Re: A Question for Believers in Objectivism

A hopefully sufficient answer to the questions posed by "ScientificDiscussion" -- regarding the triad of Rationalism, Empiricism, and Objectivism.

Category:

People & Blogs

Tags:

• science
• scientific
• debate
• discussion
• discussing
• Objectivism
• Ayn
• Rand
• Locke
• Berkeley
• Hume
• Rationalist
• Rationalism
• Burke

[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!

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

[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 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",...

[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, 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 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, 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 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!