Is my table a table?

[New Buddha]

A statement can be true on a desert island. As truth depends on the coherence with reality. When a second person would arrive he could verify the statement. The verifiably of a statement is a precondition for it to be objective, the actual verification is the explicit claim of a second person that this statement indeed is true. Without an actual verification a statement can be true and (maybe) objective but an observer stranded on an island has no absolute mean to be sure of that.

 

I think I could sympathize with a good portion in these lines and with the way you formulated it. But in some way is doesn’t sound like the message or method Rand seems to promote. I wouldn’t be surprised to find a very similar phrasing as yours in a recommendation of a Nietzschean philosophy or of Existentialism (Sartre, de Beauvoir) The freedom’s you emphasize are very prominent in those philosophies, where, in my understanding of, Rand’s epistemology seems to advocate a kind of absolutistic reasoning.

You are under the impression that Objectivism leads one to an "absolute" understanding of anything.  This is not what Objectivism claims.  Objectivism argues for the objectivity of knowledge.  Look at it this way.  Newton's knowledge of gravity/mechanics was objective based on the totality of knowledge available to him.  Einstein's knowledge of gravity is objective based on the totality of knowledge available to him - but is not itself complete, as he fully realized.  And sometime in the future, someone will probably come along and do to Einstein (and Quantum Mechanics) what Einstein did to Newton.  This does not mean that we cannot use their mathematics to solve problems.  We don't have to wait and wait and wait until we have Absolute Knowledge and Truth of Everything.  We can still send a rocket to Mars using Newton's math.

 

And no, this is not a form of Pragmatism or Utilitarianism.

 

Other philosophies, such as Pragmatism, Nietzsche and Existentialism, Idealism, Skepticism, Rationalism, etc.   undermine knowledge at it's very root - i.e. the validity of (an individual's) senses as the basis of objective knowledge.  Objectivistism either stands or falls on it's position regarding the  "validity of the senses".

Edited August 6, 2014 by New Buddha

[Plasmatic]

New Buddha said:

You are under the impression that Objectivism leads one to an "absolute" understanding of anything. This is not what Objectivism claims.

Hmm, I'm not sure what your trying to say here but Oism does advocate absolutes. Edited August 6, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Eiuol]

I'm responding to something louie has claimed more than once elsewhere that is being reiterated here.

"Table" is not more or less primary than "firewood". No concept is more primary than the other. Existence itself, not the concept "existence", is still fundamental to everything at all. Don't reify ontology. There is no unqualified absolute fundamentality, only contextually absolute fundamentality. Existence is assumed throughout and required. I don't know exact quotes, but it's pretty basic to Objectivist epistemology that no concept is inherently "more important" than another.

[Harrison Danneskjold]

I take objective to mean something like independent of an observer, his subjective viewpoints or his interests.

 

If "objective knowledge" is knowledge which is known apart from an observer, then wouldn't all knowledge be subjective by virtue of being known by someone?

 

That's not what Rand means by "Objectivity".

[New Buddha]

In response to Plas #27

 

Hmm, no it doesn't.  Let me illustrate by example.

 

Suppose a six year old child and an architect are looking at the same building.  Certainly the architect would have a greater breadth of knowledge and see more and understand more than the child, right?  However, this does not invalidate what the child knows, nor does it automatically mean that the architect is the arbiter of "absolute" knowledge and therefore what he says goes.  Each and every person can only know what he knows, and no one is omniscient.  Do you think you can find two architects that will agree on all things?  Or should we ask the ghost of Frank Lloyd Wright to settle matters?  Or Inigo Jones?

 

The child's knowledge (and the architect's for that matter) can be said to be objective to the extent that he has integrated his knowledge (to the best of his ability) into the totality of what he knows, and that he has (to the best of his ability) eliminated known contradictions and is not evading anything he knows to not be true.

 

We never stop learning or expanding our knowledge or seeing things in a new perspective.  Except for fairly mundane statements which can only be proven by ostensive definitions (the building exists) we never reach a point where we have "absolute" knowledge of anything.  Propositions are limited, finite and contextual and, most importantly, made by individuals.

Edited August 7, 2014 by New Buddha

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

 

Hmm, I'm not sure what your trying to say here but Oism does advocate absolutes.

 

Absolute understanding?

 

Reality, and everything in it, is always absolute.  But (correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't absolute understanding amount to intrinsicism?

[New Buddha]

Absolute understanding?

 

Reality, and everything in it, is always absolute.  But (correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't absolute understanding amount to intrinsicism?

It would absolutely amount to intrinisicism (my spell checker doesn't like that word, lol).  Essence is contextual and epistemological.

 

Edit.  Or knowledge could be social, and determined by a vote?  51% agree?  It must true!  Or it could be habit per Hume.

 

The essential demarcation between Objectivism and other philosophies is not A is A, or the Law or Non-Contradiction.  It's the Validity of the Senses as the basis for individual objective knowledge.  This is why Rand made such a point of Kant's ludicrous premises that "because I have eyes, I'm blind".

Edited August 7, 2014 by New Buddha

[Plasmatic]

Harrison said:

 

 

Absolute understanding?

 

Reality, and everything in it, is always absolute.  But (correct me if I'm wrong) wouldn't absolute understanding amount to intrinsicism?

 

Yeah I wasn't sure what he was wanting to say about "absolute understanding" so I stated as much with my own qualification that Oist advocates absolutes.

[Plasmatic]

Buddha said:

 

Hmm, no it doesn't.  Let me illustrate by example.

 

Suppose a six year old child and an architect are looking at the same building.  Certainly the architect would have a greater breadth of knowledge and see more and understand more than the child, right?  However, this does not invalidate what the child knows, nor does it automatically mean that the architect is the arbiter of "absolute" knowledge and therefore what he says goes.  Each and every person can only know what he knows, and no one is omniscient.  Do you think you can find two architects that will agree on all things?  Or should we ask the ghost of Frank Lloyd Wright to settle matters?  Or Inigo Jones?

 

The child's knowledge (and the architect's for that matter) can be said to be objective to the extent that he has integrated his knowledge (to the best of his ability) into the totality of what he knows, and that he has (to the best of his ability) eliminated known contradictions and is not evading anything he knows to not be true.

 

We never stop learning or expanding our knowledge or seeing things in a new perspective.  Except for fairly mundane statements which can only be proven by ostensive definitions (the building exists) we never reach a point where we have "absolute" knowledge of anything.  Propositions are limited, finite and contextual and, most importantly, made by individuals.

 

I am not challenging the contextual nature of knowledge or the objectivity of knowledge at all. Its clear now you were trying to say that man is not omniscient. I agree, but all knowledge is absolute contextually. And in the exhaustive sense of absolute, one who conceptualizes the axioms knows that existence, identity and consciousness are absolute and cannot add one bit to that knowledge. Nothing else you will learn will add anything to existence exists, what exists has identity, and it takes a consciousness to know it.

 

edit:

 

Buddha said:

 

 

Essence is contextual and epistemological.

 

Notice I said nothing about essence. You should ask yourself why you crossed these things with absolute...

 

 

 

Proposition:

 

All existents have identity......Name a context where this doesn't apply.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Harrison Danneskjold]

This is why Rand made such a point of Kant's ludicrous premises that "because I have eyes, I'm blind".

 I think that's the source of the OP's confusion, as well.

More specifically, it seems like he's equating "observer-dependent" with "subjective," which means that awareness (of anything) as such is subjective, which would mean that conscious processes can happen spontaneously (that consciousness as such is arbitrary), which sounds an awful lot like "blind because I have eyes".

 

I don't intend to actually participate much in this thread, but that's what I'd focus on. 

[Plasmatic]

Louie said:
 

"Table" is not more or less primary than "firewood".

 
You continue to amaze me with your completely wrong ideas about fundamental tenets of Objectivism. Table and firewood are more or less primary in a given context! What do you think epistemological hierarchy is about?
 
 
Louie said:
 

No concept is more primary than the other. Existence itself, not the concept "existence", is still fundamental to everything at all. Don't reify ontology. There is no unqualified absolute fundamentality, only contextually absolute fundamentality. Existence is assumed throughout and required. I don't know exact quotes, but it's pretty basic to Objectivist epistemology that no concept is inherently "more important" than another.

 
This is so wrong.... Nothing I have said could possibly be construed as saying that one concept is "more important" than another or that I am "reifying ontology"... (the study of what exits) Where did I claim that the study of fundamental facts (the science of ontology) is a concrete entity?("look, there's a study of ontology going down the street!") Where did I claim that "existence itself" was not universally fundamental?
 
The Primacy of existence is the ontological principle that is the representation of the universally absolute fact that is existence itself !
 

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. The rejection of these axioms represents a reversal: the primacy of consciousness—the <arl_178> notion that the universe has no independent existence, that it is the product of a consciousness (either human or divine or both). The epistemological corollary is the notion that man gains knowledge of reality by looking inward (either at his own consciousness or at the revelations it receives from another, superior consciousness).
The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one's inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 Nothing I have said could possibly be construed as saying that one concept is "more important" than another or that I am "reifying ontology"...

 

How do you know?

[Plasmatic]

How do you know?

 

Do you have a argument to make to that effect?

[Eiuol]

Plasmatic, please read carefully. The context about my post is metaphysics. There is no "metaphysical" context. Context is epistemological - what something is primarily depends on what you choose to focus on. I only said you were reifying because what you said suggests that there is an absolute fundamentality, implicitly advocating natural kinds - a great example of making ontology into a metaphysical fact. A metaphysical hierarchy of concepts. I'd argue that ontology is often invalid actually, since ontology is more or less deciding metaphysical hierarchy. Doing that is reification, making real what is not actually real. Ontology only makes sense in epistemological terms, i.e. purposeful knowledge.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Eiuol

[Plasmatic]

Plasmatic, please read carefully. The context about my post is metaphysics. There is no "metaphysical" context.

 

 

Where did you carefully read me say that there is a metaphysical context as though context was a metaphysical concrete? Quote it....

 

Louie said:

what something is primarily depends on what you choose to focus on.

 

What something is, is a metaphysically given fact, not a man made fact.

 

 

Louie said:

 

. I only said you were reifying because what you said suggests that there is an absolute fundamentality, implicitly advocating natural kinds - a great example of making ontology into a metaphysical fact. A metaphysical hierarchy of concepts. I'd argue that ontology is often invalid actually, since ontology is more or less deciding metaphysical hierarchy. Doing that is reification, making real what is not actually real. Ontology only makes sense in epistemological terms, i.e. purposeful knowledge.

 

Oh boy, I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you. I'll just quote Ms. Rand so that others reading a moderator claiming this don't think it reflects Oist tenets.

 

ITOE said:

 

[...]if by "simple" you mean metaphysically primary, then only entities are metaphysical primaries[...]

Prof. B: Does that mean that some entities are prior to other entities, or have priority in being called entities? In other words, you can't identify a society as an entity until you have identified the individuals as entities, and the same with parts of the body.

AR: That's right. But the priority here, metaphysically, would be determined according to which is essential. In other words, you would apply the law of fundamentality. Now, epistemologically, the priority is: which do you have to know before you go to the next one? It's the hierarchical <ioe2_273> structure of concepts. You can't talk about "society" before grasping what man is. And you can't separate an inch of ground without grasping that there's a wider stretch from which you isolate a certain area. Therefore here the priority is both cognitive and metaphysical.

Prof. B: On the metaphysical priority, isn't there a basic classification of things as entities which comes before all these special cases, rather than seeing them all as equal?

AR: Right, they're not all equal metaphysically. A valley, for instance, or society—those epistemologically can be regarded as entities. But a mountain is a primary entity; the valley is not, it's a dependent—it's actually an indentation between two mountains if you regard them together. But then what is the primary entity? Recall what we said about the pile of dirt vs. the mountain: it has to be a unit of some kind, tied or welded or integrated together, which has certain properties, and with actions being possible to it as a whole. Such as, you can climb a mountain, but you can't do anything with the pile of dirt, unless you glue it together.

Edited August 7, 2014 by Plasmatic

[Harrison Danneskjold]

 

 

Do you have a argument to make to that effect?

 

I believe this is an "argument by stone" and it goes thusly:

 

Euiol said:

This is unfortunately false. The Primacy of existence is an ontological priority.

His use of "metaphysical" would imply metaphysical facts (such as the PoE); the content of his post does not.

---

 

After reading your quotes from ITOE I understand (I think) what you meant now, but I thought it worth pointing out that until that point I also thought you were talking about concepts themselves having some inherent sort of priority.

[Grames]

How is a proposition "this table is primarily treated as firewood" to be formalized in Objectivists’ terms? Is it something like: “the concrete object x as conceptualized as an integrated identity A is employed in reality to the extent that its expressing his integrated identity B and thus negating the A-identity”?

At this point I think a more realistic account is this one:

 

 1] The needs and wants of people are met when an object x is created with the capacity to perform a desired function F.

(e.g. to place stuff on, preferable foods or decorative materials).

2] The capacity of a concrete object x to perform function F is equivalent to having an identity A1.

(e.g. all table-like objects have the capacity to perform table-functions.)

3] In order for objects to exist they must be made of matter. The chosen materials for object x have identity M.

(e.g. this table is made of wood.)

4] A concrete object x can be utilized for any desired function F2, F3, F4,….Fn, as long as it doesn’t contradict the physical properties of x, i.e. the only constrain is its identity M.

(e.g. this table can be used as a raft, firewood, shelter,,, .)

5] Reiterating 2]: having the capacity to perform functions F2, F3, F4,….Fn is equivalent to having identities A2, A3,A4,,,,, An.

6] Thus object x can be identified as: (A1,A2,A3,,,,,,, and/or An) and M.

7] As 1] and 4] are predicated on the needs and wants of people, the identification is subjective in functional terms and only objective in reference to in its physical properties.

(Although this specific object is meant as a table, commonly used as table, his material M fully enabling the usage as a table, we have to conclude that x is not uniquely a table to all people at all times).

8] Conclusion: identification cannot be a purely objective act.

 

At this moment I personally think this last ‘deconstruction’ of identity is plausible and it seems to have some parallels with the accounts some Objectivists has given thus far. At the same time this conception of identification seems to differ substantial from what Ms Rand wants her readers to accept.

 

The standard you wish to use to define objectivity is in principle making objectivity impossible for all actual persons.  Nothing is ever "uniquely X to all people at all times."  

 

A statement can be true on a desert island. As truth depends on the coherence with reality. When a second person would arrive he could verify the statement. The verifiably of a statement is a precondition for it to be objective, the actual verification is the explicit claim of a second person that this statement indeed is true. Without an actual verification a statement can be true and (maybe) objective but an observer stranded on an island has no absolute mean to be sure of that.

I would dispute that "The verifiably of a statement is a precondition for it to be objective", since by your own proposed standard of "uniquely X to all people at all times" simply getting one other person to agree with you is entirely inadequate. Surely a poll must be taken of all people across all time and all space and nothing less than unanimous agreement will suffice to prove objectivity.

Your position has internal logical consistency problems.

[Castor]

 

The standard you wish to use to define objectivity is in principle making objectivity impossible for all actual persons.  Nothing is ever "uniquely X to all people at all times." 

1. Please note that my conclusion was: “identification cannot be a purely objective act”. So I could agree to your “Nothing is ever "uniquely X to all people at all times."”
2. When “nothing is ever "uniquely X to all people at all times."”, what value can a statement like ‘ X = X ’ have?

I would dispute that "The verifiably of a statement is a precondition for it to be objective", since by your own proposed standard of "uniquely X to all people at all times" simply getting one other person to agree with you is entirely inadequate. Surely a poll must be taken of all people across all time and all space and nothing less than unanimous agreement will suffice to prove objectivity.

 

1. Please note that I said verifiably is a precondition for a claim to be objective (and that the truth of that claim depends on the coherence with reality). A claim that cannot be verified by another person cannot be objective. A claim that can be verified by another person can be objective, but doesn’t have to be.
2. The poll that you are referring to is impossible. There is no such thing as a poll over all times, all spaces and all people. Does that mean objectivity can never be proven?

Your position has internal logical consistency problems.

 

Maybe so, but you didn’t demonstrate them.

[Eiuol]

1. Please note that I said verifiably is a precondition for a claim to be objective (and that the truth of that claim depends on the coherence with reality). A claim that cannot be verified by another person cannot be objective. A claim that can be verified by another person can be objective, but doesn’t have to be.
2. The poll that you are referring to is impossible. There is no such thing as a poll over all times, all spaces and all people. Does that mean objectivity can never be proven?

Why must it be verifiable by multiple people? Isn't it sufficient that it is verifiable to yourself? I think that's what Grames is addressing in 2: for objectivity to require verifiability from others, we'd need to poll all those people to find out what is objective. This is impossible, which would mean objectivity is impossible by your standard.

[Castor]

Why must it be verifiable by multiple people? Isn't it sufficient that it is verifiable to yourself?

No that wouldn’t be sufficient. Illusions, biases, dreams, errors, wishful thinking or delusions can lead one to hold a false belief about the world. If only this person would verify that belief the falsehood of that belief might not show.

 

I think that's what Grames is addressing in 2: for objectivity to require verifiability from others, we'd need to poll all those people to find out what is objective. This is impossible, which would mean objectivity is impossible by your standard.

 

If that is what Grames is addressing, I would respond with the following:

Key point, in my understanding of objectivity, is not the actual participation of as many people as possible in investigating the truth of a statement. Rather it must be possible for others to test the claim in reality. When a claim only refers to ‘stuff’ that other people cannot detect, that claim is generally concerned as being subjective or false.  

 

The claim: ‘Paris is in France’ is objective, cause it is possible for others to verify it.

The claim: ‘Paris is in France’ doesn’t become ‘more’ objective if more people verify it.

 

The claim: ‘God is in Paris’ is subjective (or false), cause no one can verify it.

 

The claim: ‘I like fries more than I like carrots’ is objective cause it can be verified by studying my eating behavior or maybe with a MRI scan of my brain while eating.

The claim: ‘fries are more likeable than carrots’ is subjective (or false), cause no one can verify it. There are no observable facts in fries or carrots that express ‘likeability’.

 

Can you, or anyone else, name one example of a fact that is a) generally regarded as objective, and is fundamentally closed for any form of verification by more than one person?

Edited October 26, 2014 by Castor

[Eiuol]

No that wouldn’t be sufficient. Illusions, biases, dreams, errors, wishful thinking or delusions can lead one to hold a false belief about the world. If only this person would verify that belief the falsehood of that belief might not show.

How does adding another person into the equation eliminate all the possible ways to be wrong? Two people can be wrong just as much as one person. If it isn't sufficient for one person, it isn't sufficient for anyone. Part of thinking well is being able to recognize errors and delusions, so by saying I can't verify my own ideas and concepts, no one else would be sure if they're delusional either. Maybe the other person will have a bias about me! If two people can be objective, there's no reason one person can't be.

I'd say your "I like fries more than I like carrots" is something only I can be certain of. You may say my eating habits suggest I like them, but only I will know if it is true. The data you pointed to is just correlation, and the MEASURE of liking isn't the same as the EXPERIENCE of liking. On a personal level, "fries are more likeable than carrots [to me]" is just as sensible, as long as a standard is present. In a sense you could say the experience is subjective because I'm the only one who knows for sure, but only if you deny that one person is able to verify something.

I agree about your "God is in Paris" example. No one can verifiy it. Not even one person. Thus it is arbitrary - not even wrong.

[andie holland]

Tables have an epistemic reality which is why, I suppose, Rand emphasized epistemology in her description of reality. Then again, convert the wood of the chair to a baseball bat, change a few rules such as 'sitting down' to 'hit the pitched ball' and you have another  known entity.

 

Once the rules are made, human constructs are said to be 'objective' by virtue of the rules determining outcomes on their own, or qua rules.

 

OTH, at the same time that Rand wrote, most philosophers were looking at ontology, which involves volition. In this sense, chairs, being humans constructs (and not present in all societies by particular traditions), are ontologically subject-dependent. In other words, whether chairs, baseball bats or computers exist depend upon the intent of humans.

 

In this regard,  scientific objects are hypothetically subject-independent to the extent that they are discovered, and not created: therefore, ontologically objective. Likewise, humans, by virtue of their willful action, are, too. Perhaps, then, this is what Rand intended to say by writing that humans are and end in 'themself'.

 

Perhaps, for the sake of argument, 'objectivism' might be defined as the debate regarding the metaphysics of all mental objects--concepts, entities, discoveries, whatever. What can not be said is that the expression 'A is A' has any meaning whatsoever. It's simply a rhetorical device that tells us what we've already labeled.

 

Andie

[tadmjones]

 

 

 

Perhaps, for the sake of argument, 'objectivism' might be defined as the debate regarding the metaphysics of all mental objects--concepts, entities, discoveries, whatever. What can not be said is that the expression 'A is A' has any meaning whatsoever. It's simply a rhetorical device that tells us what we've already labeled.

 

Andie

As symbols on paper or verbal utterances "A is A" could be described as not 'having meaning', but in the context of O'ism it is meant as an explicit statement or understanding of the Law of Identity. What  have we "already labeled"?

Edited November 13, 2014 by tadmjones

[andie holland]

As symbols on paper or verbal utterances "A is A" could be described as not 'having meaning', but in the context of O'ism it is meant as an explicit statement or understanding of the Law of Identity. What  have we "already labeled"?

As we all know, A=A is Leibniz' formalization of Aristotle's law of identity. In this sense, Objectivism asserts nothing that's not already understood; we use formal logics to order our world.

 

And although a formal ordering is a large part of the philosophical picture, is can tell us nothing of content: asserting a chair is a 'chair' does not determine criterion for chair-ness, or offer any indication as to when a chair becomes a 'couch'.

 

Rather, natures' of things relate to epistemology, ontology, mind-dependent or not...ultimately, metaphysics.

 

Andie

[tadmjones]

Andie

Are you saying that Rand was mistaken to take the Law of Identity as an axiom, or that knowledge understood prior negates current meaning ? I'm confused about the point you are trying to make.

Edited November 13, 2014 by tadmjones