Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

What does Ayn Rand call those that claim that nothing is true and prov

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

I am looking for the philosophic label for those that believe all human concepts are invalid because we cannot "prove" them by looking at every situation that could ever occur forever in time.

The group that would say "One day there might we might perceive a "new" colour, so we cannot believe the colour spectrum to be a truth of nature, it is merely an assumption as are all human facts"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I am looking for the philosophic label for those that believe all human concepts are invalid because we cannot "prove" them by looking at every situation that could ever occur forever in time.

The group that would say "One day there might we might perceive a "new" colour, so we cannot believe the colour spectrum to be a truth of nature, it is merely an assumption as are all human facts"

That is skepticism of induction in particular. The clowns who say stuff like "no generalization is reliable , not even this one".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That is skepticism of induction in particular. The clowns who say stuff like "no generalization is reliable , not even this one".

Well, it is also fallibilism, namely that I know I have been wrong in the past, so I could be wrong in the future. Not that I Will be wrong nor that I Won't, but rather I could be, but again I could also be wrong about that; i.e. I won't be wrong in the future.

Now how you and I look at the induction problem can be viewed through how we understand the correspondence theory of truth. E.g. if we were looking at a cat, you could say - See, there is a cat - and I could answer - Yes, that that is true. So if you say - tomorrow will come - I will answer - yes, I agree, based on the past we have reason to assume tomorrow will come, but it is not true in the sense that you can see tomorrow from today.

In general terms from that overall context of all of the past up and until now, the general regularity of reality gives me no reason to suspect that reality overall won't continue in to the future, but I don't know that as true because I don't know the future as I can't literally show it to you. In other words it is an epistemological limit of knowledge, because we as humans take place in an ongoing time with no direct access to future other than it can happen as it comes around as now and then turns into the past.

So the sentence - tomorrow will come - is neither true or false right now as per correspondence, but unknown. Yet I accept I have no reason to suspect tomorrow won't come and I will based on the past/present continue as if tomorrow comes.

So yes, if you want I am a skeptic about universal generalizations as true in the philosophical sense if they include the future. It would be a contradiction to claim I don't know anything, because right now I know, but that is not at the same time and in same sense as tomorrow so that I don't know everything for all time is not a contradiction, because tomorrow is not at the same time as now. The law of non-contradiction has a limit because every time it applies it only applies to that given time/sense or if you like A=A is only true when it is true that A exists. IFF reality continues as such A=A will remain true.

Falsehood

“True” and “false” are assessments within the field of human cognition: they designate a relationship [of] correspondence or contradiction between an idea and reality . . . . The false is established as false by reference to a body of evidence and within a context, and is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence.

The Philosophy of Objectivism Leonard Peikoff, “The Philosophy of Objectivism”

lecture series (1976), Lecture 6.

So if you like the universal assessment of that any context at all will happen as such is only true of the future if it happens in the future and neither true nor false by evidence of the past/present.

Mikael

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just trying to recall what Ayn Rand called those that claim that "nothing is true and proven, until we have seen every concrete pertaining to the matter". Was is "Empiricists"?

You might be thinking of Rand's principle of contextuality. At a given point in time, a concept is properly defined in certain terms, given the full context of one's knowledge. If further information becomes available, it might urge a different definition, but that new definition would not contradict the old one, merely refine it.

-- Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So if you say - tomorrow will come - I will answer - yes, I agree, based on the past we have reason to assume tomorrow will come, but it is not true in the sense that you can see tomorrow from today.

----------------

Mindy: Your scepticism, here, borders on the idealistic. You don't really suppose that being able to "see" tomorrow today would make it more truly subject to the law of identity? One of the fallacies involved here is the idea that "tomorrow" is a category of existence. All present moments were future ones, and they give evidence of what references to the future concern. That is, they concern the same old same old.

If you maintain an agnosticism regarding the future, you hold it despite the evidence of all time so far, and all existence. Every today was a tomorrow. Identity holds universally. What more could you want?

----------------

Mikael: In general terms from that overall context of all of the past up and until now, the general regularity of reality gives me no reason to suspect that reality overall won't continue in to the future, but I don't know that as true because I don't know the future as I can't literally show it to you. In other words it is an epistemological limit of knowledge, because we as humans take place in an ongoing time with no direct access to future other than it can happen as it comes around as now and then turns into the past.

Mikael

----------

Mindy: You are finding "an epistemological limit...[to] knowledge" in the fact of perspective. You can't describe what hasn't happened, therefore, you conclude, it may not have identity. Nonsense. You merely can't have causal interactions with what doesn't yet exist. When it exists, you can, and may. The existence yet to come is as genuine as the present "existence" is. It is subject to the very same metaphysics.

You do know the future, in some, general ways. You know that any future will involve existents and their identities. You can predict the future in some ways--significant ways-- and we recognize prediction as valid exactly because we recognize that "future" isn't a metaphysical category. Today's causes will manifest in tomorrow's effects.

-- Mindy

Link to comment
Share on other sites

----------

Mindy: You are finding "an epistemological limit...[to] knowledge" in the fact of perspective. You can't describe what hasn't happened, therefore, you conclude, it may not have identity. Nonsense. You merely can't have causal interactions with what doesn't yet exist. When it exists, you can, and may. The existence yet to come is as genuine as the present "existence" is. It is subject to the very same metaphysics.

You do know the future, in some, general ways. You know that any future will involve existents and their identities. You can predict the future in some ways--significant ways-- and we recognize prediction as valid exactly because we recognize that "future" isn't a metaphysical category. Today's causes will manifest in tomorrow's effects.

-- Mindy

The operative word is know.

The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

The primacy of existence (of reality) is the axiom that existence exists, i.e., that the universe exists independent of consciousness (of any consciousness), that things are what they are, that they possess a specific nature, an identity. The epistemological corollary is the axiom that consciousness is the faculty of perceiving that which exists—and that man gains knowledge of reality by looking outward.Source

If you look at the formal content of the quote and compare it with your answer you will notice this as captured by the formal similarity of Existence exists and "You know that any future will involve existents and their identities" that they both are in the present term.

Now so do you know the future by looking outward; i.e. can you see the future from the present?

No, the future or rather that the future will come is neither true nor false at the present; it is unknown. So let us look at the law of non-contradiction: “It is impossible that the same thing belong and not belong to the same thing at the same time and in the same respect.”

So is it a logical contradiction that existence exists (at this time) versus there is no existence tomorrow? Notice I am no saying that "there is no existence tomorrow" is true nor false as per:

“True” and “false” are assessments within the field of human cognition: they designate a relationship [of] correspondence or contradiction between an idea and reality . . . . The false is established as false by reference to a body of evidence and within a context, and is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. Source

Rather I am pointing out that as per the law of non-contradiction there is no contradiction between existence exists at this time versus there is no existence tomorrow and that "there is no existence tomorrow" is neither true nor false as per ""True” and "false" are assessments within the field of human cognition: they designate a relationship [of] correspondence or contradiction between an idea and reality".

So the concept of the future as - anything at all will happen not now, but later - is as far as I can tell an neither true nor false fact, but rather if we divide between metaphysics and epistemology a sort of metaphysical axiom.

I think we actually agree as by the bold part in your post:

----------

Mindy: You are finding "an epistemological limit...[to] knowledge" in the fact of perspective. You can't describe what hasn't happened, therefore, you conclude, it may not have identity. Nonsense. You merely can't have causal interactions with what doesn't yet exist. When it exists, you can, and may. The existence yet to come is as genuine as the present "existence" is. It is subject to the very same metaphysics.

The future is a metaphysical neither true nor false axiom and not an epistemological true fact. :)

The limit on the side of logic is that "the same time" is blind to any other time, but rather only concerns itself within the context of the given time as that same time.

BTW it invalidates the tabula rasa as the concept of the future can't be established by looking outward as you can only look outward now.

In more general terms I accept the validity of the primacy of existence as such, but I reject the idea that all words/concepts can be established as per looking outward.

“True” and “false” are assessments within the field of human cognition: they designate a relationship [of] correspondence or contradiction between an idea and reality . . . . The false is established as false by reference to a body of evidence and within a context, and is pronounced false because it contradicts the evidence. Source

So "assessments" can be established by looking outward? Rather it seems they are inward facts, you only know them by introspection and not looking outward. The same seems to be the case with human cognition/reason as such and ideas. Indeed what about introspection as a concept?

Now should anyone choose to answer I will because I am critical of parts of Objectivism answer in the debate forum.

With regard

Mikael

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...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

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