Argument for the existence of God

[Jacob86]

Greebo,

I just re-skimmed most of our recent conversation and I plan to respond to the key points here in this post. However, if there is an important point in one of your posts which I have neglected to respond to, please let me know. I just figure this would be easier than replying to everything which was said.

Quickly, I would like to point out and express appreciation for the fact that you and Plasmatic seem to be the only ones who understand what I am getting at.

What we do not need is direct immediately related perceptual evidence on everything to know that thing.

We need perceptual evidence as the foundation of our knowledge. The knowledge of "A is A" and "2+2=4" is not directly verifiable in the absolutely true sense from perceptual evidence but it is verifiable as absolutely true based on knowledge *derived* from the perceptual evidence we have.

Absolutely agree! And this is what I have been saying (as long as I correctly understand you). But this does not seem to be consistent with the assertion that "all knowledge is reducible to perception". Yes, particular instances of "A is A" and "2+2=4" regarding particular perceived entities are reducible to perception. But, the universal principle; the applicability to all unperceived entities is not reducible to perception.

Does that make sense? And do you agree?

The perceptual evidence is the foundation - down in the basement - upon which all knowledge rests. The knowledge of "A is A" and "2+2=4" are on the lower floors. Advanced Calculus is on the 20th...

Up on floor 3, you can't see, touch or feel the basement - but the basement is still there.

I *might* contend for a slightly altered analogy depending on what you mean about "A is A" being on the lower floors...but I can say that I agree for the most part.

In that context, yes. But it's important to clarify that while it isn't necessary to observe it's application to *everything*, it is necessary to observe its application to *something*.

Ok. Again. I think I can accept this for now (may need to flesh it out more..??), but at the very least, this seems to imply that all knowledge is not reducible to perception, since we can "know its application to *everything* without observing its application to *everything*". Agree??

Square circle is a bad example. Circles are strictly defined geometrical concepts. You cannot have a square circle because of the very nature of the definition of a circle.

That's kind of the point though. I am trying to point out that we cannot perceive the universal validity of logic and yet we must be able to know it--- we know that a thing cannot be itself ("square") and be not itself ("circle") at the same time and respect. But how do we know this? We cannot perceive its impossibility.

We do perceive the "non-circularity" in those squares which we have seen, but we cannot perceive the impossibility of "circularity" in squares which we have not perceived. Yet, we know that it is impossible. HOW do we know its impossible if we don't perceive it?? There must be some other means of knowledge which is not perception; Logical necessity.

[Jacob86]

First, I would like to point out that Plasmatic and Greebo seem to understand what I am saying a little more clearly than you. So, I would refer you to my recent response to Plasmatic in post 489 and my most recent response to Greebo (not sure of the post number).

Wrong. If you want worked out examples for your understanding and to discuss further then in ITOE you will find several, right from the horse's mouth with no possibility of distortion or misunderstanding by some random guy on the internet.

It really is self-contradictory to claim you have read ITOE and then write this. Your eyes may have passed over the pages, but you comprehended nothing.

I know that Rand's position is that an attribute perceived in a particular thing is "extendable"/ able to be "ampliated"/ "projected" onto any and all particulars in that proper class.

My question is this: HOW does Rand (or anyone) know that this "projecting" or "ampliation" or "applicability" to all unperceived particulars is accurate?? In other words, how does this position "jive" with the assertion that "ALL knowledge is reducible to perception". You "know" that the attributes are applicable to unperceived entities in that class. Right? Have you perceived the applicability of the attributes to unperceived entities? NO. You have not perceived this. You have perceived the applicability of it to those entities which you have perceived. But you have not and cannot perceive its applicability to those things which you have not perceived. Yet, you know that it is true. I AGREE that it is true- but I am emphasizing that this truth is not perceptual. You cannot reduce to perception the applicability of an attribute to an unperceived entity. And yet you know that it is true because it must be true. Therefore there are two ways to know that something is true:

1)It must be true (Logical necessity)..meaning that it's opposite is irrational and contradictory.

2) Perception combined with logic.

Let me spell it out with "identity". If ALL knowledge is reducible to perception, then the knowledge of "identity" in entities would look like this:

-I perceive an entity which has identity. I perceive another entity which has identity. I perceive another entity which has identity. All of the particular entities which I have perceived have identity. Identity is the common attribute which belongs to all entities which I have perceived.

And it must stop there. In such a scenario, there would be no LAW of identity. There is only that common attribute among those entities which I have perceived..which I call "identity". I cannot know and do not know if I will perceive an entity which lacks identity by only referring to my perception.

The only way to know that I will never perceive an entity without identity is by reasoning that "an entity without identity" is illogical and therefore impossible. But this impossibility of entities without identity is not reducible to perception. It must be reached by using logic.

Therefore by perception I know that those entities which I have perceived have identity. And by logic, I know that all entities do and must have identity.

Make sense???

See? You are doing it again, begging the question by assuming there is logic first and the theory of universals can be figured out later. This is wrong, backwards, out of order and contradicts the necessary and actual hierarchy that exists from universals to logic.

Your pose is disingenuous because your argumentation is circular: you are willing to turn your back on universals and plunge onward because you know from experience that you will end up right where you started. Additionally, here now you are explicitly endorsing the method of discarding a theory because you don't like the answer it leads to.

Yes. I am declaring "Logic" as my "Epistemological King" and as my "starting point" because it is inescapable and invincible. And yes, I am willing to discard any theory if it is illogical, because I am only interested in the logical (i.e. rational). This is quite different from "discarding a theory because I don't like the answer it leads to". If the answer a theory leads to is illogical, "dislike" is not a strong enough word to express my motivation for rejecting such a theory. And I do not think that such a position (i.e. utter commitment to that which is logical) is a flawed position!

[Grames]

Make sense???

No. You don't even know how or why logic works without a basis for your universals. Your commitment to Logic (capitalized) is just another act of faith.

Yes. I am declaring "Logic" as my "Epistemological King" and as my "starting point" because it is inescapable and invincible. And yes, I am willing to discard any theory if it is illogical, because I am only interested in the logical (i.e. rational). This is quite different from "discarding a theory because I don't like the answer it leads to". If the answer a theory leads to is illogical, "dislike" is not a strong enough word to express my motivation for rejecting such a theory. And I do not think that such a position (i.e. utter commitment to that which is logical) is a flawed position!

Precisely. This is a very fine declaration that you are a committed rationalist, a very greatly flawed position. It is existence that is inescapable and invincible not thoughts because no matter how logical thoughts are always fallible.

[New Buddha]

The following are some statements which I hope can help clarify what I see to be a different use of terms between you and Objectivism. Their order is not meant to imply an argument to a conclusion.

1) The term “a Universal” in other philosophies equals “a Concept” in Objectivism.

2) The terms “a Universal” and “a Universal truth” are not interchangeable. A Universal (or more specific to Objectivism – a Concept) is either a thing or an action of a thing. A “Universal truth” (a term not used by Objectivism) is a propositional statement.

3) Objectivism doesn't use the term “Universal Truth” in regards to propositional statements. Truth can be said to be “objective” and “right” to the degree that it is non-contradictory with the sum context of knowledge that you have at any given moment. If I say “all apples are red” and the only apples I have ever seen are red, then it's an objective statement based upon the context of my knowledge. If at some later time I discover that apples can be green or golden, then I will amend my proposition.

4) However, the statement that “an apple is an apple” is NOT a propositional statement – it is an Axiom. A is A. A thing, what ever that thing might be, is what it is – regardless of my level of knowledge of it.

5) Objective knowledge does not equal Omniscience knowledge.

This is not necessarily a “perfect” statement of Objectivism. I'm trying to translate Objectivism into terms that you are using, hoping that it will provide some clarity to the issues under discussion.

[Jacob86]

The following are some statements which I hope can help clarify what I see to be a different use of terms between you and Objectivism. Their order is not meant to imply an argument to a conclusion.

I greatly appreciate your attempt at clarification here. Careful clarification regarding what one is saying is very helpful to intricate philosophical discussion. Thank you.

1) The term “a Universal” in other philosophies equals “a Concept” in Objectivism.

I don't think I have used the term "universal" in this sense. I have used it in the sense referred to in your second point, though...in the sense of "universal truth". And by "universal truth" or "universally true", I mean "true about all entities- perceived or not perceived".

2) The terms “a Universal” and “a Universal truth” are not interchangeable. A Universal (or more specific to Objectivism – a Concept) is either a thing or an action of a thing. A “Universal truth” (a term not used by Objectivism) is a propositional statement.

3) Objectivism doesn't use the term “Universal Truth” in regards to propositional statements. Truth can be said to be “objective” and “right” to the degree that it is non-contradictory with the sum context of knowledge that you have at any given moment. If I say “all apples are red” and the only apples I have ever seen are red, then it's an objective statement based upon the context of my knowledge. If at some later time I discover that apples can be green or golden, then I will amend my proposition.

4) However, the statement that “an apple is an apple” is NOT a propositional statement – it is an Axiom. A is A. A thing, what ever that thing might be, is what it is – regardless of my level of knowledge of it.

5) Objective knowledge does not equal Omniscience knowledge.

This is not necessarily a “perfect” statement of Objectivism. I'm trying to translate Objectivism into terms that you are using, hoping that it will provide some clarity to the issues under discussion.

What you said in point 4 (specifically what I underlined) seems to be the issue of disagreement in this conversation. It does not seem to me that what is underlined in that sentence is reducible to perception (especially regarding that which has not yet been perceived).

So, it seems you are saying: "A thing (any given perceived or unperceived entity) is what it is". I completely agree!

But I am arguing that your epistemology makes it impossible to know this- because your epistemology says that you can only know that which is reducible to perception and you cannot reduce to perception the fact that "all unperceived entities are what they are".

It sounds silly to even question that "all entities are what they are"...but the reason it seems silly is because it is illogical. But your epistemology claims that you cannot know something by logic apart from perceiving that it is so. Therefore, if you are to be consistent with your epistemology, you cannot know that an unperceived entity "is what it is". You can only know that about those entities which you have perceived. Further, you cannot know the applicability of any of the axioms to that which you have not perceived. Therefore, according to your epistemology, the axioms are only the common attributes you have observed in that which you have perceived and it is possible that the axioms do not apply to that which has not been perceived. Therefore, according to your epistemology, it is possible that "a is not a" regarding that which you have perceived. And therefore contradictions are possible and no knowledge about anything can truly be obtained.

BUT, the good news is that ALL OF THIS can be avoided if you simply drop off the word "all" from the assertion that "all knowledge is reducible to perception". Otherwise, you cannot truly know anything and be consistent with this assertion.

[Jacob86]

No. You don't even know how or why logic works without a basis for your universals. Your commitment to Logic (capitalized) is just another act of faith.

What part does not make sense? It seems that your trust in the applicability of the law of identity to all unperceived entities is more of an act of faith than my commitment to logic. You claim that all knowledge is reducible to perception...and that any knowledge which is not reducible to perception is an act of faith.

Yet, you claim that all unperceived entities have identity- which is not reducible to perception.

Therefore you're belief that all unperceived entities have identity is an act of faith by your own definition. Further, if your belief that all unperceived entities have identity is an act of faith, then your belief in logic is an act of faith. Not mine.

I have REASON to believe in logic. According to your epistemology, you have no reason to believe in logic (at least in logic's applicability to the unperceived). Who believes in logic by faith??

Precisely. This is a very fine declaration that you are a committed rationalist, a very greatly flawed position. It is existence that is inescapable and invincible not thoughts because no matter how logical thoughts are always fallible.

Are you suggesting a dichotomy between existence and logic? Remember, your reference to "existence" is limited to your perception of existence and therefore does not include all of existence. Therefore, for you, only that part of existence which you have perceived is inescapable and invincible.

I hold that there is no dichotomy between logic and existence (ALL of existence) and that the inescapable truth of that part of existence which I perceive is due to the fact that logic informs me of the invincibility of all of existence. Your epistemology only enables you to know certain details about that part of existence which you have seen. My epistemology allows me to know fundamental aspects of ALL of existence (including the invincibility of all of existence), in addition to the details of that which is perceived. Your epistemology, if taken seriously, reduces Man's knowledge to the level of a sophisticated monkey (at best!). The problem is that you do not take it seriously because you cannot. No one can be consistent with the idea that "all knowledge is reducible to perception" without reverting into a retarded monkey.

no matter how logical thoughts are always fallible

Is this thought fallible?

What about your thought that "all knowledge is reducible to perception"? Is this thought also fallible?

What about "Existence exists"? Is this thought fallible?

If thoughts are always fallible no matter how logical they are, then how can anyone know anything?

Whether you realize it or not, you are asserting rabid skepticism in such a claim.

All I am trying to do is help you to see that the "all" needs to be dropped off of the assertion that "all knowledge is reducible to perception" if you want to consistently be able to know anything other than that which is directly in front of your face.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Jacob86

[dream_weaver]

BUT, the good news is that ALL OF THIS can be avoided if you simply drop off the word "all" from the assertion that "all knowledge is reducible to perception". Otherwise, you cannot truly know anything and be consistent with this assertion.

Since all knowledge came from that which has been perceived, . . . if you have not perceived it, how can you have knowledge of it?

[Plasmatic]

Jacob Ive a tournament this evening so Im short on time. You didn't really answer many of my questions but I'll discuss that in detail later.

The statement "All existents have Identity" is claimed by you to contradict Oist epistemology in regards to reduction. Your claim is based on the idea that its known of necessity and not by perceptual justification.

When you typed the word "existent" into the sentence what did you mean? When one says "all circles are round" it extends to the unobserved because of what is meant by the statement maker. All of the x that are members of the class x I am refering to have the traits I am referring to. So communication is a matter of designating and agreeing that the symbols we use to communicate have the same referents.

Defining what one means by "existent" is designated perceptually. Try and define an axiomatic concept with a genus and differentia... You can't do it! What it means to have identity can only be grasped perceptually.

[Jacob86]

Since all knowledge came from that which has been perceived, . . . if you have not perceived it, how can you have knowledge of it?

You are assuming that "all knowledge came from that which has been perceived".

***The following is a quick attempt to spell out my epistemology in contrast to that of Oism****

I will grant that "all knowledge is 'kick-started' or 'inspired' by that which has been perceived".

But as has been shown above, it is not and cannot be true that "all knowledge came from that which has been perceived."

Where did it come from, then? Good question. Remember that little difference between Man and Animal- ya know, the whole "ability to reason" thing? All of knowledge (in conceptual terms) comes from reason. What is "reason"?

Analysis. Much of the time, it is analysis of that which has been perceived. But the product of such analysis is not perceptual. "Existence" as a percept is perceptual. "Existence exists" (in its "universal" application) is not perceptual. It is the product of analyzing the percept of "existence".

So, we can analyze perception and the product of the analysis can be known but not perceived.

Additionally, we can (and must) be able to analyze our analysis- for if not, how do we know that our analysis is accurate or not? And notice that in analyzing analysis, that which is being analyzed is not perceptual (it is analytic). However, this analysis of our analysis must, itself, have some foundation which is analytically "self-contained", otherwise the process of analyzing our analysis would have to go on forever and we could never know whether our analysis was accurate. The Law of Identity (and the other two Laws of Logic which are derivative of it) is this analytically "self-contained" foundation. Logic requires no further analytical explanation. And it (Logic in its "universal" application) is not perceived or reducible to perception. Particular instances of its validity are perceived in all of perception. But its validity is not dependent upon perception.

So, by analysis (the non-perceptual) alone, we know the laws of logic. How do we know anything involving perception? We apply logical (i.e accurate) analysis to that which has been perceived. An axiom is formed by plugging perceptual data (existence) into the formula of the Law of Identity (A is A). And the result is "Existence is that which exists" or "Existence exists". In this way, all axioms are dependent upon the Law of Identity- and additionally dependent on the accuracy of the particular perceptual data plugged into the Law of Identity.

What then are the tests for truth (i.e. Epistemology)?

For any idea/proposition/etc.. to be considered true it must be either....

1)Logically valid (meaning that it contains no contradictions) AND perceptually valid (meaning that the particular data being referred to is "reducible to perception").

OR

2)Logically necessary (meaning that any attempt to deny it results in a contradiction).

Since logic is required in both forms of knowing something and since "knowledge" without logic is simply "percepts" on the level of monkey knowledge, therefore logic is the foundation of epistemology (i.e. that beyond which there is not further explanation).

I DO NOT hold that The Law of Identity is "innate" or "intuitive" or "inspired" or "revealed" in some special faith based way. I hold that it is the product and discovery and the necessarily assumed/implied of man's ability to reason.

Any epistemological system which disagrees must either abandon logic (and ALL analysis of the perceptual--since all analysis is dependent upon logic), or inconsistently use logic without any reason to believe that it is accurate.

So, apart from my position, there are only two options:

1) Man is no more than a monkey with only percepts as knowledge and no ability to accurately analyze anything.

OR

2) Man does and must use logic but has no idea why it is accurate and therefore his belief in and use of logic is an act of faith.

Reworded, the options are: 1)Monkey or 2)Mystic

Or yet another way: 1)Mystics of Muscle or 2)Mystics of Mind

If you disagree with me, choose your poison.

Edited December 3, 2010 by Jacob86

[Jacob86]

Jacob Ive a tournament this evening so Im short on time. You didn't really answer many of my questions but I'll discuss that in detail later.

The statement "All existents have Identity" is claimed by you to contradict Oist epistemology in regards to reduction. Your claim is based on the idea that its known of necessity and not by perceptual justification.

When you typed the word "existent" into the sentence what did you mean? When one says "all circles are round" it extends to the unobserved because of what is meant by the statement maker. All of the x that are members of the class x I am refering to have the traits I am referring to. So communication is a matter of designating and agreeing that the symbols we use to communicate have the same referents.

Defining what one means by "existent" is designated perceptually. Try and define an axiomatic concept with a genus and differentia... You can't do it! What it means to have identity can only be grasped perceptually.

I agree. "existent" must be perceived in order to be discussed or thought about. But if what Man can know is only that which is reducible to perception, then "existent" as a percept is all that Man can know. "Existence exists" (in its universal application to all existents) is not reducible to perception. See my above post in reply to DreamWeaver for further explanation.

[Greebo]

But this does not seem to be consistent with the assertion that "all knowledge is reducible to perception". Yes, particular instances of "A is A" and "2+2=4" regarding particular perceived entities are reducible to perception. But, the universal principle; the applicability to all unperceived entities is not reducible to perception.

Does that make sense? And do you agree?

No, and no.

Lets try this from another direction.

Is "entity" a universal? Is every "thing" that exists identifiable as an entity? Do you agree that everything that has been perceived and everything that has not (yet) percieved has a unique distinct nature which identifies that thing as a "thing"? As an entity?

I *might* contend for a slightly altered analogy depending on what you mean about "A is A" being on the lower floors...but I can say that I agree for the most part.

What do you think I mean?

Ok. Again. I think I can accept this for now (may need to flesh it out more..??), but at the very least, this seems to imply that all knowledge is not reducible to perception, since we can "know its application to *everything* without observing its application to *everything*". Agree??

Again the problem with definitions here. You think "reducible to perception" means "oberseve every single instance". It does not. Reducible is a logical term which means that the present premise rests upon certain other premises.

That's kind of the point though. I am trying to point out that we cannot perceive the universal validity of logic and yet we must be able to know it--- we know that a thing cannot be itself ("square") and be not itself ("circle") at the same time and respect. But how do we know this? We cannot perceive its impossibility.

I have covered this already. Your knowledge of square and circle - that is the definition of the type of entity that is a square and is a circle - is perceptual. You know what a square is. Every instance of squares that exist must conform to the rules of being a square, or they are not squares. The DEFINITION of square is the knowledge of squares. If you ever encounter a thing that is not made up of four equal sides at right angles to each other, it is simply NOT a square.

[dream_weaver]

Are you excluding awareness from perceptual?

I can be aware of my thoughts.

I can be aware that I am identifying concepts to transmit via my fingertips to a computer screen that I anticipate you will see.

I am aware that I consider the concept of 'analysis' in my mind, and I am aware that I am aware of considering it.

I consider this as perception. While you cannot be aware of the thoughts in my head, you can examine the thoughts in your mind and conclude that you are either aware of your own thought, and if you want to infer from that, and what you know about 'man' extend that capacity to others.

What you wrote is similar in some ways to my post #500 which outlines the 'Concept of Method'.

[Grames]

Yet, you claim that all unperceived entities have identity- which is not reducible to perception.

"Let those who attempt to invalidate concepts by declaring that they cannot find "manness" in men, try to invalidate algebra by declaring that they cannot find "a-ness" in 5 or in 5,000,000."

Are you suggesting a dichotomy between existence and logic?

What exists is a unity and a hierarchical relation extending from existence to consciousness and then within consciousness abstracting from many concepts to form the method of logic. You on the other hand have at least a metaphysical duality, what exists that is given in perception and then that other plane where logic comes from somehow.

Remember, your reference to "existence" is limited to your perception of existence and therefore does not include all of existence. Therefore, for you, only that part of existence which you have perceived is inescapable and invincible.

"Let those who attempt to invalidate concepts by declaring that they cannot find "manness" in men, try to invalidate algebra by declaring that they cannot find "a-ness" in 5 or in 5,000,000."

Your epistemology, if taken seriously, reduces Man's knowledge to the level of a sophisticated monkey (at best!). The problem is that you do not take it seriously because you cannot. No one can be consistent with the idea that "all knowledge is reducible to perception" without reverting into a retarded monkey.

Using the monkey as an epithet is a sign that an evolution denying creationist is about to pop out of the closet. Objectivist insistence that knowledge be grounded is similar to the evolutionist's insistence that our bodies are natural products in that both are forms of denying the divine. No wonder this sticks in your craw.

Is this thought fallible? YES

What about your thought that "all knowledge is reducible to perception"? Is this thought also fallible? YES

What about "Existence exists"? Is this thought fallible? YES

If thoughts are always fallible no matter how logical they are, then how can anyone know anything?

Whether you realize it or not, you are asserting rabid skepticism in such a claim.

Logic is a normative prescription, it is how one should think instead of being like the sophists of ancient Greece. But to give advice on what should be done is to imply there is a choice. So long as there is choice involved the entire process and the result is fallible. What distinguishes the correct choice is justification through adhering to the proper method of thought. Justification is not omniscience, unknown factors can still intervene between some aspect of existence and one's judgement about that aspect. Justification must itself be justified in a regress that terminates with what is the given at the perceptual level.

Since everyone actually is fallible, an epistemology acknowledging that is not contradicting reality. Desiring infallible knowledge is megalomania, it is hubris, and is rationalistic in the Cartesian tradition.

The crusading skepticism of the modern era; the mounting attack on absolutes, certainty, reason itself; the insistence that firm convictions are a disease and that compromise in any dispute is men’s only recourse—all this, in significant part, is an outgrowth of Descartes’ basic approach to philosophy. To reclaim the self-confidence of man’s mind, the first modern to refute is Kant (see Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology); the second is Descartes.

Observe that Descartes starts his system by using “error” and its synonyms or derivatives as “stolen concepts.”

Men have been wrong, and therefore, he implies, they can never know what is right. But if they cannot, how did they ever discover that they were wrong? How can one form such concepts as “mistake” or “error” while wholly ignorant of what is correct? “Error” signifies a departure from truth; the concept of “error” logically presupposes that one has already grasped some truth. If truth were unknowable, as Descartes implies, the idea of a departure from it would be meaningless.

The same point applies to concepts denoting specific forms of error. If we cannot ever be certain that an argument is logically valid, if validity is unknowable, then the concept of “invalid” reasoning is impossible to reach or apply. If we cannot ever know that a man is sane, then the concept of “insanity” is impossible to form or define. If we cannot recognize the state of being awake, then we cannot recognize or conceptualize a state of not being awake (such as dreaming). If man cannot grasp X, then “non-X” stands for nothing.

Fallibility does not make knowledge impossible. Knowledge is what makes possible the discovery of fallibility.

Leonard Peikoff,

“‘Maybe You’re Wrong,’” The Objectivist Forum,

April 1981, 8.

cited in the Ayn Rand Lexicon entry on skepticism

All I am trying to do is help you to see that the "all" needs to be dropped off of the assertion that "all knowledge is reducible to perception" if you want to consistently be able to know anything other than that which is directly in front of your face.

Dropping the word all would mean regarding as knowledge some isolated floating abstractions that are arbitrary or contradictory to the rest of our knowledge. Thanks, but no thanks. I don't want your "help".

[Jacob86]

"Let those who attempt to invalidate concepts by declaring that they cannot find "manness" in men, try to invalidate algebra by declaring that they cannot find "a-ness" in 5 or in 5,000,000."

I'm glad you brought this up again because I wanted to use it to demonstrate something. In this paragraph, equations are used to make a point. My question is "How does an Oists know the validity of such an equation?"

So the equation is "2a+2a=4a". How does one know that this equation is accurate or reliable??

Why not "2a+3x=15d"? Why not "2d+2f=351z"?

How does one know that the first equation is accurate and that these others are inaccurate. And remember the variables stand for ANY given entity (whether perceived or not).

Where did such an equation come from? Perception? Or Faith? Since those are the only two categories the Oist accepts.

Using the monkey as an epithet is a sign that an evolution denying creationist is about to pop out of the closet. Objectivist insistence that knowledge be grounded is similar to the evolutionist's insistence that our bodies are natural products in that both are forms of denying the divine. No wonder this sticks in your craw.

Rand often belittled other arguments by comparing them to the intellectual stature of animals. It has nothing to do with evolution. It has everything to do with the dignity and rationality of Man.

Since everyone actually is fallible, an epistemology acknowledging that is not contradicting reality.

My goodness! It is remarkable that you can quote such an excerpt from Peikoff condemning skepticism and yet be utterly oblivious to the fact that you are representing the skeptical position which he is attacking!

I assume you chose it because of the last on line on "fallibility". What he means there is that is possible for men to fail in the accuracy of their thinking. He certainly does not mean that all of men's thoughts are flawed, though! Did you even read the other quotes on the page regarding skepticism? Click on the link again and go read some of the other quotes (especially Rand's).

Declaring that all thoughts are fallible is akin to declaring no one can know the truth while blanking out the fact that one is claiming to speak truth in that sentence.

If the thought that "all thoughts are fallible" is fallible (as you admitted), then all thoughts are infallible! (since fallibility means that it could be wrong and therefore the opposite just as easily could be right).

Desiring infallible knowledge is megalomania, it is hubris, and is rationalistic in the Cartesian tradition.

I am floored by this assertion. Never in a million years would I have expected an Objectivist to condemn the desire for infallible (i.e. accurate) knowledge as megalomania!. Rand must be rolling in her grave.

The condemnation of Mans desire to have accurate knowledge as megalomania and hubris stenches horribly of Altruism and Anti-Intellectualism.

Also, concerning Descartes- just because I use logic similarly to him does not make me a Cartesian in any respect. Read the Peikoff excerpt again carefully and ask yourself who is being more like Descartes here.

"Men have been wrong, and therefore, he [Descartes] implies, they can never know what is right" -Peikoff

Declaring that "all thoughts are fallible" is hardly different (if at all) from Descartes declaring that man can never know what is right.

[New Buddha]

And notice that in analyzing analysis, that which is being analyzed is not perceptual (it is analytic).

That which is being analyzed IS perceptual. The concepts that you are analyzing are words which exist in either a written or spoken form. Thought does not exist with out words – and words are perceptual. Man, by his particular method of thought, creates concepts that can be perceived. This is one of the most important (and often overlooked) parts of Objectivist Epistimology – and one of Rand's greatest observations. It closes the loop, so to speak. Grasping this means you understand that there is no dichotomy between the “signifier” and the “referent” . Grasping this, and it's implications, puts to rest any justification for an analytical/synthetic argument.

[Jacob86]

That which is being analyzed IS perceptual. The concepts that you are analyzing are words which exist in either a written or spoken form. Thought does not exist with out words – and words are perceptual. Man, by his particular method of thought, creates concepts that can be perceived. This is one of the most important (and often overlooked) parts of Objectivist Epistimology – and one of Rand's greatest observations. It closes the loop, so to speak. Grasping this means you understand that there is no dichotomy between the “signifier” and the “referent” . Grasping this, and it's implications, puts to rest any justification for an analytical/synthetic argument.

Yes, I agree (for the most part) that words are perceptual. The majority of words and concepts that we think about are reducible to perception. But there are (and must be) some which are not:

"Identity", "Non-contradictory", "Cause and Effect", etc... These are concepts which refer to the result of our analysis of the perceptual. One cannot perceive "identity"- only "existent". One must analyze the percept of "existent" in order to "identify" it and form the concept of "existence". Then, one must further analyze this concept to form the axiom "existence exists". In ALL of this, the process of analysis must be accurate. In order to determine the accuracy/inaccuracy of one's analysis, one must analyze their analysis (i.e analyze their thinking about that which has been perceived). And this (the analysis of how we think) is not perceptual.

If you are consistent with your epistemology, you have absolutely no way of knowing that your analysis (i.e your "non-contradictory identification") is accurate or not.

[Jacob86]

Another quick general question:

Oism holds that "logic is the art of non-contradictory identification". But what is "identification"? What does "non-contradictory mean"? And further, how does an Oist know what identification is and whether it is accurate or not? How does an Oist know what contradictions are? And why should one avoid contradictions? Is all of this accepted by whim? by faith? Is this all innately known?

Oist epistemology seems to take all of this for granted.

Likewise with the accuracy of equations:

Some seem to want to stress that once something has been perceived, it can be plugged into an equation and "ampliated" or "applied" to all existents of that class. But where does this assumption come from? And where does the equation come from? And how does one know that the equation is accurate? Is the accuracy of the equation for all existents perceivable somewhere? Does the Dr. point your perception in the direction where you can perceive the accurate equations when you are born..and mine just failed to?

All of this assumes the validity of non-perceptual knowledge.

[dream_weaver]

Another quick general question:

Oism holds that "logic is the art of non-contradictory identification". But what is "identification"? What does "non-contradictory mean"?

Learn how to validate your concepts, and you will have the answer to "what is" identification, and "What does" non-contradictory "mean."

The O'ist position is more accurately identified as reason vs. faith, not perception vs. faith.

Here is a quote to ponder from Miss. Rand as well. "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it."

edited to add quotes around "mean."

Edited December 4, 2010 by dream_weaver

[Jacob86]

Learn how to validate your concepts, and you will have the answer to "what is" identification, and "What does" non-contradictory "mean."

You miss my point. I know the answer to these questions. I want to know HOW Oists know these answers. It does not seem that Oists can claim to know the answers to such questions without violating their epismelogy which says "all knowledge is reducible to perception". Is the knowledge that "identification is _________" reducible to perception? Is the knowledge that "non-contradictory means ___________" reducible to perception? Is the knowledge that one ought to avoid contradictions reducible to perception? And why ought one to avoid contradictions? Is this answer reducible to perception? What does it mean to "validate" one's concepts? And however you answer that, how do you know that it is accurate? How do you know that your method of validating your concepts is accurate? And is such knowledge (about the validity of your conceptual method) reducible to perception?

The O'ist position is more accurately identified as reason vs. faith, not perception vs. faith.

But Oists seem to be denying the ability to know that one's reasoning is accurate. I am offering a means of knowing the accuracy of one's reasoning, but I am being accused of believing in it by faith because it is not perceptual. In my allegiance to reason, Oism accuses me of allegiance to faith. And so, I am asking the Oist how he can have allegiance to reason apart from faith.

Here is a quote to ponder from Miss. Rand as well. "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it."

I completely agree! I am not denying reason. I am attempting to validate it where the Oist seems to take it for granted..which is to say that the Oist implicitly takes it "by faith" (according to his own definition).

[Jacob86]

Jacob Ive a tournament this evening so Im short on time. You didn't really answer many of my questions but I'll discuss that in detail later.

The statement "All existents have Identity" is claimed by you to contradict Oist epistemology in regards to reduction. Your claim is based on the idea that its known of necessity and not by perceptual justification.

When you typed the word "existent" into the sentence what did you mean? When one says "all circles are round" it extends to the unobserved because of what is meant by the statement maker. All of the x that are members of the class x I am refering to have the traits I am referring to. So communication is a matter of designating and agreeing that the symbols we use to communicate have the same referents.

Defining what one means by "existent" is designated perceptually. Try and define an axiomatic concept with a genus and differentia... You can't do it! What it means to have identity can only be grasped perceptually.

I understand all of this. Let me put it a different way:

You say "All of the x that are members of the class x I am refering to have the traits I am referring to".

How do you know this? How do you know that the following isn't true instead:

"All of the x that are members of the class "not-x" I am refering to do not have the traits I am referring to"

OR...

"All of the x that are members of the class x and "not-x" I am refering to and not referring to have and don't have the traits I am referring to and not referring to"

I am trying to show that you are taking logic for granted. You are assuming "a is a" in everything you say. You are assuming that "x" here means "x" there. I agree that such an assumption is valid and good and necessary. But how do you know that this assumption is valid and good? Is it because it is logically necessary (my position)? Or is its validity perceived somewhere (your position)?

I am trying to point out that Oism (and every philosophy) does and must assume the validity of logic, but most (including Oism) seem to be hesitant to acknowledge the reason for logic's validity. Rather, it takes it for granted in the same way that Oists accuse others of accepting something by faith. It has no answer for the validity of logic, but assumes it throughout.

I am offering the answer and being condemned as irrational for doing so.

[dream_weaver]

You miss my point. I know the answer to these questions. I want to know HOW Oists know these answers. It does not seem that Oists can claim to know the answers to such questions without violating their epismelogy which says "all knowledge is reducible to perception".

Something is getting missed here, that is for certain. The answers you are using for your questions appear to have you in a quandary. You claim to desire to grasp the method Miss Rand identifies to know these answers. She outlined the methods in ITOE, and Peikoff elaborated on them in OPAR.

The funny thing about these methods is that they actually have to be used to discover if they work or not.

It is almost like trying to analyze a complex recipe by just reading the ingredients, and the steps involved to assemble them, to understand want what it tastes like.

Until you actually assemble the ingredients as described by the recipe - you can only try to imagine what it might taste like at best.

If I walked into a culinary school and told the students and teachers that I would like to learn how to cook, and they took me in to try and accommodate that expressed desire - and during the course of my stay, I continue to respond to the instruction with - well, I would really like to learn how to cook but I don't understand how the utensils interact with the ingredients, while you never appear to be picking pick up any of the utensils, handling handle any of the ingredients, or performing perform any of the methods or processes being explained, what might the outcome be?

[add] And on top of that, while attending this institution, expressing that you already know how to cook, that the students and teachers are doing it wrong, but that you would really like to understand their method of cooking while you teach them how to cook.

Edited December 4, 2010 by dream_weaver

[Jacob86]

Another Objectivist oversight:

If all knowledge is reducible to perception, then all knowledge is perceptual (i.e. on the level of percepts). Because if all of knowledge is reducible to perception, then there is nothing but perception in knowledge.

Analogy: Ice is entirely reducible to water because it is entirely made up of water. Kool-aid is not entirely reducible to water because it is made up of water and kool-aid mix.

Therefore if there is anything(x) but perceptual knowledge (percepts), than all knowledge is reducible to perception and that anything (x). Which means that it would not be entirely reducible to perception. The Oist claims on one hand that all knowledge is reducible to perception while claiming on the other hand that there is more than strictly perceptual knowledge. Oists do not realize that "all of it being reducible to perception" means "made up entirely of perception and nothing else".

"all knowledge reducible to perception" means "only perception in knowledge". If there is anything other than percepts in knowledge, then all knowledge is not reducible to perception.

But, let us suppose that all knowledge is perceptual. All "knowledge", then, would be rampant indistinguishable chaos because it would all be indistinguishable percepts and nothing else. There would be no way to order or organize one's perception in a "hierarchical" manner or in any other manner. This is because there is no non-perceptual knowledge and only non-perceptual knowledge could be used to accurately organize perceptual knowledge. The Oist claims to know how to accurately order one's percepts. But where does this knowledge come from? If it is also a percept, how can it be distinguished from all other percepts, and how can it be used to order all other percepts? If it is not a percept, then one does not and cannot know it since one can only know percepts.

Any knowledge that is above the level of percepts necessitates non-perceptual knowledge. There must be knowledge which is non-perceptual applied to perceptual knowledge in order to know anything about one's percepts. Non-perceptual knowledge is necessary to distinguish one percept from another (i.e. the process of "identification") and to give any relational order to each percept. That is to say that non-perceptual knowledge is needed in the process of conceptualization (i.e. "graduating" from the level of percepts).

But Oism claims that no such knowledge is possible blanking out the fact that this non-perceptual knowledge is required in the statement that "no such knowledge is possible"-- since it is required in any and all non-percepts.

[Jacob86]

Something is getting missed here, that is for certain. The answers you are using for your questions appear to have you in a quandary. You claim to desire to grasp the method Miss Rand identifies to know these answers. She outlined the methods in ITOE, and Peikoff elaborated on them in OPAR.

My desire is not entirely "to grasp Miss Rand's method". I think I understand it. My desire is to understand HOW it is consistent with itself.

The funny thing about these methods is that they actually have to be used to discover if they work or not.

It is almost like trying to analyze a complex recipe by just reading the ingredients, and the steps involved to assemble them, to understand want what it tastes like.

Until you actually assemble the ingredients as described by the recipe - you can only try to imagine what it might taste like at best.

This sounds an aweful lot like an appeal to faith. I've heard many Theists say similar things about "trying God". "You just can't know how right it is until you try it".

If I walked into a culinary school and told the students and teachers that I would like to learn how to cook, and they took me in to try and accommodate that expressed desire - and during the course of my stay, I continue to respond to the instruction with - well, I would really like to learn how to cook but I don't understand how the utensils interact with the ingredients, while you never appear to be picking pick up any of the utensils, handling handle any of the ingredients, or performing perform any of the methods or processes being explained, what might the outcome be?

[add] And on top of that, while attending this institution, expressing that you already know how to cook, that the students and teachers are doing it wrong, but that you would really like to understand their method of cooking while you teach them how to cook.

NO. While I do not claim to be a master chef, I do have my own ingredients and recipes. And this culinary school has stolen my ingredients and recipes, is mis-using them, and claiming that my desire to use them accurately is because of my failure to submit to their mis-use of my ingredients.

[Greebo]

Another Objectivist oversight:

If all knowledge is reducible to perception, then all knowledge is perceptual (i.e. on the level of percepts). Because if all of knowledge is reducible to perception, then there is nothing but perception in knowledge.

False.

Analogy: Ice is entirely reducible to water because it is entirely made up of water. Kool-aid is not entirely reducible to water because it is made up of water and kool-aid mix.

False.

Ice is not reducible to liquid water.

Solid H2O = Ice

Liquid H2O = "Water"

Vapor H2O = Steam

Ice *IS* Water in its solid state. It does not "reduce" to water anymore than water reduces to steam or ice reduces to steam. Ice changes state with the application of thermal energy.

Again you demonstrate that you do not understand the meaning of reducible. Until you understand the meaning, we can go no further.

To help clarify.

If:

A=B (observed)

and

B=C (observed)

then

A=C

We know that A=C because it reduces to A=B and B=C.

We do not need to observe that A and C are the same. We have observed the constituent elements and applied reason to reach a conclusion that must be true.

And before you say, "how do you know reason is true?" - we have observed how the world works. We have analyzed it. We have determined that the rules of reason fit the way the world works *through* observation. Having determined the rules of reason, we have determined that the rules of reason *must* work the same way, all the time. Thus from observation we conclude that we do know universal concepts about how existence works.

Those same rules that determine how the world must work all the time determine that if any of those rules did NOT have to work the same way all the time, NONE of the rules could be trusted to work ANY of the time. In such a case, absolutely no knowledge would be possible. The only response to that would be to cower in fear from everything for the real and possible risk that the most harmless object would turn into a raging killing machine intent on our destruction without cause or warning.

Edited December 4, 2010 by Greebo

[Greebo]

My desire is not entirely "to grasp Miss Rand's method". I think I understand it. My desire is to understand HOW it is consistent with itself.

Because we understand the definitions she uses where you do not.

This sounds an aweful lot like an appeal to faith. I've heard many Theists say similar things about "trying God". "You just can't know how right it is until you try it".

The difference is that when one uses the axioms they work, every single time. You cannot say the same about "trying God".

NO. While I do not claim to be a master chef, I do have my own ingredients and recipes. And this culinary school has stolen my ingredients and recipes, is mis-using them, and claiming that my desire to use them accurately is because of my failure to submit to their mis-use of my ingredients.

On the contrary - your ingredients are still your own. We have our own ingredients. You can use your ingredients any way you like - but you will not be able to reconcile them with our uses, and you cannot convince us using your current flawed arguments that your method is right.

You are free to take your ingredients and your recipes and your utensils and go at any time. You are even free to go away thinking that you are right and we are wrong. We, likewise, are free to think the same of you.