primemover

Something Michael said that's worth repeating.... "In the classic example: "I have observed several white swans, therefore all swans are white," is a misuse of induction. The correct use is: "I have observed several white swans, therefore white swans exist as a category of reality."

I like Francois Tremblay's example..something like... Nutrition IS necessary for survival. If man chooses to survive, he OUGHT to obtain nutrition. A moral ought from a fact. next?

Do you understand what Bob said about background radiation? I don't understand what you are replying to. So the universe had a start. The only thing I know of that probably didn't have a start is existence itself, because non-existence only exists as a concept juxtaposed to the concept of existence. Reality has substance. Non-existence has zip. Something existed before the Big Bang or it was something out of nothing, a contradiction. So, where in all this is math leading the reality horse? And how much more top-down can you get than with reality exists, A is A? Everything, knowledge-wise, starts with observation. After induction, deduction, but I see the temptation to let the latter run off on its own resulting in all kinds of nonsense. --Brant This is my position as well. Causality assumes existence and is only possible within existence. To discuss the how is to enter into science and out of philosophy.

I don't see a problem with multiple universes or string theory in regard to Objectivism. The totality of existence is the totality of existence, period. If this universe we live in is a cause from something yet to be discovered then so be it. One things is for sure, it wasn't a conscious cause.

Yes, Hume and Descartes mainly. What draws people to it? Perhaps because it is emotionally satisfying in a way that a theist is emotional satisfied by thinking a magic man in the sky is watching them.

Worthy of quotation from Victor.

no..go take a reading comprehension class then go read Hume and see what he says about it. Hume does not say that you can't derive ethical premises from facts.

The scientific method works fine. And why do you think that is? Why isn't it that majority consensus or authority validates truths? The very foundation for the scientific methods rest on the very idea that A is A and that existence has primacy over consciousness.

No that is not what Peikoff says. He says that if you form your concepts properly, new information adds to the previous information. No, a new variable for time ( how fast your are moving through time) is what was discovered. Newtons work was very important for expanding on this knowledge. I could have swore he was asking you for your definition of "knowledge".

Rather the Objectivist explanation is correct or not is another topic. The fact is that the is/ought situation is not a problem for the Objectivist ethics.

You are talking about Hume's is/ought? If you read Hume he did not say that you cannot go from is to ought, only that if you do it must be explained.

Not whatever one thinks. Some propositions will have more evidence for them or be more likely than other ones and it is a good idea to realize the difference. Ok so you agree that there is a method for determining what constitutes knowledge and what doesn't?

When I am not certain about something I am careful not to say I know such is the case and then I may state what I think a good probability of what the case might be . But I never claim that I know something and simultaneously not sure about it. Again with this wishy washy definition of knowledge to be whatever one thinks. No , in that if I find out I was wrong about X, then I am honest and say "well damn I guess I didn't know about how X functions after all." I wouldn't still claim to know how X functions. Bu then again, I would have said that I was under the impression that X functioned that way.

You seem to see a bit too often all kinds of emotions in other people, do you think it would invalidate their arguments, while you have no emotional commitments at all? In this case my statement is just the advice to use a sensible definition of "knowledge". You shouldn't take words like "certain" out of their context, which is the common error in this kind of (hardly original) questions. Your definition of knowledge seems to be whatever one thinks, period.

Again with your strawmen. Has any Objectivist claimed to know the future? Again with your future business! are you sure? Yea a great indicator of the truth of something is how old it is or by how many people think it is true.:thumbsup:

Whoever said that we can't know anything? Your position is that what we "know" as true can be overturned at any moment. If something you "knew" as true is latter false then all along you did not really know it. Thus we can't know anything.

Strawman. I wouldn't pretend to know the future and say that the bus will arrive at x time. I would say that I know for certain what time THEY SAY the bus will arrive. So you admit that you know for certain when they say the bus will arrive? "But your example doesn't actually follow unless you use "knowledge" in a ridiculously limited sense." Knowledge means to know something about reality. You position seems to be that anything we know can be overturned at any moment therefore how can you assert that we know anything?

is it a strawman? I'm simply carrying over his reasoning to another area. It's his reasoning. I just changed the subject matter. Now of coarse he doesn't say that about omnipotence but if he were to be consistent he would.

When someone says we can't be sure of anything what they are saying is that ultimately we can know nothing. IOW's because we are not omniscient we can't know anything. We are condemned for having senses and rational faculties that each has a specific identity. Are you with me so far?

I'm not talking about isolating anything. If I'm driving and I see a river I am certain that I am seeing a river. What would the conversation with you and your wife sound like as you crossed the mississippi river. Wife:Oh wow honey look it's the Mississippi river. you: Well it may be the Mississippi river but you can never be sure about that you know. Do you talk like that? Whos philosophy you more closely emulate in your day to day life? And I don't have to be omniscient to know something.

I was aware of this difference when I formulated the parallel and it completely misses the point. You admit that we can be certain that 1+1=2 yet you cannot admit that we can be certain that when two (lets keep it simple for discussions sake and say two) variables interact within reality we can be certain of their consequence. Rather or not there are unknown variables in either case misses the fundamental point. In one case you are allowing for contextual certainty and in another you are not. In other words, because we are not omniscient, we can never be certain. Or in contrast, because we are not omnipotent, we can never do anything.

Let me address the argument that because not everyone agrees on what ethics is it is subjective, (or sometimes worded), someone can chose or reject certain ethical systems in favor of another therefore ethical values are subjective. I will do this by drawing a parallel. Is the scientific method subjective? In other words, can the scientific method be whatever I want it to be? What if we take a poll and see what the majority thinks the scientific method is , is that what it is going to be? Of coarse not, the scientific method is not subjective. It is not subject to majority vote , emotional whim or authority. This is because existence has primacy over consciousness. One can embark on a quest for knowledge and freely chose not to employ the scientific method but we would not say that because someone can chose this that the scientific method is subjective. We can have an entire population on this planet and yet many argue that the principles of the scientific method are not correct . Some say that ESP or praying is a method of gaining knowledge. Using the reasoning from moral subjectivist and applying it to the scientific method, the scientific method must be subjective. It must be whatever we want it to be because no one agrees. We can freely chose to embark on a quest for knowledge while not employing the principles of the scientific method, but WE ARE NOT FREE of the consequences reality will deal us when we employ methods other than the principles it embodies. Likewise , we are free to accept any code of ethics that comes along or that was passed down by society or by religion but we are not free to avoid the consequences reality will deal to us from choosing such systems. The barometer for objectivity is NOT what one group, person or authority THINKS is correct. The barometer of objectivity is reality. Reality sets the terms no matter what man THINKS the case is.

I came up with a parallel of the following skeptic argument and I think it brings to light in a greater contrast the lunacy of such "reasoning". The argument is that since we cannot know of variables that may affect a situation we cannot be certain of the conclusion we have based on the variables we do know of. The lunacy of this type of reasoning is exposed in greater contrast when you apply it to mathematics. We know that 1+1=2. If a skeptic is to be consistent ( I know getting a skeptic to be consistent is far fetched but let's all just pretend for a moment.)..... if the skeptic is to be consistent, he must answer that 1+1 doesn't necessarily equal 2 because there may in fact be an unknown variable in the math problem that he doesn't know about. Such as 1x + 1 = 3. A rational person realizes that we now are no longer be dealing with 1+ 1 = 2 while the skeptic being unable to conceptualize higher than a lobotimized cock roach considers this proof that we can't be certain of anything.

It's true that ethics is only in regard to beings with volition. But Rand's definition of life is much broader than that, it's intended to apply to all living entities not just us. Perhaps we could be of more help if you specified what your purpose is here. Are you trying to understand why one's life should be the standard in ethics? To prove that that's the case? Shayne Yes..like I said above, I am trying to solidify this in my mind. It's my own mental way of "chewing" ( as(Rand would say) ideas. I like the deductive format of reasoning because it helps me see things in a systematic way in my mind. Though I do recognise that induction is how we know of the world and how we can even have the premises we use in deduction to begin with.

Since you're using Rand's definition I assumed you intended to address the same topic. Her definition is intended to apply to all life, not just conscious life. Again, Binswanger analyzes her definition intensely in his book. Shayne I'm not sure I follow you. Ethics is in regard only to rational entities that have the ability to chose between things. But I will put that book on my "to read" list", thanks.