mike@hpfcla.UUCP (09/23/85)
This should probably go in net.philosophy, but I refuse to post anything into that epistemological black plague of a notesfile. As usual, send all flames to /dev/null. Warning: Those who are ardent followers and believers in God(s) please press the J key -- there is nothing here for you; only the horror of reality is awaiting you in the subsequent paragraphs, and I certainly do not wish to tamper with anyone's self-induced blindness. Darren Kall writes: > For a starting topic I would like to raise consideration > of her anti-theistic stance. Is it a necessary premise of > Objectivism? Is it a personal dislike she had? Is she in > violation of the tenets of her own philosophy by being so > anti-theistic? Objectivism starts with the primacy of existence. Existence exists -- which means that something exists that one can perceive, and that a consciousness exists capable of perception. Existence is identity. There is nothing antecedent to existence and nothing apart from it. To examine such notions is to formulate anti-concepts -- concepts having no basis in reality -- and promptly removes one from the real to the unreal -- from an entity to a zero. Existence includes everything that was, is, and will be. The unreal does not exist -- it is the negation of existence and is found only in the minds of those who have abandoned reason. The spirtual world does not exist -- it is the deniel of the law of identity, and thus the primacy of existence. Those who ask "Why does existence exist?", as if a zero can dominate an entity, have never grasped this axiom qua axiom. These are the mystics and their followers who spend the bulk of their lives trying to cheat and deny existence. In Rand's words: "They want to cheat the axiom of existence and consciousness, they want their consciousness to be an instrument not of perceiving but of creating existence, and existence to be not the object but the subject of their consciousness -- they want to be that God they created in their image and likeness, who creates a universe out of a void by means of an arbitrary whim. But reality is not to be cheated. What they achieve is the opposite of their desire. They want an omnipotent power over existence; instead, they lose the power of their consciousness. By refusing to know, they condemn themselves to the horror of a perpetual unknown." And further from Rand: "Rationality is the recognition of the fact that existence exists, that nothing can alter the truth, and nothing can take precedence over the act of perceiving it, which is thinking -- that the mind is one's only judge of values and one's only guide to action -- that reason is an absolute that permits no compromise -- that a concession to the irrational invalidates one's consciousness and turns it from the task of perceiving to the task of faking reality -- that any alleged short-cut to knowledge, which is faith, is only a short-circuit destroying the mind -- that the acceptance of a mystical invention is a wish for the annihilation of existence and, properly, annhilates one's consciousness." Objectivism and mysticism are diametrically opposed by the very premises on which they are founded. The choice is simple. Are you going to let your mind be the judge of your values, and reason be the guide to your actions? Are will you blank out -- letting your feelings substitute for knowledge -- letting your fear of the unknown destroy your capacity to know -- letting any mystic who claims he "feels" the presence of God and spirits destroy your ability to distinguish the real from the unreal, truth from fantasy, entity from zero? Give the steering wheel of your mind to any mystic and this is where he will take you. Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b
colonel@sunybcs.UUCP (Col. G. L. Sicherman) (10/13/85)
["At last! My new gorilla-detector machine! They can't fool me now!"] > This should probably go in net.philosophy, but I refuse to post anything > into that epistemological black plague of a notesfile. Looks as if the plague is spreading ... Seriously, I agree that objectivism and mysticism are incompatible. I think that Mr. Bishop is unfair (un-objective?) to mysticism, so here in reply to his very clear exposition of objectivism is a counter-exposition. Rand's identification of existence and perception is plausible at first, but it ignores the Gestalt principle of perception: that we can perceive things only as contrasts. To perceive an apple, or a toothache, or love, or ghosts, or free will, you must distinguish it from what it is not. I suspect that this is what Aristotle meant by the primacy of dialectic, though he seems to have stood the principle on its head. Hence all perceived reality is a plexus of relativism. If you can accept this--better still, if you can verify it in your own experience-- then the arguments against "anti-concepts" and "unreality" lose their force. We are surrounded by things that we can perceive but do not exist (like Mickey Mouse) or exist but cannot be perceived (like the Tao). They nevertheless serve us well, to instruct and entertain us, and to contrast in a relevant way with reality. Some of them, for instance poems, also serve to break down ossified forms of discourse; to distinguish, as the General Semanticists put it, "the map from the territory." E. M. Forster, in a celebrated essay, quotes with disapprobation the platform of the (original) Nazis, to the effect that artists who portray unrealities are either lying or insane, and in either case ought to be punished. I do not know whether Ayn Rand would go so far as Hitler... On the other hand, Rand appears to share one principle with some mystics: that you will be happier dwelling among your perceptions than among your thoughts and abstractions. This is also a tenet of the Gestalt school of psychotherapy; if it indeed has therapeutic value (as I believe), it may account for the evangelical fervor of some objectivists.
mike@hpfcla.UUCP (10/21/85)
>> This should probably go in net.philosophy, but I refuse to post anything >> into that epistemological black plague of a notesfile. > Looks as if the plague is spreading ... You don't know how far it has spread. > Rand's identification of existence and perception is plausible at first, > but it ignores the Gestalt principle of perception: that we can > perceive things only as contrasts. To perceive an apple, or a toothache, > or love, or ghosts, or free will, you must distinguish it from what it > is not. I suspect that this is what Aristotle meant by the primacy of > dialectic, though he seems to have stood the principle on its head. Perception is a cognitive process fueled by sensory input and controlled by discrimination. This process is a characteristic of man, but it is not his distinguishing characteristic. It is possessed by other life forms; it is automatic, absolute, and it is not capable of "distorting" reality. When you perceive, you see your subject as distinguished (not contrasted) from all other existents; you observe the physical properties that distinguish your subject as a genuine existent. Perception tells you that existents exist, your conceptual faculty tells you what the existents are. Man's distinguishing characteristic is his conceptual faculty; his ability to form concepts out of percepts; to reason about concepts in a non-contradictory way, to test his knowledge against an objective reality. Concepts do not free man from the bounds of reality, but instead allow him to understand it, and thus use reality to his advantage; that is, to further his life. How good a concept is can be measured by how closely it tracks reality. If a contradiction is found, it's the concept that's in error, not reality. Percepts tells us that something exists; concepts tell us what it is. > Hence all perceived reality is a plexus of relativism. If you can > accept this--better still, if you can verify it in your own experience-- > then the arguments against "anti-concepts" and "unreality" lose their > force. We are surrounded by things that we can perceive but do not > exist (like Mickey Mouse) or exist but cannot be perceived (like the > Tao). They nevertheless serve us well, to instruct and entertain us, > and to contrast in a relevant way with reality. To claim something is perceptible, but does not exist is flagrant contradiction in terms. That which does not exist, has no properties, attributes, or characteristics. To perceive that which has no properties, attributes, or characteristics is to perceive nothing; to perceive nothing is to contradict the meaning (the concept) of the word "perceive". Your cartoon character exists qua cartoon character, and nothing more. Concepts are not made of rubber; you cannot invalidate man's perceptual faculty by asserting that your concept is not concrete; you have merely tripped (and fallen) on a metaphysical stepping stone. A cartoon character IS a cartoon character and there is nothing more to say about it. To claim that something exists, but is not perceptible is another contradiction in terms. Man's conceptual faculty is fueled by percepts. To formulate a concept means to integrate percepts into a class distinguished by some identifying property(s). To formulate a concept, with no percepts (e.g. no basis in reality) is to formulate a useless, unsubstantiated, unprovable notion. People who say they "feel" the presence of God, the Tao, Jesus, etc., have abandoned their perceptual faculty and are using their feelings as tools of cognition. But feelings do not tell you the facts of reality, they are simply a meter of your emotional well-being. Feelings will not tell you if it will rain tomorrow, feelings will not tell you what is wrong with your T.V. set, feelings will not tell you the structure and properties of sub-atomic particles; feelings do not tell you ANYTHING about reality. People who fuel their conceptual faculty with feelings form concepts based on their current emotional state. It is sickening to hear how many of these concepts (anti-concepts) abound. If I were to tell you that I feel the presence of a super-being who has five heads, eats asteroids, and writes poetry, are you going to believe me? I do not perceive such a being but I claim that I FEEL its presence; Do you believe me? This super-being has the same epistemological stature as God, Jesus, the Tao, ad infinitum; that is, a severe lack of any perceptible sensory data. They do not exist. The burden of proof is on the one who claims they do. > On the other hand, Rand appears to share one principle with some > mystics: that you will be happier dwelling among your perceptions than > among your thoughts and abstractions. This is also a tenet of the > Gestalt school of psychotherapy; if it indeed has therapeutic value (as > I believe), it may account for the evangelical fervor of some > objectivists. This is an insolent lie. Man cannot survive except by using his conceptual faculty. Rand was the most ardent advocate of reason in more than a century. This is why she appeals to me: "Man cannot survive except through his mind. He comes to earth unarmed. His brain is his only weapon. Animals obtain food by force. Man has no fangs, no horns, no great strength of muscle. He must plant food or hunt it. To plant, he needs a process of thought. To hunt, he needs weapons, and to make weapons--a process of thought. From this simplest necessity to the highest religious abstraction, from the wheel to the skyscraper, everything we are and everything we have comes from a single attribute of man--the function of his reasoning mind." From: The Fountainhead. Note that the use of the word "religious" above does not refer to the institution of religion or contemporary religious ideas, but rather man's exaltation in discovering what is possible by the efforts of his own mind. Michael Bishop hplabs!hpfcla!mike-b