Objectivism

[altonhare]

As I've already stated, my views on objectivity are subject to my intelligence, experience, etc, etc.

According to your definition of objective, and everything you've said, nobody can know anything with certainty.

They cannot even know that they do not know everything with certainty, with certainty.

Interesting.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

According to your definition of objective, and everything you've said, nobody can know anything with certainty.

How so?

[Pfhoenix]

When I learned what little philosophy my degree afforded me, they said that Aristotle thought one could deduce the truth of a situation by thought alone, while more modern philosophers emphasize repeatable experiments.

Incorrect.

There are two methods of learning (three if you discard logic/reason and simply make things up as you go) - induction and deduction. Induction is the process of abstracting from reality through observation, experience, and experiments. Deduction is the process of reasoning from a set of starting concepts and coming to a logical conclusion. Aristotle was very much a champion of induction as the primary means of gaining knowledge (regardless of his other writings on religion and faith, he was the start of the scientific method nonetheless).

Contrary to what Grey Cloud would have you believe, Plato postulated a hidden realm of truths by which all real world objects are shadows of. The Forms represent perfection (to include perfect knowledge), and Plato's ultimate conclusion was that our senses alone cannot provide the truth; in other words, induction is not reliable as reality itself (as we perceive it) isn't reliable. Plato still postulated a true reality - just one we can't observe directly ourselves.

It took Kant to go the logical next step - that since our senses can't be trusted (thanks to Plato), there isn't even an objective reality independent from observers at all. Each person's reality is as real (to them) as everyone elses, and it's the act of perception that creates reality (to each person). This makes reality subjective, and is the foundation of quantum physics and rampant mysticism today.

[altonhare]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

According to your definition of objective, and everything you've said, nobody can know anything with certainty.

How so?

Tell me, can you state or know something with certainty or not?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Pfhoenix,

Contrary to what Grey Cloud would have you believe, Plato postulated a hidden realm of truths by which all real world objects are shadows of.

And where did I do this exactly? I have, on more than one occasion, recommended that people read original works rather than rely on a third party's views. I cannot recall denying that Plato postulated such a 'hidden realm'. I thought I was the one who introduced the word 'anamnesis' into the discussion (on more than one occasion).

Plato still postulated a true reality - just one we can't observe directly ourselves.

We may not be able to observe it but we can still access it.

It took Kant to go the logical next step - that since our senses can't be trusted (thanks to Plato), there isn't even an objective reality independent from observers at all.

What do you think Kant's noumena are then, if not an objective reality independent of the observer?

Each person's reality is as real (to them) as everyone elses, and it's the act of perception that creates reality (to each person). This makes reality subjective, and is the foundation of quantum physics and rampant mysticism today.

It does not make reality itself subjective, only a person's interpretaton of it.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
You wrote:

According to your definition of objective, and everything you've said, nobody can know anything with certainty.

How so?

Tell me, can you state or know something with certainty or not?

Hi Alton,
Awfully bad form, old boy, the answering of a question with a question. But I shall answer anyway. I know for certain my present address, telephone number, etc. I do not know for certain who I am, what I am, where I am or why I am.
Now will you do me the courtesy of answering my question?

[Pfhoenix]

Plato still postulated a true reality - just one we can't observe directly ourselves.

We may not be able to observe it but we can still access it.

So some people claim - by definition, any "access" to *any* form of reality is observation, for it is through our senses that we observe/detect reality. So, whether you like it or not, there is only one way to get to reality - through observation. Everything else is wishful thinking, deception, or rationalization.

It took Kant to go the logical next step - that since our senses can't be trusted (thanks to Plato), there isn't even an objective reality independent from observers at all.

What do you think Kant's noumena are then, if not an objective reality independent of the observer?

I never credited Kant with consistency. However, the overarching theme to Kant's formalized philosophy (as found in Critique of Pure Reason) is the supremacy of consciousness, that our consciousness defines reality for each of us, that reality is itself different for each of us. It makes reality subjective. As a consequence, he championed deduction over induction, as evidenced by the wording he used when describing and using "noumenon" - that of intuition, not reasoning / thought. Noumenon amount to Plato's Forms, completing the circle.

Each person's reality is as real (to them) as everyone elses, and it's the act of perception that creates reality (to each person). This makes reality subjective, and is the foundation of quantum physics and rampant mysticism today.

It does not make reality itself subjective, only a person's interpretaton of it.

I find your attempt to weasel ironic (if not at the very least hypocritical). There is a very clear difference between reality and perception, divorced from potential errors in interpretation. Reality is, plain and simple. Perception is how we measure/observe reality. The conclusions we draw from our perceptions is our interpretation, and the key to it all is understanding when perception is done without errors (like being color blind) and when interpretation is without error (the use of logic to reason, i.e. proper and consistent induction). You can't do anything about errors in perception other than try to account for them. The errors in interpretation, however, is the real topic of philosophies and is what is at the heart of Plato's (and Kant's) philosophical errors.

[altonhare]

We may not be able to observe it but we can still access it.

What is the difference between observing and accessing?

But I shall answer anyway. I know for certain my present address, telephone number, etc. I do not know for certain who I am, what I am, where I am or why I am.
Now will you do me the courtesy of answering my question?

What makes you so certain of your address and phone number? Perhaps you are mistaken. If your thinking and observation are all inherently subjective what makes you certain of anything:

It does not make reality itself subjective, only a person's interpretaton of it.

So your interpretation of your address and phone # are subjective. How can you be certain of them?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Pfhoenix,
You wrote:

So some people claim - by definition, any "access" to *any* form of reality is observation, for it is through our senses that we observe/detect reality.

Perhaps I am not one of those people? I personally associate 'observe' with vision and the eyes. I do not, for instance, observe music or the scent of a flower. However, for the sake of argument I will accept your broader meaning of 'observe'.

Everything else is wishful thinking, deception, or rationalization.

Can you prove that? You are arguing from a position of ignorance. Just because there are things which you have not experienced, or observed, does not mean that they cannot be experienced or observed. I have experienced anamnesis. I care not a jot whether you believe me or not but please do not tell me what I can or cannot do. I meditate, do you?

Re Kant: I'm not here to defend Kant. If that is your interpretation of Kant then fine. But personally I cannot see anything intrinsically wrong with the notion of the supremacy of consciousness. At the end of the day, as Kant pointed out, if one didn't have it then all the input from the senses would be meaningless.

Grey Cloud wrote:
I

t does not make reality itself subjective, only a person's interpretaton of it.

To which you responded:

I find your attempt to weasel ironic (if not at the very least hypocritical).

How is this weaseling? [If by weasel you mean dodge the issue] I mean exactly what I say there. And why is it hypocritical?

Reality is, plain and simple.

Really? In your estimation perhaps it is.

The errors in interpretation, however, is the real topic of philosophies and is what is at the heart of Plato's (and Kant's) philosophical errors.

Again that is your subjective opinion, not necessarily mine.

Oh, and you forgot to answer this:
Contrary to what Grey Cloud would have you believe, Plato postulated a hidden realm of truths by which all real world objects are shadows of.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
I have addressed the observe issue in my reply to Pfhoenix. I should have used the word 'comprehending' as I normally do when speaking of that gleaned through meditation. Comprehending isn't perfect either but it's the best I've come up with so far.

You wrote:

What makes you so certain of your address and phone number? Perhaps you are mistaken. If your thinking and observation are all inherently subjective what makes you certain of anything

My friends call at the house and call me on the phone. I gave them the address and the phone number. They never go to the wrong house and rarely dial the wrong number. Also the postman brings mail with my name and address on.
And you still didn't answer the question from a couple of posts ago.

So your interpretation of your address and phone # are subjective. How can you be certain of them?

My address and phone number are subject to where I currently reside, if I move house they will change. The second sentence is a repeat of the one above and is answered there.

[Plasmatic]

Hi Plasmatic,
You wrote:

GC your equivocating "objective" with infallable. If you read the Oist info would see this is the mistake in your rebuttal and why its a strawman.

No, I am not equivocating anything. I have maintained that 'objective' is a relative term and that one cannot be objective full stop.
I have no need to read the Oist literature as I gave my definition of objective. To wit:

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective.

And, just for the sake of completeness, here is my defintion of 'subjective' from the same source:

3 a: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal — compare objective 1b b: relating to or being experience or knowledge as conditioned by personal mental characteristics or states
4 a (1): peculiar to a particular individual : personal <subjective judgments> (2): modified or affected by personal views, experience, or background <a subjective account of the incident> b: arising from conditions within the brain or sense organs and not directly caused by
external stimuli <subjective sensations> c: arising out of or identified by means of one's perception of one's own states and processes <a subjective symptom of disease> — compare objective 1c
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subjective

I realise that we are now in the 'Objectivism' thread but in the original context of my posts, the rest of your post is irrelevant.

Uh You seem to be getting a bit confused here. In "the original context" you said:

For the record apart from the fact that I disagree that anyone can be objective full stop, I have no bone to pick with Rand as such. None of her other stuff appears particularly original so I prefer to deal with the original which generally means the Greeks.

To which I added:

If not you would be dishonest to continue your criticism ofthe Oist ideas as you have no concept of what they are actually saying. The ENTIRE criticism you are asserting along with everything the article Arc posted misses the whole problem completely!

My response is indeed to your assertion that was related particularly to Oisms claim about ones ability to be objective !

My response explains all the reason why your usage is an equivocation in particular relation to your comments about Oisms assertions.

By the way your definition:

3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/objective


Reads like a a definition of what skepticism claims consciousness is incapable of. This assertion invalidates ALL of knowledge!

As I said It asks that knowledge be arrived at by no means no how.

I owe you some more post from earlier .Ill get back to you.

[rcglinsk]

When I learned what little philosophy my degree afforded me, they said that Aristotle thought one could deduce the truth of a situation by thought alone, while more modern philosophers emphasize repeatable experiments.

Incorrect.

There are two methods of learning (three if you discard logic/reason and simply make things up as you go) - induction and deduction. Induction is the process of abstracting from reality through observation, experience, and experiments. Deduction is the process of reasoning from a set of starting concepts and coming to a logical conclusion. Aristotle was very much a champion of induction as the primary means of gaining knowledge (regardless of his other writings on religion and faith, he was the start of the scientific method nonetheless).

Contrary to what Grey Cloud would have you believe, Plato postulated a hidden realm of truths by which all real world objects are shadows of. The Forms represent perfection (to include perfect knowledge), and Plato's ultimate conclusion was that our senses alone cannot provide the truth; in other words, induction is not reliable as reality itself (as we perceive it) isn't reliable. Plato still postulated a true reality - just one we can't observe directly ourselves.

It took Kant to go the logical next step - that since our senses can't be trusted (thanks to Plato), there isn't even an objective reality independent from observers at all. Each person's reality is as real (to them) as everyone elses, and it's the act of perception that creates reality (to each person). This makes reality subjective, and is the foundation of quantum physics and rampant mysticism today.

Nice explanation:) If your in the mood to elucidate more, is there any way you could tell a similar story to help me understand Kant, Hegel and the Existentialists?

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Plasmatic,
I am not in the least confused. I was arguning with Alton's definition/assertion of objective. If he is toeing the Oist line then that is his problem not mine. I have no need to read the Oist
literature as I am responding to Alton. If Alton's interpretation of objective is incorrect according to the Oist line then it is he who should read the Oist literature (assuming he considers himself an Oist).
The definition I gave was from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a universally recognised English language reference and one that is universally accessible to anyone. I have no need whatsoever to subscribe to arcane definitions of common English words.

You wrote (of the M-W definition of objective):

Reads like a a definition of what skepticism claims consciousness is incapable of. This assertion invalidates ALL of knowledge!

I don't understand what you mean by the first sentence and I disagree that the defintition invalidates all of knowledge. I consider it knowledge that the Sun rises in the East. Is this now invalidated because of the entry in the M-W dictionary and my agreement with it?

As I said It asks that knowledge be arrived at by no means no how.

Again, I don't understand what you are saying here. Who or what is the 'it' that asks that knowledge be arrived at by no means? Certainly, nothing I have ever read asks that.

[Pfhoenix]

Nice explanation:) If your in the mood to elucidate more, is there any way you could tell a similar story to help me understand Kant, Hegel and the Existentialists?

I summed up Kant before, so I'll synopsize Hegel and Existentialism for you.

Hegel spent his professional philosophic life trying to incorporate the concept of opposites as being integral to man and his life. While Hegel's ideas aren't derived from Kant's, they are similar to Kant's in the areas of religion and politics. Much of Hegel's ideas are patently absurd and lengthy, drawn out rationalizations due to his insistence on using perceived opposites and known contradictions to prove, rather than disprove, higher level concepts. While a very creative thinker, to be sure, Hegel was very wrong, and he was instrumental in helping later thinkers, such as Karl Marx, setup false dichotomies in order to justify socio-political ideas (like workers versus businessmen in industry).

Existentialism is a "philosophy" about, literally, nothing. Existentialists see no point to life or living; they declare all to be pointless, to include having philosophy and trying to make sense of anything (a study in irony to be sure). Existentialism is largely due to Nietzche's work, influenced by general acceptance of much of Hegel's thoughts. Existentialism is an exercise in wasting time itself, as it produces nothing, claims to solve nothing, and is actively harmful to a healthy mind and life.

[Plasmatic]

If Alton's interpretation of objective is incorrect according to the Oist line then it is he who should read the Oist literature (assuming he considers himself an Oist).

Well Ill let Alton speak for himself of wether he agrees with and is expressing a Oist interpretation of what objective means in regard to perception,and conception. It appears to me that he is.

Im not asking you to read it Im saying if you dont at least have a particular example to establish your context then you cant comment on what it assert without being dishonest.

The point being then that if he is, your responses are missing the actual assertions he is making as well.

The definition I gave was from the Merriam-Webster dictionary, a universally recognised English language reference and one that is universally accessible to anyone. I have no need whatsoever to subscribe to arcane definitions of common English words.

You wrote (of the M-W definition of objective):

Reads like a a definition of what skepticism claims consciousness is incapable of. This assertion invalidates ALL of knowledge!
I don't understand what you mean by the first sentence and I disagree that the defintition invalidates all of knowledge. I consider it knowledge that the Sun rises in the East. Is this now invalidated because of the entry in the M-W dictionary and my agreement with it?

No no ,Im referring to the sceptics assertion that the definition of objective you gave is impossible. This sceptic idea makes all knowledge impossible. Refer to my previous post you said was "irrelevent".

As I said It asks that knowledge be arrived at by no means no how.
Again, I don't understand what you are saying here. Who or what is the 'it' that asks that knowledge be arrived at by no means? Certainly, nothing I have ever read asks that.

Skeptics ,subjectivist etc.. Again refer to my previous post. You dont realize this is what your subjectivist ideas are asserting.
Yes consciousness has identity. It interacts with and processes everything else according to its identity and theirs [everything it percieves]. To say that this is objective is to affirm identity. It is what it is. Conceptions [I dont mean making little GCs ] identity is such that it requires a particular method that corresponds to its particular function.This method unlike sensory perception is Not automatic. The process that takes out of perception the facts of reality [conception] is volitional and therfore potentially can be done wrong.


This does not make "reality" subjective. It simply affirms the fact that everything has an Identity. Conceptions identity is one that does not automatically identify . It requires a volitional process that must be learned.Therefore for a concept to be correct it must properly identify the automatic data of perception.

The identification of this particular method of conception is the purpose of Epistemology.