Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Existence exists.

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Incidentally, have you ever heard of "stolen concepts"?  Being able to recognize them is like the silver bullet of skepticism.

 

This looks like it could be an interesting analogy.  I know you don't mean that skepticism uses 'stolen concepts' as silver bullets. And identifying a 'stolen concept' used by a skeptic certainly does not render a 'vampire' into the state of being 'incapacitated'. Could you tease a little more out of this?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1) Of course not. :P Silver bullets kill werewolves, not vampires. [/crucialinfo]

2) The "silver bullet" is not against a skeptic, it's against skepticism. Other people obviously can go on being skeptics, but the idea here is that recognizing flaws like stolen concepts can kill off skepticism in oneself.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This looks like it could be an interesting analogy.  I know you don't mean that skepticism uses 'stolen concepts' as silver bullets. And identifying a 'stolen concept' used by a skeptic certainly does not render a 'vampire' into the state of being 'incapacitated'. Could you tease a little more out of this?

Certainly!

 

Whenever someone says "we know that we can know nothing" it can't be true, because if it were then they could never make that statement.  But even when someone says "I can know nothing about your mental content" it's actually the same thing, because the very act of a speaking requires knowledge about your partners' mental content (even writing forces you to guess at what your audience would understand); even though the statement doesn't openly include itself it still implies the Liar's Paradox.

The Liar's Paradox (this statement is a lie) is actually what the vast majority of skepticist arguments boil down to.  David Hume, for example, went to great lengths to say that there was something wrong with induction- and he reached this conclusion inductively.

Did Hume enumerate every single instance of inductive reasoning that could ever be attempted?  No; he showed that induction was invalid yesterday (since yesterday proves nothing about tomorrow) and nobody asked whether induction would be valid tomorrow.

 

So almost all skepticist arguments boil down to "this statement is a lie", except that in most cases, part of the proposition is never mentioned explicitly; it's assumed in their reasoning (as in Hume's inductive "problem of induction").  Because if anyone accepted what Hume, Kant or the Wachowski Brothers were selling and actually applied it to their own cognition, there would not be very many things they could conclude from anything at all.

Which is why almost all skeptical arguments are also stolen concepts.

 

So the upshot of it is, familiarizing yourself with the fallacy of the stolen concept is the silver bullet of skepticism because once you learn how to spot it in any given situation, you'll never have to wonder about the Matrix again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Touché, bluecherry. Wooden stakes are more effective on vampires, as legend would tell. That being said, I prefer my stakes high, and would rather play the cattle futures than the silver bullet futures. The payoff in recognizing the value of 'stolen concept' futures for personal self gain in skepticism is easily offset recognizing the role they play as intellectual 'fiat'. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The skeptic uses a stolen concept as most of the sources he acquired the use of the stolen concept from. It gains currency amongst themselves, as if by fiat, from trading it among themselves. In recognizing the stolen concept as stolen, the self gain is recognized by identifying it as a case of fiat usage and not accepting it at their declared face value.

 

What do you want from someone who was thinking that vampires were killed by silver bullets? :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Can someone sum up meaningful distinctions between:

Existence exists.

Existents exist.

All existents exist.

Every existent exists.

The sum of all existents exists.

The realm of existence exists.

The realm of existents exists.

The realm of all existents exists.

and is the first one the best and most accurate statement?

I wonder if those who don't understand the Oist use of axioms as reminders of primary facts would object to this one in the same way:

Existence is an epistemologically and metaphysically irreducible fact.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Hume use deductive reasoning to establish the problem of induction, though? His argument was something like the following:

 

1. The argument "A, therefore A" (In other words, circular reasoning) is invalid.

2. The validity of inductive reasoning is commonly assumed based on the seemingly aburd improbability that the success of inductive reasoning up to this point is a coincidence. (For instance, we have seen the laws of gravity followed exactly so many times that it would be absurd to assume it's all coincidence, and that the next I drop a rock it won't fly up into the sky instead of falling to the ground.)

3. Probability is based on inductive reasoning.

 

Therefore,

4. The validity of inductive reasoning is based on the assumption that inductive reasoning is valid.

 

5. The argument "Inductive reasoning is valid, therefore inductive reasoning is valid" has the form "A, therefore A."

 

Therefore, this argument is fallacious, and inductive reasoning is inherently based on a logical fallacy.

 

I don't see where Hume used inductive reasoning in this argument.

 

 

Did Hume enumerate every single instance of inductive reasoning that could ever be attempted?  No; he showed that induction was invalid yesterday (since yesterday proves nothing about tomorrow) and nobody asked whether induction would be valid tomorrow.

 

But I don't think Hume was trying to prove that inductive reasoning would be invalid tomorrow. He only proved that the common argument in favor of the position that inductive reasoning is valid today is fallacious. Which isn't the same as proving that inductive reasoning is invalid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"I don't see where Hume used inductive reasoning in this argument."

He used it the whole time because without induction he couldn't have learned a language.

 

As for the probability thing, we have observed the same results over and over and over when we do the same things to the same stuff under the same circumstances. There isn't any case where we have observed random different things happen when we do the same thing to the same stuff under the same circumstances. If it ever seemed like we did, closer inspection has shown that we were mistaken about something somewhere along the line being the same as before. So, there's just no cause for doubt. That inductive conclusions could be flouted and identical things can produce different, random results has nothing backing it at all, it's merely an unfounded assertion.

 

dream_weaver, what do I want? I think some of those silver bullets would make a nice souvenir. ;3

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I wonder if those who don't understand the Oist use of axioms as reminders of primary facts would object to this one in the same way:

Existence is an epistemologically and metaphysically irreducible fact.

 

This irreducible fact is also rationally undeniable.  Over time acceptance and full integration of this fact makes the string of words seem less and less necessary or "knowledgeful".  Are we actually saying anything informative to a rational/sane person when we say "existence exists"... am I adding to any rational/sane person's knowledge by stating this to him?

 

Certainly I understand its corrective quality with an irrational or perhaps an insane person who believes "something" else (if that is possible), but I kind of get why the author of the original post raised the issue.

 

It's like the statement

 

"Is is"

 

 

PS:

 

I think I may prefer Plasmatic's formulation to any of the alternatives, it relates the metaphysical to the epistemological.  ISness is an irreducible fact.

Edited by StrictlyLogical
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't Hume use deductive reasoning to establish the problem of induction, though?

Partially.  I think it would help to identify "induction" and its actual basis, before we return to that.

 

When Newton realized that gravitational force equaled M*M/d2 he was inductively grasping a generalized principle which applies to every mass, everywhere.  And he reached that conclusion by identifying exactly what was relevant about the observations, comparing such facts according to commensurability (types of attributes such as mass, speed, etc.) and eventually identifying what remained constant over dozens of comparisons.

So he induced this fundamental law by looking at one type of thing and finding whatever was always the same about it, to the best of his knowledge.

 

2. The validity of inductive reasoning is commonly assumed based on the seemingly aburd improbability that the success of inductive reasoning up to this point is a coincidence. (For instance, we have seen the laws of gravity followed exactly so many times that it would be absurd to assume it's all coincidence, and that the next I drop a rock it won't fly up into the sky instead of falling to the ground.)

Hume himself conceded that human beings could not survive if they tried to take all such possibilities into account.  His mistake was to equate "certainty" with infallibility.  Rand's solution was "objectivity".

When a theory is absolutely certain, within all currently available knowledge, it's an "objective truth".  It could always be proven wrong at some point, so it isn't an infallible truth- but it is the closest thing which human beings are capable of.

Objectivity begins with the realization that man. . . is an entity of a specific nature who must act accordingly; that there is no escape from the law of identity, neither in the universe with which he deals nor in the working of his own consciousness. . .

-Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology

 

4. The validity of inductive reasoning is based on the assumption that inductive reasoning is valid.

It's based on the law of Identity; the fact that A=A.

And because A=A, regardless of the circumstances surrounding it, any knowledge gained about A necessarily holds true for A.  So when Hume said that yesterday proves nothing about tomorrow; that the truth of Universal Gravitation yesterday means nothing about Universal Gravitation tomorrow; he was forgetting that A=A and Gravity=Gravity universally.

 

So certainty is contextual (and the context is every thing you know), induction is the search for commensurate constancy and wherever such constancy is found, within every fact you currently know, it must be generalized across every commensurate fact, because A=A.

 

Now, to answer your original question:

  • As bluecherry pointed out, every concept Hume used in his reasoning was learned inductively (see the Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for further elaboration)- including the concept of "induction".
  • When he declared circular reasoning to be invalid, that was a generalization which was reached (regardless of whomever first discovered it) inductively.
  • When he said that the act of induction assumes some uniformity to nature, that was another generalization (he himself was assuming uniformity to induction, through the very reasoning I just explained).
  • The generalization that there isn't necessarily any such uniformity required more induction- just as you explained that principle by the concrete example of the law of gravity, and expected your audience to induce from the example.

Induction- in this hemisphere?  In the brain of a man or a woman?  On a train?  In the rain?  In a box?  With a Fox?. . .

The fact that Hume exempted his "Problem of Induction" from such details means that he inducted the problem across all instances of induction, on the implicit premise that A=A and Induction=Induction, regardless of the circumstances surrounding its use.

It ultimately boils down to:

 

"I've found a fundamental principle of cognition; that men cannot really find any fundamental principles!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

He used it the whole time because without induction he couldn't have learned a language.

 

Interesting. I have heard the argument that because concepts are meaningless without reference to reality, and because inductive reasoning is necessary to make sense of reality, that the concepts necessary for deductive reasoning are ultimately based on inductive reasoning. So this would make Hume's argument a stolen concept.

 

On the other hand, one could argue that this just reduces the whole thing to a circular loop, makes both inductive and deductive reasoning invalid, and makes the problem even worse.

 

 

When a theory is absolutely certain, within all currently available knowledge, it's an "objective truth".  It could always be proven wrong at some point, so it isn't an infallible truth- but it is the closest thing which human beings are capable of.

 

This I completely agree with.

 

 

So when Hume said that yesterday proves nothing about tomorrow; that the truth of Universal Gravitation yesterday means nothing about Universal Gravitation tomorrow; he was forgetting that A=A and Gravity=Gravity universally.

 

Assuming that gravity is, in fact, universal.

 

 

So certainty is contextual (and the context is every thing you know), induction is the search for commensurate constancy and wherever such constancy is found, within every fact you currently know, it must be generalized across every commensurate fact, because A=A.

 

I agree with this as well. It is equivalent to my own way of solving the problem of induction, which is to amend the premises with "assuming our perception of the universe is correct," add the premise that "the possibility that our observations in this universe are wrong is not relevant to our actions," and add the context of relevance to action into the conclusion. For instance instead of:

 

Our observations of the law of gravity so far show that all objects fall downward when dropped,

Therefore, all objects fall when dropped.

 

We would say:

 

1. Our observations of the law of gravity so far show that objects fall when dropped.

2. Assuming our perception of the universe is correct, all objects fall when dropped.

3. The possibility that our perception of the universe is not correct is not relevant to our actions,

Therefore,

4. To the extent relevant to action in the real world, we may assume that all objects fall when dropped.

 

Of course, it is easier to omit the extra premises for the sake of convenience. But they still remain as implicit premises.

 

 

  • When [Hume] declared circular reasoning to be invalid, that was a generalization which was reached (regardless of whomever first discovered it) inductively.

 

Maybe, but I could also see the argument that the context would be different.

 

 

  • When he said that the act of induction assumes some uniformity to nature, that was another generalization (he himself was assuming uniformity to induction, through the very reasoning I just explained).
  • The generalization that there isn't necessarily any such uniformity required more induction- just as you explained that principle by the concrete example of the law of gravity, and expected your audience to induce from the example.

 

These two points seem to make sense. I'll think about them some more.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eamon said:

Interesting. I have heard the argument that because concepts are meaningless without reference to reality, and because inductive reasoning is necessary to make sense of reality, that the concepts necessary for deductive reasoning are ultimately based on inductive reasoning. So this would make Hume's argument a stolen concept.

On the other hand, one could argue that this just reduces the whole thing to a circular loop, makes both inductive and deductive reasoning invalid, and makes the problem even worse.

It's not often discussed, but you will always ultimately be faced with two choices when justifying knowledge. Either circularity or contradiction. There are two types of circularity vicious and non-vicious. This is Dr. Peikoffs whole point in the A-S distinction article in ITOE. This is why folks, including some Oist, complain about circularity when discussing axiomatic contexts. Its either "existence exists", or, "existence does not exist"....

I caution you to read Rand for full context on objectivity. It is common for some to turn the Oist idea of contextuality into a bastardized form of pragmatism.

As for Hume and the senses, the senses are valid because otherwise no knowledge is possible. There is no other non contradictory way of halting the epistemic regress. The senses are objective, they present directly the mind independent via material causation. The validity of the senses is axiomatic, no other conception is possible. This is not understood by some even here.. Yes, it is a stolen concept to deny the senses. Sensory data is implicit in any statement. Even invalid concepts are failed integrations of sensory data.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, I don't see how those last two points follow. Again, Hume was not saying that inductive reasoning was invalid. He was only illustrating that the assumption that it was was based on fallacious premises. According to Hume's reasoning, inductive reasoning MIGHT work, but we have no proof that it does.

 

A good analogy might be our theory of property rights. The modern conception of property rights was originally formulated by John Locke on the premise that God gave the Earth to Adam and Eve, and by a precise reading of scripture we can derive the fact that individuals have a right to own what they produce by their own labor. Objectivism would reject the premises of this argument, since they're derived from an irrational superstition, but agree with the conclusion. Similarly, Hume may have rejected the premise behind the belief that inductive reasoning is valid, but still believed that inductive reasoning was valid.

 

A second point is that you can use the premises of a theory to prove that the theory is flawed. For instance, you can use the premise of altruism that you should do whatever will produce the greatest benefit to your neighbors to point out that you can do more for your neighbors by starting a business to produce valuable goods for them, making a profit, and using that profit to expand operations, produce more goods, and create jobs than by sacrificing yourself for their benefit. This does not mean that you accept the premise that you should exist for the benefit of your neighbors. You are only using this premise to prove that altruism is self-contradictory. And by the same token, Hume may not have accepted any of the premises of his reasoning -- he was only using them to show that the system of logic he was arguing against was -- in his opinion -- flawed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It's not often discussed, but you will always ultimately be faced with two choices when justifying knowledge. Either circularity or contradiction. There are two types of circularity vicious and non-vicious. This is Dr. Peikoffs whole point in the A-S distinction article in ITOE. This is why folks, including some Oist, complain about circularity when discussing axiomatic contexts. Its either "existence exists", or, "existence does not exist"....

 

Contradiction, or just making it impossible to know what to do.

 

 

I caution you ro read Rand for full context on objectivity. It is common for some to turn the Oist idea of contextuality into a bastardized form of pragmatism.

 

I will definitely look into it. I'll admit that right now it seems like pragmatism is the best we can hope for.

Edited by Eamon Arasbard
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Eamon said:

According to Hume's reasoning, inductive reasoning MIGHT work, but we have no proof that it does.

Thats my point! You cannot prove the axiomatic. The senses are axiomatic. Proof pressupposes the directly experienced-self evident, i.e, the validity of the senses. Axiomatic concepts are irreducible starting points that cannot be rejected without reaffirmation.

Edit: The statement, "the possibility that our observations in this universe are wrong is not relevant to our actions," is misguided. The category "wrong" does not apply to the metaphysically given. If the senses are invalid then nothing you or I am saying would be possible!

Edit: "Contradiction, or just making it impossible to know what to do."

What one is to do, is to figure out what one can do nothing to escape. To identify what constraints identity has presented one with.

Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On the other hand, one could argue that this just reduces the whole thing to a circular loop, makes both inductive and deductive reasoning invalid, and makes the problem even worse."

Relying on both induction and deduction the whole time and counting on them being valid in order to make said argument, thus defeating one's own argument . :P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"On the other hand, one could argue that this just reduces the whole thing to a circular loop, makes both inductive and deductive reasoning invalid, and makes the problem even worse."

Relying on both induction and deduction the whole time and counting on them being valid in order to make said argument, thus defeating one's own argument . :P

 

I believe I've heard Peikoff also stating that it is misguided to try to "prove" logic. 

 

In this case logic, the means by which you arrive at proof, is what you need to presuppose I.e. rely on in order to carry out the proof... but that is precisely what you are trying to prove.  It is not so much a hopeless exercise as it is simply misguided. 

 

IF you tried to prove logic is valid using logic then you would be engaging in circular reasoning.  The Objectivist view of it (as explained by Plasmatic above) allows one to completely avoid forming the "circle" in the first place.

 

The answer to Rationalism's hamster wheel... is never to get on/in it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thats my point! You cannot prove the axiomatic. The senses are axiomatic. Proof pressupposes the directly experienced-self evident, i.e, the validity of the senses. Axiomatic concepts are irreducible starting points that cannot be rejected without reaffirmation.

I think Eamon isn't disagreeing, only saying you mischaracterized Hume.

 

That the premises of a system cannot be proven is a well-accepted idea I think, which is what Godel's incompleteness theory demonstrates. Logical positivists took this fact to say that all empirical facts are indeterminate, and logical syntax the only thing that is determinate. Objectivism has no issue with axioms because they are self-evident in a direct way, albeit later in your conceptual development as concepts.What would be wrong with taking existence exists as an axiom if it is not provable by logic itself? In any case, what you can say about thinking methods is what the proper use is. Probability can't provide knowledge, but induction refers to knowledge acquisition, so I don't think probability is "bad induction", I say it isn't induction at all. What you can do with induction is identify how any knowledge is acquired, by studying scientific or intellectual developments. I suppose you'd say that's induction to  prove induction, I just see no issue using bad methods as long as you are working to improve your methods in the long run.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I believe I've heard Peikoff also stating that it is misguided to try to "prove" logic. 

<snip> 

The answer to Rationalism's hamster wheel... is never to get on/in it.

In both the "Introduction to Logic" and "Objectivism Through Induction", the process of reaffirmation through denial demonstrate it has to be used even to attack it. This constitutes, in part, logic's validity.

 

Depending on the diameter, it's not always self-evident that it is a wheel. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie said:

I think Eamon isn't disagreeing, only saying you mischaracterized Hume.

Once again I have no idea where you are coming from. Where exactly do you think Eamon is claiming this in what I was responding to?

That the premises of a system cannot be proven is a well-accepted idea I think.

Then why do folks like Eamon find Hume's skepticism a challenge?

Louie said:

Logical positivists took this fact to say that all empirical facts are indeterminate, and logical syntax the only thing that is determinate.

Do you have a reference to instantiate this view of LP?

What would be wrong with taking existence exists as an axiom if it is not provable by logic itself?

Are you asking me this? This along with the rest of your comments don't seem to relate to me, so maybe you were just pontificating in general? Edited by Plasmatic
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On the other hand, one could argue that this just reduces the whole thing to a circular loop, makes both inductive and deductive reasoning invalid. . .

Argue- how?  :huh:

 

If all reasoning is invalid then all argument is also invalid; you cannot form syllogisms without thoughts.  So if reasoning were invalid then one actually could not truthfully say so.  And if one reached, through careful and deliberate reasoning, the conclusion that reasoning were invalid- then that conclusion would also be invalid.

That statement is a textbook stolen concept; it contradicts the mental operations required to think it.  Which means that it ultimately contradicts itself.  Which means that it cannot be true.

 

One could make the argument that reason isn't valid, but not with any validity.  B)

 

According to Hume's reasoning, inductive reasoning MIGHT work, but we have no proof that it does.

So we have no proof that we have no proof.

 

I agree with this as well. It is equivalent to my own way of solving the problem of induction, which is to amend the premises with "assuming our perception of the universe is correct," add the premise that "the possibility that our observations in this universe are wrong is not relevant to our actions," and add the context of relevance to action into the conclusion.

Exactly!  And since the purpose of knowledge is action (specifically profitable action) any quantification of "truth" (such as validity) must be judged according to that standard; according to whether it expands or contracts your capacity to do things.  :thumbsup:

 

The statement, "the possibility that our observations in this universe are wrong is not relevant to our actions," is misguided. The category "wrong" does not apply to the metaphysically given.

Misguided how?

You are, of course, absolutely right.  The possibility that everything in the universe is an illusion is not a valid possibility at all; it contradicts itself.  I know that.

What I don't understand is what's wrong with dismissing it out-of-hand as arbitrary; without any relation to empirical evidence, logic or one's own life.  Doesn't that apply to the possibility he described?

 

If there is some problem with his reasoning then it's an error that I share as well, so I would appreciate some elaboration.  Please.

 

It is common for some to turn the Oist idea of contextuality into a bastardized form of pragmatism.

I think you could call Objectivism the only truly consequencialist philosophy; none of the others take the full picture into account.

 

When someone crusades virulently against principles, for example, demanding "compromise" in the name of material benefits, they're usually incapable of enjoying such benefits.  No material thing could ever make them happy.  And that's a consequence that most pragmatists cannot consider, because they would have to deal with those pesky little "intangibles" first.

 

So you could say that pragmatism is actually a bastardized form of Objectivism, born of context-dropping.  :twisted:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Then why do folks like Eamon find Hume's skepticism a challenge?

I find that Hume asks a good question, but not really "challenging". Any decent philosopher should have responses to Hume, I don't find questions he asks are invalid or arbitrary. Even if his answers to himself are overly skeptical and Empiricist with a capital 'e'.

 

I got it from reading Rudolf Carnap's "Philosophy and Logical Syntax".

(book outline/summary: http://www.rbjones.com/rbjpub/philos/bibliog/carnap34.htm#SecI1)

 

My last question was mostly rhetorical, but I'm still curious how you would answer it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Louie said:

I find that Hume asks a good question, but not really "challenging". Any decent philosopher should have responses to Hume, I don't find questions he asks are invalid or arbitrary. Even if his answers to himself are overly skeptical and Empiricist with a capital 'e'.

Louie, you really should try harder to respond in a relevant way to post. My question was a response to your statement that was trivializing the contention in recent posts about Hume's skepticism. If Godel's theorem is as trivially accepted as you claim then that would be such an "answer". Thats the reason for my response to you questioning why others treat is as a challenge. Your response seems to forget all this.

You asserted that you thought that Eamon may think I was mischaracterizing Hume. You failed to substantiate this in spite of my request for you to do so. What did Eamon say that made you think Eamon thought this?

Louie said:

I got it from reading Rudolf Carnap's "Philosophy and Logical Syntax".

(book outline/summary: http://www.rbjones.c...ap34.htm#SecI1)

Could you point out where you see this in that link?

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...