• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Why do people believe in Ayn Rand?

I really don't think the average person can relate with, or even understand, that reality is contacted through their senses. Most think reality is their beliefs.

ricksfolly

Paranoid schizophrenics hear voices and believe they are being told what to do. Because they hear voices, does this make their delusions reality? Just a hypothetical question. :)
 
Paranoid schizophrenics hear voices and believe they are being told what to do. Because they hear voices, does this make their delusions reality? Just a hypothetical question. :)


Nature of reality, since it is perceived through our senses, is subjective not objective.
 
Paranoid schizophrenics hear voices and believe they are being told what to do. Because they hear voices, does this make their delusions reality? Just a hypothetical question. :)

I don't think Rand considered the mental aspects, but maybe you have info I don't have.

ricksfolly
 
Nature of reality, since it is perceived through our senses, is subjective not objective.

I suppose it's possible not to believe your senses, but when you have to rely on them, or are caught in the middle of an emergency situation, You react without thinking... Saved my bacon many times, probably yours too.

ricksfolly
 
I don't think Rand considered the mental aspects, but maybe you have info I don't have.

ricksfolly

I'm just saying that people with severe forms of mental illness can hear and see things which most of us consider "crazy". It was just a question of consideration for someone who seems to believe that senses are how one experiences reality. I'm not so much disagreeing with you as I am tossing in another bone to chew on.;)
 
Nature of reality, since it is perceived through our senses, is subjective not objective.

no. That is inverted thinking. It is not the nature of reality, it is the nature of US.

that we can only experience subjectively does not mean that 'reality is subjective'.

geo
 
Last edited:
I'm just saying that people with severe forms of mental illness can hear and see things which most of us consider "crazy". It was just a question of consideration for someone who seems to believe that senses are how one experiences reality. I'm not so much disagreeing with you as I am tossing in another bone to chew on.;)

a matter of degree, Lizzie. 'sanity' is simply a consensus of an acceptable norm, it is specifically NOT a quantifier of reality. Once upon a time folks that heard voices and saw visions were considered advantaged, not disadvantaged.

we can give schizophrenics drugs to pull them back to the median... we can give 'normal' folks drugs to carry them away from the median. Our perceptions are, at the risk of being ridiculously obvious, how we perceive reality. there IS no other way. Our perceptions are wholly internal. Our senses are responding to external stimulus (we presume) and so we can say that the external world is there, but we cannot say that how our brain processes it is how it is outside of our perceiving of it.

This has strayed a bit from the argument. The point that I was trying to make initially is that m. Rand contributes to the definition of what people are only to the same degree that we ALL do.

If we want to get a good idea of what humans may be said to be, anthropology (including evolutionary biology) and history are a good place to look.

When i do that, i do not see a species that much resembles the creature described in the Objectivist's Manifesto.

geo.
 
This has strayed a bit from the argument. The point that I was trying to make initially is that m. Rand contributes to the definition of what people are only to the same degree that we ALL do.

If we want to get a good idea of what humans may be said to be, anthropology (including evolutionary biology) and history are a good place to look.

When i do that, i do not see a species that much resembles the creature described in the Objectivist's Manifesto.

geo.

I don't see that there is a particular type of species described, but rather a determination that "reality" would exist all the same with or without the presence of mankind. Iow, there are natural laws in play that determine reality outside of Man's perception.
 
I buy some of the basics, mainly that reality is independent and that we are only aware of it through our senses, and of course we should try to find happiness in life. But I also believe life is more than selfish interests. It makes a lot more sense then many other religious/philosophical beliefs, but I still disagree with most of it.
 
I don't see that there is a particular type of species described, but rather a determination that "reality" would exist all the same with or without the presence of mankind. Iow, there are natural laws in play that determine reality outside of Man's perception.

Man's reality is his senses, as Ayn pointed out, and if he suddenly lost them, he would perish, and the rest of the world would continue to exist without him.

ricksfolly
 
no. That is inverted thinking. It is not the nature of reality, it is the nature of US.

that we can only experience subjectively does not mean that 'reality is subjective'.

geo

Since what our senses detect is real, they are objective. Hence, Ayn's take on the objectivity of our senses.

ricksfolly
 
Since what our senses detect is real, they are objective. Hence, Ayn's take on the objectivity of our senses.

ricksfolly

But the implications, and our emotions that are caused by them, are subjective. It's next to impossible to sense something without giving it some subjective meaning behind it. In fact, out senses are very spotty, and our mind automatically fills in the rest. Some interesting psychological tests are the gorilla test and blind spot test that bring to light just how faulty our senses alone are, and when we get into the meanings we assign what we sense, reality is not as clean cut as we perceive it.
 
I buy some of the basics, mainly that reality is independent and that we are only aware of it through our senses

See, I've never seen a convincing argument for this, particularly not from a nontheistic "rationalist" viewpoint. Even Descartes is forced to conclude that we can only be certain that we can know reality is independent because "God would neve permit such a deception." I take the Kantian view that we can never truly know the thing in itself, and this idea that reality is independent is just a useful fiction the truth of which can never be known. I find it a lot more persuasive, then, to take the Peircian pragmaticist view that truth is viewpoint dependent.
 
See, I've never seen a convincing argument for this, particularly not from a nontheistic "rationalist" viewpoint. Even Descartes is forced to conclude that we can only be certain that we can know reality is independent because "God would neve permit such a deception." I take the Kantian view that we can never truly know the thing in itself, and this idea that reality is independent is just a useful fiction the truth of which can never be known. I find it a lot more persuasive, then, to take the Peircian pragmaticist view that truth is viewpoint dependent.
1) The statement: "truth is subjective" is self defeating. It violates the principle of non-contradiction.
2) Do you assume that the nothing but the absolutely certain is true? Is it not possible that truth cannot be absolutely known, that is, truth can only be proven as likely or probable?
 
1) The statement: "truth is subjective" is self defeating. It violates the principle of non-contradiction.
2) Do you assume that the nothing but the absolutely certain is true? Is it not possible that truth cannot be absolutely known, that is, truth can only be proven as likely or probable?

1) That's just begging the question. The only way it is a contradiction is presupposing that truth is objective.
2)I am not assuming that nothing but the absolutely certain is true. I am definition knowledge in such a way that only the absolutely certain can be known. How do you define things as likely or probable without a frame of reference to some sort of certitude?
 
scourge,

first, thanks for two great posts. "Wonder is the feeling of a philosopher, and philosophy begins in wonder", according to Socrates
Your welcome. I enjoy a good philosophy discussion too.

yes, of course there is degree of certainty of knowledge. that degree degrades with distance, figurative and otherwise. you know, as you lie in the tub, that the sink is, in fact there and that if you were to twist the knob water would come out. No, of course, it is not 100% certain and we need not argue that that denys the certainty you do have.

You have a good certainty of what is going on out in the living room too, though it is outside your immediate experience because of your knowledge of the probability of change and your certainty of the state it was in the last time you were there. fine.

out in the street? two blocks away? in France? of course your degree of certainty in your knowledge of the state of any of those places lessens.
My degree of certainty in the exact structure and location of such things changes with "distance" but this is limited to the known. E.G., though I haven't been to France in over 7 years I do not find it at all reasonable or likely that pigs are flying or green aliens are visiting there.

still that is not what started all this. What we have is someone telling us what our 'reality' consists ot... and more importantly, SHOULD ONLY be allowed to consist of. Their fundamental antisocial philosphy depends upon it. But they are wrong. It is not incumbent on me that I show that they are wrong, any more than I have to show religionists that they are wrong about the existence of god. Evidence of falsity is like evidence of nonexistence; the tree that does not exist casts no shadow.
I find many aspects of objectivism valid and coherent with what the evidence dictates. What I usually disagree with objectivists about is their conclusions on particular moral and ethical conclusion that they believe necessarily follow from their fundamental beliefs.


The premise is simple. 'Reality' comes to you through your senses and your reason, both of which are wholly internal to you. You cannot experience it through any other means. So, whether anything external to you exists at all is conjecture. That 'reality', any external world, is objectively unknowable is not a new idea. We can go back several thousand years and find folks discussing it.
You can start the criticism even earlier than that.
1) Flaws of logic
a) Logic can eliminate what is false but cannot in and of itself establish what must be true. Logic reduces to undeniability, not to necessity.
b) The jump from reason to the real is invalid.
c) There is no strictly rational way to establish reason.

2) Experience is not self interpreting.



put simply, the premise that an external world exists that can be quantified is mythology
I disagree. I may not be certain in reason, existance, experience, reality, memory,etc. But thus far they are hands-down the most coherent and justified world view to account for the above stated uncertainties. All others are dead-ends or fatally lacking in some manner.

Humans are rational creatures, yes. But humans are not only or even primarily rational creatures and we should not expect nor want them to be.
Perhaps some of us aren't rational as much as we or others would like. But I only speak for myself which is why I disagree.

It is rationalism that causes me to say that. nonrational intellect (as in, what the brain does) produces some of our finest expressions - love, play, art... all are primarily nonrational enterprises.
Why are they non-rational? Identifying and understanding the cause or result of something does NOT make it any less valuable or desirable.

No, i do not mean to encourage nonrational systems, such are religion, to govern our collective behavior. But i recognise that we cannot make that decision for others. At best, we can encourage the practice of circumscribing nonrationalism with rationalism, as an artist does
Religionists come in many flavors. Some would describe their beliefs as rational (and I would agree with some), others are irrational or perhaps meta-rational. I have found that all the religious beliefs I have encountered are inadequate, fatally flawed, or irrational conclusions based on reason, experience, and evidence. This includes both rational and irrational religionists.

I may not be able to lay claim to absolute truth but I do lay claim to a a world view more coherent, consistent, and compatible with objective evidence, objective reason, and my own personal experiences.

My point is that what we know is limited by our (shared) experience and our abilities to perceieve. BOTH increase over time as a matter of increased experience and of reason. It also increases as a result of nonrational intellectual processes as well. Mythologizing is and has always been a human practice not because we are demented twisted creatures but because it works.
I don't understand your term "mythologizing" within this context.

can we agree that belief is an acceptance of a premise
Yes.

and that knowledge depends on quantification, either as experience or as extrapolation of experience through reason?
sure...

if so, nothing can be said to be known outside of our knowledge. yes? or no?
yes, that would follow given the definition of "knowledge" above....

so... what has this go to do with Objectivism as a social philospohy?
the external world, exists independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, beliefs, feelings, desires or fears.
perhaps. if so, however, the premise if fundamentally conjectural.
No it is not. Despite the inability for absolute certainty of the above mentioned shortcomings, it does not mean that the CONCLUSION that there is an objective world is mere conjecture. That is lazy hand-waving.

the properties of reality "independent of man's consciousness, independent of any observer's knowledge, " is unknowable
By your above definition of "knowledge" you are incorrect. Knowledge may not be absolutely affirmable but that does not make it unobtainable.

and stated as an epistomological absolute
Not it is not. Objectivists do not presume the objective world, it is a conclusion, along with many other world views. It is not a priori.
 
truth is viewpoint dependent.
1) The statement: "truth is subjective" is self defeating. It violates the principle of non-contradiction.
1) That's just begging the question. The only way it is a contradiction is presupposing that truth is objective.
If truth is subjective then it implies that more than one mutually exclusive truth can be true simultaneously. E.G., A=B but simultaneously that A=/=B. This is a violation of the principle of contradiction. You are free to believe that truth is subjective but you have much explaining to do about this conundrum.

2)I am not assuming that nothing but the absolutely certain is true. I am definition knowledge in such a way that only the absolutely certain can be known. How do you define things as likely or probable without a frame of reference to some sort of certitude?
It is only likely or probable from the frame of reference. That is how.

It is not that two opposing views are both true. Both views may be false, or only one may be true. But both cannot be true. However, both may be making justified false or true conclusions based on their experiences and reason.
 
But the implications, and our emotions that are caused by them, are subjective. It's next to impossible to sense something without giving it some subjective meaning behind it. In fact, out senses are very spotty, and our mind automatically fills in the rest. Some interesting psychological tests are the gorilla test and blind spot test that bring to light just how faulty our senses alone are, and when we get into the meanings we assign what we sense, reality is not as clean cut as we perceive it.

It's not about the reliability of our senses. It's about whether what we detect resonates or not. If it does, our minds will weigh its importance, and whether to respond or not, by comparing it with similar situations, somewhat like what a computer search engine does.

ricksfolly
 
Back
Top Bottom