>If we take away human beings presupposing it, does the universe exist, to rand?
Yes, and that's a crucially important and fundamental point.
>If Rand's basis for existence is presupposition, then this is still in some ways subjective, er?
You shouldn't define "subjective" to mean "anything related to or involving mental processes". That would be uselessly broad. The idea of Objectivism is that our subjective, or mental side is accurately synchronized with the objective in nature. In a sense, Objectivism is really "Synchronized Subjectivist-Objectivism", if such a temporary terminology is clarifying. In other words, when we say "objective," we are implying the subject part.
Further, if you analyze human perception you will see just natural cause and effect. A light beam hits your eye and that sets of a cause-and-effect sequence that creates the perception in your brain. There's no reason to doubt a percept's validity.
wellllll, if Rand's objectivism is based upon human presuppositions, what makes the universe exist if you take away the human presuppositions?
How can we be sure of objective synchronization?
What of Hume's argument that human beings construct or assume cause and effect?
(i may be a little bit redundant in my questions, but part of the redundancy is to make sure that i fully understand what you mean, so i'm trying to ask different questions aimed at a basic idea, in order to flush it out from all dimensions)
Huh? Do you know what the word "presuppose" means? It means assume, it does not mean "create." Nothing I ever said to you should lead you to conclude number 2, above.
If we question whether or not existence exists, that has absolutely no bearing whatsover on existence itself in any way. All it means is that just by questioning it, we must already be assuming (in conceptual form in our brains) that it actually does exist, otherwise, our question would be unintelligible.
It's kind of like asking: "This thing here and those things over there. You see those things? Well, I don't think they exist." What would that person be talking about? He had to point them out first in order to deny them. He is first assuming that they *do* exist, and then strangely tries to say that they do not exist. To put the contradiction more simply, he is saying "These things that exist, do not exist." But he doesn't say it in those words, even though that's what is happening, because it would be too obvious that what he was saying did not make any
Oops. I'm being a little too loose with my language. It is actually *things* that are acting that cause actions in other *things*. You can't have actions apart from things. So technically, actions do not cause actions. That's loose language.
Comments 51
Reply
If Rand's basis for existence is presupposition, then this is still in some ways subjective, er?
Almost, subjective objectivism?
Reply
Yes, and that's a crucially important and fundamental point.
>If Rand's basis for existence is presupposition, then this is still in some ways subjective, er?
You shouldn't define "subjective" to mean "anything related to or involving mental processes". That would be uselessly broad. The idea of Objectivism is that our subjective, or mental side is accurately synchronized with the objective in nature. In a sense, Objectivism is really "Synchronized Subjectivist-Objectivism", if such a temporary terminology is clarifying. In other words, when we say "objective," we are implying the subject part.
Further, if you analyze human perception you will see just natural cause and effect. A light beam hits your eye and that sets of a cause-and-effect sequence that creates the perception in your brain. There's no reason to doubt a percept's validity.
Reply
How can we be sure of objective synchronization?
What of Hume's argument that human beings construct or assume cause and effect?
(i may be a little bit redundant in my questions, but part of the redundancy is to make sure that i fully understand what you mean, so i'm trying to ask different questions aimed at a basic idea, in order to flush it out from all dimensions)
Reply
Reply
1. If we question existence, we are presupposing existence exists
2. Because of this presupposition, the universe must exist
What happens if we dont question existence; what happens if the presupposition is never raised?
It sounds slightly analogous to Descartes's cogito
I think, therefore i am
would Rand say,
If you think, you presuppose everything exists?
Reply
If we question whether or not existence exists, that has absolutely no bearing whatsover on existence itself in any way. All it means is that just by questioning it, we must already be assuming (in conceptual form in our brains) that it actually does exist, otherwise, our question would be unintelligible.
It's kind of like asking: "This thing here and those things over there. You see those things? Well, I don't think they exist." What would that person be talking about? He had to point them out first in order to deny them. He is first assuming that they *do* exist, and then strangely tries to say that they do not exist. To put the contradiction more simply, he is saying "These things that exist, do not exist." But he doesn't say it in those words, even though that's what is happening, because it would be too obvious that what he was saying did not make any
Reply
I meant presuppose as assume, in the sense that you used the word, does that help?
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment