Primacy of Nature Over Reason

[Steve-n]

"From the earliest days of western philosophy, man was told that his capacity to reason was what his life was all about. Reason, said the Athenian philosophers, was the faculty that made man unique. Reason sets man apart and explains the cosmos. It provides man with answers to the questions that vex him. Two thousand years after the age of Plato and Aristotle men continue to believe that reason is their salvation. And practically speaking we cannot doubt that reason is indeed essential to human existence. After all, without reason where would we be? However, as Heidegger rightly surmised, reason does not give a man answers to the mystery of his Existence. This is because the content of the Reason does not itself Exist. Reason does not make the world and did not bring Nature into being. On the contrary, Nature brought the mind of man into Being. Man's Beingness - his Dasein or "Being in the World," then gives him the capacity to think and reason. One must have soil before they can garden and air to breathe before they can walk and talk. One must Exist before they can think. Therefore, reason is the child of Dasein."

http://www.taroscopes.com/miscellanous-pages/disciples.html

[phibetakappa]

Yep, that's pretty stupid. Thanks for sharing.

[Steve-n]

Yep, that's pretty stupid. Thanks for sharing.

You're better than that. Back up your opinion..

[N/A]

Sense_of_time

Just because reason is not existence itself does not mean that an individual's application of reason can't explain existence. For when a man reasons, he lives his existence. His life is sustained and enjoyed by the rational, and all the meaning there can be exists within the rational mind.

Edited December 27, 2009 by N/A

[John McVey]

It's nonsense. It is assuming that the world can only be reasonable if a reasoning consciousness created it according to laws of reason applicable to that consciousness. Since that is not the case, he's then saying that the faculty of reason is nothing more than a creation of nature, which runs according to its own rules, and which reason is incapable of comprehending because it is forever locked into its nature-created subjectivism.

It is totally ignoring the fact that the explanation why reason works is because consciousness is conscious of existence and, in that existence, A is A. The laws of reason are the various rules for using a conceptual consciousness to discover in what way A is A.

On top of that there is the usual pretentiousness of existentialism, but I couldn't be bothered commenting further on that.

JJM

[Jennifer]

Like was reasoned in the last 2 posts, its just nonsense.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/97/252849242_373d779ccd.jpg

[Steve-n]

Sense_of_time

Just because reason is not existence itself does not mean that an individual's application of reason can't explain existence. For when a man reasons, he lives his existence. His life is sustained and enjoyed by the rational, and all the meaning there can be exists within the rational mind.

Life is sustained and enjoyed by nature/existence. We are plugged directly in the source itself. Meaning exists independent of the mind's ability to comprehend. Your desire to explain existence using reason stems from your false sense of separation, your fraudulent experience of being a mental entity occupying/controlling a body, a sort of ghost in the machine.

[Steve-n]

It is totally ignoring the fact that the explanation why reason works is because consciousness is conscious of existence and, in that existence, A is A. The laws of reason are the various rules for using a conceptual consciousness to discover in what way A is A.

Consciousness is not limited to the conceptual.

[bluecherry]

Steve, how much do you actually know about Objectivism so far and how much interest do you have in learning about it?

[Steve-n]

Like was reasoned in the last 2 posts, its just nonsense.

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/97/252849242_373d779ccd.jpg

To quote the article, quoting Ayn Rand:

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone."

[Steve-n]

Steve, how much do you actually know about Objectivism so far and how much interest do you have in learning about it?

I've read Atlas Shrugged. I agree with her advocacy of individualism, self-interest, free market economy, non-initiation of force. If her philosophy evolved in any way beyond how it was presented in Atlas Shrugged, I would most certainly be interested to know about it and explore it. Also, I am very interested in the ideas of individual's like Michael Tsarion (author of the article I posted) who see the value in her work but don't mistake a piece for the entire puzzle.

[N/A]

Life is sustained and enjoyed by nature/existence. We are plugged directly in the source itself. Meaning exists independent of the mind's ability to comprehend. Your desire to explain existence using reason stems from your false sense of separation, your fraudulent experience of being a mental entity occupying/controlling a body, a sort of ghost in the machine.

Life is. Sustain-end? AND-

Enjoyed? Bye!

nature.

Existence? We are.

Plugged? Direct'in the source?

Itself.

meaning: exists independent

Of the mind = ability to comprehend

Y-our desire? 2^nd explain:

Existence U-sing, RE.AS.On-Stems

From your ...false sense of separation... you're fraudulent = experience of being a mental

---

Entity controlling a body of text?

A (sort of) ghost in the

Met=ching!

[Nicko0301]

Life is sustained and enjoyed by nature/existence. We are plugged directly in the source itself. Meaning exists independent of the mind's ability to comprehend. Your desire to explain existence using reason stems from your false sense of separation, your fraudulent experience of being a mental entity occupying/controlling a body, a sort of ghost in the machine.

My experience is in no way "fraudulent." I am an individual entity with an individual consciousness.

[Nicko0301]

I read the link you provided, and, I'm sorry, but it's pure rubbish. It's unapologetic mysticism and an atavistic desire for the return to an ancient way of life.

[Jake_Ellison]

"From the earliest days of western philosophy, man was told that his capacity to reason was what his life was all about. Reason, said the Athenian philosophers, was the faculty that made man unique. Reason sets man apart and explains the cosmos. It provides man with answers to the questions that vex him. Two thousand years after the age of Plato and Aristotle men continue to believe that reason is their salvation. And practically speaking we cannot doubt that reason is indeed essential to human existence. After all, without reason where would we be? However, as Heidegger rightly surmised, reason does not give a man answers to the mystery of his Existence. This is because the content of the Reason does not itself Exist. Reason does not make the world and did not bring Nature into being. On the contrary, Nature brought the mind of man into Being.

How on Earth did you (and supposedly Heidegger) figure out all this stuff about Mr. Nature (James Reginald T. Nature, likes to just be called Jimmy), without reason? How do you know it's not just the true lord of the Universe, Xe-nu, implanting thoughts into your head?

Don't trust your brain, for the love of Christ, don't trust it. Like Heidegger said, when you hear the dwindling of a thought in your head, run away. After all, there is no reason, how could you be thinking any thoughts. Thoughts are just a sign of the Reaper coming to get you. Ruuuuuuuuuuuun, freakin' ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun.

[bluecherry]

I've read Atlas Shrugged. I agree with her advocacy of individualism, self-interest, free market economy, non-initiation of force. If her philosophy evolved in any way beyond how it was presented in Atlas Shrugged, I would most certainly be interested to know about it and explore it. Also, I am very interested in the ideas of individual's like Michael Tsarion (author of the article I posted) who see the value in her work but don't mistake a piece for the entire puzzle.

You agree with a number of her ideas, but do you know how these philosophic positions of hers which you agree with were come to? You've posted something which seems to say you think our belief in the efficacy/reliability/truth of conclusions come to through the use of reason is deluded, yet you agree with positions which were come to by Rand through the utilization of reason. Philosophers critical of reason, such as Heidegger, existed before Rand, so it was not as if she was unable to investigate ideas they may have put forward. If you look into non-fiction writings on Objectivism you can find where the issue of the status of the conclusions one can draw from reason is investigated. These investigations are taken care of before moving on to develop later conclusions based off of them like those conclusions of her's you've mentioned supporting. Since the issue is already discussed pretty well and in detail about why those things like what Heidegger had to say about reason don't hold water ultimately, I recomend going and checking them out first before trying to have a potentially long and confusing discussion of it on a forum like this. Try Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff for example, which gives an orderly and systematic discussion of Objectivism to show you step by step how the philosophy's conclusions were come to and how many objections some people may have were dealt with, which is closely based off a lecture series Peikoff gave during Rand's life time and which Rand said was really the only presentation of her philosophy overall which she recognized as being an accurate one until or unless she ever wrote such a presentation herself (she never did end up doing one herself though.)

Edited December 27, 2009 by bluecherry

[KendallJ]

Consciousness is not limited to the conceptual.

You're better than that. Back up your opinion.

[phibetakappa]

You're better than that. Back up your opinion..

Sorry, I thought you were sharing something you found amusing.

If I came across this I would chuckle.

I didn't realize you were taking it seriously.

Philosophy is to guide one's life.

What guidance does having a tenant like "primacy of nature over reason" provide?

For example you could now say, "OK, I take your tenant seriously, nature has 'primacy' over reason. Now what? I am still alive and I still need guidance."

* * *

Further, the use of "primacy" in the statement is incorrect.

With regards to reason, O'ism talks about the primacy of reason, only in relation to emotions. The context being we have these two faculties which provide some guidance and some people choose to consult emotions before they choose to use reason.

(Note: in the O'ist literature, there is only one reference to the phrase "primacy of reason" and it occurs in the article "What is Romanticism?" page 104. The article states that Romanticism does not depend on either the "primacy of emotions" or the "primacy of reason," but on the "primacy of values.")

But as O'ism demonstrates, emotions are dependent on reason for producing the factual identifications on which the lightning-like evaluations of emotions depend.

In this context it is proper to use the word "primacy." We are describing a proper order based on a dependency between two different objects, i.e., that emotions depend on reason.

However, in the context of the above statement: "Primacy of nature over reason" there is no such "dependency", which needs an *argument* to demonstrate one is dependent on the other and comes first; and therefore, that one necessarily needs to be chosen before the other. Why?

Reason is an aspect of nature. Reason is not unnatural. Thus it is not as if "nature" is a separate object, which another object depends. Rather, "reason" is an instance of nature, that is, it is subsumed under the concept nature.

Thus, we have no choice about it. It is therefore nonsensical to provide an argument to try to convince people to choose one *prior" to the other, which is what the use of the term "primacy" is intended to do in such contexts.

Further, given that in a sense everything is "natural" nothing can come "before" nature, which is another reason why it is nonsensical to use the word "primacy" here. Moderns are accustom to stating that objects made by man are "unnatural," but this is not the case. Man is also a natural being, and what he makes are only recombinations of existing *natural* objects into a new configurations. E.g., cutting down trees and fashioning them into a log cabin.

To state that nature has primacy over reason, is to state we should be aware of and choose to keep nature primary to reason, which is to state that reason is unnatural, existing apart from nature. But man is a natural being, his body and mind are natural, i.e., reason is a natural faculty of a natural object. It is improper to use the word "primacy" in this context, as it does not apply.

The statement is saying, "We should keep nature primary to nature."

OK.

Edited December 27, 2009 by phibetakappa

[Kallie]

To quote the article, quoting Ayn Rand:

"Men have been taught that it is a virtue to agree with others. But the creator is the man who disagrees. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to swim with the current. But the creator is the man who goes against the current. Men have been taught that it is a virtue to stand together. But the creator is the man who stands alone."

Please do not use out of context Rand quotes to try and defend a position that is antithetical to her views. I understand however that you are trying to be sincere and to understand the difference so don't take this response as offensive. The position you are trying to advance is contrary to Objectivism and not only that but mystical and nonsensical in it's nature, as has been shown fairly thoroughly here already unless you wish to argue that the method of reasoning is too fallible to be used in the way we designate it, which would require you to reject axioms, this cannot be done. I suggest you pick up OPAR if you already support capitalism/individualism, etc. or for a quick fix check out the wiki on this site: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page

I heavily suggest you read through the metaphysics and epistemology sections. If you can agree with those sections than this thread pretty much comes to a close.

Edited December 27, 2009 by Kallie

[Steve-n]

My experience is in no way "fraudulent." I am an individual entity with an individual consciousness.

Of course, I agree. As am I and everyone else. We are flesh and blood human beings that have a mind and have awareness/consciousness. If you take yourself to be a mental entity in control over a body through the use of reason (or anything else) then your experience is unnatural/fraudulent.

[Steve-n]

You're better than that. Back up your opinion.

you have consciousness of physical sensations. we have concepts to label them but you can be conscious of a sensation without labeling it.

[Steve-n]

I read the link you provided, and, I'm sorry, but it's pure rubbish. It's unapologetic mysticism and an atavistic desire for the return to an ancient way of life.

A return to nature is not in anyway mystical or regressive. Nature is far more intelligent than reason. Reason is simply one of nature's functions (only occurs in humans as Rand pointed out). Nature not reason is ultimate reality.

[Steve-n]

How on Earth did you (and supposedly Heidegger) figure out all this stuff about Mr. Nature (James Reginald T. Nature, likes to just be called Jimmy), without reason? How do you know it's not just the true lord of the Universe, Xe-nu, implanting thoughts into your head?

Don't trust your brain, for the love of Christ, don't trust it. Like Heidegger said, when you hear the dwindling of a thought in your head, run away. After all, there is no reason, how could you be thinking any thoughts. Thoughts are just a sign of the Reaper coming to get you. Ruuuuuuuuuuuun, freakin' ruuuuuuuuuuuuuuuun.

Did I say not to trust your brain? I have nothing against reason. It is a very useful tool of nature operating through/by human beings. It is a great means of acquiring knowledge.

[Steve-n]

You agree with a number of her ideas, but do you know how these philosophic positions of hers which you agree with were come to? You've posted something which seems to say you think our belief in the efficacy/reliability/truth of conclusions come to through the use of reason is deluded, yet you agree with positions which were come to by Rand through the utilization of reason. Philosophers critical of reason, such as Heidegger, existed before Rand, so it was not as if she was unable to investigate ideas they may have put forward. If you look into non-fiction writings on Objectivism you can find where the issue of the status of the conclusions one can draw from reason is investigated. These investigations are taken care of before moving on to develop later conclusions based off of them like those conclusions of her's you've mentioned supporting. Since the issue is already discussed pretty well and in detail about why those things like what Heidegger had to say about reason don't hold water ultimately, I recomend going and checking them out first before trying to have a potentially long and confusing discussion of it on a forum like this. Try Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand by Leonard Peikoff for example, which gives an orderly and systematic discussion of Objectivism to show you step by step how the philosophy's conclusions were come to and how many objections some people may have were dealt with, which is closely based off a lecture series Peikoff gave during Rand's life time and which Rand said was really the only presentation of her philosophy overall which she recognized as being an accurate one until or unless she ever wrote such a presentation herself (she never did end up doing one herself though.)

I do not think reason is deluded. I think it is limited. Big difference. Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll look into it.

[bluecherry]

Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll look into it.

Good, because it explicitly addresses that "reason is limited" argument.