Objectivism

[altonhare]

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.

From now on, then, we'll all just let "someone else" tell us what we mean instead of thinking for ourselves!

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

How so?

Because you said:

Objective: 3 a: expressing or dealing with facts or conditions as perceived without distortion by personal feelings, prejudices, or interpretations

So every statement by you is "distorted by personal feelings, prejudice, etc." How can you ever be certain of anything you state or think, then? You must always doubt it because of "distortion". Even if you identify your "distortions" you must doubt your ability to identify distortions without distortion...

You say you can be "more or less objective" but this is just another way of saying you cannot state with certainty. You can be more or less certain, but never absolutely certain. This is your claim.

However to state that you cannot be absolutely certain, it itself a declaration of absolute certainty. A contradiction. This is what it comes down to. Can you make a statement with certainty or only "more or less" certainty? The latter invokes a contradiction. The former invokes the ability for one to be objective.

I am not asking if you can give a 100% cast iron guarantee of something in particular, I'm asking if you're capable of saying anything with absolute certainty. Again, this question demands either a contradiction or acceptance that one is capable of arriving at absolute certainty.

At least one thing is absolutely certain, that one can be absolutely certain.

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.

Yet here you say that, by applying some specific criteria, you have arrived at certainty about your address and phone number.

So it's true that, by applying the right criteria (the philosophers call this epistemology it appears) one can arrive at certainty.

This is what it means to be objective, to conceive of the basic criterion of non contradiction (identity), which is axiomatic, and use it to develop criteria for evaluating all your other conceptions. It doesn't mean you can't be wrong. It means you can be certain that that a conception is wrong if it invokes contradiction.

When the misogynist mistreats a woman the objective observer can determine with certainty if his actions invoke contradiction and are wrong. Direct, pointed questions will reveal the misogynists contradictory premises for hating women.

I'm not a philosopher or by extension an Oist, I'm a physicist. If I've misrepresented Oist's use of objectivity then Plasm should make that clear to Grey Cloud. On the other hand If I'm just plain wrong, that's a different matter from simply using the word objective differently than Rand.

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.

A contradiction. Stating that one's philosophy is that philosophy is pointless. One could translate this as "This statement is meaningless", eventually it boils down to "something is nothing" i.e. this statement (something) has no meaning (is nothing). Non contradiction is an axiomatic criterion, I can reject these claims with absolute certainty.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Plasmatic,
As Alton has stated that he doesn't consider himself an Oist and I have absolutely no interest in Oism/Randism I have no intention of getting into a debate about it with you or anyone else.

My debate with Alton originated on the 'Philosophical Roots of Physical Causation' thread and Alton and I had wandered a tad off-topic there, so now we have been transferred to the 'Objectivism' thread and neither of us is an Oist, as far as I am concerned the debate has run out of legs. If Alton wishes to carry on then I will continue to reply or we can agree to disagree and move on.

I responded, on this 'Oism' thread, to Pfhoenix because he mentioned me in his reply to rcglinsk. The mods appear to have rattled his cage with their recent postings and for some reason Pfhoenix has decided to have a pop at me.

Likewise I responded to your posts here because they mentioned objectivity. However, I have no intention of debating objectivity with someone whose definition of the word is subject to the Randian definition.

I will leave this thread to the Oists but why don't you open a thread on the Comparative Method or something? I would much prefer to talk about myth than philosophy.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
Thanks for answering my how so? question.
You wrote:

You must always doubt it because of "distortion". Even if you identify your "distortions" you must doubt your ability to identify distortions without distortion...

Correct.

And on that point of agreement I suggest that, for the reasons I gave in the above reply to Plasmatic, we 'knock this on the head' as we say over here.

[altonhare]

Hi Alton,
Thanks for answering my how so? question.
You wrote:

You must always doubt it because of "distortion". Even if you identify your "distortions" you must doubt your ability to identify distortions without distortion...

Correct.

And on that point of agreement I suggest that, for the reasons I gave in the above reply to Plasmatic, we 'knock this on the head' as we say over here.

We can end it here, with the clarification that this was not an agreement, but rather a statement of your claim in my own words. I disagree with it.

[Grey Cloud]

Hi Alton,
I agree that you disagree.

You must always doubt it because of "distortion". Even if you identify your "distortions" you must doubt your ability to identify distortions without distortion...

The more I read this, the more I kike it. Wish I'd written it myself.

[Plasmatic]

Say GC I thought Id post this in order to show that while the Definition you gave is appropriate usage in the context of the discussion, philisophically [meaning NOT JUST RAND!] it denotes something else as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Objectivity_(philosophy)

Objectivity is both an important and very difficult concept to pin down in philosophy. While there is no universally accepted articulation of objectivity, a proposition is generally considered to be objectively true when its truth conditions are "mind-independent"—that is, not the result of any judgments made by a conscious entity.

It is also important to realize that it was your statement to Alton:

Could you also show how consciousness is objective? Are you saying that ones thoughts are always correct? Have you never been mistaken?

That is why I responded :

This is NOT what "objective" means at all to Oist! You would know this GC if you actually read the context these ideas came from. Maybe we should go to the thread on Oism to finally address this.

The "NOT" in that sentence was referring to your statement:

Are you saying that ones thoughts are always correct? Have you never been mistaken?

And is the reason why I said:

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.

So you see Im not rejecting the definition you gave but the equivocation you made about it and infallability. Now It is also important to realize that I was indeed addressing the 2 usages of Objectivity as well [philisophical and common].

[Pfhoenix]

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.

A contradiction. Stating that one's philosophy is that philosophy is pointless. One could translate this as "This statement is meaningless", eventually it boils down to "something is nothing" i.e. this statement (something) has no meaning (is nothing). Non contradiction is an axiomatic criterion, I can reject these claims with absolute certainty.

It is absolutely contradictory, pointless, and utterly meaningless. As far as philosophies go, for one that doesn't proclaim the rationale of slavery in some fashion, Existentialism is at the top of the Evil Philosophies list, as it is utterly detrimental to man living a life of happiness.

[altonhare]

I never intimated otherwise. Her 'philosophy' is crap. True Philosophers such as Plato expext you to read their work and think for yourself. The likes of Rand (and she is by no means the only one) expect you to learn her diefinitions of words and her her works. In other words she tells you how and what to think using her vocabulary. No great teacher has ever done this.

I agree that no great teacher would do this. However a great teacher would insist that the student actually have a definition and use it consistently. If the student can do this then their definition is valid.

They all essentially agree with Plato on there being a world of the senses and an underlying Reality beyond it, etc.

If everything (including every part of every human) is connected to everything else, how can there be anything that is "beyond the senses". By this it seems to me that you mean there are existents which are literally undetectable, that humans cannot interact with. But if every existent is interconnected as I have proposed (and as most people agree), how can there be any existent which I do not interact with?

On the other hand, maybe you are just distinguishing between conscious perception and subconscious perception. While we typically think of humans as only able to "detect" light in a certain range, in fact every atom of our bodies is interacting with every frequency of light. Additionally every atom of our bodies is pulling (and being pulled on) by every other atom in the universe (what we call gravitation).

Is this the essential distinction you're making GC? Is this the distinction between the "world of forms" and the "conscious world"?

Until someone can explain to me how anything can be viewed objectively, then her philosophy is crap.

Two ways I think you may be intended to mean "viewed", perception and conception. Perception is just the interaction of each of our constituents with every other constituent in the universe. This is, of course, "objective" in the strictest sense of the word because us and our constituents can only interact with anything else in a specific way in accordance with Identity. Conception, on the other hand, is the comparison between different percepts. This percept is different than that one. When we have a new percept the way we conceptualize it is by comparing it to previous percepts. It is a new and different percept so in order to understand it we compare it to previous percepts.

Herein lies an implicit assumption, that the new percept has precisely the identity of some combination/relationship of previous percepts. So when a scientist poses a hypothesis he is assuming that something has a specific nature in accord with all his/her previous percepts (a conception). The scientist knows that, because of identity, the hypothesis has a chance of being True as long as he/she does not invoke a contradiction. The scientist, though, cannot prove that the hypothesis/assumption is True unequivocally because the scientist would need to have "perceived everything". If the scientist has not perceived everything there is a chance that the Truth is a relationship among things he/she has not perceived, which is not accounted for in his/her hypothesis.

Does this make sense GC? I maintain that we can state what is definitely not a candidate for Truth with certainty. This is what objectivity means to me.

[altonhare]

Hegel says of being as being:

"it is not to be felt, or perceived by sense, or pictured in imagination... it is mere abstraction... the absolutely negative... just Nothing."

And isn't he right, as Parmenides was before him? Leave aside all those characteristics in which beings differ, and what is left behind?

section 4

What is left behind, independent of observation: shape.

Everything that has being independent of observation has shape. This is the one quality in which no object differs.

The categories have familiar names: quality, quantity, relation, time, place, action, being-acted upon

There are three categories as I have laid out.

For example, I'll describe something to you: it is backstage now; it is red; it is three feet high; it is lying down and breathing.

The redness, three-foot-high-ness, respiration and much else cohere in a thing which I have named in its thinghood by calling it an Irish setter.

Right, these are all conceptualizations. Independent of human observation there is no such thing as "redness, three-footness... etc." The object backstage is itself. It possesses a single quality independent of our observation or conceptualization, shape i.e. finiteness. Something that is, does not extend over the entire universe (boundless, shapeless, infinite... etc.)

These conceptualizations are either class II or class III existent, according to me. Irish Setter, Red, and three-feet high are class II (static), while respiration is a class III (dynamic).

The question that was asked of old and will always be asked by anyone who is alive enough to wonder about anything is, What is being? What is a thing? What is the thinghood of things? What makes our world a world of things at all?

Thing: Shape, finite.

Done.

[webolife]

I've stayed off this thread... maybe I shouldn't enter now...

From Altonhare...
Thing: shape, finite
same as "object"'
the stuff of physics

Premises:
Stuff exists, (the rule of identity).
The only stuff that truly exists is finite and has shape.
Physics is about stuff that truly exists.
Therefore anything that physics can't explain or describe is by definiton non-existent.
"Conceptualizations" are not stuff, they don't truly exist.
What are concepts made of, how do they occur, are they "real"? Physics is not about this.
Philosophy is about this.
So philosophy is about stuff that doesn't truly exist.
Contradiction.

Which of these clauses is true, and which are not?

[Plasmatic]

Web the answer to your question and the place where Alton learned it is in the other Objectivism thread with the rediculous title "another ism?".

I dont think youll find a post where hes claimed that "Conceptualizations" are not stuff, they don't truly exist." but I could have missed it!

"Conceptualizations" are the emergent consequence of entites in dynamic relationship. MInd does indeed exist just as music does, but it does not arise until the requisite components are in relationship [cd ,player,power source etc.]

Greeness exist but it is an secondary attribute of entities not an entity itself.

[bboyer]

Web the answer to your question and the place where Alton learned it is in the other Objectivism thread with the rediculous title "another ism?".

<cut>

Just info, that thread has been merged into this one.

[altonhare]

I've stayed off this thread... maybe I shouldn't enter now...

From Altonhare...
Thing: shape, finite
same as "object"'
the stuff of physics

Premises:
Stuff exists, (the rule of identity).
The only stuff that truly exists is finite and has shape.
Physics is about stuff that truly exists.
Therefore anything that physics can't explain or describe is by definiton non-existent.
"Conceptualizations" are not stuff, they don't truly exist.
What are concepts made of, how do they occur, are they "real"? Physics is not about this.
Philosophy is about this.
So philosophy is about stuff that doesn't truly exist.
Contradiction.

Which of these clauses is true, and which are not?

I never said conceptualizations were "non-existent". You are confusing my distinction between that which exists independent of an observer (i.e. independent of its interaction with anything else) and that which exists only as a result of interaction. That which exists independent of observation/interaction has shape, this is the only defining quality. When there is interaction and observation other qualities can be defined, but these only exist because of the observation/conceptualization of them. I draw this distinction but do not say that the latter is "nonexistent". Obviously consciousness, running, distance, etc. all exist because they are a specific interaction/relationship between the shape/object that is cognizant of, running toward, or is distant from, another shape/object.

Make sense web?

[webolife]

I hoped you would answer that way.
I don't believe I am confusing anything... I simply stated some premises and asked for your comment on their truth value.
Do you believe that it is possible to conceptualize something that truly exists without observing it?
And/or do you believe that our observation of it does not involve our interacting with it?
If our observation of it entails interacting with it, should not our perception be critiqued based upon our perspective?
Does this not include a realistic assessment of our underlying premises (ie. viewpoint, paradigm, assumptions)?
Do not the conclusions, based on our perception, based on our perspective, thereby tautologically reflect our premises?
In this way, is not the premise of objectivism untenable?

[Plasmatic]

[1].Do you believe that it is possible to conceptualize something that truly exists without observing it?...

[2].And/or do you believe that our observation of it does not involve our interacting with it?....

[3].If our observation of it entails interacting with it, should not our perception be critiqued based upon our perspective?...

[4].Does this not include a realistic assessment of our underlying premises (ie. viewpoint, paradigm, assumptions)?...

[5].Do not the conclusions, based on our perception, based on our perspective, thereby tautologically reflect our premises?..
In this way, is not the premise of objectivism untenable?

[1.]Abstraction in this fashion is only possible because of previous sensory perception. But yes it is possible ,yet the assertion remains arbitrary until observed evidence.

[2]. All observations involve both the identity of the observer and the observed i.e. causality. [this does not warrant a skeptics/subjectivist viewpoint!]

[3].Perception is always relevent to perspective but I think you are referring to conception. Perception always is from a particular place. One cannot recieve sensory input from where his senses are not i.e. apart from his senses![remote cameras still require sensory perception]

[4]. Premises refer to conception. Again it appears your equivocating conception with perception.

[5]. Not at all! One cannot even speak of "premises" without the input of sensory perception. Have you never been surprised? Have you ever laughed? Irony is created by the perception of something that is not what we expected conceptually.

Again this view point asks that one percieve by no means and no how. It states that because conception has a volitional process and is not automatic and infallible that its invalid.

All one needs do is realize that if your assertion was true even your own statement would be invalid and "untenable". The very assertion is its own negation. an invalid concept.