RoR: Forum

Post 0

Saturday, August 26, 2006 - 11:37pm

Bookmark

Link

Edit

I've already talked about how free-will in the Objectivist philosophy conflicts with their mechanistic view of the universe with cause and effect running everything. Nathaniel Branden talks about how it is man's nature to be free and that he is a prime mover, not really a negation of causalty but another kind of causation. This doesn't explain things, folks. Objectivism just doesn't get into this issue very far before declaring it self-evident. It's another axiom about which they don't have to discuss further.

Another problem Objectivists run into when they reject the mind/body dichotomy and all its varients: empiricism - rationalism, a priori - a posteriori, and analytic -synthetic; is that they still use these concepts to explain their concepts. Objective truth is a priori, true independent of human knowledge, but it is perceived first through the senses, a posteriori. Yes, there is abstract truth, but that, they say, is abstracted from reality, which is experienced. The problem with that is that certain a priori knowledge, like space and time, must be around before experience is possible. Rand does not include this with her conceptual concepts of existence, identity, and consciousness. There seem to be many hidden axioms which Objectivists simply glide over.

And, of course, there are the several chicken and egg type problems. Objectivists say that man must "choose" to be rational, but what guides that intial choice to be rational? Is it an irrational choice? (I've asked this before, a few times already.) Also, concept formation accompanies language development in humans and Objectivists claim some conceptual knowledge is prior to comunication, thus prior to language or one's ability to comunicate with one's self, think. Okay, if conceptual thinking was possible before language, then in what language did one think?

Objectivists say there is only one reality, the one perceved by one's consciousness. However, this statement, itself, recognizes two realities, an external reality perceived by something internal, and a consciousness which perceives it. This is a dualism. I have quoted Objectivists on these pages as admitting that Objectivism is dualistic. So, there is a sort of mind/body acceptance after all.

Objectivists claimed to reject the mind-body and analytic-synthetic dichotomy, but they fabricated a false dichotomy between faith and reason. Since logic cannot verify itself, it is often grounded in faith. One has to have faith in logic. And, I still maintain that inductve reasoning does require a leap of faith. It may have a high degree of certainty, but it can be wrong. Science changed its mind on Pluto recently. Textbooks are being rewritten. Anyhow, science is pragmatic, not absolute. We may have to live with a little uncertainty. It gives us room to grow, even if it makes Objectivists crazy.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 1

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 12:55am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

I have discerned a psuedo-determinism governs Man's "will." It is not the "party line" but may help you none-the-less. I assume metaphysical determinism: the universe's current state is determined by the consequences of its previous state and the mechanics involved. (If you dispute this, our difference encompasses far more than free will.) Our personalities unfold in an analogous manner. Our behaviors are grounded in our reasons for acting in a particular way. These reasons are the running balance of our assessments of our experiences.
Suppose my parents spanked me as a child. Free-will concludes I choose whether to use this to discipline my children fairly independent of the experience. Determinism suggests I will repeat the behavior. I expect the decision to rest on the integration of all judgments of experiences relative to spanking. Did I loathe it as a child; do I think it was effective anyway in influencing my behavior; do I believe other children's horror stories about being beaten; do I think they are better for it anyway; do I believe my child will grow to hate me? These and countless others form the reasoning that informs whether I choose to spank my child.
Did I just move around the provenence of the 'will' from guiding action to assessing memories? No, the assessments too are result of this process. I decide whether the spanking effectively influenced my behavior by judging my behavior in the light of the standard I recognize, in turn a result of similar assessed experiences. This doesn't regress to an a priori type experience/assessment because our brains and understanding developed from birth. At that time, our experiences were far less comprehensible though still establishing personalities within the range we could integrate (one effect, attention span during that time).
-------------------
Objective truth is a priori, true independent of human knowledge, but it is perceived first through the senses, a posteriori. Yes, there is abstract truth, but that, they say, is abstracted from reality, which is experienced. The problem with that is that certain a priori knowledge, like space and time, must be around before experience is possible.
Try not to get hung up on the phrase a priori. Objectivists aknowledge that the universe (space & time as you identify) exists independent of humans. Humans though can and have functioned without a cohesive theory of time, as infants and in surviving hunter-gatherer societies (which Saper & Worff used for their Hypothesis). I do not understand your objection enough to comment further.
---------------------
As I hint above, I don't think we make an "initial" consious choice to be rational. Certainly, we eventually can make that distinction, but during childhood we may only make an approximate choice. Do we lie about our disobedience? We may not recognize it in terms of adherence to reality and choose irrationally.
Concepts below the realm of symbolism of language are possible without language. Look at three black objects. You can visually distinguish that the three have the same color different from all others without assigning them a name. Animals do this in distinguishing similar sense-data. A bomb sniffing dog is trained to recognize the scent of TNT (or whatever) and retains this as a concept, though it (may or) may not assign a "word" to it.
----------------------

Objectivists say there is only one reality, the one perceved by one's consciousness. However, this statement, itself, recognizes two realities, an external reality perceived by something internal, and a consciousness which perceives it. This is a dualism.

We don't consider our mind another reality any more than we consider a book to contain another reality. Both contain an internal "representation" of the universe, but this is not the same as a wholly separate reality. You are creating this distinction.
---------------------
Logic need not verify itself, it is a series of rules for determining consistency. We verify whether the conclusions correspond to reality, which to all accounts is internally consistent (the speed of light doesn't change on Tuesdays). The level of induction determines the level of "faith" involved. None for the chances of a sunrise tomorrow, much as to whether violent video games inculcate violent behaviors. Again, you are exaggerating our reliance on science. Objectivists know science is an approximation of reality striving for perfection. It is the method, rigor, and focus on reality that we admire of science. By the way, scientists redefined what constitutes a planet, not Science.

Post 2

Friday, September 1, 2006 - 11:52am

Bookmark

Link

Edit

Nicolas, nothing you say in your first three paragraphs explains free-will other than as a confusion of what causes our behavior. If our behaior is caused by something other than us, it is not free.

You mention Sapir & Whorf, and I am very familar with these linguists, but your point about infants is not relevant to my point about conceptual experience presupposing time and space. Infants are pre-conceptual, as you know. Also, a bomb sniffing dog is not conceptual. However, it is Benjamin Lee Whorf who highlights the dilemma of what came first, thinking or language, since conceptual thinking is a sort of comunication with one's self. In what language do we think in before we develop language?

Finally, Objectivists do make a big thing out of the differences between faith and reason. Faith, they say, is intrinsically opposed to reason. I've already gone 'round and 'round with someone on this board who insisted that there is no leap of faith in inductive reasoning. You don't maintain that, do you? BTW, scientists use science and disagree with each other all the time.

bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 9/01, 11:54am)

Okay, a little more dissent, old and new