UncleJim

Uncle Jim,

As I stated before, I like your spirit.

Michael

Hey!!!!!!!!

Is that a religious remark?

Uncle Jim,

I don't know what you mean just yet.

An axiom is a concept and description of a fundamental aspect of reality. Rand used the word fact for the aspect of reality, not the concept or description. She used the word "axiom" for that.

Can you go into your back yard and pick-up a fact? Can't do that with marriage either. But you can do that with dirt, stone, rabbit, rose, etc.

In my understanding of this. Axiom selects out specific concepts which are primary denotes of fact. The ones upon which all others of simular nature depend.

I think we are discussing only semantics. I have a question for you. In your conception, does "aspect of reality" exist before a brain image of it does?

Yes. Of course. An "aspect of reality" is a physical existent.

Does "reality" exist before a brain image of it does?

No. Reality is like marriage. It has no physical existence at all. Its totally epistemological. But; of course, when you reduce it to its root meaning then yes.

If you believe they do exist prior to awareness, do you object to Rand's use of the word "fact" to designate this?

Michael

If I have this correctly she used "object" to designate what exists in-reality.

If I understand Jim correctly one could be an Objectivist without knowing any Objectivist principles simply by virtue of the fact that they act like Objectivists are supposed to act. Have I got this right?

That sums it up.

The problem is they may not be able to hold an intelligent conversation on the issue. As a matter of fact they are likely to deny that Objectivism ought to be applied to them because they actually believe something else is in control of how they act.

I really hate it when that happens.

Uncle Jim,

I agree that her solution is called thinking (and even really good thinking). But it needs to be clear that thinking is not an excuse for poor scholarship and false representations.

A is A, to use her own formulation.

Rand worshipers (and I am not saying you are one) like to pretend that she was perfect and did not have any such defect because this does not fit with the "savior of mankind" image they hold. But Rand did have such defect and what's worse, when she got around to misrepresenting and oversimplifying the works of other philosophers, she was not only a poor scholar making false claims, she had an attitude. She had a chip on her shoulder about it.

I personally value Rand's original thinking—and I value it highly enough to run a forum on it (and name my two boys after her characters). But I take all of the historical and scholarly information she presented as needing verification and some solid clarifying. Much of it is flawed.

Michael

I trust you will not be surprised to learn I have reservations about the depth to which she pursued important issues like life, survival, love, ethics, morality and; yes, even god. To name a few.

Uncle Jim,

I have difficulty with phrases like "Objectivism establishes..." or "Objectivism says..."

They sound good until I start thinking about them, but then I come up against a problem.

I have to detect what the author of a statement like that means by "Objectivism." This means many different things to many different people.

I merely consider it to be a body of thought. It was given initial form in the works of Ayn Rand and those she designated. Those works definitely represent a "closed system" because she died and could not designate anything else. They are a closed system of works. But they do not constitute a closed body of thought.

A closed body of thought is practically a contradiction by definition if reality as the arbiter is one of the principles. There is a term for a closed body of thought that precludes correction by reality, though. It is called dogma.

To some people, Objectivism is dogma. When these people say "Objectivism says...," I start looking for someone else to talk to.

Michael

I see your point and ageee with it.

To understand "Objectivism says..." One must fully understand what Objectivism is. And yes that can present a problem given the current state of the organization charged with protecting its integrity.

My view is that the fundamental error is in their conceptualizing of the idea of fact. Fact is not an aspect of reality; it is a mental resultant of it. Nor is fact 'yet' epistemological. When fact becomes epistemological its 'word status' changes from fact to identity. Fact exists as a known aspect of reality. As such fact exists as a specific electrochemical response of a brain to a specific aspect of reality.

In order to make a factual statement the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement.

Uncle Jim,

I am confused by what you mean by "fact." You claimed that "fact is not an aspect of reality." That leaves brain images. So when you say "the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement," are you saying that a brain image must exist prior to a factual statement, or that an aspect of reality must exist?

Brains image what they know to exist. The brain-image must exist prior any statement made about it. The existence of brain-images is called fact. Alternately; Evidence of factual existence is called a brain-image. Therefore any statement made about what ones brain knows to exist is; by definition, a factual statement.

Notice: A brain-image cannot exist in the absence of the absolute nature of reality. Since this is the case; then, a factual statement will reflect what the absolute nature of reality is.

As I understand Objectivism, "fact" stands for an aspect of reality without the agent's awareness.

For example, in ITOE, "fact" means aspect of reality irrespective of brain image. As one example, there are Rand's repeated statements about axiomatic concepts being primary facts of reality. She used the term "fact" consistently to mean something before and independent of brain images. In her usage, brain images are made from facts; they are awareness of facts.

One thing is very clear to me: you use the word "fact" with an entirely different meaning than Rand did.

Michael

You said "there are Rand's repeated statements about axiomatic concepts being primary facts of reality."

Is the "axiomatic concept" actually an aspect of reality. No it isn't. Its a resultant of it. The fact which is responsible for the existence of the "axiomatic concept" had to exist prior to it.

Are you being serious? You're actually asking me about where your mind function is located!!! You need it to even ask me that question.

Mind is not a real something in the way a human brain is. It's a function of the human brain. I'm not sure why I need to explain this.

You spoke of the mind as on -object-. Now you are telling me it is a function. Please do make up your (mind?). And that is why you have to explain it. Your statements about mind were in no place explicitly about functions of something else. If you insist (now) that mind is not an object and is a function, then a function of what? I assume you mean mind is something that the brain does. Do I have this right? If it is right, why didn't you say so clearly in the first place?

The mind as a substantial object is nowhere to be found in the physical space-time continuum. Nobody has ever located a mind (as an object) in a head that did not belong to him. So if the mind is not a substance, what is the mind assuming it exists? I classify minds along with souls, spirits, ghosts, goblins and wills of the wisp. Things spoken of but never witnessed by several observers concurrently.

It so happens that I do not have a mind. I have a brain which does everything you claim your mind does. I have physical evidence that I have no mind inside my skull. Only brain and other neural tissue.

Ba'al Chatzaf (the literal minded).

Go to post 61. It denies your claim that I made reference to the mind as being an object.

You said "It so happens that I do not have a mind." I really wish you had not said that! How can I now communicate with you?

Here is Rand's quote as given on the ARI FAQ page:

"I urge the readers to use their own judgment as to whether a particular article is or is not consonant with Objectivist principles. Remember, it is a fundamental tenet of Objectivism that one must not accept ideas on faith.

"If you wonder why I am so particular about protecting the integrity of the term 'Objectivism,' my reason is that 'Objectivism' is the name I have given to my philosophy—therefore, anyone using that name for some philosophical hodgepodge of his own, without my knowledge or consent, is guilty of the fraudulent presumption of trying to put thoughts into my brain (or of trying to pass his thinking off as mine—an attempt which fails, for obvious reasons). I chose the name 'Objectivism' at a time when my philosophy was beginning to be known and some people were starting to call themselves 'Randists.' I am much too conceited to allow such a use of my name …

"What is the proper policy on this issue? If you agree with some tenets of Objectivism, but disagree with others, do not call yourself an Objectivist; give proper authorship credit for the parts you agree with—and then indulge in any flights of fancy you wish, on your own."

[Ayn Rand, "To the Readers of The Objectivist Forum," The Objectivist Forum, Vol. 1, No. 1]

I obviously use another definition of the term "Objectivist" than Rand did here. And I am quite comfortable with the meaning I use, since I learned English way before I discovered Rand.

If one uses Rand's own standard stated above, being an Objectivist would mean somehow crawling into her brain and agreeing with every thought found in there, which is impossible, or else receiving her manifest consent to call oneself an Objectivist. Since she is dead, that is not possible any longer. So by her own declaration, if she did not ordain the person, he is not entitled to call himself an Objectivist (on penalty of "fraud"). That would mean no one after her death—almost no one at all nowadays.

This would mean that no one at ARI except Peikoff is entitled to call himself an Objectivist. They would have to present signed or published statements by Rand to prove that she gave her consent for them to call themselves Objectivists and I can't think of anyone who has that except Peikoff (at the beginning of The Ominous Parallels).

Well, there are those who wrote articles for The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist and Who Is Ayn Rand? (and pre-break lectures). Her later statements affirmed that the works contained in those publications and lectures are official Objectivism, but in those statements, she did not call the people who wrote them "Objectivists."

I use the term "Objectivist" in the same way someone calls himself an "Existentialist" or "Kantian" or "Marxist," which means a person interested in, and highly influenced by, the ideas found in the bodies of thought designated by those words. Built into this concept is that fact that individuals exist and they are different from one another, thus there will be some differences of ideas between the author and the person interested/influenced.

I would suggest that there be some kind of term set for Rand-ordained Objectivist and non-Rand-ordained Objectivist, but there are so few of the first (there is only one I know of) that it is not really necessary for general understanding.

Michael

Nicely done.

Objectivism establishes who falls under its umbrella. In my view; Objectivism says that properly functioning human-beings are functioning as Objectivism observes them to be functioning. In other words: The actions of properly functioning human beings came prior to the observation of them which eventually ended in the philosophy of Objectivism as documented by Ayn Rand.

This may not be Ayn Rand's intent. But ... So what? If I am acting objectively; then, I am acting in accordance with the principles of Objectivism. Whether I know that or not, is not (in my view), a criteria as to whether or not I'm an Objectivist. She would like me to accept the principle that I am somehow assuming her identity when I act or think as an Objectivist would act or think in any given situation.

That is her privilege. I disagree. People were doing that a long time before she documented how properly functioning persons act and think.

Good discussion gentlemen. Are you not going to get into the claimed "right" of the states to protect the common welfare which is where they slither through to assign financial obligations to both parents?

Sure! No such right exists. We gave part of our rights to them. Go figure. Now we're trying to figure out how to deal with that.

"We gave part of our rights to them." << I don't remember signing anything! lol

You weren't even born then. It's called the Constitution for the United States of America. That document provided for how "the people" hire others to run the Federal Government. We gave these others instructions to use whatever means necessary to protect us from harm by others.

Part of us is; of course, our children. When we become the instrument of harm to our own children our 'federal instructions' act against our-self and to the benefit of our children.

OK!

Now I see where your coming from. I'm not a supporter of the "establishment" either. But having said that I must add that Objectivism is not a religion even-though the establishment is running "their Objectivist organization" from that standpoint.

Unfortunately; I am also constantly defending myself from the nonsense about what Objectivism is seen to be because of the way they personally act.

Again, I used to hold your viewpoint, in fact as recent as a few years ago. But unlike TAS I'm with Ayn Rand on this one: Objectivism is what Ayn Rand said it is and nothing else. She can reserve the word for what she means if she wants to. And what she means is: for the price of calling yourself an "Objectivist", you agree to strip yourself of your intellectual independence. She doesn't say that outright, but it is implied in her words in "The Objectivist Forum", and it is implied by those who she handed her power and authority to when she died. It is rather bald-faced actually.

I would be embarrassed for it having taken as long as it did for me to recognize, except that Ayn Rand's works are genuine and sincere, the heart of her philosophy is indeed a philosophy of intellectual independence. That is what it is about in fact. It is only after she had created it that she implicitly attempted to destroy it with her later words and actions, not unlike Howard Roark destroying his buildings. With respect to Ayn Rand's philosophy: I revere the buildings, but not the act of destruction.

I do not morally condemn Ayn Rand for this destructive act, since really it had power only over the sheep. Perhaps she looked at those who surrounded her and in an act of contempt, pulled the rug out from under them.

Shayne

We're on the same page. Even where it says she can define it in whatever she wants. It's that definition I use to support my position.

A properly functioning human-being is, by definition, functioning objectively. He is therefore an Objectivist.

It's the same as when one is playing football. One is, by definition, a football player. It doesn't matter if one is a member of some kind of organization whose only function is to play football. One is considered to be a football player by fact of ones actions.

Harry Binswanger would disagree. I know that because your reaction was my reaction when I first read OPAR, I couldn't reconcile it with Peikoff's preface to OPAR, so asked HB about it and he totally disclaimed your viewpoint.

You are correct that philosophy should be a science and it should be about truth. And Objectivism is to a substantial degree, the truth. But it lacks an essential ingredient: if we find a mistake in a science, we fix the mistake. Ayn Rand disclaimed this, saying that fixing any mistakes was tantamount to making her philosophy a "hodgepodge". For all the goodness in her philosophy, she grossly undercut it with this statement, stripping Objectivism at its most fundamental point of individualism. What's more, actions speak louder than words: all the actions her acolytes have taken in her name since that time have done nothing but back up my interpretation.

Objectivism is a religion. That's why I no longer call myself that. I'm a Rational Individualist.

Shayne

OK!

Now I see where your coming from. I'm not a supporter of the "establishment" either. But having said that I must add that Objectivism is not a religion even-though the establishment is running "their Objectivist organization" from that standpoint.

Unfortunately; I am also constantly defending myself from the nonsense about what Objectivism is seen to be because of the way they personally act.

The human mind perceives facts -but- prior to that mans brain had to sense the physical existence of the absolute which is responsible for the sensual existence of the fact its mind function is now perceiving.

Are we on the same page?

Where in the human body is the -mind- located, as opposed to the brain?

I have a recent MRI three axis scan of my head (in particular what is inside) to a resolution of one millimeter and nowhere in the scan is there a sign of my mind. No where. So where is my mind?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Are you being serious? You're actually asking me about where your mind function is located!!! You need it to even ask me that question.

Mind is not a real something in the way a human brain is. It's a function of the human brain. I'm not sure why I need to explain this.

Good discussion gentlemen. Are you not going to get into the claimed "right" of the states to protect the common welfare which is where they slither through to assign financial obligations to both parents?

Sure! No such right exists. We gave part of our rights to them. Go figure. Now we're trying to figure out how to deal with that.

How are you defining that which the word 'arrow' stands in the place of. The word is not what the thing being described is. If the description held by the word 'arrow' does not do justice to the thing being described by it, then the description being offered is wrong.

This has nothing at all to do with what we know. It only deals with how well we are able to describe what we know.

Since the thing being described exists in-reality; then, the description of what it is must address that. Its impossible to remove the thing being described from reality or to ignore part of reality when describing what it is and end up with a definition which fully explains what it is.

You're not an Objectivist because you accept a specific principle. You're an Objectivist by fact of the way you act. When you're actions address the requirements of your specific kind of existence; then, that means you are acting objectively; i.e., you're an Objectivist.

You're mistaken. To be an Objectivist is to substitute Ayn Rand's thinking for your own. It's a religion. That's how she defined it, see what she wrote at the beginning of "The Objectivist Forum".

Shayne

This is what I found:

" "This is to say that I approve of the publication of The Objectivist Forum, that it promises to be a very interesting magazine, and that I recommend it to your attention.

"As its name indicates, this magazine is a forum for students of Objectivism to discuss their ideas, each speaking only for himself. . . .

"Harry Binswanger is a serious student (and teacher) of philosophy and has a thorough understanding of Objectivism's basic principles. . . .

"I am not editing this magazine, and my association with it is only that of philosophic consultant." "

I don't see your reference to where Ayn Rand called it a "religion."

I know the argument. "You're not an Objectivist until you've been inducted into that religion comprised of certified Objectivists."

Thats absurd! It violates the law of identity as applied to man: "man qua man." In other words: It violates the principles of Objectivism at their very root.

A properly functioning human-being is, by definition, functioning objectively. He is therefore an Objectivist.

It's the same as when one is playing football. One is, by definition, a football player. It doesn't matter if one is a member of some kind of organization whose only function is to play football. One is considered to be a football player by fact of ones actions.

Uncle Jim,

Unfortunately one of the ugliest marks against Rand's scholarship was the following statement in the "Introduction" to The Virtue of Selfishness (p. vii):

Yet the exact meaning and dictionary definition of the word "selfishness" is: concern with one's own interests.

Scholars have long noted that no one has found that dictionary Rand mentioned and her critics have a field day with this point. If you like, I can look up some comments, but a simple Google search will afford you with plenty enough reading.

Rand's research sloppiness does not negate the concept of what she was proposing, but it does provide an unnecessary side-issue where she was shortcoming. Her critics have used this to cast doubt on the underlying concepts. She should have known this would happen, too. The sad truth is there was no excuse for her to do that. No excuse at all.

I will be more than glad to stand corrected if someday that dictionary should surface. But even if it does, it will still be a strange fact that most all of the dictionaries on the market do not use that exact "dictionary definition" she used.

There are many other cases of sloppy scholarship. (Merrill's criticism immediately comes to mind, but there is much more out there.) Rand was a brilliant original thinker, but a very poor scholar.

Chris Sciabarra has been doing a wonderful job of overcoming this handicap by publishing a peer-reviewed journal of academic studies on Rand's thought: The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies. As you can see on the link, this journal is indexed at enough places to be readily available as an accepted source at most colleges and institutions of higher learning. TAS and ARI have also been making some good academic inroads and there are several college professors of sound standing connected with those organizations.

Michael

OK. Perhaps she could have documented her sources better.

But this brings up an interesting dilemma. What if there are no reliable sources? What then. If you were to go back in time far enough you would find a time when there were no pre-existing sources what so ever. What's a person to do then?

This is perhaps where Ayn Rand found herself. Her solution is called thinking.

It's strange that Rand just went out and came up with her own definition instead of also investigating others.

--Brant

See the blue highlight above. What evidence do you have that supports your claim this is what she did?

You aren't my uncle and I'm not a moron.

--Brant

That was not my question. Read it again.

(edit) Never mind. Michael just did that.

Uncle Jim,

Just so I know if we are on the same page, have you read ITOE? If so, what do you think about it?

Another question. What do you call the law of identity? A fact or something else?

Michael

I have read everything written by and about Ayn Rand before about 1980 or so.

The writings of Ayn Rand (including ITOE) set me onto the trail of proper discovery. I consider Ayn Rand to be an intellectual without equal.

The law of identity is the proposition that what is - is what it is. It is a statement of fact.

In order to make a factual statement the fact must exist prior to the uttering of the statement. Since that is the case; then, the law of identity is-not itself a fact. It is a resultant of fact.

The human mind perceives facts -but- prior to that mans brain had to sense the physical existence of the absolute which is responsible for the sensual existence of the fact its mind function is now perceiving.

Are we on the same page?

Objectivism is ofter characterized as being a cold, heartless, emotionless philosophical view. This is an absurdity. And it is only an Objectivist who knows why its an absurdity because only Objectivists know what love actually (in reality) is.

There were no Objectivists prior to Ayn Rand. So taken what you wrote literally we would conclude that for somewhere between 250,000 and 500,000 years (approximately when our species originated) humans did not know what love is. To which I reply, Bull Cookies!

Ba'al Chatzaf

This simply cannot be a true representation of what actually exists. Ayn Rand did not invent reality. She simply explained how it operates. An Objectivist is someone who actually lives in accordance with natural law. People have been doing that ever since they have been people to do that.

You're not an Objectivist because you accept a specific principle. You're an Objectivist by fact of the way you act. When you're actions address the requirements of your specific kind of existence; then, that means you are acting objectively; i.e., you're an Objectivist.

UncleJim, you wrote: "....only Objectivists know what love actually (in reality) is." That's an astonishing statement. Surely you don't intend it to be taken literally.

Barbara

Of course I do.

A person who is reality oriented is, by definition, an Objectivist. And since love is strictly a reality oriented concept then only Objectivists know what love means.

To the others love is God or some other undefinable idea.

Uncle Jim,

I don't think you understood my point. Obviously a human being is needed for an abstraction to exist. And obviously all of our concepts boil down to the sensory level (and integrating what comes prewired at birth and develops on its own).

But you cannot say "man is not omniscient" and call that knowledge if you do not allow for projections. The reason concepts are open-ended is that facts are taken to exist in the first place. Facts are discovered, not invented. We know some facts about some entities, but we also know there is a whole lot more out there.

Now how do we know that? Did we integrate it from sensory experience?

Of course not. We can't integrate sensations of sensations that never arrived to our brain.

Even the fact of "A is A" (law of identity) is based on a projection, i.e., that everything known or unknown at the present (and past and future) has this property.

Now how do we know something about the unknown?

Qua method, this problem is very similar to the one of the difference between words and concepts, except the referents are different.

This is why I said it is OK to use your meaning of "fact," but be advised that it is different than the one normally used in these discussions.

Michael

Thank you for the clarification.

I don't think I have said that facts are invented. I'm not sure you implied this but I thought I would clear that up anyhow. I do say facts are resultants of what is sensually known to exist; i.e., facts are naturally occurring mental existents. If this is what you meant when you said facts are discovered, then we are in agreement here.

To go further with the idea of discovery. The only thing that can be discovered is that which can be known to exist. This limits discovery to the absolute nature of physical existence. The resultant of discovery; then, is what fact is. This makes fact a sensual existent as opposed to a physical or intellectual existent.

Additionally; Man observes the absolute nature of physical existence; this is what causes fact to exist. For fact to exist there must be a reason for the existence of its existence. Evidence of the existence of fact is called a brain-image.

Yes I do understand that the way I use fact is somewhat different from the way [most] others use it. You're going to see this with other concepts as well. The reason for this is consistency in meaning. For example: When someone says an 'interpretation' is considered to be fact because it accurately explains another thing. I don't consider that 'interpretation' to be a fact. I call it a definition.

Then I say: When a definition is shown to be representative of fact, this means it has been validated to have been rationally constructed. In other words: The definition is shown to be an intellectual representation of that which it claims to exist in-fact.

Knowing what the facts are - is the naturally occurring sensual event called observation. Conceptualizing ones relationship with that which is responsible for the existence of fact - is a purposeful intellectual event. Observation is a brain centric idea where conceptualization is a mind centric idea.

Perhaps this gets me down the track a little further.

I have found that there is a great deal of unnecessary confusion in the use of language simply because we try to extend (or project) the meaning of words beyond necessity.

I have often thought that Rand was fairly ambiguoust in her statements about "man's life" being the standard of morality. For one thing, an ethical standard is supposed to be some kind of RULE used in deciding the good or evil of an action or actions. However, "man's life" is not a rule at all, but a thing. If the standard was "that which... is x", or "that which... is y", then it would be a rule, but this is not the case.

Also, Rand defined man as being a rational animal, but also said that man had to choose to be rational; therefore, for man's life to be the standard for her, she must mean either man's life in accordance with reason is the standard (which I guess would just point out the obvious fact that what is reasonable for man to do is what is right for man to do) or else she meant that man's life itself is the standard, and left the definition for the term man as used in her statement that man's life is the standard of morality to mean simply "an animal which has the CAPACITY to reason".

Also, Rand sometimes said that the standard of morlality was "man's life qua man". I have never been able to guess just what she meant by this statement.

I most recently have read about the objectivist ethics under Peikoff's descripition at aynrand.org

under the description of "A Brief Summary of Objectivism" and ended up deciding that for him in that article the only reason for ethics was to tell man principles that will help him to survive. However, I have met other Objectivists than myself and none of them think that "survival is the standard for Objectivism.

So I thought that I would ask you guys what it means to you all (individually of course) for man's life to be the standard of morality.

thanks.

To decide what next to do man needs a standard to compare the several available alternatives against. That stand is his life. That action which best addresses the needs of his life becomes the chosen action.

When man is acting as an individual this procedure of is defined under the concept of ethics. In other words: the ethical man is the properly functioning man.

When man is functioning as a member of society the procedure used to determine his proper actions is defined under the concept of morality. In other words: Morality applies mans ethical actions to society.

Notice: Morality is not different from ethics except that it includes the equal right of others to act ethically when they encounter ones-self. The consequences resulting from another's actions define the actions one can perform in a social setting. Notice: If the others actions are contrary to ones best interest they are not moral actions. This is because ones life is the standard used to determine whether an action is ethical or not.

Notice this very important point. When another is acting immorally; i.e,. when another's actions threaten ones life, then to act in such a way as to protect one from its consequences becomes one ethical responsibility.

Can any ethical principle be derived from the material nature of the cosmos?

Yes. But only if you are talking about self. To act ethically means to act in accordance with what one is.

Can any ethical principle by derived from our material, organic biological makeup?

Same as above.

Is there such a thing as an ethical fact?

No. Fact occurs prior to epistemology. Its a metaphysical concept. Fact a naturally occurring mental resultant of when a brain comes in contact with an absolute aspect of physical reality.

In what what does Nature "care" whether we are good or not?

No one has said it does. The nature of nature is absolute. You do something in nature and it will return the favor. The consequences resulting from actions taken in reality will exactly represent the rationality of those actions.

Or is ethics and morality a matter of convention and protocol?

Ba'al Chatzaf

Ethics explains how properly functioning humans-beings act when they are acting alone. Morality is the application of ethics to society.

Under Objectivism; the principle of rights appends to the individual person.

With that in mind, fathers have no more rights than mothers. Their child is equally the right of each to claim parenthood of. However; when nurturing is considered, the mother has obvious advantages. She has breast milk. And when protection is considered, the father has obvious advantages. He is stronger.

Proper child raising is a joint effort.

What you cannot know is whether my brain-image is a true representation of what your brain knows.

When I look at an apple my nervous system generates an image in my visual cortex. The adjective 'true' does not apply to this image. We could assume it must be fairly similar to yours if our descriptions are similar. For instance, if I said I saw a green apple and you said you saw a red one then we have a problem. One of us could be colour blind, lying, hallucinating, using the wrong word for 'green', etc. If everyone else agrees it's red then that will be called 'a fact', regardless of what I say. that's as close to true as we can get.

Under Objectivism. When I look at the same apple you are looking at we each know THAT the exact same thing exists. This is what brains do. They know THAT real things actually do exist. This brain function occurs automatically. You cannot look at something and not see it; i.e., not-know that it does exists.

The evidence proving THAT we know something is called an image. Brain images are considered to be the factual existence of that which physically exists.

The absolute nature of physical existence; when imaged by a brain, is considered to be its true mental representation.