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
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.
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.