And thus she disappears non-conceptual knowledge.
You cannot prove this statement short of conceptual knowledge. It assumes conceptual knowledge and therefore negates itself. Her philosophy falls to a performance error: We can know"warm" even if we have no concept-name for it.
Semantic non-sense. You cannot “know” warm if you do not have a concept of it. It is not possible for you to demonstrate otherwise without relying upon the very conceptualization that you say you don’t need. Stolen concept fallacy. As for "universals," like absolute values, they are beyond the tool of logic to know
There is nothing that is beyond the ‘tool of logic to know’ that you can express and can be verified by others as existing. In terms of conceptual development, the ‘problems of universals' is precisely what Rand solved by her hierarchy of conceptual development. Concepts, properly understood, completely replace the need for universals. every human being who gets up in the morning either knows absolute values
This statement reveals a very poor understanding of Rand since she was utterly dedicated to the concept of the absolute. Existence is an absolute, life is an absolute, death is an absolute, reason is “the only absolute for man.” (The bullet hole in the Wet Nurse was an absolute.) Absolute and universal are utterly different concepts and are not related in the way you assert here.
But knowing, really knowing, that two plus two equals four is a true statement - that is an experience of mind.
Conceptual development (the concept 2) and reason (two plus two equals four) being both dependent upon mind, are more than mere experience. They are logical conclusions based upon conceptual definitions. To say they are an experience of the mind is unnecessary and redundant since you cannot know anything other than by way of mind. By definition, absolutes cannot be proved using reason/logic - else they would be conditional and therefore not absolute.
This statement is false, Fallacy of Proving the negative. You can prove something exists, you cannot prove something does not exist (or say it cannot be proved.) The logic is faulty and contains an unproven assumption: 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. So, if absolutes can be known, we must use other means - means beyond science and philosophy.
Same thing is true of the above statement. It is an absolute statement in logical form: If - then (implied.) To prove it relies upon the very logic it rejects. It isn’t possible to know anything without some foundation of philosophy, however implicit. Another method of inquiry, observation, experiment and comparison of results is required.
Prove that without resorting to logic. In other words; abandon logic, remain illogical and make your point. Good luck. See you in the asylum.
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.
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.
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