As I was driving to work this morning, I heard a conservative (what a surprise!) radio talk show host exclaim, “well, anything is possible.”
I’m sorry, but I despise that commonly used phrase. MANY things are possible, but ANYTHING? No.
Not to be naive, but how can people so readily dissmiss reality?
I think you may be taking things a little too literally.
In the realm of romantic relationships, people are very fond of asking if certain things are “possible.” For example: “Is it possible for former lovers to become friends?” Or: “Could my ex-girlfriend, who ran off with my best buddy, ever come crawling back to me, and we’ll live happily ever after?”
I’m not a magic 8-ball; I can’t predict the future. People have free will, and are known to act in all sorts of ways, rational and irrational. And sometimes — very occasionally — things which would seem to be extremely unlikely or stand an exceedingly small chance of succeeding actually end up working out quite well.
And so, in response to such questions, I often begin by saying: “Well, just about anything is ‘possible.’”
I don’t mean, of course, that perhaps tomorrow the sun will rise in the West, or that the ex-girlfriend under discussion might miraculously grow a second head. I’m assuming that the person I’m speaking to is keyed in to reality enough to understand at least generally — metaphysically— what is possible, and am saying that within that context neither I nor anyone else can make any definite statements about what will happen.
One can cite statistics, and one can speak of degrees of likelihood. But it’s very difficult, outside of the aforementioned metaphysical context, ever to say that something is truly _im_possible.
This does not mean that every “possibility” one can dream up is on equal footing with all others; often far from it. If I asked you if it were possible for Bill Clinton to start telling the truth and become an Objectivist, you’d be hard pressed, strictly speaking, to say that it isn’t.
You’d also be well within your rights to question why I’m bringing this “possibility” up — and to demand to know what evidence I have to indicate that this is something even worth considering.
In any kind of communication, what’s most important is not that a person be absolutely, literally correct in every statement he makes, but that the meaning of his words is clear, and is understood by those he’s speaking to. 99% of the time, when someone says “anything is possible,” he means it in exactly the way I’ve described here. The only person who wouldn’t understand that is someone who’s deliberately looking to pick a fight.
By misunderstanding what construes “possible”. In OPAR, Dr. Peikoff defines “possible” as anything for which there is some evidence supporting it and NO evidence contradicting it.
I agree that, technically speaking, an expression like “anything is possible” is a logical contradiction and thus does not represent reality. Depending on the context, however, I support the sentiment that it conveys. To me, the expression means that the application of effort (and reason) can culminate in results originally thought impossible.
I’m much more frustrated and concerned by those who constantly assert that undertakings are impossible and futile than those who maintain that “anything is possible.”
After I entered my previous post, Kevin’s appeared. I would like to change my post to say “What Kevin said”. :dough:
By misunderstanding what construes “possible”. In OPAR, Dr. Peikoff defines “possible” as anything for which there is some evidence supporting it and NO evidence contradicting it.
Haven’t read that book, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. In this sense, people who lived 10000 years ago would have had to believe it impossible that water be made up of an oxygen and 2 hydrogen atoms. Am I missing something?
By misunderstanding what construes “possible”. In OPAR, Dr. Peikoff defines “possible” as anything for which there is some evidence supporting it and NO evidence contradicting it.
Haven’t read that book, but that doesn’t make a lot of sense to me. In this sense, people who lived 10000 years ago would have had to believe it impossible that water be made up of an oxygen and 2 hydrogen atoms. Am I missing something?
Yes: You’re assuming that the only alternative to something being “possible” is that it’s “impossible.” There is a third alternative: the statement is arbitrary.
“Arbitrary” means that for which there is no evidence, either perceptual or conceptual. An arbitrary claim is one which is devoid of cognitive content.
If a parrot squawks “two plus two equals four,” he is not communicating knowledge. What comes out of his beak is, strictly speaking, neither true nor false — it’s just a sound the bird has learned to mimic.
Likewise, if 10,000 years ago someone uttered the words: “Water is composed of two hydrogen atoms to one oxygen atom,” those around him would properly ask where he even got the concepts of “hydrogen,” “oxygen” and “atom,” considering that these have not yet been discovered. Lacking any coherent explanation, they would properly conclude that, although his words may one day resemble a legitimate scientific discovery or hypothesis, at the present moment they form an entirely baseless, meaningless, arbitrary assertion — and should be dismissed out of hand without further consideration.
Of course, people who lived 10,000 years ago didn’t think the H20 formula was either possible or impossible — they didn’t think much of anything about it, busy as they were getting civilization started and whatnot.
Do read OPAR. It’s good for you. :dough:
long post that will take up too much space if I quote the whole thing
Meh, fair enough…with that definition, at least. To me, if something isn’t impossible, that makes it possible. The biggest problem I have with Objectivist writing is that it tends to redefine certain words in ways that seem counterintuitive. This isn’t a problem with Objectivism itself…I just wish the writers would use more commonly accepted definitions.
The biggest problem I have with Objectivist writing is that it tends to redefine certain words in ways that seem counterintuitive. This isn’t a problem with Objectivism itself…I just wish the writers would use more commonly accepted definitions.
Are those “commonly accepted definitions” – and the concepts they define – logically formed?
For the principles of concept and definition formation, see Ayn Rand, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Chs. 2 and 5. Then, after studying ITOE, you might see also the summary in Leonard Peikoff, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, Ch. 3.
BTW, what do you mean by “counterintuitive”?
I started a new thread on the topic so, please go there for the discussion.