Posted on 05/01/2003 8:44:18 AM PDT by RJCogburn
“Man’s reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses. Reason is man’s only means of acquiring knowledge.” Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Everything is knowable, sez Ayn. Unfortunately, not everything is provable, so how do we know things to be true that we can't prove to be true? "Acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational" is likely to be fiendishly difficult to prove, or flat-out impossible, so how do we know it to be true? Can't be mysticism, we're not supposed to take it on faith, or just intuitively feel that it's true... so how are we supposed to know it to be true?
Unprovable assertions...it's not a trump card, but it sure doesn't look good when you rely on unprovable assertions - assertions that you can't know are true - to construct a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible.
What you or I believe is not the issue - objectivism says that things are knowable without relying on anything but reason. So go ahead and reason your way into proving that good nutrition is better than bad nutrition, without simply substituting in your own preference for good nutrition, and without simply assuming it to be true and thereby taking it as true on faith. After all, if you can't prove it, how can you say that you "know" it to be true?
I'll take my chances - go ahead and make your case.
I do not believe most objectivists would regard you as the God of what can and cannot be regarded as something. You may ragard it any way you please, that's what objectivists believe. Objectivists regard "existence exists" as axiomatic because it is an irreduceable primary that cannot be denied without being self-contradictory.
I do not think "axiom" means quite what you think it means - perhaps you will accept some source other than me as an authority on this?
As I said, it's as 'proven' as "the sun is hot".
One bit of evidence that it *is* that proven is that you, yourself, believe it to be a proven fact.
In fact, I'd bet near to 100% of people you ask will agree it's a proven fact.
You're simply arguing to practice arguing.
I don't really mind.
Brings back fond memories of late-night bull sessions in college.
"Man's reason is fully competent to know the facts of reality. Reason, the conceptual faculty, is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge."
Thus Objectivism rejects mysticism (any acceptance of faith or feeling as a means of knowledge), and it rejects skepticism (the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible).
Again... So what? -- Yes, Rands objectivism rejects mysticism as a means of gaining knowledge. Big deal. Get over it. Be as 'mystic' as you like.
Everything is knowable, sez Ayn. Unfortunately, not everything is provable, so how do we know things to be true that we can't prove to be true?
Sorry, that makes little sense. You're grasping..
"Acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational" is likely to be fiendishly difficult to prove, or flat-out impossible, so how do we know it to be true?
As I said earlier, which you couldn't refute, we learn rational self interest at our mothers breast.
Can't be mysticism, we're not supposed to take it on faith, or just intuitively feel that it's true... so how are we supposed to know it to be true?
'True' or not self interest works. You are arguing to argue.
Unprovable assertions...it's not a trump card, but it sure doesn't look good when you rely on unprovable assertions - assertions that you can't know are true - to construct a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible.
Until a better idea comes along, a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible, trumps your mysticism, im my book.
So if I believe it, it must be true? Why, Dom, I really believe that you're making a check out to me right now... ;)
Assertion isn't proof. Come on - you keep insisting it's true. But how can you know it's true if you can't prove it? You must be able to prove it, otherwise you wouldn't know it to be true, but you're just dancing around the issue for some reason. Let's hear it - let's have the proof of it. Or stop claiming that you "know" it...
But to be honest, I kind of get a kick out of it when I seem to 'get' things that simply go above the head of others.
(blushes in shame)
Well, I certainly can't make you understand...
As I said earlier, which you couldn't refute, we learn rational self interest at our mothers breast.
The fact that I haven't refuted it is not proof that it's true. If it's objectively true, you should be able to prove it. Of course, your response to that was, and I quote, "whatever"...
'True' or not self interest works.
Heyyyyyyy, we're finally making progress! I agree - it works. So who cares if it's objectively true or not? Who gives a damn that Rand claims it to be objectively true, but can't possibly prove it to be objectively true? We're finally past all that Randian self-contradiction, and we're finally finding a real basis in reason here. See? You just ditch Rand as the be-all and end-all of rational systems of morality and ethics, and you can actually get somewhere useful ;)
Until a better idea comes along, a philosophy that says that everything is knowable and rationally accessible, trumps your mysticism, im my book
Even if you can't know that premise to be true itself? That kind of self-contradiction doesn't bother you, even a little bit?
Love the tag line, too.
Sweet.
I do not have a case. I was only pointing out the fact that truth is not obvious or easy. If it were, there would not be so much evil and trouble in the world. Most people are just not interested in understanding the truth. They all want a short-cut, provided by some authority that provides all the answers. Most are not willing to accept the responsibility for understanding the truth for themselves. Most do not want to be responsible for their own lives and choices.
I do not think "axiom" means quite what you think it means - perhaps you will accept some source other than me as an authority on this?
Objectivists do not accept anything as true on the basis of the opinioin of any so-called authority. With regard to axioms, objectivists do not accept any assumption as axiomatic. If others do, that serves to differentiate the objectivist view from all others.
Hank
Doesn't the question itself ("good" nutrition vs "bad nutrition) make the determination of "better" a foregone conclusion?
Please pay closer attention. We don't want him to have to go back and repeat himself now, do we?
So now, you've asserted that this kind of hedonism is objectively worse than some other lifestyle. And my question is, very simply, why? Why is it objectively bad to eat nothing but Twinkies and Yoo-hoo? And the answer I get is that it's bad because it's unhealthy. So then my next question is, why is being healthy objectively better than being unhealthy? And so far, I haven't gotten a coherent answer to that. But that's okay - there really isn't a coherent answer to it, because it's not a question of objective fact at all, it's a question of values, and what one's personal preferences are. And those are inherently subjective. You value health over the pleasure of eating Twinkies, and so you tend to think of health as the "rational" choice. But someone else might value the pleasure of eating shitty junk food over health, and thus view eating Twinkies as the rational choice, and view the pursuit of that pleasure as being in their own self-interest - which, of course, it is.
Personal preferences. Values choices. This is the language of subjective judgement, Dom, and no matter how hard you try, you can't glue that to a basis in objective fact - people's personal values and preferences just don't work that way. Whatever I happen to value, whatever my interests are, pursuing that is my self-interest, and trying to argue otherwise is just you substituting your choices for mine, and arguing that your subjective preferences are "objectively" better than mine.
Hmmm, still stalling.
You don't consider this unproven at all, yet you just posted 3 very long paragraphs without saying anything on-topic.
Well, good nite, and enjoy your chat with the others. I'll proably check back in at lunch tomorrow.
So when you said "Objectivism does not regard, 'acting in one's self-interest is inherently rational,' as an axiom, and you will never find it described as such. It is a derivative concept," you were just taking that on faith, then? Tut, tut - don't you know you're not supposed to do that?
Objectivists do not accept anything as true on the basis of the opinioin of any so-called authority.
Well, then, if you've derived all of this for yourself, and not simply taken it on authority, then it ought to be easy enough to walk me through it, right? "I do not have a case" notwithstanding...
Sure I do. The fact that you can't prove it only confirms my suspicions - you have no objective basis for saying that one set of personal preferences is "better" than another. You're just assuming that your values are the "rational" values and judging everyone else by your own personal, subjective yardstick. Not very objective of you, I must say...
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.