Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Evolution -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: koan who wrote (18578)	12/18/2011 9:37:35 PM
From: Solon	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 69300

“You can’t eat your cake and have it, too.” <<don't even know what that means?>> Just that a duck is not a rope. This sort of a rope (one that will not quack) is the basis of Objectivist philosophy. What she is saying is that reality does not permit logical contradiction. You do not weigh 100 pounds if you weigh 500 pounds. On this simple premise, most schools of thought are built. The only justification for your reliance on quantum mechanics as a fact is your prior acknowledgement of objective reality as a fact. You can not discuss facts with anyone unless you first acknowledge your capacity to do so--your ability to recognise a fact. You cannot objectively refute or embrace any philosophy unless you begin your philosophy with the premise that something does exist and that you are aware of something and that things are different and not the same (A is A and B is B and C is C)--and unless you insist that there are indeed facts to discuss. You may not always be sure of your facts but this is quite another matter. For instance, you may not know how many bits are utilized to display this sentence on your monitor. But that does not change the fact of the matter. This is the law of identity. It simply means that something is what it is and not something it is not. A duck is not a rope. That things may be transformed or changed is not of course denied--nor is it pertinent to our discussion. Quantum mechanics does not change a pair of aces into a pair of threes. Pot odds are not dependant on the peculiarities of sub-atomic particles. These do not assist any of our philosophical searches for meaning or truth--at least not in any way that we can currently utilize in our experience or in our logic. Ayn Rand’s philosophy (as Aristotle’s) begins with the simple self-evidential axiom that something exists and that I am aware of something. More particularly, that it is indeed I who am aware of something, and it is indeed something that I am aware of. Being aware of something real is called knowledge. The real is known by logic which begins with the aforementioned axioms and builds upon them. Finally, reason is the modality or faculty which allows us to manage logic which (together with perception) is the vehicle for awareness of what IS real. The knowledge of what is real is objective knowledge because that is what we call it. Man is capable of knowing what is real by using reason to transact logic. Now this is the beginning of Objectivism as a philosophy. And it is the basis for us to have a reasoned discussion on how the philosophy continues. Without an agreement that we are able to be aware of something and to use reason to apply logic to what is real…there can be little point in taking this matter seriously. I need to know that both of us agree that my aces always beat threes in a precise set of circumstances. And if I am to say a squirrel is not a rabbit and you respond that a rabbit is shampoo and a cow black wrapped skin emptied bird after Tower of Babel slinky then BOTH of us could presumably find a more profitable use of our time. Quantum mechanics has NOTHING to do with our discussion unless it is about quantum mechanics itself. Likewise, It has nothing to do with falsifying any philosophy or any person whether it be Russell or Rand or Sartre. In other words, nobody is throwing quantum mechanics out the window here. Nobody is denying it. But it has nothing to do with invalidating this philosophy or any other. After all, every system of thought known to man suffers from the limitations of what is poorly known or entirely unknown. Do you think quantum mechanics is the final word? Do you think it is impossible that quantum particles exist independent of other causes or forces unknown to our primitive neurocircuitry?? Because if we are to discuss anything with any degree of commonality then we must start with some common axioms that provide a necessary and sufficient foundation for moving forward. After all, you DO know what real is if you know what kindness is. You are well aware of the difference between bumping your car into the curb versus smashing your car violently into the little child sitting on the curb with her doll and watching her blood stream down into the drain and listening to her silence? This reality is not something that we can hide behind syllogisms and conditionals and long sentences-nor even pregnant pauses. And certainly not quantum mechanics. For in the instance I just described it might be important for the driver to trust in his knowledge of what is real and what is right-don't you think?? I am sure the question is not academic to the little girl but of VITAL IMPORTANCE. Ayn Rand did not sidestep issues such as this. She faced her responsibility to make choices and she asked the question: What choices ought I to make and why?? If we serve the purpose of some other something just as cows serve our purposes, then we hardly need to consider philosophy. But if we have purposes of our own and wish to rationally determine questions such as right and wrong and meaning and language and beauty and art, then philosophy is where we may turn to explore those answers. “facts are facts, independent of man’s feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.” This simply means that things are real whether we know about it or care about it. That leads us to the next question: How is one to discover what it is that is real in order that one may incorporate what is real into thoughts and actions to promote existence? If existence is not an immanent and self evidential value that you hold, then this discussion is unnecessary for you and I appreciate you for giving me your time. If you don’t take the desire to live as resting on a prima facie basis, then there is no reason for you to struggle with the question of what sort of living is worth life--whether that be the life of a child with a doll or that of a man in a car? By the way, when you accuse Ayn Rand of thinking she "knows it all", I believe you are thrashing the living daylights out of straw. You are confusing knowledge with best efforts. Ayn Rand knew she knew very little about a lot of things. She did however believe she had constructed a philosophy that was better than any constructed before--as being based on facts apprehended through logic--rather than through fiction wedded to wishful, mystical, or weak thinking. Many people agree with her...and so long as people are unable to squarely dispute her premises and her conclusions without resorting to calumny and personal invective..her reputation as a great thinker will continue unassailed--and her popularity and influence will continue to grow!