Posted on 07/12/2004 1:15:05 PM PDT by Hank Kerchief
We have some definitional problems to overcome in order to save time in discussion.
First we'd need to define absolute values. My definition is unconditional values; inherent value, in logic: "self-evident" or axiomatic.
Does your definition differ?
Second, we'd have to define what we mean by "know." If you define it as conceptual knowledge, then, by definition, no other exists.
I, obviously, define it elsewise. We know things we cannot conceptualize. Ever had an experience you couldn't put into words? Did you still "know" it?
I maintain concepts are abstractions, less than the experience itself. "Hot" could communicate something to someone who never experienced it. However if they burned themself, they'd know "hot" much more fully.
Perhaps this reply will help clarify terms and direction for more discussion.
thank you for your reply.
LOLOLOLOLOL!!! My thought exactly!
They can have my phlogiston when they pry it from my cold
dead hands!
Such verbose nonsense.
Probably a student of chomsky.
If it is proved by logic and reason - it is conditional and not absolute. This a an absolute statement using logic which Therefore contradicts itself. It is just a restatement of that old stupidity: All things are relative.If it is proved by logic and reason - it is conditional and not absolute.
Exactly, logic cannot be used to prove an absolute, only conditional truths can be proved. Absolute (non-conditional) statements, however, are very often used to begin a syllogism. For example, "It is better to be kind than cruel."
When used thus as a foundation to construct another conditional proof, this statement is deemed an axiom or "self-evident." It's key that logic cannot be used to "prove" this statement without making it conditional, i.e. no longer an absolute value.
This is due to the mechanics of the tool of logic. It cannot "see" (prove) absolutes, it must assume them to use them at all - which it does quite often to great benefit. It's an excellent tool.
The question remains: "but do absolute truths exist in reality?" It's not logical to leap from "logic cannot be used to see it" to "therefore it does not exist." This applies the same error of scientism to logic - logicism.
It is just a restatement of that old stupidity: All things are relative.
Actually, no. It is a statement that absolutes are beyond the tool of logic. As evidenced perfectly by trying on your next statement logically:
All things are relative.
Including this statement. Therefore, if this we agree with this, the truth of this statement is relative - dependent upon conditions. So, logically, under some conditions it would be also true that: All things are not relative (i.e. absolute).
Therefore, we end up with another performative contradiction:
Depending on the conditions, "All things are relative" is a true statement; and, "All things are not relative" is a true statement.
Since both cannot be true - and since logic can only be used for conditional (relative) proofs - we see logic illustrating its own limitation.
Or am I in error in thinking she believed nothing transcending logic could be known - or even exists?
Yes, you are wrong. Ayn Rand believed in the primacy of existence. Logic is only a method and does not exist at all, except epistemologically. She did believe there was only one correct method of reason (logic) detemined by the nature of real existence and the nature of human minds. Logic comes after all that.
Regi
Or am I in error in thinking she believed nothing transcending logic could be known - or even exists?
Yes, you are wrong. Ayn Rand believed in the primacy of existence. Logic is only a method and does not exist at all, except epistemologically. She did believe there was only one correct method of reason (logic) determined by the nature of real existence and the nature of human minds. They determine the necessity and nature of logic as the method by which the rationally conscious understand the world.
Regi
I especially like this: ... Rand solved by her hierarchy of conceptual development. Concepts, properly understood, completely replace the need for universals.
Except for the fact she only addressed universals as "essence" (because they also are used for qualities), the hierarchy of concepts solves both versions of this pseudo-concept.
Absolute and universal are utterly different concepts ...
Oh yes! I did not know anyone made that confusion (between universals and absolutes) until you pointed it out, thanks. I can see why it is made. In addition to its use, philosophically, for "essence" and "qualities", universal also has the connotation, "being true everywhere, always," which would mean "absolutely," that is, "without contingency". The confusion is a swapping of the two connotations. Nice catch.
Conceptual development (the concept 2) and reason (two plus two equals four) being both dependent upon mind
The concept 2 plus 2 equals four is not merely conceptual. As an abstraction it is, but all mathematical operations are methods, derived from observation. All of mathematics has its roots in counting. The concepts, two and four, are first counting symbols (cardinal numbers). The expression two plus two equals four is a shortcut method (addition) for counting. If there had never been anything to count, no mathematical concepts would be possible.
By definition, absolutes cannot be proved using reason/logic ...
In one sense this is correct, but irrelevant. If by absolutes, D-fender means, "that which is whether anyone knows what is or what its nature is or not," in that sense, the absolute cannot be proved, it is the basis of the proof of all things. It is why Ayn Rand considered existence and "axiomatic" concept. The "absolute" meaning, existence, the reality that actually is, is the very thing we must always go back to test all concepts. It is the final arbiter of all truth. D-fender's mistake is in a misunderstanding of the nature of the absolute. It does not need to be proved; it cannot be denied.
Nice job, LogicWings. Thank you.
Hank
To be fair I have to tell you that he was aware of the paradox, but he's a pragmatist and was only willing to accept a pragmatic proof. We met with agreement only we we concluded that it was useful to notice for example, that reasonable people will independently arrive at a common realization of the value of community service (translation: love your neighbor as yourself).
He calls himself an 'atheist'-- a word that describes only what he doesn't believe, and nothing of what he does believe. I honestly feel that with time we could have agreed on a common concept of our Creator.
The kid's no slouch-- he's got a PhD in Physics and another degree in history. He's also well aware of the limits of his knowledge-- but rather than call himself an agnostic (like my daughter/his wife) he points out that since he's never seen an acceptable demonstration of the usefulness of the Concept of an Infinite Being, that he's not willing to incorporate the premise into his 'tool kit'.
But things change, and since he and I were able to agree on the usefulness of a value system, I hope that some day he and I can further explore Ultimate Concepts. I expect to pick up a lot of interesting ideas from him whether or not he learns anything from me.
Consider the outer reaches of theoretical mathematics. Or pure symbol manipulation. We can construct concepts and manipulations and truth statements with no referrent in material reality. That something is true, is ultimately a mental experience of truth.
If by absolutes, D-fender means, "that which is whether anyone knows what is or what its nature is or not,"
I'm confused by this statement. If I rephrase it I come up with "reality that does not require an observer or knower." I won't go quantum on you, but I think this is not the definition I'm using - certainly not in as used in the phrase "absolute values."
No, I really do mean, in this context, knowledge or truths which are not conditional - not relative.
in that sense, the absolute cannot be proved,
Certainly not by the means of logic/reason. To go further, we would have to have a discussion on what constitutes proof. I know some restrict proof to the realm of science and reason, likely Rand would be in this camp. This denies the value of religious method and exploration - just as scientism does with philolosphy.
it is the basis of the proof of all things.
Agreed, logic cannot get out of bed without it.
It does not need to be proved; it cannot be denied.
Certainly absolutes can be denied. People disagree on them and whether they exist at all.
thanks very much for your reply.
Yes, you are wrong.
I really don't understand how your explanation following says that Rand did not believe that "nothing transcending logic could be known."
My understanding of Rand is that she denied the transcendent exists. I remember a discussion thread on this from a post of her work.
Perhaps it is a confusion of the term transcendent - I'm using it here for "transcending reason/logic." I believed that Rand would say this isn't transcendent, it's irrational.
Am I wrong again?
The myth: The scientist as noble, clear-eyed, dispassionate revealer of truth.
The truth is that the intellectual tool of science is designed only to make sure that one's measurements be as accurate as one's technology permits, that one's measurements use the appropriate tool for the quantity to be measured, and that one's conclusions follow logically from one's premises.
If one works very diligently, then one may be able to separate what one hopes or believes is out there from what actually is out there. That is, one may be able to systematically eliminate one's misconceptions about what is out there in the world by the practice of science and, as a result, be able to exercise control over it and then use it for one's ends. This is the power of science.
The choice of both premises and ends, though, lies outside the field of science because science is limited to reasoning and experimentation based on measurable quantities. The biggest error of the past three centuries has been the assumption that since everything that can be measured exists, nothing exists if it cannot be measured. The belief is that since measurement is but the extension of our senses by technical means, there is nothing that exists apart from that which is open, at least in principle, to our senses; ie, "seeing is believing" or, ostrich-like, "If I can't see it, it doesn't exist." Accordingly, personality, thought, love, and free will are just smiley faces we put on biochemical processes that are irrevocably part of a chain of cause and effect that we only think we control.
The funny thing is that there are some people who feel comforted in believing this who at the same time ridicule people who believe Jesus rose from the dead because of the testimony of others who witnessed it. They claim that their witness cannot be trusted because1. something like that cannot happen,The answer to the above is, of course,
2. it cannot happen since they've never observed it,* and
3. if it doesn't happen more than once and they haven't witnessed it themselves, then anyone else claiming to have done so must either be insane or a liar. And then they abuse the word "science" by claiming 1-3 to be scientific.1. that the most they can say is that, given the usual nature of things, it doesn't happen, not that it cannot happen if given sufficient cause, and that if it did happen, that would be, in and of itself, evidence that the cause was outside the usual nature of things. Stating categorically that there can be no sufficient cause "because biology or physics teaches us..." is just naked arrogance trying to use science as a fig leaf;The retort to 3, because they cannot argue with the first two, would be that 'history' or 'one's life' are not truly 'things,' but simply labels slapped arbitrarily somewhere along the chain of natural events that exist on their own without rhyme or reason and that sticking on these labels is just an attempt by weak people who lack the bravery to see things the way they really are to provide a feeling of meaning where is none--yeah, sort of like the people who use the label of "science" to claim to have the only true way of separating fact from fiction as well as the only means by which to define 'fact' and 'fiction' ?
2. that plenty of things happen that one has never witnessed or had any idea that they could happen,
3. that there are plenty of things that happen only once--the history of one's life, for instance, beginning with one's conception--that are nonetheless real.
* or observed by anyone they trust, meaning 'by anyone who believes what they believe', meaning 'if you've claimed to have witnessed this, you're no longer someone I can trust,' meaning, 'only that which I believe is true or can possibly be true,' meaning, 'I, and those like me, are the sole arbiters of truth,' meaning, 'if you don't fit in with the program, then you're an enemy,' meaning, 'if you don't accept the tenets of _____, then you're the enemy of truth and since we accept the tenets of _____ and we are human, then you are also the enemy of mankind." And how is this any different from any other form of tribalism?
My definition is unconditional values; inherent value, in logic: "self-evident" or axiomatic.
Well, from a Randian point of view there is no such thing as an “inherent value” since a value implies a valuer. What you value may not be what I value. Some people don’t even value life, which is why they commit suicide. An unconditional value is not an absolute one, this is just your definition, fine as far as it goes.
An absolute value is one that cannot be denied without negating itself. One cannot deny existence without denying ones own existence as an agent to deny existence. One cannot deny life without denying oneself as an alive being that makes that denial, (rocks cannot deny anything.) Thus I disagree with your self serving definition. Second, we'd have to define what we mean by "know." If you define it as conceptual knowledge, then, by definition, no other exists.
I do. I, obviously, define it elsewise. We know things we cannot conceptualize. Ever had an experience you couldn't put into words? Did you still "know" it?
Because you are born into a sea of concepts you cannot formulate such ideas without relying upon concepts to define them. If you had no concepts then an experience would only be an experience but it would not be knowledge. (Like the guy they found recently in Fiji who was raised in a chicken coop, roosting and clucking away. I can guarantee you he didn’t know when he was cold, he only experienced the sensation.) I have never had an experience that I couldn’t eventually conceptualize. I maintain concepts are abstractions, less than the experience itself.
This is inaccurate. The concept of tree is not an abstraction, it is a concrete. An abstraction is a collection of concrete concepts subsumed under a concept that is not a concrete, (or a group of abstractions represented by yet another abstraction.) My favorite example is, “Hand me a furniture.” It sounds absurd because furniture is an abstraction. Chairs, tables, lamps, rugs and couches are concretes. A faulty understanding of concepts. "Hot" could communicate something to someone who never experienced it. However if they burned themself, they'd know "hot" much more fully.
Actually this is not correct either. One experience does not make a concept or knowledge. It takes a minimum of two exposures to similar experiences to define a concept and therefore knowledge. The comparison of multiple exposures is a absolute requirement for knowledge and conceptual development. A little reflection will prove this true.
(you quote me quoting you) If it is proved by logic and reason - it is conditional and not absolute. Exactly, logic cannot be used to prove an absolute, only conditional truths can be proved.
You misunderstood me, (sorry for not being clearer.) Using this statement I was restating your position and then made the point the you are making an absolute statement based upon logic, which you hold cannot be done: Thus you contradict yourself. By saying that - if it is proved by logic then it is not absolute, is in itself an absolute statement based upon logic. You refute your own premise.
I don’t care for your example: "It is better to be kind than cruel." since this is a value judgment. A better one would be, “All human beings are mortal.” Or, “All masses are subject to gravity.” It's key that logic cannot be used to "prove" this statement without making it conditional, i.e. no longer an absolute value.
Another absolute statement that must be subject to its own limitation. If it is key that logic cannot be used to prove a statement without making it conditional, then the statement that logic cannot be used to prove a statement without making it conditional applies to this categorically absolute statement as well. Meaning it isn’t valid and logic can be used to prove a statement without making it conditional, i.e., it is absolute. It's not logical to leap from "logic cannot be used to see it" to "therefore it does not exist."
True, Fallacy of Proving the Negative. Or, as the old saying goes, “Lack of proof isn’t proof of lack.” It is a statement that absolutes are beyond the tool of logic.
This is an absolute statement based upon logic, (faulty though the premise is.) If true it contradicts itself.
(you quote me) All things are relative. Including this statement. Therefore, if this we agree with this, the truth of this statement is relative - dependent upon conditions. So, logically, under some conditions it would be also true that: All things are not relative (i.e. absolute)
You just refuted your own point again. All things are not relative, therefore some things are absolute. This is a logical proof of absolutes. Therefore, we end up with another performative contradiction:
Only for you, I disagree. Depending on the conditions, "All things are relative" is a true statement; and, "All things are not relative" is a true statement.
If some things are absolute, as you admit “, logically, under some conditions it would be also true that: All things are not relative (i.e. absolute) ” then the statement "All things are relative" is logically invalid. It is false. It is untrue. It is self contradictory and THEREFORE, logically invalid. Or as Hugh Akston said, “Contradictions do not exist, check your premises.” Since both cannot be true - and since logic can only be used for conditional (relative) proofs - we see logic illustrating its own limitation.
You Beg the Question that “logic can only be used for conditional (relative) proofs ” which your own arguments refute. By your own reasoning “All things are not relative” means that logic is not limited to only non absolute proofs. P>
We don’t see here a limitation of logic, but an understanding of logic.
I don't want to quibble but we aren't saying anything different here. All abstractions are ultimately rooted in concretes, (counting in this case) or they are "floating abstractions" and are ultimately fallacious.
If by absolutes, D-fender means, "that which is whether anyone knows what is or what its nature is or not," in that sense, the absolute cannot be proved, it is the basis of the proof of all things.
Some absolutes like existence are axiomatic and some, like the speed of light or gravity are deductions and are, therefore, not axiomatic.
It does not need to be proved; it cannot be denied.
D-fender's statements were themselves absolute, which means they could not be conditional in any case. So one example, like the speed of light, that establishes an absolute principle through the agency of logic refutes the whole argument. That was my point.
I did not mean for my comments to be disagreements.
For example: I don't want to quibble but we aren't saying anything different here. All abstractions are ultimately rooted in concretes, (counting in this case) or they are "floating abstractions" and are ultimately fallacious.
Yes, of course. I meant only to add to what you said, not for your sake, but D-fender's. I wanted to point out that even those things most philosophers think of as a priori are also derived from experience.
But, you have now said something I am going to quibble about.
Some absolutes like existence are axiomatic and some, like the speed of light or gravity are deductions and are, therefore, not axiomatic.
In a philosophical sense, no measured value can be absolute, because no measurement can be absolutely accurate. Mathematically, the only things that are absolute, are things that can be counted. All measurement involves a relationship (between some standard of measure and the things being measured) and there is always some level of inaccuracy in those measurements.
Gravity and the speed of light, for example, may have absolute values in some sense, be we can only be certain of what they actually are within limits (no less than this, no greater than that). As for gravity and the speed of light, they are not even universal in the sense of being, "always true, everywhere," because both seem to have some variation under very extreme conditions, and some physicists believe their values might actually change over time. In one sense, I do not like to quibble with you, because we almost always agree; in another sense, you are much more interesting to "quibble" with, because you, at least, know what you are talking about, and, even when we disagree, you know what I am talking about.
Hank
First, we were trying to agree on a definition of an absolute value. We're still pretty far apart:
An absolute value is one that cannot be denied without negating itself.
Ignoring the syntax, I believe your definition would be evidence of a logical contradiction, yes, but, there's no "value" in this definition. If we're going to define a value as absolute it would have to be as an attribute of a value. Unless your definition is "a value that cannot be denied without negating itself [sic]," and, even then, I don't know how this performs using a value. Is "kindness" a value that cannot be denied without negating itself?
Likewise, in your example of an absolute value:
One cannot deny existence…
Existence is not a value. Not in the sense of having worth or being better than non-existence. And not even in the other other sense of value as having simple location, color, mass, size, quantity, etc. I don't see how "existence" could be used as a proper example in a definition of any kind of value.
I think you're getting at some other "absolute" perhaps.
If my use of the word "absolute" in absolute value is the problem, it's not important. Let's call them unconditional, inherent, self-evident or axiomatic if you wish.
And my point was logic cannot be used to prove (know) them. My second point was that they are required for the logical development of values/ethics, and that everyone either "knows" them, assumes them or acts as though they exist.
By saying that - if it is proved by logic then it is not absolute, is in itself an absolute statement based upon logic.
An absolute statement? Oh, I think I see the problem. Absolute as in "absolutely certain." No, that's not what I mean. I'm certainly not saying that logic cannot produce conclusions that we can be certain of. My apologies.
Again, my argument on the limits of logic is about absolute values, I'm again talking about unconditional value statements - this is where I'm pointing to the limits of logic.
If we use absolute statement to mean stated with certainty, then yes, logic can produce this, and that's what my statement about logic was - but you have to stick value after my shorthand use of "absolute" in the discussion. Better yet, I'm dropping it.
So, I'm talking about unconditional value statements, self-evident truths as used in logic
Logic can not prove unconditional value statements . It assumes them to be true, self-evident, and the conclusions reached thereafter are dependent upon the truth of this premise.
I think we can agree that values - and our knowledge of values - is extremely important. In life and in our philosophy. And this is where I'm saying Rand falls very short and those who claim logic as the limit of knowledge do as well because (again):
Logic cannot be used to prove unconditional values, only conditional ones. Any value proved by logic is conditional upon the truth of its ASSUMED premise (self-evident, etc..) which is not and cannot be proved without making it conditional upon yet another self-evident value.
Knowledge gained from this method only is conditional, relative not absolute (sorry).
Yet logic must, and we must, know some unconditional values, assume them to be true, or act as though they are true in order to function as human beings. But, about things in this key are area of knowledge, rationalism claims: they cannot be known. And, even, "they do not exist."
I think I'm being accurate here in Rand's view. Inherent is another word I used to describe unconditional values. About which you said the Randian view is "there is no such thing as an “inherent value”,"
Another word for conditional is relative. Or - if whether it's true depends upon each individual - subjective. As you put it: "a value implies a valuer. What you value may not be what I value." Here we have defined pure relative values. All values are then based upon the foundational premises of the individual.
What kind of ethics can be built upon this: Only subjective situational ethics. Randian.
If all you can know, you can know through reason, then this is where you arrive in your philosophy.
But philosophers should seek what is true not what they wish to be true. Is it true that the only values that exist are subjective and relative?
Perhaps, but again we come back to the fact that everyone - including you - either "knows" unconditional values, assumes them to be true or acts as though they are true.
This could lead us back to your definition of an absolute that "cannot be denied without negating itself."
Perhaps we are approaching a Randian proof that contradicts Rand.
{^_^}
I appreciate your reply and the discussion.
I think you are also referring here to inductive inferences, which logic says can be, at best, very probably true. We have to look to deductive arguments for the greatest possible degree of certainty using logic.
This does NOT mean that A is better than not-A in all conditions. We can imagine circumstances where A would not be better.
We can see how logic cannot prove such a statement, it must have a "because," a premise. "A is better than not-A because..."
Values could be: life is better than death, love is better than hate, kindness is better than cruelty, compassion is better than indifference.
If we take "kindness is better than cruelty" as an example. As an unconditional value statement it says: All other conditions being equal, kindness is better than cruelty.
Logic would require a premise, a condition, a "because" to arrive at this conclusion. Without it, logic is mute - there is no reason to conclude it. A logical argument could take it as a premise - and often does - and then develop other arguments and conclusions.
I emphasize it does not mean "kindness is better than cruelty" under all conditions. We can imagine conditions where it would not be better. Say a terrorist demands, "be cruel to that cat or I'll blow us up and a hundred people with us." But in this instance, all conditions would not be equal.
However, say the cat has a highly contagious disease, or for some reason it is assumed that the cat must be put down. No one is watching you, you have a variety of methods possible of equal effectiveness and speed; the only difference is some cause a great deal of suffering, some cause none. You have a choice of kindness or cruelty without any other conditions impinging on your decision.
Purely logically, it's a coin toss - there's no reason not to pick cruel, no reason not to pick kind. If you do pick one or the other based on knowledge, it can only be knowledge gained from some other means than logic.
I know this is a unusual circumstance I've drawn. It's only to illustrate clearly what I mean by unconditional value, and perhaps you can see why it's also called inherent value. If we pick kindness just because it's kind, we can say it has inherent value.
Now, of course we don't come across such choices very often, so why does this matter? The importance of unconditional values is that our other choices are derived from them. They are the basis upon which we make our value choices.
If we could only act solely on the basis of logic-proved values, we would be forever stuck in an un-ending string of logic re-iterations - with no end possible. Each time we arrive at "A is better than not-A because X is better than not-X," we must - to act solely on logic - then ask "why is X better than not-X?" Because, Y is better than not-Y… and so on.
Without an unconditional value, logical knowledge of values has nothing upon which to build, no firm ground on which to stand, no beginning and no end. If we act solely based on values known by logic, we'd never make it out of our front yard.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.