Dawson Bethrick's blog "Existence and Perception" 4-28-18

[Robert_Bumbalough]

Quote

Fundamental principles are the most critical part of philosophy to get right since all inferences, deductions and applications of its principles depend on their truth, their defensibility, and their suitability as fundamentals. Unfortunately it is philosophy’s fundamentals that are often the most misunderstood or even the least developed, either because they have not been securely identified, their truth is taken for granted and therefore deemed unworthy of deeper attention, or they have been disfigured through filters foreign to that philosophy.

 In this blog Dawson discusses a comment by a reader asking how to distinguish between dream states and reality by use of Objectivism's basic metaphysic axioms.  I first learned of Objectivism from Dawson Bethrick's blog and have often found his writings useful in understanding Objectivism and the lack of justification for mythological beliefs.

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2018/04/existence-and-perception.html

[Robert_Bumbalough]

Cool. Dawson Bethrick posted a new blog: "Edward Feser on Ayn Rand"  wherein he interacts with Mr Feser's criticism of Objectivism's first Metaphysics Axiom: "Existence Exists".  EF argues existence does not exist and that Ayn Rand commits fallacies of "internal inconsistency and trivializing philosophy."

 

http://bahnsenburner.blogspot.com/2018/05/edward-feser-on-ayn-rand.html 

 

 

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Robert,

I'm glad you enjoy this blog. For me, the guy write loooooooooong posts on things I have already thought through, but on skimming, he looks OK. It's a bit nit-picky, but I suppose anyone grappling with the Christianity niche the guy is critiquing will find value in it.

I want to comment on the existence exists thing, more specifically the axiomatic concepts. I didn't see your friend mention something, but I might have missed it.

You can tell if a concept is axiomatic if you have to apply it to the agent as a condition in order to consider it. For example, does existence exist? When I apply it to the agent (me or you or whoever is thinking about it), the agent has to exist in order to even ask the question. This goes for identity and consciousness.

If you want to observe existence in order to validate it with your senses and define it, Rand called it an ostensive definition and threw her arm all around and said, " I mean this." 

It's duh level. And to me, that's the proper place to start with philosophy. You can build on it.

Jordan Peterson once said everyone proves existence to themselves through pain.

And I got to thinking, that's true. Nobody in dire pain doubts the existence of it. The only thing they can think about is they want the pain to stop existing.  And that validates the idea that existence exists since something cannot stop existing if it didn't exist in the first place, and it couldn't exist if it didn't have the quality of existence in the first place.

So I found that observation a nice addition to the traditional explanations from Rand.

Now, for fun, imagine this Edward Feser guy with a severe toothache. Then imagine him with his jaw puffed out in inflammation, groaning, expounding at long length on how the concept of existence being an axiom trivializes philosophy because the proposition is or isn't... yada yada yada. I bet he couldn't go on for very long, could he? He first would have to deal with an unpleasant existence that was worrying the piss out of him before he could even think.  

Michael

[Robert_Bumbalough]

3 hours ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

I'm glad you enjoy this blog. For me, the guy write loooooooooong posts on things I have already thought through, but on skimming, he looks OK. It's a bit nit-picky, but I suppose anyone grappling with the Christianity niche the guy is critiquing will find value in it.

I want to comment on the existence exists thing, more specifically the axiomatic concepts. I didn't see your friend mention something, but I might have missed it.

You can tell if a concept is axiomatic if you have to apply it to the agent as a condition in order to consider it. For example, does existence exist? When I apply it to the agent (me or you or whoever is thinking about it), the agent has to exist in order to even ask the question. This goes for identity and consciousness.

If you want to observe existence in order to validate it with your senses and define it, Rand called it an ostensive definition and threw her arm all around and said, " I mean this." 

It's duh level. And to me, that's the proper place to start with philosophy. You can build on it.

Jordan Peterson once said everyone proves existence to themselves through pain.

And I got to thinking, that's true. Nobody in dire pain doubts the existence of it. The only thing they can think about is they want the pain to stop existing.  And that validates the idea that existence exists since something cannot stop existing if it didn't exist in the first place, and it couldn't exist if it didn't have the quality of existence in the first place.

So I found that observation a nice addition to the traditional explanations from Rand.

Now, for fun, imagine this Edward Feser guy with a severe toothache. Then imagine him with his jaw puffed out in inflammation, groaning, expounding at long length on how the concept of existence being an axiom trivializes philosophy because the proposition is or isn't... yada yada yada. I bet he couldn't go on for very long, could he? He first would have to deal with an unpleasant existence that was worrying the piss out of him before he could even think.  

Michael

Oh good Mike. I learned the hard way to not take trolls who deny the axioms or myself trying to convince them not to deny seriously. Honestly, I'd rather change the wax ring under the men's room toilet.  Dawson is long and thorough in his blogs. He's been at it for at least thirteen years, so he's dealt with plenty nutters some of whom were probably moocher rotters. 

On another note, reading Galt's speech makes me reevaluate my life. She was a hell of marketer. Trump needs someone like Ayn Rand to appoint as special trade envoy representative to solve the really stupid tariffs by causing everyone involved to stop an take a personal inventory of their minds. Steel and pipe fitting prices are on a rocket rally. Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

17 minutes ago, Robert_Bumbalough said:

Steel and pipe fitting prices are on a rocket rally. Ouch. That's going to leave a mark.

Robert,

I don't know why this reminds me of an old military saying I read ages ago. But here it is anyway.

Some scared soldiers are marching through a jungle infested with enemy guerilla fighters. One of the soldiers booms out, "Take heart, men. Take solace in the knowledge that the gun in your hands was made by the lowest bidder...."

Michael

[Robert_Bumbalough]

21 minutes ago, Michael Stuart Kelly said:

Robert,

I don't know why this reminds me of an old military saying I read ages ago. But here it is anyway.

Some scared soldiers are marching through a jungle infested with enemy guerilla fighters. One of the soldiers booms out, "Take heart, men. Take solace in the knowledge that the gun in your hands was made by the lowest bidder...."

Michael

Sadly the Reisling Sub Machine Gun wasn't up to the task of down dirty in the mud combat. Pity it was in some ways better than the M1927 Thompson and for sure less than 1/3 the cost, but alas it jammed easily when muddy.  One of my family's cousins was mortally wounded in a night Banzai attack on Guam in July of 1944; he passed two days later. But by then the Marines had eliminated the Reisling.   Nonetheless, when trolls argue O-ism fans can't be sure they're not brains in a vat or sims in the Matrix, I call upon David Kelly and Matthew McCormik to explain Kant's refutation of material idealism. I think Rand may have been perhaps somewhat influenced along those lines by some of his ideas. Certainly the ones she disapproved prompted her to think of ways to counter argue. But that's another story.