Is there such thing? Not only a third party (or the whole world) thinking a certain way giving evidence on truth here. Search for truth needs facts. Isn't anything else (without evidence) an illusion itself. Help me understand.....
I'll shy away from a full endorsement of Rand. But her's is the closest to an objective philosophy that exists in popular format.
The idea that reality is objective and can be studied objectively is one thing, but to assert that objective truth can be proven, or known (rather than simply approximated via evidence) is absurd. I'm also a free market advocate, as was Rand, but any economic system doesn't have an intrinsic "morality" to it, and each one presents different problems and challenges. Capitalism in its purest form would not work, though that can be said of any political form, so it's possible only (again) to approximate it, while making concessions for its flaws that are as small as possible.
Rand herself formed what can only be considered a destructive cult around herself, with Rand as the "godhead" (source of objective truth) and no tolerance for dissent among her inner circle and followers. Scary stuff, and while it doesn't invalidate her philosophy, it sheds some light on the author behind it.
In any case, Rand denies altruism to a large extent, which has led to MANY critics among philosophers and theologians. Usually lost is the equally-strong tenet of human capability and our ability to overcome obstacles via reason. Much more humanist than is usually given credit for.
But it's the "objective truth can be known" part that I can't endorse, and the main thing that drives me away from such thinking.
The physical world is how we see it and think it. Most of us think similarly, probably cause we grew up to think a certain way, and this could affect our behavior. Religion could be a factor as well. I recall the turing test. Anyway aside from what we can think, scientific realism is probably the closest thing to truth. not only humans experience nature, but animals too and we all survive in this world. Behavior of matter is a good example. Subjective thinking can lead to illusions and to intentionly come up with a logical way to justify their actions. This could be agreed upon with a nation. United states for example. Unintentionally going to war while there selfishly thinking about there own safety and interests led them to support it initially. People only bitched when they noticed the unknown consequences. Typical and funny. Aside from politics, people just tend to find ways to justify there actions because they thing there right. Anyway, the world would be boring if everyone thought the same, as was told to you as a baby.
Any real truth I think comes from science and matter. Without matter theres nothing. Those 'only the mind people' can obviously argue this
There's some good thoughts in here. But it's so garbled together that it comes out sounding like nonsense.
Pretty much. Robin mentioned scienfitic realism, which (like any rational philosophy) understands that objective truth can't be known, but presumes an objective universe and attempts to approximate it as closely as possible given our subjectivity. Kinda like how even if we were to find a Grand Unified Field theory of physics, it would have to be subject the the Uncertainty Principle, which negates absolutist interpretation of reality. So even the GUF theory would have a similar caveat.
The link between the two is perhaps tenuous, but I found the analogy quaint.
In any case, that's pretty much my stance, because it gives due credit and importance to empirical findings while maintaining the disclaimer that is our subjectivity. Because I've encountered too many people that use such arguments to retreat to a philosophical "safe zone" where nothing can be proven, disproven, challenged, or debunked. Convenient mostly for those whose beliefs don't stack up to the evidence we have (or lack thereof) but frustrating for others.
What are you talking about The whole point of finding truth is that we have not found it yet. I'm trying to narrow it down in a sense. And your repeating unknowns
"In any case, that's pretty much my stance, because it gives due credit and importance to empirical findings while maintaining the disclaimer that is our subjectivity. Because I've encountered too many people that use such arguments to retreat to a philosophical "safe zone" where nothing can be proven, disproven, challenged, or debunked.."
No shit sherlock
Anyway, you can try to use big words to make yourself sound smart or something, but your not really saying anything.
If you dont find truth then your going to end up where you started.
I'm trying to keep it simple here
Last edited by JediRobin23 on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 04:27 AM
IF we are trapped in our own subjectivity, wherein certainty (objective truth) can not be known, then wouldn't that be our objective truth? And if "mystery" is our only certainty, wouldn't that be square 1 in building a reality map? Square 2 would then bring in empirical science, but without the claim that it reveals "objective truth." Instead, it would claim this is our best As-If in understanding the empirical world.
__________________
Shinier than a speeding bullet.
So am I. As in, I'm working with what we can know, not conjecture. The (late?) Karl Popper was fond of a phrase that he often used to succintly describe his life's work as a skeptic and scientist: "To err, and err, and err; But less, less, and less." Absolute truth wasn't (and isn't) attainable to him, nor to us. It doesn't invalidate empirical findings that help us view the world objectively, but merely puts them in proper context.
Also, there's no need to resort to insults. I've been nothing but accommodating to your ideas, and even used one in my response to in's last comment.
In any case, don't make it a problem when it doesn't need to be. I'm happy to let it slide once, but won't hesitate to take action if it becomes a problem.
you've insulted my response by saying its garbled and sounds like nonsense.
Dont be critical to my thoughts, but be open minded. Also, if you want to be accommodating, please do so in a kind and courteous manner
Last edited by JediRobin23 on Apr 2nd, 2008 at 11:16 PM
We only have five senses, and those are the only ways we can recognize the world. Even if objective truth exists, we may never have a way to attain it.
It was an honest assessment, intended more as advice than criticism. You'd string together multiple thoughts that didn't always relate to one another. I pointed it out because you said some intelligent, valid stuff (which I also pointed out), and I wanted to let you know so that you could present them more clearly next time because I felt like your ideas were valid. So yes, it was garbled, but don't mistake critique for insult, since it was intended as the former and certainly not the latter.
The given subjectivity is a human's mind thought, the physical world is a shared perspective. Truth typically comes from a majority. We all live on the earths surface and drink water in this world.
Given our subjectivity? I think the world was the basis to our subjectivity? Out brains only operate based on the bilogical matter that we have. animals have the same brain matter, but they dont have an intelligence like we do. But can behave very similar. Most likely because we share things in common, like breeding. Its in our nature to do so. Life wont go on without it. If we dont think this way, then theres nothing.
I totally agree with the idea people need to learn for themselves and not only accept the things they see or what us presented to them. so, they can decide for themselves.
Anyway, I may be garbed again cause I think to much...
Last edited by JediRobin23 on Apr 4th, 2008 at 02:54 AM
Funny. I was reading about Rand and Objectivism, and I just noticed the idea of objectivism doesn't seems very empirical. Its something difficult to support.
I mean, we are assuming without evidence that there is a mind-independent reality, usually called objective reality.
Objective reality is like mind for a behaviorist.
It is no different believing in a objective reality or believing in a romantic idea of God. Its the same thing.
KMC Community Forums
Mar 31st, 2008 02:52 AM
