Objective vs Subjective

[C. Jordan]

I have spent some time thinking about how, precisely, one defines the two terms in contrast to each other. What follows is as succint a definition as possible:

an OBJECTIVE phenomenon would presumably* exist, irrespective of the judgments and opinions of an observer.

a SUBJECTIVE phenomenon exists because of the judgments and opinions of an observer.

* The word "presumably" is in the definition based on the old riddle of: If a tree falls in the forest, with nobody there to hear, does it make a sound?"

My answer would be: define "sound." Which gets us to the root of the objective versus subjective.

"Sound," for my purpose, is the result of kinetic energy which is interpreted by the ear.

The kinetic energy is an objective fact, because presumably, the same waves would result from a falling tree irrespective of whether anyone was there to hear it or not.

Interruption from the audience: "Why presumably?"

Because, if no-one was there to hear, that rules out any first-hand empirical observation. It stands to reason that the same sound waves would result. This cannot be tested empirically, however. One can never know what would happen if one was not around to observe. One can only use reason.

Therefore, and back to the hypothetical falling tree, the sound waves are an objective phenomenon, and if that is sufficient to be called "sound," then yes, the tree does make a sound.

How an observer interprets the sound, is a subjective phenomenon. Only if we include that interpretation in our definition of sound — if we say that it can't be a sound unless someone hears it — would the answer to the question be, "No."

I will stop here, for now, and invite discussion of the concept. Is this definition fundamentally valid, or fundamentally flawed? What modifications might be proposed?

I will only add this: objective phenomena give no problems. But in thinking about subjective phenomena – there I find complications.

The floor is open.

[NickOtani]

an OBJECTIVE phenomenon would presumably* exist, irrespective of the judgments and opinions of an observer.  

a SUBJECTIVE phenomenon exists because of the judgments and opinions of an observer.

You are in danger of contradicting yourself when you talk about "objective phenomenon." "Phenomenon" implies something that "appears," not something that "is." Kant spoke of the "noumena" beyond the "phenomena." The "noumena" is supposedly the absolute truth which we can never really get to. All we have are the appearances, the "phenomena." And, if appearances are emperical, they are very impure, since what one person reports is not the same as what another may describe about the same phenomena. This makes use of biases and personal history combined with sensory experience. That makes this kind of information subjective, not objective, not pre-existing the sensor and discovered accurately by him or her.

For Kant, a-priori knowledge was more pure, but a-priori is mostly mathematical knowledge, knowledge that is prior to or beyond experience. We don't influence this kind of knowledge through our biases and differeing opinions. It is independent of our wishes and beliefs. However, it is mental. It comes from within us. It is not something external to us that we discover.

On a pragmatic level, most of us accept that there are things out there which are independent of us and we can agree on their natures enough to survive and make predictions. We can use concepts like cause and effect to develop technology and diagnose problems. However, we have to argue for first causes which are not completely controlled by these external things and laws of causation. Yes, there are objects, but there must also be subjects. Objects have a fixed nature and are static, but subjects are in a process of becoming. It's the subjects that are free, but they are free within objective parameters.

I say the conditions of sound pre-exist the entity which can hear sound, just as gravity exists even when nothing falls. Natural rights, conditions of existence for the flourshing survival of humans, also exist even when humans do not. This makes them objective, something humans discover but don't create. How one pursues the ultimate end of a flourishing life, is somethng man is free to create.

That's my thinking. Anyone want to comment on some of my posts?

bis bald,

Nick

[C. Jordan]

To Nick:

Our first issue seems to be the word "phenomenon." I was searching for a word that would cover falling trees, nation-states, radiation, and many more besides.

What word would you propose in its place? I will, until you make such a proposal, continue to use "phenomenon" in my original sense. I only hope that it won't be considered a contradiction.

You said that:

…the conditions of sound pre-exist the entity which can hear sound, just as gravity exists even when nothing falls.

By my definitions, you are saying that "the conditions of sound" are objective, whereas the perception of sound is subjective. This would explain why music to my ears may be noise to yours.

Gravity again is objective, because it would presumably take effect whether or not we were there to observe the effects.

…all we have are the appearances, the "phenomena." And, if appearances are empirical, they are very impure, since what one person reports is not the same as what another may describe about the same phenomena…

This again addresses the objective/subjective divide. The problem is, pragmatically speaking, all we have are appearances [empirical observation] and reason.

The question: how do I know that what I see as red, is the same as what you see as red? The answer: I have no way to know that.

We do know that some animals can see invisible colours: reptiles, for instance, can see infrared.

But what are they seeing? one might ask. The answer: I have no way to know. There are no words in the language to describe something which has not been experienced by anyone.

It can be argued that I don't actually see things: I see light photons reflected off of things, which my eyes interpret into visual images. In this way, I address your point that "all we have are appearances."

Given these facts, that empirical observation does not give us full knowledge of the "phenomena" we observe. Nonetheless, observation (backed by reason) remain the best way to determine reality.

Pragmatically, I consider the issue of what these "forms" behind the "appearances" to be an unanswerable question, akin to asking myself what are the infrared colours? At present time, I see no sufficient evidence to make a judgment in either case.

The floor is once again open.

[NickOtani]

To C. Jordan,

Our first issue seems to be the word "phenomenon." I was searching for a word that would cover falling trees, nation-states, radiation, and many more besides.  

What word would you propose in its place? I will, until you make such a proposal, continue to use "phenomenon" in my original sense. I only hope that it won't be considered a contradiction.

Other people talking about metaphysical knowledge simply call it "knowledge" or they talk about "things" which are objectve, independent of our wishes and beliefs, out there. Objectivism maintains the traditional western dualism. There is an inside and an outside. And reality is outside, sensed by us but also processed though our reasoning ability and existing as it does whether we want it to or not.

I address, in my essay below, about Perception, Logic, and Language; much about the problems with human perception. Further than that, we can talk about the kinds of knowledge philosophers recognze. I'm taking this from a book written by one of my professors from the Universtiy of Southern California, William F. O'Neill:

 At basis, most philosophers recognize four possible sources of metaphysical knowledge (abstract philosophical truth).

1) Knowledge for underlying reality many be communicated directly and actively from a metaphysical source in the form of personal revelation.  

2) Ultimate knowledge may be derived from experience though the process of abstraction (as it is in Aristotle's philosophy).  Such knowledge is only indirectly essential (absolute), because it is necessarily contingent upon the abstractive process itself which is, in turn, a secondary manifestation of prior sense-perceptual experience.  Such knowledge is, then, necessarily mediated by personal awareness.

3)Such knowledge may not be acquired at all but may preexist within the organism itself as inherent truth which is only subsequently recognized as corresponding to (or matching) the underlying nature of encountered reality.

4)Such Knowledge may be derived pre-rationally on the basis of the earliest sort of motor-emotional behavior during the first months and years of childhood and may therefore only subsequently (if ever) be "rationalized" as explicit knowledge.

Okay, do you agree that O'Neill is accurately describing the paths to knowledge that have been described by philosophers, and which path do you find most compelling?

Can you match up the different paths to different philosophers or schools? Which one is supernaturalist? Which one is intuitionalist or instrumentalist? Which one did Plato use? Which one does Rand use?

BTW, pragmatism also only works with appearances. Rand was describing something more when talking about Objective truth. I'd like to see what other Objectivists here think about this. Are we getting off tract? Was Rand, perhaps, wrong?

bis bald,

Nick

[C. Jordan]

First answer: I would call the first path "supernaturalist." That seems a description of divine revelation, which I consider should not be accepted blindly.

The fourth path must be "intuitionist."

I am not sure which path Plato used, though I would venture to say the second path is closest to Ayn Rand's thinking.

The third path is closest to the thinking of Robert Pirsig, author of ZEN AND THE ART OF MOTORCYCLE MAINTENANCE.

I consider the second path to be the most reliable way to acquire knowledge.

More thoughts to follow.

[NickOtani]

Yes, the first path is supernaturalism, and the fourth is intuition. Rand is opposed to both of those in principle. She praises Aristotle and denounces Plato, for his idealism, his mysticism. However, according to O’Neill, Rand’s account of essential truth as a process of identification is more compatible with Plato’s view, that truth is innate and not subject to life experiences, than it is to Aristotle’s view, that truth is an abstract description of qualities within experience. (Other Objectivists on this forum may disagree.)

For Rand, certain truths are self-evident, implicit within experience itself. They cannot be chosen, subjective, or derived from context, relative. They are implicit in the nature of man as man.

For Rand, man’s culpability is not that he doesn’t know but that he denies what he knows.

C. Jordan, you aren’t familiar with Plato’s theory of the forms, the allegory of the cave and all? That’s pretty important stuff.

Again, I’d like to see from other Objectivists on this board. There may be some different perspectives.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

However, according to O’Neill, Rand’s account of essential truth as a process of identification is more compatible with Plato’s view, that truth is innate and not subject to life experiences, than it is to Aristotle’s view, that truth is an abstract description of qualities within experience. (Other Objectivists on this forum may disagree.)

For Rand, certain truths are self-evident, implicit within experience itself. They cannot be chosen, subjective, or derived from context, relative. They are implicit in the nature of man as man.

For Rand, man’s culpability is not that he doesn’t know but that he denies what he knows.

How can you say that Rand's metaphysical theory is the same as Platos. Plato view that truth is innate holds that things have true essences regardless of what they appear to be and that we gain these truths through some some kind of esp, while Rand holds that existence is identity, and that we use our consciousness to identify.

Do you have any problems with Rand's three metaphysical axioms.

Existence, Consciousness and Identitiy?

Also you have on many occasions you have lumped Rand in with either the intrinsicist (example: Skinner) or the subjectivist (example: Plato), when her entire Metaphysical and Epistemoligical theory is different and distinct from both.

Dustan

[Aggrad02]

(Nick) On a pragmatic level, most of us accept that there are things out there which are independent of us and we can agree on their natures enough to survive and make predictions.

I would say to the contrary that most people know about reality rather than mere "accepting that there are things out there".

(Nick)We can use concepts like cause and effect to develop technology and diagnose problems. However, we have to argue for first causes which are not completely controlled by these external things and laws of causation.

Objectivism does not hold that all causes are results of other causes. To the contrary Rand holds that effects are caused by entities.

(Nick) Objects have a fixed nature and are static, but subjects are in a process of becoming. It's the subjects that are free, but they are free within objective parameters.

While I agree with you last statement, I don't agree that the difference between objects and subjects are that one is static and the other is not. All things are in a state of change. Trees are continually growing or decaying, rocks decay or are eroded, etc. The difference between the two is that subjects have consciousness (hence freedom.)

[NickOtani]

How can you say that Rand's metaphysical theory is the same as Platos. Plato view that truth is innate holds that things have true essences regardless of what they appear to be and that we gain these truths through some some kind of esp, while Rand holds that existence is identity, and that we use our consciousness to identify.

What I said was, “… according to O’Neill, Rand’s account of essential truth as a process of identification is more compatible with Plato’s view, that truth is innate and not subject to life experiences, than it is to Aristotle’s view, that truth is an abstract description of qualities within experience.” This is not the same as saying, “Rand’s metaphysical theory is the same as Plato’s.” Do you see the difference? And, Rand said that things have true essences, “specific natures made of specific attributes…Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.” (Atlas Shrugged, in For the New Intellectual, 125)

Plato held that the forms are the true essences, natures of things, and that we already know these things in a subconscious way. Learning is a process of remembering, of matching up with experienced reality. Rand also holds that realty is what it is and everybody already knows this. It’s just that some people deny it. “The extreme you have always struggled to avoid is the recognition that realty is final, that A is A and that true is true.”(Ibid.)

Also you have on many occasions you have lumped Rand in with either the intrinsicist (example: Skinner) or the subjectivist (example: Plato), when her entire Metaphysical and Epistemoligical theory is different and distinct from both.

I don’t think there is anything intrinsicist about Skinner or subjectivist about Plato. I use the word, “intrinsic” to describe an ultimate end goal, as in “intrinsic goal,” and I am also aware that it is used in a religious context, that intrinsic knowledge is revealed from some metaphysical authority. Skinner was not religious, and he was not talking about ultimate goals. And, “subjectivist” has to do with creating as opposed to discovering. Plato didn’t create his truths. He discovered them through a process of remembering.

Rand is different from both Skinner and Plato, but she has much in common with both. She does place emphasis on cause and effect and look for reasons for actions, as does Skinner. She also discovers rather than creates, as does Plato. The difference between Skinner and Rand is that Rand believes in human freedom, which Skinner does not. Her and Nathaniel Branden’s justification of this freedom is insufficient. They just stick it in there in an otherwise mechanistic model, calling man a first cause, but that is the difference between her and Skinner, who is more consistent with his mechanistic model. And, she differs from Plato in not having an outerworldly explanation for prior knowledge. Basically, she doesn’t have an explanation for knowledge. People just know. It is part of their nature, and this is self-evident, according to Rand.

Objectivism does not hold that all causes are results of other causes. To the contrary Rand holds that effects are caused by entities.

No, only entities which have free-will can cause effects without being caused to cause them. Humans are the only first causes. I agree with this but think the existentialists do a better job of explaining and justifying this.

While I agree with you last statement, I don't agree that the difference between objects and subjects are that one is static and the other is not. All things are in a state of change. Trees are continually growing or decaying, rocks decay or are eroded, etc. The difference between the two is that subjects have consciousness (hence freedom.)

Trees are bound by their natures. Yes, they grow and decay but only in the way they always do. That is the way they are static. They follow the same patterns over and over again. They don’t get creative and resourceful. They don’t develop technology and go though industrial revolutions. They are not free. Their natures are fixed. Human nature is not. Human nature is still in a process of becoming. Yes, there are objective aspects of human nature, but there are also subjective aspects. Humans create. They participate in creating their own natures. They are free within objective parameters. (Rand doesn’t say this, but I do.)

Dustan, thankyou for jumping in here taking issue with me. I need your opposition to keep me fit, as Socrates, the gadfly, kept the people of Athens on their toes, until they sentenced him to death. I am also trying to be the gadfly for Objectivism in an effort to keep it viable and healthy. I hope I don’t offend anyone enough to require my being purged, or my drinking hemlock. I am rather blunt sometimes, but it is an effort to be direct and honest, not hostile or nasty.

Bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

And, Rand said that things have true essences, “specific natures made of specific attributes…Existence is Identity, Consciousness is Identification.” (Atlas Shrugged, in For the New Intellectual, 125).

A specific nature is not the same thing as an essence, this is the difference between Plato and Rand. Plato believed that things had essences, as in actually possed them. Rand only talked about essence when discusssing Epistemology and definitions.

The difference

Plato = Essence is Identity

Rand = Existence is Identity

Essence is not a metaphysical attribute in Objectivism.

Dustan

[Aggrad02]

Dustan, thankyou for jumping in here taking issue with me. I need your opposition to keep me fit, as Socrates, the gadfly, kept the people of Athens on their toes, until they sentenced him to death. I am also trying to be the gadfly for Objectivism in an effort to keep it viable and healthy. I hope I don’t offend anyone enough to require my being purged, or my drinking hemlock. I am rather blunt sometimes, but it is an effort to be direct and honest, not hostile or nasty.

Bis bald,

Nick

No problem, if I didnot enjoy discussing with you then I would not respond. I am still working on a larger answer to most of your posts on subjectivism. I have finished the Sartre book, have went back and reread Aristotle's Metaphysics and am rereading Piekoffs first 6 chapters of The Philosophy of Ayn Rand. When this is completed I am going to give an overview of my opinion on the whole debate. I found many things worth keeping from Sartre and I found that Aristotle gave many responses to the future Existentialist way before they ever formed.

Dustan

[Aggrad02]

I don’t think there is anything intrinsicist about Skinner

I'm sorry, what I meant to say was that Skinner was a determinist not intrinsicist.

or subjectivist about Plato. And, “subjectivist” has to do with creating as opposed to discovering. Plato didn’t create his truths. He discovered them through a process of remembering.

I have to disagree with this. Subjectivism is putting the primacy of consciousness or the subject infront of reality/existence. Existentialism claims that the mind experiences/discovers reality and is one type of subjectivism. But Plato's theory that the mind remembers concretes as opposed to the reality we see is also subjectivism as it relies on the mind to remember instead of the eyes to see.

From Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subjectivism

Subjectivism is a philosophical tenet that accords primacy to subjective experiences. In an extreme form, it may hold that the nature and existence of every object depends only on someone's subjective awareness of it.

From The Ayn Rand Lexicon p.368:

Platonic Realism: The "extreme realist"or Platonist.... hold that abstractions exist as real entities or archetypes in another dimension of reality and that the concretes we percieve are merely their imperfect reflections, but the concretes evoke the abstraction in our mind. (According to Plato, they do so by evoking the memory of the achetypes which we had known, before birth, in that other dimension).

Dustan

[Aggrad02]

And, she differs from Plato in not having an outerworldly explanation for prior knowledge. Basically, she doesn’t have an explanation for knowledge. People just know. It is part of their nature, and this is self-evident, according to Rand.

Rand does not believe in a priori knowledge. Even her axioms of metaphysics are self-evident only through experience, ie oberserving/sensing.

Also I am not sure what you mean when you say that Rand doesn't have an explanation for knowledge? Do you mean primary knowledge (existence, consciousness, identity) or do you mean knowledge in general (like my truck is grey).

Dustan

[NickOtani]

A specific nature is not the same thing as an essence, this is the difference between Plato and Rand. Plato believed that things had essences, as in actually possed them. Rand only talked about essence when discusssing Epistemology and definitions.

Yes it is. Essence is just another word for nature, and Objectivism is a kind of essentialism. A is A, and everything has a pre-existing essence or nature which identifies it. It is what it is, and everybody already knows it. However, evil people deny it, accordng to John Galt. For Rand, Plato and Aristotle and others, essentialism is prior to existence. For the existentialist, existence is prior to essence.

Rand does not believe in a priori knowledge. Even her axioms of metaphysics are self-evident only through experience, ie oberserving/sensing.

Ayn Rand's theory of knowledge centers about three basic principles: the self-evident nature of a priori truth, the objectivity of value, and the "natural" (sense-empirical) basis of all knowledge. Reality is "objective" in the sense that it exists prior to being known. It doesn't come into existence through experience. That would be relativism.

Also I am not sure what you mean when you say that Rand doesn't have an explanation for knowledge? Do you mean primary knowledge (existence, consciousness, identity) or do you mean knowledge in general (like my truck is grey).

What does (existence, consciousness, identity) mean? Just saying those words does not explain knowledge. Existence exists does not prove causation nor argue for humans as first causes. Claiming that things are self-evident is not providing evidence. It is just proclaiming that things don't need explanations. I do think some things are self-evident, but not as much as Rand claims. She has to offer some reasoning.

I have to disagree with this. Subjectivism is putting the primacy of consciousness or the subject infront of reality/existence. Existentialism claims that the mind experiences/discovers reality and is one type of subjectivism. But Plato's theory that the mind remembers concretes as opposed to the reality we see is also subjectivism as it relies on the mind to remember instead of the eyes to see.

Existentialism is subjective. The mind makes reality what it is. It is existence prior to essence. Plato uses the mind to discover, but it doesn't make, create, what isn't there to begin with. The forms are already there and not dependent on experience. We can only match them up with what we experience when we get a glimpse of that ideal world, when we get an "ah ha!" moment of clear understanding. This must be what Rand means when she says to know truth is simply to recognize reality for what it is, by means of reason, the faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality provided by man's senses. Plato is just using an other-worldly metaphor which makes him sound mystical, and Rand accuses him of being a Witch Doctor. When we get past that, they sound remarkably similiar.

bis bald,

Nick

[Aggrad02]

(Nick) Yes it is. Essence is just another word for nature, and Objectivism is a kind of essentialism. A is A, and everything has a pre-existing essence or nature which identifies it. It is what it is, and everybody already knows it. However, evil people deny it, accordng to John Galt. For Rand, Plato and Aristotle and others, essentialism is prior to existence. For the existentialist, existence is prior to essence.

I don't know what else to say, I donot believe you are understanding Rand clearly. Here are the definitions of essence that pertian to the discussion from the Merriam-Webster Dicitionary:

(B) the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence

© the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is

The first definition is metaphysical and has to do with attributes that a thing may have, the second is epistemological and has to do with definitions used by humans to classify. Objectivism rejects that things have essences in the metaphysical sense and this is not the same as its nature. It is the same for Plato becuase he belived that the nature of a thing is different from how it appears in reality, he believed that the nature was contained in an essence in an outerworldy demision or whatever. A is whatever its essence is which is in a outerworldly place. Nature is essence. Rand on the other hand rejects essences and claims that a thing is what it is. And that what it is is its nature. A is A. Nature is existence. There is no essence. Let me try and give you example I hope it is adequate.

Take a builders nail:

For Plato this nail has an outerworldly essence of what a perfect nail should be: a flat exactly round head, followed by an exactly straight and round cylinder that ends in a perfectly centered and sharp point. The metal is of unbendable quality and does not rust. And it is supposed to be used for hold two things together. But this nail that we see in reality is merely an inperfect shadow of its essence and is not perferct.

For Rand this nail is this nail. It has a certian shape and ceritan dimensions for the head and cylinder that may be measured. The point is what it is, if it happens to be centered it is, if it happens to be off centered then it is off centered, if it is dull or sharp it is dull or sharp. Becuase it is made of a certian type of metal and is a certian thickness and length under a certian amount of pressure it will bend or break, apply enough heat and it will melt, expose it to water and if it is untreated it will rust. Though it was made with the intention by the designer for holding two things together, if it isn't and say used as a figer nail pick instead, then that is what it (that certian nail) is used for.

For Rand the nature of a thing is what it is. On the other hand Rand uses the second definition when talking about essences. Once again essences are not the same as nature when defining a term. The nature of something is what it is metaphysically, how it is in the world in reality, this is very broad and includes all attributes of a thing. To define a term Rand believes that you must reduce it to its essential characteristics that differentiate it from other things. For the nail that we spoke of before the essential characteristics are that it is an object which is made of a strong enough material and is a long and thin shape that when hammered throught two pieces of wood it will hold them together. That is the essence of a nail, it doesn't say anything about its nature. It may be made of steel, copper, iron, gold, wood, aluminium... it may be cylindricle, rectangular, it is of a certian length and a ceritan weight, it may have a head and may not.

Essence is not nature, the nature of a thing is not its essence. For example with the nail. Lets say that the head of the nail is oval, this is its nature, what it is, but not its essence since having a head is not essential to being a defined as a nail.

Nature is what a thing is and is independent of consciousness (speaking metaphysically, not about how individual humans act/think because herein nature is implied by a thing's consciousness). Essence is used to differeniate between objects. For example the universe has a nature, it is what it is, but it does not have an essence becuase it cannot be deffereniated as opposed to something else.

[Aggrad02]

Ayn Rand's theory of knowledge centers about three basic principles: the self-evident nature of a priori truth, the objectivity of value, and the "natural" (sense-empirical) basis of all knowledge. Reality is "objective" in the sense that it exists prior to being known. It doesn't come into existence through experience. That would be relativism.

The fact that reality is objective in the sense that it exist prior to being known, does not make knowledge a priori. A prioir means (Merriam-Webster dictionary) in this context:

(B) relating to or derived by reasoning from self-evident propositions

Rand does not believe that her axioms derive from reasoning from self-evident propositions, but that her axioms are self-evident from the moment that you open your eyes.

In Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Peikoff explains:

Being implicit from the beginning, existence, consciousness, identity are outside the providence of proof. Proof is the derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowlege, and nothing is antecedent about axioms.

[Aggrad02]

What does (existence, consciousness, identity) mean? Just saying those words does not explain knowledge. Existence exists does not prove causation nor argue for humans as first causes. Claiming that things are self-evident is not providing evidence. It is just proclaiming that things don't need explanations. I do think some things are self-evident, but not as much as Rand claims. She has to offer some reasoning.

Once again I am almost at a loss for words. Something that is self evident means that it is outside the bounds of provability by evidence or reasoning.

When you open your eyes in the morning there is (existence) something (identity) you see (consciousness). There is no evidence that I can tell you for that, there is no reasoning. You must look around for yourself. All I can say is "LOOK".

Dustan

[Aggrad02]

(Nick) Existentialism is subjective. The mind makes reality what it is.

I know some existentialist believe this, but after reading Sartre I don't believe that he would agree with you. He believed that the outside world was independent of the mind. Most of his philosophy dealt with the individual realizing himself and reacting to the outside world which he could not control but had to take responsibility for because man puts himself in the situation that he is in, whether he can control it or not. The only thing that Sartre believed that a man could make was his own self, his own self that was in a world he couldn't make.

(Nick) Plato uses the mind to discover, but it doesn't make, create, what isn't there to begin with. The forms are already there and not dependent on experience. We can only match them up with what we experience when we get a glimpse of that ideal world, when we get an "ah ha!" moment of clear understanding. This must be what Rand means when she says to know truth is simply to recognize reality for what it is, by means of reason, the faculty that perceives, identifies, and integrates the evidence of reality provided by man's senses. Plato is just using an other-worldly metaphor which makes him sound mystical, and Rand accuses him of being a Witch Doctor. When we get past that, they sound remarkably similiar.

Just because a conclusion is the similar does not mean that their premises are and this is where they are different. Besides I don't believe that there conclusions are similar either.

Plato is subjective because it is the mind which must determine reality(whether through experience or memory), not reality itself.

[NickOtani]

I don't know what else to say, I donot believe you are understanding Rand clearly.

Perhaps you are right. In some places, I don't think she is capable of being understood clearly.

Here are the definitions of essence that pertian to the discussion from the Merriam-Webster Dicitionary:  

(B) the individual, real, or ultimate nature of a thing especially as opposed to its existence  

© the properties or attributes by means of which something can be placed in its proper class or identified as being what it is

Merriam-Webster Dictionary is great for etymology, conventional wisdom definitions, and popular usage, but it is a little inadequate for technical terms as used by various philosophers, not to mention the fact that Rand has her own way of defining and using some terms. Here is a research paper which goes more deeply into Rand's concept-formation and how she, Plato, and Aristotle use the term "essence":

http://www.mises.org/reasonpapers/pdf/20/rp_20_3.pdf

For Rand this nail is this nail. It has a certian shape and ceritan dimensions for the head and cylinder that may be measured. The point is what it is, if it happens to be centered it is, if it happens to be off centered then it is off centered, if it is dull or sharp it is dull or sharp. Becuase it is made of a certian type of metal and is a certian thickness and length under a certian amount of pressure it will bend or break, apply enough heat and it will melt, expose it to water and if it is untreated it will rust. Though it was made with the intention by the designer for holding two things together, if it isn't and say used as a figer nail pick instead, then that is what it (that certian nail) is used for.

We don't learn much by saying "this nail is this nail." We wouldn't know if it is centered unless we had an idea of what "centered" means, and, according to Plato, we have that information already. The nail may not be perfect, but the designer who created it had in mind what he or she wanted to produce, and that design is the Platonic essence. It is the nature of all nails that they are pointed and thin enough to penetrate two or more substances and hold them together. However, existentially, they are actually whatever humans want them to be. If humans want to use them to pick their teeth, then that is what they become, tooth-picks. It is how humans, the subjects, make their own reality. Of course Rand may have some problems with man creating reality. It seems subjective. She would rather man controls nature by obeying it, but this is confusing.

Essence is not nature, the nature of a thing is not its essence. For example with the nail. Lets say that the head of the nail is oval, this is its nature, what it is, but not its essence since having a head is not essential to being a defined as a nail.

How does one define a human? Plato once said it was a featherless biped. However, not all humans are bipeds. If someone is missing a leg, does that mean he or she is not human? No, I think it is part of the essence of humans that they are rational beings, that they have the potential to manipulate symbols in a structured form. Yes, I realize that some members of this speices do not have this ability, but they are still members of the speices. It seems the speices is defined by the best of its members. If one human runs a three minute mile, then this is a potential ability of all humans, a defining charateristic of humans.

There seems to be an appealing temptation to define human nature and draw inferences from that definition. Several philosophers have begun their philosophies with a judgment about human nature, and then they based their prescriptive theories upon those interpretations. Plato and Aristotle had their ideas of how an ideal man should be. Hobbes, Rousseau, and Locke felt man should be socialized so as to stay out of trouble or to bring out his goodness. Karl Marx said that man is social, and he supported socialism as the extension of the social man. Freud said that man's basic id is irrational, and the ego and super-ego must keep it in control. Even most forms of Christianity lable man evil and say he can be saved only by believing Christ died because of man's sins, among other things.

All of the above examples jump from "is" to "ought". We study man to determine what kind of entity he is and what he needs to flourish, and then we prescribe what man ought to do and what conditions are most conducive to his survival. We try to find out what our natures require so that we may structure our lives accordingly and determine the most suitable economic and political systems for us.

When we move from "is" to "ought", however, several things "ought' to be considered. Does it make sense to say that something ought to do what it will do anyway? If we say man is a rational being and ought, therefore, to be rational, is this the same as saying that a tree is a tree and, therefore, ought to be a tree? It seems the move from "is" to "ought" requires the assumption of free will. When we say man ought to be a certain way, we must assume he has the choice not to be that way.

If we determine the nature of things by observation and generalization, however, then whatever an entity does seems to tell us what that entity is. A tree is the kind of entity which draws its sustenance from the earth, air, and water around it. It is the nature of trees to do what trees do.

Is it also the nature of man to do what man does? If it is, then it would not be possible for man to do anything which is against his nature. It would seem that we could never say, coherently, that man can fight his nature. It would then be part of his nature to go against his nature. "A" would not be "A". Even if man runs rampant and kills people, we would have to say that it is part of man's nature that he runs rampant and kills people.

Such a concept of human nature is susceptible to much abuse. People sometimes use this term as a handy cop-out and excuse for not changing and developing. When no other explanation can be found, several behaviors and characteristics can be attributed wrongly to human nature. It is not unheard of, for example, for people to blame their lack of motivation on their nature. "You can't blame me, Mildred, if I can't get interested in reading that stuff Nick Otani writes. That's just the way I am."

The existentialist can get around these problems by saying man's nature is not a static thing. In this context, any form of the infinitive "to be" is too confining. Sartre says he is not what he is and he is what he is not. Sounds like "A" is not "A", but this is only the state of flux idea that Heraclitus put forth in the statement, "You cannot step twice into the same river..." Man's nature, as well as many other things, may still be in a process of becoming.

If man's nature is still in the process of becoming, then perhaps the notion of "freedom" is still salvageable and the word "ought" still has a chance to be meaningful. If man's nature is not a predetermined, static thing, then perhaps man has the freedom to make his own nature.

The problem then becomes, "What ought man choose?" Are there any limits to what man can become?

There are, to be sure, certain things about myself I should not yet write off as part of my nature. Records are being broken each day, and the potential of human capacities has not yet been determined. There are still a varity of goals which I can choose, however, there may also be certain things which are dangerous or unhealthy for me to try. Perhaps there is a periphery inwhich there is great freedom, but there are still limitations on what man can or should do.

Once again I am almost at a loss for words. Something that is self evident means that it is outside the bounds of provability by evidence or reasoning.

Yes, I know that. I agreed that some things are self-evident. However, when one declares self-evidence too often, it seems that they are evading the work required to justify what they claim. How do we know humans have free-will but other animals don't? It's not fair to just say it is self-evident and all rational people already know it and we are immoral if we deny this.

When you open your eyes in the morning there is (existence) something (identity) you see (consciousness). There is no evidence that I can tell you for that, there is no reasoning. You must look around for yourself. All I can say is "LOOK".

Yes, I can look. However, this isn't enough to explain away all the problems with perception about which I spoke in my essay on Perception, Logic, and Language. Just because we open our eyes and see something, and use our reasoning to integrate our sense data, it doesn't mean we immediately apprehend the indubitable truth of that something.

I know some existentialist believe this, but after reading Sartre I don't believe that he would agree with you. He believed that the outside world was independent of the mind. Most of his philosophy dealt with the individual realizing himself and reacting to the outside world which he could not control but had to take responsibility for because man puts himself in the situation that he is in, whether he can control it or not. The only thing that Sartre believed that a man could make was his own self, his own self that was in a world he couldn't make.

It was Sartre who coined the phrase "Existence prior to essence." Existentialism gets its name from the primacy of man's existence first and contemplation of reality afterwards. Yes, Sartre classifies things as being- in- itself, roughly objects with fixed natures, and being-for-itself, subjects in the process of becoming. And, his philosophy is all about freedom and responsibility. He also talked about how others try to objectify us. He said "Hell is other people." There are paradoxes and ironies in Sartre's existentialism. He said there are no absolutes. Rand certainly would not agree with that. He said we are forced to be free, and that he is not what he is and is what he is not. That's a lot different than a thing is what it is.

bis bald,

Nick