CJM

Shane, I would NOT rely on Wikipedia for information on philosophies. For instance

Rand rejected epistemological skepticism as the skeptics claim knowledge "undistorted" by the form or the means of perception is impossible.

I haven't read anything in Rands work where she claims knowledge undistorted is possible. I have read attacks on skeptics and Kants, but they SEEM to stem from a misunderstanding of their positions. I can't rectify the Objectivist theory of epistemology and perceptions with Rands vehement disapproval of Kants Noumenal and Phenomenal distinction or the skeptics "no knowledge is certain" position.

Michael, I have read a lot of her work, and that's what lead me to this confusion, I am trying to get clarity on an issue that makes no sense. You, having read her work, know the style in which she deals with other philosophers(for instance, we shall take her negative mentions of Bertrand Russell which went unsubstantiated) , so to be honest it isn't much help. That combined with the fact she uses many words in different ways than their standard meanings make it seem almost impossible to disentangle her views.

Actually, your assessment is a pretty gross misrepresentation of what I have done. I didn't decide Objectivism or Rand had a problem by reading a damn message board, the posts I made their are simply related to my problem.

The terminology used by Rand in ITOE is often confusing.

For example, she speaks of "contextual absolutes"; but isn't the characteristic of "absolute" that it is independent of context?

And doesn't her sentence "Consciousness is conscious" make as little sense as e. g. saying "Tiredness is tired"?

Well saying existence exists is meaningless, and is in essence question begging, I would agree if that is what you are saying about those kind of statements.

But if that is the case, what exactly is Rands huge problem with Kant and the skeptics positions?

That's what I can't get.

I don't think so, I am not promoting Subjectivism with a capital S.

Peoples perceptions are specific to them, and do not reflect things as they are truthfully in an objective reality. That's what I mean by subjective.

An objective one would be one that does reflect reality as it is, and wasn't coloured by personal bias. I don't think these exist. According to what I have been reading, neither did Rand, but then I don't see what her problem was with the Skeptics etc. like I said before.

I agree, I just see it as fully subjective, not somewhat.

LOL, no, I'm a general semanticist! I spend my time here trying to translate one to another.

You would be surprised, I have seen people who thought they could adopt both Nietzschean and Objectivist principles.

I do not know where the idea of not identifying attributes comes from. Height, weight, color, shape are all characteristics which can be identified and integrated to arrive as entity identity by a set of differentiating characteristics.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. I don;t think attributes can't be identified. I was saying attributes and aspects of entities have identity.

My problem isn't that I don;t understand how concepts are formed. My problem is understanding why Rand had such a huge problem with the skeptics and Kant on epistemology when their positions don't contradict each other. Both hold knowing things as they are objectively(pre-Rand sense) is impossible. So where is the disputed point?

Here is the basic idea

Objectivism holds true knowledge of things as they are is possible: I disagree but her problems with philosophy and epistemology are totally justified.

Objectivism holds true knowledge of things as they are is impossible: I agree, and don't see how her position is at odds with Kants noumenal and phenomenal distinction and skepticism.

Relax. Lots of things are knowable and measurable, like Bob's IP address, when he last posted, what he said, whether it was edited, how many characters, how many misspelled words. With a little research you could discover his age, height, weight and hair color (if he has any left) without using an electron microscope. Undoubtedly Kolker is a man, mortal, has a countable set of appendages, net worth, U.S. patents and grandchildren. In a similar way we are able to know ourselves as well, although I depend heavily on documents, especially video. Nothing like having somebody follow you around with a video camera all day to see yourself objectively.

I think you misunderstand the problem.

It has to do with constitutes know, and knowledge.

To know something objectively, in the non-Rand sense(since I am not sure what the Rand sense seems to be), is to know it as it is. There are no differences between our knowledge and reality. Skeptics, Hume, Kant etc., the people Rand was so critical of in her work(although she obviously criticized people like Kant for other reasons too) held this was impossible. If Objectivism holds the same to be true, then what was with her vicious denouncement on these peoples philosophy of epistemology?

Ba'al Chatzaf I would disagree with your claim that what you described constitutes a possibility of knowing things as they are.

Genreal Semanticist, are you an Objectivist? I just don't see the basis of Rands condemnation of skepticism if she doesn't hold that true knowledge without error is possible, the same thing skeptics do.

I would agree with that definition of how we know anything, but I am a skeptic who thinks(please note the use of this word anyone who comes in here and decides that I can be countered with the stolen concept fallacy) that objective knowledge isn't possible, and that it is all subjective and there is no certainty in any of it, not an Objectivist!

Similar isn't the same. To know things as they are isn't to know something similar.

I can't get any consensus on this issue.......

How can we perceive reality as it is? If we can't know everything about anythings identity(be that a thing itself, an aspect of that thing etc),which we can't due to the limits of our senses, then how can we be said to know anything as it exists?

Something exists in reality and our nervous systems abstract from it to produce "objects". Even though each of us abstracts uniquely there is enough invariance that we can communicate our abstractions to each other. The link between our abstractions and "reality" is similarity of structure. I believe it this structure that is referred to in objectivism theory of concept formation.

I agree with this, but that doesn't explain Rands huge problems with Kant and philosophy in general that came before her.

Using the above definition, and using the words objective and subjective in their general meaning, our knowledge isn't objective, it is subjective. That is to say it isn't an exact representation of reality, but a representation coloured by each of our own personal biases.

That's just representative realism. We don't(and can't know the world as it is objectively, in the true sense of the word) but can only know our interpretation of it.

The difference between "objects" and reality seems no different than the difference between phenomenon and noumenon to me. So where does the controversy come from?

Rand in her writings, sets herself entirely against the notions of skepticism and Kants previously mentioned distinction.

Yet her "Objective" knowledge is knowledge which is subjective(in the words true sense), and imperfect. This is what people like Kant and the skeptics held. So what was her big problems with their ideas?

My problem is that Rand slammed the likes of Kant, Hume, the skeptics etc. for arguing that true objective knowledge isn't possible, yet(at least according to OO) her philosophy holds the exact same thing. Namely that we cannot know reality as it is.

It was a weird place, a lot of people there had a holier than thou attitude and a very collective style of thinking seemingly, despite the fact that their views on Objectivism contradicted each other.

Also, the fact that some tried to use the stolen concept argument without understanding it leads me to believe a lot of them are just mindless parrots.

Looking back, it comes down to a clear problem of two different distinctions of what objective knowledge entails. However THEIR idea of Objective knowledge is totally compatible with skepticism, so I don't see where the huge disagreement comes from.

http://forum.objectivismonline.net/index.php?showtopic=17764&st=180&start=180

The last couple pages are relevant in that thread.

If Objectivism doesn't hold that we can know the world as it is(as I thought it did, but seemingly was wrong)what exactly is Rands problem with Kants distinction of the Noumenon and Phenomenon? That's what Kants distinction basically comes down to, the difference between what we perceive and reality as it is.

The Objectivist position as argued in that thread, seemed to have been that perceptions happen in reality, and are of reality. For sight, real light rays really entering our real eyes and real neurons firing in our brain.

Thats fine, but that doesn't tell us anything about our perceptions or whether they are accurate as a representation of reality, at all.

Not at all.

This place seems a lot more level headed than O'ism Online, where people can't even seem to fathom the idea that Objectivism isn't an all encompassing system of perfection. Rand did basically nothing to solve the problem of causality and free will, and when she met things she didn't have strong arguments for just seemed to hold they were "self evident".

I am also more confused than ever about her epistemology, after getting a better understanding of it I can't understand at all why she had such major problems with Hume, Kant, Descartes and the logical positivists.

The more I read the more her philosophy seems to be direct realism, plus her own theories of free will and ethics, mushed together with the worst aspects of Nietzsche.

After visiting ObjectivismOnline(then getting put on lockdown for promoting "Subjectivism" lol), I am even more confused. What they seem to be claiming in relation to Epistemology is not that true knowledge of objective reality is possible, merely subjective knowledge by another name which they feel is very accurate.

If this is the case, what is there big problem with the "veil of perception" and the ideas of people like Kant?

The Objectivist position in relation to these issues would seem to suggest that we can gain objective knowledge, but thats not what they hold.

Yes, that is not the part lacking from the compatabilism formula.

That sounds like compatibilism to me.

Not at all. You can consciously commit to a course of action without having alternatives.

Thanks Bill!

Yup, I'm not an Objectivist and I am a compatibilist. A lot of confusion about "free will" exists while people often are not clear about the exact definition of "free will" and incorrectly think that they understand what it exactly means (hint: the "possibility of alternative choices" creates a seductive trap that must be avoided). But you can find that all in my posts, of course!

I have read a lot of what you posted(some of the links to older threads from other links I haven't read through yet) and I am having difficulty finding how you reconcile Determinism and free will. I have found a lot of you saying they are not incompatible, but very little on why you feel this is.

Unless you hold a less strict definition of what "free will" entails I am at a bit of a loss as to where you stand.

Cian:

I guessing you are Irish and can trace back to Tipperary ... Kilkenny maybe.

At any rate, welcome to OL.

Adam

Thank you, Adam.

What lovely questions! You will find a variety of different answers to them on this forum.

On Epistemology

Our senses are not infallible, but we have processes of validation. However, there are many of us here who argue that the world can't exist purely as a product of sensory stuff because such a world would be deterministic. Basically, we can validate both sensory knowledge and internal non-sensory apprehensions; further, there is no evidence at all that the universe consists only of sensory-perceived stuff. For example, consciousness cannot be perceived through sensory-perception. Therefore, the process of validation is a more important consideration for knowledge than the origin of apprehensions (external sensory, internal "subjectivity". This is not an Objectivist position, this is my own.

On Ethics

My take is that "our life" is essentially our identity, our values, our volitional presence. Our chosen values, whatever they might be, is our life... not our biological survival per se.

On Metaphysics

(see epistemology). It all depends on how you want to see consciousness. There have been some pretty ruthless debates on this forum about the existence or non-existence of volition. Neither side has budged, and I'm sure those who believe in determinism think I'm just as wrong as I think they are wrong to believe their beliefs. But from an Objectivist standpoint, volition does exist, it is a causal agent, and it is a necessary premise for any and all validation processes of knowledge. NBranden writes in detail about this in The Psychology of Self-Esteem.

Great to have you here!

On Ethics

Yes, I see I may have taken Rand too literally when that was said. Even still, it seems a contradiction to me. Her whole Ethics seem strangely constructed, I can't quite figure out how she is getting from A to B quite often, and her moral absolutism bothers me.

On the free will issue, even if volition can be said to exist, and can be called a casual agent, there seems no reason why it should be viewed any differently than the rolling of an inanimate object which crashes into and shifts another. "Volition" itself is still subject to causality, unless it comes from nothing.

That is an interesting stance on epistemology.

It would seem from reading those links that you are not very Objectivist, Mr Dragonfly, however, I will read them properly tomorrow when I have more time.

Your a compatibilist?! That's even worse! Free will cannot exist without the possibility of alternative choices, and more importantly, there ability to be carried out.

You are alive, reading English, at Objectivist Living, a forum. Valid. Well done.

This has nothing to do with the question I asked, which was based on the level of validity of our senses, or at least Rands ideas of them. Well done.

If I let my child die, say for instance abandoned her and ran away to save my own skin instead of fighting off robbers, or made no effort to rescue her from a burning building, or delegated her education to church and state instead of answering her questions honestly -- the life being betrayed is my own. There is no pride or joy in cowardice.

This is also completely off the point. Where was anything said about pride, joy or cowardice?

Either your life is your highest value, or it is not. It is my understanding that Rand holds that it is. If this is incorrect, I'd like to know. Id it is correct, then why can't a rational person hold some others life as a higher value than their own.

Solar volition? Lunar? Do rocks or mushrooms choose their fate? Yet all of them cause man plenty of problems, or rather opportunity to study, think, experiment, take purposeful action (build a roof, make a calendar, melt iron ore and forge tools, use bleach and sunlight to control fungi). As Miss Rand used to say, there is only one choice: to think or evade the responsibility of thinking. That's the extent of your volition. To be or not to be.

Again, this is off the point of my question completely. I don;t really know what to say to you about this one.

1. "Rand seems to hold that our perception of reality is objective reality. Is this so?"

She holds that what we perceive with our senses is objective reality, a different claim altogether.

I think this is pretty much the same statement structured differently, if you disagree could you point out why?

Our perception of reality is what we perceive with our senses. What we perceive with out senses is of reality.

2. "Objectivism seems to hold that a person's life should be [his] highest value. I see no reason why a rational person could not hold something else, e.g. [his] child's life to be of greater value than [his] own."

You might, in extreme circumstances, willingly risk or forfeit your life for a loved one or for a cause (as in a war). Galt's radio speech talks about this, and Branden has an entry in VoS on the topic. This could be a rational act because that these values matter as much as life to you and you wouldn't want to live without them. Thus the fact that you value your life is the reason why you'd do this, more explanatorily powerful and more fundamental than these particular values. Another reason valuing your life is of higher priority is that you will make a lot of choices and pursue a lot of goals that aren't related to your concern for your child; valuing your life will explain these, too.

But if your life is your highest value, if you are "To hold one’s own life as one’s ultimate value" by very definition you cannot hold any other value to matter as much as your own life. Is this not a contradiction?

3. Here you have simply stated your opinion. You'll have to give reasons if this is to be philosophically interesting.

This isn't my opinion at all, it is what I have heard numerous times in defense of Objectivisms satance on free will.

"Choice, however, is not chance. Volition is not an exception to the Law of Causality; it is a type of causation."

Leonard Peikoff “The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy

So, I take it from this and most of my other readings that volition is a causa sui, a logical impossibility as I am sure you are aware.

CJM,

Irish student?

Michael

Yes, History and Economics.

Notes: I am not a troll, here to try to convert anyone, or provoke hostility.

You aren't? That's no fun!

Ha!

CJM,

Welcome to OL.

Good questions and there are answers. I will let others respond for now.

(Just for one of your questions, quickly, volitional awareness is seen as a causal agent in the Objectivist literature I have read. This doesn't mean that there are no automatic prewired mental operations. The mind has both. If volitional awareness is a causal agent, free will is its nature as per the Law of Identity. This is confirmed by observation. That's the short version.)

Michael

Thanks for the answer and welcome.

Notes: I am not a troll, here to try to convert anyone, or provoke hostility. I am interested in Rands ideas and philosophy.

On Objectivist Epistemology

The validity of the senses, this is one I can't get my head around. Rand seems to hold that our perception of reality is objective reality. Is this so? This makes no sense to me, as it seems to suggest physiological infallibility on mans part. What we perceive is not objective reality, since our sensory systems act imperfectly.

On Objectivist Ethics

Objectivism seems to hold that a persons life should be their highest value. I see no reason why a rational person could not hold something else, e.g. their child's life to be of greater value than their own.

On Objectivist Metaphysics

The problem of free will and causality. This is the biggest stumbling block for me, as one who holds no belief in free will. The arguments I have found against this problem have seemed very weak to me. Free will is held to be self evident in Objectivism, but an argument brought for it seems to be that choice and free will are not contradictory to the law of causality, but a part of it, that volition is causality. Seemingly volition is a causa sui?

Any help on these problems would be greatly appreciated.

Edit: Apparently I can't spell.