Objectivism 101

[Karl]

Best start with the basics. Instead of cluttering up other people's threads with philosophy I thought it only right that I should invite others to play in my sand pit. No biting, spitting, punching or weeing, but tough, polite argument is most acceptable.

 

 

For those who have no idea what Objectivism is, it is the philosophy of Ayn Rand. It is based heavily on Aristotles philosophy but veers away from it in several areas including metaphysics. It's also a highly contested, derided and despised philosophy. The internet is full of myths regarding Rand and here we see that no one is really playing the ball, they play the man-or in this case the woman.

 

The statement which really sums up objectivism is: existence is identity; consciousness is identification

 

Consciousness and existence are axioms.

 

Existence exists and consciousness must be conscious of something. From there we get the statement that existence is prior to consciousness. That existence exists regardless of consciousness being conscious of it.

 

Objectivism is a complete moral philosophy beginning with existence and ending with action. It does not offer a prescriptive kind of ethics, but explains why they are a philosophical necessity for a creature with free will.

 

I'm going to use Leonard Peikoffs guide to Objectivism at least to get an outline and arrangement. I'm not Peikoff and I'm certainly not Rand, but this will be my interpretation of their writing.

[Karl]

Part 1

 

Reality and the axioms of existence, consciousness and identity.

 

Philosophy is a necessity. It isn't simply a subject like physics, cookery or sociology. If man wishes to function at all he requires a philosophy. The reason is because man is a conceptual being by nature and he must choose everything he does. In order that he chooses wisely he must build himself an internal guide. That guide is his philosophy. All men are stuck with the necessity of having one. Your only choice is whether you define that philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulous logical deliberation-or let the subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalisations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentifiable wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated into a mongrel philosophy and fused into a single solid weight - SELF DOUBT-like a ball and chain in a place where your minds wings should have grown.

 

Existence, consciousness and identity as the basic axioms:

 

The concept of existence is the widest of all concepts and subsumed everything. The concept does not specify that a physical world exists-only that there is something, something as against nothing.

 

Existence is identity; consciousness is identification

 

Existence exists and consciousness is conscious of something and not no-thing. These two axioms cannot be escaped, they are irreducible primaries. Whether you know the shape of a pebble or the structure of the solar system the axioms remain the same: that it exists and you know it.

 

The final axiom is implicit in the first two. It is the law of identity: to be is to be something, to have a nature, to possess an identity. A is A. That which is the sum of its existent attributes and characteristics.

 

Existence is identity as opposed to existence has identity. Identity is not separable. Either implies the other. If something exists, then something exists; and if there is a something, then there is a something. The fundamental fact cannot be split.

 

Existence differentiates a thing from nothing. This is the primary identification on which all others depend. It is a recognition in conceptual terms that the thing IS. Identity indicates not that it IS. But that IT is. One thing is differentiated from another cognitively. The perspective is not: it is (vs it is not) , but: it is this (vs it is that).

 

An axiomatic concept write rand, is: the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analysed or reduced. It is implicit in all facts and knowledge. It is a fundamental given and directly perceived or experienced and requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.

 

Axiomatic concepts cannot be defined, their referents can only be specified.

 

Being implicit knowledge from the beginning , existence, consciousness and identity are outside the province of proof. Proof is the derivation of a conclusion from antecedent knowledge, and nothing is antecedent to axioms. Axioms are the starting points of cognition, on which all proofs ultimately depend. One knows this not by inference but by direct perception.

 

Of course you may wish to refute these axioms, but they have built in protection: they must be used and accepted by everyone including those who wish to attack them. There is no way to prove these axioms are true, but any attacker must rely on these axioms at the base of their own knowledge. All arguments presuppose these axioms, including the argument that all arguments presuppose these axioms.

 

That you cannot prove you exist ignores the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge. Existence can only be proven from a position of non existence and consciousness from a position of unconsciousness. In other words to become a zero gaining knowledge about a zero. Neither is an axiom a matter of arbitrary choice that can be accepted or denied, anyone attempting to utter such a thing has accepted it automatically.

 

A reliance on these axioms establishes their position as a foundation for all knowledge, but it is impossible to convince the reader of this until he accepts the axioms himself. Anyone who denies them is thus beyond argument and can be ignored. No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality does not convince a person by its self evident nature, then reason has been abdicated.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Karl

[thelerner]

 

That you cannot prove you exist ignores the fact that proof presupposes existence, consciousness and a complex chain of knowledge. Existence can only be proven from a position of non existence and consciousness from a position of unconsciousness.

 

A reliance on these axioms establishes their position as a foundation for all knowledge, but it is impossible to convince the reader of this until he accepts the axioms himself. Anyone who denies them is thus beyond argument and can be ignored. No one can think or perceive for another man. If reality does not convince a person by its self evident nature, then reason has been abdicated.

I may not be able to prove to myself that I exist, wouldn't want to unless I had much time and pot.  But I can prove to another that I exist with the punch test.  I.E you tell the existentialist to punch themselves as hard as they can.  It won't hurt them because they won't do it, their sense of self preservation overcomes there philosophical theories.  Then you punch them, solar plex or under the nose. 

 

I think this experiment proves that the hitter is an existing individual; perhaps a nasty one.  It shows the hittee/philosopher that logical structures, maps, fingers, moons are secondary to reality and actions taking place therein.

 

When I was taking Objectivism in kindergarten

the first rule was- Get out of the way of moving objects.   

Edited May 3, 2016 by thelerner

[Karl]

Part 2 causality as a corollary of identity.

 

Our first grasp of existence is as babies. We must first reach the implicit concept of identity in order that we distinguish this object from that object from out of chaos. At this point we have learned of the concept of entities. This is an axiomatic concept but it is not an axiom. The grasp of identity and then entity makes possible the discovery of the law of causality.

 

Entities though axiomatic can only be specified ostensibly by pointing at solid things that are perceived by the senses. An entity can be a solar system, BMW or a subatomic particle. These entities are reducible to combinations, components or distinguishable aspects of entities in the primary sense.

 

We don't necessarily observe all the attributes, actions and relationships, but only some of them. A by product of this process are categories such as qualities (red, hard), quantities (five inches, six pounds), relationships (to the right, father of), actions ( walking digesting). None of these categories has metaphysical primacy, or an independent existence; all are merely aspects of entities. There is no 'red' or 'hard' appearing seperately to the entity. There are no floating actions: there are only actions performed by entities-the law of cause and effect-and every entity must act in accordance with its nature. Things have definite ways of acting.

 

Cause and effect is therefore a universal law of reality. Every action has a cause and that cause is the nature of the entity which acts. The same cause in the same circumstances will lead to the entity performing the same action. This is not to be taken as proof of the law of cause and effect. This is however the observation and it is self evident that an entity must act in accordance with its nature.

 

"The law of causality" Ayn Rand sums up "is the law of identity applied to action". All actions are caused by entities and the nature of the action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature.

 

Causality is explicit knowledge representing the beginning of scientific outlook on existence as opposed to a world of miracles and chance. Intellectuals such as David Hulme never discovered causality for themselves, they counted on it whilst rejecting it. This appears to be a fairly common example of the use of the stolen concept.

 

Causality is best classified as a corollary of identity. A self evident implication of already established knowledge. A corollary is not an axiom, it is not self evident apart from the principles at its root. A corollary is not a theorem, it does not permit or require a proof of process . It is a new angle on an established principle following on from the principle on which it depends.

 

The law of causality does not state that every entity has a cause. The universe itself does not come into being or pass away. The concept of cause is inapplicable to the universe, the universe contains or causes, natures and actions. By definition there is nothing outside the universe to act as a primary cause. Only non eternal entities have causes. It is action which is caused by entities.

 

By the same token the causal link does not relate two actions. A billiard ball striking another is commonly said to be the cause of the motion of the second. This implies that the balls can be dispensed with completely and that it is the motions themselves that are the cause of other motions. That is a ridiculous idea. Motions do not act, they are actions. It is entities which act and cause. It is not the motion of the billiard ball which causes the effect it is the entity (billiard ball) which does so by a certain means. To test the principle one need only replace one ball by an egg or a soap bubble.

 

The law of causality states that entities are the cause of action- not that every entity has a cause, but that every action does; and not that the cause of the action is action, but that the cause of the action is entities.

 

Many will cite Heisenbergs uncertainty principle that we cannot specify both the position and momentum of subatomic particles, that their action is not entirely predictable and the law of causality breaks down. This is a non sequitur, a switch from epistemology to metaphysics , from knowledge to reality. Even if it were true that owing to a lack of information we could never predict a subatomic event, it would not show that, in reality, the event was cause less. The law of causality is an abstract principle; it does not, by itself, enable us to predict certain occurrences ; it does not provide us with knowledge of particular causes or measurements. Our ignorance of certain measurements does not affect their reality or the consequent operation of nature.

 

Causality, in the objectivist viewpoint is a fact independent of consciousness-whether Gods or Mans. Order, lawfulness, regularity do not derive from the cosmic consciousness ( argument from design). Nor is causality a subjective form of thought that happens to govern the human mind (Kant). For the objectivist it is a law inherent in being qua being. To be is to be something and to be something is to act accordingly.

 

One may no more ask: who is responsible for natural law (who caused causality) than one may ask: who created the universe (what totality created totality) the answer to both questions is: existence exists.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Karl

[ralis]

Given the overall theme of 'TheDaoBums', how does this even relate to Buddhism, Taoism and so forth and yet you continue to posit an extreme materialist point of view. It is unfortunate that  Aristotelian logic has been used to subjugate by narrowly defining existence.

[Karl]

Part 3 existence as possessing primacy over consciousness.

 

The primacy of consciousness viewpoint is that consciousness has the power to alter and control the nature of objects. A does not have to be A if consciousness does not wish it so. This rejects all of the basic axioms; it is an attempt to have existence and to eat it. To have it: because without existence there is no consciousness. To eat it: because existence is malleable to mental content-to shrug off the restrictions of identity in order to obey desires. This is to want existence to exist as nothing in particular. Unfortunately existence IS identity.

 

This isn't proof of the primacy of existence, that's a bit later.

 

Proof pre-supposes the principle that facts ARE NOT malleable. If they were, there would be no need to prove anything and no independent datum on which to base any proof.

 

If existence is independent of consciousness, then knowledge of existence can be gained only BT extrospection. Nothing is relevant to cognition of the world except date drawn from the world. Every step and method of cognition must proceed in accordance with the facts. Every fact must be established directly or indirectly by observation. This is the policy of following reason.

 

If a man accepts the primacy of consciousness then it is consciousness that controls existence. It is then unecessary to confine oneself to studying the facts of existence. Introspection itself becomes a means of external cognition. One should then bypass the world in the quest to know it and look inwards, searching for elements in ones mind which are detached from perception (intuition, revelations, innate ideas). In relying on such elements, the knower believes he is not, ignoring reality; he is merely going over the head of existence to its master (human or divine). He is seeking knowledge of facts directly from the source of facts , from the consciousness that created them. This kind of metaphysics implicitly underlies every form of unreason ( something I attempted to point out to BES ).

 

The primacy of existence principle is a key objectivist tenet. Modern western philosophy has generally accepted the opposite. It is dominated with attempts to construe existence as subordinate. There are three versions distinguished by the answer to the question 'upon who's consciousness is existence dependent?'.

 

1. Super naturalistic (Plato and Hulme). Existence as a product of cosmic consciousness-God. It is implicit in Platos theory of forms and later with Christian development. God is an infinite consciousness that creates existence. Epistemologically, this variant leads to mysticism: knowledge rests on the communications from the supreme mind to the human, either as revelations to select individuals to impart, or innately planted ideas within everyone. It's been abandoned by most modern philosophers but persists in the question "who created the universe". It is useless to object to this question pointing out infinite regression (if the universe needs a creator then doesn't God also require a creator). Here we have consciousness as the starting point, but certainly not existence itself. A religious person refuses to begin with the world which we know exits: he jumps to the unknowable even though such a procedure explains nothing. This isn't rational argument but the Christian Middle Ages.

 

2. The phenomenal world which is the secularised philosophy of Immanuel Kant. God gives way to mans consciousness. Implicit in this theory is the social version of the primacy of consciousness developed by Hegel and then Marx. No single individual is responsible for the universe , but mankind as a group. Knowledge is said to rest on a consensus of thinkers ( something seen in the consensus of scientists and anthromorphic global warming). Thus Governments are prepared to fudge figures whilst asking for faith, optimism and Keynesian animal spirits. If people believe in a policy then it will be succesful-build it and they shall come.

 

3. The personal version (once the premise of sceptics). Each mans consciousness creates and inhabits its own private universe. "What is true for you is not true for me"

 

Objectivism rejects them all on the same grounds: existence exists. If existence exists then then it is a metaphysical primary. It is neither derivative, manifestation, of some true reality at its root such as God, society or ones urges. It is reality. As such it's elements are uncreated and eternal, and it's laws immutable.

 

Even Aristotle and Parmenides were not consistent in this regard. Only Ayn Rand brought her philosophy to a ful, systematic expression of the primacy of existence.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Given the overall theme of 'TheDaoBums', how does this even relate to Buddhism, Taoism and so forth and yet you continue to posit an extreme materialist point of view. It is unfortunate that Aristotelian logic has been used to subjugate by narrowly defining existence.

It's in off topic. If you don't want to read it, go elsewhere. As explained, this isn't a materialistic philosophy, it counters the muscle Mystics completely. If you stick with it we will get around to that, if you don't, never mind.

 

I had considered putting it in personal practices, but many, as I do, won't generally post in personal forums in case their input is deleted. Unless it turns nasty I see no reason for that kind of protection. In due course I will refute your very important point.

Edited May 3, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Part 4 the metaphysically given as an absolute.

 

The objectivist view of existence culminates in the principle that no alternative to a fact of reality is possible or imaginable. All such facts are necessary.

 

The metaphysically given are facts inherent in existence apart from human action-man made facts. Man made facts are objects, institutions, practices or rules of conduct that are man made. For instance Death is a metaphysical given, but murder is man made. The solar system is a metaphysically given and communication satellites are man made.

 

Absolute in this context means necessitated by the nature of existence and therefore impossible to change by human, or other agencies. A fact is necessary if it's non existence would involve a contradiction. A fact that obtains by necessity, is a fact that obtains by identity.

 

Necessity in the present sense is not a datum above and over existents; it is the identification of existents from a special perspective. To be, is to be necessary.

 

In holding the metaphysically given as an absolute, Rand is not denying the power of creativity. The power to adapt the materials of nature to ones own requirement-such as the irrigation of a barren desert to make is bloom. A barren desert is a metaphysically given, but man has the power to change the circumstances responsible for its barrenness. The desert necessarily remains barren. Creativity is not the power to create something out of nothing,more to make an entity act contrary to its nature. It is, instead a re-arrangement of natural elements that had not existed previously. Francis Bacon: 'nature to be commanded must be obeyed'.

 

The difference between the metaphysically given and the man- made is crucial to every branch of philosophy and human life. They must be treated differently according to their nature. Metaphysically given facts are reality. They must be accepted without evaluation. Man made facts, being products of choice, must be evaluated. The man made cannot be aquiesced to merely because it exists. The man made must be judged then accepted, rejected or changed when necessary.

 

The attempts to alter the metaphysically given is to attempt to re-write reality. A common example is those who condemn life because man is capable of failure, frustration and pain. They yearn for a world in which man knows only happiness. Yet if the possibility of failure exists, then it necessarily exists (it is inherent in the fact that achieving a value requires a specific course of action and man is neither omnipotent, nor omniscient in regard of that action). A variant on this is that death makes life meaningless, but if living organisms are mortal, then they are necessarily so by the nature of the life process. To rebel against death is to rebel against life and reality. It is to ignore the fact that indestructible objects have no need of value or meaning.

 

Respect for reality does not guarantee success in every endeavour; the refusal to evade or re-write facts does not make one infallible or omnipotent . However, such respect is a necessary condition of succesful action and it does guarantee that, if one fails in an undertaking, he will not harbour a metaphysical grudge as a result. He will not blame existence. The thinker who accepts the absolutism of the metaphysically given recognises that it is his responsibility to conform to the universe and not the inverse.

 

Plato concluded that matter is a principle of imperfection in conflict with the highest ideals of spirit. In a perfect universe, he thought, matter should obey consciousness. Since it does not, Plato believed the universe flawed. A perpetual battleground between the noble and the actual.

 

When men expect reality to conform to their wish, simply because it is their wish, they are doomed to metaphysical disappointment. This leads to the dichotomy: my dream vs the actual which thwarts it, or the inner vs the outer; value vs fact; moral vs practical ; the spiritual vs the material realm. Here lies the mind/body dichotomy which has corrupted every branch of philosophy. It does not have its root in a real conflict, but a breach between some men's consciousness and existence. The basis of the theory is not reality, but human error; the error of turning away from reality, of refusing to accept the absolutism of the metaphysically given.

 

The man whom follows the opposite policy comes to the opposite conclusion. He dismisses the metaphysical dichotomy. A faculty of perception is not an adversary of the world, or the body. It has no weapons with which to wage any such war; it has no function except to percieve.

 

( we might see the same kind of wars played out by current political policy. The war on poverty, drugs, terrorism etc. It is a clear falsity, no such war can ever be fought. What is being foolishly attempted is the war between men's spirit and reality).

 

Ayn Rand holds that the conventional viewpoint is wrong.; man does not have to make impossible choices between the spiritual and material sides of life. It is not a clash, or warfare, but integration, unity and harmony.

 

The theory of mind body harmony, like its platonic antithesis, has its roots in a real correlate. Its root is the fundamental harmony and serenity that flows from accepting as an absolute, the axiom that existence exists- and there we might glimpse the correlation with the Dao as it might be understood .

Edited May 4, 2016 by Karl

[dust]

So far, not too bad. As a starting point for ontological and epistemological discussion I find few problems. But there are assumptions from the beginning that belie a truly unbiased account going forward.

 

 

Philosophy is a necessity. It isn't simply a subject like physics, cookery or sociology. If man wishes to function at all he requires a philosophy. The reason is because man is a conceptual being by nature and he must choose everything he does.

 

If a human wishes to function in a certain environment it requires a philosophy.

 

Humans have progressed to a conceptual existence but we are not born with concepts, we must learn them. It is conceivable that a human grows up like Mowgli, without contact with 'developed' human culture, and so without language.

 

If a human can function in certain environments without language, and therefore without anything more than the most vague 'concepts', it would be no more conceptual in nature than a chimp or a panda, with no more capacity or responsibility for 'choice'.

 

 

Your only choice is whether you define that philosophy by a conscious, rational, disciplined process of thought and scrupulous logical deliberation-or let the subconscious accumulate a junk heap of unwarranted conclusions, false generalisations, undefined contradictions, undigested slogans, unidentifiable wishes, doubts and fears, thrown together by chance, but integrated into a mongrel philosophy and fused into a single solid weight - SELF DOUBT-like a ball and chain in a place where your minds wings should have grown.

 

Let's say that we do all have language, do all have choice. You present a false dilemma, offering only 2 very much black-and-white options -- but neither option is entirely true.

 

You say that the subconscious choice is "thrown together by chance" -- but so is the conscious one. Everything that happened before your own existence was out of the control of you as an entity, and most things that continue to happen you are unaware of and unable to control. Your "disciplined process of thought" cannot possibly escape chance.

 

And you cannot possibly escape your subconscious. But we also cannot escape our programmed nature -- the way we have evolved to behave, as a species and as individuals. And we shouldn't necessarily want to, in my opinion. Our 'animal nature' has a lot to offer.

[Karl]

Part 5 idealism and materialism as a rejection of basic axioms ( especially for Nikolai and Ralis :-))

 

As the previous part might have enlightened readers to why I believe there is some connection between the over arching aims of Daoism, then this part hopes to finally lay to rest the accusation that Objectivism is either dressed up Idealism, or extremist materialism.

 

The idealists-Plato,Plotinus,Augustine, Hegel-regard reality as a spiritual dimension transcending and controlling the world of nature, which they regard as deficient, ephemeral, imperfect or as partly real. Since spiritual has no meaning other than pertaining to consciousness, the content of true reality in this view is some function or form of consciousness. This amounts to nothing more than the primacy of consciousness-to the advocacy of consciousness without existence.

 

Ayn Rand describes this epistemology as mystic "Mystics of spirit". Mystics because they hold that knowledge (true reality) is not derived from sense perception, or reason based on it, but from an otherworldly source such as revelation or its equivalent. A typical example is religion and the belief in the supernatural that is common to all idealist creeds.

 

Supernatural means 'beyond nature'. It would have to be a form of existence beyond existence; a thing beyond entities; a something beyond identity. It is an assault on everything man knows about reality. It is a contradiction of rational metaphysics and a rejection of the basic axioms of philosophy. It simply brushes aside everything perceived or known and replaces it with unproven myth.

 

The popular version of idealism is the belief in a super natural God:

 

Is God the creator of the universe ? Not if existence has primacy over consciousness.

Is God the designer of the universe ? Not if A is A. The alternative to design is not chance (as Einstein said God doesn't play dice). It is causality.

Is God omnipotent? Nothing and no one can alter the metaphysically given.

Is God infinite? Infinite is larger than any specific quantity-it is no specific quantity. It would be a quantity without identity. As A is A every entity is finite; it is limited in the number of its qualities and extent;this applies to the universe also. One can suggest a number sequence, or the division of a line is infinite, but the reality is that wherever one stops counting or dividing, there one is at the finite.

Can God perform miracles ? A miracle is not merely the unusual. A woman giving birth to full size elephants would be a miracle.

Is God purely spiritual ? Spiritual means pertaining to consciousness and consciousness is a faculty of certain living organisms. Such a thing would require to be non-conscious.

 

If one is to postulate a supernatural realm, one must give up reason, proof and definitions, instead relying on faith. Objrctivism advocates reasons mans only means of knowledge therefore it does not accept God or the supernatural. We reject every spiritual dimension, force, form, identity, power that is alleged to transcend existence. We reject idealism and only accept reality.

 

This does not mean Objectivists are materialists. Materialists-Hobbes, Democritus, Marx, Skinner champion nature but deny the reality or efficacy of consciousness. Consciousness, in this view, is either myth or useless by product of the brain. In objectivist terms this amounts to the advocacy of existence without consciousness. It is the denial of mans faculty of cognition and therefore all knowledge.

 

Rand describes materialists as "Mystics of muscle". "Mystics", because, like idealists, they reject the faculty of reason. Man, they hold, is essentially a body without a mind. His conclusions, accordingly, reflect not the objective methodology of reason and logic, but the blind operation of physical factors, such as atomic dances in the cerebrum, glandular squirtings, S-R conditioning, or the tools of production moving in the contortion known as the dialectic process.

 

Despite their implicit mysticism, materialist typically declare that their view point constitutes the only scientific, or naturalist approach to philosophy. The belief in consciousness, they claim, implies super naturalism. This claim represents a capitulation to idealism.

 

Consciousness is an attribute of perceived entities here on earth. It is a faculty possessed under definite conditions by certain groups of living organisms. It is directly observable by introspection. It has a specific nature, including specific physical organs and acts accordingly. Lawfully. It has a life sustaining function: to perceive the facts of nature and to enable the organism to act succesfully. It is neither unnatural or supernatural. There is no basis for the suggestion that consciousness is separable from matter, let alone opposed to it. No hint of immortality and no kinship to a transcendent realm.

 

Like the faculty of vision (one of conscious aspect) and the body, the faculty of awareness is wholly, this worldly. The soul is not mans ticket to another realm; it is a development of and within nature. It is biological datum open to observation, conceptualisation and scientific study.

 

Materialists argue that consciousness is unnatural on the grounds that it cannot be perceived by extrospection, has no shape, colour or smell-all of ehich applies equally to the faculty of vision. One may just as well argue that the eyeball is unreal because it cannot be perceived by introspection, does not have the qualities of a process of awareness, cannot theorise itself, suffer neurosis, or fall in love. These two arguments are interchangeable. It makes no more sense arbitrarily to legislate features of matter as the standard of existence and deny consciousness, than to do the reverse. The facts are that matter exists and so does consciousness.

 

Materialists sometimes dismiss consciousness because it cannot be defined. This overlooks the fact that there cannot be infinite regressions of definitions. All definitions reduce to primary axioms. The concept of matter, by contrast does require a definition as it is not axiomatic, it does not as yet have one. To provide one is not the task of philosophy, but of physics. As far as philosophers are concerned, matter denotes merely the objects of extrospection-that which all such objects are made. In this usage, the concept of matter, like the concept of consciousness can be specified ostensively.

 

There is no valid reason to reject consciousness or to struggle to reduce it to matter; not if such a reduction means to define it out of existence. Even if consciousness was one day explained scientifically as a product of the physical, this would not alter the observed fact.

 

The monist insistence that, despite the observed facts, reality (or man) can have only one constituent, is groundless. It is an example of re-writing reality. The materialist equation of physics with science is equally groundless. Science is systematic knowledge gained by the use of reason based on observation. In using reason, however, one must study each subject matter by methods and techniques suited to its nature. One cannot study history by the methods of chemistry, biology by economics, or psychology by physics. Pythagoras attempted to equate mathematics with cognition and construe the universe as numbers. The modern behaviourist with far less excuse, commits the same error in regard to physics.

 

I behaviourist wants to deal with entities he can weigh and measure just as the physicist does. For him, consciousness represents a stumbling block that denies his dream of turning men into predictable robots. Instead of dealing with consciousness he decides that it must therefore unreal and sweeps it beneath the rug in an effort to stamp it out. He is attempting to rewrite reality by deliberate ignorance. The primacy of consciousness use to deny consciousness !

 

A philosophy that rejects the monism of idealism or materialism does not become dualist. That term is associated with platonic or Cartesian metaphysics; it suggests a belief in two realities, in the mind body opposition, and the souls independence of the body. All of which are denied by objectivism.

 

None of the standard terms applies to objectivist metaphysics. All the conventional positions are fundamentally flawed, and the ideal term-existentialism has been pre empted (by a school of advocates for non existence). A new term is required and that term is Objectivism. As yet it does not dredge up old and irrelevant associations

Edited May 4, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

So far, not too bad. As a starting point for ontological and epistemological discussion I find few problems. But there are assumptions from the beginning that belie a truly unbiased account going forward.

 

 

 

 

If a human wishes to function in a certain environment it requires a philosophy.

 

[ that's a given, further on we will come to the requirement for choosing life as a primary value in any given environment. There is nothing absolute in that choice. One may well conclude that life is impossible, pointless, painful and thereby quit early]

 

Humans have progressed to a conceptual existence but we are not born with concepts, we must learn them. It is conceivable that a human grows up like Mowgli, without contact with 'developed' human culture, and so without language.

 

If a human can function in certain environments without language, and therefore without anything more than the most vague 'concepts', it would be no more conceptual in nature than a chimp or a panda, with no more capacity or responsibility for 'choice'.

 

[it is unlikely that a human would survive in that situation. However, for the sake of it, there is no reason why language is a necessity, concepts don't exist in one specific language form, but any language form. The child can simply make up his own kind of labels and categories. We do that during childhood prior to speaking anyway so that has a precedent]

 

 

 

 

Let's say that we do all have language, do all have choice. You present a false dilemma, offering only 2 very much black-and-white options -- but neither option is entirely true.

 

You say that the subconscious choice is "thrown together by chance" -- but so is the conscious one. Everything that happened before your own existence was out of the control of you as an entity, and most things that continue to happen you are unaware of and unable to control. Your "disciplined process of thought" cannot possibly escape chance.

 

[it doesn't have to be thrown together by chance which is the choice. Subconscious elements are predicated on perceptual conscious elements initially. It is only later that they function below fully conscious levels. If there is no attempt at reasoned logic, then, it's probably incorrect to say it is 'by chance ' (I took Peikoffs wording directly), but it is a good way to get across the effect of indiscriminate thought. Later on it is clear that use of reason doesn't guarantee success, only that it is a necessary condition. Error is eminently possible, one can still make a stupid mistake and fail]

 

And you cannot possibly escape your subconscious. But we also cannot escape our programmed nature -- the way we have evolved to behave, as a species and as individuals. And we shouldn't necessarily want to, in my opinion. Our 'animal nature' has a lot to offer.

[we don't have a programmed nature, we are born as clean slates with the faculty of consciousness and emotion. We cannot act contrary to our nature, but our nature is one of concept and reason, we are not fixed, or automatic, we must choose because that is our nature. It makes us very unique in the world of living entities because we have free will, we are not programmed]

 

 

I've replied with in the body of your text in square brackets. I can't get multi quote to function on my iPad. Maybe that's because I'm a Luddite :-)

Edited May 4, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Part 6 the senses as necessarily valid.

 

Metaphysics from the objectivist viewpoint is highly delimited. It identifies only facts and not particular existents or to guide men to goals. This is different from epistemology-the science studying the nature and means of human knowledge.

 

Human knowledge, though based on sensory perception is conceptual in nature. On the conceptual level consciousness is neither automatic or infallible; it can and does err, distort and depart from reality (through ignorance or evasion). Man must therefore discover a method of cognition-unlike animals. He must learn to use his mind to distinguish truth from falsehood and to validate conclusions.

 

Before getting to conceptual knowledge we need to cover sense perception and volition.

 

Since concepts, according to objectivism, are integrations of perceptual data, there can be no concepts apart from sense experience. There are no innate ideas. Consciousness begins tabula rasa (a blank slate); all concepts are derived from sensory evidence. If the senses are invalid then so are concepts. If one can put no trust in the senses, then thinking is worthless.

 

The validity of the senses is an axiom. Like the fact of consciousness, the axiom is outside the province of proof because it is a precondition of proof.

 

Proof consists of reducing an idea back to the data provided by the senses. These data are the foundation of all subsequent knowledge and precede any process of inference. They are primaries of cognition and are self evident.

 

The validity of the senses is not an independent axiom; it is a corollary of the fact of consciousness. If the senses are not valid, neither are concepts, including those used in any attack on sense validity. The senses merely respond to stimuli acting upon them, making us aware that something exists. We are not aware of what they are, merely that the are.

 

"The task of the senses" writes Rand "is to give evidence of existence, but identification belongs to reason-only that something is, not what it is, this must be learned by the mind".

 

A stick in water appears bent is not a perceptual error. It is a testament to sense reliability. The senses do not censor their responses they respond in full context of the facts including that light travels through water at a different rate than air.

 

Our senses do not of course identify all facts, constituents, compounds, atomic and electrical forces at work within entities, but it does provide a first form of grasping which will later lead to scientific discovery. Science is the unraveling of sensory data and has no other data on which the proceed.

 

Conceptualisation involves an interpretation that may not conform to reality. Therefore someone can "think about nothing" I.e nothing real such as a perpetual motion machine, demonic possession or Santa clause, but the senses sum up what is.

 

Once the mind has aquired a certain content of sensory material. It can then contemplate its own content such as dreams. This isn't sense perception at all, but a process of turning inwards, made possible in the first instance by the individual having perceived them first through the senses. There is no difficulty in differentiating dreams from perception. The concept of a dream has meaning only because it denotes a contrast to waking awareness. If a man were not able to recognise wakefulness, the word 'dream' would be meaningless to him.

 

A difference in sensory form amongst observers-something brought up many times by Brian-is precisely that: it is a difference in the form of perceiving the same object, the same one reality. Such a difference does not pertain to cognitive content and does not indicate a disagreement between different parties viewing the same reality. The senses of a man with normal vision, do not contradict those of a colour blind man. When the former says the object is red, he means in reason "it is an object in reality of a specific nature, such that, when it acts on my senses, I percieve it as the colour red". It is true when the colour blind man describes it as a shade of grey . Neither statement conflicts with the other. Both men percieve what is in a specific form. Neither can anyone come to a different conclusion about the nature of the object. In this respect, differences in sensory form DO NOT matter. They have no consequences as regards cognition. A blind man and a sighted man do not come up with different theories of physics despite the differences.

 

No type of sense perception can register everything. A is A and any perceptual apparatus is limited. By virtue of being able directly to discriminate one aspect of reality, a consciousness cannot discriminate some other aspect that would require a different kind of sense organs. Whatever facts the senses do register, are facts. These facts eventually lead the mind to the rest of its knowledge.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Part 7 sensory qualities as real.

 

Let's consider the metaphysical status of sensory qualities themselves. Since objects have a nature independent of us, it must be possible to distinguish between form and object; between aspects of the perceived that derive from our perception (such as colours, sounds and smells) and the aspects that belong to metaphysical reality itself, apart from us. If they are not in the object, as is often asked, then they are merely in the mind, therefore subjective and unreal.

 

Most recognise this problem as one of basic philosophy that crops up on this forum often enough:

 

This is the problem of the common object such as a table which is solid, brown and motionless and the table of science which, it is said, is largely empty space (and here I add to LP commentary and suggest we have not yet adequately defined 'space'). To the scientist the table is defined by colourless racing particles, and/or charges, rays, waves or fields.

 

Rand says "we CAN distinguish form from object, but this does NOT imply the subjectivity of form or the invalidity of the senses".

 

The task of identifying the nature of physical objects as they apart from mans form of perception does not belong to philosophy, but to physics. Whatever such attributes turn out to be they have no philosophic significance, neither metaphysical or epistemological. If it turned out that the entire universe was composed of nothing more than 'puffs of meta energy' acting on men's means of perception it would prove nothing philosophically.

 

If everything was made of 'meta puffs' then so would man including sense organs and brain. The process of sense perception would remain a certain kind of relationship between external entities and those that comprise the human perceptual apparatus and brain. The result would still be the material world as we perceive it with all its objects and qualities.

 

Even under the present hypothesis such objects and qualities would still not be the products of consciousness. Their existence would be a metaphysically given fact. A consequence of meta puff interactions and outside mans power to create or destroy.the things we perceive in this theory would certainly not be primaries, but they would never the less be unimpeachably real.

 

A thing may not be condemned as unreal on the grounds that it is only an effect which has a deeper explanation. One does not subvert the reality of something by explaining it. One does not make objects or qualities subjective by identifying the causes underlying them. In reverse. A being who knew only the meta puffs would not know an aspect of reality that we know.

 

Philosophers have chosen to define only two possibilities in regards sensory qualities. In the object, or in the mind. The former denies mans independent means of perception (intrincisist) and the latter is taken to mean 'subjective/unreal' (subjectivist). Rand regards this as defective false alternate- they are not object alone, or perceiver alone , but object as perceived.

 

In a deeper sense, however, such products are in the object. They are so not as primaries independent of mans sense organs, but as the inexorable effect of the primaries. Consciousness is the faculty of awareness; it does not create its content, or sensory forms in which it is aware of that content. In a sense, everything we perceive, including those qualities that depend on mans physical organs is 'out there'.

 

Those who condemn the senses as deceptive as they are merely effects on men are guilty of re writing reality. It ignores the fact that the metaphysically given is an absolute. Perception is necessarily a process of interaction: there is no way to perceive an object that doesn't somehow impinge on ones body. Sense qualities therefore must be effects. It is to reject the senses for existing whilst yearning for a fantasy form of perception which is logically impossible.

 

Those that condemn senses on the grounds that sense qualities are different from the primaries that cause them (the scientific table) are guilty of the same fallacy. They demand primaries are given to man pure-in no sensory form. This view of perception is the mirror theory. That consciousness acts like a luminous mirror reproducing external entities faithfully in its inner world, untainted by any contribution from the sense organs. This is an attempt to re write the nature of consciousness. Consciousness is not a mirror or an ethereal medium. It cannot have any kind of similarity or analogy with a physical object; the concept is axiomatic. Consciousness is not a faculty of reproduction, but of perception. It's function is not to create and study an inner world that duplicates the outer.its function is to look directly outwards, to perceive that which exists and to do so by a certain means.

 

As to the claim that puffs, particles or waves make up what an object do not look like the object we perceive, this is a reversal of the truth. Looks means appearing to our visual senses. The object is precisely what the puffs look like as perceived by man. We can know the content of reality 'pure' apart from mans perceptual form, but only by abstracting away the perceptual form. Starting with sensory data, the performing a scientific process. The senses cannot give us pure content and demand it is to rewrite the function of senses and mind. To demand a precept of that which is the object only of a concept.

 

Rand is often accused of naive realism, but that's incorrect. NR. Is an ancient form of mirror theory. It claims the senses do give us pure reality. The senses NRs hold, are valid BECAUSE sensory qualities exist in objects independent of mans means of perception. Which, in defiance of all evidence to the contrary, are held to contribute nothing to our experience.

 

The intention of NR to uphold the validity of the senses is correct, but the content of the theory, unable to deal with the issue of sensory form, fails to implement its intentions and plays into the hands of the anti-sense tribes.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Part 8 Consciousness as possessing identity

 

(I'm I still doing this, I must be crackers I've got stuff to do)

 

Consciousness has identity.

 

Every existent is bound by the laws of identity and causality. Consciousness is an existent, it is limited, finite and lawful. It is a faculty with a nature. It is a something that has to grasp its objects somehow.

 

Objectivism stands alone in that view. Every attack on human cognition and the senses take the view that consciousness should not have identity and since it does, it is invalid. The naive realists accept the same premise because consciousness is a characterless mirror.

 

The standard argument of the skepticist remains the same as ever. That the nature of the senses intrudes on our ability to view reality directly. That we only see reality as it appears to man, not as it really is. The Kantians twist the argument slightly, but in essence it remains the same; that if we had a different sort of mind, or conceptual apparatus our idea of truth and reality would be different. Human knowledge is therefore only human and thus subjective.

 

In other words, all these philosophies note that the consciousness is 'something' with a specific nature and thus disqualified as a faculty of true cognition.

 

As Rand observed of these philosophies "man is blind because he has eyes, deaf because he has ears, deluded because he has a mind-things he perceives do not exist because he perceives them". I would add one further clause "unconscious because he is conscious and non existent because he exists".

 

Objectivists deny that there is "reality as it really is" because there is no "reality as it really isn't". There is no difference in this context between what appears and what is real. It is reality-just as it appears to any consciousness. To deny it is to believe the notion that grasping something is not to grasp something.

 

Neither do objectivist succumb to the idea of "things in themselves" or "things in relation to consciousness" as it assumes that the mere fact of existing is an agent of distortion. Objectivist reject the skeptic claim "that man doesn't perceive reality, but only its effects on the cognitive faculty".

 

Objectivists insist on consciousness. That consciousness has a nature does not invalidate it. Identity is not a disqualified of consciousness, but it's pre condition. It is the principle by reference to which all standards of cognition must be defined.

 

Every process of knowledge requires an object of cognition and a means of cognition. Succinctly: what do I know and how do I know it ? The object is always an aspect of reality and nothing else needs be said. The means pertains to the kind of consciousness and determines the form of cognition. There is no conflict between these elements.

 

The means of cognition cannot be used to deny the object of cognition as the skeptic would say.

That the object is reality cannot be used to deny human cognition of it as the Mystics believe.

 

The how cannot negate the what, or the what to negate the how. A is A, consciousness is consciousness and theforefore it has definite identity.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Part 9 the perceptual level as a given.

 

Chronologically there are two stages of sensory awareness. The first being pure sensation as we experience when we are babies. These sensations are irreducible state of awareness caused by stimulus of the sense organs. Over time we integrate the sensations of thousands of sensation of thousands of encounters with entities until we put them together to form an indivisible whole.

 

Rand defines perception 'is a group of sensations automatically retained and integrated in the brain of a living organism, which gives it the ability to be aware, not of a single stimuli, but of entities, of things".

 

The important philosophic point is that 'direct experience' means the perceptual level of consciousness. Beyond the infant stage of life, leaving aside conceptual knowledge, is our awareness of entities.

 

Starting from perceptual fact we formed a conceptual vocabulary. We cannot re-experience the state of the infant, we can only conclude that the world in which we found ourselves would have been chaotic. That chaos isn't given to us as adults. It is a much more sophisticated inference from what is given:the perceptual level.

 

Chronologically sensation precedes perception and perception conception, but epistemologically the perceptual level comes first.

 

There are philosophers such as Hulme who deny the perceptual level, giving the sensation stage epistemological primacy. These men seek to determine whether the fact of entities can be established by inference from it. It would appear to be a dead end as nothing can be inferred from disintegrated sensations. It would be the chaos experienced by the infant and without the perceptual mid section there could be no kind of conception. It would be like pink noise inferring music and that music inferring a specific composer.

 

It is the perceptual level that must be regarded as the given. We must have music before we can identify the type and composer. That doesn't mean that the perceived entities are metaphysical primaries-that is a problem for science-it means the grasp of entities is a metaphysical primary.

 

The integration of sensations into precepts is automatic-just like the production of blood cells-philosophy has no claim here as that is the realm of the neuro scientist. There can be no advice where man is powerless to choose his course of behaviour. Where a more complex kind of integration from precepts to concepts, then volition is a part and philosophy has a lot to say in that area.

Edited May 6, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Well. I made it all the way through to the end.  I am delighted with my tenacity.

 

There were no surprises for me.  There were no conflicts with my present understandings.

 

I was disappointed regarding your evaluation of the materialist and felt you were viewing only a few fundamentalists.

 

But I will still call myself a materialist because most people wouldn't have a clue if I called myself an Objectivist.

 

I have never read Rand or Peikoff so this was, in a way, something new for me but at the same time it has been my understanding for a number of years now.

[Karl]

Well. I made it all the way through to the end.  I am delighted with my tenacity.

 

There were no surprises for me.  There were no conflicts with my present understandings.

 

I was disappointed regarding your evaluation of the materialist and felt you were viewing only a few fundamentalists.

 

But I will still call myself a materialist because most people wouldn't have a clue if I called myself an Objectivist.

 

I have never read Rand or Peikoff so this was, in a way, something new for me but at the same time it has been my understanding for a number of years now.

 

This does set the ground work which isn't likely to differ much if you are generally a materialist (I know by your posts that you aren't strictly that persuasion). Well done on getting through it. Philosophy can be a bit of a dry subject.

[Orion]

My left brain really gets off on this stuff, thanks for putting in the effort of posting it Karl.

 

The one thing I have trouble with are the axiomatic foundations of the philosophy because I feel like I am being asked to accept something untested and on faith, upon which the entire rest of the philosophy is built. It kind of reminds me of science's big bang. If we just accept this creation myth for why the universe is here, then the rest of physics can be explained... but only if we take the primacy of the big bang to be true. On an egoic level I really love this because it feels safe, secure, and we need not scrutinize it. In other words, there's finally something that can be grasped, that I can always rely on being concrete. Compared to eastern philosophies, it's kind of instantly gratifying.

 

But for me, if you can't question the axioms, then you're dealing with a potential house of cards. It relies on certain structures which are permanently, existentially fixed, unchanging. To question those, you necessarily must enter metaphysics, and materialists just won't have that conversation.

 

I see the logic of objectivism, trust me. I can roll with it. I'm just saying... every time I've come across anyone, whether a scientist, or a "guru", who says: "OK! See these three things? You can't question them. Now, moving on... here's a bunch of stuff you CAN question...", I'm immediately skeptical.

 

Saying that you can't question an axiom because it's self-referential is a bit presumptuous.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Orion

[Karl]

Thanks for taking the time to read thus far Orion, it doesn't feel quite such a wasted exercise :-)

 

Actually that presumptuousness is probably down to me. I cut out a lot of the axiomatic proofs because of their repetitive nature. As this forum doesn't really go for logic in general I was trying to give the positive axiomatic argument. This is really my own snapshot having already accepted the logic of those proofs, I hacked them back in precisely the manner of 'big bang' -just as here people accept the 'indescribable' Dao as axiomatic-I reasoned that if someone got as far as actually reading my shortened version then they would likely go off and read the book.

 

One thing I should add is that (if I can keep going :-)) objectivist philosophy will reveal itself as a complete moral and ethical work (a philosophy of living rather than one bordering on physics). It's a guide as how to live. I thought it would be very incomplete if I ignored the underlying proofs. Rand never wrote a complete treaties and, unfortunately, as Peikoff often says, his mind was a 30 watt bulb to Rand's super nova. Rand wanted to create something in the form of a novel to illustrate real life use of her philosophy rather than an intellectual tour de force. Personally I believe that she succeeded despite the novels being a little lumpy, she managed to do create an idiots guide in story form. If she had created a Miseian/Kantian treaties I suspect there are few today(as compared to the 19th century) would bother to read it, never mind contemplate it. Rand is a much maligned figure as it is, she attacked today's philosophy on which the entire political/economic system is based and probably worried the corrupt elites and central planners.

 

For me, Objectivism is an highly subversive philosophy and she wrote it very much in context of her experiences with Russian censorship-in other words she wrote the novels in such a way as to survive cultural/political shifts. What's amazing is how she accurately predicted the current situation in the book Atlas Shrugged. That book remains one of the best selling books of all time which is an amazing thing-I don't expect that is true of many philosophical works-and sales have been on a sharp upward trend line since 2009.

 

The Dao, in a similar way, is also a guide to living. I don't think they are much related philosophically, but they are along the same lines as guides to men's lives/social cooperation. I don't see why they can't survive a kind of fusion in which they might be differentiated and delimited at critical junctures. I'm sure Rand and Peikoff would have a fit at someone attempting such a thing, but though I'm not a pragmatist anymore, it seems to me that the world in 1970 was really far less weird than it is today. Even Rand could not have conceived of the twisted logic of QE and negative interest rates. Atlas Shrugged wasn't quite weird enough.

Edited May 8, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Part 10 the primary choice to focus or not.

 

Thinking isn't automatic. Perception is automatic, the heart and lungs work automatically, but thinking requires effort and it also demands that the person deliberately chooses to utilise the faculty of the mind. To ignore this fact is to evade ones own nature which requires a man to reason in order that he survive.

 

Consciousness is an active process that one can choose to utilise or walk around mindlessly like a zombie barely aware of the world. "The man who waits for reality to write the truth inside his soul will wait in vain".

 

Thinking need not be constant-one is not required to have ones mind chock full of things all of the time-it's more a case of choosing to throw the switch, to turn on the ignition ready to drive at any point. The choice then is to focus awareness when it is required. To be fully aware when that focus is required. Reason is like a soldier on patrol, he is always using his senses to alert him to danger and opportunity. When he detects some change he brings his rifle to bare on the threat through the sights on his weapon. The soldier is not omniscient in his full awareness, it means he must understand the situation/object/threat by using all the available current evidence, his past knowledge and the skills he has available at the time.

 

To focus ones mind means to raise ones degree of awareness. It requires a shaking off of mental lethargy and a decision to use ones intelligence. The state of being 'in full focus' means the decision to use ones intelligence fully.

 

Thinking is hard, focusing awareness is hard. It is work and it takes effort. Effort being the expenditure of energy to achieve a purpose. Like all effort it must be practiced consistently and constantly. Focused awareness is not a reflex, it is more like a muscle, it gets flabby and weak if it isn't exercised, the more it is exercised the stronger and more effective it becomes. At any time laziness can reduce it is a mere passenger, an unfocused blur. One must understand why one is focusing, to be aware of his cognitive faculty and keep it cycling.

 

The choice to activate the conceptual levels of awareness must precede any ideas; until a person is conscious in the human sense, his mind cannot reach new conclusions, or apply previous ones to the current situation. There is no intellectual factor which makes a man decide or become aware or which even partly explains such as decision; to grasp such a factor, he must already be aware.

 

For the same reason there can be no motive or value judgement which precedes consciousness and which induces a man to become conscious. The decision to perceive reality must precede any value judgements; otherwise, values have no source in ones cognition of reality and this become delusions. Values don't lead to consciousness; consciousness leads to values.

 

Here I believe enlightenment and expanded consciousness dovetail with objectivism. As we work the muscle of conscious focus-one might even describe it as mindfulness-th cognitive processes gain in speed and efficiency. We can literally focus our way to enlightenment. This can be the path. Instead of blurring and shutting down awareness, instead open up the throttle and gain rapid spiritual progress. The more the mind is used, the more it is controlled and the less temptation there is to lapse back into apathy.

 

So far we have discussed two basic choices; either mentally drifting in a passive sense, or to switch on the conscious awareness of the mind. There is a third option and that is to mentally evade.

 

"Evasion" in Ayn Rand's words " is the act of blanking out, the will full suspension of ones consciousness, the refusal to think-not blindness, but the respfusal to see; not ignorance, but the refusal to know. It is the act of unfocusing your mind and inducing an inner fog to escape the responsibility of judgement - on the unstated premise that that a thing will/will not exist if you only refuse to identify it, that A will not be A as long as you don't pronounce the verdict 'it is'"

 

Evasion isn't a passive process, it is the equivalent of deliberately turning down the volume on the radio so as not to hear the football results. The evader does expend effort; it is a purposeful action not to see a fact; if it cannot be banished he works not to let it become real to him.

 

The drifter does not integrate his mental contents; the evader disintegrates them. One is in a fog by default, he chooses not to raise his awareness. The other expends energy to create a fog, he lowers his level of awareness. To an evader, a feeling of some kind is more important than truth. A man finds a certain fact or policy to be unpleasant, frightening or guilt provoking. He does not want the fact to be real or the policy necessary. If a policy or idea gives a man pleasure, or relief, then he wants to believe in it (to have faith). This places "I wish" above "it is". An example would be an individual who knows that his consumption of drugs is killing him, who wants to indulge but not to die, who solves the problem by indulging blindly, simply evading the consequences.

 

Unlike the basic choice to be in or out of focus, the choice to evade a specific content is motivated, the motive being the particular feeling that the evader elevates above reality. The process of evasion is profoundly destructive. Epistemologically it invalidates a mental process. Morally it is the essence of evil. Objectivism places evasion as the vice which underlines all other vices. It is currently leaving to global collapse.

Edited May 10, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Except for that last section (Evasion) most of what was said could easily be found in the Chuang Tzu.

[Karl]

Except for that last section (Evasion) most of what was said could easily be found in the Chuang Tzu.

 

Interesting because as I said previously it seems to me there is some definite correlations even if there are specific 'spin' added to some of the words in ancient text-few of which were actually auto biographical anyway. Mostly it's people telling us what to think and not how the think.

[Karl]

Part 11 human action, mental and physical as caused and free.

 

Aside from involuntary responses, such as bodily reflexes, all human actions, mental or physical are chosen by the actor.

 

Thought is a volitional activity, it is not forced on man by his nature or external reality; they are chosen. The direction taken is always a matter of choice and not necessity. A mans nature requires him to think, but it does not determine what he thinks.

 

The principle of causality does not apply to consciousness in the same way it does to matter. In regard to higher level actions of a volitional consciousness, to 'be caused' does not mean to 'be necessitated'. Therefore, though we can consider the circumstances and ideas that brought a man to make a decision, there is no direct causal link, there is no determinism at play, a man can choose any action. Some philosophers regard self determinism (indeterminism) as insanity. Therefore man is either determined, or insane.

 

Objectivism regards this as a false alternative. Mans action does have causes; he chooses a course of action for a reason-this neither makes the choice determined or unreal. It does not because man is the independent arbiter of that choice and the governing reasons for making it. Man chooses the causes that shape his actions.

 

A mans thoughts may be tied to reality, or they may not. In the first case he is still capable of error but not deliberately so; in the second he may choose blind faith, or deliberate evasion. He must choose to act in accordance with his values or not.

 

To act in accordance with ones values is a complex responsibility. It requires that one knows what he is doing and why. He must assume the discipline of purpose and of a long range course, selecting a goal and then pursuing it across time in the face of obstacles and distractions. It requires that one heed the hierachy, the relative importance of his values. He has to keep in mind that some of his values are primary, or immediate, whilst others are subordinate and he must determine the time and effort spent on them.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Karl

[Karl]

Part 12 volition as axiomatic

 

Can one prove that the choice to think is real, and not, as determinists would say an illusion caused by our ignorance of the forces determining us ? Can one prove that mans consciousness does not operate automatically ?

 

The concept of 'volition' is one of the roots of the concept of 'validation' (and it's subdivisions such as proof). A validation of ideas is necessary and possible only if mans consciousness is volitional. This applies to to any idea, including the advocacy of free will; to ask for proof is to presuppose the reality of free will.

 

We have reached an axiom. Something holds true simply by asking the question 'does it hold true'? To ask for validation (proof) is to presuppose that there is volition. It is self evident from introspection. Just reading these sentences one decides to focus, to grasp, to judge, to drift, to evade, to decide to think or not to think.

 

Every item of conceptual knowledge requires some form of validation, the need of which rests on the fact of volition. Even its detractors must depend on it.

 

When a determinist claims that man is determined, this applies to all mans ideas also, including his advocacy of determinism. He believes he had to be a determinist, just as his opponents claim otherwise. How can the determinist know his view point is true ? Ate the factors the shape his brain infallible ? Does he automatically follow reason and logic ? Clearly not or he wouldn't have made the error, because if such were the case, a man would be incapable of relying on his own judgement. He could claim nothing as objective knowledge including the theory of determinism.

 

An infallible being-such as an animal (on its own level) can be devoid of volition, yet still acquire knowledge. It does not need to perform the process of thought, but man ( beyond the perceptual level) must think in order to know and do so in a reality oriented manner; the commitment to do so is observably no in built. If it were not within mans power of choice, human consciousness would be deprived of its function; it would be incapable of cognition, detached from existence and therefore unconscious.

 

Volition isn't an independent philosophic principle, but a corollary of the axiom of consciousness. Not every consciousness has volition, only fallible conceptual,consciousness has it.

 

A determinist would have to argue that he is In control of his mind and to decide to focus on reality and not merely submit to a string of forces stretching back to infinity. He would have to say he was free to be objective, free to conclude that he was not in fact free.

 

Like any rejection of aphilosophic axiom, determinism is self refuting. Just as one must accept existence or consciousness in order to deny it. A philosophic axiom cannot be proved because it is one of the bases for proof. If we have no volition then there is no requirement for proof. That the argument exists presupposes volition.

 

The traditional opponents of determinism have regarded free will as mystical. Kant: "God, freedom and immortality". How can one uphold volition on the basis of "ghosts, choice, heaven". It makes freedom laughable if it is connected to two aspects of the supernatural.

 

By identifying the locus of ones will as the conceptual faculty Rand aborts mysticism at its root. Will, in her view, is not something opposed to or added to reason. The faculty of reason IS the faculty of volition.

 

Mans senses are valid. His mind is free. Now we should examine how he should use his mind.

Edited May 11, 2016 by Karl

[Marblehead]

Part 12 reminded me of Chuang Tzu's "Happy Fish" story.