Reality as such.

[Mikael]

Hi all.

First of since, this debate is in a sense advocating non-Objectivist ideas and yet in another it is not, I know as true (that it is so) that a moderator or administrator can closed or delete this post/thread as seen fit, though I don't think it will happen.

As to the format I propose it to be open-ended in that there are no time limit to responses except for me (I must post something new in 24 hour intervals, except as stated below); I will try to answer everybody and I will accept a change in format as changed by a moderator or administrator; but I will not start responding before a moderator or administrator has accepted to moderate.

Now my main tools used will be a variant of the correspondence theory of truth and the law of non-contradiction and my aim is to show that while the core of Objectivism is true, some aspects are false. Thus I am for Objectivism in that I accept the correspondence theory of truth and the law of non-contradiction and yet in others aspects against it.

I won't give any further examples other than pose some questions:

What is reality?

What is truth?

What is a contradiction?

What is logic?

What is objective/subjective?

What is cognition, rational and reason?

What is ethics?

What is human nature?

What is a conflict of interest?

What is suicide?

What is the meaning of life, the universe and everything?

With regard

Mikael

[Timbo]

I doubt anyones going to bite on this one. We could end up rewriting all of Rands works in this debate.

You might want to narrow the scope a tad.

Tim

[Mikael]

I doubt anyones going to bite on this one. We could end up rewriting all of Rands works in this debate.

You might want to narrow the scope a tad.

Tim

Well, not all of Rand's work. I do agree with the core of Rand's works, namely that a part of reality is not me and I can't control that the same way that I can control myself. This matters, because it matters to me as it helps me in living a good life. The correspondence theory of truth, hereafter True/False, the laws of identity and of non-contradiction, the Truth of ethics as egoistic/selfish and further volition I also agree with.

So here is something for all of you.

I do have a beef with A=A and A≠non-A. Not, that they are not True, but rather what it means to say when they are False. In order for me to prove that as True, I will first establish the difference between True and true. Something is true in the sense that a word/words and their combination can be False, but still works as a reason for further reasons and actions, i.e. f.ex. in this sense God is true, as God is not True, but it is True that God can be used as a reason to act in a manner that is True.

So look at A=A. What is True about this claim, well it is True that the 2 As have some similar properties, but as they are 2 As they are not exactly the same. They hold different positions in reality, i.e. time, space and matter/energy. In order words if looked at with time, space and matter/energy in mind the are not exactly the same, but if we abstract away time, space and matter/energy they are the same. For the law of identity it means that for any A, i.e. a given period in time and space and configuration of matter/energy it is so and not in any other way. Any A is only exactly the same in all senses with itself.

But and this is one of the biggest buts, if not the biggest, in understanding reality. My mind can "cheat" me, i.e. Truth is not automatic, because there are two distinct ways of thinking about reality - namely with and without omission of time, space and matter/energy. The first is called one dimensional, linear logic (logic) and the other I will call Logic as it is multivariate and includes time, space and matter/energy.

You can test it yourself - find 2 matches and light both, e=mc² is the same, yet only similar and different if you switch between logic and Logic. Now this is True - for any human capable of discover these similar, yet different ways of thinking, then same, similar and different changes meaning, i.e. Truth, as opposed to those humans that for the given period time are only capable of thinking with logic and not Logic.

Another example is the difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=11. If you look at it through logic, then it is false because all the four 2s are the same, but yet they are not. The first two hold the property of being in base 5 or higher and the second two are in base 3.

Now these are "mundane" examples, but here is a difficult one. We know have two humans, you and I, as we are communicating over time, space and matter/energy. So how many As are in play??? Well, it differs how we "cut the cake" in one sense there is only one A, in another there are three, i.e. you, me and that which is in between, which enables us to communicate. Yet in another there are two other one, namely you and the rest including me and vice versa. Any yet there are a hell of a lot of As depending on how we switch in describing reality.

So here is a question for you, what do all these different As, yet similar As have to do with rationality???

With regards

Mikael

[fountainhead777]

So basically this topic is to nitpick and try to take issue with things because of how you yourself word them.

A=A is a simple reduction of basic nature. You are you, not someone else. A computer is a computer not a saxophone. Every Object has properties and characteristics that are do not change arbitrarily. They behave based on their properties that is all it means. Space, time, matter and energy are present with every object or A but these vary with each object based on its properties. They do not change arbitrarily. Also A=A is very simplified because objects have many identifications with hierarchies to the way they are defined. Your 2's are all in fact 2's but they have been defined wiht other properties so in that way they are not the same, not disproving A=A.

As for three people talking we are not 3 A's. You're a Mikael who is nitpicking with the most simplified version of a statement that simply means things exist in reality with set properties that they do not violate. I'm a fountainhead777 trying to get you to understand something that you should have comprehended from reading. Then there's a Timbo who said little but posted anyways.

I would recommend rereading the Virtue of Selfishness and going through here for your definitions.

[Mikael]

Hi fountainhead777 and hi all.

This is not just for you, fountainhead777, but for all who considers this representative of all truth:

Herewhat is true, or false, is a judgment (expressed as a proposition)

Well, it is not, which makes me irrational. Thus is True that I am irrational.

So here are two propositions; I can fly by flapping my arms-False and I can't fly by flapping my arms-True. So if it is True as I am writing it as this period in time and in the sense of being irrational, namely believing some False to be True, I am stating the Truth, thus I am rational. ;) Welcome to "I am a Cretan, all Cretans lie".

Now in general terms there are two kinds of contradictions, True contradictions and False ones. A True contradiction is always the claim of non-existence exists. It is so because True/False is about a proposition about something being there or not(non-existence). Now I can't be irrational as True, because irrational is to be False, i.e. not be(non-existence), but that would be a True contradiction because I would in the same sense and at same time be existing and not existing. False is the non-existence of one or more properties at a given time and sense in an A.

False contradictions on the other hand are not about something being both existing and non-existing at same time and in the same sense, but rather always about one A having a property, which another A doesn't have. Let me explain; regardless of whether you understand this or not, both cases are True. So let us say you don't understand this, you have the property of not understanding this text=one A and I have the property of understanding this=another A, then this is not a True contradiction. Indeed to claim it is a True contradiction is a True contradiction, because it would mean that you and I are at same time and in the same sense the same A, while not being the same A. In short you are me and not me and vice versa.

In a broader context there are two kinds of reason: One is about Truth, that which is and the other is about what makes sense, i.e. what it means. If this text doesn't make sense to you, it is not because it is False, but rather when you compare it with what you already know it doesn't make sense. That is a cognitive process of makes sense/I like/right/good or doesn't make sense/I don't like/wrong/bad/evil. In other words evil is not False, i.e. non-existing; but rather that something is evil, means that you don't like it. That happens in you and not literally in the something, which "is evil".

It has to be so, because being selfish and figuring out what you hold to be right or wrong, is something you do. Being selfish is in fact not really real as can be seen here.

From hereConsciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists. It the process by which data is received from the sense organs about the external world, and recognized as such

But that you are selfish is not something in the world external to you, it is some thing you are. You know this not be sensing the external world, but because it happens to you in your consciousness and no where else.

In other word being selfish is not objective as in having reality independently of consciousness.

From hereThe metaphysically given is that part of reality which exists without human participation, and could not have occurred any other way, whereas the man-made is that which occurred because of volitional human action and could have been different.

Selfishness is mad-made and could be different in a sense, i.e. both is True, but one of then is apparently also False.

So is the highest value any human hold at any given time man-made???

With regard

Mikkel

[Jake_Ellison]

That's "A is A", or "A ≡ A", not A=A.

A=A is an obviously true statement in mathematics. It would be tough to argue against, it is true by the definition of the "=" sign.

As for "A is A", if you have a disagreement with it, how do you plan to argue about it? "A is A" is the most primitive, basic truth of logic. Without it, there is no logic, or arguments to be had. If A is not A, then you are not arguing. Maybe I'm arguing, from your computer, because you're not you, I'm you. Not that the word "to argue means anything, either. What are we arguing about? Ayn Rand wasn't Ayn Rand, she was just atoms, all part of the Universe, as are we. Are we arguing about ourselves?

What's a "we"? There is no we, there is only the Universe, made up of matter and energy. The Universe of matter and energy came up with Objectivism, and now the Universe is having a conversation with the Universe about ...oh wait, the Universe, because Objectivism is also the Universe, Objectivism is not necessarily Objectivism.

Speaking of matter and energy, matter is not necessarily matter, energy is not energy, they are both the Universe.

What about understanding existence? Consciousness is the Universe, so when I say "is", that's not me saying "is", that's just Universe.

So, we're reduced to this: Everything, nothing. Everything is everything, and nothing is nothing? Nope.

So, without Identity, this is what our conevrsation looks like: "Blank." End of argument, the thread can be closed, and renamed "Debate not based on the Law of Identity", and everything can be removed from it, except this one word: Blank.

[Eiuol]

It has to be so, because being selfish and figuring out what you hold to be right or wrong, is something you do. Being selfish is in fact not really real as can be seen here.But that you are selfish is not something in the world external to you, it is some thing you are. You know this not be sensing the external world, but because it happens to you in your consciousness and no where else.

In other word being selfish is not objective as in having reality independently of consciousness.Selfishness is mad-made and could be different in a sense, i.e. both is True, but one of then is apparently also False.

So is the highest value any human hold at any given time man-made???

I'm confused what your point is. You can evaluate a person as being selfish. A person being selfish is independent of their consciousness. A person's actions make them selfish, saying you're selfish isn't enough to BE selfish. It is man-made in the sense is chosen. The concept of selfishness isn't made up out of thin air, it is something that exists in reality. To exist doesn't necessarily mean "to be tangible". Selfishness represents -actual- actions. I don't know why you brought it up though.

[Mikael]

Hi.

Due to RL I can't answer now, but will do so later.

Mikael

[Plasmatic]

I'm confused what your point is.

His point is he accepts the analytic-synthetic dichotomy.

[Plasmatic]

Welcome to "I am a Cretan, all Cretans lie".

The "liars paradox" is simply a statement that requires more context. "lie about what?". One has to take the above statement as disconnected from a context in order to see it as a paradox. One has to forget that someone is saying this and it pertains to a context[the axiom of consciousness i.e whos saying this and why].

[Plasmatic]

If two ideas contradict each other, they can't both be right. Contradictions can't exist in reality. After all, things are what they are. A is A."

Existence, consciousness, identity are presupposed by every statement and by every concept, including that of "disagreement." (They are presupposed even by invalid concepts, such as "ghost" or "analytic" truth.) In the act of voicing his objection, therefore, the objector has conceded the case. In any act of challenging or denying the three axioms, a man reaffirms them, no matter what the particular content of his challenge. The axioms are invulnerable.

OPAR

[ctrl y]

So look at A=A. What is True about this claim, well it is True that the 2 As have some similar properties, but as they are 2 As they are not exactly the same. They hold different positions in reality, i.e. time, space and matter/energy. In order words if looked at with time, space and matter/energy in mind the are not exactly the same, but if we abstract away time, space and matter/energy they are the same. For the law of identity it means that for any A, i.e. a given period in time and space and configuration of matter/energy it is so and not in any other way. Any A is only exactly the same in all senses with itself.

But and this is one of the biggest buts, if not the biggest, in understanding reality. My mind can "cheat" me, i.e. Truth is not automatic, because there are two distinct ways of thinking about reality - namely with and without omission of time, space and matter/energy. The first is called one dimensional, linear logic (logic) and the other I will call Logic as it is multivariate and includes time, space and matter/energy.

You can test it yourself - find 2 matches and light both, e=mc² is the same, yet only similar and different if you switch between logic and Logic. Now this is True - for any human capable of discover these similar, yet different ways of thinking, then same, similar and different changes meaning, i.e. Truth, as opposed to those humans that for the given period time are only capable of thinking with logic and not Logic.

Another example is the difference between 2+2=4 and 2+2=11. If you look at it through logic, then it is false because all the four 2s are the same, but yet they are not. The first two hold the property of being in base 5 or higher and the second two are in base 3.

Now these are "mundane" examples, but here is a difficult one. We know have two humans, you and I, as we are communicating over time, space and matter/energy. So how many As are in play??? Well, it differs how we "cut the cake" in one sense there is only one A, in another there are three, i.e. you, me and that which is in between, which enables us to communicate. Yet in another there are two other one, namely you and the rest including me and vice versa. Any yet there are a hell of a lot of As depending on how we switch in describing reality.

So here is a question for you, what do all these different As, yet similar As have to do with rationality???

What you're trying to pass off as a deep insight above is known as the fallacy of equivocation, first documented over two thousand years ago and recognized by all but the dullest high school students today. This is why the law of non-contradiction has the caveat "it is never the case that A and not-A in the same way, at the same time."

Edited August 7, 2009 by ctrl y