Search the Community

Folks, I have just published my SECOND philosophy book - this one on the theory of propositions and related topics. You can check it out on Amazon.com here: https://www.amazon.com/Whats-Your-File-Folder-Propositions/dp/1689839163/ref=sr_1_1?keywords=what's+in+your+file+folder&qid=1568325732&s=books&sr=1-1 This book takes a deep dive into Ayn Rand’s theory of knowledge. It explains why her followers failed to develop a model of the proposition fulfilling the promise of her pioneering work on concepts—and it reveals the essence of propositions and the principles by which they operate in our gaining knowledge by identifying the facts of reality. These revelations are based on a fuller appreciation and application of some of Rand’s most pregnant ideas: the metaphor of concepts as “mental file folders”—the unit-perspective as the key that unlocks the conceptual stage of awareness and welds together its three levels—form and content of cognitive awareness both being objective—and consciousness essentially consisting of differentiation and integration (functionally) and subject and object (structurally). On this basis, the author offers a significant revision to Rand's model of concepts and a new model of propositions, giving considerable attention to axioms and statements about nonexistent subjects and offering a fuller explanation of how syllogisms function in grasping truth. The author's main contention is that Objectivism's epistemology (and epistemology in general) lacks a viable model of propositional knowledge due to neglect of the "unit-perspective" view of concepts. This pioneering insight of Rand's, he says, not only is an essential building block of her concept theory, but also is the means for providing the clearest X-ray picture of our multilayered conceptual knowledge. Using the unit-perspective to expand Rand's theory of concepts, the author then introduces "duplex" and "triplex" units, which he shows are the components of propositions and syllogisms, which are composed of concepts that integrate single or "simplex" units, as he calls them. The author also argues that Rand's largely underdeveloped concept of the "dual-aspect objective" is vital for understanding how knowledge is grounded in reality. he explains how consciousness essentially involves an interaction between a conscious subject (i.e., organism) and some of aspect of the world which becomes the object of that subject's awareness, then applies this idea to perception, introspection, concepts, propositions, and syllogisms. The author also defines content of awareness carefully distinguishing it from both object and form of awareness, and applies those distinctions throughout.In addition, the author discusses how truth is both dual-aspect and contextual, and he shows how units, too, have a dual aspect, even on the level of syllogisms. He also shows how differentiation and integration are the conscious processes at work, for better or worse, in both logic and in logical errors, which include the fallacies of "Frozen Abstraction" and "False Alternative," as well as a long-standing Objectivist conflation of falsity and contradiction and a relatively more recent Objectivist error, the fallacy of "genuine awareness."

I agree that causality is derived from entities and not linked by events (this mistake led to Hume's skepticism of causality). However, I disagree with what Peikoff said in OPAR: In other words, the possible number of actions of non-conscious entities—to not contradict Objectivism's tenet that human beings are capable of choice between multiple possible actions, I've taken the liberty to specify non-conscious entities—is necessarily one in any given circumstances. How is this validated? I would think that to know how many actions are possible for any entity, conscious or non-conscious, comes much later after discovering these basic axioms/corollaries; it requires study of that entity, and that study requires an accumulation of advanced knowledge. If we can't be certain of how many actions are possible for non-conscious entities in any given circumstances, are there any negative implications that would prevent us from later discovering the answer? An interesting rebuttal is that if there are multiple possible actions in any given circumstances, the entity must choose among these actions; thus, multiple possible actions are only available for conscious entities because it's consciousness that produces multiple possible actions. An example of such entities are human beings, but even I doubt that (see my thread on free will). However, such multiple actions of non-conscious entities can be explained by randomness (e.g. quantum randomness). I know it's said that randomness is actually a limitation in knowledge, but that presupposes that non-conscious entities are limited to one action in any given circumstances. So to maintain this in light of this presupposition is circular.