Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Does objectivism offer a way to demonstrate that even the purport that nothing is real/the objective doesn't exist/antirealism/idealism/etc is self refuting or otherwise flawed from the start?

Rate this topic


Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, Frank said:

Please forgive my caution, I've dealt with Buddhist forums and philosophy forums for 10 years and 90% of replies to questions like this either argue for "All is mind" or seem to agree, kind of, but are ultimately trolling in favor of "All is mind."

Regardless of the variety of things people say around here, we all agree that existence is primary. The primacy of existence. Sure, your mind is part of reality, but it has no power to transform reality itself or determine the nature of everything in reality. 

As for the idea about the self-evident not being proof, the idea is usually that the law of identity (realism basically) is the very basis for proof in the first place. It is the foundation! How could even say what counts as proof or not if you didn't already have something to work with? That thing you have to work with is the self-evident, given by your senses. (That's where the more mystical schools of Buddhism go especially wrong as you probably know - they deny that your senses tell you anything real, creating maya.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Eiuol said:

Regardless of the variety of things people say around here, we all agree that existence is primary. The primacy of existence. Sure, your mind is part of reality, but it has no power to transform reality itself or determine the nature of everything in reality. 

As for the idea about the self-evident not being proof, the idea is usually that the law of identity (realism basically) is the very basis for proof in the first place. It is the foundation! How could even say what counts as proof or not if you didn't already have something to work with? That thing you have to work with is the self-evident, given by your senses. (That's where the more mystical schools of Buddhism go especially wrong as you probably know - they deny that your senses tell you anything real, creating maya.)

Ah, fresh air, thank you :)

yes, those schools enter self referential nonsense. "All is unreal." Means "Unreal is unreal." Quite literally gibberish. Ditto for "All is mind." Means "Mind is mind." Asinine nonsense. Throw out all the evidence, call it all maya, your argument goes too. Bye and good riddance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frank said:

Thanks. I'm confused, though. Are you implying I need to be taught a lesson on this topic because I am ridiculing when I should be arguing?  Or what are you meaning with this suggestion?

No I'm just saying a lot of your posts talking about like "ramblings of charlatans and lunatics" and so forth, who aren't fit to be reasoned with, is or was precisely a matter of debate between Hume and Reid with regard to what Reid called the principles of common sense. You can't debate with everyone all the time, nor is it to be considered of value unqualifiedly. So the matter of what is the validation or justification or a proof of something versus what can be argued brings in the different roles of argument and ridicule. Some things have a function such that argument befits it. Some things have a function such that ridicule is more useful.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

27 minutes ago, 2046 said:

No I'm just saying a lot of your posts talking about like "ramblings of charlatans and lunatics" and so forth, who aren't fit to be reasoned with, is or was precisely a matter of debate between Hume and Reid with regard to what Reid called the principles of common sense. You can't debate with everyone all the time, nor is it to be considered of value unqualifiedly. So the matter of what is the validation or justification or a proof of something versus what can be argued brings in the different roles of argument and ridicule. Some things have a function such that argument befits it. Some things have a function such that ridicule is more useful.

Ah. Apologies for my negative assumption. I've been out in the cold for 10, or more like 20 years if I count pre online forum era of discussion.

 

I know very little of objectivism, and I don't know you people at all, and yet, I feel like I'm finally back home. This philosophical position matches exactly how I think on this particular issue. Namely, philosophy picks up after, and only after significant evidence for existence (realism) has already been accepted and is, indeed, undeniably self evident. I'd probably stray into strange walks beyond what you all might, and take these positions to the ends of all possible reasonings, to where self evident existence and realism is true in every conceivable scenario (and indeed I've done this above by demonstrating every other scenario as self refuting). But, nonetheless, I've finally found people who are practical, and not obsessed with playing word games to try to make it sound like bizarre ideas that exist strictly as quirks of language exist in actuality, and, better still, people who consider their philosophy to be past that rudimentary word game that belongs in a pre philosophy prep course before one learns real philosophy.

Thank you all for this. 20 years arguing with idealists and anti realists really was enough. I'm thrilled to be poised for philosophical progress that is not at all mired by nonsensical hippy "what if it's all unreal dude?" quasi philosophical pop nonsense posing as deep wisdom. And, seriously, this is 90% of Buddhist and secular philosophical debate. I cannot even express the relief to have found a place where that position isn't even on the table! :)❤

Edited by Frank
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Frank said:

Thank you all for this. 20 years arguing with idealists and anti realists really was enough. I'm thrilled to be poised for philosophical progress that is not at all mired by nonsensical hippy "what if it's all unreal dude?" quasi philosophical pop nonsense posing as deep wisdom. And, seriously, this is 90% of Buddhist and secular philosophical debate. I cannot even express the relief to have found a place where that position isn't even on the table! :)❤

You will get agreement here in this forum.

But the buddhist or the "non dual" community? I doubt if you will make a dent. You'll be ignored or considered a clever word magician. Objectivism is not primarily about psychological relief which is what they seem to want more than anything.  

They really want poetry more than philosophy.

So the question eventually becomes when should you engage with them and when you should not?

And I don't know.

There is always the gnawing question of "would they understand if i said this or that".

Maintaining my own mental health becomes the most important factor for me.

Edited by Easy Truth
spelling
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/25/2021 at 3:17 PM, Easy Truth said:

You will get agreement here in this forum.

But the buddhist or the "non dual" community? I doubt if you will make a dent. You'll be ignored or considered a clever word magician. Objectivism is not primarily about psychological relief which is what they seem to want more than anything.  

They really want poetry more than philosophy.

So the question eventually becomes when should you engage with them and when you should not?

And I don't know.

There is always the gnawing question of "would they understand if i said this or that".

Maintaining my own mental health becomes the most important factor for me.

I appreciate your thoughts and I believe you're pretty spot on. There are some Buddhists out there who teach a pragmatic, down to earth, realist form of Buddhism based on the historical Buddha's teachings. However the vast majority seem to be in denial about reality and see Buddhism as a way to escape into fantasy where everything is imaginary or unreal, yet all the while eating three meals a day, paying bills, and generally constantly contradicting their own purported views and living as huge hypocrites. 

That said, yes, I have wasted enough time thinking exactly what you said about the question "would they understand if I said this or that." I have finally decided to be done with it. I've realized it's not that they don't understand, there's no confusion, rather it's that they are willfully ignorant. They don't even believe their own teachings, as is evident in what I said above about them living as huge hypocrites. So there's no reason to try to convince them of something they are lying about to begin with.

If someone was refusing to drink water because they thought it was imaginary, they need help! And one may be able to convince them to drink and give up on believing everything is imaginary. But these charlatans don't believe for a second that everything is imaginary or unreal or whatever, they just benefit in some way by pretending to believe this, and self delusion is easier for them than facing reality I guess.

 

I suppose a small subset is just plain dumb and don't see that they are self contradicting. But, if they are too stupid to see that claiming water is totally imaginary but also making sure to drink it every day all day to stay alive is a huge contradiction, then they're probably too dumb to understand this even if explained.

 

So there's willful charlatans and idiots. Neither can likely be helped, and all may reject any help offered anyway.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...