Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Intro to Obj Epistemology

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

Hey, I've read the book over twice now, and on the third way through. But the chapter on concepts of consciousness has me a bit confused. Is it possible that I can get in touch with someone who is familiar with it to review it with me? I'm sure it wouldn't take up a lot of time..? I'm not even sure if I get it or not, I'm just confused about the meaning.

 

Thanks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My english isn't great.. sorry about this. Anyways, the whole prospect of living through life only on the lower conceptual level of introspection terrifies me. My first question is - when do I know I'm ready to move on to Introspection after learning X amount of things conceptually from existents?

 

I'm confused about learning things conceptually because it feels like I'm only memorizing. Perhaps I'm understanding but still feeling like it's just memorized sounds? For example, I've learned several definitions around the house, and I can see from looking at a television I can learn about Electricity. I'm not sure this is getting me to understand things more, it feels like complex memorizing. Even though I understand now the 2 different types of ways electricity is brought about, either statically, or through a current. It just feels like memorizing..

 

Anyways.now to the chapter.. I mean from the first page, trying to understand what I think about electricity, i feel bottled up. 

 

The CCD is content and action. The content is the external world in my mind and I have to provide my mind with content, and I am able to be aware of it conceptually in consciousness if I provide it with volitional action. So I think It's the "action" part that is confusing me. I'm assuming the "content" is from the first 2 chapters, and "action" is getting the ball rolling with conceptual concepts and/or continuously adding content to the first 2 chapters

 

I suspect with myself personally this is where I dropped the ball when I was young. 

 

I feel kind of guilty lol that I feel so bottled up thinking about electricity. So running through the concepts of consciousness on page 30 it seems like a given on such a level that it's over my head. Ok, electricity gives me CNN and changed the world. So I suppose this is where these concepts are going to kick in right? 

 

and I guess I'll finish with the top of page 31, about the concretes, the "units" (what?). So with every concept from chapter 1 and 2 I have to integrate every one with the concepts of consciousness (evaluation etc) to integrate into a new concept?

Edited by Selkc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, at the bottom of page 31 - it is mentioned that a conscious concept is a mental integration of 2 or more instances of the pscyhological process possessing the same distinguishiong characteristics.

 

1 - 2 or more instances of what? what part of the psych process do i need instances of?

2 - what is the same distinguishing characteristic? Is this the distinguishing characteristics of the abstractions from the previous chapters or is this distinguishing characteristic special to concepts of consciousness

Edited by Selkc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

science and philosophy is the same. science is either on the outside as metaphysics, or it's integrated in your mind as psycho-epistomology.

 

and you have to discover science through volitional symbolic language. A is A. Ayn Rand reinforces it in the Axiomatic Concepts chapter.

 

But that's not my misunderstanding. My misunderstanding is Introspection.

Edited by Selkc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So, at the bottom of page 31 - it is mentioned that a conscious concept is a mental integration of 2 or more instances of the pscyhological process possessing the same distinguishiong characteristics.

 

1 - 2 or more instances of what? what part of the psych process do i need instances of?

2 - what is the same distinguishing characteristic? Is this the distinguishing characteristics of the abstractions from the previous chapters or is this distinguishing characteristic special to concepts of consciousness

At times, you have ever felt curious, or sad, or happy or fearful? Each time you felt a particular way -- experienced a particular inner state -- is one instance. You have then experienced a certain similarity between all the states that you call "sad", between all the states that you call "curious", and so on. When you group them that way, and give them a name, that's a concept.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Selkc wrote:

My english isn't great.. sorry about this. Anyways, the whole prospect of living through life only on the lower conceptual level of introspection terrifies me. My first question is - when do I know I'm ready to move on to Introspection after learning X amount of things conceptually from existents?

I'm confused about learning things conceptually because it feels like I'm only memorizing. Perhaps I'm understanding but still feeling like it's just memorized sounds? For example, I've learned several definitions around the house, and I can see from looking at a television I can learn about Electricity. I'm not sure this is getting me to understand things more, it feels like complex memorizing. Even though I understand now the 2 different types of ways electricity is brought about, either statically, or through a current. It just feels like memorizing..

You are correct, you are just memorizing.

 

You would learn about electricity correctly in a physics course which had a laboratory component.  By doing experiments that allow you to witness first hand the fundamental properties of electricity, essentially duplicating or retracing the same steps by which electricity was discovered in the first place, then you would have concepts which could be said to be related to reality.  To actually perceive an electron beam by its visible synchrotron radiation in a vacuum tube, and then measure the angle of deflection of the beam as you apply a magnetic field is the kind of activity that reduces abstractions learned in a book to personal perceptions.   

 

Not everyone will study physics mathematically and experimentally, but those who do not ought to at least look into the subject enough to know that what is known about (for example) electricity is knowledge justified by objective experiment and perceptual demonstration as opposed to folktales or speculation or revelation or any form of the "appeal to authority" fallacy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I haven't heard about the appeal to authority fallacy. anyways... perhaps you would educate me on who said it.

 

Well perceptually I can see electricity causing motion. And I know that a current of electrically charged particles has a relationship with my computer. 

 

I think Ayn Rand would disagree with you, about knowing how to measure with tools to understand conceptually, because electricity must contain some measaurements, but any measurements. so the measurements of volts in the concept electricity is Omitted. Ayn Rand explicitely said you do not have to even know how to measure it, only that it can be measured. in epistemology, not in metaphysics.

 

She pointed out people knew with reason - colours thousands of years before we could measure colour metaphysically

 

I understand that "charged particles" means An energy contained withing a component of the physical world smaller than atoms - electrons.

 

I conclude that since a current is a relation of things, from my television, and since I understand a television conceptually, the thing left to do is understand something about where the charged particles came from (a power source and it's conceptual definition, or either how static arises). Not to prove whether they exist at all in the first place by measurements. and probably a kind of conceptual understanding on the nature of particles that make them able to behave like that.. Also to understand things i see perceptually caused by static electricity, how hair stands up, and lightning.

 

so knowing this without the proper investigation/integration (omitting measurements), but knowing the plan, is probably more true to the sense of "memorized" because I do not understand it all conceptually. I only understand conceptually Television, which lacks the full integration of electricity. So the goal is to Integrate that, and once I integrate electricity, I can understand better any existent that can be "plugged in." I think this goes to how Ayn Rand said conceptual definitions are "open ended" that can be improved upon. So, I think a memorization merely means an existent that does not have a simple conceptual definition. Someone who memorizes is like a child who points to a gold fish and says "gold fish" but does not understand anything about it other than observing it eats and poops every once in a while. And the child may measure how many times it poops a day, but that isn't something that concerns objectivist epistemology, Although Ayn Rand agrees it exists metaphysically. It doesn't belong in epistemology.

Edited by Selkc
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...