Objective Reality and Objective Living

OBJECTIVE REALITY AND OBJECTIVE LIVING

 

[Here are some highlights, from the perspective of self-realization and self-betterment, of the meaning of the concept of Reality or Existence:  the widest, most abstract and fundamental of all concepts, subsuming and integrating all other concepts – yet, at the same time, it’s the most simple, concrete, directly observable concept, seen in each and every thing that’s real and exists. Reality exists all around; it’s all that which is there. One lives in reality and need to know it. One’s rationality, morality, and sanity depend on knowing it.]

 


 

Reality. Existence. Reality Exists. Reality is Real. Existence is Real. Existence Exists. A is A.

 

It’s worth repeating: Existence Exists. The reality of existence and the existence of reality is so fundamental, essential, absolute, so objective and important, it bears restating again and again – to underscore and re-affirm its primacy and its ultimate abstraction of all existents and all real things. It’s in this reality of all real things that we, as knowing beings, live and act, so this objective reality is the axiomatic basis of our real, objective living. Living objectively is living with respect for and in accordance with the reality, objectivity, and primacy of existence.

 

Reality is all that which exists – all entities, their attributes and actions – existing in all ways, at all times. Reality is _all_ that there is in existence, nothing more and nothing less. Even that which could be real comes from all that which is already real. Causality is reality in action. You can transform reality, i.e., re-arrange things, to re-create reality into a new form of reality, but it’s still something already existing that has changed or formed.

 

A tree is a tree, not a rock or an elephant. Rivers and landslides move down- not upward. Ice comes from water, not alcohol. Acorns grow into oaks, not tigers. Babies come from mothers. You need to eat in order to live. Money doesn’t grow on trees. Neither love nor reason can be forced. Politicians don’t produce anything good.

 

Only from something real comes something real. Nothing comes from nothing. There is nothing above, below, before, after, behind, in between, or outside reality. This one reality is all there is. There’s no getting around it. Reality exists, everywhere, everywhen, everyhow, in everywhat. If reality doesn’t really exist, you wouldn’t be here to know that; neither would you be here in the first place. If there is nothing, there is nothing.

 

Reality exists, reality is real, existence exists – this the deepest you can go in reaching for the most fundamental axiom of all we know and all we do. All proofs and justifications depend on this axiom, which itself requires no proof because its evidence for existence is its existence itself, and because it’s the basis of, and presupposed by, all proofs or by any attempts to deny it. All knowledge and action rest on the basic fact that reality and existence exists, existing prior to our awareness, consciousness, and knowledge of it. Objective reality is the absolute standard of truth for all that we know about existence and about our consciousness of that existence.

 

Existence precedes consciousness and has primacy over consciousness. Before or without existence, there would be no consciousness. Existence exists even without consciousness. Without mind, there is still matter. Real matter exists regardless of one’s mental awareness or evaluation of it. Whether one knows it or not, whether one likes it or not, existence is the object of consciousness: reality exists as it is: reality exists objectively, independently of minds and selves.

 

As formulated by Ayn Rand and presented in her Atlas Shrugged, “This is John Galt Speaking”, and in “Axiomatic Concepts”, in her Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, this is the first axiom of reality, with its corollaries: “Existence Exists. Existence is Identity. Consciousness is Identification”. Existence exists and is identified by consciousness. To know is to know something as it is. Consciousness is conscious of existence by identifying its objective reality: by recognizing reality for what it is, not what one thinks or wishes it to be – by knowing that consciousness is objective Identification of existence, that existence has identity, that existence is identity, that to be is to be something, that a thing is what it is. That A is A.

 

Something exists or it doesn’t exist. Something cannot exist and not exist at the same time. Either something exists or it doesn’t exist, not both in the same respect. To exist, it must be a real thing, a something that is itself, not another thing in the same way. What things are, the Identity, and what they do, the Causality – This is Reality. Identity, that A is A, that A acts as A, is the starting point of the logic of all objective knowing. Since knowledge is essential to successful living, objective knowledge applied to living is objective living. Objective living is living in accordance with objective reality, with the basic fact that A is A.

 

Living objectively is acting with true respect for the facts of reality; which is, acting with reason – the human faculty of knowing reality existing as it is. Objective living is rational living; which is to recognize and respect, not evade and reject, the facts and logic of real existence; which is, acting with the virtues of independence, integrity, honesty, justice, productiveness, and pride. Living objectively, being in touch with reality through reason is the way to a successful, happy, moral, and sane life.

 

How does one live objectively in everyday life? That is the purpose of one’s ethics: to provide a moral code to guide one’s objective rational actions in everyday life. “The Objectivist Ethics”, in The Virtue of Selfishness, by Ayn Rand, is a powerful essay on such an objective ethics. “The Metaphysical and the Man-Made”, in her Philosophy: Who Needs It, is another. Following Rand’s work, detailed presentations of this ethics are in Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist, and Viable Values: A Study of Life as the Root and Reward of Morality, both by Tara Smith, who also delivers speeches on Objectivist Ethics. One recent talk by her is “Objectivity Every Day”, recorded here – (Search the ARI Youtube Channel.)

AisA.png.ef8f68599e8f1690196623206dfc2b1c.png

1 Like

For a brilliant, innovative synopsis of all Existence, see the new These Hours of Resonant Existence by Stephen Boydstun. It reads like metaphysical poetry.

1 Like

Stephen’s mind and their products are one of a kind! Though the longer I contemplate objective reality , the more bereft I come to see no satisfying guide to tie in my selfish subjective experience/relation to all of It.

23 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Stephen’s mind and their products are one of a kind! Though the longer I contemplate objective reality , the more bereft I come to see no satisfying guide to tie in my selfish subjective experience/relation to all of It.

Ayn Rand lived long enough to discover and present an immense system of thought as that guide you seek. If Stephen lives to a hundred, he may write a magnum opus to also help you further along.

2 Likes

5 hours ago, monart said:

Ayn Rand lived long enough to discover and present an immense system of thought as that guide you seek. If Stephen lives to a hundred, he may write a magnum opus to also help you further along.

Yes I wish Stephen as many good years as he wants!

21 hours ago, tadmjones said:

Yes I wish Stephen as many good years as he wants!

It’s possible, today in the US-C of A, to live healthily to a hundred or more. I, myself, have a healthy-hundred as my goal. At 74, I’m as fit mentally and physically, overall, as the usual 64 or younger (even with the poor start of my malnourished childhood in the poverty of Maoist China). Whatever one’s age or condition, one could live more healthily and longer. See “The Five Doctors” and the Comment following it. The key to a healthy self and a longer life is to be healthy every day in every way for the rest of your life. A healthy self is integral to the continual betterment of one’s life-long self-knowledge and self-realization. Could this help you to “tie in [your] selfish subjective experience/relation to . . . objective reality”?

1 Like

I would venture that the mind that builds Starships for self betterment and added betterment to the universe, was on an implicit level rebelling and being ‘finished with fire’ as it were, while being subjected to the consequences of being surrounded by poverty, especially an unjust poverty.

Having been born in the US, I was blessed to not have been subjected to poverty. While never ‘wealthy’ or free of mundane monetary concerns , I nonetheless have never experienced existential want.

The ‘tie in’ I’m looking for is a satisfying ontology that reduces the ‘cause’ or describes a fundamental base to the subjectivity of my awareness. Having become recently introduced to Vedic philosophies, I’ve been checking a whole lot of premises !!

 

18 hours ago, tadmjones said:

The ‘tie in’ I’m looking for is a satisfying ontology that reduces the ‘cause’ or describes a fundamental base to the subjectivity of my awareness. Having become recently introduced to Vedic philosophies, I’ve been checking a whole lot of premises !!

 

My grasp of the integrated mind-body improvement of one’s health and the self-realization of one’s purpose through rational, productive living in consonance with objective reality, is satisfying and sufficient to link my self to Existence. In your quest, what in Vedic philosophies attracts you?

2 hours ago, monart said:

My grasp of the integrated mind-body improvement of one’s health and the self-realization of one’s purpose through rational, productive living in consonance with objective reality, is satisfying and sufficient to link my self to Existence. In your quest, what in Vedic philosophies attracts you?

Their ruminations on consciousness and awareness. I’m extremely attracted to Advaita Vedanta.

 

Conspiracy theorist.

1 Like

Hypothesist

38 minutes ago, tadmjones said:

Hypothesist

 

His Twitter/X page indicates conspiracy theorist. Could be hypothesizing, but he sounds pretty convinced to me.

On 4/17/2024 at 11:13 AM, tadmjones said:

Their ruminations on consciousness and awareness. I’m extremely attracted to Advaita Vedanta.

 

How are you understanding Advanta Vedanta such that it appeals to you? It posits a dualistic reality of an illusionary phenomenal self/world and a true ultimate self/world, doesn’t it?

There are dualist schools of Hindu philosophy, but Advaita is non dual. For me the most attractive element is the realization that the Vedic philosophies/religions are consciousness centered inquiries.

11 hours ago, monart said:

It posits a dualistic reality of an illusionary phenomenal self/world and a true ultimate self/world, doesn’t it?

Not illusory as in “evil demon is tricking you”, but more like “underneath all of this breathtaking diversity there’s just plain atoms/some basic unity”. People at a more complete stage of knowledge accept both diversity and its underlying unity as non-contradictory perspectives on the same world.

Advaita Vedanta echoes Spinoza’s observation that two existents can’t be classified into the same class (world) if they’re radically different. For example, in popular culture we say that god is not situated on the Moon or in the Andromeda galaxy - he’s located in another dimension entirely. That’s an intuitive grasp of Spinoza’s observation: god is too different to be classified into the same world as the objects we know.

With this, a famous problem enters the philosophical scene. A basketball has weight, size, rigidity, and as a consequence it can hit or push other objects (that likewise have weight, size, rigidity). In contrast, the mind totally lacks any of those qualities, so it’s impotent to hit or push material objects. Its impotence extents to the entirety of the vast material universe, with the sole exception of one’s physical body.

According to Spinoza, both mind and matter are in the same world, as against being separated in different dimensions (like we envision god and the world to be). So what is the basis for classifying mind and matter into the same world/class?

Well, we could look at Nature and observe that from a physical object, there emerges other physical phenomena, e.g. from a candle there emerges fire, from hot tea emerges smoke. Now, if only we could extend this principle, and say that non-physical mind emerges from matter, just like physical smoke emerges from hot tea! It would certainly solve Spinoza’s problem.

Advaita Vedanta opts for a different solution: mind and matter are classifiable together because they are aspects of the same Absolute. For all intents and purposes, “mind” and “matter” are related to the Absolute as “woman” and “daughter” are related to Taylor Swift. They are aspects of the thing in question, not ingredients making it up.

“Nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature.” [“Natur ist hiernach der sichtbare Geist, Geist die unsichtbare Natur”] - F.W.J. Schelling, Ideen

1 Like

On 4/18/2024 at 1:34 PM, Skylark1 said:

Conspiracy theorist.

If one is an independent thinker, living in objective reality, one would say, “What are the facts?” If one isn’t, then one may say, “conspiracy theorist” or “conspiracist”, and not really know what one is saying.

“The labelling of (ill-defined) “conspiracist” is frequently used to intimidate, discourage, and dismiss examination of facts that contradict the official, authorized, mainstream narrative. “Conspiracy Theories”, as a pejorative label, was first propagated to marginalize those who pointed out counterfacts to the official “lone-gunman” explanation of the JFK assassination. And again employed against the 9/11 “Truthers”. So, it’s not unexpected, that it’s being used against the “covid deniers”. But being used here in a forum of independently thinking Objectivists should be just an aberration.” (From here.)

"How do you define “conspiracist”? You repeatedly resort to using “conspiracist” as if it can wipe away facts; in this case, the fact that no documentation has been found or presented for the isolation, purification, and distinctive identification of SARS-CoV-2 (with properties that causes the deadly and contagious Covid-19). " (From here.)

 

1 Like

On 4/18/2024 at 2:50 PM, Skylark1 said:

His Twitter/X page indicates conspiracy theorist. Could be hypothesizing, but he sounds pretty convinced to me.

For more of what sounds to you like a “conspiracy theorist”, see the topic Remembering the Pandemic Tyranny: How to Establish a "Pandemic Tyranny

On 4/19/2024 at 5:22 AM, tadmjones said:

There are dualist schools of Hindu philosophy, but Advaita is non dual. For me the most attractive element is the realization that the Vedic philosophies/religions are consciousness centered inquiries.

How does that help your quest for the self’s “tie-in” to objective reality? May not there be risks that “consciousness centered inquiries” could lead to a metaphysical subjectivism of primacy of consciousness, and away from the objectivism of primacy of existence?

On 4/19/2024 at 8:29 AM, KyaryPamyu said:

 

Advaita Vedanta opts for a different solution: mind and matter are classifiable together because they are aspects of the same Absolute. For all intents and purposes, “mind” and “matter” are related to the Absolute as “woman” and “daughter” are related to Taylor Swift. They are aspects of the thing in question, not ingredients making it up.

“Nature is visible spirit, spirit is invisible nature.” [“Natur ist hiernach der sichtbare Geist, Geist die unsichtbare Natur”] - F.W.J. Schelling, Ideen

According to Advaita Vedanta, does this “Absolute” refer to the one absolute, immutable, objective reality of Existence? Or some other, separate “ultimate reality”? Does it hold that there is mind in all matter, or just in some matter?

4 hours ago, monart said:

How does that help your quest for the self’s “tie-in” to objective reality? May not there be risks that “consciousness centered inquiries” could lead to a metaphysical subjectivism of primacy of consciousness, and away from the objectivism of primacy of existence?

A non dual perspective equates the ‘two’ , primacy is I think an epistemological category in Advaita Vedanta.