Rand Critics

[Xray]

Would Objectivists agree with the notion that you can get much more (and much more accurately) out of an encyclopedia article about Objectivism than by reading Rand's works? I suspect the answer will in most cases be negative. So what's sauce for the goose...

And in terms of how to interpret Rand's works - haven't the Objectivists themselves split up into opposing camps (e. g. Kelley vs. Peikoff)?

[Brant Gaede]

You don't drive your SUV and five children onto the railroad tracks and stop in front of the oncoming train because you're the victim of Objectivist axioms and can't "prove" there is a train coming. --Brant

So you would not exactly recommend applying Objectivst axioms to reality? I agree with you on that.

["The earth is flat" is not an axiom. It never was. If you think it is/was you know nothing of axiomatic premises as explicated in Objectivism.

Of course "The earth is flat" is an axiom - i. e. accepted as true [in that case, in the distant past] without proof as the basis for the argument.

No, you cannot apply your epistemological principles to reality. You simply use the axioms at the basis of the Objectivist philosophy as stolen concepts while pretending to invalidate them as arbitrary, like the flat earth axiom crap.

Before you can hope to logically reject axioms you must understand what an axiom is. You are confusing axioms with faith and arbitrariness, other things not needing proof. You do not understand why an axiom cannot be proved because evidence cannot be adduced from outside reality. You are grounded in epistemology when you should be grounded in metaphysics.

Just read Rand on this, which you cannot have done since you have yet to demonstrate any trace of stupidity, and then come back to this discussion. Please.

--Brant

[Brant Gaede]

Would Objectivists agree with the notion that you can get much more (and much more accurately) out of an encyclopedia article about Objectivism than by reading Rand's works? I suspect the answer will in most cases be negative. So what's sauce for the goose...

And in terms of how to interpret Rand's works - haven't the Objectivists themselves split up into opposing camps (e. g. Kelley vs. Peikoff)?

Peikoff seems to be more congruent with Ojectivism, the philosophy of Ayn Rand and Kelley with Objectivism.

--Brant

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Brant,

She is now going to ask you for examples...

Michael

[Xray]

You don't drive your SUV and five children onto the railroad tracks and stop in front of the oncoming train because you're the victim of Objectivist axioms and can't "prove" there is a train coming. --Brant

So you would not exactly recommend applying Objectivst axioms to reality? I agree with you on that.

["The earth is flat" is not an axiom. It never was. If you think it is/was you know nothing of axiomatic premises as explicated in Objectivism.

Of course "The earth is flat" is an axiom - i. e. accepted as true [in that case, in the distant past] without proof as the basis for the argument.

No, you cannot apply your epistemological principles to reality. You simply use the axioms at the basis of the Objectivist philosophy as stolen concepts while pretending to invalidate them as arbitrary, like the flat earth axiom crap.

Before you can hope to logically reject axioms you must understand what an axiom is. You are confusing axioms with faith and arbitrariness, other things not needing proof. You do not understand why an axiom cannot be proved because evidence

cannot be adduced from outside reality. You are grounded in epistemology when you should be grounded in metaphysics.

Just read Rand on this, which you cannot have done since you have yet to demonstrate any trace of stupidity, and then come back to this discussion. Please.

--Brant

Of course axioms can also be based on faith and arbitrariness, which is why, in case circumstances should later arise to enable proof /disproof, they can be proved as wrong.

As for the axiom "The earth is flat" - it was accepted for centuries as true without proof as the basis for the argument.

No, you cannot apply your epistemological principles to reality.

You don't want me to apply them, do you? ;)

"Reading Rand on this" does not equate agreeing with what she said.

She thinks a concept is axiomatic when it "cannot be escaped", that it "has to be accepted", and that is "implicit in all facts and in all knowledge". (ITOE, p. 59)

She thinks an axiomatic concept is the identification of a "primary fact of reality", which itself cannot be analyzed, reduced to other facts or broken down into component parts.

Per Rand all proves and explanations rest on "axiomatic concepts".

As for the axiomatic concept "existence", she says one can't analyze ("prove") existence as such. (p. 55)

So in the case of "existence exists", we get a "primary fact of reality based on something which can't be proved to exist as such".

How can one can one claim that something is "fact of reality" while at the same time admitting the base on which it rests can't be proved/analyzed?

What kind of "reality" is that?

Edited June 24, 2009 by Xray

[Hazard]

This is just a verbal dispute. The both of you are operating by different definitions of "axiom."

Merriam-Webster:

Axiom

"1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit

2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1

3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth"

Maxim

"1 : a general truth, fundamental principle, or rule of conduct

2 : a proverbial saying"

In one sense of the word (1), Xray is right. An axiom can be defined as the mass opinion of truth; however, using it in the metaphysical sense (2) or (3) an axiom is unable to be proven, but is necessary as a foundation for logic and reason. Example: "Existence exists."

So, this may be a dispute as to what is assumed to be an axiom and what is an axiom.

Jordan

Edited June 24, 2009 by Hazard

[Selene]

Excuse me "teacher" :drool: , but provide the context of the three " "'s that you used...yes.

Were they from the same page?

Were they from the same paragraph?

Give me an example of at least one...yes.

Adam

[Xray]

This is just a verbal dispute. The both of you are operating by different definitions of "axiom."

Merriam-Webster:

Axiom

"1 : a maxim widely accepted on its intrinsic merit

2 : a statement accepted as true as the basis for argument or inference : POSTULATE 1

3 : an established rule or principle or a self-evident truth"

Maxim

"1 : a general truth, fundamental principle, or rule of conduct

2 : a proverbial saying"

In one sense of the word (1), Xray is right. An axiom can be defined as the mass opinion of truth; however, using it in the metaphysical sense (2) or (3) an axiom is unable to be proven, but is necessary as a foundation for logic and reason. Example: "Existence exists."

So, this may be a dispute as to what is assumed to be an axiom and what is an axiom.

Jordan

Imo a sentence like "Existence exists" makes about as little sense as saying "Love loves".

If Rand meant it as simply emphasizing "existence is existence - it is what it is". Well, so what? What groundshattering insights are to be expected from the utterance of such a banality?

Edited June 24, 2009 by Xray

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Xray,

Does that mean you want to keep the door open for someone to say, "Existence doesn't exist" and have that make sense?

Anyway, there's a concept thing going on here and you need to learn how to make concepts according to the integration model before that statement will stop sounding foolish to you. Time is needed. Baby-steps and all...

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

Xray,

If you are going to quote Rand then give the references.

If you don't I'm through with you here.

If you want to refute Rand on axioms then start by properly representing her position as she stated it then comment.

If you don't I'm through with you here.

I can tolerate no more of this and until you make some non-teacher sense you are only a troll here to me. That I will continue not to put up with as you will see.

--Brant

[Hazard]

Adam,

They are from the dictionary, Merriam-Webster as I said. I'm just trying to define the words we're using for the benefit of this discussion because Brant and Xray are operating by different definitions.

There isn't a context, it's a dictionary.

Are you asking for examples?

Jordan

[Brant Gaede]

Adam,

They are from the dictionary, Merriam-Webster as I said. I'm just trying to define the words we're using for the benefit of this discussion because Brant and Xray are operating by different definitions.

There isn't a context, it's a dictionary.

Are you asking for examples?

Jordan

But Xray is purportedly telling us about Rand when she's only telling us about Xray. This is not semantics but misrepresentation.

--Brant

[Xray]

Excuse me "teacher" :drool: , but provide the context of the three " "'s that you used...yes.

Were they from the same page?

Were they from the same paragraph?

Give me an example of at least one...yes.

Adam

Xray,

If you are going to quote Rand then give the references.

If you don't I'm through with you here.

If you want to refute Rand on axioms then start by properly representing her position as she stated it then comment.

If you don't I'm through with you here.

I can tolerate no more of this and until you make some non-teacher sense you are only a troll here to me. That I will continue not to put up with as you will see.

--Brant

Cool down a bit, Selene and Brant. I thought you guys, who always admonished me to "read Rand", were so familiar with where she wrote about axioms and had transformed it into your permanent knowledge, that there was no need to give the source for every short quote.

Edited June 24, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Adam,

They are from the dictionary, Merriam-Webster as I said. I'm just trying to define the words we're using for the benefit of this discussion because Brant and Xray are operating by different definitions.

There isn't a context, it's a dictionary.

Are you asking for examples?

Jordan

Hazard, I think Adam's (Selene's) comments were addressing my post and not yours containing the Webster's definitions.

[Xray]

Adam,

They are from the dictionary, Merriam-Webster as I said. I'm just trying to define the words we're using for the benefit of this discussion because Brant and Xray are operating by different definitions.

There isn't a context, it's a dictionary.

Are you asking for examples?

Jordan

But Xray is purportedly telling us about Rand when she's only telling us about Xray. This is not semantics but misrepresentation.

--Brant

Brant,

Hazard mistook Selene's post as addressed to him because it came directly after Hazard's post.

My quotes were from Rand's ITOE, p. 59.

[Hazard]

Oh, i see. Thank you for clearing that up.

Also,

I agree with Brant, if you don't recognize the statement "Existence exists" then you haven't read Rand very much.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Hazard

[Brant Gaede]

Adam,

They are from the dictionary, Merriam-Webster as I said. I'm just trying to define the words we're using for the benefit of this discussion because Brant and Xray are operating by different definitions.

There isn't a context, it's a dictionary.

Are you asking for examples?

Jordan

But Xray is purportedly telling us about Rand when she's only telling us about Xray. This is not semantics but misrepresentation.

--Brant

Brant,

Hazard mistook Selene's post as addressed to him because it came directly after Hazard's post.

My quotes were from Rand's ITOE, p. 59.

This is fine, so far. Now you merely have to put up the simple statements Rand made about axioms re Objectivism and criticize those and integrate that with your earlier critical remarks. Sorry I got hot-headed.

--Brant

[Xray]

Oh, i see. Thank you for clearing that up.

Also,

I agree with Brant, if you don't recognize the statement "Existence exists" then you haven't read Rand very much.

You really think I didn't recognize the statement "Existence exists"

If course I do, and posted on it a good while ago on another thread.

I'm now going to analyze that statement, applying Rand's recommendation to "check your premises" to her own writings.

More on Rand's' "Existence exists" in my # 99 post.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Adam,

They are from the dictionary, Merriam-Webster as I said. I'm just trying to define the words we're using for the benefit of this discussion because Brant and Xray are operating by different definitions.

There isn't a context, it's a dictionary.

Are you asking for examples?

Jordan

But Xray is purportedly telling us about Rand when she's only telling us about Xray. This is not semantics but misrepresentation.

--Brant

Brant,

Hazard mistook Selene's post as addressed to him because it came directly after Hazard's post.

My quotes were from Rand's ITOE, p. 59.

This is fine, so far. Now you merely have to put up the simple statements Rand made about axioms re Objectivism and criticize those and integrate that with your earlier critical remarks. Sorry I got hot-headed.

--Brant

No problem. I don't take those things personally. Such controversial forum discussions can get quite heated at times, but I alway tell myself, when you can't take the heat, stay away from the fire.

[Selene]

"No problem. I don't take those things personally."

Yes, like President O'Biwan the Magnificent, she is above the commoners. She descends from the perches of the Valkyries.

Odin watches scowling.

Adam

[Xray]

"No problem. I don't take those things personally."

Yes, like President O'Biwan the Magnificent, she is above the commoners. She descends from the perches of the Valkyries.

Odin watches scowling.

Adam

Selene, if you devoted half as much much energy to a genuine discussion than you do into thinking out new personal attacks, maybe you would have made some headway.

But instead, as if on cue, you verbally jump out like a jack in the box each time I post something. You are stuck in a stimulus- response pattern like a kid playing the class clown.

There is no Valkyrie descending on you, Selene. What is descending on you are some truths about Rand philosophy.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

There is no Valkyrie descending on you, Selene. What is descending on you are some truths about Rand philosophy.

"Truths" may be descending even though previously I thought truths were ascendant. Never mind. I'll do it your way: TRUTH is descending on you, objective truth. Take that! And that! And that! Squish!

--Brant

[Xray]

There is no Valkyrie descending on you, Selene. What is descending on you are some truths about Rand philosophy.

"Truths" may be descending even though previously I thought truths were ascendant. Never mind. I'll do it your way: TRUTH is descending on you, objective truth. Take that! And that! And that! Squish!

--Brant

Where is it, the objective truth ? All I can see so far are is floating word bubbles. Fill in some content and then try again.

Meanwhile you can read my following post about Rand's "axiomatic concept" "Existence exists". You had asked me to elaborate - ask and ya shall receive.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Xray

[Xray]

Xray,

Does that mean you want to keep the door open for someone to say, "Existence doesn't exist" and have that make sense?

Exactly, Michael! Now you're going in the right direction. The phrase makes

no sense. Two forms of the same word are uttered, but nothing identified to

provide definitive meaning. A house exists. A house is in existence. Without

a subject, the terms, existence and exists would not even "exist." Without a

subject, the words are but meaningless sounds without any definitive reference.

"Existence exists" - AS WHAT? As an entity? As a relationship? What?

"Existence exists" doesn't really make any sense, does it? Why? The word

denotes neither an entity nor a relationship. The word, existence, standing

alone has no context except a meaningless sound. The word is entity

dependent for meaning. What exists are entities and relationships between

entities. The words, exist(s), existence, etc., have no comprehensible

meaning whatsoever in the absence of a thing to provide meaning to the term.

Things and relationships exist. "Existence" is neither.

So, Michael, "existence" does not exist. Yep, that's what I say AND it makes

sense.

The funny thing is Rand says as much herself, yet still utters the absurdity:

"Existence exists"and the act of grasping that statement implies two

corollary axioms: that SOMETHING EXISTS which one perceives and that one

exists possessing consciousness, consciousness being the faculty of

perceiving that which exists." (Rand) (emph. added)

It is THE THING that provides meaning to the terms, exist and existence. Is

"existence" a thing? By all means, please explain to me by use in a sentence

the word, existence, without direct or indirect reference to a thing. Can

you do that? If not, what does this say about "existence exists?"

It makes no difference if it is claimed that "existence exists" means all that

exists, it still can't get away from the fact it is the entities and

relationships which exist, not the abstract, "existence".

Repeat:

"Existence" does not exist for it has no definition of a thing or

relationship. It is impossible to even think "existence" without mentally

referencing some thing that exists, or is believed to exist. Ergo,

"existence exist" is nonsense.

Setting aside all the smoke and mirrors of floating abstractions, the bottom

line are the questions: How do you know what you know? How is knowledge

acquired? By some mystical and automatic "something?" Or by a method, a

process in correspondence with natural law?

"The first and primary axiomatic concepts are "existence," "identity" (which

is a corollary of "existence") and "consciousness." One can study what

exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot analyze (or "prove")

existence as such, or consciousness as such. These are irreducible

primaries. (An attempt to "prove" them is self-contradictory: it is an

attempt to "prove" existence by means of non-existence, and consciousness by

means of unconsciousness.)" (Rand)

"One can study what exists and how consciousness functions; but one cannot

analyze (or "prove") existence as such, or consciousness as such." (Rand)

Well, of course not. Nothing has been claimed. A claim would be a

claim of being conscious of an entity or a relationship being in existence.

Floating abstractions with no connection to an entity and\or a relationship

claim nothing to be believed or challenged. It's a bit like saying so and so

is lying, but never saying about what.

Once again, Rand says as much, yet ignores her own words:

"If nothing exists, there can be no consciousness: a consciousness with

nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms. A consciousness

conscious of nothing but itself is a contradiction in terms: before it could

identify itself as consciousness, it had to be conscious of something. If

that which you claim to perceive does not exist, what you possess is not

consciousness." (Rand)

Looks to me like she inadvertantly pointed out her own contradiction and

that "existence exists" as "contradiction in terms."

When we shake this tree, what falls out is the fact that existence and

consciousness in the abstract are just floating "out there." When we bring

these "axioms" to ground, what is being claimed is that the consciousness of

some existent is "self-evident truth", that is, "truth" acquired without

epistemological process. How does this work? Examples would be appreciated.

The fallacy of self evident truth has been around since way back when. This

includes the declaration of independence: "We hold these truths to be

self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their

Creator...etc."

I'm quite sure that the Randites would strongly disagree

with this "self-evident truth." In all cases of the invoking of

"self-evident truth", or axioms as absolute, you will find entity identity

left out of the thinking equation.

The question and request becomes more poignant when one observes a multitude

of claims of "self evident truth" with the "truth" often in strong

opposition. See the problem? From the premise that these "axiomatic

self-evident" truths are not subject to proof or disproof, in what manner

can these conflicting differences be peacefully resolved after argument as

means has been discarded by the claim of "self-evident?"

Battles have raged and rivers of blood have flowed precipitated by the illusion of self-evident

truth.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Xray

[Brant Gaede]

Existence is. It's an all inclusive concept. Xray is using existence as a stolen concept--that is, she is absolutely dependent on it in all respects of her life and thinking while she consciously denies the very thing not understanding she is denying herself too. She also equivocates by throwing false axioms into her witch's pot (I'm just having a little fun with a verbal weggie) and uses their discredit against real axioms.

--Brant

PS: Unfortunately I was adding two PS's in editing this post and they were lost when I received an email. I disabled the instant display function and hope that is the end of it. I suggest anyone posting here on a regular basis do the same.

PPS: "Existence exists" is a (necessary) redundancy, not a contradiction. "Existence doesn't exist" is a contradiction. What Xray is doing is denying the existence of concepts, but concepts exist as long as minds exist to create, understand and use them. Existence is the basic all inclusive concept. The statement "existence exists" is just an emphatic way of saying existence is, also a redundancy.

PPPS: It's not "declaration of independence" but "Declaration of Independence." Understandable mistake for a german living in germany even if not Germane to someone who could have been named germaine but unfortunately wasn't so I can't make fun of her. I even have "georgia On My Mind." Somebody, make me stop! I've just ruind my spel checkr.

Edited June 25, 2009 by Brant Gaede