absolutely objective

[GlobalPlayer]

Hey guys!

I am wondering how one can regard reason as one's only epistemological absolute if one can only have objective knowledge of the world. If one doesn't know absolutely everything there's to know, it still doesn't disturb one to know something, but how can one regard reason as absolute if one doesn't have absolute knowledge (if e.g. one doesn't know if there are aliens on Planet XYZ).

My guess is that the word absolute is used in two different contexts and meanings

1. In the sense of using it as one's only epistemological absolute, as the only absolute means to knowledge

2. In the sense of regarding knowledge as absolutely certain

Can you please help me understand the difference and validity of the idea?

Thanks,

GlP

[DarkWaters]

Hi,

I am wondering how one can regard reason as one's only epistemological absolute if one can only have objective knowledge of the world.

It sounds like you are asking for a reason for why we should use reason. Do you see the problem here? If you meant to emphasis why reason is the only means to knowledge. What other reality-based means to knowledge could there possibly be? Even if some other hypothetical method existed, we could only validate it as a means to knowledge using reason. Of course, we only concern ourselves with methods that have been discovered.

but how can one regard reason as absolute if one doesn't have absolute knowledge (if e.g. one doesn't know if there are aliens on Planet XYZ).

Possessing complete knowledge is not a prerequisite for acquiring any additional knowledge. In fact, it is contradictory. Why would you want to pursue additional knowledge if you know everything already? Of course, any example that presupposes complete knowledge of everything does not accurately reflect reality anyway.

In terms of regarding knowledge as absolutely certain, when we state that some discovered fact is true, such as the law of gravity, we really mean to say that the law of gravity (or any other discovery) is true within the present context of our knowledge. Perhaps we might identify a contradiction at some point in the future through either empirical observation or deductive logic. Until then, we have amassed a strong argument for why our hypothesis is true (in the context of all of our presently integrated knowledge) and we have no reason to believe otherwise.

[KendallJ]

You've touched upon 2 different issues: reason as an absolute and the concept of certainty.

1. Reason as an absolute. To me this relates back to the Objectivist axioms. If you buy that Existence, Identity, and Consciousness are axiomatic, then reason, as a method of non-contradictory identification, becomes all that is necessary. All other so-called mechanisms to knowledge are actually violations of axioms. They are knowing without causal (sensory) input. This is why God is certainly non-existent. I don't know everything in the world, but I do know that everything in the world has an identity and acts according to its identity.

2. Unlike the axioms however, certainty of the output of reason is contextual. You can be 100% certain of something, given the context of your reasoning. However, that conclusion can be corrected by later reasoning. Notice I say corrected rather than overturned. If the proper method is used to arrive at a given conclusion, and the conclusion is true, then new knowledge augments the truth, but does not overturn it.

[GlobalPlayer]

Ok guys,

do you mean that the "absolute" in "reason should be one's only absolute" is to be regarded as contextual as is all other knowledge? Absolute as designating the certainty within the context of my present knowledge?

Edited January 26, 2007 by GlobalPlayer

[GlobalPlayer]

Ok guys,

Just to get things straight: I am convinced that Objectivism is true and there's no need to convince me or look at me as someone who wants to argue against it. I am trying to understand (logical) details that due to my tight schedule I can't solve on my own at lenghts right now. It's about completely logically understanding what right now is still half-feeling and half-understanding. Thank you for your support!

I think you want to tell me that reason is the only valid standard for carefully examinig the world. In other words it is the only orientation in epistemology. And I think you are also trying to tell me that although there's only objective certainty possible (within the context of my present knowledge), this isn't the issue at stake here. The "absolute" in "reason is one's only absolute" is not about absolute certainty, but about absolute standard of evaluation. If reason "says" it is one way it would be false to believe differently.

If that is in fact how you see it it brings me to the next issue of why Objectivism regards reality as one's ultimate standard of evaluation?

GlP

[MisterSwig]

Why [does] Objectivism regard reality as one's ultimate standard of evaluation?

Because reality is that which exists. If you are going to evaluate something, why would you use nothing (nonexistence) as your standard? If you are going to evaluate a woman and decide whether to ask her out on a date, are you going to judge her based on her actual nature and what is good for your life, or will you judge her based on her fantasy nature (that you dream up) and what is good for the Big Zero in Nothingland?

If you want to get anywhere in reality, then you need to deal with reality.

[GlobalPlayer]

Thank you guys for helping me jump start my mind...