A few problems I have with Objectivism

Questions about Objectivism
21

Hence they do not work perfectly, perfect example. We do not see “the whole picture” even looking at the simplest things. The “whole picture” exists in objective reality.

You’ve not refuted anything I’ve said. The fact that the eyes don’t give us infinite detail does not imply they don’t work correctly. Nothing in reality can provide infinite detail - it’s a contradiction.

Not at all. This has a large amount to do with how “free will” and “choice” are defined.

You have not addressed my statement. Do you or do you not believe that choice is an illusion? If you do, please explain what you mean by an “illusion”, and how it is different from making an incorrect judgment.

22

Our eyes cannot see things if they are too far away.

They work exactly as reality demands they do. I have a finite number of light receptors in my eyes, and there are a finite number of photons emitted from any given object. You’re demanding infinity of reality - a contradiction.

23

On Objectivist Epistemology

The validity of the senses, this is one I can’t get my head around. Rand seems to hold that our perception of reality is objective reality. Is this so? This makes no sense to me, as it seems to suggest physiological infallibility on mans part. What we perceive is not objective reality, since our sensory systems act imperfectly.

Your senses sense. Your interpretation of those sensations may or may not be accurate. Optical illusions are not a sensory malfunction. They are due to a poor interpretation of what you see.

On Objectivist Ethics

Objectivism seems to hold that a persons life should be their highest value. I see no reason why a rational person could not hold something else, e.g. their child’s life to be of greater value than their own.

Because proper ethics are based upon one’s life. Any other standard of value is irrational. This is pretty clearly stated in “Virtue of Selfishness”. A rational person holding someone else as a higher value than themselves is a contradiction. Such a person would not be rational.

On Objectivist Metaphysics

The problem of free will and causality. This is the biggest stumbling block for me, as one who holds no belief in free will. The arguments I have found against this problem have seemed very weak to me. Free will is held to be self evident in Objectivism, but an argument brought for it seems to be that choice and free will are not contradictory to the law of causality, but a part of it, that volition is causality. Seemingly volition is a causa sui?

I guess you’re saying that if volition is causality and volition is also self-causation, then it’s just circular. I don’t really follow what you’re saying, but I think I understood. No where is it suggested that volition is caused by or made possible by nothing. That would be mysticism. It is possible because of the structure of the brain.

24

Our sensory organs are infallible in the sense that they merely “collect” data from an objective reality. However, depending on whether or not we properly integrate this data will determine whether our knowledge has any errors or not.

Coleecdting data from objective reality and collecting objective data about reality are two very different things.

A statement of the form “My sensory organs do not work exactly the same as another persons” is a claim to objective knowledge. The mere fact that you can state propositions implies that you already hold that reality and reason are absolute.

Lets not get carried away here, I am not changing my manner of writing to reflect the fact that I believe all knowledge to be subjective. That is unnecessary.

The phrase “logical supposition” is a contradiction. Logic is an art of non-contradictory identification. There are no “suppositions” while using logic.

Yes.

Ethics is a branch of philosophy and is based on its two primary branches - metaphysics and epistemology. As to your question of “why is it immoral …”, please read my post again. In my previous post, I explained to you that since, metaphysically, life is the only phenomenon which is an end in itself, ethically, it follows that a rational man must holds life as his standard of value.

Being a standard of value and being an ultimate value are two very different things.

Sorry, that does not make any sense to me. Could you please explain what do you mean by “imperfectly” in your statement “[w]hat we perceive is not objective reality, since our sensory systems act imperfectly”.

Perfectly would be perceiving objective reality as it is.

If you hold something above your own life, it would imply that you are willing to sacrifice a higher value for a lesser value. Since it is life which is the standard of value, any such sacrifice implies acting against your life i.e. towards self-destruction.

Being willing to act against does not necessitate moving towards in the way you used it.

No she wouldn’t. Observe that in the quote you provided, she says "t is not self-sacrifice to die protecting that which you value". This is consistent with her idea that man’s life qua man (not as a tortured soul) is the standard of value. If a value is so great to you that your life without it (or without attempting to save it) would be rotting in hell, it would be a sacrifice to live without it.

If you sacrifice your life for a value, you are holding that value as a higher value than your life. This contradicts holding your own life/existence as your highest value.

Then else do you mean by “imperfectly”?

Not perfect. My lawnmower is not perfect. It is reliable.

Sense perception is different than forming higher level concepts. When you perceive a table, it’s concept is so automatized in your mind (from childhood) and so substantially verified, that you perceive it infallibly. However, when a young man tries to understand, say “whether health care is a right”, it entails a complex integration of his knowledge. Since integration is an act of thinking, one can make mistakes about it. (these mistakes could either be honest or be an act of evasion.)

Whether it is different or not is irrelevant to whether we can gain objective knowledge through it.

I understand your confusion here of why you consider it to be an “illusion”. All I will ask you is one question, is it possible for you to choose your values? And if your answer is yes, then all you have to do is integrate this knowledge with the fact that actions of our body do not violate causality.

There is no confusion. It may be possible for me to choose my values, or it may not, depending on how you choose to define choice.

You’ve not refuted anything I’ve said. The fact that the eyes don’t give us infinite detail does not imply they don’t work correctly. Nothing in reality can provide infinite detail - it’s a contradiction.

Why infinite, why not absolute?

You have not addressed my statement. Do you or do you not believe that choice is an illusion? If you do, please explain what you mean by an “illusion”, and how it is different from making an incorrect judgment.

I believe most peoples conception of free will to be an illusion. It is not different from making an incorrect judgment.

They work exactly as reality demands they do. I have a finite number of light receptors in my eyes, and there are a finite number of photons emitted from a given object. You’re demanding infinity of reality - a contradiction.

No I am not, did you just copy what the guy above you wrote?

Absolute detail.

25

Your senses sense. Your interpretation of those sensations may or may not be accurate. Optical illusions are not a sensory malfunction. They are due to a poor interpretation of what you see.

And your sense organs may not be accurate aswell? If not, why not?

Because proper ethics are based upon one’s life. Any other standard of value is irrational. This is pretty clearly stated in “Virtue of Selfishness”. A rational person holding someone else as a higher value than themselves is a contradiction. Such a person would not be rational.

How do you get from A to B. Something being your standard of value does not entail that it must be your ultimate value.

I guess you’re saying that if volition is causality and volition is also self-causation, then it’s just circular. I don’t really follow what you’re saying, but I think I understood. No where is it suggested that volition is caused by or made possible by nothing. That would be mysticism. It is possible because of the structure of the brain.

If volition is possible and controlled by our brain, a casually determined physical object, then how is it free?

26

There is no confusion. It may be possible for me to choose my values, or it may not, depending on how you choose to define choice.

You don’t see your circular logic here?

“Choose to define choice”

When modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alleged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on “existence,” “consciousness,” “identity,” which they profess to negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, “stolen” concepts.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 79.

27

You don’t see your circular logic here?

“Choose to define choice”

When modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alleged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on “existence,” “consciousness,” “identity,” which they profess to negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, “stolen” concepts.

Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 79.

You need to turn on your humour meter.

Also Rockefeller what do you mean “no she would not?” Yes she would and so would you. The person I was replying to was arguing a rational person would not sacrifice their life for someone else.

28

CJM, although you talk about reality, you have all of these beliefs and suppositions. These are not knowledge. Yet, you are hanging on to them for all your might. I am not suggesting that you replace them with another person’s judgment, even Ayn Rand’s. I am saying that as long as beliefs not anchored to reality and “logical suppositions” hold sway, you aren’t going to learn anything, not from us or reality.

But even deeper, you are in a world of hurt. Your senses don’t work and you can’t think. Your conclusions are determined by the cosmos, not you. Your statements have causes outside yourself, they aren’t yours.

29

If you sacrifice your life for a value, you are holding that value as a higher value than your life. This contradicts holding your own life/existence as your highest value.

I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by holding life as the standard of value or as your ultimate value. This is understandable because Objectivism does not use these terms in the way they are commonly understood. To live, to exist, implies to live or exist AS something, to have an identity. Objectivism is talking about a certain KIND of life, not just survival. So before you continue along this line of argument you should understand that in Objectivism life =/= survival. This is why it can be rational to commit suicide in certain instances. For example, I would commit suicide before I would allow myself to exist in a permanently vegetative state. Can you understand why this is rational in an Objectivist value hierarchy and why merely continuing as a shell of marginally functioning biological reactions is not really living in the sense it is meant here?

30

And your sense organs may not be accurate aswell? If not, why not?

How do you get from A to B. Something being your standard of value does not entail that it must be your ultimate value.

If volition is possible and controlled by our brain, a casually determined physical object, then how is it free?

CMJ, come on. Slow down and look at this stuff. “Made possible” is not the same as “controlled” (your word). We are trying to make sense of your comments. AR taught us that we have to know what some one is saying exactly, try to understand their meaning, before we can make any kind of evaluation of their position. It is a mental technique worth learning. Of course, since you do not have volition, you can’t choose to do that.

31

You need to turn on your humour meter.

Trust me, it is on. I laughed out loud at your statement.

However you must see that your “problems” with Objectivism are rooted in your assumption of (and reliance on) concepts you’re attempting to negate.

If your position leads to a conclusion that existence does not exist, then… well… pickle butter. :santa:

32

CJM, although you talk about reality, you have all of these beliefs and suppositions. These are not knowledge. Yet, you are hanging on to them for all your might. I am not suggesting that you replace them with another person’s judgment, even Ayn Rand’s. I am saying that as long as beliefs not anchored to reality and “logical suppositions” hold sway, you aren’t going to learn anything, not from us or reality.

But even deeper, you are in a world of hurt. Your senses don’t work and you can’t think. Your conclusions are determined by the cosmos, not you. Your statements have causes outside yourself, they aren’t yours.

Strangely enough, I don’t base my beliefs based on what makes me feel good. So I won’t be adopting the beliefs that my sense organs are infallible super machines or that I somehow hold free will despite being nothing more than a collection of my genetics and past experiences anytime soon(not to mention the insane idea free will entails that the same person in the same circumstances could make two different choices with no changing variables.) just because they seem nice.

The fact that you attempt this appeal to emotion is not a good sign for someone who considers themselves an Objectivist.

I think you are misunderstanding what is meant by holding life as the standard of value or as your ultimate value. This is understandable because Objectivism does not use these terms in the way they are commonly understood. To live, to exist, implies to live or exist AS something, to have an identity. Objectivism is talking about a certain KIND of life, not just survival. So before you continue along this line of argument you should understand that in Objectivism life =/= survival. This is why it can be rational to commit suicide in certain instances. For example, I would commit suicide before I would allow myself to exist in a permanently vegetative state. Can you understand why this is rational in an Objectivist value hierarchy and why merely continuing as a shell of marginally functioning biological reactions is not really living in the sense it is meant here?

Not really. If holding your life as an ultimate value merely means identity or self interest, then ethically it can mean ANYTHING. That identity could be one of a rapist, altruist…literally anything.

Note: this is kind of off point on my part.

But anyway, if living a certain kind of live is to be your highest value, then sacrificing yourself for someoneelses life is still contradictory to it.

33

CMJ, come on. Slow down and look at this stuff. “Made possible” is not the same as “controlled” (your word). We are trying to make sense of your comments. AR taught us that we have to know what some one is saying exactly, try to understand their meaning, before we can make any kind of evaluation of their position. It is a mental technique worth learning. Of course, since you do not have volition, you can’t choose to do that.

Volition is not contradictory to a lack of believe in free will.

Wait, does Objectivism use this word differently too?

Trust me, it is on. I laughed out loud at your statement.

However you must see that your “problems” with Objectivism are rooted in your assumption of (and reliance on) concepts you’re attempting to negate.

If your position leads to a conclusion that existence does not exist, then… well… pickle butter.

Woah, my position is definitely not that existence does not exist, where did you get that? I am sorry if I gave that impression.

34

And your sense organs may not be accurate aswell? If not, why not?

Do you mean accurate as in “accurate to the 300th decimal place”? Or accurate as in reliable? If you have blurry vision you could say your vision is “less accurate”, but what you see is valid.

How do you get from A to B. Something being your standard of value does not entail that it must be your ultimate value.

Can you elaborate on what you mean by ultimate value? Anyway to determine if a particular value is rational or not requires some thought. A value cannot be considered apart from one’s life. So you’d need to analyze a particular value in a particular context in order to determine if it is rational. I was probably a little to ambiguous in my last post.

If volition is possible and controlled by our brain, a casually determined physical object, then how is it free?

“Free will”, or more accurately, volition, is self-causation. Obviously, though, you’re brain needs to be “turned on” before anything is caused. Any decisions made would be a result of a choice that is not caused by anything on the outside. This does not mean the *ability* to make a choice is also self-caused.

35

Coleecdting data from objective reality and collecting objective data about reality are two very different things.

So? How does it relate to my response?

Lets not get carried away here, I am not changing my manner of writing to reflect the fact that I believe all knowledge to be subjective. That is unnecessary.

It’s not about your writing. It’s about your belief. Where did you get that belief? “All knowledge is subjective” is an objective evaluation, which contradicts your statement itself. So, not unnecessary.

Being a standard of value and being an ultimate value are two very different things.

Not so in this context. If a man holds life as his highest value, then it should be the ethical standard for his choice of all other values.

Perfectly would be perceiving objective reality as it is.

What does it mean to perceive reality as it isn’t?

Being willing to act against does not necessitate moving towards in the way you used it.

Acting “against” it necessarily implies self-destruction because man’s life is not automatic. It requires thinking and acting to gain and keep one’s values.

If you sacrifice your life for a value, you are holding that value as a higher value than your life. This contradicts holding your own life/existence as your highest value.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it is man’s life qua man, not as a slave or tortured soul, which is the standard of value. You completely ignored that point.

Not perfect. My lawnmower is not perfect. It is reliable.

“Reliability” presumes a standard. And the only standard that man has is his non-contradictory knowledge, which is ultimately derived from perceptual data.

Whether it is different or not is irrelevant to whether we can gain objective knowledge through it.

It is relevant precisely because you made the suggestion that sense-perception could be fallible.

There is no confusion. It may be possible for me to choose my values, or it may not, depending on how you choose to define choice.

I define (making a) choice as a volitional act when faced with an alternative. How do you define choice?

Why infinite, why not absolute?

Because our eyes do give us absolute data, but not infinite.

I believe most peoples conception of free will to be an illusion. It is not different from making an incorrect judgment.

I request you to read my post again, to answer the question I asked. This is what I wrote:

“I understand your confusion here of why you consider it to be an “illusion”. All I will ask you is one question, is it possible for you to choose your values? And if your answer is yes, then all you have to do is integrate this knowledge with the fact that actions of our body do not violate causality.”

36

Woah, my position is definitely not that existence does not exist, where did you get that? I am sorry if I gave that impression.

That is the impression I’m getting. If you can (and apparently do) claim that existence exists, then by what “objective” means have you made this determination? At the very least, I get the impression that you may waiver and argue that it is possible that your senses are imperfectly perceiving and it is possible that existence doesn’t exist.

If not, then by what faculty have you established the objective reality of existence?

37

Do you mean accurate as in “accurate to the 300th decimal place”? Or accurate as in reliable? If you have blurry vision you could say your vision is “less accurate”, but what you see is valid.

How can it be valid AND inaccurate?

Can you elaborate on what you mean by ultimate value? Anyway to determine if a particular value is rational or not requires some thought. A value cannot be considered apart from one’s life. So you’d need to analyze a particular value in a particular context in order to determine if it is rational. I was probably a little to ambiguous in my last post.

Highest value is all I mean by ultimate.

“Free will”, or more accurately, volition, is self-causation. Obviously, though, you’re brain needs to be “turned on” before anything is caused. Any decisions made would be a result of a choice that is not caused by anything on the outside. This does not mean the *ability* to make a choice is also self-caused.

Self-causation implies that it is not caused by outside factors. Otherwise it is not self-causation, merely causation. So it is a causa sui, and comes from nothing?

I mean, it has to be one or the other, there isn’t actually a middle ground here, unlike most other areas.

38

Strangely enough, I don’t base my beliefs based on what makes me feel good. So I won’t be adopting the beliefs that my sense organs are infallible super machines or that I somehow hold free will despite being nothing more than a collection of my genetics and past experiences anytime soon(not to mention the insane idea free will entails that the same person in the same circumstances could make two different choices with no changing variables.) just because they seem nice.

The fact that you attempt this appeal to emotion is not a good sign for someone who considers themselves an Objectivist.

I am laughing. You consider that an appeal to emotion? lol. No, it was showing that your position is not tenable. I don’t think that I have seen anyone using anything but their best effort to talk to you. But now I do question yours, since no one has suggested that the senses are “supermachines” or that freewill is consistent with “insane idea free will entails that the same person in the same circumstances could make two difference choices with no changing variables”. The last part of that is nonsensical. That really is has little to do with AR’s view on free will. She says that free will is lodged only in the choice to think. Certainly, if one does not think one feels in the grip of forces outside one’s control. One feels determined.

39

So? How does it relate to my response?

Because I never claimed we did not do what you responded and told me we did, making your response entirely redundant and off point?

It’s not about your writing. It’s about your belief. Where did you get that belief? “All knowledge is subjective” is an objective evaluation, which contradicts your statement itself. So, not unnecessary.

Why is it an objective ecaluation, and not subjective?

Not so in this context. If a man holds life as his highest value, then it should be the ethical standard for his choice of all other values.

Yes, but there is no reason to think the opposite should necessarily be true.

What does it mean to perceive reality as it isn’t?

It would be to perceive reality in a biased and subjective way.

Acting “against” it necessarily implies self-destruction because man’s life is not automatic. It requires thinking and acting to gain and keep one’s values.

Acting does, being willing does not, as I already pointed out.

As I mentioned in my previous post, it is man’s life qua man, not as a slave or tortured soul, which is the standard of value. You completely ignored that point.

I tackled it in response to someone else, sorry about that.

“But anyway, if living a certain kind of live is to be your highest value, then sacrificing yourself for someoneelses life is still contradictory to it.”

“Reliability” presumes a standard. And the only standard that man has is his non-contradictory knowledge, which is ultimately derived from perceptual data.

Okay.

It is relevant precisely because you made the suggestion that sense-perception could be fallible.

How does that make it relevant?

I define (making a) choice as a volitional act when faced with an alternative. How do you define choice?

I would define it in much the same way.

Because our eyes do give us absolute data, but not infinite.

No they do not. How do your eyes give you absolute data? Can you perceive the keyboard in front of you in absolute detail? No you cannot.

“I understand your confusion here of why you consider it to be an “illusion”. All I will ask you is one question, is it possible for you to choose your values? And if your answer is yes, then all you have to do is integrate this knowledge with the fact that actions of our body do not violate causality.”

Yes I can choose my values. However I could not choose any others.

40

Volition is not contradictory to a lack of believe in free will.

No, nolition does not result in rationality. But, thinking, which is volitional, does allow you to think that you are not capable of thinking. This is the root of the stolen concept. You must have the ability to think and reach conclusions on evidence. This is in conflict with determinism. You are saying that your conclusions are caused by outside forces, or your genetics, or something other than your own judgment.