3 ms·

Sigh. The entire modus operandi of philosophical discourse since Descartes has been the seeking of a basis for human thought that didn't depend on assumptions.

by astine 17y ago

Sigh. The entire modus operandi of philosophical discourse since Descartes has been the seeking of a basis for human thought that didn't depend on assumptions. Heretofore, it has failed utterly in this task, and modern philosophy has increasingly accepted the notion that nothing can be proved absolutely. In retrospect, this makes perfect sense: Why should the human mind be capable of absolute knowledge? Slowly we are realizing again what the ancients took for granted, that to reason, one must first assume that one is capable of it. So, seeing as your statement controverts over 3000 years of experience, you'll need to proved an example of a belief that doesn't rely on assumptions.

javert 17y ago
The human mind is not capable of "absolute" knowledge. The human mind is not omniscient. But it doesn't have to be omniscient. We can still know many things, and we can have certainty that we're right about those things. To do so, we need a philosophical foundation for knowledge. See "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", by Leonard Peikoff, chapters 1-5. You can get it in most bookstores and libraries. P.S. Decartes was wrong. This book explains why in a straightforward and undeniable manner.
- astine 17y ago
  Javert, even the Objectivists ackknowledge that their first principles ("axioms" in Objectivist parlance) are not so much proven truths as they are necessary assumptions for the pursuit of cogent knowledge. "Certainty" is a relative term; it describes a state of mind rather than an objective truth. I can be 'certain' of something without it being true. I am certain of my own consciousness and existence, not because I can prove them, but because I must be so in order in order to live and function. It is a simple 'faith' everyone must simply accept, but it is no more than that.
  - javert 17y ago
    You are sort of right, but not exactly. Objectivists hold that axiomatic concepts are self-evident. That is their "proof". Any other attempt to "prove" them would be nonsensical, since they are irreducible primaries and the basis of all knowledge. That is distinct from faith (in the proper sense), which is belief in something without any evidence--that is, belief disconnected from reality. True faith is always immoral.
    - astine 17y ago
      No, I am exactly right. There is no such thing as an undeniably self-evident truth. The mere fact that something is necessary for knowledge does not mean that it is true because it has not been established that we are able to know. Nor is it established that we are able to experience. The so-called 'existence of existence' (a meaningless tautology) because it is not established that it is necessary for something to exist in order to for it to know. As you can see, there are far more fundamental axioms than the one that the Objectivists posit and even these can be reduced further. The choice of which first principles to choose are by no means an objective one, but instead a pragmatic one. Miss Rand chose one which happened to be convenient for supporting her preconceived notions, as did Marx, Aristotle, and Descartes. That is distinct from faith (in the proper sense), which is belief in something without any evidence--that is, belief disconnected from reality. True faith is always immoral. You're establishing a useless distinction: If you told my about a Faerie you saw one day and I believed you, then my belief would not be without evidence; your testimony counts as evidence. Doubtless, you consider that to be insufficient evidence, but it is evidence non-the-less. You are positing a 'faith' that no one, religious or not, holds. Not to put to fine a point on it, but what you seem to mean is that faith, as you define it, is a belief based in something other than Objectivism, which is also a useless (and subtly religious) definition. I'm going to have to stop this discussion here because this tells me that your entire argument rests on an univocation. I really don't have the time to discuss this topic to the length that it deserves so I'm just going to have to drop this. If you want further reading, you can try the Categories by Aristotle.
      - javert 17y ago
        There is a simple reason for our disagreement. You do not believe that reason is (possible/efficacious/valid). I do, though this belief is not based on faith. The argument for why reason is valid is given by Ayn Rand. You are not familiar enough with her argument to defeat or disprove it. Anyway, my response to your specific claims follows. I respect your wish to end the conversation, so I don't mind if you don't respond. The mere fact that something is necessary for knowledge does not mean that it is true because it has not been established that we are able to know. Nor is it established that we are able to experience. It has been established. All the evidence supports that we are able to know and that we experience. I don't know what you mean when you say that this has not been established. No, we are not omniscient... but, for example, we could not build computers (for example) if we were not able to "know". As you can see, there are far more fundamental axioms than the one that the Objectivists posit and even these can be reduced further. No, I honestly can't see that. What is a more fundamental axiom than those of Objectivism? The choice of which first principles to choose are by no means an objective one, but instead a pragmatic one. No, they are objective. They are the only primary concepts that are implicit in and fundamental to all knowledge. Can you name some other concept for which this is the case? They are also self-evident, though they are not the only concepts for which this is the case. (By the way, self-evident does not mean "obvious".) You're establishing a useless distinction: If you told my about a Faerie you saw one day and I believed you, then my belief would not be without evidence; your testimony counts as evidence. Doubtless, you consider that to be insufficient evidence, but it is evidence non-the-less. You are positing a 'faith' that no one, religious or not, holds. My report of seeing a fairy could count as evidence if you consider me a credible source and if the properties I ascribe to it are not contradictory to other evidence. Religious faith does not have evidence to support it, because the Bible and religious leaders are not credible enough to outweigh the evidence that suggests that miracles and so forth are impossible. In fact, if you ask a religious person to justify their belief in their religion, ultimately, they will cite faith as the source of their belief. I am positing a "faith" that all religious people hold. Not to put to fine a point on it, but what you seem to mean is that faith, as you define it, is a belief based in something other than Objectivism, which is also a useless (and subtly religious) definition. Objectivism is not "subtly religious" because it is based on reason. If you can show Objectivism to be in error, please publish a paper showing the error. It is clear from this discussion that you do not understand Objectivism.

by astine 17y ago

javert 17y ago

The human mind is not capable of "absolute" knowledge. The human mind is not omniscient. But it doesn't have to be omniscient. We can still know many things, and we can have certainty that we're right about those things. To do so, we need a philosophical foundation for knowledge. See "Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand", by Leonard Peikoff, chapters 1-5. You can get it in most bookstores and libraries. P.S. Decartes was wrong. This book explains why in a straightforward and undeniable manner.

astine 17y ago
Javert, even the Objectivists ackknowledge that their first principles ("axioms" in Objectivist parlance) are not so much proven truths as they are necessary assumptions for the pursuit of cogent knowledge. "Certainty" is a relative term; it describes a state of mind rather than an objective truth. I can be 'certain' of something without it being true. I am certain of my own consciousness and existence, not because I can prove them, but because I must be so in order in order to live and function. It is a simple 'faith' everyone must simply accept, but it is no more than that.
- javert 17y ago
  You are sort of right, but not exactly. Objectivists hold that axiomatic concepts are self-evident. That is their "proof". Any other attempt to "prove" them would be nonsensical, since they are irreducible primaries and the basis of all knowledge. That is distinct from faith (in the proper sense), which is belief in something without any evidence--that is, belief disconnected from reality. True faith is always immoral.
  - astine 17y ago
    No, I am exactly right. There is no such thing as an undeniably self-evident truth. The mere fact that something is necessary for knowledge does not mean that it is true because it has not been established that we are able to know. Nor is it established that we are able to experience. The so-called 'existence of existence' (a meaningless tautology) because it is not established that it is necessary for something to exist in order to for it to know. As you can see, there are far more fundamental axioms than the one that the Objectivists posit and even these can be reduced further. The choice of which first principles to choose are by no means an objective one, but instead a pragmatic one. Miss Rand chose one which happened to be convenient for supporting her preconceived notions, as did Marx, Aristotle, and Descartes. That is distinct from faith (in the proper sense), which is belief in something without any evidence--that is, belief disconnected from reality. True faith is always immoral. You're establishing a useless distinction: If you told my about a Faerie you saw one day and I believed you, then my belief would not be without evidence; your testimony counts as evidence. Doubtless, you consider that to be insufficient evidence, but it is evidence non-the-less. You are positing a 'faith' that no one, religious or not, holds. Not to put to fine a point on it, but what you seem to mean is that faith, as you define it, is a belief based in something other than Objectivism, which is also a useless (and subtly religious) definition. I'm going to have to stop this discussion here because this tells me that your entire argument rests on an univocation. I really don't have the time to discuss this topic to the length that it deserves so I'm just going to have to drop this. If you want further reading, you can try the Categories by Aristotle.
    - javert 17y ago
      There is a simple reason for our disagreement. You do not believe that reason is (possible/efficacious/valid). I do, though this belief is not based on faith. The argument for why reason is valid is given by Ayn Rand. You are not familiar enough with her argument to defeat or disprove it. Anyway, my response to your specific claims follows. I respect your wish to end the conversation, so I don't mind if you don't respond. The mere fact that something is necessary for knowledge does not mean that it is true because it has not been established that we are able to know. Nor is it established that we are able to experience. It has been established. All the evidence supports that we are able to know and that we experience. I don't know what you mean when you say that this has not been established. No, we are not omniscient... but, for example, we could not build computers (for example) if we were not able to "know". As you can see, there are far more fundamental axioms than the one that the Objectivists posit and even these can be reduced further. No, I honestly can't see that. What is a more fundamental axiom than those of Objectivism? The choice of which first principles to choose are by no means an objective one, but instead a pragmatic one. No, they are objective. They are the only primary concepts that are implicit in and fundamental to all knowledge. Can you name some other concept for which this is the case? They are also self-evident, though they are not the only concepts for which this is the case. (By the way, self-evident does not mean "obvious".) You're establishing a useless distinction: If you told my about a Faerie you saw one day and I believed you, then my belief would not be without evidence; your testimony counts as evidence. Doubtless, you consider that to be insufficient evidence, but it is evidence non-the-less. You are positing a 'faith' that no one, religious or not, holds. My report of seeing a fairy could count as evidence if you consider me a credible source and if the properties I ascribe to it are not contradictory to other evidence. Religious faith does not have evidence to support it, because the Bible and religious leaders are not credible enough to outweigh the evidence that suggests that miracles and so forth are impossible. In fact, if you ask a religious person to justify their belief in their religion, ultimately, they will cite faith as the source of their belief. I am positing a "faith" that all religious people hold. Not to put to fine a point on it, but what you seem to mean is that faith, as you define it, is a belief based in something other than Objectivism, which is also a useless (and subtly religious) definition. Objectivism is not "subtly religious" because it is based on reason. If you can show Objectivism to be in error, please publish a paper showing the error. It is clear from this discussion that you do not understand Objectivism.