A Note on Definitions

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Morality Games But overall, the logical form of Objectivist epistemology does not not acknowledge such limits [of knowledge]. When you state you have found the ideal society, the ideal human nature, the ideal economy, the ideal morality, etc, it basically equates to saying you have found the ideal reality, or that you know every abstract of significance. The only thing you don't know is how these abstracts should play out in every particular situation, and that is not a strong restraint.

That's incorrect. Objectivist epistemology does not embrace the idea that I, or you, or anyone else knows everything. I know that I do not know everything. What the Objectivist epistemology does promote is the idea that one can know something and that certainty is possible.

I hold the conviction that my thoughts on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics are logically correct. I do not hold (nor did Rand) that Objectivism knew every "abstract of significance". What I think and what Rand thought was that Objectivism laid down general principles from which other truths, concepts, abstractions, and premises can be established.

I'm not speculating anything. I know what Ayn Rand says other philosophers say, and I know what these philosophers really say, and the two, contrary to her claims, are not the same thing, anymore than Richard Rorty (a pragmatist, albiet one in a different style than myself) accurately represents the views of his opponets, except he is willing to admit this. It is also annoying she thinks the only rational explanation for the behavior of these philosophers is that they are twisted and malevolent, a mentality she seems to have passed along to you.

Until you give actual examples of where she does this, it is an empty speculation.

Furthermore Rand did not really waste her time in trying to figure out why certain philosophers believed in certain things. What she did believe was that Western philosophy embodies a conflict between Plato and Aristotle and on both sides of this war lie various philosophers with various ideas. She categorized various views of philosophy such as subjectivism, intrinsicism, pragmatism and others and disproved those. As far as I know, she never dealt with a particular philosophers view explicitly. Some of her close friends did (Leonard Peikoff dealt with Kant, another close philosopher discussed Hume, and there are others).

The only philosopher she really felt malevolent about was Immanuel Kant. A philosopher who managed to discredit knowledge with superb consistency.

I don't know where you get off in making personal remarks about what I choose to agree with and what I choose not to agree with and what relevancy it has to what we are discussing other than the fact that you would rather insult me personally than discuss the content of my ideas.

Some failures are intrinistic to the audience. A mentally handicapped person, for example, utterly lacks even the potential to comprehend certain ideas.

So if the audience has the intrinsic quality of not being able to understand you, then why bother to express your opinion to them in the first place?

You can't engage in an intellectual debate with someone who abiturarily decides that it is acceptable to change the conventional meaning of a term without explaining in particular (in each and every individual situation) why they deserve do to this, or who is unwilling to admit they don't deserve to do it when they are presented with an argument based on sounder reasoning.

Agreed.

[Morality Games]

That's incorrect. Objectivist epistemology does not embrace the idea that I, or you, or anyone else knows everything. I know that I do not know everything. What the Objectivist epistemology does promote is the idea that one can know something and that certainty is possible.

Which is what I said? I agree we can know something, and a feeling of certainty is possible, but if Objectivism contends certainty in-itself is possible, as a mental state, then my objections were spot on, since absolute certainty on any subject would necessarily require complete knowledge of everything that pertains to the situation. This is not possible, since, even if you acquired all the essential knowledge, you could not be certain of the validity of that knowledge until you acquired all information pertaining to it as well, etc, until eventually you find yourself on a hunt to know everything.

I hold the conviction that my thoughts on metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, and politics are logically correct. I do not hold (nor did Rand) that Objectivism knew every "abstract of significance". What I think and what Rand thought was that Objectivism laid down general principles from which other truths, concepts, abstractions, and premises can be established.

Ayn Rand considered her conceptions of economics, politics, and human nature to be necessary consequences of the underlying principles of her epistemology, and her epistemology as necessarily true in so far as humans are real and reality is actual. Once again, my objections were spot on.

You just employed a logical fallacy in the other thread (aka, because living precedes any other objective it must necessarily be more valuable, and this in spite of the fact cavemen necessarily come before us, and in spite of the fact people can provide good reasons for thinking otherwise, etc), so the logical correctness of your thoughts is up for debate.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Morality Games Which is what I said? I agree we can know something, and a feeling of certainty is possible, but if Objectivism contends certainty in-itself is possible, as a mental state, then my objections were spot on, since absolute certainty on any subject would necessarily require complete knowledge of everything that pertains to the situation.

Here is the Objectivist conception of "Certainty" as stated by Leonard Peikoff:

"Idea X is "certain" if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X is conclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative …"

You just employed a logical fallacy in the other thread (aka, because living precedes any other objective it must necessarily be more valuable, and this in spite of the fact cavemen necessarily come before us, and in spite of the fact people can provide good reasons for thinking otherwise, etc), so the logical correctness of your thoughts is up for debate.

Since it is in a different thread you will find my response there.

[Morality Games]

"Idea X is "certain" if, in a given context of knowledge, the evidence for X is conclusive. In such a context, all the evidence supports X and there is no evidence to support any alternative …"

That's not certainty proper. It is probably enough to give people a feeling of certainty, but objectively, the potentiality that there has been an oversight in the process of knowledge-acquisition (perhaps some internalized bias distorted your interpretation of the flow of information, perhaps some feature of reality is incomprehensible, perhaps you have decided further research is not necessary because the information as is will be sufficient for your ends, etc) is too high.

Additionally, the more certain someone is an idea is correct, the less able they will be to revise their position in light of new information -- they will have invested too much emotion into the old idea to give it up easily. This makes adaptability and growth more difficult, so it is questionable if certainty is even a desirable feeling.

[Objectivist]

Quote by: Morality Games It is probably enough to give people a feeling of certainty, but objectively, the potentiality that there has been an oversight in the process of knowledge-acquisition (perhaps some internalized bias distorted your interpretation of the flow of information, perhaps some feature of reality is incomprehensible, perhaps you have decided further research is not necessary because the information as is will be sufficient for your ends, etc) is too high.

We've discussed before the Objectivist position on the accuracy of the senses and objective knowledge-acquisition. Have you ever studied Objectivist epistemology? And what epistemological theory do you follow (I thought at first since you called concepts "images" you were a nominalist, but I can't honestly say I know enough about nominalism to say for sure).

If all evidence collected shows something to be true, one can be certain that it is true. Anyone, including yourself, can investigate more, look at the theories of other people, and present more evidence. If the evidence contradicts your theory then your certainty is shattered.

Contrast this formulation of certainty with a formulation of "possible" and "probable". Is there always a chance that your theory will be proven wrong? Yes. Does that mean it is irrational to hold a theory with certainty when no past evidence and no new evidence has contradicted it? I don't think so.

Additionally, the more certain someone is an idea is correct, the less able they will be to revise their position in light of new information -- they will have invested too much emotion into the old idea to give it up easily. This makes adaptability and growth more difficult, so it is questionable if certainty is even a desirable feeling.

I disagree. Someone who is open to reason, logic, and reality would be willing. I'm sure you acknowledge the fact that people have the freedom to change their opinion and that people change their opinion frequently.

I think that philosophy should be treated as the fundamental foundation for any understanding of existence. Since it is fundamental, a philosophic principle must be able to correctly represent all the facts and concretes of existence (in this sense every proper philosophical principle is wide in scope). This means that a philosophical principle should not adapt and change with the growth and discovery of knowledge, but rather, should be able to encompass it in its broad scope.

Once philosophical principles have been laid down with certainty in the context that I mentioned (I'm still using that context even though you disagree with it), any logical extension or practical application of that principle must be investigated thoroughly and formulated in a way that cannot be contradicted.

[Morality Games]

We've discussed before the Objectivist position on the accuracy of the senses and objective knowledge-acquisition. Have you ever studied Objectivist epistemology? And what epistemological theory do you follow (I thought at first since you called concepts "images" you were a nominalist, but I can't honestly say I know enough about nominalism to say for sure).

I have read commentaries.

I am a pragmatist. We are typically conceptualists, anti-foundationalists, fallibilists, and anti-skeptics on epistemological matters.

However, right now I am arguing more like a realist than a pragmatist.

If all evidence collected shows something to be true, one can be certain that it is true. Anyone, including yourself, can investigate more, look at the theories of other people, and present more evidence. If the evidence contradicts your theory then your certainty is shattered.

My (subjective) feeling of certainty, on basis of my logic, is shattered. Absolute mathematical-physical (objective) certainty was never possible to begin with, as the number of objectives which pertain to the situation are limitless and cannot be quantified in full.

Contrast this formulation of certainty with a formulation of "possible" and "probable". Is there always a chance that your theory will be proven wrong? Yes. Does that mean it is irrational to hold a theory with certainty when no past evidence and no new evidence has contradicted it? I don't think so.

Lack of contradiction can inspire confidence, but an informed person, in so far as they consider their situation fairly and impartially, realizes that it does not equate with certainty. They would remember that every expert in every field in history held certain a number of propositions on basis of observed non-contradiction, but that did not stop others from storming in and annihilating or defacing their views in light of new information. The sheer vastness of everything and the limited nature of a being makes absolute mathematical-physical certainty, the only certainty quantifying existence point-for-point, impossible.

I disagree. Someone who is open to reason, logic, and reality would be willing.

You just described a small segment of the human population. Moreover, since intelligence is in large part genetic, it is questionable how capable the majority of humans are to comprehending any of these things.

I'm sure you acknowledge the fact that people have the freedom to change their opinion and that people change their opinion frequently.

I don't see how this matters. My observation goes that people have their own ideals (be it Christianity, communism, libertarianism, or Objectivism) and form new opinions in light of these ideals, which are a very intergrated part of their identity. Information is distorted to match up with the logical structures of these ideals. Opinions come and go, but an ideal is usually there to stay, and that is the main determinant of the content of one's opinions.

I think that philosophy should be treated as the fundamental foundation for any understanding of existence.

I think you should reduce that sweeping metaphysical project to a more narrow scope.

Since it is fundamental, a philosophic principle must be able to correctly represent all the facts and concretes of existence (in this sense every proper philosophical principle is wide in scope). This means that a philosophical principle should not adapt and change with the growth and discovery of knowledge, but rather, should be able to encompass it in its broad scope.

A principle is more like an occasional necessary evil than something which should be enthusiastically embraced. General statements are typically as unstable and prone to failure as Windows ME.

Once philosophical principles have been laid down with certainty in the context that I mentioned (I'm still using that context even though you disagree with it), any logical extension or practical application of that principle must be investigated thoroughly and formulated in a way that cannot be contradicted.

The last part cannot be done -- the only non-contradictions are the apparent non-contradictions of logic and language. It is possible one's contradictions are not just apparent, but mathematically-physically true, but impossible to be mathematically-physically certain they are.

I don't have a problem with the term 'cerainty' being used in everyday conversation to denote a confidence that something is real or true, but I have an issue with an epistemology which uses the word so flippantly as Objectivism. Moreover, I most definitely don't like how the 'certainty' attitude is extended to suggest temporal features of human society, like laissez-faire capitalism, are validified in much the same way the law of gravity is validified, which strikes me as more of a religion than anything born of the spirit of realism.