Questions from the metaphysical vs man-made essay

Questions about Objectivism
1

Discussing reversing primacy of existence to primacy of consciousness…

 

 

“The source of this reversal is the inability or unwillingness fully to grasp the difference between one’s inner state and the outer world, i.e., between the perceiver and the perceived (thus blending consciousness and existence into one indeterminate package-deal). This crucial distinction is not given to man automatically; it has to be learned. It is implicit in any awareness, but it has to be grasped conceptually and held as an absolute. As far as can be observed, infants and savages do not grasp it (they may, perhaps, have some rudimentary glimmer of it). Very few men ever choose to grasp it and fully to accept it. The majority keep swinging from side to side, implicitly recognizing the primacy of existence in some cases and denying it in others, adopting a kind of hit-or-miss, rule-of-thumb epistemological agnosticism, through ignorance and/or by intention— the result of which is the shrinking of their intellectual range, i.e., of their capacity to deal with abstractions.

I just want to make sure I understand why.

The intellectual range is shrunk because they are making errors in regards to axiomatic concepts this means that they cannot properly build up knowledge as their base is faulty. 

 

 

And although few people today believe that the singing of mystic incantations will bring rain, most people still regard as valid an argument such as: “If there is no God, who created the universe?”

I’m not sure I see the connection to the question of who created the universe. Is this because basic concepts like existence, identity etc are not properly integrated when someone is switching between the primacy of consciousness and primacy of existence? 

 

 

Thanks! I would really be struggling were it not for people responding to my questions here.

2

Both are examples of primacy of consciousness. Most people find a rain-dance amusing, but few believe there is any correlation between it and rain. This specific primacy of consciousness example is rejected in this case. The knowledge of the rain cycle supplants the rain-dance as an ancient superstitious novelty.

 

The very question “Who created the universe?” presupposes that the universe was created by some form of consciousness. Here the primacy of consciousness example is accepted. The belief that everything must have a cause goes unexamined.

 

The capacity to deal with abstractions relies on both the ability to concretize and the application of principles to specifics,

3

Within existence, among the existents, there are no contradictions.  That property is a prerequisite for knowledge in the forms of concepts and principles to even be possible.  

 

Among thoughts, contradictions can and often do occur.  A contradiction stifles further thought once it is confronted.  The only way out of a contradiction is to examine one’s premises and to cast out the false one, false on the basis of its failure to correspond with reality.  But for a person who operates even partly on the primacy-of-consciousness principle it is reality that is the failure not the false thought.  Unwillingness to reform one’s own thoughts as necessary to conform with reality, or in other words the acceptance of contradictions in one’s thoughts, is what restricts the scope of one’s intellect.

 

This applies to the whole hierarchy of knowledge and not just to axiomatic concepts or their application.