I assure you Ayn Rand never mad such an assertion, did not believe such a thing, and never said anything that could be interpreted to mean this.
This begins with nonsense, "There is, then, the obvious problem of knowing that our impressions are true representations of reality...." What is meant be reality? If reality is something other than what we are conscious of, how did the writer learn about it? He couldn't have. There is no gap.
Hank
Why do you say this? If she was anything, she was a materialist.
This begins with nonsense, "There is, then, the obvious problem of knowing that our impressions are true representations of reality...." What is meant be reality? If reality is something other than what we are conscious of, how did the writer learn about it? He couldn't have. There is no gap.
There is a logical problem. How can I know in principle, at this moment, with absolute certainty that what I am experiencing is not a mirage? In a strictly materialist worldview, at any given moment, all memory and experience must logically be viewed with skepticism, so there is not even that to fall back on. There simply is no logical reason why I should trust my senses.
This stands in contrast with the Aristotelian/Thomist position that sensation is ultimately an immanent activity and in the act of understanding, the form of the thing known becomes one with the mind of the knower. Therefore, logically, there is no gap between the knower and thing known.