Re: A Question for Believers in Objectivism

[bhigr]

How does Kant distinguish between empirical knowledge and a priori knowledge?

... an empirical judgement never exhibits strict and absolute, but only assumed and comparative universality (by induction);...[This is paraphrasing Hume!] If, on the other hand, a judgement carries with it strict and absolute universality, that is, admits of no possible exception, it is not derived from experience, but is valid absolutely a priori. [logical deduction, rationalism]....Keep on reading!

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, This is the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, a false dichotomy, as shown by Rand and I believe by Quine. There are judgments derived from experience which carry absolute universality. All live elephants are bigger than all live fleas. This generalization admits of no possible exception. Science shows that the structure of fleas puts an upper limit on body size. Science shows that the number of cells required for an elephant puts a lower limit on body size. These are mutually exclusive sizes

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Science shows...science shows.... Here you are making use of scientific theories each of which cannot be proven universally, because they rely on empirical judgement, i.e. inductive reasoning....And then it is not even logical. The number of cells does not determine alone the size of a body. The size and distribution of the cells also play a role. This you completely neglect.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, You are stuck in the throws of a variant (logical-empirical) of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. You will not be able to see my point from that perspective. It will conceptually blind you to the point I made. You show your cards when you say that scientific theories are: "not even logical." That is a thinking mistake.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler I am not stuck with anything like that. You don't even understand the distinction between analytical and synthetical judgements. You even deny Hume's conclusion that universal propositions may not be derived from a limited number of observations. 

[loneRambler]

bhigr, Regarding the size & distribution of cells, I am not neglecting them, you are. There is a lower limit of cell size based on biophysical constraints. These constraints aren't something that can be completely neglected. Instead, they form a lower limit of possibility. You fail to get that, hence your confusion. You argue that any kind of a thing can exist with any parameters. It is a philosophical denial of the Law of Identity and, by extension, Aristotle's Law of Noncontradiction.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler No, you don't get it. I think you will start by reading Hume, because here you are in stark contrast with the empirical philosophy and main stream analytical philosophy. Kant was awakened from his dogmatic slumber after reading Hume. You haven't been awakened from your dogmatic slumber;-)

[bhigr]

@loneRambler "This is the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, a false dichotomy, as shown by Rand and I believe by Quine. There are judgments derived from experience which carry absolute universality" Here you are attacking hume, who criticized inductive reasoning from experience. The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is something else. You must read some more Kant to understand the dichotomy.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, Fine, call it the logical-empirical dichotomy, or the a priori-a posteriori dichotomy, or the logical-factual dichotomy -- I do not care. They are all variants on the same theme.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler I don't care what you call it. The distinction between synthetic and analytic judgements is not what you presume it to be;-) By the way it is not the difference between a priory/a posteriori judgements. The fact that this idea is still highly debated among scholars shows the imminent importance of Kant for contemporary philosophy.

[bhigr]

And if you keep on reading you will find:

"But, though all our knowledge begins with experience, it by no means follows that all arises out of experience. For, on the contrary, it is quite possible that our empirical knowledge is a compound of that which we receive through impressions, and that which the faculty of cognition supplies from itself..."

Here he contradicts the empirical philosophy.

[bhigr]

"That all our knowledge begins with experience there can be no doubt. For how is it possible that the faculty of cognition should be awakened into exercise otherwise than by means of objects which affect our senses, ..." (Critique of pure reason, chapter I)

The corresponds to the empirical view of acquiring knowledge

[bhigr]

This is really a gross caricature of both the empiricist as well as rationalist position. Actually, poor Kant is also being completely misrepresented....Where did Ayn Rand study philosophy? I am just curious.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, Taking your last question first, Rand studied philosophy in Russia under Nikolai Lossky. As to your first points, if you stick with Hume and Leibniz like I did -- then I would argue that the caricature was appropriate. If you differ, state why. As to Kant I said 3 things:

1) he attempted to supercede previous limitations of pure rationalism and pure empiricism

2) in doing so, he made bold conjecture about a "noumenal" world

3) he stifled philosophical progress

Where/how am I wrong?

[bhigr]

@loneRambler 1) He didn't want to overcome the "incompatiblities" between rationalism and empiricism.

2) The conjecture he made is that there exists an external world, from which we receive are sensual perceptions. The bold conjecture is to believe without any evidence that these sensual perceptions completely decribe this external world. The term noumenal expresses this inherent lack of knowledge.

3) Completely wrong, Kant was a turning point in modern philosophy.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, 1) Kant tried to overcome the limitations of pure rationalism and pure empiricism. Here is the proof (caps for italics): "Leibniz INTELLECTUALIZED appearances, just as Locke ... SENSUALIZED all concepts of the understanding. ... each of these great men holds to one only of the two, viewing it as in immediate relation to things in themselves. The other faculty is then regarded as serving only to confuse ..."--Critique of Pure Reason

Kant tried to supercede Leibniz and Locke (and Hume).

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Yes, he tried to supercede them, he tried to find something new and better. But not because of limitations. Both views are incompatible, they cannot both be true. Therefore, he tried to find an approach that could reconcile the conflicting approaches. How did he do it?

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, 1) I'll consider that you agree with my first point (leading you to re-word/mis-characterize it in order to disagree by default). 2) You, like Kant, are judging sense-perception via a standard of omniscience ("completely describe"). That is wrong and leads down the wrong path (see Kant's works as an example). 3) Just because Kant was a turning point in modern philosophy doesn't mean the turning was correct. It could be that Kant turned us and sent us off of a cliff! I think he did this.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler I am judging sense-perception via standard of omniscience? You clearly don't understand Kant!

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, At this point, it seems we are in irreconcilable disagreement. You think Kant was an improvement over Aristotle, I think he was a setback. I'm willing to agree to disagree with you on that.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler No, at this point you should refrain from judging Kant's philosophy, because you clearly do not understand it. Claiming that Kant made judgments from a standard of omniscience shows irrefutably that you do not understand him. Finding the limits of something does not imply that one knows what is beyond the limits.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, While finding epistemological limits doesn't imply knowledge beyond the limits, arbitrarily setting the limits too far in (because of being stricken with a version of "naive realism") is the error of Kant. Remember, Kant said he didn't even know his own thinking, but only impressions thereof. Now, if even he does not know what he's thinking, then how are we supposed to?

[bhigr]

@loneRambler "While finding epistemological limits doesn't imply knowledge beyond the limits, arbitrarily setting the limits too far in (because of being stricken with a version of "naive realism") is the error of Kant. " Oh, so first you criticize Kant of his distinction between object of appearance and object in themselves and then your criticize him for his naive realism;-) Well, here you are refuting yourself, because both propositions may not be true.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, Kant starts with naive realism. As naive realism fails, and it does, Kant laments and replaces it with the 2 worlds hypothesis (noumenal, etc). Think about it. If naive realism failed you, wouldn't you want to create a second world that you are sure is out there and is constant? That's what Kant did when naive realism failed him. The correct thinking is to not hold naive realism dear in the first place, but to realize that senses only tell you something exists, and only minds identify it

[bhigr]

@loneRambler That's ridiculous.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler That's ridiculous. "The correct thinking is to not hold naive realism dear in the first place, but to realize that senses only tell you something exists, and only minds identify it" Well, a clear contradiction in a single sentence. First you reject naive realism and then you confirm it.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, Naive realism is when you think perception affords conceptual knowledge of the world -- when everything is just as it is perceived. In actuality, sense-perception just picks up variation in our ambient stimulus array, and we have to actively use our minds to integrate percepts in order to accrue conceptual knowledge of the world. When we solve (understand) visual illusions, we gain a conceptual knowledge which takes us past what we merely see to what is actually out there in the world.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler "...we have to actively use our minds to integrate percepts in order to accrue conceptual knowledge of the world..." That's interesting. ACTIVELY used your minds, ohohoho... How do you know that this activity renders a conceptual knowledge of the world as it is. Please provide a proof. If you can't, well then you must accept Kant's distinction between the thing in itself and the object of experience...;-)

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, You know that this activity renders a conceptual knowledge of the world as it is because you can logically reduce it back to the perceptual level. A straight stick half-submerged in water looks bent, but it isn't. In order to be able to solve (understand) this visual illusion, we integrate repeated perceptions regarding light refraction through a liquid medium. After that, seeing bent sticks in water doesn't make us wrongly think they're bent. Instead, we rightly know they're straight.

[loneRambler]

bhigr, Now you may repeat the arbitrary claim that I can't prove that an unknowable--noumenal--world doesn't exist. If you ask me to prove that an unknowable thing exists, that's completely arbitrary. You would be thinking like Descartes when he imagined the arbitrary notion of a demon tricking us and found he couldn't disprove it. I would say to Descartes that he also can't disprove that an angel is tricking the demon into thinking he's tricking us. And that's it, arbitrariness goes nowhere.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Aha so you give up. That's good. But polemics is not an answer. You made an assertion, put forth a thesis for which you have no evidence and no proof whatsoever, namely: Our mental activity renders a 1-1 representation of the real world. That is an article of faith just like a belief in god. So, if you profess to be rational then you must reject that and stay agnostic. The thing in itself is unknowable! That's the Kantian position!

[bhigr]

@loneRambler No that is not a proof. You still don't know whether your conception of the stick - the unbent stick - arrived at by actively integrating your sensual perceptions - corresponds to the "real stick". Show me your proof, and show it to me for any real object! Why should the "real object" correspond 1-1 to your mental object? Wouldn't you have to know the real object in order to prove its exact correspondence to the mental object?

[loneRambler]

--"Wouldn't you have to know the real object in order to prove its exact correspondence to the mental object?"

No. That is a wrong judgment of cognition via a standand of omniscience -- where you would have to know EVERYTHING about a subject before you can be said to know ANYTHING about a subject. And when you say "mental object" you may be working inside yet another wrong philosophical paradigm known as "sense-data" theory, or indirect perception theory. If you are a Kantian, you likely are

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Kantians don't say that they don't know anything about the object. The only thing we know is how it appears to us. We know of the object as an object of experience. In order to prove that the object of experience corresponds to the thing in itself you would indeed need a standard of omniscience. Therefore, your reasoning fails! You implicitly use this standard of omiscience, because you arrive at the conclusion that the object of experience corresponds to the real object.

[bhigr]

Stop make spurious assertion about what a person believes or does not believe.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, You're right that it's not proof, but it's not proof of something completely ARBITRARY. The arbitrary ought not be answered -- for the same reasons that if we were shouting at each other about the possible existence of little green men on the moon who played golf on Sundays but schemed about destroying the earth on weekdays -- for the same reason that that would be complete and utter nonsense.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler All Kant is saying is that we cannot know the object as it is, the real object. It is a position of agnosticism and nothing arbitrary at all! He is not making any proposition about the true nature of the thing in itself. It is merely a term to denote that there may be something we cannot know. So your green men have nothing whatsoever to do with this, nothing!

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Oh, and by the way, the idea that there are external objects that effect our senses was the starting point of our discussion. Kant calls an external object of the real world thing in itself. You want to drop the thing in itself because it is completely arbitrary like little green men. Consequently you deny the existence of external objects. So Ayn Randian objectivism leads straight to the denial of external objects = pure idealism so to speak = objectivism = UTTER NONSENSE;-)

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, You are pretty good at polemics. You're wrong, but good at what you "do" anyway. Curious, can you tell me the core principles of Objectivism?

[bhigr]

@loneRambler I merely demonstrated to you the consequence of your thinking. If you don't like it, then change your mind. Your question? A=A, existence exists, consciousness exists. Those are the core insights of objectivism;-)

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, You demonstrated the consequence of "part of" my thinking, mixed in with some of your thinking (based on false premises which you hold to be true). Fully explicit thinking/reasoning is in syllogistic form. If you care to make a syllogism of your "demonstration", I will destroy it (with logic, applied to reality). And the 3 axioms of Objectivism are: existence exists, existence is identity, consciousness is identification. Other core principles are reason is supreme, and egoism is moral.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Now you are a sore looser. You said the following:"You're right that it's not proof, but it's not proof of something completely ARBITRARY." What were you trying to prove? The identity between the perceived world and the real world. You said that this is like proving something completely ARBITRARY. Then you likened the real world with "little green men on the moon", which is "utter nonsense"... Again, I am not putting words into your mouth. I am quoting you.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, You asked me to prove wrong (or false) Kant's positive assertion of an unknowable world. In arbitrariness, that isn't much different from asking me to prove that there aren't little green men on the dark side of the moon who play golf on Sundays. Actually, the little green men scenario is, if anything, less arbitrary than Kant's postulation; as there is a way to discover whether the little green men are there. It is still proof of a negative, though. Prove to me the men aren't there.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler No, I asked you to prove that the real world is identical with the perceived word. But you can't hahaha;-)

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, Again, like Descartes' demon, that is an arbitrary and unacceptable request. Prove that there isn't a demon tricking you into believing you are in a human body and living a human life. You do not yet see the 'mysticism' involved in making assertions like Kant or Descartes. Mysticism is where you believe without seeing, when there is NO WAY to see the truth of your proposition. The proper alternative to this kind of mysticism is to root yourself in reality.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Nobody is talking about Descarte's demon. Nobody is talking about mysticism. Simple question: How do you know the real world is identical with the perceived world? You are simply polemical and off topic my dear friend;-)

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, "How do you know the real world is identical with the perceived world?" It's not. It is called "naive realism" when you think that the real world is identical with the perceived world. The proper philosophy is to understand that perception is not veridical (it is not necessarily "reality"), and move beyond the perceptual -- by correct use of the mind -- to veridical conceptual distinctions.

[loneRambler]

addendum: I meant to say that judgments made solely via perception aren't necessarily veridical judgments -- but that correct conceptual distinctions are.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler You are dodging the question.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, Then reword it. As it is written, it is a straight-forward appeal to naive realism. If you cannot differentiate your question from naive realism, then you ought not rationally expect an answer. Perception tells us that something exists, correct conceptual thought correctly identifies that which exists. I could give you thousands of examples.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Then proove that "correct conceptual thought" renders a correct identification of that which exists.

[bhigr]

@bhigr oh and i dont accept truth by definition." the thought is only correct if it identifies that which exists." Then you are left with the question, how do you know that our thinking is "correct" in this sense...Why should that which exists independent of us obey our mode of thinking? And how do you know our sense data is "correct"?

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, 10,000 years ago, prehistoric man made bows in order to shoot arrows in order to hunt and eat in order to live. What man did then is to use correct conceptual thought to identify the reality of the disparity in physical prowess between him and a mastadon and the reality of physics in order to to survive. If man didn't correctly identify what existed, if he didn't use his mind as his primary means of survival, he'd be (we'd all be) dead. When "do it wrong and die" is the bar, you get it.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler No, we have been correcting our theories of physics time and time again. In fact, we don't even have a coherent theory of physics at the moment. General Relativity and Quantum mechanics are mutually exclusive theories. I am all for scientific enquiry, but how does that prove your point: conceptual thought (based on experience) = That, which exists.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Now, I am going to show you that such a proof is impossible. In order to prove the identity on both sides of the equation, you must know what is on both sides of the equation (position of omniscience). How can we hope to know anything about that what exists in itself? Only by experience! Oh, but then your back on the wrong side of the equation, turning in circles. Therefore, remaining agnostic is the only rational position.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, "In order to prove the identity ... you must know what is on both sides of the equation (position of omniscience). "

You proved my original point for me: Incorrectly judging by a standard of omniscience, of which both you and Kant are guilty, leads down a wrong philosophical path. This isn't categorically different than Descartes' postulation of a demon trickster. In order to see that, you have to think in principles. Knowledge is always contextual and relational, and never arbitrary.

[loneRambler]

To complain about something of which there is no evidence -- is a thinking mistake.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Believing in something of which there is no evidence. That is a mistake. You are guilty of committing this mistake.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, You are the one taking Kant's noumenal postulate seriously, in order to be able to then arrive at an "agnostic" conclusion on the matter. Not taking Kant seriously, I do not need to arrive at any conclusion on that matter -- for the same reasons I do not need to arrive at any conclusion over the existence of a Cartesian demon trickster. Wrong thought needs to be challenged at the root, not halfway out on the branches of it.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler No, i showed you that you need to be omniscient in order to come to your conclusion;-), I proved that your own proposition must rely on a standard of omniscience, we do not have;-) Therefore, the proof is not possible for us humans. Demon trickster, contextual, arbitrary, all that is completely off topic. Now repent, and leave the sect called objectivism.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, "Now repent, and leave the sect called objectivism. "

If you understood Objectivism, you'd realize that I am not in a position to "repent" for my "sins."

[bhigr]

@loneRambler You have lost the argument. Objectivism is wrong.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, How come you won't put your thoughts into syllogistic form?:

Socrates is a man.

Man is mortal.

-------------------

Socrates is mortal

Are you afraid that, when you have to make your premises entirely explicit, that I will destroy your argument with superior logic? Here's a fun jab:

Folks who refuse to make their premises explicit are usually hiding something.

"bhigr" refuses to make his/her premises explicit.

------------

"bhigr" is either hiding something or doesn't have the skill to

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Because you wouldn't understand it. This is again off topic. You haven't provided any proof to your assertion and no refutation to my argument. You loose.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Oh, and please notice the double standards. None of your arguments have been presented so far in "syllogistic form". You don't live up to your own standards.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, Perhaps I should make a video response to you and your "arguments", at some time in the future. For now, let me extend a gratuitous hand and offer up a sorites (multi-premised syllogism):

Humans talk about 2 things: evidence and imagination.

Evidence-based dialogue is superior to imagination-based dialogue.

Kant's noumenal conjecture is imagination-based (not based on evidence).

--------------

Therefore, Kant's noumenal conjecture shouldn't be discussed (in lieu of superior topics).

[bhigr]

@loneRambler So this is your proof of your "objectivist" idea: "conceptual thought (based on experience) = That, which exists" ? You don't even address the question;-) I thought you could do better than that! Why don't you forget all your preconceived Randian prejudices in relation to Kant and simply offer a proof? Just forget Kant and his terminology and prove the proposition!

[bhigr]

@loneRambler I think your emotional response to anything remotely sounding Kantian is getting in your way of clear reasoning. Forget all your notions of Kant. Formulate the problem in a language, which does not bear any resemblance to Kant and then try to tackle the problem. We have already done that:

(A) that, which exists = (B) conceptual thought based on perceptions. (A=B)

Oh, and don't forget to prove the "correctness" of perceptions;-)

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, "(A) that, which exists = (B) conceptual thought based on perceptions. (A=B)

Oh, and don't forget to prove the "correctness" of perceptions;-)"

I can't believe you are questioning the correctness of consciousness after all this time. After men had to work so hard to correctly deal with reality, to perceive and conceive of threats to their existence for all their lives. I picture you standing over a killed caveman saying: "But maybe he's not REALLY dead" -- maybe reality is different.

[loneRambler]

bhigr, you (and Kant) are guilty of a fallacy Rand coined: "Stolen Concept". You use your consciousness to question the efficacy of consciousness. According to data captured by my eyes, you might say, it follows that I do not know whether I'm blind or not. According to data captured by my ears, you may continue, I'm not sure I can hear. At least I'm not sure I see and hear the things as they are in reality. I seem to be seeing and hearing things, but that doesn't tell me anything about reality.

[loneRambler]

bhigr, Another way to word this is:

"My connection to reality tells me that I'm not connected to reality."

I call this kind of thinking: 'philosophical bankruptcy.'

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Please forget Kant for the moment. This topic is so emotionally charged and riddled with prejudices that it is a severe obstacle in this discussion. Of course you are seeing and feeling things. No one denies that, not even Kant;-) Kant was in fact a great admirer of scientific inquiry, in particular Newtonian physics.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler This idea goes back to Kleist. Imagine that you were born with a genetical defect. You have no sense of colour. You can only see black and white as well as shades of grey. Does that mean the world is black and white? No! But, this is the conclusion you would have to draw, if you thought your sense data is totally reliable. Human sensory data must not be a correct representation of reality. Is it unrelated to reality? No What is the relationship? We don't know exactly!

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, Okay, now we're getting some traction. Color blindness. How you explain color blindness will inform as to your philosophical position. Another example is high-pitched noise. Dogs can hear high-pitched noise, humans can't. So, are humans to conclude -- because the noise is there, but they don't hear it -- that perception isn't direct perception of reality? No. We hear a range of pitches important for our survival, not all ranges of all pitches which exist. This 'economy' isn't a problem.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler This example is supposed to illustrate that out perception may be a distorted or incomplete representation of reality. That's the point of this metaphor.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, It is in the nature of perception to be an incomplete receptor of the information in reality, though not a distorted one. The idea of a being with COMPLETE receptivity of all information is none other than an appeal to omniscience. It is also a wrong standard by which to judge perception. If you do judge perception by this wrong standard, then you will be led to create the false idea of a "noumenal" world of "things-in-themselves" apart from all of this "receptivity" of our senses.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler No, I am not judging from a standard of omniscience, quite the contrary you are. I am merely explaining that our perception may be distorted or incomplete. This you flat out deny! You are the one who professes to know that all perceptions are undeniably correct and identical with that, which is.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, Look at how you react. I said that it's in the nature of perception to be incomplete, but not to distort (as no evidence could be adduced to support the idea of distorted perception). You then reiterate that you say perception may be distorted or incomplete and claim I deny this. I deny half of it, not all of it. It's like you are using polemics to slide past this distinction. It is a fallacy to do that, but I can't remember which one.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Not to distort, how do you know? A grey object is not a false representation of a green object? And you do not understand that this is a "METAPHOR". And the you say I am arguing from a standard of omniscience, when it is you who professes to KNOW all these things! You don't. Where's your proof! Where is your evidence? You have none! I am fed up with you!

[bhigr]

@loneRambler You don't want to understand. This discussion has nothing to do with honest reasoning on your side. Your emotional outbursts occur, whenever you use the word "noumenal", "thing in itself",...

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, If I truly am this fiery ball of conflicting emotion, rushing blindly from one talking point to the next, hyper-reacting to thoughtlessly-ingrained buzz-words, hell-bent on slinging mud over finding truth and understanding ... then what are you doing talking to me? After all, you know what they say about "birds of a feather ..."

:-)

[bhigr]

@loneRambler then what are you doing talking to me? Good question;-) Bye, bye, loser;-)

[bhigr]

@loneRambler Well, systematically doubt is essential to philosophy. Just one example: The theory of a flat earth - although wrong - was widely believed among humans and was sufficient to enable humanities survival. Newtonian Physics was held to be true for 400 years and gave us great technical progress. Nevertheless, today we are convinced that Newtonian physics is not wrong. How do you know our current theory of that which exists is true?

[bhigr]

@loneRambler The dead caveman is a good example: How do we determine his death? Well, this has changed through history. It used to be the beating of the heart. Nowadays, the "brain death" is used for distinguishing between alive and dead. In each case, we are dealing with objects of experience, for which we can indeed make true or false statements. The brain is functioning or not. This can be measured.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler 1) No, it is not about "limitations" in rationalism and empricism, it is about two conflict views.

3) The turning point are not only the answers Kant gave, but the questions he asked and the way he approached the answers. The knew question was. What are the limitats of our mind and what does that tell us about our experience? I don't think you have even grasped the question, because Kant clearly does not presume "omniscience".

[loneRambler]

@bhigr, you keep on using the word 'limitations', not me. I'm talking about conflicting views with regard to epistemology. When you put words in my mouth like that you are guilty of creating a straw-man argument. You do not seem to understand what it means to judge sense-perception against a standard of omniscience. You do not seem to understand how that would lead you to develop two realms: a phenomenal and a noumenal. And you do not seem to understand why this is a setback from Aristotle.

[bhigr]

@loneRambler You used the term limitation originally. So, I am not putting words into your mouth. I am just pointing out that it is not so much about overcoming limitations. It is about resolving a conflict. The conflict is resolved - among other things - by asking about the limits of our faculty of reasoning. It is about finding limitations

[bhigr]

@loneRambler This was your first post in reply to me:

@bhigr, 1) Kant tried to overcome the limitations of pure rationalism and pure empiricism

These are your words and I did not put them into your mouth. So please be honest!

I merely pointed out that this appears to be a wrong description of what Kant was trying to achieve. Maybe this is just a misreading on my part of what you were trying to say. Your recent post suggests this. So, I suggest we rest the matter.

[loneRambler]

@bhigr,

Fair enough.

[ralphinator]

Rand's understanding of the empiricist tradition and Hume in specific reveals that she hasn't really read any of his work. Hume argues FOR concepts as heuristic tools, by appealing to their utility. His philosophy led to the scientific revolution. What he's against is having to come up with a logical reason for trusting your senses before you can even use them, which is what Descartes held. You should actually read Hume and Descartes, rather than just reading Rand's (mis)interpretations of them.

[loneRambler]

ralphinator, both Hume and Descartes judged ideas (concepts) and sense-data by 2 different standards; and both therefore believed in a logic-experience dichotomy; Rand showed this dichotomy to be false by showing that an active mind uses logic on experienced fact (i.e., integrates) in order to procure veridical conceptual knowledge; Hume and Descartes, taking the mind as having only a passive role in knowledge accrual, were simply left longing for sense-data to imprint knowledge into their heads

[InFromTheVoid]

Just google Ayn Rand lexicon..it is provided for free online. :)

[howrseluver97]

Love ya ed!

[sauser975]

Leibniz is pronounced: Lie-bnitz, NOT Leeb-nitz. He may have been religious, but did Rand help discover Calculus?

[Tusek420]

Good point. He did that and so much more. I've read that he proposed relative space and time [as opposed to Newtons absolute] and now we know he was right.

[nythinker]

I actually think people seek to keep religion and other forms of mysticism or moral hogwash not to make others slaves, but to hang out to their own self-slavery--to justify, then, their own failures and unhappiness with others. Rand herself says that--mystics enslave only so they can escape the truth of their slavery, and fundamentally--their desire to be slaves. They do not want to be free, to decide, to think. They prefer gov't, god, society to do it for them.

[bioperluc]

I think you're right.

[MyITRcom]

Yes to the above, in regard to philosophies;Primarily subjectivism..

Like Kant's critique of pure reason as a good example, one can only ask what he is using to critique it with? Anti-reason? in that very statement you can see how his entire system of thought is hogwash.

It is always to make room for religion and the church as most people do not want the responsibility that comes with Objectivism and they argue fervently so they can continue to justify making there fellow man a slave.

[MyITRcom]

Objectivism is more like math, then a belief system, it starts with a very basic logical premise and then builds from that most basic foundation. Where others have a problem with it usually, is they do not understand this most basic fact about objectivism. They think it is like any other belief system just a whim or an idea of someone's like anyone else's idea.

[mrbadguysan]

by whim or idea of someone else, are you talking about religions, other philosophies, or what?

[MyITRcom]

Yes,

Other philosophies that are not comparable to Rands discovery as they are not rooted into the very essence and primaries of reality itself, just like science, we don't argue about whether gravity is real or not, when you fully understand Objectivism, you KNOW it is correct and indisputable the same way you know the earth is not flat, that even if I am the only person on earth who knows this, it does not mean I am wrong. In the same way the first guy who believed the earth was round.

[truthbelongstoeveryb]

And props to MyTRcom - it's as black and white as you just said it.

[MyITRcom]

I never said it wasn't black and white, we are either slaves or free.

[truthbelongstoeveryb]

MyITRcom, maybe you should re-read my post - I was actually agreeing with you, and my comment was to 2007Obi1.

[truthbelongstoeveryb]

So, you're saying that providing an explanation for something makes it a reality? Sorry bud, explanations don't erase facts, and a truly rational person doesn't claim to "know" something for which they can offer no measurable, verifiable evidence. Concluding there is no God doesn't take much mental power, just the courage to overcome the mess that conditioned beliefs have made of your brain and stand behind that which we can, in all respects, call "real." That, or back to fairyland you go!

[MyITRcom]

Something is either for your life or against it. Of course you are brainwashed to think selfishness is childish, how else can the moochers and looters take your values?

[mrbadguysan]

Hold on now, you mean to say that all things are either for, or against your life? That all concepts fit within a dichotomy of assistance or hinderence, with no middle ground?

[MyITRcom]

I mean to say that one can judge based on a system of values, that one can make decisions above feelings. I do not vote for a shade of gray, as this must assume black and white in the first place. The entire argument people are trying to make and the psychological confession is an absolution of personal responsibility. If you can argue that we are a victim, then you ultimately have the need want and desire to make other Men your slave out of your personal weakness. This is where it all goes..

[2007Obi1]

Ayn Rand abundoned reality & became a mystic when she concluded that THERE IS NO GOD. She can't explain convincingly origin of Life & unexplained phenomena around us that happens ALL the time, such as healing miracles. Her logics & theory could never explain the ressurrection of Jesus, also denied by all Jews like her. For Ayn there is no life after death. That is why she died miserable and depressed at only 77yrs. Her reason could not even save her from deception & betrayal by her best friends.

[loneRambler]

She couldn't convincingly explain the origin of Life & unexplained phenomena because no one could or can. Various organized religions offer mutually-exclusive explanations, but none of them is truly "convincing" -- in the literal sense of the word (even though many individuals are "convinced" by the explanations).

[MyITRcom]

A personal attack on Ayn Rand no more negates here philosophy then if Einstein had been a child molester would make e=mc2 false. You are engaging in a logical fallacy, that is what is the most frustrating thing on these boards is to engage in others who do not posses the most basic of critical thinking skills.

[MyITRcom]

She can also conclude that there really isn't a giant teapot floating around the sun either and for the same reason. She has the tools to think and reason. What don't you believe in? Do you believe in Santa? Why not?

[greenghost2008]

@2007Obi1 "Ayn Rand abundoned reality & became a mystic when she concluded that THERE IS NO GOD." I lawled so hard when i read that. its like saying became a communist when she concluded that marxism and leninism are both bad.

[carveawoodeneye]

@2007Obi1 you r joking right!! "Her logics & theory could never explain the ressurrection of Jesus" this is the poorest use of "logics" all of them lol that i've ever read!! miss rand was no mystic!!

[PRFrancis]

ps:Stalin was ruthless. This was the only way Russia could hope to keep up with US considering their populations 1/3 of ours.

Objectivism=Rands theme seen in Anthem, good scifi book, thats all.

Im not tryng to be mean but only children believe in the universal focus of ''I''.

[loneRambler]

I guess that means that I'm a kid at heart!

;-)

[DavoT2]

Lonerambler.

Do you support the war in Iraq?

[MyITRcom]

Actually the Psychological confession is you are the child who ultimately wants others to sacrifice to your wants and needs. This is the confession of all mystics, some God who will take care of them, they are weak little children, objectivism means you take all the resposibility for your life, and do not want or need others to sacrifice to you, including the creator of the Universe.

[PRFrancis]

Objectivism is selfishness, worring only of yourself. Economics dont work well this way, if they do at all. US economy is an example, has much objectivism in it, the problems the economic line between poor and rish is growing daily, rish get risher, poor get poorer :C

It even occured in communism, im a proud American but was raised in foreighn nation, i wasnt taught communism was ''evil'', communism is great except for its one big flaw, peoples objectivism which forces men like Stalin to be

[loneRambler]

Men like Stalin were purposefully killing hundreds and hundreds of thousands of their own people long before Ayn Rand denounced them as evil after discovering the philosophy of Objectivism.

[psmurf16]

you are a modding pos

[zarxo]

You're not very logical. You see to be following new age or something. Have you ever thought that the constituton is society's ulter reality to the abstract--that the constituton is the concrete (the logic) of society. If society is starting to crumble--look to the constitution for the inadequacies.

[loneRambler]

zarxo, you're a Hegelian. That's all I need to know about you ...

[RonPaul08Freedom]

Actually, you are being irrational. Are you saying that there is no truth? Truth is a distillation created by filtering out everything that is not true, in order to find what is.

So what if some atoms react differently to observation?

It does not mean that I can grow a tree by wishing for it.

[zarxo]

let's say any martian number system is b

lets say any non martian number number system is a

therefore: b cannot equal a

and a cannot equal b

if were are stuck to our own truths

from this simple diagram

is a number system exits that is martian

will we never know it.

then how will we ever find the other "non" truths? there is a number system that we dont know becuase a martian number system cannot equal ours.

truth is form and content

[RonPaul08Freedom]

Can I grow a tree by wishing for it?

[MyITRcom]

So reality is determined by a large group believing in something?

If this was true, then the world should stay flat should it not?

[zarxo]

Science is working on establishing laws for other realities, it exists. Now to demonstrate it. Do you realize an atom can quantum jump--to anther atom's place take its form, raise it's vibration then jump back. Atom's also change form while being observed.

[andryan68]

we objectivists do not "believe" in objectivism... We know it works. Period.Reality is not infinite, knowledge is not infinite...everything has a limited, bounded nature, our memory's capacity is limited, even if huge. Maybe i have evaded the point... but i did not like the use of the concept "belief" related with objectivism. A belief is something you want/wish/not being sure about/ to exist. Knowledge about something is to have certainty about that something...

[zarxo]

Objectivism is a believe, a belief in the mind's potential, is it not? Regardless, all philosophies begin the mind; therefore, we can say it is a believe becuase it is subjective--it happens in the mind, the abstract. Objectivism is misleading. I can use pragmatic theory to uphold an objective law--can i not?

[loneRambler]

Belief is a mental consent that something is some way, without the evidence that it is that way. I give mental consent that I exist. It cannot be that I do not exist. Therefore, I don't merely believe it (because I am in the possession of evidence of my existing --which cannot be overturned). I can know, not merely believe, that I exist.

[zorio]

I just wanted to say that while I enjoyed your video, I have to disagree with your interpretation of Kant. The two wolds view of Kantianism is a common misconception; Kant was not a Platonist, what he argues for is that there is always an incalculable remainder to things, even if we know them. This remainder is the numinous aspect of reality, and something which we can never know due to the limits of human rationality.

[loneRambler]

zorio, I agree that a man can't come to know the whole of reality (the whole of reality is simply just too big for a man to know). I disagree, however, that human rationality is the 'limiting' factor in this lack of man's omniscience. To the contrary, it is THE factor which allows man to know what he does know (instead of mere belief in things), in spite of not acquiring omniscience. Rationality is that which provides geniune knowledge for sapient, though non-omniscient, beings.

[zorio]

I'm not saying that rationality doesn't know, but that for Kant, it is because Reason has limits that we cannot know everything. This is where the Antinomies of Pure Reason come into play in the First Critique, that there are logical, rational arguments for something, as well as for the contrary.

[loneRambler]

Kant said: If the world is a whole existing in itself, it is either FINITE or INFINITE. But both alternatives are false.

His proposed ANTINOMY here was a thought error. No "thing" is ever actually infinite, though there are things "potentially" infinite, such as when we divide 22 by 7. Actual infinity is what Rand called a Floating Abstraction. An abstraction (SELECTIVE MENTAL FOCUS THAT SEPARATES A CERTAIN ASPECT OF REALITY FROM ALL OTHERS) with no actual base in reality

[loneRambler]

Another example of Kant mistakenly using a floating abstract is when he said we should never lie. In most contexts, this is true -- but not when a murderous rapist asks you where your daughter is. When you take the abstraction away from the context where it works, and let it float into other contexts where it won't, you've erred

[Elhan2005]

On rationalism, you should read Dr Hans-Hermann Hoppe. He tries to improve on traditional faults of Kant. As another paper I've posted on another of your videos argues, he doesn't succeed, but it's an interesting attempt nonetheless.

[loneRambler]

How doesn't he succeed? Please provide a link showing HH Hoppe not improving on Kant. Trust me to be able to interpret the outcome of an argument -- and provide the relevant data that bears on that outcome.

[Elhan2005]

Here is the link: veritasnoctis dot net/docs/aristotelianapriorism dot pdf

Hoppe (and Mises) certainly improved on Kant. The author of the paper is mainly concerned with what the economic method should be (as are Mises and Hoppe), but he argues the Kantian framework is insufficient for this and other purposes.

[loneRambler]

So, Hoppe improved on Kant and Plauche` showed how apriorism and Austrian Aristotelianism mix well. That sounds like a success all around (for a properly-utilized apriorism in economics). There's no "failure to succeed" in that piece of work. So, what is it that you are trying to say (if you still think something failed). Kant's system? If so, then that's not "news." (Kant's thinking fails quite often -- as I've demonstrated with Kant's false-but-held notion of universal-honesty).

[Elhan2005]

My point was that, for those interested in the subject, both Mises and Hoppe added an interesting twist to Kant. Any failings would indeed be due to the Kantian system itself, I don't disagree on that.

[zarxo]

Please, it was the Muslims who preserved the Aristotelian tablets. The three branches of philosophy are establish: coherence, correspondence and pragmatic. Lets move on to real meat. What is abstract and what is concrete. What is existence and what is man-made. Man has created another reality of existence that must be considered with objective reality-society-syncretism-man­y abstract realities that have been pushed through to form a working society-a new reality.

[zarxo]

As long as their is knowledge and existence then how can reason stop? As we continue to be enlightened we continue to expand our environment: from continent to world, from world to planets, and hopefully from planets to other worlds. As long as existence continues to exist, then reason will never stop. Life does have patterns but that does not excuse ignorance.

[zorio]

Reason stops when it comes to a place where it cannot go. To assume that we are capable to absolute and total understand is naive at best and often dangerous.

[zarxo]

Reason is to think. Period. What is wrong with being right? Again life is contextual, but being right is relative, so lets keep that in mind. But if being right is so wrong, then why have we mastered some natural laws. No thinks, I don't need cave man thinking here. :)

[zorio]

Reason is not simply to think, but to control and to manipulate. The place where reason cannot go is that place where we are brought to our knees in fear, disorientation and absolute alienation. In short, reason cannot go where we are powerless.

[zarxo]

Incorrect. Reason is to think--how far one takes it, is their intelligence level. To control and to manipulate are verb transitives to the general idea of reason which is strategy. Why would reason reside with death? We are powerless when we cannot think. Fear, if allowed ,will freeze the mind and the body. Man is both matter and spirit. Man is guided by his subconsciousness which directs his mind, the brain, and this soul, the body.

[zorio]

"Incorrect."

Well it's a good thing you're here!

[zarxo]

Incorrect is not good enough. Please explain. I can tell you that obectivity will never be 100% perfect. Why? From the abstract mind to the form that a abstract takes when this is synthesized something happens which prevents that abstract from being perfect. This is why religions is abstract and not objective--as long as it lays in the abstract then god is complete.

[loneRambler]

zarxo, objectivity CAN be 100% perfect. Objective is NON-subjective (NON-personal). If there are 2 forks on a table, then the grasping of that is perfectly objective (the known # of forks doesn't DEPEND on any one person's awareness -- it's objective). Just because "2" is an abstract concept, doesn't make it anti-real.

[zarxo]

AS long as the abstract is completley synthesized than the concrete may be 100% pure. I am talking about "pure" not really real. What is pure, is in the mind, when you start sharing society, this involves syncretism of many shared realities, logic, concepts.

[loneRambler]

zarxo, there aren't "many shared realities" -- there's one reality; even if different folks focus on different aspects of it.

[zarxo]

incorrect; there is an natural existence that we build upon. but man made existence has created an ulterior reality that is far different then the "survival" in natural reality. If ideas are made concrete by abstract, so what I add to reality is from my abstract ideals. The same for others. Together we build one reality but its a syncretism, very much how religions are merging into one. Orthodox will refute this but people are practicing many religions as one.

[loneRambler]

" ... religions are merging into one. Orthodox will refute this but people are practicing many religions as one."

Tell that to the fundamentalist Muslims intimidating the Christians!

[zarxo]

A human can only be responsible for what he or she has power over. To remain powerless is to relinquish repsonsiblity. A wise man would not go where he is powerless--that's suicide. A resonable man would try to attain some leverage in any situation he is in. And to use strategy falls into psychology, you have to know how to read people to know how to appeal to thier senses--and that is knowledge coupled with active consciousness

[andryan68]

other wise,unless you are working to prove its relationship to reality, it is crap in the mind.

[Aynology]

Unfortunately you're dealing with those incompatibiles that utilize unconditional rationalization.

(:$ Go get your guitAR and we'll put all of that to music $;D

[loneRambler]

Basically, rationality doesn't entail 'Rationalism' nor does 'Rationalism' entail rationality.