Okay, a little more dissent

[NickOtani]

I've already talked about how free-will in the Objectivist philosophy conflicts with their mechanistic view of the universe with cause and effect running everything. Nathaniel Branden talks about how it is man's nature to be free and that he is a prime mover, not really a negation of causalty but another kind of causation. This doesn't explain things, folks. Objectivism just doesn't get into this issue very far before declaring it self-evident. It's another axiom about which they don't have to discuss further.

Another problem Objectivists run into when they reject the mind/body dichotomy and all its varients: empiricism - rationalism, a priori - a posteriori, and analytic -synthetic; is that they can still use these concepts to explain their concepts. Objective truth is a priori, true independent of human knowledge, but it is perceived first through the senses, a posteriori. Yes, there is abstract truth, but that, they say, is abstracted from reality, which is experienced. The problem with that is that certain a priori knowledge, like space and time, must be around before experience is possible. Rand does not include this with her conceptual concepts of existence, identity, and consciousness. There seem to be many hidden axioms which Objectivists simply glide over.

And, of course, there are the several chicken and egg type problems. Objectivists say that man must "choose" to be rational, but what guides that intial choice to be rational? Is it an irrational choice? (I've asked this before, a few times already.) Also, concept formation accompanies language development in humans and Objectivists claim some conceptual knowledge is prior to comunication, thus prior to language or one's ability to comunicate with one's self, think. Okay, if conceptual thinking was possible before language, then in what language did one think?

Objectivists say there is only one reality, the one perceved by one's consciousness. However, this statement, itself, recognizes two realities, an external reality perceived by something internal, and a consciousness which perceives it. This is a dualism. I have quoted Objectivists on these pages as admitting that Objectivism is dualistic. So, there is a sort of mind/body acceptance after all.

Objectivists claimed to reject the mind-body and analytic-synthetic dichotomy, but they fabricated a false dichotomy between faith and reason. Since logic cannot verify itself, it is often grounded in faith. One has to have faith in logic. And, I still maintain that inductve reasoning does require a leap of faith. It may have a high degree of certainty, but it can be wrong. Science changed its mind on Pluto recently. Textbooks are being rewritten. Anyhow, science is pragmatic, not absolute. We may have to live with a little uncertainty. It gives us room to grow, even if it makes Objectivists crazy.

bis bald,

Nick

[Dragonfly]

Nick, I think you're putting too many subjects into one post, each of which would merit its own thread. Some of the subjects have already been discussed on this forum, like the AS dichotomy and the free will "problem", so it might be useful to look these discussions up to avoid repetitions of arguments and/or you could start separate threads for the different subjects.

[Danneskjold]

I'll go paragraph by paragraph here. Note that I can only explain to the best of my knowledge as a young human being and young objectivist.

And, of course, there are the several chicken and egg type problems. Objectivists say that man must "choose" to be rational, but what guides that intial choice to be rational? Is it an irrational choice? (I've asked this before, a few times already.) Also, concept formation accompanies language development in humans and Objectivists claim some conceptual knowledge is prior to comunication, thus prior to language or one's ability to comunicate with one's self, think. Okay, if conceptual thinking was possible before language, then in what language did one think?

People don't have to think in a language to have knowledge. If you couldn't think without language, then how would one go about creating a language? He wouldn't be able to think and therefore wouldn't be able to create a language. Also, I know a girl that immigrated to America from Vietnam. I once asked her what language she thought in to which she replied that she didn't know. Language is not a necessity for thought. When I'm doing a basic math problem, I don't think about it. 2+2=4. This is logic. I don't have to think about it in English to know this.

Objectivists say there is only one reality, the one perceved by one's consciousness. However, this statement, itself, recognizes two realities, an external reality perceived by something internal, and a consciousness which perceives it. This is a dualism. I have quoted Objectivists on these pages as admitting that Objectivism is dualistic. So, there is a sort of mind/body acceptance after all.

This would be true, if there was something to say that the reality that we percieve and our perception of reality is different. A=A but A=B if B=A and A=A.

Objectivists claimed to reject the mind-body and analytic-synthetic dichotomy, but they fabricated a false dichotomy between faith and reason. Since logic cannot verify itself, it is often grounded in faith. One has to have faith in logic. And, I still maintain that inductve reasoning does require a leap of faith. It may have a high degree of certainty, but it can be wrong. Science changed its mind on Pluto recently. Textbooks are being rewritten. Anyhow, science is pragmatic, not absolute. We may have to live with a little uncertainty. It gives us room to grow, even if it makes Objectivists crazy.

If all variables are taken into account then it doesn't take any faith whatsoever to believe in logic. The question with logic is whether or not all the variables in an equation are present. This is why Rand said, "Contradictions do not exist. Whenever you think you are facing a contradiction, check your premises. You will find that one of them is wrong." Because sometimes logic is applied incompletely or incorrectly.