Objectivist Epistemology

[SecretTheatre]

Oh dear, somebody needs to read Wittgenstein's 'On Certainty' pretty darn quick.

[RonGOdenJr]

Another question:

Since our coming into this world is not a matter of personal choice, how does it rationally follow that anyone be obligated to nurture the helpless baby into adulthood? And upon maturing, how can that life morally stake claim to anything, since he does not owe his initial existence to his own merits and personal accomplishments, but to the efforts of the generation that preceded him?

[derfos666]

Consciousness is identification needs more explanation: is this the claim that ALL consciousness is identification? If it is, I can deny it without self contradiction by making the claim "not all, but some, consciousness includes identification." Then all I would need to do is give an example of consciousness that doesn't include identification. Candidates could be: religious/spiritual experiences, aesthetic judgments. These are things you can be conscious of without identifying them as such.

[tautologicalnickname]

How do you think Rand got to her axioms, simply the way every other axiom is created: in an arbitrary fashion. Those axioms may appeare "self evident" to you but that's not an argument in favor for their "abstolutivity". Goedel demonstrated that you can't prove an axiom by using its internal formal logic. Hence your axioms are not superior to any other set of ones.

[cuttlefishgem]

@tautologicalnickname You are wrong tautological. A=A. Rands axioms are self evident. That is a fact. That fact is an irrefutable fact by virtue of the fact that it is true. The axiom exists. Fact. Therefore it is true. Absolutely. Only an idiot could deny that what exists, exists in truth and is irrefutable. the axiom is a reality and reality has its own existence independent of your perception of it. So there.

[tautologicalnickname]

I'm sorry but when you say that in order to refute an axiom you first have to accept it, are you saying that you accept it because you are using the logic that derives from those axioms in order to refute them? If so then ok the axioms are implicitely true. But I think there's another way to refute those axioms: simply by arbitrarily chosing axioms that are negative to the first ones. In that way I didn't accept your axioms.

[GreenFont]

I have only read "The Virtue of Selfishness" so I am not totally informed on the whole of Objectivism but Rand says that people should be guided be rationality in order to achieve their values morally, this implies that a person should always take the rational course of action, however paradoxically doesn't this just serve to trap one person within one avenue of action and thus not serving to individually emancipate them from the altruist morality, in short, an implication for free will?

[LithiumLogica]

I have a few problems with statements you make. An axiom is not "an irrefutable fact". By attempting to refute something as a claim or concept, you do not have to accept it.

ax·i·om

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2.ax·i·om

1. a self-evident truth that requires no proof.

2. a universally accepted principle or rule.

3. Logic, Mathematics . a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.

[Kikarok]

@LithiumLogica

The definition Cropper gives is implicit in the first definition you give. Cropper's description is what would be necessary for something to be self-evident and require no proof.

[SirWinstonChurchill]

Morality and all of those associated ideals are rooted entirely in the presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

Nature is pure war with every man against another. Fear of death is the only way to keep the peace, so man is civilized by the threat of violence against him for transgressions upon his neighbor...

Nature does not care. Nature does not need human permission. Nature is the only eternal victor. Nature kills everything.

[mechnar9]

We teach the year one undergraduates why existence exists in logically invalid :)

[oJKBo]

which one of those books would be best?

[tookonehourtogetthis]

Are objectivists against monopoly? I remember Rand talking against it, in one of her interviews. But Im not sure if she was referring to monopoly, created by the state, or monopoly, created by an individuals production.

Saying that monopoly is wrong; isnt that the same as saying that individualism is wrong? Because if a skilled enough individual with aspirations that are high enough , then he or she will inevitably reach monopoly.

competens and ambitions are virtues in objectivism....

[AaronRes]

5:44 "Bologna!" Can someone explain to me why that argument is false? That things are perceived differently by everyone?

[chicochew]

I'm not sure I agree with what you said about those arguments concerning skepticism. It seemed that none of those statements attempted to contradict existence, only to enquire upon the nature of reality. If you were to say 'existence is an illusion'- I would agree that there appears to be an internal contradiction.

[CoombesKidd]

philosophy on youtube. i love it.

[Stunr99]

This is great

[BrettDunbar]

Do you have any fun at all? I mean you seem to just read all the fucking time.

[tireironman]

maybe reading is fun =]

[August1977]

Consciousness is the awareness of semiotic controversie, ambiguity and choice, driven by the urge for consensus and social order.

[Thresholds]

Only people who don't know anything about philosophy take Rand seriously...

[StayingSain]

Is there a set standard to which a philosophy is compared? And even if there was one it wouldn't be relative to any philosophy it was compared to.

You make yourself sound as if you don't know anything about Objectivism and are a person who doesn't care to know, making you comment invalid.

[figocooldude]

@Thresholds I nail her in the ass. You see Beauvoir, this is why women shouldn't get near philosophy.

[theonlyway2truth]

The only reason why I disagree with objectivism is my reformed epistemology and the arguments for the existence of God. At the least, those two beliefs make it so objectivism must be reformulated.

[Mal1234567]

Objectivism is a classic example of how philosophy can make independent thought impossible.

[haolekillah]

here i'll use objectivism to prove you wrong: since i have only sensory evidence and logical explanation to conceptualize that everyone is physically separated from one another therefor has ONLY responsibility over one's personal actions, one can ONLY experience their own consciousness, just as you can not experience mine. keep in mind whenever YOU THINK, you are using logic and reason to figure out reality or truth, not your feelings.

[Mal1234567]

Straw man. "Independent thought" has nothing to do with the impossibility of using someone else's brain to think and experience.

[victor1eremita]

zzzz, vulgar unprofound truisms masquerading as "philosophy". 140 pages of what an 8 year old can say in a few sentences.

[samdathi]

This guy doesn't say anything about the contents of Rand's books. He just tosses the book from hand to hand, tells us how long it is, and tells us that in his opinion it is a good book. Well no shit Sherlock!

[dogredrum66]

Sounds good, i'll keep an eye out for it.

[CaesersLaurel]

cheers croperb

and good point Druwg

[Druwg]

existence exists, doesn't tell me anything practical, so it is just noise: like saying superman is super. it doesn't tell me about what constitutes existence, other than existence itself, slip...oh! i've fallen into an infinite regress. so anyone could use this as the basis of thier philosophy, without it influencing how valid the philosophy is.

[Bigturns33]

I understand your thinking of superman is super, but we can explain through logic and reason why that is, in the sense of Existence exists we have the various sciences that explain that but I guess the overal axiom is just that existence exists. I think its a general statement of ayn rand rather than an explination through causation though it certainlly did happen and she would have agreed.

[Druwg]

an axiom cannot be overall, it has to have something you can logically derive from it, you can't logically derive any parts that we can test against reality from the axiom "existence exist" the axiom is stillborn and unnecassery. it's like euclid starting off his elements with "a point is pointy"

[findingthepath]

I wish there were more videos about epistemology. :)

[smukasa]

---Then I'm guessing Ayn Rand believes that the first step of true identification for a conscious individual is to realize one's Ego. And after doing that they can begin interpreting reality and what not. But good vlog man. Good Vlog.

[smukasa]

I've read one book of Ayn Rand's called "Anthem." It's a fictional tale of a revolutionary individual trapped in a conformist society. He (his name is Equality) discovers his love for science through cognitively rebelling against the societal conformity that confines him from freely practicing science. To this day it is one of my favorite novels.

But the biggest thing I took away from it was the essentialness of Ego in the discovery of one's individuality. So if Consciousness=Identification--­-

[TheAtheistChrist]

Good video, nice short introduction.

[Mal1234567]

From the foreword:'For the purposes of this series, the validity of the senses must be taken for granted—and one must remember the axiom: Existence exists.' That is a classic example of a petitio principii. Your Bible is based on a logical fallacy.

[beingjohngalt1]

The reason for the foward, explained in 2 points:

#1 - Without the validity of the senses, you would be a dribbling idiot, and...

#2 - If existence did not exist, you couldn't even be the conclusion of point #1

[Mal1234567]

#1 - "You would be a dribbling idiot" does not follow from "without the validity of the senses."

#2 - I didn't say anything about existence existing or not existing. I said that taking the validity of the sense for granted is a classic example of a petitio.

[beingjohngalt1]

Mal... If the senses were not valid, you would be unable to form perceptions of anything, and without perception; therefore, there could be no concepts. Without concepts, you would be unable to think... therefore... dribbling idiot.

Mr.Cropper added these as the given, as there are many today, especially in the "intellectual" circles, who teach the opposite and budding minds soak up their BS and sabotage their own ability to think.

[Mal1234567]

"Form perceptions"? I certainly agree that we form perceptions; however, that does not prove that the perceptions formed are valid. Invalidity vs. validity would be difficult to prove without something valid to prove it against. So all you can reasonably assert is that the perceptions are given, but you can prove nothing as to validity. Therefore, their validity must always be assumed. The fact that we are not all drooling idiots is not proof of their validity, as you claimed.

[ucgistu]

Axioms are not facts, they are statements, pleas check the terms that you use so easily.

[Druwg]

well, they aren't just statements. axioms are the "self evident" (or more controversially ), the universally accepted prepositions that are used for the foundation of a logical system, map or model. they don't necasserily relate to "fact" (like axioms for surreal numbers, they are fictitious but logical)

[beingjohngalt1]

Sorry Druwg, but you are incorrect. Firstly, universal acceptance cannot make something true. It is true or it is not true. Axioms are the basic, core FACTS that cannot be refuted without being accepted into one's very argument against them.. Axioms neccesarily DO relate to facts, they ARE facts, and you cannot escape the three axioms of Existence, Consciousness and Identity. Every sentence you utter uses them and cannot get around doing so.

[Druwg]

"Firstly, universal acceptance cannot make something true" i never said that, and don't believe it to be true, if you read my earlier post, and read it correctly you would understand.

"It is true or it is not true" i agree

"Axioms are the basic, core FACTS that cannot be refuted without being accepted into one's very argument against them"

[Druwg]

[this is an extension to my last post].

axioms aren't necassarily facts(they are semantically distinct words. also facts are "reality based" and axioms are logico-mathematical ie "systemic"); they can be. i'm not refuting the truth of "existence exist" only that it is redundant. you cannot derive from that statement any "actual" constituents of existence "proper".

[beingjohngalt1]

Logic itself is 'reality-based' as it is a tool for identifying the contradictory and non-contradictory. This pertains to the real world.

Primary Axioms are concepts that identify root-facts. They are irreducable, thus making them primary statements of fact (meaning that it is true by neccesity).

[beingjohngalt1]

So then, 'babies are metalic' is a better example of an axiom? Sorry, but the three primarty axioms are indeed facts. in FACT, they make all facts possible.

[ucgistu]

"they make all facts possible" may be it would be better to say that they make all santances about facts meaningful

[MIndFlare9]

Well, Im certainly interested now in Ayn Rand, by chance have you read Sam Harris' book "The End of Faith" It may interest you if you haven't already read it.

[selti1]

Thanks so much!!!

Well done.

I will never forget Ayn Rand, the one who gave me an integrated view of life (For the New Intellectual)

[nyculla]

i have been watching your videos and learning a whole lot. thanks for sharing!:)

[shroomingnewman]

how do you prove something is self-evident? is it by saying that it is irrefutable? that is, if someone can't refute an assertion, it must be true?

you cannot prove an axiom. it is an assertion and unprove-able, because any attempt to prove an axiom will inevitably rely upon itself and is thus cirular.

if you think presuppositions necessarily have ANYTHING to do with observation, then you have no idea what you're talking about.

[AynRandOeuvre]

Epistemology: reason. Rand defined reason as "the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses. Reason is man's only means of acquiring knowledge."

Objectivism rejects faith or feeling as a source of knowledge as well as the claim that certainty or knowledge is impossible.

Reason is man's basic means of survival, but the exercise of reason depends on each individual's choice. Rand said that what people call spirit or soul is consciousness...

[AynRandOeuvre]

...What people call free will is the freedom to think or not. That choice to think or not to think controls all one's decisions and determines one's life and character. (IrvWldNsJuly10/98AR-PhilOfObj­vsm:BrfSum:LP)

[cropperb]

"That choice to think or not to think controls all one's decisions and determines one's life and character. "

Man I love that line. Its so true...

[shroomingnewman]

axioms are not irrefutable. they are presusppositions. and like any presupposition, or premise, can be argued against.

to say axioms are self-evident, is just to say 'hey, its fucking obvious! can't you see?'. thats hardly validating an axiom.

[cropperb]

Axioms: Yes, they ARE self-evident, although they are of course highly abstract concepts encompassing everything in the universe. What makes them irrefuteable is that you have to accept them as true in order to argue against them.

[hanniballecturer]

Yes, we can call that defense through retortion. To refute the axiom of existence, you have to accept that something exists, and you end having to rely on the very axiom you seek to dethrone.

[ephekt420]

@cropperb

Axioms are HELD as self-evident to the one putting them forth. They are not beyond reproach as pseudo-philosophers like to pretend. If you cannot provide some form of justification for the proclaimed knowledge, then it can safely be regarded as belief. The problem with Rand is that she attempts to create objectivity by fiat and in doing do established an ideology closer to a cult than open, consistent, approachable philosophy.

[ryan84160]

@cropperb Then the reverse is also true. You must accept an axiom as true in order to prove it to be true. This gets you absolutely fucking no where, you are just arguing in circles.

[hanniballecturer]

That's not what 'self evident' means. If an axiom is defended through retortion, then it cannot be denied without self refutation. As for presuppositions, no presupposition can be held rationally without there being a bidirectional relationship between the presupposition and observation.

[Youhavethebody]

A *proper* axiom is either *perceptually self-evident* or directly experienced. It *is* perceptually self-evident that an external world exists; if it did not, nothing would impinge upon your own senses (there would be NO sensations, let alone perceptions).

One cannot prove that an axiom is true. BUT, one can prove that it IS an axiom, and therefore is the basis for truth.

[NathanZimmerman]

There is no reason why feelings couldn't just happen one after the other without 'things' causing them. Rand is easily defeated on this front (per Hume). Perhaps thats why philosophy departments shrug the bulk of her (see: all) work off.

[Youhavethebody]

Feelings, or emotions, are product of ideas. In order to feel anything, you have perceive something (or imagine it), identify it, evaluate it, and then respond.

Hume, basing a lot his observations on the *sensory* stage of perception (as opposed to integrated perceptions), would of course come to the conclusion that feelings can happen "out of nowhere".

[Youhavethebody]

I meant to write "the *sensory* stage of [consciousness]".

I actually didn't know that was his position on feelings, but it fits his views on consciousness (self), causality, and identity.

In the Law of Causality in the Objectivist Metaphysics, actions are *caused* by entities, and the for steps of an emotion I gave above certainly are "actions".

[Youhavethebody]

I meant to write "...and the [four] steps of an..."

The first step of emotion, was *perceiving* (or imagining)something, but Hume, acting on the sensory stage, couldn't *perceive* by following his methods. And since he denied consciousness as a integration of states of awareness, he couldn't possibly introspect in order to understand what he was identifying, and how that thing was evaluated, so for him, all that is left is the response, the "causeless" response that people "just feel."

[SirWinstonChurchill]

@shroomingnewman

"axioms are not irrefutable. they are presusppositions."

-

"Morality" is rooted entirely in a presupposition some higher power defines what is correct for human behavior.

Morality and religion belong to the psychology of error.

[Aristotle100]

well said cropper, well said. I agree with you and of course Rand is amazing and capitalism is what the world needs. Nice to see a fellow capitalism supporter here on the net fight on we capitalists aren't popular these days.

[ElFrankus]

Oh, c´mon, capitalism is as popular as ever, the u.s government is trying with all its might to implement it in irak and elsewhere..You say its not capitalism fault, but those who implement it... buddy, i am latin american, thru the 80´s and 90´s we followed strictly the "recipe" of the IMF and world bank... the economy grew, but the gap between rich and poor grew exponentially, so people that was middle class in the 80´s was poor in the 90´s. As a result, the region has swung to the left..

[ElFrankus]

I look around myself..when i see a beggar or a kid eating garbage i try to sell capitalism to them..i wonder why every country follows IMF/World Bank recipes BUT the u.s. Read Stiglitz, he shows how truly "free" is free market capitalism. It doesn´t matter that capitalists are popular or not, your views are backed by military force and no "election" will change that, so the rest is forced to accept it as the only solution or system that works.

[Aristotle100]

True capitalism is the abolition of force. I agree that this country uses force on other nations to change them, and i dont agree with that. True capitalism is quid pro quo, or what for what. Force is only allowed to be used for self defense and against those who used force. The war in Iraq was a mistake and i can see that. But we cant blame capitalism for problems that people caused while under the guise of capitalism. What this country stands for now is not capitalism in its true sense.

[ElFrankus]

Here´s how capitalism works OUTSIDE the U.S: U.S buys cheaply important raw materials: Oil, copper, bananas, etc. from poor countries. Then it sells back to those countries goods made from those raw materials at a high cost, making it impossible for the country to manufacture and sell goods in the U.S market. paralell to this,the IMF says that free medical care and education in countries with 80% poverty and illiteracy is a waste of money.

[ElFrankus]

When a president in one of these countries decides to change things, is called "communist dictator" by the state department, the marines topple the guy in 24 hrs and the cycle begins anew.

[ElFrankus]

As regard to China, people confuse Marxism with Stalinism, which is like comparing the democracy of the US with the democracy of .. say, Irak. In that sense, since stalinism is but a relic of the past and a mistake, yes,you are right,china will become a follower ideologically speaking

[ElFrankus]

OBJECTIVISM: FASCISM

"If the poor get porrer under capitalism, why is America the single richest nation inhuman history?"

Well, if you see past US boundaries, you´ll see that capitalism is NOT succesfull in the majority of countries..150 years is a like 10 minutes in the vast realm of time..let´s see what happens next.

[Aristotle100]

lol capitalism isnt successful thats cute, i love when people try to prove that capitalism is evil or that it doesnt work, look around you is my answer. and those countries where it does not work, as you say, is not capitalism's fault. It always has to do with bad implementation and non capitalism or goverment restrictions on capitalism that hinder it. Capitalism works but more importantly it is the only moral system that man can live under.

[beingjohngalt1]

Right on, Aristotle100!

[GraduaLIntegrator]

I noticed an efficient use of your subconsciously stored ideas, the conscious interaction of which was termed by Rand as "psycho-epistemology." You provided concrete examples of why axiomatic concepts have to be used in the (futile) attempt to present alternatives to such concepts, BUT you might have also stressed the concept of "self-evidency" as a means of validating these axiomatic concepts, in order to strike the viewer with a brief, highly essentialized principle.

[GravityExNihilo]

I may be dreaming. Yes it's true, because I'm skeptical of my perception of this existence. Surely you've been there, in your dreams, where you've been so sure that it was not just a manifestation of the mind.

But of course dreams violate the principle of "existence precedes conciousness."

[imperialcrap]

Some of these moronic comments - which don't even respond to Objectivist epistemology - simply show how ignorant people are of Ayn Rand's ideas. Her theory of concept formation, defense of objectivity, and validation of reason are revolutionary.

[cropperb]

Revolutionary - I agree. It is amazing to me that so many intelectuals who discuss Rand (there aren't many) attribute her various contributions to earlier thinkers and view her own contributions as negligable. And those are people who read her (presumably), so imagine the misunderstanding of people who've never read her and only hear things from the modern culture - the vast misconceptions!

[ephekt420]

@imperialcrap

Nazism and Marxism were revolutionary as well. Being revolutionary doesn't mean they're epistemically valid, coherent or worthy of intellectual respect.  There is a reason no serious professional philosophers take Objectivism seriously.

[AynRandMotor]

Quality in an Egocracy is principle over quantity which must be subordinated as herdocracy (baaaaaa)

[cropperb]

Numbers don't lie, but people can use numbers to lie.

They been saying capitalism is doomed for 150 years now. Its bullshit. No mistake that the UN is the one behind such figures and ideas. After all, the UN is a dictators-and-thugs convention. If the poor get porrer under capitalism, why is America the single richest nation inhuman history?

[TakeAleft]

well this wont last for long... China will be richer in twenty years... how do you explain that?

[cropperb]

We'll see how rich China becomes. If they do indeed eclipse America's economic power, it will be more like 50 years, due to how far ahead we are. Size matters and China has a huge population. But the West has led the world so far and I think that, idealogically, China is bound to be a follower for some time to come.

[TakeAleft]

Also look at what happens when kapitalism and the "free marked" isnt checked...numbers dont lie, if this developement continuos the UN has estimated that America will match the criterias for underdeveloped countries in 2050 simply because of the massive numbers of people living under the poverty line... wheras in Scandinavia where taxes are approx. 45 % the lowest class are some of the richest in the world!

[TakeAleft]

There a many problems with Ayn Rands theories, this is why scientist havnt brought her work with them into the new century...for instance if people lived as these selfish individuals there would be no advancing of our societies...no willing to cooperate means no gain...

[cropperb]

Scientists haven't incorporated Rand's theories because, ike almost everyone else, they're brainwashed into believing that thinking is futile.

And you are obviously completly clueless about Rand's theories, especially her idea of selfishness. I suggest you do a bit of reading.

[GravityExNihilo]

Yeah it sounds like you're an idiot cropperb.

"You obviously don't know what Rand's philosophy is," is the defense of people who cannot defend themselves.

Ayn Rand sought to "prove morality with logic." Listen to yourself, even you know when you talk that you're bsing, "chapter 5- definitions."