LoBagola Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 But I can imagine things floating if there was no gravity? Or I can imagine a mountain not being there and grass being there instead? What am I missing? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tadmjones Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 Are you sure you have integrated the concept of fact? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KevinD Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 You can imagine — i.e., picture in your mind — a floating object, free from the constraints of gravity's pull. Stage magicians make objects "float" before your eyes. But can you conceive of a universe in which the law of gravitation does not apply? How would such a universe function? What exactly would an alternative to the force of gravity consist of? Likewise, you can look at a mountain and decide you don't like it; you'd rather see a shopping center there. You can project something vastly different — and assuming that you own the mountain, you can take action to remove it, and begin building your dream. What you cannot do is seriously propose a world in which the various elemental factors which bring about mountains will instead produce a shopping center. The difference between the metaphysically given (that which is inherent in the nature of things) and the man-made is a critical issue in philosophy, one which thinkers and non-thinkers alike frequently fail to grasp. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 See the passages related to “The Metaphysical Versus the Man-Made”. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FrolicsomeQuipster Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 You can only imagine it if you also omit the things that would make it impossible. It was a square and in the same way time and aspect it was not a square. That's unimaginable. It was a square and when you looked at it from the side it was a circle. It was a square but a moment later it was a triangle. It was a square but its edges blended in with the background and on it was painted a red hexagon. These and and what you mentioned are ways of saying that anything was also a divergent thing in a different way with the means omitted. Because the contradiction is omitted. You can't imagine both the object and all the laws involved being what they are and not what they are at the same time. Say you know the identity of ice and water in relation to each other, if you want to imagine an ice cube sinking you have to first omit one of the factors that would make it impossible. You could just have something that looks like an icecube sink, you could suspend the applicability of their relations to each other, you could say it is the will of Dog. What you can't do is hold the full context while applying and at the same time not hold the full context and or apply it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 Is the title of this thread a quote from some Objectivist author? I couldn't find it on Bing or in the link that Grames provided. The latter says that facts can't be other than what they are, not that we can't imagine their being other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dream_weaver Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 The title is taken from OPAR, chapter 1, page 23 The Metaphysically Given as Absolute The Objectivist view of existence culminates in the principle that no alternative to a fact of reality is possible or imaginable. All such facts are necessary. In Ayn Rand's words, the metaphysically given is absolute. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Reidy Posted July 6, 2013 Report Share Posted July 6, 2013 This is at best an unfortunate phrasing and at worst a bizarre doctrine. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Grames Posted July 7, 2013 Report Share Posted July 7, 2013 I think it might be worthwhile to dwell for a bit on just why Peikoff added "or imaginable" to that sentence. It does seem to be overbroad as applied to all facts of reality, but the presentation has just come out of "primacy of existence" versus "primacy of consciousness" and he is just about to qualify his principle with the distinction made between the facts of reality that some are metaphysically given and others are man-made. Volition is not a topic until the next chapter. I can accept how for example pi being 3.2 is in a way unimaginable even though in stating the possibility of pi being 3.2 I have in fact imagined it. I have not imagined it completely, consistently, and through to all of its implications. I can imagine as a compartmentalized factoid pi being 3.2, but not what it would mean in full. (Pi being 3.2 would create fairly radical alternate universe physics and possibly no universe at all.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.