| Home | Community | Message Board |
|
You are not signed in. Sign In New Account | Forum Index Search Posts Trusted Vendors Highlights Galleries FAQ User List Chat Store Random Growery » |
This site includes paid links. Please support our sponsors.
|
Threaded
Previous
Index
NextShop:  Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order  Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale |
| |||||||
 MushmanTheManic Stranger  Registered: 04/21/05 Posts: 4,587 |
| ||||||
|
Objectivism reeks of naive realism.
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone...   Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
1.) Reason in itself a source of knowledge.
assuming by reason you mean logic, i'd phrase your contention this way: reason is the only valid interpreter of experience. (thus paradox is excluded from your view, as i understand it.) so i want to add two corollaries (as i understand your view): First of all, by reason, I mean the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by our senses ? or the faculty that organizes perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic. What I do mean by logic? The science of reasoning. Reason Logic. It?s not Logic Reason. Reason, as the faculty, employs logic. I shouldn?t have bothered to try explaining the correlation between Peikoff?s words and Rand?s words ? it obviously created a mess. I will clean that up now: The terms "logic" and "reason" are not literally interchangeable. Logic is necessary but not sufficient for reason. Or: a logical argument can still be unreasonable. For example: "X is a rabbit, all rabbits are astronauts; therefore, X is an astronaut." This is logical [or logically valid, as some would say] but unreasonable. How do we know it's unreasonable? Experience. We've met some rabbits who aren't astronauts. And secondly, that is not my contention. My contention, is simply this: Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but BY THE APPLICATION OF LOGIC TO EXPERIENCE. Which, as it stands, is in direct confliction with your contention that: 1.) Empirical evidence is the sole source of knowledge. Yet, at the same time, it seems you may actually agree with my contention ? refer to my third response from the bottom. Answer that question, and we?ll see. If you still hold that empirical evidence is the sole source of knowledge, then this means you disagree that knowledge is not obtained by the application of reason/logic to experience. You believe, as stated before, that science itself is solely empiricist ? not a combination of reasoning, logic and experience? Crunchy, based on statements you?ve made, I?m assuming that you think of "empirical" as mere observation, rather than systematic, logical, tested observation. Empiricists of today aren't merely observers. They have to interpret their observations, in that they view their observations in light of previous predictions and categorizations. If their observation is inconsistent with previous predictions and categorizations, i.e., illogical, they know that they are in error. 2.) Empirical basis is the sole determinant in judging the correctness of statements. Can you demonstrate to me, how you can determine the correctness of the statement, ?Crunchytoast is a cigar.?, using only experience completely divorced from reason and logic? 3.)Logic ?as a pretender to truth? is exclusively concerned with structure of statements and not their references to reality, nor any references to reality. From a contemporary logician's standpoint, this is correct. Logic refers just to statements about reality. And it's horribly uncontroversial to claim that logical contradictions exist. "A is B; A is not B" - there's a logical contradiction, as you?ve pointed out before. But Crunchy, that's missing the point. The question is really whether reality can contradict itself. Can something that exists simultaneously be itself and not itself? No; again, horribly uncontroversial. This is what we mean, when we say ?Contradictions do not exist.? Objectively, of course. the reason i want to qualify is, if a person wishes to give an off-the-cuff definition of a logical argument as something whose truth is found through the empricial foundations of every step of an argument, then i would not find fault with such an argument. You agree that as long as logic is used in accordance with experience, only then can it provide truth/knowledge, etc? yet the notion that logic in any way provides truth independently or outside of experience, i think is incorrect. And where does it say otherwise? Crunchy, for the fourth time now, I will repeat: Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but BY THE APPLICATION OF LOGIC TO EXPERIENCE. 4.) Contradictions exist Objectively. not sure what you mean. i'd say experience is consistent with itself. if you mean experience is non-contradictory in that sense, then i agree. contradctions in logic are particular kinds of statements, and yes, those statements exist. it is easy to produce them with a few flashes of the keyboard. Perhaps this will help you understand clearer: Objective: Exists beyond & independent of man?s interpretations and evaluations. Subjective: Exists within man?s interpretations and evaluations. Example: ?-=insert contradictory statement here=-? <~That statement, consisting of squiggly little black lines, holds no ?contradictions.? A contradiction is a concept/idea/subject. And because of this nature, it is limited to existence in subjectivity. It simply does not exist objectively. I think you and I agree here. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
 crunchytoast oppositional  Registered: 04/07/05 Posts: 1,133 Loc: aporia Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
sorry for my belated replies; i've been very busy these days.
i agree that reality is non-contradictory in the sense that it is consistent with itself. yet i think it can be contradictory from the point of view of language. consider the definition of contradictory from dictionary.com (i love this site): contradiction
in logic, contradictions are particular kinds of statements. the rationalist says contradictions are always false. for example "the pencil is bent/the pencil is unbent" is false. yet i think i have shown how this can be empirically true. that is why i used consistent instead of non-contradictory to talk about reality. in the sense that reality is consistent with itself, i would say it is non-contradictory. yet to say that reality is non-contradictory totally omits the definition of "contradiction" that is pertinent to a discussion of logic. in logic, a contradiction is a certain kind of statement that, for the logician, is always false. let me try to rephrase this another way to make myself more clear. generally through these thread i've used the words "consistent"/"inconsistent" to talk about reality; and "contradictory/non-contradictory" to talk about statements themselves.
while i agree the mind interprets, it does not interpret solely according to logic. for example, the mind interprets according to paradoxes from time to time, and a paradox is sometimes true yet always illogical, since it constitutes contradiction.
science is not logic. science creates knowledge through empirical data. reasoning creates beliefs through the mind.
your definition of reason as empirically founded strays from the definition i found at dictionary.com, which identifies reason (in the sense you use it) as logical thought.
certainly the statement about rabbits is logical; certainly it is reasonable (by the dictionary's definition). since the form of the argument is logical, by the standards of logic, if the assumptions are true, then the conclusions must be. yet the conclusions aren't true so this hardly demonstrates the deceptive quality of logic. i would prefer an example that doesn't have a false assumption, but that relies on a play on words, such as a paradox (this would demonstrate the ambiguous nature of language).
my counterargument has been that true paradoxical statements are the exception that disproves this rule. i haven't seen any remarks that directly address paradox.
i would rephrase this to say that experience is absolute knowledge. and the interpretation that happens beyond experience is mere conjecture.
yes empirical knowledge is simply observation. whether observation is systematic and tested determines whether the form of the empirical investigation is scientific or not. as for logic, logic is itself one method of interpretation (among others). certainly true paradox is as much a valid method of interpretation as logic. scientific knowledge is not always logical. for example, in psychology there are different theories of how a person becomes depressed. two groups of theories are biological theories and psychodynamic theories. biological theories state that depression is the result of neurotransmitter imbalance. psychodynamic theories states that it is the result of unrealized needs. psychiatrists will use empirical data that support biological theories to disprove the psychodynamic theories. the psychodynamic psychologists will do the same with different data. academics being what they are, both groups of theories says that it is true to the exclusion of the other. both theories contradict the other; plainly this is illogical, because how could both be right, and both be wrong? the solution IMO is as old as spinoza and it is to say that the psychodynamic view and the biological view are empirically consistent; perhaps they do not operate to the exclusion of the other. as illogical as it seems to say the mind is at once chemicals, and psychodynamic processes- perhaps this is only illogical when we define chemicals and psychodynamic processes as exclusive of one another. perhaps changes in neurotransmitter level constitute psychodynamic processes. yet whether the compatibility of the two views is illogical or not is entirely dependant on the superficial formulations of the words that express the views. in actuality, both schools of research contribute to the knowledge of the brain.
once again, illogical observations are not necessarily false ones. "the pencil is bent/the pencil is unbent" is empirically consistent yet illogical.
what's your operant definition of a cigar? if by "is a cigar" you mean "looks like a cigar" then i suppose you could look at crunchytoast and determine whether he looks like a cigar or not. if you then put this process in words, i suppose you could formulate it in a logical way; perhaps you could also formulate it in an illogical way. yet the knowledge happens at the moment of apprehension of the crunchytoast.
sure something can be itself and not itself. haven't you ever heard the expression "so-and-so is not himself today"? a logician might write this off as a "figure of speech," by which he would mean that there's an empirical consistency to that paradoxical statement. yet this argument does not sufficiently defend the validity of logic as an arbiter of truth, since the empirical consistency is the sole determinant.
i agree that if a person uses the word logic in such a way that by "logic" they mean "experience" then and only then does said "logic" provide truth. yet said "logic" has a definition not found in any dictionary i've perused.
experience is knowledge. logic is one method of interpretation among others. paradox is another valid means of interpretation. "the pencil is bent/the pencil is unbent" is illogical, yet true. -------------------- "consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Crunchy, you do not seem familiar with the Objectivist meaning of reason [and logic]. In that interview listed above, you'll see that Ayn Rand said:
"By reason, I mean the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. " As I am presenting Objectivism, this is where I am coming from. If you read carefully, you'll see that I said: First of all, by reason, I mean the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by our senses ? or the faculty that organizes perceptual units in conceptual terms by following the principles of logic. I never said solely using logic, as you seem to have implied. I stated that logic is necessary - but not sufficient, for reason. One can still integrate material and perceptual units into concepts in a non-logical method, which is to say, one can still use their faculty of reason without employing the standard method of academic logic. yet to say that reality is non-contradictory totally omits the definition of "contradiction" that is pertinent to a discussion of logic. Wasn't it you that said logic only deals in statements about reality - not of reality itself? And I must point out, once again, that the key word is Objective. Objectively, reality is non-contradictory. <~That statement does not imply that subjective reality cannot be contradictory. What I do mean by logic? The science of reasoning. science is not logic. From http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/logic "1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning " Logic is a science. science creates knowledge through empirical data. Correct. reasoning creates beliefs through the mind. True, it certainly can. scientific knowledge is not always logical. But it is always reasonable. Man's knowledge is not acquired by logic apart from experience or by experience apart from logic, but BY THE APPLICATION OF LOGIC TO EXPERIENCE. my counterargument has been that true paradoxical statements are the exception that disproves this rule. i haven't seen any remarks that directly address paradox. Again, you are not familiar with the Objectivist meaning of logic, which is different in definition from academic logic. Logic is the primary means or method of reason. And Objectivists don't use the contemporary, academic, over-differentiated concept of logic that you are here. This is what I meant when I said: ============ Crunchy, after Kant and Berkeley came along, folks began to think of "reason-in-itself" -- as if it could REALLY be separated from experience. ============ Just like axiomatic concepts, logic needs to be integrated with experience, because that's the purpose that logic and axioms serve [to tie together experiences]. So when the over-differentiated, under-integrated academic view of logic [below] is brought up, things muddle somewhat. ============ For example: "X is a rabbit, all rabbits are astronauts; therefore, X is an astronaut." This is logical [or logically valid, as some would say] but unreasonable. How do we know it's unreasonable? Experience. ============ In Objectivist argument, there is not ever a valid case for severing the tie to reality. What is arbitrary, is not logical. Folks who under-integrate logic [e.g. academicians] are using a tool for another purpose - yet they're keeping the name. The distinction is subtle, but illuminating. Picture someone who's lost his hammer - and has taken to pounding in some nails with a screwdriver. He may say that he's 'screwdriver'ing-in the nails, but in actuality, he is hammering in the nails. He's using a tool for something other than its purpose, but calling it by the same name. In a mitigated sense, he can "get away" with using the screwdriver as a hammer, it's just that that's not what screwdrivers are for. An Objectivist line of reasoning wouldn't fail to integrate the purposes of the tools argued over [in the case of a man-made tool, its "purpose" is its "identity"]. Likewise, in your case, the fact that you can derive truth that reflects objective reality from paradoxical statements, does not conflict with logic in the Objectivist sense. In other words, an Objectivist line of reasoning wouldn't fail to integrate the purposes of the paradox argued over as well. once again, illogical observations are not necessarily false ones. "the pencil is bent/the pencil is unbent" is empirically consistent yet illogical. Can you demonstrate to me, how you can determine the correctness of the statement, ?Crunchytoast is a cigar.?, using only experience completely divorced from reason and logic? what's your operant definition of a cigar? if by "is a cigar" you mean "looks like a cigar" then i suppose you could look at crunchytoast and determine whether he looks like a cigar or not. Hahaha. Nice try. sure something can be itself and not itself. haven't you ever heard the expression "so-and-so is not himself today"? a logician might write this off as a "figure of speech," by which he would mean that there's an empirical consistency to that paradoxical statement. yet this argument does not sufficiently defend the validity of logic as an arbiter of truth, since the empirical consistency is the sole determinant. You're simply evading my point, or you are incapable of grasping the point I am making. All you have done is provided a subjective case of contradiction and not an objective one. experience is knowledge. Logic and experience are - together - the dual-source of human knowledge. If you mean to say that logic and knowledge are forms of experience, then I agree. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Scarfmeister Thrill Seeker Registered: 10/31/02 Posts: 8,127 Loc: The will to powe Last seen: 7 years, 2 months |
| ||||||
|
She is a frikken cyborg
-------------------- -------------------- We're the lowest of the low, the scum of the fucking earth!
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
Her programming was indeed very, very impressive.
  But her barber-selection software could've been improved upon, methinks. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
Icelander The Minstrel in the Gallery   Registered: 03/15/05 Posts: 95,368 Loc: underbelly |
| ||||||
|
I'd hit it.
Opps, thought I was in OTD.  
-------------------- "Don't believe everything you think". -Anom. " All that lives was born to die"-Anom. With much wisdom comes much sorrow, The more knowledge, the more grief. Ecclesiastes circa 350 BC Edited by Icelander (10/30/05 08:24 AM)
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
-------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
crunchytoast oppositional Registered: 04/07/05 Posts: 1,133 Loc: aporia Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
let me get this straight. in your reading, objectivist "reason" just means interpretation, and has nothing to do with actual reason? for the sake of clarity, i'll call reason1 what the dictionary defines as reason, and reason2 what you interpret rand calling reason (i.e. interpretation). maybe you and i see eye to eye more than i originally thought. still, skorpivo, while i think you get it, i have my doubts about rand. after all, why would rand use the word reason2 as a proxy for interpretation, if she did not think that reason1 were the only possible means of interpretation? i think this must be the result of rand's fuzzy thinking rather than an error on your part. after all, this reading of rand is hardly corroborated by this quote:
honestly it sounds like "reason" has a stronger meaning for her, than simply interpretation. rand states reason not experience is the source of knowledge.
that's a very interesting reading of that paragraph! honestly i read that "or" as the word is often used in that context, as a susbstitute for "IOW" 
i'll concede that perhaps in a loose sense of the word logic is a "science" but what i meant is, it is not in a science in the strict sense of hypothesis, experiment, etc.
yes, in the loose sense (reasonable2) that bears little resemblance with reasonable1 as the word is defined in dictionaries. in that sense you are correct.
i wonder what you mean by arbitrary.
let's try logic2 (objectivist) instead of logic1 (dictionary). i'm confused. is this an example of something being logical2 (arbitrary) or not?
so you're saying that intention behind words gives them their meaning? alright, but i'm not sure what the difference is between logic and reason2 (in the objectivist senses). i mean, i'm curious. if reason2 is merely interpretation, then what is the point of using a term "logic2" that is distinct in any way from "reason2" (ie interpretation)? i mean, since logic2 bears no resemblance to logic1, then what is it? i mean, i'm curious about your reading of rand's logic2. i believe rand uses "logic" and "reason" as proxies for "interpretation" for a reason, namely because she can't conceive that there could ever be non-reasonable1, non-logical1 interpretation.
it's true, my answer only applies to the dictionary definitions of reason and logic, not to this reading of objectivism that you've offered.
my point is this kind of speech falls out of what anyone but an a skorpivoan objectivist considers logic.
let me make this distinction. interpretation (ie. reason2) is not knowledge but conjecture. experience is knowledge, since it is absolute. while i agree that people will say they know something, that later it turns out they don't know, i would say that those people were using the word "know" incorrectly, since obviously they didn't really know what they were talking about in the first place. -------------------- "consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
in your reading, objectivist "reason" just means interpretation, and has nothing to do with actual reason?
Firstly, I must clarify something. I don?t mean to say that the objectivist concept of reason is completely walled-off from the definitions of reason found in dictionaries. It?s just that while the dictionary gives the reader a bottom-lined, succinct, definition of reason, the objectivist philosophy goes far more in-depth, expands on it, and elucidates it to another level. You have to understand: Reason is one of the central concepts of Objectivism. I have a book on Objectivism which states this quite explicitly, and has an entire chapter about 50 pages long solely on Reason. In other words, this is akin to learning about rabbits through the dictionary: ?Any of various long-eared, short-tailed, burrowing mammals of the family Leporidae, as the commonly domesticated Old World species Oryctolagus cuniculus or the cottontail. ? Compared to learning about rabbits through an entire work of knowledge/book/study that is ALL about rabbits. The definition succinctly defines the tip of the iceberg ? that?s the purpose it serves ? but it doesn?t expand on the massive iceberg underneath the surface of the ocean. I suppose you could say the Objectivist/Ayn Rand?s definition [shown above] of reason is another ?snapshot? of that particular level of the iceberg, such as the academic definition of reason is a snapshot at the tip of the iceberg. So to answer the first part of your question, the word ?interpretation? alone doesn?t suffice, IMHO, for another snapshot of what Ayn Rand is trying to say. However, if you were to say, ?Interpretation and integration?.. Then I would be satisfied with that ? although it?s still just a crystallized statement. And as for the second part of your question, yes it is related to ?actual? reason ? refer to the above clarification. Furtheremore, the definitions of reason found in dictionaries never state that reason is entirely contingent upon logic ? but they do show, in varying definitions, that logic can be employed by reason. Now let?s look at dictionary.com?s definition of reason as it applies here: 1. Good judgment; sound sense. 2. A normal mental state; sanity: He has lost his reason. 3. Logic. A premise, usually the minor premise, of an argument. Now look at Merriam-Webster?s definition of reason: a (1) : the power of comprehending, inferring, or thinking especially in orderly rational ways : INTELLIGENCE (2) : proper exercise of the mind (3) : SANITY b : the sum of the intellectual powers Merriam-Webster, although still a ?snapshot?, does give one a closer picture of the expansion on Reason, that has been elucidated by Objectivist epistemology. Both definitions from the two dictionaries can give one the right gist of the matter in discussion here, but the fact remains: as they are both crystallized forms of the vast subject which they point towards, they are still too open to misinterpretation to be considered a true means by which one can absorb the full magnitude of the subject in question. this reading of rand is hardly corroborated by this quote: "The virtue of Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action. ... It means a commitment to the principle that all of one's convictions, values, goals, desires and actions must be based on, derived from, chosen and validated by a process of thought." Ayn Rand honestly it sounds like "reason" has a stronger meaning for her, than simply interpretation. It does have a stronger meaning for her than ?interpretation?. This is what I tried to clarify earlier. rand states reason not experience is the source of knowledge. Once again, Rand actually thought correctly about the inter-relation of reason and experience. Like I said, it wasn't until Berkely and Kant [Rand's nemesis] came along and started propagating the concept of reason "in-itself", that people began to think exactly the opposite of all those people who's names began with "A", including Ayn Rand. When Ayn Rand states: "The faculty which identifies and integrates perceptual units and sensory data into concepts..." She is not excluding experience from that statement - quite the exact opposite. Experience is integrated with that faculty, and there ain't no other way around it. "Perceptual units, sensory data, etc" all those denote forms of experience. And as for the Objectivist concept of logic, it can be succinctly summarized as a formal method of reason whereby one?s thought adheres to the law of identity, which is also used in integrating ideas as well. It is the art of non-contradictory identification, and is integrated with experience. In this integrated sense, one can use logic [and really, we all do] to understand paradoxes, for instance. And in regards to your response to my challenge for you to determine the validity of you being an object that is entirely comprised of a roll consisting of shredded tobacco, firmly wrapped in tobacco leaves, which is referred to as a "cigar", without any reasoning or logic whatsoever, the challenge still stands regardless of any way you try to slice it. I'll humor you though: Now that I've spelled out the definition of what a cigar is, proceed to demonstrate the validity [or lack thereof] of that premise without any reason and logic whatsoever - by definitions of the terms of your choice. i wonder what you mean by arbitrary. An arbitrary statement is a statement without reason or justification. It is unsupported by any facts or reasons. Epistemologically, we may accept the validity of a statement for various reasons. The more support we have for the statement, the more likely we are to believe its validity. Arbitrary statements, though, have no support at all. Often the arbitrary statement is absurd. An example of an arbitrary statement is claiming the possibility that all blue objects will turn green after a particular date. But not all arbitrary statements are absurd; some might conform to possibilities we accept. If someone stated that there was alien life on a specific planet, it wouldn't necessarily be absurd. We may accept that, given our knowledge of life, it certainly is possible elsewhere. The statement could be true, since it conforms to our knowledge, and we may have reason to believe it exists on some planet. It's arbitrary because someone specified a specific planet, without reason or facts to support it. experience is knowledge, since it is absolute. I simply cannot see how this is, unless you?re implying that reason and logic are included in the very word ?experience? that you used in that statement. Moreover, from that statement, I gather that you claim knowledge is absolute? By which definition of absolute are you going by? -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (10/31/05 05:22 AM)
| |||||||
|
crunchytoast oppositional Registered: 04/07/05 Posts: 1,133 Loc: aporia Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
yet it refers to the same iceberg. thus, if rand uses the word reason, at least one of the dictionary definitions should apply, even if the definition is merely cursory.
i'll throw rational in there:
plainly when talking about rational in this thread, i'm not talking about mathematics. i'm talking about epistemology. similarly, when i'm talking about reason, i'm are not talking about sanity, which is a legal term, and arguably a psychiatric one. nor am i talking about proper decision-making, since that's a subjective value judgment; what i'm talking about is epistemologically speaking, what is the source of knowledge? and which judgments are right and wrong is a different debate. only two definitions remain: logic, which totally fails to withstand the argument about paradox; or "the sum of the intellectual powers", which is problematic when you look at rand's words: "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge." yet certainly the intellectual powers aren't the only source of knowledge, since that what would that mean for experience? experience is the intersection of the mind with the world. yet if rand were right, the world would have nothing to do with it. the problem with logic applies here. if knowledge is available to the mind outside of experience, then why, when experience contradicts the mind's interpretations and integrations, does experience trump reason?
"Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge," implies that reason is only source of knowledge.
yet it's not knowledge if the perceptual faculty produces the integration: "2+2=5." yet it could. yet no one could ever "know" that 2+2=5, because 2+2=4. thus the perceptual faculty does not produce knowledge, but interpretation and integration. or perhaps by integration you don't mean knowledge with reason as its source, but the appeal to experience? if that were true, then experience would necessarily be the source of knowledge, and not reason.
no paradox can be true if you apply the law of non-contradiction, since all paradoxes are contradictory.
only empirical data could sway the case either way.
this statement is false since logic views every paradox as false, even true ones. -------------------- "consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
yet it refers to the same iceberg. thus, if rand uses the word reason, at least one of the dictionary definitions should apply, even if the definition is merely cursory.
Crunchy, I explained that the definitions of reason in various dictionaries are not unrelated ? they are merely different insofar as depth and comprehension. I stated, as you?d know if you had read what I wrote, that both definitions provided can indeed be applicable ? but due to their condensed nature, they are too openly interpreted in various ways. Hence the definition of Reason as it applies here: ?The faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses.? Reason is a faculty of awareness; its function is to perceive that which exists by organizing observational data. what i'm talking about is epistemologically speaking, what is the source of knowledge? Reason. Crunchy, you previously clarified that you do think of ?empirical? as just observation. Can you outline and explain the process of obtaining knowledge from just observation? Can you show me how one obtains knowledge that, [to use your example]: 2 +2 = 4, without using reason, in any way, shape or form? only two definitions remain: logic, which totally fails to withstand the argument about paradox; or "the sum of the intellectual powers", which is problematic when you look at rand's words: "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge." ?The faculty which identifies and integrates sensory input and perceptual units into concepts.? As they say, third time?s a charm? "Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge," implies that reason is only source of knowledge. It is the only source of knowledge. Why you are blatantly evading the fact that I've told you Ayn Rand did not propagate the ignorant, asinine concept of reason "in-itself", in complete ignorance of the fact that such a dichomotization in reality is an impossibility, is beyond me. Are you a Kantian? yet it's not knowledge if the perceptual faculty produces the integration: "2+2=5." Perceptual faculty? Reason is not the perceptual faculty. thus the perceptual faculty does not produce knowledge, but interpretation and integration. Sounds like you understand.  no paradox can be true if you apply the law of non-contradiction, since all paradoxes are contradictory. Here?s the real scoop on paradoxes: A paradox is an apparently true statement or group of statements that seems to lead to a contradiction or to a situation that defies intuition. Typically, either the statements in question do not really imply the contradiction, the puzzling result is not really a contradiction, or the premises themselves are not all really true (or, cannot all be true together). The recognition of ambiguities, equivocations, and unstated assumptions underlying known paradoxes has often led to significant advances in science, philosophy and mathematics. The word paradox is often used interchangeably with contradiction; but where a contradiction by definition cannot be true, many paradoxes do allow for resolution, though many remain unresolved or only contentiously resolved (such as Curry's paradox). Still more casually, the term is sometimes used for situations that are merely surprising (albeit in a distinctly "logical" manner) such as the Birthday Paradox. This is also the usage in economics, where a paradox is an unintuitive outcome of economic theory. From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Par only empirical data could sway the case either way. Keep dancing. this statement is false since logic views every paradox as false, even true ones. Firstly, see above. Secondly, are you under the sophomoric impression that if logic fails in one area, that therefore, logic is no longer a valid tool of cognition? Furthermore, are you ignoring the fact that I stated, emphasis mine: "reason and logic"? Have you soley invested all your attention on one tidbit of only logic, and in doing so, entirely ignored the fact that reason trumps logic? -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
crunchytoast oppositional Registered: 04/07/05 Posts: 1,133 Loc: aporia Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
surely perception and organization of data are different; if i look at a series of numbers, i have perceived it, but not necessarily organized it. the perception is the experience.
completely untenable, since there is no knowledge without experience.
observation happens when a subject intersects with an object. when rand states that the sum of the intellectual powers is the source of knowledge, she forgets that it is only when the sum of the intellectual powers encounters the outside world (through experience) that you have knowledge. the example of the pencil (bent/unbent) shows something where both statements are true, if both are based in experience. IOW it's the experience that makes statements true, not anything divorced from experience. for example, using logic divorced from experience, one would conclude that both statements (bent/unbent) can't both be true. yet it's not the operation of the mind acting divorced from experience that makes the statement true, but the experience the statement is about. if i count two objects, and put them next to two other objects, and count the total as four, then i have seen how 2+2=4, as applied to this situation. but consider the person who miscounts the total four objects as five. the person used their reason (their intellectual powers), yet produced a completely false conclusion. because at some point between 1 and 5 the person's thought process left the actual experience in question. divorced from the experience, they produced a statement they could not truly know: 2+2=5.
since we agree, all that stuff about icebergs was moot. anyway, since rand is using the same word that's found in the dictionary, she must be wrong in her position that reason is the source of knowledge, since it's not the mind's intellectual powers alone that are the source of knowledge, but experience (the meeting of a mind with a world), since where they're inconsistent, experience trumps reason.
hey dude i don't know about all this reason-in-itself stuff, or what it means to be a kantian, it's just when i munch on my doritos and ask myself 'is reason the only source of knowledge,' that just doesn't make sense to me, since when reason and experience contradict, experience trumps reason. perhaps by 'I've told you Ayn Rand did not propagate the ignorant, asinine concept of reason "in-itself"' you mean to say that ayn rand didn't believe that reason was the only source of knowledge. if that's the case, i suggest you take a look at this quote i found by ayn rand-
-ayn rand mmm... doritos... 
indeed. reason doesn't produce knowledge, but experience/perception. integration produces conjecture.
i'm embarassed! you caught my typo, where i meant to type that it is the perceptual faculty that produces knowledge, etc. my bad. good eyes, skorp! 
contradiction n 1: opposition between two conflicting forces or ideas 2: (logic) a statement that is necessarily false; "the statement `he is brave and he is not brave' is a contradiction" [syn: contradiction in terms] 3: the speech act of contradicting someone; "he spoke as if he thought his claims were immune to contradiction" -dictionary.com just to make it clear, i'm just referring to contradiction as it's defined in logic. no contradiction can be true, if you believe in logic, and whenever you have a statement that takes the form "he is brave and he is not brave," you have a contradiction. "the pencil is bent/the pencil is unbent" takes this form, thus it is a contradiction. yet this statement may be true, depending on the experiences the statements refer to. maybe the paradox is possible to "resolve". but if it's a true paradox, then the paradox is true, regardless of whether someone goes about resolving it. i feel weird quoting myself, but "no paradox can be true if you apply the law of non-contradiction, since all paradoxes are contradictory." yet the existence of true paradox poses an insurmountable problem for the law of non-contradiction.
the thing is, i don't really know what point you're trying to make, so i don't really feel confident that i can provide you with an example that addresses that point  . so no matter how i respond i'll probably be dancing. let's try to find a solution that's amenable to both of us  -maybe if you want to provide the proof or whatever you're looking for, and then you want to try to draw evidence from it for your argument, go ahead.?
"I simply cannot see how [experience is knowledge], unless you?re implying that reason and logic are included in the very word ?experience? that you used in that statement. " IOW "reason is knowledge and logic is knowledge"? all i have to do to show this statement is false is to show that either reason or logic is not sufficient for knowledge. i don't have to show every single way in which this statement is false. i doubt any mortal could do that! just kidding skorpanyway, surely this statement is false if logic is not sufficient for knowledge.
this statement is false because i am under no sophomoric impressions about logic, i swear! all i'm saying is that since logic views all paradoxes as false, even true ones, logic is not sufficient for knowledge. same thing goes for reason. reason often produces false beliefs. therefore reason is not sufficient for knowledge. only experience is. -------------------- "consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger Edited by crunchytoast (11/04/05 09:30 PM)
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
completely untenable, since there is no knowledge without experience.
Yet again, you assume that I hold the Kantian view of experience apart from reason. Drop that assumption, and realize that I acknowledge that experience IS a must for knowledge. Is this so hard? observation happens when a subject intersects with an object. when rand states that the sum of the intellectual powers is the source of knowledge, she forgets that it is only when the sum of the intellectual powers encounters the outside world (through experience) that you have knowledge. Unbelievable. You're still blatantly asserting the false assumption of Miss Rand's teachings - why? Even Dr. Peikoff himself made this explicit. I think you're obviously playing daft for the sake of persistence. the example of the pencil (bent/unbent) shows something where both statements are true, if both are based in experience. IOW it's the experience that makes statements true, not anything divorced from experience. for example, using logic, which is one method of divorcing reason from experience, one would conclude that both statements (bent/unbent) can't both be true. yet it's not the operation of the mind acting divorced from experience that makes the statement true, but the experience the statement is about. if i count two objects, and put them next to two other objects, and count the total as four, then i have seen how 2+2=4, as applied to this situation. but consider the person who miscounts the total four objects as five. the person used their reason (their intellectual powers), yet produced a completely false conclusion. because at some point between 1 and 5 the person's thought process left the actual experience in question. divorced from the experience, they produced a statement they could not truly know: 2+2=5. All that verbiage, and you haven't showed me how one obtains knowledge or an understanding of something, without using reason or reason divorced from experience. How you cannot grasp the glaring impossibility of this, is amazing. since we agree, all that stuff about icebergs was moot. The reason I provided the third alternative, is because I don't agree with your other two initial alternatives - they didn't quite "hit it" right, but of course, you do have to realize, it's all semantics at that point. I am trying to tell you, that the third alternative I have provided, is one that is most free of semantical confusion. anyway, since rand is using the same word that's found in the dictionary, she must be wrong in her position that reason is the source of knowledge, since it's not the mind's intellectual powers alone that are the source of knowledge, but experience (the meeting of a mind with a world), since where they're inconsistent, experience trumps reason. I have NEVER said that it was reason or intellectual powers alone that is the source of knowledge - and you know this. Reason and experience are ONE. hey dude i don't know about all this reason-in-itself stuff, Not a single iota of hints, not even the faintest grasp, or gist gained from the several times I have discussed that very point with you?  perhaps by 'I've told you Ayn Rand did not propagate the ignorant, asinine concept of reason "in-itself"' you mean to say that ayn rand didn't believe that reason was the only source of knowledge. Gee, you're actually getting somewhere now. if that's the case, i suggest you take a look at this quote i found ----------------------- "Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge" ----------------------- ayn rand And yet again, must I explain that Ayn Rand wasn't utterly ignorant so as to think that reason can produce knowledge without experience? [Or experience alone producing knowledge, for that matter?] indeed. reason doesn't produce knowledge, but experience/the perceptual faculty. Okay, Crunchy, show me how the perceptual faculty produces the fact that water does not freeze at 100 degrees Fahrenheit, in complete absence of reason. If reason does not produce knowledge, show me how experience produces knowledge without any reason whatsoever. integration produces conjecture. Where is the conjecture when I reason that the water is not boiling when I observe it's state at the temperature of 150 degrees Fahrenheit? i'm embarassed! you caught my typo, where i meant to type that it is the perceptual faculty that produces knowledge, etc. my bad. good eyes, skorp! Well, that's a shame. Perhaps for an instant, your own inner-intelligence slipped through and was trying to tell you something. the existence of true paradox poses an insurmountable problem for the law of non-contradiction. Bottom line: Reality does not contradict itself - only our evaluations of our perceptions can. If you define a Paradox which contains a contradiction per se, then it simply will not be true in reality. But subjectively, in our heads, that's another story. the thing is, i don't really know what point you're trying to make, Sigh. The point, once more: Is that you cannot prove that you are not a cigar [as defined previously] using only experience divorced from reason. Or to bring the broader point home: You cannot provide facts of anything solely on experience alone and apart from reason. "I simply cannot see how [experience is knowledge], unless you?re implying that reason and logic are included in the very word ?experience? that you used in that statement. " IOW "reason is knowledge and logic is knowledge"? Nein. What I meant to imply was that reason and logic are classified under experience. all i'm saying is that since logic views all paradoxes as false, even true ones, logic is not sufficient for knowledge. same thing goes for reason. reason often produces false beliefs. therefore reason is not sufficient for knowledge. So, in your view, because logic inapplicable in one area [paradoxes], it is therefore no longer sufficient for knowledge beyond that area? And, in your view, because reason can be used, and is used for producing beliefs [but, not always, of course], it is no longer sufficient for knowledge, beyond that usage of reason? This does not compute. only experience is. I have invited you to show how this is, yet, nothing has been brought to the table. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (11/05/05 12:20 AM)
| |||||||
|
crunchytoast oppositional Registered: 04/07/05 Posts: 1,133 Loc: aporia Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
crunchytoast said:
i thought ever since i posted that, that everything was in the context of rand's beliefs. you may very well see the light i'm shining. as for rand, rand clearly believes that reason is the only source of knowledge. "Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge," -ayn rand Unbelievable. You're still blatantly asserting the false assumption of Miss Rand's teachings - why? Even Dr. Peikoff himself made this explicit. I think you're obviously playing daft for the sake of persistence. i honestly believe what i'm posting here. please keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum! All that verbiage, and you haven't showed me how one obtains knowledge or an understanding of something, without using reason or reason divorced from experience. How you cannot grasp the glaring impossibility of this, is amazing. huh? here is my position: experience is the sole source of knowledge. reason divorced from experience provides no knowledge. i thought my verbiage (!) made that clear. can you offer a more substantial argument than simply claiming that i'm wrong? since we agree, all that stuff about icebergs was moot. The reason I provided the third alternative, is because I don't agree with your other two initial alternatives - they didn't quite "hit it" right, but of course, you do have to realize, it's all semantics at that point. I am trying to tell you, that the third alternative I have provided, is one that is most free of semantical confusion. vague. re-reading and re-reading this thread, i can't for the life of me figure out what alternatives you have in mind. <cough> <cough> moot <cough> <cough> I have NEVER said that it was reason or intellectual powers alone that is the source of knowledge - and you know this. Reason and experience are ONE. that's a pretty intense conclusion. look, i don't know what your position is. you may very well agree with me. but rand clearly states that she thinks reason is the only source of knowledge. as for reason and experience are one- people conclude false things through their reason (intellectual powers, logic) all the time. like the example with 2+2=5 through miscounting. surely, the person who counts 2+2=5 is using their intellectual powers, yet surely no one could possibly know that 2+2=5. perhaps by 'I've told you Ayn Rand did not propagate the ignorant, asinine concept of reason "in-itself"' you mean to say that ayn rand didn't believe that reason was the only source of knowledge. Gee, you're actually getting somewhere now. note to self: the patronizing tone of skorpivo's post is really doing a number on my self-esteem. it's self-affirmation time! skorpivo, listen up! the patronizing tone of your post won't phase me from adhering to the cold rigor of my argument! whew! time to do some breathwork... And yet again, must I explain that Ayn Rand wasn't utterly ignorant so as to think that reason can produce knowledge without experience? [Or experience alone producing knowledge, for that matter?] you can assure me that ayn rand doesn't believe that reason is the source of knowledge all you want, but i prefer to believe ayn rand on this. sh... i think she's saying something. what's that ayn rand? you want to tell us what you think of reason?
-ayn rand gee, what an interesting quote you have there, ayn rand; you seem to think that reason is the only source of knowledge.
my statements about reason are no more inscrutable than the statement of a person who enjoys the combination of vanilla and chocolate, but dislikes the flavors individually. experience is the intersection of intellectual powers with the external world. when i say that experience provides knowledge, not reason, i'm simply stating that it's the combination of intellectual powers with the world, not the intellectual powers themselves that is the source of knowledge. if you take away all the intellectual powers, naturally you can't have experience or knowledge. if you take away the outside world, you can't have experience or knowledge that way either. yet since experience trumps reason when they contradict, the only possible conclusion is that experience is the source of knowledge, not reason.
hey, what if it's an illusion? it's not impossible to mistake appearances for reality.
by implying that i have inner intelligence embedded in unintelligence, you have done nothing to support your argument, but made another personal attack.
i totally agree 100% that our evaluations of our perceptions can. i wish someone would clue ayn rand in.
ayn rand could learn a thing or two from this.
if by reason here, you mean the sum of the intellectual powers, then i would say: since experience is the intersection of intellectual powers and the outside world, how could there be experience without intellectual powers? what are you talking about? if by reason you mean logic, then yeah experience is the only source of knowledge, even experience divorced from logic.
when the logician looks at "the pencil is bent/the pencil is unbent" and says that that statement is false by virtue of the law of non-contradiction, regardless of experiential referents, this plainly does not constitute knowledge, but the mind acting alone, deluded, divorced from experience. [qupte]all i'm saying is that since logic views all paradoxes as false, even true ones, logic is not sufficient for knowledge. same thing goes for reason. reason often produces false beliefs. therefore reason is not sufficient for knowledge. So, in your view, because logic inapplicable in one area (paradoxes), it is therefore no longer sufficient for knowledge beyond that area? i haven't really thought about that. all i showed was that logic isn't sufficient for knowledge, which was all i needed to show to disprove your statement.
because reason is used to produce erroneous beliefs, and erroneous beliefs do not constitute knowledge, reason is not sufficient for knowledge.
on the contrary, i have brought many examples. paradox is such an example. i have shown that experience is the sole determinant of the truth of any paradoxical statement. -------------------- "consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
as for rand, rand clearly believes that reason is the only source of knowledge.
"Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge," -ayn rand Unbelievable. You're still blatantly asserting the false assumption of Miss Rand's teachings - why? Even Dr. Peikoff himself made this explicit. I think you're obviously playing daft for the sake of persistence. i honestly believe what i'm posting here. please keep the ad hominem attacks to a minimum! Okay, so let me get this straight. All of this boils down to the fact that you simply cannot grasp that Ayn Rand did not think of reason apart from experience? Because of the fact that Miss Rand didn't make it explicit in those quotes, you make the assumption - in spite of not only what I have been saying to the contrary, but Dr. Peikoff's clarification to the contrary as well - that she actually believed knowledge is attainable with reason apart from experience? Crunchy, why? What gives? huh? here is my position: experience is the sole source of knowledge. reason divorced from experience provides no knowledge. i thought my verbiage (!) made that clear. can you offer a more substantial argument than simply claiming that i'm wrong? Again: Experience AND Reason are together the dual source of human knowledge. You, are saying that experience ALONE is the SOLE source of knowledge. Knowledge is the mental grasp of the facts of reality, knowledge pertains to an understanding of something, knowledge is a ground of knowing. To have knowledge soley from the faculty of observation, is quite impossible. If I simply observe the entities that amount to: "2 + 2 = 4" without using any integration, then no knowledge is acquired. All I see are squiggly black lines. I have to integrate my sensory data into concepts, to form knowledge. Just pure observation itself does not tell me the what or the how, only the that. look, i don't know what your position is. you may very well agree with me. but rand clearly states that she thinks reason is the only source of knowledge. My positions 1.) Reason inter-related with experience is the only source of knowledge. 2.) Ayn Rand's position was no different from the above. The reason why Dr. Peikoff had to clarify and reiterate to folks exactly what I am telling you here [as stated in both positions], is because of people like you that make such uneducated assumptions. hey, what if it's an illusion? it's not impossible to mistake appearances for reality. An illusion? If the appearance of water boiling were merely an effect of super-unicorns fornicating in rainbows, this does not subvert reality. All you are doing is explaining why boiling water is. A thing may not be condemned as unreal on the grounds that it is "only an effect," which can be given a deeper explanation. One does not subvert the reality of something by explaining it. One does not make objects or qualities subjective by identifying the causes that underlie them - in Peikoff's words. when the logician looks at "the pencil is bent/the pencil is unbent" and says that that statement is false by virtue of the law of non-contradiction, regardless of experiential referents, this plainly does not constitute knowledge, but the mind acting alone, deluded, divorced from experience. Observation and experience are both inter-related, but experience is not solely observation, nor is observation the sole means of experience. To put it boldly: The mind can never, ever, be divorced from experience. all i showed was that logic isn't sufficient for knowledge, which was all i needed to show to disprove your statement. Crunchy, when you say "isn't sufficient for knowledge", that's a little general; vague. You have to clarify: Do you mean to say, unsufficient for specific, certain areas of knowledge [implying that most areas are applicable], or that logic is not sufficient for knowledge as a whole? because reason is used to produce erroneous beliefs, and erroneous beliefs do not constitute knowledge, reason is not sufficient for knowledge. Of course, erroneous beliefs do not constitute knowledge. But to claim that because reason is often used to produce erroneous beliefs, that reason is no longer valid for knowledge, is just as ridiculous as claiming that science is strictly empiricist and not a combination of reason, logic and empiricism, as you've stated. The very fact that we must use reason to obtain knowledge, proves that reason is sufficient for knowledge. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love. Edited by SkorpivoMusterion (11/05/05 02:28 AM)
| |||||||
|
crunchytoast oppositional Registered: 04/07/05 Posts: 1,133 Loc: aporia Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
|
as for rand, rand clearly believes that reason is the only source of knowledge.
"Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge," -ayn rand
she made explicit that reason is "the ONLY source of knowledge" (emphasis mine).
you and peikoff can say all you want. ayn rand's words are ayn rand's words.
she clearly says that reason is the only source of knowledge. consider the ice cream example, the person who likes the combination of vanilla and chocolate but neither aline. experience is the combination of mind and world. neither mind nor world alone is sufficient for experience. the statement "reason is the only source of knowledge" is plainly false. yet here are rand's words, in broad daylight for all to see:
-ayn rand
you seem to think that if a person thinks about something, that it's not experience. but surely thinking about an object can be part of a person's experience of an object. let's say a person integrates 2+2=4 into what in their head means, 2+2=5, perhaps through misreading. surely the integration disconnected from the outside world doesn't provide knowledge. only where the thought process is connected with the outside world have you got knowledge.
on the contrary, rand is quite clear that experience is not a source of knowledge: "Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge," -ayn rand keep dancing!
by uneducated perhaps you mean reading her actual words instead of relying on equivocating interpretations? this whole line of reasoning reminds me of christians who don't believe in hell.
if only the effect matters, then surely you must think dream worlds are as real as the every day world?
so you're saying the person who believes that 2+2=5 doesn't believe something that is totally divorced from actual experience?
let me clarify. logic is not the source of knowledge. only when the logician's conclusions happen to have experiential referents can logic claim any knowledge; yet even then logic is not the source, since it's experience that determines whether the conclusions are knowledge, not logic itself.
because reason produces false beliefs, it is not the source of knowledge, to ayn rand's chagrin, i'm sure. yet this same critique doesn't apply to experience. no belief grounded in experience is false; on the contrary, such beliefs constitute knowledge.
on the contrary, the example of the person using reason to produce an erroneous belief shows that reason is not sufficient for knowledge; at most it is necessary for knowledge. in any case it is not the source of knowledge. -------------------- "consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger
| |||||||
|
SkorpivoMusterion Livin in theTwilight Zone... Registered: 01/30/03 Posts: 9,954 Loc: You can't spell |
| ||||||
|
you and peikoff can say all you want. ayn rand's words are ayn rand's words.
Sorry to hear that. End of that discussion. you seem to think that if a person thinks about something, that it's not experience. but surely thinking about an object can be part of a person's experience of an object. No. When I am using the word experience in that context, I am reiterating the statement you made: sensation is the source of knowledge That sensory input is the source of knowledge. What I am saying, is that our sensory input does not give us knowledge, it does not give us an understanding of anything, it does not integrate anything, it does not give us the what or the how, only the that. if only the effect matters, then surely you must think dream worlds are as real as the every day world? Both exist. Just because two things differ from each other in various respects, does not mean one is more "real" than the other. To repeat: Both exist. logic is not the source of knowledge. Nor was any claim made to the contrary. only when the logician's conclusions happen to have experiential referents can logic claim any knowledge; Mhmm. yet even then logic is not the source, since it's experience that determines whether the conclusions are knowledge, not logic itself. Of course it is not "logic itself". It is the combination of logic and experience. because reason produces false beliefs, it is not the source of knowledge, to ayn rand's chagrin, i'm sure.  on the contrary, the example of the person using reason to produce an erroneous belief shows that reason is not sufficient for knowledge; at most it is necessary for knowledge. in any case it is not the source of knowledge. Oh I see, so because I said "Reason is sufficient for knowledge", you took that to mean: Reason [itself] is the source of knowledge? Well, allow me to clarify: That is not what I meant. Reason is necessary for knowledge, there we go. That wraps it up. Crunchy, I'm done with you. -------------------- Coffee should be black as hell, strong as death, and sweet as love.
| |||||||
|
crunchytoast oppositional Registered: 04/07/05 Posts: 1,133 Loc: aporia Last seen: 19 years, 5 months |
| ||||||
absolutely; you failed to explain the inconsistency between the interpretation that you and peikoff offer, on the one hand, and ayn rand's actual words on the other.
on the contrary, without sensory experience we could not know the what or the how. however, if you are merely stating that the mind is necessary for knowledge, then we agree.
interesting perspective!
SkorpivoMusterion said:
IOW "reason is knowledge and logic is knowledge"? is this a "claim made to the contrary" or not?
not so; the example of the true paradox (or the true contradiction) shows that it is not the combination of logic and experience, but experience alone that determines whether conclusions are knowledge, since where they contradict, experience trumps logic.
as long as by reason you mean the mind's intellectual powers, and not logic, then yes, we're agreed on this point. we still seem to disagree about whether rand believed that reason was the only source of knowledge.
-------------------- "consensus on the nature of equilibrium is usually established by periodic conflict." -henry kissinger
| |||||||
|
Phred Fred's son  Registered: 10/18/00 Posts: 12,949 Loc: Dominican Republ Last seen: 11 years, 7 months |
| ||||||
|
Crunchytoast, you are apparently deliberately misinterpreting Rand's words. Either that or you failed to read all she said.
If someone says "Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of snortmin as one's only source of knowledge," it is a meaningless statement without a definition of snortmin. Fortunately, Rand provides us that definition -- "By snortmin, I mean the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. " Clearly you disagree with her definition of reason (snortmin). What is your definition? Experience alone tells us nothing. Reason is required to make sense of the experience. And reason by definition cannot even operate in the absence of something on which to operate -- experience. This is so self-evident a fact that Rand didn't feel the necessity to include an unnecessary extra tag phrase every time she uttered the word "reason". Rand was a conceptual thinker. Once she had defined a concept (in this case, "reason") she expected the listener to understand that each time she spoke the word she was necessarily invoking the concept the word represents. Further, let's recognize another self-evident fact -- when Rand defines "rationality" as "the recognition and acceptance of reason as one's only source of knowledge, she is also implicitly stating that: - recognizing and accepting divine revelation as a source of knowledge - recognizing and accepting popular opinion as a source of knowledge - recognizing and accepting one's emotional responses as a source of knowledge - recognizing and accepting arbitrary speculation as a source of knowledge - recognizing and accepting random picks from a list as a source of knowledge are not examples of rationality. You have spent enormous amounts of time in this thread attempting to show Rand believes a concept she never believed -- that reason, divorced from experience -- provides knowledge. To bolster this erroneous view, you have deliberately isolated a single phrase from the sentence of which it was a part and misrepresented it as a statement made on its own, in isolation. Rand's entire sentence was a definition of rationality, not an exhortation for people to go forth and attempt to acquire knowledge through identifying and integrating nothing at all. Further, are we certain the transcript of the interview (and let's remember it was an INTERVIEW, not a philosophical essay) is accurate? Suppose the transcriber mistook "reasoning" for "reason", for example. Then her sentence reads: "Rationality means the recognition and acceptance of reasoning as one's only source of knowledge." Even if she really did say "reason" in that particular interview, taken in context her meaning is crystal clear. Expending vast amounts of time nitpicking an out of context sentence fragment in an attempt to prove your point shows in my opinion either intellectually dishonesty or a failure to grasp the concepts being discussed. Phred -------------------- 
| |||||||
| |||||||
[Re: 
Edit 
Reply 
| Shop: Unfolding Nature: Being in the Implicate Order Golden Teacher Liquid Culture For Sale |
|
| Similar Threads | Poster | Views | Replies | Last post | ||
 |
 |
Critiques of Ayn Rand's Objectivism (  1 2 all ) |
 Trepiodge |
3,051 | 24 | 07/30/07 06:03 PM by Left Nut City |
|
|
Ayn Rand: The Destroyer Of Christianity ( 1 2 all ) |
 RationalEgo |
1,786 | 25 | 09/30/09 10:14 AM by Noteworthy |
|
|
Ayn Rand ( 1 2 all ) |
 Rahz |
1,542 | 29 | 02/24/15 11:40 PM by praxadox |
|
|
Ayn Rand: The Roots of War |  Prosgeopax |
1,106 | 6 | 01/28/05 09:07 PM by Swami |
|
 |
Rand-esque Philosophy |  GoodbyeOrb |
528 | 0 | 02/21/08 10:45 AM by GoodbyeOrb |
|
|
Objectivism - The Libertarians? Albatross |  Evolving |
911 | 5 | 11/03/04 08:48 PM by Frog |
|
|
Objectivism? ( 1 2 3 4 all ) |
 WhiteRabbitt |
5,830 | 65 | 12/14/04 03:40 PM by Phred |
|
|
Objectivism.. Here We Go Again! ( 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 all ) |
 Ped |
11,881 | 129 | 03/21/06 10:37 PM by SkorpivoMusterion |
| Extra information | ||
| You cannot start new topics / You cannot reply to topics HTML is disabled / BBCode is enabled Moderator: Middleman, DividedQuantum 5,377 topic views. 2 members, 32 guests and 13 web crawlers are browsing this forum. [ Show Images Only | Sort by Score | Print Topic ] | ||