Reblogged:Left 'White'-Washes Anti-Semitism

[Ogg_Vorbis]

33 minutes ago, necrovore said:

Yes, it can.

That kind of assertion tends to discourage discussion. 

33 minutes ago, necrovore said:

"Challenge reality's authority?" On the basis of what, exactly?

It's only because of looking at reality (e.g., Copernicus and later Kepler looking at the motions of the planets) that people learned that the sun does not revolve around the Earth.

Retrograde motion of the inner planets didn't change anybody's minds. Continuing to look at the retrograde motion didn't teach anybody anything.

Edited May 4 by Ogg_Vorbis

[EC]

So are we to accept the "authority" of non-reality instead? At least, implicit in all of this is your true goal.

[Ogg_Vorbis]

5 hours ago, EC said:

So are we to accept the "authority" of non-reality instead? At least, implicit in all of this is your true goal.

Reality has no more authority than your chair has authority. 

Come to think of it, the view that reality somehow possesses authority would be a type of monism. When you say reality possesses authority, it suggests that there's a single, underlying truth or structure that dictates how things are and how we should understand them. This aligns with the core principle of monism, which emphasizes the unity and coherence of reality. In the context of Objectivism, this view corresponds with Logical Positivism, which emphasized the importance of verifiable propositions based on sense experience. The world we experience through our senses was seen as the ultimate authority, and statements that couldn't be empirically verified were considered meaningless.

[Pokyt]

You're not responding to anyone's objections to your arguments or their questions about what it is what you actually think. Either start doing that or wrap it up. No one's interested in hearing you go off on wild tangents instead of engaging with what's actually being said to you.

Just to preempt your response, this is still not addressing a point.

17 hours ago, Ogg_Vorbis said:

Retrograde motion of the inner planets didn't change anybody's minds. Continuing to look at the retrograde motion didn't teach anybody anything.

@necrovore's point was pretty clear, and you are blowing it off with this low effort nonsense, opting to go on a paragraph-long tangent about "monism" in response to @EC, which isn't even answering the question he asked you.

I'm fairly certain you're here to troll at this point.

Edited May 4 by Pokyt

[EC]

6 hours ago, Pokyt said:

You're not responding to anyone's objections to your arguments or their questions about what it is what you actually think. Either start doing that or wrap it up. No one's interested in hearing you go off on wild tangents instead of engaging with what's actually being said to you.

Just to preempt your response, this is still not addressing a point.

@necrovore's point was pretty clear, and you are blowing it off with this low effort nonsense, opting to go on a paragraph-long tangent about "monism" in response to @EC, which isn't even answering the question he asked you.

I'm fairly certain you're here to troll at this point.

Exactly,  he both ignored than completely flipped the meaning of my statement. Reality is the final arbiter of truth, and one's mind and grasp of reality is the final authority of all knowledge.  (and as I'm writing this the word "God" *which is the same as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus keeps popping up because the evil hacking part of the campaign against myself is a mixture of different types of altruists/collectivists/authoritarian that want me to accept every form of tyranny ever created, which of course will never happen and they are blatantly evil in every manner by doing these crimes). They also (and the guy above we are talking about is likely one of them and not simply a random "troll" equate falsely the man made with the metaphysical or reality as such in their deluded minds. 

[Ogg_Vorbis]

31 minutes ago, EC said:

Exactly,  he both ignored than completely flipped the meaning of my statement. Reality is the final arbiter of truth, and one's mind and grasp of reality is the final authority of all knowledge.  (and as I'm writing this the word "God" *which is the same as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus keeps popping up because the evil hacking part of the campaign against myself is a mixture of different types of altruists/collectivists/authoritarian that want me to accept every form of tyranny ever created, which of course will never happen and they are blatantly evil in every manner by doing these crimes). They also (and the guy above we are talking about is likely one of them and not simply a random "troll" equate falsely the man made with the metaphysical or reality as such in their deluded minds. 

If you have a problem with my response, take it up with me rather than looking for sympathy with your friends. 

What exactly do you want to know that I didn't cover already?

[tadmjones]

On 5/2/2024 at 11:24 PM, necrovore said:

I think even OPAR says that existence isn't confined to physical existence. Things like consciousness, ideas, emotions, dreams, etc., exist, they are observable, they have specific natures, but they are non-physical, and so their nature is different from the nature of physical things.

There is still much to be learned about consciousness, but anything we do learn shouldn't contradict what we already know, and we already know that consciousness doesn't have primacy over existence. (It doesn't even have primacy over its own existence.)

That is what I meant. O'ism understood in that frame says reality is dualistic and assigns primacy to one pole. Not very parsimonious.

[necrovore]

57 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

That is what I meant. O'ism understood in that frame says reality is dualistic and assigns primacy to one pole. Not very parsimonious.

It's supposed to be the "primacy of existence," not the primacy of physical existence.

The primacy of existence is a corollary of the law of identity. Things are what they are. Consciousness can perceive what things are but, aside from physical action, cannot affect what they are.

But "things" are not just physical things. The primacy of existence also applies when consciousness perceives an idea or an emotion or another consciousness or any other non-physical thing. An idea, or an emotion, or another consciousness, is what it is, and you can try to discover its nature, but you cannot change its nature by will alone.

Nothing is different on account of non-physicality.

Also, the primacy of existence is also derived not only from the fact that physical objects have identity, but from the fact that consciousness has identity. Consciousness is a means of perceiving or understanding, it is a means of choosing whether to act and what action to perform, but it cannot, apart from action, change anything. Once an action is taken, the results also come from reality, from the nature of the entities involved, and are not controlled or determined by consciousness.

It even applies when one is perceiving one's own consciousness, through introspection -- and although, with effort, you can change your habits or your ideas, there are certain things about the nature of your consciousness, of any consciousness, that cannot be changed.

Edited May 5 by necrovore

[EC]

1 hour ago, tadmjones said:

That is what I meant. O'ism understood in that frame says reality is dualistic and assigns primacy to one pole. Not very parsimonious.

Not true.

[EC]

On 5/5/2024 at 10:42 AM, necrovore said:

It's supposed to be the "primacy of existence," not the primacy of physical existence.

The primacy of existence is a corollary of the law of identity. Things are what they are. Consciousness can perceive what things are but, aside from physical action, cannot affect what they are.

But "things" are not just physical things. The primacy of existence also applies when consciousness perceives an idea or an emotion or another consciousness or any other non-physical thing. An idea, or an emotion, or another consciousness, is what it is, and you can try to discover its nature, but you cannot change its nature by will alone.

Nothing is different on account of non-physicality.

Also, the primacy of existence is also derived not only from the fact that physical objects have identity, but from the fact that consciousness has identity. Consciousness is a means of perceiving or understanding, it is a means of choosing whether to act and what action to perform, but it cannot, apart from action, change anything. Once an action is taken, the results also come from reality, from the nature of the entities involved, and are not controlled or determined by consciousness.

It even applies when one is perceiving one's own consciousness, through introspection -- and although, with effort, you can change your habits or your ideas, there are certain things about the nature of your consciousness, of any consciousness, that cannot be changed.

I thumbed this up even though all of it isn't true although somewhat better than what the other guy spewed.  It does not result from consciousness quite the opposite. 

From the Lexicon:

The basic metaphysical issue that lies at the root of any system of philosophy [is] the primacy of existence or the primacy of consciousness.

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 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.

“THE METAPHYSICAL VERSUS THE MAN-MADE”

Philosophy: Who Needs It, 24 

 SHARE

 

 

On 5/5/2024 at 10:42 AM, necrovore said:

It's supposed to be the "primacy of existence," not the primacy of physical existence.

The primacy of existence is a corollary of the law of identity. Things are what they are. Consciousness can perceive what things are but, aside from physical action, cannot affect what they are.

But "things" are not just physical things. The primacy of existence also applies when consciousness perceives an idea or an emotion or another consciousness or any other non-physical thing. An idea, or an emotion, or another consciousness, is what it is, and you can try to discover its nature, but you cannot change its nature by will alone.

Nothing is different on account of non-physicality.

Also, the primacy of existence is also derived not only from the fact that physical objects have identity, but from the fact that consciousness has identity. Consciousness is a means of perceiving or understanding, it is a means of choosing whether to act and what action to perform, but it cannot, apart from action, change anything. Once an action is taken, the results also come from reality, from the nature of the entities involved, and are not controlled or determined by consciousness.

It even applies when one is perceiving one's own consciousness, through introspection -- and although, with effort, you can change your habits or your ideas, there are certain things about the nature of your consciousness, of any consciousness, that cannot be changed.

And this, also from Lexicon:

"It is important to observe the interrelation of these three axioms [existence, consciousness, and identity]. Existence is the first axiom. The universe exists independent of consciousness. Man is able to adapt his background to his own requirements, but “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed” (Francis Bacon). There is no mental process that can change the laws of nature or erase facts. The function of consciousness is not to create reality, but to apprehend it. “Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.”

The philosophic source of this viewpoint and its major advocate in the history of philosophy is Aristotle. Its opponents are all the other major traditions, including Platonism, Christianity, and German idealism. Directly or indirectly, these traditions uphold the notion that consciousness is the creator of reality. The essence of this notion is the denial of the axiom that existence exists."

LEONARD PEIKOFF

The Ominous Parallels, 303 

[tadmjones]

1 hour ago, necrovore said:

It's supposed to be the "primacy of existence," not the primacy of physical existence.

The primacy of existence is a corollary of the law of identity. Things are what they are. Consciousness can perceive what things are but, aside from physical action, cannot affect what they are.

But "things" are not just physical things. The primacy of existence also applies when consciousness perceives an idea or an emotion or another consciousness or any other non-physical thing. An idea, or an emotion, or another consciousness, is what it is, and you can try to discover its nature, but you cannot change its nature by will alone.

Nothing is different on account of non-physicality.

Also, the primacy of existence is also derived not only from the fact that physical objects have identity, but from the fact that consciousness has identity. Consciousness is a means of perceiving or understanding, it is a means of choosing whether to act and what action to perform, but it cannot, apart from action, change anything. Once an action is taken, the results also come from reality, from the nature of the entities involved, and are not controlled or determined by consciousness.

It even applies when one is perceiving one's own consciousness, through introspection -- and although, with effort, you can change your habits or your ideas, there are certain things about the nature of your consciousness, of any consciousness, that cannot be changed.

My interpretation of O'ism as being based on and grounded by non contradictory identification of physical reality is mistaken? 

[necrovore]

26 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

My interpretation of O'ism as being based on and grounded by non contradictory identification of physical reality is mistaken?

As far as I can tell, Objectivism is based on and grounded by non-contradictory identification of all of reality.

Edited May 5 by necrovore

[KyaryPamyu]

3 hours ago, necrovore said:

The primacy of existence also applies when consciousness perceives an idea or an emotion or another consciousness or any other non-physical thing.

"Consciousness" (a faculty) perceives "an idea or an emotion. . ." (an object).

According to this formulation, the faculty (consciousness) and its objects (ideas, emotions) are distinct from each other. Or, more specifically, the identity of consciousness is to be consciousness-like, while the identity of objects is to be object-like.

However, if we try to imagine:

• an idea/emotion existing outside of a consciousness, or
• a consciousness devoid of any content whatsoever

we cannot do so. The separation exists in theory, but not in practice, so to speak.

To get around this, some 19th century Romantics had an interesting concept called "productive perception" (or productive intuition): consciousness comes into existence through an action; without this action, there is no consciousness. We, contemporary thinkers, could associate this with the activity of a brain, or, if we're adventurous, with some primordial cosmic action. It doesn't matter for our intents and purposes.

Now, from this action arises more than just consciousness alone. The content arises as well. To illustrate this from a materialistic framework, suppose that I hit my toe. As a consequence, I feel pain. But "pain" is not a mind-independent existent; on the contrary: my brain produced or created the pain-sensation in the aftermath of the stimulus. (For non-materialist readers, substitute whatever you want.) Hence, the "productive intuition/perception" moniker.

Of course, from my perspective, my consciousness is not "productive" at all. This is because the productive operations of the brain/primordial-act cannot themselves enter consciousness. But if I wanted to observe how consciousness comes to be, I could for example:

• Observe the brain in a lab (according to physicalists)
• Freely perform a mental action, then observe any involuntary productive acts that my mind does as a result of the first act (according to idealists)

Idealist systems like those of Fichte and Schelling employ the latter method, which is centered on observing your own mind in the process of generating the general categories and content of experience (Subject, Object, sensation, time, substance etc.)

Now, the premise of those Romantics is that, although the "primordial action" lies outside of my awareness, I myself must have been the author of this act. Stated differently, I blindly strive for consciousness, and my striving results in attaining consciousness.

So, to me it appears as if my brain acts "blindly" in order to give rise to my consciousness. But from a higher perspective, the brain is not separate from me; the brain is me in the process of striving for consciousness. Or, more clearly: in my awareness, the unconsciously-acting aspect of me looks like a brain, while the consciously-acting side of me looks like a "will" that controls my physical body from inside, as it were.

___

My sources: Fichte, Schelling

Edited May 5 by KyaryPamyu

[necrovore]

27 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:

According to this formulation, the faculty (consciousness) and its objects (ideas, emotions) are distinct from each other. Or, more specifically, the identity of consciousness is to be consciousness-like, while the identity of objects is to be object-like.

I suppose I wasn't really getting into that question; I was only emphasizing that ideas and emotions and consciousnesses are existents and, like any other existents, have specific identities and natures of their own.

This would include saying, for example, that anger can't exist unless there is some consciousness to be angry. That is part of the nature of anger; that is part of anger's identity.

However, there is a sense in which ideas and emotions are distinct from the consciousness that has them. I can give you an idea (or possibly make you angry) but I cannot give you my consciousness. (You have your own.)

It's pretty clear that there has to be some mechanism (or combination of mechanisms) that causes a brain, in a living body, to be conscious. But I suppose Objectivism considers the exact identification of those mechanisms to be a problem for the special sciences. This is not to say that the question isn't interesting.

Edited May 5 by necrovore

[tadmjones]

Ideas, emotions, and consciousness are existents.
 

So as long as there are sentient beings the universe is expanding? 

Edited May 6 by tadmjones

[Ogg_Vorbis]

22 hours ago, EC said:

Exactly,  he both ignored than completely flipped the meaning of my statement. Reality is the final arbiter of truth, and one's mind and grasp of reality is the final authority of all knowledge.  (and as I'm writing this the word "God" *which is the same as the Easter Bunny or Santa Claus keeps popping up because the evil hacking part of the campaign against myself is a mixture of different types of altruists/collectivists/authoritarian that want me to accept every form of tyranny ever created, which of course will never happen and they are blatantly evil in every manner by doing these crimes). They also (and the guy above we are talking about is likely one of them and not simply a random "troll" equate falsely the man made with the metaphysical or reality as such in their deluded minds. 

Reality can't be an arbiter of anything. My chair, an existent that possesses the attribute of reality, can't be an arbiter of anything.

The idea that reality is an arbiter of truth comes from Logical Positivism.

[tadmjones]

Without an implied physicalist monism , is there a coherent argument in favor of the  validity of sense perception?

[necrovore]

11 hours ago, tadmjones said:

So as long as there are sentient beings the universe is expanding?

This sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

8 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Without an implied physicalist monism , is there a coherent argument in favor of the  validity of sense perception?

All I'm saying is that consciousness exists. How could sense perception be valid if consciousness doesn't exist?

[tadmjones]

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

This sounds like a non-sequitur to me.

 

We stipulated that consciousness and products of consciousness are existents, and the question about the expansion of the universe following the actions of existent producing sentient beings should also follow, no? Unless mental extistents don't 'count', that their state of being is different from the state of being or nature from the nature of 'things' that make up the finite universe.

 

 

6 hours ago, necrovore said:

 

All I'm saying is that consciousness exists. How could sense perception be valid if consciousness doesn't exist?

True if one held an explicit strict monism based on physicality then consciousness would not exist and the products of sensory perception would either have to exist in material form or be denied. But how would an argument positively asserting the validity be structured without implying that physicality is the measure of the 'real'?

[necrovore]

24 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

We stipulated that consciousness and products of consciousness are existents, and the question about the expansion of the universe following the actions of existent producing sentient beings should also follow, no?

If you're talking about the expansion of the universe as in the redshift of distant galaxies and the Hubble constant and all that stuff, then no. Consciousness has no effect on any of that, just like it doesn't affect nuclear fusion in stars, or the orbits of planets. Especially with astrophysics, where the things we are observing are too far away for us to affect, we can only observe, and theorize about the causes of what we observe.

24 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Unless mental extistents don't 'count', that their state of being is different from the state of being or nature from the nature of 'things' that make up the finite universe.

Just because they are different doesn't mean that they don't "count" as existing.

I'll just quote what Peikoff says in the first chapter of OPAR:

Quote

The concept of "existence" is the widest of all concepts. It subsumes everything -- every entity, action, attribute, relationship (including every state of consciousness) -- everything which is, was, or will be. The concept does not specify that a physical world exists.

And later he says:

Quote

From the outset, consciousness presents itself as something specific -- as a faculty of perceiving an object, not of creating or changing it. For instance, a child may hate the food set in front of him and refuse even to look at it. But his inner state does not erase his dinner. Leaving aside physical action, the food is impervious; it is unaffected by a process of consciousness as such. It is unaffected by anyone's perception or nonperception, memory or fantasy, desire or fury -- just as a book refuses to roll despite anyone's tantrums, or a pillow to rattle, or a block to float.

The basic fact implicit in such observations is that consciousness, like any other kind of entity, acts in a certain way and only in that way. In adult, philosophic terms, we refer to this fact as the "primacy of existence," a principal that is fundamental to the metaphysics of Objectivism.

This is what I have been getting at.

Edited May 6 by necrovore

[Mthomas9s]

On 5/4/2024 at 6:53 AM, EC said:

So are we to accept the "authority" of non-reality instead? At least, implicit in all of this is your true goal.

And thus, you may have discovered their intentions.  "Reality has no authority " , which may be used to justify, popularize, irrational thought.

[tadmjones]

Since axiomatic concepts are identifications of irreducible primaries, the only way to define one is by means of an ostensive definition—e.g., to define “existence,” one would have to sweep one’s arm around and say: “I mean this.”

Definitions
Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 41

 

If existence is/ has axiomatic primacy, then the 'this' being ostensibly defined by the sweeping of the arm are 'all' the objects of sense perception, so the 'cause' of the objects,no?

What I am questioning is , is the awareness of 'this' , the experience 'as' fundamental at least equally fundamental that 'primacy' is somehow incorrect?

Edited May 6 by tadmjones

[EC]

On 5/4/2024 at 10:14 PM, Ogg_Vorbis said:

If you have a problem with my response, take it up with me rather than looking for sympathy with your friends. 

What exactly do you want to know that I didn't cover already?

I have no idea what you are talking about with regard to seeking "sympathy" with anyone. I showed you the correct answers and won't have any further discussion with an irrational person that shouldn't even be allowed to post this type of complete irrational nonsense here as it's a violation of Forum rules and the site's purpose. Don't respond to me again nor send me any private messages trying to get around Euiol.

[necrovore]

39 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

If existence is/ has axiomatic primacy, then the 'this' being ostensibly defined by the sweeping of the arm are 'all' the objects of sense perception, so the 'cause' of the objects,no?

The objects, collectively, are existence.

There is no "cause" of existence. Existence exists.

Our senses have a nature such that (some) objects affect the senses and cause us to perceive the objects. (Sometimes indirectly e.g. when light bounces off the objects and the light affects our eyes.) But the objects exist whether we perceive them or not.

Edited May 6 by necrovore

[KyaryPamyu]

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Unless mental extistents don't 'count', that their state of being is different from the state of being or nature from the nature of 'things' that make up the finite universe.

According to Plato, known existents are actually shadows or copies of pure Ideas located in the Hyperuranion. Likewise, in a materialist framework, mental "existents" (percepts) are mere shadows or copies of pure Things located in the Physical™ world.

2 hours ago, tadmjones said:

But how would an argument positively asserting the validity be structured without implying that physicality is the measure of the 'real'?

The idea is that mind-stuff is unable to produce matter, because of the Law of Identity: mind-stuff has an identity that is toto genere different from the identity of matter. On the other hand, matter can easily produce mind-stuff because.. it just can, okay?

2 hours ago, necrovore said:

[Quoting OPAR] From the outset, consciousness presents itself as something specific -- as a faculty of perceiving an object, not of creating or changing it. For instance, a child may hate the food set in front of him and refuse even to look at it. But. . . the food is impervious. . . It is unaffected by anyone's perception or nonperception, memory or fantasy, desire or fury -- just as a book refuses to roll despite anyone's tantrums, or a pillow to rattle, or a block to float.

Peikoff is constantly oscillating between different meanings of the word "consciousness", according to what is convenient for his purposes. At the beginning of the quoted part, he takes "consciousness" to mean passive awareness of objects; he then shifts to a broader meaning which encompasses volitional aspects, like fantasizing/desiring that the food disappears.

It doesn't seem to occur to Peikoff that, as per the Law of Identity, even if a mind was able to productively create the entirety of the contents of consciousness, the creative process itself would not be "free", but constrained by certain laws. I'm free to draw a line in my mind, but I'm not free to do so without making use of point and space. The laws of geometry are the necessary "stage" for freely drawing the line, which is to say: the mind produces not just one kind of representation (drawing the line) but also the representation of the lawful backdrop (point and space).

Metaphysics is not as simple as trying to make food disappear.

46 minutes ago, Mthomas9s said:

"Reality has no authority " , which may be used to justify, popularize, irrational thought.

Here is the original claim:

On 5/4/2024 at 9:41 PM, Ogg_Vorbis said:

Reality has no more authority than your chair has authority. 

And this cannot be stressed enough. Man can err, yet at the same time be completely convinced that he is merely "following reality". Try to challenge his assertions, and you're met with replies such as "Well.. is 2+2=4?!", implying that, since he was merely following "reality", his conclusion was pristine and perfect.

The only "authority" is intellectual honesty when dealing with reality.