Reblogged:Left 'White'-Washes Anti-Semitism

[necrovore]

52 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:

Peikoff is constantly oscillating between different meanings of the word "consciousness", according to what is convenient for his purposes.

Are they really different "meanings" or are they just different aspects of the same thing?

Consciousness has many characteristics and it's quite appropriate to use the ones that are relevant while temporarily setting aside the ones that are irrelevant. (Of course the irrelevant characteristics are still there and may be very relevant in other contexts.)

52 minutes ago, KyaryPamyu said:

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.

It is quite possible to tell a man that some of his facts are wrong without disputing other facts such as that 2+2=4.

If a dispute can be reduced to a factual dispute, then that's real progress, because it should be possible to settle it by looking at reality (possibly with the aid of instruments) and seeing what is actually the case.

Of course a man might not listen to the idea that his facts or wrong, or might not investigate the matter, but that's his problem, not a problem with reality as such.

(It is also possible for a man to be wrong but undisputed, and this is part of why it's necessary to validate claims against reality as opposed to accepting them uncritically.)

Edited May 6 by necrovore

[EC]

"Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver’s consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver’s (man’s) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge — that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers — and that there can be no such thing as a final “authority” in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically — one’s own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second.

The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question “Who decides what is right or wrong?” is wrong. Nobody “decides.” Nature does not decide — it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: “Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed.” This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality."

“WHO IS THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN ETHICS?”

The Objectivist Newsletter/, Feb. 1965, 7

 

Here's the other answers:

"Existence exists — and the act of grasping that statement implies two corollary axioms: that something exists which one perceives and that one exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of perceiving that which exists.

If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not consciousness.

Whatever the degree of your knowledge, these two — existence and consciousness — are axioms you cannot escape, these two are the irreducible primaries implied in any action you undertake, in any part of your knowledge and in its sum, from the first ray of light you perceive at the start of your life to the widest erudition you might acquire at its end. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of a solar system, the axioms remain the same: that it exists and that you know it . . . Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification."

“GALT’S SPEECH”

For the New Intellectual, 124 

 

The first and primary axiomatic concepts are “existence,” “identity” (which is a corollary of “existence”) and “consciousness.” One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or “prove”) existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible primaries. (An attempt to “prove” them is self-contradictory: it is an attempt to “prove” existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by means of unconsciousness.)

“THE COGNITIVE ROLE OF CONCEPTS”

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 73

 

Man’s consciousness is his least known and most abused vital organ. Most people believe that consciousness as such is some sort of indeterminate faculty which has no nature, no specific identity and, therefore, no requirements, no needs, no rules for being properly or improperly used. The simplest example of this belief is people’s willingness to lie or cheat, to fake reality on the premise that “I’m the only one who’ll know” or “It’s only in my mind” — without any concern for what this does to one’s mind, what complex, untraceable, disastrous impairments it produces, what crippling damage may result.

The loss of control over one’s consciousness is the most terrifying of human experiences: a consciousness that doubts its own efficacy is in a monstrously intolerable state. Yet men abuse, subvert and starve their consciousness in a manner they would not dream of applying to their hair, toenails or stomachs. They know that these things have a specific identity and specific requirements, and, if one wishes to preserve them, one must comb one’s hair, trim one’s toenails and refrain from swallowing rat poison. But one’s mind? Aw, it needs nothing and can swallow anything. Or so most people believe. And they go on believing it while they toss in agony on a psychologist’s couch, screaming that their mind keeps them in a state of chronic terror for no reason whatever . . .

The fact [is] that man’s consciousness possesses a specific nature with specific cognitive needs, that it is not infinitely malleable and cannot be twisted, like a piece of putty, to fit any private evasions or any public “conditioning.”

“OUR CULTURAL VALUE-DEPRIVATION”

The Objectivist, April, 1966, 1 

 

Let the witch doctor who does not choose to accept the validity of sensory perception, try to prove it without using the data he obtained by sensory perception.

“GALT’S SPEECH”

For the New Intellectual, 155

 

And: https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-courses/history-of-philosophy/objectivism-on-the-validity-of-the-senses/

[Pokyt]

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. 

Just to round off the discussion being had with you, this type of thing is the main issue. You've continually done this to people where you belittle them, only to come back and complain about the "intolerance" of Objectivists. Enough.

I actually took a quick scroll through your post history, which is very short, and I've come to a conclusion about you that I feel pretty justified in. You have never actually considered yourself to be an "Objectivist" and you're here to try and get a rise out of people, convert them to your way of thinking, or both. You made your first post in 2008 where you criticized Rand's epistemology and defended Kant. Then you disappeared for 16 years only to come back and criticize Objectivism some more, claiming that you were previously a devotee who had spent "hundreds of hours" studying the philosophy.

After reading your posts here, I really don't believe you, and I'm almost completely certain that you're some obsessive internet weirdo trying to mess with people. You were being rude before, but I just thought you were dumb and lashing out because the alternative is pretty wild considering your other posts. But after looking at your older posts and subsequent behavior, I can only conclude that you really are that weird and manipulative.

16 hours ago, Ogg_Vorbis said:

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.

Another example of you not addressing the points being made to you, but multiple people including myself have already pointed out how intellectually dishonest you are. I was letting you run out of steam while isolating you to this thread, and I think we've reached a point where allowing any more posts from you would be pretty much pointless. You've had your chance to say something substantive and you haven't taken it, so from here on out you're banned from this site.

Bye now!

PS: I asked Eiuol what he thinks and he agreed, so you really don't have a way of getting around this.

Edited May 6 by Pokyt