This passed month I have been part of a Men's Group located in my hometown. While I cannot and will not give out any specific details about whom is in the group or exact details of the meetings. One of the things brought up in literature we looked at was about something called "gender role strain."
It looks like the term mainly comes from literature associated with the Social Sciences. It was an interesting conversation to have as a group. However, there seemed to be a sense in which it seemed to take gender as completely a matter of social construction.
I disagree with the hypothesis of gender being strictly a construct of society or culture. There are numerous differences between the biological sexes. These differences in the sex has a genuine impact on all kinds of different traits that differ cross-culturally between masculinity and femininity. They are one of the reasons men and women differ so much. While there is no doubt very unreasonable expectations of men that does not make masculinity and femininity irrelevant or not real ways of existing. Nor does it indicate that masculinity or femininity should be considered something for the dust bin of history.
I think the confusion comes from an idea of masculinity or being a man that is more than what the definition entails. The definition of masculinity does exist and it is in essence the following. The existence of manhood; and the perception, recognition, and application of reality through it. This does not prescribe any sort of narrow sighted list of you need to do this or be this. However, it does differentiate from femininity. In that respect masculinity should not be erased or labelled toxic. It should not be thrown in the trash. One only needs to realize the differences between the essence of it and some peoples perceptions of what it should be.
If a man orders a cooler that does not stop him from acknowledging his masculinity. If a man hugs another man that does not mean he has no balls. Once again the definition in essence is as follows. The existence of manhood; and the perception, recognition, and application of reality through it. This does not say what you are doing while acknowledging your manhood and applying reality through it. Patrick Swayze for example was a Ballet Dancer. Men whom ballet dance have their own way of dancing that is different from a ballerina in their core style, but, it is still ballet. It is the case of both similar, but, also different.
This is the way men and women tend to be, similar in many ways, but, also quite different in others. However, individuals tend to be similar, yet, different at the level of the individual person. People are not clones of each other. This is why it is stupid and prejudiced to assume all men would express their masculinity or manliness or maleness in the exact same way. Just as it is to assume the same of women. There is no collective man nor woman. In the end individuals of both sexes need to be treated as individuals not groups.
Showing posts with label Free Will. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Free Will. Show all posts
Friday, April 12, 2019
Thursday, April 11, 2019
Jordan Peterson UNLEASHES on the APA Guidelines For Men and Boys
"I think that the people who wrote that article are weak and reprehensible. ... It is a nauseating document."
Jordan Peterson says he is ashamed to be a psychologist after the American Psychological Association's recently published guidelines for men and boys.
For his detailed article that systematically expands these criticisms, see https://www.jordanbpeterson.com/polit...
For the full interview
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwFdv...
Wednesday, April 10, 2019
Saturday, April 6, 2019
Thursday, March 28, 2019
Objectivism is it a closed or open system? Case Closed
I have written on previous Objectvism based articles that there is two different ways to look at the philosophy. One way being that it is a closed system and cannot have anything added or removed to it. The other way is as an open system open to change and revision while still being called Objectivism. Some people think the split is only about associating with libertarians, but, that is not the case it is two different ways of looking at the philosophy as a whole. However, what is the correct answer? Is it an open system open to revision, change and new additions? Or is it a closed system and only The Philosophy as discovered/espoused by Ayn Rand nothing more or less?
No matter where I fall I will turn off people whom have their own stance on the matter in the debate. First of all I need to clarify that if Objectivism is a closed system it does not make it dogmatic, insular or intolerant to other points of view. It does not justify those whom misunderstand Objectivism and treat it like a religion or even a cult. It simply means it is what it is and nothing more nor less. It means that things like benevolence being added as a separate virtue from justice is not correct to the philosophy. It does not excuse forgetting about benevolence and good will as being a form of justice for those around us. It does not mean one loses all form of empathy and sympathy for others. It also does not mean pushing it down peoples throats like religious evangelicals.
It does not mean either that one takes Objectivism as all of philosophy or anywhere near the whole of philosophy in general. It does not mean you even are an Objectivist or agree with the philosophy. It does not mean you get to become a bully that calls anyone that dares to misunderstand Objectivism as evil. It does not even mean you need to not associate with people that take an Open view even if said view is incorrect. It does not mean bashing classical liberals that use other means to their ends. It does not mean that you call every single atheist that disagrees with your views as deluded or irrational. Nor does it mean that you call people suffering from the delusion of a creator to not be fully human for not using reason thoroughly on their own views.
Nor does the closed view require that you be Peikoffinst that takes anything and everything Leonard Peikoff as Objectivist Gospel. Nor does it mean you need to listen and believe that Peikoff is the often sited intellectual heir to Ayn Rand and authoritative on anything either. Nor does it mean you need to agree with the Ayn Rand Institute on any particular matters. In fact, to consider Peikoff to be hair without any evidence from Rand herself in writing or audio/video evidence is in fact saying Objectivism did not consist of only the philosophy discovered/espoused by Rand. It is in itself an Open view disguised as the closed system.
Objectivism is a closed system it is what it is. I agree 110% with this classic episode of Philosophy In Action which I think case closed on the idea that Objectivism is an open system. Objectivism is the philosophy for living a flourishing life on Earth as discovered by and espoused by Ayn Rand in her philosophical based writings. Anything else discovered afterwards is not the Objectivist-this or Objectivist-that. Objectivism the philosophy is a closed system whose ability to alter fundamentals or core virtues and concepts died when Ms. Rand died. Even the so-called Intellectual Hair whom has never been proven as such Peikoff cannot add anything to it nor speak about it with any authority. Reality is the authority per Objectivism's own ethics and Ms. Rand herself in her own writings.
To quote Diana Brickell from the above linked episode of Philosophy In Action;
Nowhere in the definition of Objectivism as a closed system does it say you need to agree with ARI and Leonard Peikoff. Nor even that you need to agree with Yaron Brook or anyone else on any given matter. Objectivism has a core virtue of independence which means just because someone else also is an Oist does not mean they are automatically right or automatically to be trusted. It does not mean you Worship Ayn as a Goddess or engage in the less than hospitable behavior of her old "collective" inner circle. It simply means Objectivism is Objectivism and that is it A=A.
I also echo Diana in saying that one being an Objectivist or not is not a good measure of a person being nice or reasonable. Nor is it that you can live a life that is full by isolating yourself unless you are around other Objectivist. That would be the worst thing you can do and it is mentally harmful to only deal with people whom you ideologically agree. Look instead for people of good character regardless of their views on your own ideas.
No matter where I fall I will turn off people whom have their own stance on the matter in the debate. First of all I need to clarify that if Objectivism is a closed system it does not make it dogmatic, insular or intolerant to other points of view. It does not justify those whom misunderstand Objectivism and treat it like a religion or even a cult. It simply means it is what it is and nothing more nor less. It means that things like benevolence being added as a separate virtue from justice is not correct to the philosophy. It does not excuse forgetting about benevolence and good will as being a form of justice for those around us. It does not mean one loses all form of empathy and sympathy for others. It also does not mean pushing it down peoples throats like religious evangelicals.
It does not mean either that one takes Objectivism as all of philosophy or anywhere near the whole of philosophy in general. It does not mean you even are an Objectivist or agree with the philosophy. It does not mean you get to become a bully that calls anyone that dares to misunderstand Objectivism as evil. It does not even mean you need to not associate with people that take an Open view even if said view is incorrect. It does not mean bashing classical liberals that use other means to their ends. It does not mean that you call every single atheist that disagrees with your views as deluded or irrational. Nor does it mean that you call people suffering from the delusion of a creator to not be fully human for not using reason thoroughly on their own views.
Nor does the closed view require that you be Peikoffinst that takes anything and everything Leonard Peikoff as Objectivist Gospel. Nor does it mean you need to listen and believe that Peikoff is the often sited intellectual heir to Ayn Rand and authoritative on anything either. Nor does it mean you need to agree with the Ayn Rand Institute on any particular matters. In fact, to consider Peikoff to be hair without any evidence from Rand herself in writing or audio/video evidence is in fact saying Objectivism did not consist of only the philosophy discovered/espoused by Rand. It is in itself an Open view disguised as the closed system.
Objectivism is a closed system it is what it is. I agree 110% with this classic episode of Philosophy In Action which I think case closed on the idea that Objectivism is an open system. Objectivism is the philosophy for living a flourishing life on Earth as discovered by and espoused by Ayn Rand in her philosophical based writings. Anything else discovered afterwards is not the Objectivist-this or Objectivist-that. Objectivism the philosophy is a closed system whose ability to alter fundamentals or core virtues and concepts died when Ms. Rand died. Even the so-called Intellectual Hair whom has never been proven as such Peikoff cannot add anything to it nor speak about it with any authority. Reality is the authority per Objectivism's own ethics and Ms. Rand herself in her own writings.
To quote Diana Brickell from the above linked episode of Philosophy In Action;
The "closed system" view of Objectivism just asks that people respect Ayn Rand's philosophy as her own creation – and differentiate it from their own or others' ideas. Contrary to the advocates of the "open system," that approach doesn't lead to insularity, dogmatism, or intolerance.
Nowhere in the definition of Objectivism as a closed system does it say you need to agree with ARI and Leonard Peikoff. Nor even that you need to agree with Yaron Brook or anyone else on any given matter. Objectivism has a core virtue of independence which means just because someone else also is an Oist does not mean they are automatically right or automatically to be trusted. It does not mean you Worship Ayn as a Goddess or engage in the less than hospitable behavior of her old "collective" inner circle. It simply means Objectivism is Objectivism and that is it A=A.
I also echo Diana in saying that one being an Objectivist or not is not a good measure of a person being nice or reasonable. Nor is it that you can live a life that is full by isolating yourself unless you are around other Objectivist. That would be the worst thing you can do and it is mentally harmful to only deal with people whom you ideologically agree. Look instead for people of good character regardless of their views on your own ideas.
Objectivism and Evolution: No Contradictions by Edward Hudgins
The following article is by Edward Hudgins as posted on"Sense of Life Objectivists."
September 21, 2010 -- The essay “Why Ayn Rand’s Philosophy is Incomplete” by the Prometheus staff claims that the facts of biological evolution reveal a logical flaw in Objectivist philosophy. This claim is based on serious philosophical confusion and a misunderstanding of the philosophy developed by Rand.
The essay states that “One of Objectivism's fundamental axioms is that ‘existence is identity,’ which Rand derived from Aristotle's law of identity,” that is to say, A is A. The essay also states that “evolution shows us that existence is a process of evolving identity.” It then concludes that “Far from the ‘A is A’ certainty of Aristotlelian-Randian thought, evolution holds that change is the only true constant. Time's arrow specializes in contradiction.”
What changes and what doesn’t
To untangle this confusion, we must ask what it means to say that everything that exists has an identity. A is A, that is to say, the law of identity, is a metaphysical premise or axiom. It is the acknowledgment that to exist is to be something in particular, to have certain attributes and not to have others. Change in the world does not contradict the fact that to exist is to possess a certain identity. Rather, how an entity changes is an aspect or attribute of its identity. Change occurs in an orderly, law-like manner. Rand states that “The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of the entities that act.” Here “action” means any kind of change.
Observe that concrete entities are what changes. A flower grows. A rock rolls down a hill. A planet orbits the sun. Hydrogen atoms, subject to intense gravitational forces inside the sun, fuse together, becoming helium atoms and releasing a certain amount of energy.
Observe also that there is something constant in these and in all cases of change. Specifically, entities change in a law-like rather than a random manner. Such change is an aspect of an entity’s identity. According to the Prometheus essay, “evolution holds that change is the only true constant.” Really? What about the laws of evolution? Would the essay’s authors maintain that in the period of a few seconds a flower might transform into a dinosaur and then a starfish, and then a volcano? Why not, if all is change?
Of course, evolution refers to the fact that some individual living organisms suffer genetic mutation; that the attributes that are altered by mutations can confer survival advantages or disadvantages on the organism depending on the environment; that when a mutation confers an advantage, the organism will be more likely to survive and produce offspring which, in turn, will pass along those advantageous genes to the next generation. Over many generations more mutations occur, changing the individual organisms in subsequent generations. Over long periods of time, individuals might be greatly changed from earlier organisms from which they came. We say that the species has evolved. It is that law-like manner of change that we refer to as evolution.
Indeed, the task of science is to discover such laws or constants concerning the nature of entities. A plant needs water, carbon dioxide, and nutrients to survive and flourish. The force of an object is equal to its mass times its acceleration. And so on.
Forms vs. concepts
The Prometheus essay seems to treat “identity” as if it were a metaphysical essence or entity, as if it were some sort of eternal and unchanging Form. It then attributes such a view to Objectivism and criticizes that view for not allowing for change and evolution. But Objectivism explicitly rejects this view of identity.
Objectivism understands that the concepts by which we identify entities and their attributes are not metaphysical entities but, rather, the epistemological means by which we understand the world, by which we classify things, by which we have rational knowledge. Rand had a very specific understanding of concepts. Rand states that a concept “is a mental integration of two or more units which are isolated according to a specific characteristic(s ) and united by a specific definition.” In other words, to define “human” as a “rational animal” is to observe attributes that all humans share with certain other entities—animals—as well as attributes that distinguish humans from those entities—the capacity for rational knowledge. Were there creatures a million years ago that could be identified by the concept “human?” The evidence says “No.” We would have to use a concept other than “human” to describe those earlier creatures. Were there creatures back then from which today’s humans evolved? The answer is “Yes.”
Whatever the attributes of those creatures from which modern humans evolved, the creatures today to which we apply the concept “human” have a certain identity, that is, certain attributes that we can describe and understand. Among those attributes is that fact that they did evolve from earlier creatures through a process that we describe as evolution.
How blank a slate?
The essay quotes Rand’s statement that “I am not a student of the theory of evolution and, therefore, I am neither its supporter nor its opponent.” Let’s acknowledge that evolution is a fact. The Prometheus essay asserts that Rand’s agnosticism led her to misunderstand human nature. She said that “Man’s emotional mechanism is like an electronic computer, which his mind has to program—and the programming consists of the values his mind chooses.”
According to the essay, evolutionary psychology tells us that “Human psychology is far from a tabula rasa, and is hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts which mitigate against all attempts to employ pure rationality.” The essay acknowledges most human achievements come “thanks to our ability to transcend these evolutionary handicaps,” adding “but gainsaying their existence is sheer misrepresentation of scientific reality.”
Here the essay has a point. Recent discoveries about evolution and the brain do, in fact, reveal that human nature is much more complex than perhaps Rand understood. Even so, a close look at Rand’s works shows her to be a more sophisticated observer of human nature than perhaps the essayists appreciate. But that’s another discussion. Still it is crucial for Objectivist thinkers to take account of these discoveries if they wish to refine their understanding of how individuals might live happy lives.
But these discoveries so far do not undermine the basic Objectivist understanding of ethics. The essayists acknowledge the human ability “to transcend these evolutionary handicaps.” Another way to put this is that we humans can use our volition to check our immediate emotions, including those that might involve hard-wired capacities. We can reflect upon the world around us and on ourselves and our own nature. We can ask how we might act, including how we might discipline our emotions or hard-wired tendencies in order to best survive and flourish. This is the virtue of rationality.
Here we also see that in a very crucial way humans are “tabula rasa.” We do not have pre-programmed conceptual knowledge. Even if we are “hard-wired with various biases, heuristic tendencies, and social instincts,” it is only through a volitional, rational process that we discover and validate knowledge about the physical world in which we exist and about our own nature—our nature as evolved beings and as beings that can only survive and flourish if we act in accordance with certain principles found in our own nature, that is, in our identity as human beings. In any case, any instincts or biases that we humans have do not give us automatic knowledge concerning how to survive and flourish. We must discover this knowledge, using our rational capacity. From this perspective we might as well consider ourselves to be “tabula rasa.”
The Prometheus essay acknowledges Rand’s insights about free choice, free markets, and limited government in society. But these insights trace back to the deeper Objectivist understanding of metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. The essayists rightly ask about the implications of evolution for Objectivism, but they would do well to ask about their own understanding of Objectivism so that they might avoid the errors analyzed above and have a better understanding of the foundations of the freedoms that they rightly cherish.
The Objectivist Ethics ; not what you might think they are.
Morality is the recognition of the fact that as mortal beings with a rational, volitional consciousness, we need to adopt and practice certain principles in order to live.
Living beings clearly act to achieve particular values by particular means. Their actions are aimed at specific ends " namely, their survival and reproduction. But the question of purpose does not arise for them either because their actions are automatic, determined by instinct. They cannot choose, as men do, to live by one means or another, to be carnivores or herbivores, to live or die. Unlike non-living entities, they have various values, such as food, reproduction, and shelter, but they have no means to choose which values to achieve or which course of action to take to achieve them beyond their immediate environment.
Like all living organisms, man can be distinguished from non-living matter by the fact that in order to remain alive, he must act to attain the values needed for his survival (such as food, water, shelter, clothes.) For animals, which operate entirely on the perceptual level, this guidance comes automatically through their facility of instinct. Man does not have any automatic means of attaining the values needed for his life. He may have urges (hunger, thirst, etc) but he has no automatic means of fulfilling them. Unlike animals, human beings lack any kind of innate ideas or instinct - we learn our values and ideas from your experience of reality. We are the creators of our own mental nature - but we have no power over our metaphysical nature - we can refuse to recognize that we need food to live - but that does not change the fact that we are mortal beings who need food to live.
As a conceptual being, his survival depends on correctly using reason to identify and attain the values necessary for his life. As a volitional being, his thinking is neither automatic nor infallible, but is an active process that requires a constant focus on correctly identifying the facts of reality and applying them to achieve the values needed for his well-being. Unlike the automatic function of animal instinct, man must choose to think, " and his thoughts will determine his actions, his values, his emotions, and his character. The primary choice of every individual " to think or not" corresponds to his primary alternative " to live or not. His own life is the primary moral value of each individual" whether he chooses to accept it or not.
Rational self-interest, or egoism is therefore the proper morality each man must adopt if he wishes to live " the application of his reason to achieve the values needed for his survival. A man may choose not to think or to reject his life, but to the extent he does so, he chooses to act towards his death. Egoism is not a virtue by itself - simply knowing that one should act selfishly provides no guide to action. One must use reason to derive virtues, which are specific principles for practicing rationality in all areas of one's life.
Objectivism, however, does not list "selfishness" among its official virtues. The "values" officially recognized by Objectivism are "reason," "purpose," and "self-esteem," and the "virtues" by which these are achieved are said to be "rationality", "productiveness," and "pride."
Objectivism rejects as immoral any action taken for some other ultimate purpose. In particular it rejects as immoral any variant of what it calls "altruism" — by which it means, essentially, any ethical doctrine according to which a human being must justify his or her existence by service to others. According to Objectivism, every ethical or moral action has the agent as its primary beneficiary.
Objectivism especially opposes any ethical demand for sacrifice. Objectivism uses this term in a special sense: a "sacrifice", according to its Objectivist definition, is the giving up of a greater value for a lesser one. (In other worlds of discourse, for example baseball and chess, the term is used to mean the giving up of a lesser or shorter-term value for the sake of a greater or longer-term one. Objectivism does not regard such an exchange as a genuine "sacrifice.")
Not all superficially self-interested actions count as moral, however. Objectivism espouses an ethic of genuine self-interest — that is, of choices and actions that genuinely do promote one's life qua human being, not merely those that we think or hope may do so. The Objectivist ethic can be called one of "rational self-interest" (rational egoism) on the grounds that human beings must discover, through reason, what genuinely is of value to them.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Ethics&oldid=9287"
Living beings clearly act to achieve particular values by particular means. Their actions are aimed at specific ends " namely, their survival and reproduction. But the question of purpose does not arise for them either because their actions are automatic, determined by instinct. They cannot choose, as men do, to live by one means or another, to be carnivores or herbivores, to live or die. Unlike non-living entities, they have various values, such as food, reproduction, and shelter, but they have no means to choose which values to achieve or which course of action to take to achieve them beyond their immediate environment.
Like all living organisms, man can be distinguished from non-living matter by the fact that in order to remain alive, he must act to attain the values needed for his survival (such as food, water, shelter, clothes.) For animals, which operate entirely on the perceptual level, this guidance comes automatically through their facility of instinct. Man does not have any automatic means of attaining the values needed for his life. He may have urges (hunger, thirst, etc) but he has no automatic means of fulfilling them. Unlike animals, human beings lack any kind of innate ideas or instinct - we learn our values and ideas from your experience of reality. We are the creators of our own mental nature - but we have no power over our metaphysical nature - we can refuse to recognize that we need food to live - but that does not change the fact that we are mortal beings who need food to live.
As a conceptual being, his survival depends on correctly using reason to identify and attain the values necessary for his life. As a volitional being, his thinking is neither automatic nor infallible, but is an active process that requires a constant focus on correctly identifying the facts of reality and applying them to achieve the values needed for his well-being. Unlike the automatic function of animal instinct, man must choose to think, " and his thoughts will determine his actions, his values, his emotions, and his character. The primary choice of every individual " to think or not" corresponds to his primary alternative " to live or not. His own life is the primary moral value of each individual" whether he chooses to accept it or not.
Rational self-interest, or egoism is therefore the proper morality each man must adopt if he wishes to live " the application of his reason to achieve the values needed for his survival. A man may choose not to think or to reject his life, but to the extent he does so, he chooses to act towards his death. Egoism is not a virtue by itself - simply knowing that one should act selfishly provides no guide to action. One must use reason to derive virtues, which are specific principles for practicing rationality in all areas of one's life.
Objectivism, however, does not list "selfishness" among its official virtues. The "values" officially recognized by Objectivism are "reason," "purpose," and "self-esteem," and the "virtues" by which these are achieved are said to be "rationality", "productiveness," and "pride."
Objectivism rejects as immoral any action taken for some other ultimate purpose. In particular it rejects as immoral any variant of what it calls "altruism" — by which it means, essentially, any ethical doctrine according to which a human being must justify his or her existence by service to others. According to Objectivism, every ethical or moral action has the agent as its primary beneficiary.
Objectivism especially opposes any ethical demand for sacrifice. Objectivism uses this term in a special sense: a "sacrifice", according to its Objectivist definition, is the giving up of a greater value for a lesser one. (In other worlds of discourse, for example baseball and chess, the term is used to mean the giving up of a lesser or shorter-term value for the sake of a greater or longer-term one. Objectivism does not regard such an exchange as a genuine "sacrifice.")
Not all superficially self-interested actions count as moral, however. Objectivism espouses an ethic of genuine self-interest — that is, of choices and actions that genuinely do promote one's life qua human being, not merely those that we think or hope may do so. The Objectivist ethic can be called one of "rational self-interest" (rational egoism) on the grounds that human beings must discover, through reason, what genuinely is of value to them.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Ethics&oldid=9287"
The Objectivist Epistemology; a dedication to rationality and the world as it is.
Epistemology is the branch of philosophy that deals with the validity and requirements of human knowledge. Epistemology includes those facts about how one thinks and how one should think which one must understand to minimize errors when learning about other subjects.
In essence, Objectivist epistemology holds that all of man's knowledge comes from the senses, and is developed in the following order- Percepts, which come from the automatic integration of certain sensations that lead to awareness of a specific existent, and Concepts, the mind's organization of percepts [as well as other concepts] into groups based on their essential characteristics that differentiate them from other entities. Furthermore, Objectivist epistemology rejects all forms of faith or mysticism as means of knowledge.
The foundational writing for Objectivist epistemology is Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE); Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) further develops a number of the basic ideas of ITOE.
Sensation, or awareness of raw sensory data, counts as knowledge in a limited way. However, sensations as such are not retained by the mind and so cannot provide guidance beyond the present moment. (To refer to the previous example, if the computer screen you're reading turns off, the sensation ends.) Perception extends the awareness of the objects of sensation over time, a "percept" being a group of sensations that is automatically retained and integrated by the mind. Some animals other than human beings operate at the level of sensory perception and thus possess a measure of knowledge.
Human beings are unique in possessing another, higher level of cognition: the conceptual level. According to Objectivism, the human mind apprehends reality through a process of reasoning based upon sensory observation, in which perceptual information is built up into concepts and propositions.
However, humans are not guaranteed to achieve this level of consciousness, instead possessing a "volitional consciousness", reaching the "conceptual level" only by an act of volition to which no one can be led or forced from the outside. All humans by definition have the potential to achieve the conceptual level, but some may fail to actualize this potential — and some may lapse from the conceptual level by practising evasion, by which is meant evasion of reason, a deliberate abandonment of the rational consciousness.
Any mind, human or nonhuman, can explicitly hold only so many perceptual units at a time. But the human mind is able to extend its knowledge over a wide range of space, time, and scope by organizing its perceptual information into classifications.
For more information on the formation of concepts, see Concept formation
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is intimately related to the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, as some philosophers believe that analytic truths are known a priori (i.e., they are justified independent of any experience), while synthetic truths are known a posteriori (i.e., they are justified in virtue of experience). Rand rejects the view that there is any a priori knowledge. All knowledge, she holds, including mathematical knowledge, is about the world (though possibly at some very high level of abstraction or quantization). Justification always terminates in the evidence of the senses.
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is also related to the alleged distinction between necessary and contingent truths, i.e., the claims of a distinction between truths that could not have been otherwise and truths that could have been otherwise. Many contemporary philosophers believe that mathematical truths such as "2 + 2 = 4" are necessary (could not have been otherwise) while statements such as "There are nine planets in our solar system" are contingent (could have been otherwise). These notions of contingency and necessity have led many contemporary philosophers to elaborate metaphysical systems-building. In constrast, Objectivism holds that there is no distinction between necessary vs. contingent facts in the natural world (that is, all natural facts are necessary) and that the concept of "contingent" applies exclusively to the results of human choice (that is, there is a fundamental distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made). All facts hold in virtue of the natures or identities of the entities involved. Man-made facts hold in virtue of actions that were initiated by volitional beings ("I went to the grocery today" is a man-made fact, because I could have done otherwise). Metaphysical facts, by contrast, hold without reference to any action of a volitional consciousness.
Objectivism holds that, in a sense, all facts are "necessary": all knowledge is knowledge of identity, i.e., a statement that an entity (or aspect, potentiality, condition etc. of an entity) is what in fact it is. Many contemporary philosophers claim that, while the proposition "1 + 1 = 2" is "necessary" because true in all possible realities, the proposition "the atomic mass of hydrogen is 1" is "contingent" because it is not constant across possible worlds. Objectivism would reply that the second proposition is just as "necessary" as the first: if the atomic mass differed, the substance in question would not be hydrogen. Objectivism recognizes no legitimate meaning of "necessity" other than this one.
Additionally, Objectivism also accepts so-called "nomological" possibility and necessity. Statements of nomological possibility say that certain states-of-affairs are in accordance with natural reality in the sense that they reflect the potential of an entity to act in a certain way. For example, consider the propositions, "This glass could break" and "It could rain this weekend." These report truths, because they say that, it is in the nature of glasses that they can break (given the right circumstances) and similarly it is in the nature of the weather that it has the potential to produce rain. Objectivism analyzes counterfactuals, e.g., "If I had dropped this glass, it would break," in similar terms. Objectivism does not insist, as many contemporary philosophers do, that there must be some fact in another possible world for this proposition to correspond with, in order for it to be true. Objectivism also rejects the now-popular view that these nomological facts should be analyzed using a "possible worlds" framework that builds on a distinction between the necessary and the contingent.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Epistemology&oldid=9367"
In essence, Objectivist epistemology holds that all of man's knowledge comes from the senses, and is developed in the following order- Percepts, which come from the automatic integration of certain sensations that lead to awareness of a specific existent, and Concepts, the mind's organization of percepts [as well as other concepts] into groups based on their essential characteristics that differentiate them from other entities. Furthermore, Objectivist epistemology rejects all forms of faith or mysticism as means of knowledge.
The foundational writing for Objectivist epistemology is Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology (ITOE); Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand (OPAR) further develops a number of the basic ideas of ITOE.
From sensations to concepts
Sensations are the basic information provided to the mind by the sensory organs, such as the light from the computer screen you're reading now. The awareness of these sensations is considered axiomatically"valid" on the grounds that it is self-contradictory to deny the efficacy of the senses as sources of genuine knowledge, because such an assertion implicitly assumes the validity of the senses. For example, something which is an "illusion" is something which is perceived falsely; reality contradicts your awareness of it. Since that is part of what "illusion" means, to suggest that reality is an illusion means that reality contradicts itself.Sensation, or awareness of raw sensory data, counts as knowledge in a limited way. However, sensations as such are not retained by the mind and so cannot provide guidance beyond the present moment. (To refer to the previous example, if the computer screen you're reading turns off, the sensation ends.) Perception extends the awareness of the objects of sensation over time, a "percept" being a group of sensations that is automatically retained and integrated by the mind. Some animals other than human beings operate at the level of sensory perception and thus possess a measure of knowledge.
Human beings are unique in possessing another, higher level of cognition: the conceptual level. According to Objectivism, the human mind apprehends reality through a process of reasoning based upon sensory observation, in which perceptual information is built up into concepts and propositions.
However, humans are not guaranteed to achieve this level of consciousness, instead possessing a "volitional consciousness", reaching the "conceptual level" only by an act of volition to which no one can be led or forced from the outside. All humans by definition have the potential to achieve the conceptual level, but some may fail to actualize this potential — and some may lapse from the conceptual level by practising evasion, by which is meant evasion of reason, a deliberate abandonment of the rational consciousness.
Any mind, human or nonhuman, can explicitly hold only so many perceptual units at a time. But the human mind is able to extend its knowledge over a wide range of space, time, and scope by organizing its perceptual information into classifications.
For more information on the formation of concepts, see Concept formation
Topics In Epistemology
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy
Objectivism explicitly rejects the analytic-synthetic dichotomy. This dichotomy — which stems from the views of David Hume and Immanuel Kant — is the view that there is a fundamental distinction between statements that are true in virtue of meaning, alone, and statements whose truth depends upon something more (usually, upon the way the world is). Rand rejected the view that there is any such fundamental distinction, because she accepted that the meaning of a word is its referent, including that referent's every attribute. Consequently, any true proposition is in a way true in virtue of meaning, while its truth simultaneously depends upon the way the world is. In specific, Rand holds that the meaning of a non-singular term is the concept associated with that term, while this concept somehow includes or subsumes all the particulars of a given class, including all the attributes had by these particulars. Which particulars a concept subsumes, according to Rand, depends upon what the concept-coiner was discriminating from what when he or she formed the concept (this appears to be how Rand accommodates Gottlob Frege's insight that there are different "modes of presentation" of the same content). This view is a version of content externalism, similar in certain ways to the views of Hilary Putnam and Tyler Burge.The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is intimately related to the distinction between a priori and a posteriori knowledge, as some philosophers believe that analytic truths are known a priori (i.e., they are justified independent of any experience), while synthetic truths are known a posteriori (i.e., they are justified in virtue of experience). Rand rejects the view that there is any a priori knowledge. All knowledge, she holds, including mathematical knowledge, is about the world (though possibly at some very high level of abstraction or quantization). Justification always terminates in the evidence of the senses.
The analytic-synthetic dichotomy is also related to the alleged distinction between necessary and contingent truths, i.e., the claims of a distinction between truths that could not have been otherwise and truths that could have been otherwise. Many contemporary philosophers believe that mathematical truths such as "2 + 2 = 4" are necessary (could not have been otherwise) while statements such as "There are nine planets in our solar system" are contingent (could have been otherwise). These notions of contingency and necessity have led many contemporary philosophers to elaborate metaphysical systems-building. In constrast, Objectivism holds that there is no distinction between necessary vs. contingent facts in the natural world (that is, all natural facts are necessary) and that the concept of "contingent" applies exclusively to the results of human choice (that is, there is a fundamental distinction between the metaphysical and the man-made). All facts hold in virtue of the natures or identities of the entities involved. Man-made facts hold in virtue of actions that were initiated by volitional beings ("I went to the grocery today" is a man-made fact, because I could have done otherwise). Metaphysical facts, by contrast, hold without reference to any action of a volitional consciousness.
Objectivism holds that, in a sense, all facts are "necessary": all knowledge is knowledge of identity, i.e., a statement that an entity (or aspect, potentiality, condition etc. of an entity) is what in fact it is. Many contemporary philosophers claim that, while the proposition "1 + 1 = 2" is "necessary" because true in all possible realities, the proposition "the atomic mass of hydrogen is 1" is "contingent" because it is not constant across possible worlds. Objectivism would reply that the second proposition is just as "necessary" as the first: if the atomic mass differed, the substance in question would not be hydrogen. Objectivism recognizes no legitimate meaning of "necessity" other than this one.
Additionally, Objectivism also accepts so-called "nomological" possibility and necessity. Statements of nomological possibility say that certain states-of-affairs are in accordance with natural reality in the sense that they reflect the potential of an entity to act in a certain way. For example, consider the propositions, "This glass could break" and "It could rain this weekend." These report truths, because they say that, it is in the nature of glasses that they can break (given the right circumstances) and similarly it is in the nature of the weather that it has the potential to produce rain. Objectivism analyzes counterfactuals, e.g., "If I had dropped this glass, it would break," in similar terms. Objectivism does not insist, as many contemporary philosophers do, that there must be some fact in another possible world for this proposition to correspond with, in order for it to be true. Objectivism also rejects the now-popular view that these nomological facts should be analyzed using a "possible worlds" framework that builds on a distinction between the necessary and the contingent.
The problem of universals
Objectivism offers the foregoing account as the solution of the problem of universals. This problem has throughout the history of philosophy been regarded as a problem of metaphysics, but Objectivism asserts that its proper resolution lies in epistemology. Traditional solutions to the problem divide generally into realism and nominalism. Objectivism regards the first as "intrinsicism" (the view that universals are "intrinsic" to reality) and the second as "subjectivism" (the view that universals are arbitrary creations of the human mind). The proper resolution, Objectivism says, is that universals are concepts, created to meet the unique cognitive needs of the human mind, but objective so long as they are validly formed.Objectivism, classical rationalism, classical empiricism
There are many notable differences between Objectivist epistemology and classical rationalism. While a classical rationalist would defend a "thick" conception of reason that includes a priori knowledge and the grasp of relations of necessity, Objectivism defends a "thin" conception that denies the possibility of a priori knowledge, tends to treat the grasp of necessity as something akin to mystical insight, and relegates reason to the role of classifying and organizing the information provided by sensory perception.Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=Epistemology&oldid=9367"
What is Objectivism? The basics of the philosophy in the simplest terms.
Objectivism is the name chosen by Ayn Rand for her philosophy. Some essentials of Objectivism are that reality is real (i.e., Existence exists), and that we are conscious of reality (Consciousness is conscious).
From this, Objectivism propounds that knowledge is objective: it is not simply revealed or "obvious", nor is it whimsically subjective. Knowledge is the result of a consciousness gaining understanding of reality.
The better we understand reality, the better we can deal with it. Ayn Rand described Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth -- by which she meant that it was a philosophy grounded in reality with the purpose of enabling its adherents to better deal with reality. A common thread running through all of Objectivism is the sanctity of the individual, rational human being. In Rand's own words:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Ayn Rand rejected the idea that men who pursue their own interests must end up in conflict with one another. Objectivism holds individual rights to be the mechanism by which men can pursue their individual interests without being in conflict with one another.
Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter).
There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism. You should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.
In fact, to assume without proof that everything Ayn Rand said is true, contradicts Objectivist Epistemology.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=What_is_Objectivism&oldid=9366"
From this, Objectivism propounds that knowledge is objective: it is not simply revealed or "obvious", nor is it whimsically subjective. Knowledge is the result of a consciousness gaining understanding of reality.
The better we understand reality, the better we can deal with it. Ayn Rand described Objectivism as a philosophy for living on earth -- by which she meant that it was a philosophy grounded in reality with the purpose of enabling its adherents to better deal with reality. A common thread running through all of Objectivism is the sanctity of the individual, rational human being. In Rand's own words:
"My philosophy, in essence, is the concept of man as a heroic being, with his own happiness as the moral purpose of his life, with productive achievement as his noblest activity, and reason as his only absolute."
Ayn Rand rejected the idea that men who pursue their own interests must end up in conflict with one another. Objectivism holds individual rights to be the mechanism by which men can pursue their individual interests without being in conflict with one another.
Objectivism is a closed system -- it consists of the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved (for example the articles in the Objectivist Newsletter).
There are philosophical truths which were not incorporated into Objectivism. You should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.
In fact, to assume without proof that everything Ayn Rand said is true, contradicts Objectivist Epistemology.
Retrieved from "http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.php?title=What_is_Objectivism&oldid=9366"
Wednesday, March 27, 2019
Truth, Objectivity and Self-Interest (Dave Rubin Interview with Harry Binswanger)
This is the eighth episode in a series looking at Objectivism's approach to Happiness. Philosopher Harry Binswanger joins Dave Rubin to discuss truth, objectivity and self-interest. Watch more of this series here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
To receive notifications as each new episode is released, subscribe to the ARI channel: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
******
Dave Rubin
Host of The Rubin report
Dave on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RubinReport
Harry Binswanger
Author, How We Know
For more from Harry: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
******
Like ARI on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...
Follow ARI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AynRandInst
Explore ARI: http://www.aynrand.org
******
The Ayn Rand Institute is funded through subscription and one-time donations: http://aynrand.org/donate
Tuesday, March 26, 2019
Sunday, March 24, 2019
Yaron Brook Show | Objectivist Morality; Morality without God
This video was created by Christian Jackson. Taken from: Yaron Brook Show: Interview with Philosopher Ben Bayer-Consipiracy Theories+++
Streamed on Sept. 18 2018 You can see the full video here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuiJQ...
#MoralityWithoutGod #RationalMorality #Morality
Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.
Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).
Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.
Tuesday, March 19, 2019
Ayn Rand A Sense of Life (archive.org)
Ayn Rand: A Sense of Life is a documentary film written, produced, and directed by Michael Paxton. Its focus is on novelist and philosopher Ayn Rand, the author of the bestselling novels The Fountainhead and Atlas Shrugged, who promoted her philosophy of Objectivism through her books, articles, speeches, and media appearances.
Thursday, March 14, 2019
Yaron Interviewed: Libertarianism, Islamic terrorism, Politics and economics (in English, in Spain)
In this interview, Yaron Brook sits down with Pablo de Angulo Ruiz-Morón host of the student club El Club de los Viernes to discuss Libertarianism, Islamic terrorism, Politics and economics. Yaron also shares his views about how Israel's policies are perceived by the media and the public in Europe.
Recorded on June 12, 2018 with the student club El Club de Los Viernes in Granada, Spain.
Like what you hear? Become a sponsor member, get exclusive content and support the creation of more videos like this at https://www.yaronbrookshow.com/support/, Subscribestar https://www.subscribestar.com/yaronbr... or direct through PayPal: paypal.me/YaronBrookShow.
Want more? Tune in to the Yaron Brook Show on YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/ybrook). Continue the discussions anywhere on-line after show time using #YaronBrookShow. Connect with Yaron via Tweet @YaronBrook or follow him on Facebook @ybrook and YouTube (/YaronBrook).
Want to learn more about Objectivism? Check out ARI at https://ari.aynrand.org.
Wednesday, March 13, 2019
Taking Your Happiness Seriously (Dave Rubin Interview with Tara Smith)
This is the sixth episode in a series looking at Objectivism's approach to Happiness. Philosopher Tara Smith joins Dave Rubin to discuss what it means to take one's happiness seriously. Watch more of this series here: https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...
To receive notifications as each new episode is released, subscribe to the ARI channel: https://www.youtube.com/subscription_...
******
Dave Rubin
Host of The Rubin report
Dave on Twitter: http://twitter.com/RubinReport
Tara Smith
Author, Ayn Rand’s Normative Ethics: The Virtuous Egoist
For more from Tara: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hryP6...
******
Like ARI on Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/AynRandInsti...
Follow ARI on Twitter: https://twitter.com/AynRandInst
Explore ARI: http://www.aynrand.org
******
The Ayn Rand Institute is funded through subscription and one-time donations: http://aynrand.org/donate
Friday, March 8, 2019
Thursday, March 7, 2019
Quite the busy week I am having and a bit on not qualifying people based on the Oist label.
This week has gone by fast as usual, but, it has also been very busy as well. I had my session at 2:30PM, but, also a new meeting of a support group for men at 6PM. I will not mention anything about the contents of the group due to confidentiality issues. I am also finding the new medication is working really well for me too. I take my 3 pills each day and it helps me along with mindfulness to be on an a more even keel.
Tomorrow is cleaning day for me. My Aunt and Mom will come to help me clean up the apartment. From there we will go to lunch or brunch together. I will take my usual walk downtown after visiting with Mom. Then I will take the bus and head back home for some relaxation time. I will more than likely post more images and quotes as I relax tomorrow. I have not yet told anyone in my Men's group that I am an Objectivist. My therapist/councilor already knows about that.
Unless we get into a talk about philosophy or politics the topic will likely not come up during the sessions. However, if anyone is interested in my philosophy or politics I will let them know my positions and views of such. I just posted a quote from Murray Rothbard; I want to make it known I think his Anarchism is evil, vile and wickedly wrong. However, on the subject of compulsory taxation we 100% agree on the thieving nature of it. Not everyone that says truthful things are Objectivists.
Some of the worst and most wicked people have hidden under the banner of Objectivism. Just like some of the most geniuses and intellectual powerhouses have been Objectivists. I denounce such people as even being Objeectivists because they do not understand Miss Rand's philosophy at all. However, they have used the banner and seen by outsiders as representing it. The fact of someone being or not being an Objectivist is not a guarantee of someones character at all. This is something I wish was not so, but, there are Ass-Hats and nutcases in all circles of life. One SHOULD NOT judge Objectivism as a philosophy based on the Ass-Hats they might have met. The Ass-Hats are douches that would attach themselves to any ideas they feel would justify their behavior.
Judge people based on the content of their character in general and not based on if they share the same philosophy as you. Qualify people based on the standards of being a moral individual and good people or not. It is a fruitless inquisition to narrow down the company you keep to only those that share your ideology. Get out there and meet people, but, just make sure you watch out for the crazies and the harmful among them as they are out there as well.
Signing off for the night yours truly,
Chris M.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)