 'faith' but she explains her system is being ultimately based on axioms which cannot be proved, and have no rational explanations for being accepted as true. Ergo, to accept them is act on belief or faith, not reason.

That valid axioms cannot be proved does not mean that they do not have a rational explanation (that's your erroneous assumption). Therefore, it does not follow that their acceptance is based on faith. That would be a complete misuse of the concepts of "rational" and "faith." Wrong conceptions=wrong conclusions. GIGO.

It's actually an idea that goes back to Aristotle -- it's a logical issue that no one has been able to clear away and it was clearly recognized by Rand as well as being an unavoidable logical issue which rationally forbids proving primary axioms using reason.
Untrue (at least as stated). However, I don't have time to comment on this at the moment.

The Problem of First Principles isn't derived from a set of fundamental axioms. I gave a rational proof of it above. Therefore, I can rationally accept it as being a true and adopt it using reason instead of faith. It follows from defined logical propositions.

Rational proof? Oh, and what is that based upon? A more fundamental proposition. And what is that based upon? Etc. Ultimately, as you claim, something arbitrary, i.e., invalid. Therefore, the argument itself is self-refuting. QED.

Doesn't it strike you as, how can I put this mildly, a little funny that you keep coming up with "reasoned" arguments to prove that reason is invalid?

Ultimately, though the acceptance of reason requires an unreasonable judgement.

Once again, this is self-refuting. It would, according to this, be unreasonable (as it must) to believe this, since it must be based upon a groundless proposition (which is your basic premise).

Edited by Gabriel_S
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...