Leonid

"We taste, see, hear, smell, and feel." Here you simply confuse senses and emotions. They are two different things.

" That is why we can participate in creating our own natures, our own essences. This is why we have free-will"
You are wrong about the origin of free will.To explain it you don't have to destroy all objective methaphysics. For full discussion of this issue I reffer you to the article " Phylogenesis of Consciousness and Free will-Teleological Approach"
which I published on Rational Argumentator website.

" reality conforms to identity, but it may not." You are wrong again. Existence is identity. To be is to be something. Existence is every thing which exists.Knowledge is exists and therefore has identity,its context. We are not omniscient but at any given non-contradictional context our knowledge is final. Knowledge is unlimited only potentialy.

"I think there is a fixed essence or human nature, but I also think it allows for some existential subjectivism"-and that exactly what I mean when I say that you want to keep your objectivist cake and eat it with mystic cream on top. That is not possible. A is A

"Tell me, Leonid, how am I using feelings as irreducible primaries? And, how does Rand use logic and reason to derive axiomatic concepts such as consciousness"

You invalidate perception,logic and therefore reason.What else left to you to know your unknowble,indefined reality except your feelings or innate ideas? That why you defend analytic-systemic dichotomy. You have deprived yourself of all epistemological tools and your only refuge is mysticism.

Nope, I say there are limitations with perception and logic. I think there are some things which are fixed, but some things which are in flux. Human nature is partly fixed and partly in flux. That is why we can participate in creating our own natures, our own essences. This is why we have free-will. If our natures were fixed, such as the natures of trees or non-human animals, we would have no free-will. However, you are trying to use a process of elimination to say I am using feelings as irreducible primaries. If I invalidate perception, that invalidates feelings pretty much too, since feelings are perceptions. We taste, see, hear, smell, and feel. You contradict yourself.

The second part of your question " how does Rand use logic and reason to derive axiomatic concepts such as consciousness" shows that you don't understand the concept of axiom which is self-evident,doesn't derive from anything;on the contrary all derivations are depend on it.If it's no consciousness then it's no logic,no reason,no derivations and no questions.

I understand axioms and self-evidence perfectly. I know they don’t derive from logic. They are irreducible primaries, supposedly. However, Rand breaks down consciousness into content and action. She states that all definitions are contextual, but “axiomatic concepts” are true independent of any particular context. There are lots of problems here, but I just think it is odd that you are calling me a mystic for not using reason and logic while defending Rand’s non-use of reason and logic in coming up with axiomatic concepts. I think her concept of consciousness and rejection of a mechanistic model must result in mysticism, even if she rejects it, and I’m not the only philosopher who thinks so.

I’m fully aware of the fact that I cannot persuade you of anything. To persuade mean to bring logicaly integrated evidence which pertains to reality.

Reality is what is in question here. Your definition seems to be circular. If we agree with you, then it is logically integrated evidence pertaining to reality. If we don’t, then it does not pertain to reality.

You think that logic is faith and reality is ever-changing flux of indefined nothing,that A can be A,B,C or whatever you percieve and therefore you can keep your objectivist cake with any mystic stuffing.

Basically, so do you. You say knowledge of reality is contextual. The law of identity is epistemological, not metaphysical. As far as you know, reality conforms to identity, but it may not. You may have to adjust your views the next time you get more knowledge. However, you may toss it out if it doesn’t conform to your pre-conceived ideas. This is what the willfully ignorant do.

Good and well,do that but why you call your ecclectic ideas neo-objectivism? What is new about your worn-out mystic-altruist-collectivist-utilitarian style philosophy? Your arguments have been refuted time and again not only by Rand but by many others. You can read for example John Hosper " An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis".

I have read John Hospers a lot. I am a graduate from the University of Southern California, where he was chairman of the philosophy department before he retired. I didn’t have him as a professor, but I read all his textbooks. He is great! I use some of his arguments for not being able to use logic to verify logic. He says we can vindicate its use, but vindication is not justification. He also said that the rationalist can only assume there is order in the universe so that we can trust inductive reasoning. He does not refute me. His arguments support me.

And what on the Earth your ideas have to do with Objectivism? Objective means pertains to reality. It is no reality in your system,only relative,subjective snapshots. So why don't you call your system NicOtanism or paleo-mystico-noumenalism or simple BSism? Why you insist to be associated with Ayn Rand?

If you would read the Alice series, you would see where I agree with Rand and where I differ. I do believe in an objective reality in the sense that it exists independent of our consciousness. I think there is a fixed essence or human nature, but I also think it allows for some existential subjectivism, that we are free within fixed, objective parameters, which can only be discovered, to participate in the creation of our natures. I combine the best of Objectivism with the best of Existentialism and offset the weaknesses of each philosophy, the lack of freedom in Objectivism and the too much freedom in Existentialism.

This is simple claim for unearned.However I'm glad that you've expressed your ideas in such an eloquent way.This is an ample demonstration what is happening when one treats philosophical system in "open,tolerant" way.

So, do you advocate being intolerant? If you read my Alice series, would you side with the prosecution? Anyway, I don’t think I’m being a parasite on Ayn Rand. I’m trying to give her her due but also showing where I have gone beyond her. I know she would disapprove, but my individualism is as important to me as hers was to her. I hope some people can respect that.

bis bald,

Nick

reply

Leonid
"Tell me, Leonid, how am I using feelings as irreducible primaries? And, how does Rand use logic and reason to derive axiomatic concepts such as consciousness"

You invalidate perception,logic and therefore reason.What else left to you to know your unknowble,indefined reality except your feelings or innate ideas? That why you defend analytic-systemic dichotomy. You have deprived yourself of all epistemological tools and your only refuge is mysticism.
The second part of your question " how does Rand use logic and reason to derive axiomatic concepts such as consciousness" shows that you don't understand the concept of axiom which is self-evident,doesn't derive from anything;on the contrary all derivations are depend on it.If it's no consciousness then it's no logic,no reason,no derivations and no questions.I'm fully aware of the fact that I cannot persuade you of anything. To persuade mean to bring logicaly integrated evidence which pertains to reality. You think that logic is faith and reality is ever-changing flux of indefined nothing,that A can be A,B,C or whatever you percieve and therefore you can keep your objectivist cake with any mystic stuffing. Good and well,do that but why you call your ecclectic ideas neo-objectivism? What is new about your worn-out mystic-altruist-collectivist-utilitarian style philosophy? Your arguments have been refuted time and again not only by Rand but by many others. You can read for example John Hosper " An Introduction to Philosophical Analysis". And what on the Earth your ideas have to do with Objectivism? Objective means pertains to reality. It is no reality in your system,only relative,subjective snapshots. So why don't you call your system NicOtanism or paleo-mystico-noumenalism or simple BSism? Why you insist to be associated with Ayn Rand? This is simple claim for unearned.However I'm glad that you've expressed your ideas in such an eloquent way.This is an ample demonstration what is happening when one treats philosophical system in "open,tolerant" way.

You don't want to answer my questions about what you call yourself and respond to my comments on how Rand treated the lady on the Donahue show. You'd rather just evade all that. I understand.

bis bald,

Nick

...

You're a second-hander, Otani, stealing the title Objectivist and adding your pathetic, grandiose and neo-carbuncled prefix -- as if you even have the slightest grasp of Rand's philosophy!!!

Making unsupported accusations is not using logic.

If I am a second-hander, so is Rand for taking from Aristotle. Most philosophies are derived from other philosophies. It doesn’t mean all philosophers are second-handers. At some point, a philosophy becomes new, distinct from the philosophy or philosophies from which it was derived.

What do you call yourself, Jameson? Are you a Randite ditto-head?

I think I’ve demonstrated my grasp of Rand’s philosophy in my Alice series. You probably haven’t read it, which means you haven’t the slightest grasp of my philosophy. Yet, you keep making these all-inclusive judgments about it.

Nick: "So you say, yet you agree with me that logic is a tool and not something more."
You DO think it's something more, twat! You think it's something that can "control" its user. Even the Mad Hatter couldn't have conceived of something that insane!!!

I do not think it is something more. I think some Objectivists think that, and I made a case supporting that proposition. If you disagree with it, you need to refute that case, not simply make more unsupported accusations and call me names.

BTW, you didn’t comment on what I said about how Rand dealt with that lady on the Donahue show. Are you dropping that?

Bis bald,

Nick

and allow me to calmly shove your idiotic ideas up your ass!!

You're a second-hander, Otani, stealing the title Objectivist and adding your pathetic, grandiose and neo-carbuncled prefix -- as if you even have the slightest grasp of Rand's philosophy!!!

Nick: "So you say, yet you agree with me that logic is a tool and not something more."

You DO think it's something more, twat! You think it's something that can "control" its user. Even the Mad Hatter couldn't have conceived of something that insane!!!

The case supporting my proposition is prima facie. I can't help it if you are all too stupid to know it.

It's an insult to Ayn Rand that you call yourself a neo-Objectivist.

It would be an insult to Ayn Rand if I called myself an Objectivist. I am not. I am my own kind of neo-Objectivist, and I clearly outline what that means in my Alice series.

Everything you say here undermines the very essence of her epistemology, and by extension her entire philosophy.

So you say, yet you agree with me that logic is a tool and not something more. So, by extension, you must be undermining her philosophy also, even more so if you consider yourself an Objectivist.

You remind me of that twat that stood up in the Donahue interview and said she used to be an Objectivist, but then she went to college and got an education.

I saw that. All this woman said was that she read all of Rand's books when she was young but then read other books also and moved on. Rand got all upset and had a hissy fit. She wanted Phil Donahue to just move on and pass her by. She said if this woman moved beyond her, it was this woman's problem, not hers. However, she objected to this woman talking about her on a show which was supposed to be about Rand and her views. This showed a little insecurity on Rand's part. She should have just listened to the woman and calmly refuted her. That's what Socrates would have done.

bis bald,

Nick

to prove to us that your stupid proposition is valid - which you have clearly failed to do.

It's an insult to Ayn Rand that you call yourself a neo-Objectivist. Everything you say here undermines the very essence of her epistemology, and by extension her entire philosophy. You remind me of that twat that stood up in the Donahue interview and said she used to be an Objectivist, but then she went to college and got an education.

...it doesn't mean I'm wrong.

If you think my premises are faulty, you have to demonstrate this. Or, you have to demonstrate that my arguments are invalid. Just saying you are not convinced does not refute a logical argument.

bis bald,

Nick

ill-logic - namely, people thinking they are making "logical" statements, when really they have missed a crucial point before coming to their conclusion, or their original premise itself had not been proven/evidenced.

I don't think logic itself can be inherently "dangerous", and your posts so far have yet to change my mind. 

You seem to think logic is an independent entity that can "subjugate" and "imprison" its host.

I think some Objectivists treat it as an independent entity, a deity, but it is they who subjugate themselves to it. Of course, they don't see it as a prison, just as religious people don't see subjugation to God's will as a prison.

(This is what this entire thread has been about. Have you been reading?)

That’s like saying a builder should be wary of his hammer lest it unexpectedly jumps up and nails him to a joist.

Yes, we agree. Logic should be a tool, not a God. Does this mean you're an anti-logical, mystical Neo-Subjectivist too?

bis bald,

Nick

There's only one anti-logical, mystical Neo-Subjectivist in this room.

Nick: "Let’s hope they use logic and not let logic use them."

You seem to think logic is an independent entity that can "subjugate" and "imprison" its host. That’s like saying a builder should be wary of his hammer lest it unexpectedly jumps up and nails him to a joist.

No,Leonid is not a mystic.Mystic is the one who is using his feelings as irreducible primaries, as substitute to logic and reason.

Tell me, Leonid, how am I using feelings as irreducible primaries? And, how does Rand use logic and reason to derive axiomatic concepts such as consciousness.

Mystic is the one who thinks that humans can function on perceptual level as animals by using build-in preprogramed knowledge-instincts or innate ideas which they don't possess.

Where do I say we have preprogrammed knowledge or innate ideas? You agreed with me that we can function for awhile on perceptual level.

Mystic is the one who doesn't understand that feelings and intuition are concepts which have been internalized to subconsciousness.

I don’t think this is something Rand says. Feelings are not concepts. Even animals who are pre-conceptual have feelings.

Mystic is the one who cannot accept an idea that man's knowledge is not perceptual but conceptual and blind man in spite that his perception of reality is different from sighted may arrive to the same conceptual picture of reality.( I don't know about frogs).

It starts with the perceptual and, through abstraction process, becomes conceptual. However, there are differences among humans in what they perceive, so knowledge is contextual. In other words, it is relative.

Mystic is the one who thinks as Rand mentioned ,summarizing Kant that because people have eyes they cannot see,because they have ears they cannot hear and because they have minds they cannot think.

Well, that’s not what Kant said. What he actually said is not much different than what Rand said, that there is an ultimate reality, but we only deal with the phenomena, the appearances, the contextual knowledge.

Mystic is the one who thinks that words are labels which he can stick to snapshots of reality which is ever-changing nothing.

No, this is a form of nominalist. Nominalists are not always mystics.

He doesn't understand that every single word except names designates concept which is result of logical rational integration of percepts.

Percepts of phenomena, not necessarily reality.

Mystic is the one who unites contradictions like logic and faith using these concepts as floating abstractions.

There is a lot of faith mixed in with logic. They are not mutually exclusive. Logic/faith is not a dichotomy.

Mystic is the one who attack the only tool of human survival,his mind and wants man to function on the level of animals because essentialy he doesn't recognize Law of identity and thus doesn't understand that man has identity-rational beign and can exist only as such.Whoever he may be he is not me.

No, you are someone who substitutes logic for God and freely subjugates himself to this new deity, choosing not to stand on his own feet and live his own life.

I think,however that the readers of this thread can recognize him without any problem using their conceptual faculty-logic and reason.

Let’s hope so. Let’s hope they use logic and not let logic use them.

Bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
No,Leonid is not a mystic.Mystic is the one who is using his feelings as irreducible primaries, as substitute to logic and reason. Mystic is the one who thinks that humans can function on perceptual level as animals by using build-in preprogramed knowledge-instincts or innate ideas which they don't possess.Mystic is the one who doesn't understand that feelings and intuition are concepts which have been internalized to subconsciousness.Mystic is the one who cannot accept an idea that man's knowledge is not perceptual but conceptual and blind man in spite that his perception of reality is different from sighted may arrive to the same conceptual picture of reality.( I don't know about frogs). Mystic is the one who thinks as Rand mentioned ,summarizing Kant that because people have eyes they cannot see,because they have ears they cannot hear and because they have minds they cannot think.Mystic is the one who thinks that words are labels which he can stick to snapshots of reality which is ever-changing nothing. He doesn't understand that every single word except names designates concept which is result of logical rational integration of percepts.Mystic is the one who unites contradictions like logic and faith using these concepts as floating abstractions. Mystic is the one who attack the only tool of human survival,his mind and wants man to function on the level of animals because essentialy he doesn't recognize Law of identity and thus doesn't understand that man has identity-rational beign and can exist only as such.Whoever he may be he is not me. I think,however that the readers of this thread can recognize him without any problem using their conceptual faculty-logic and reason.

Leonid
I never advocated using feelings as source of knowledge. Feelings are your automatic value-judgment,your soul's knee-jerk reflex so to speak. Intuition is subconsciouss short cut in using logic…

Rand: "It holds that there are no short-cuts to knowledge…"

Submitted by Leonid on Mon, 2007-08-20 17:40.

… Some people by using minimal information and right epistemology able to arrive to right conclusions. When they do it subconciously they call it intuition or "gut-feelings". Actually when you don't have enough information you need your reason and logic most.In many situations it's no need to apply reason explicitly but one has to apply it nevertheless on implicit level.

To me, this sounds like Leonid is advocating intuition or "gut-feelings" as the implicit level of applying reason, using minimal information and right epistemology to arrive to right conclusions. And, did he say, "Intuition is subconsciouss short cut in using logic…"? Not only does Rand say there are no short-cuts to knowledge, she says,"Mysticism is the belief that there is a short-cut to knowledge; the mystic doesn't bother with evidence and logic and relies instead upon intuition, revelations, feelings, tradition, or some authority." Is Leonid a mystic?

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid
I never advocated using feelings as source of knowledge. Feelings are your automatic value-judgment,your soul's knee-jerk reflex so to speak. Intuition is subconsciouss short cut in using logic. Try to use your feeling instead map when you drive from A to B and see if you can find your way by feeling,instinct,or just by using percepts without to integrate them into concepts-as animals do.

I responded to your post where you told me your reasons. I don't accept that as an excuse. Just because you disagree with me doesn't mean I am not speaking clearly and defining my terms and premises. You are the one making general, unspecific accusations, not defining your premises. And, you refuse to read the references to which I refer you. You have your views, and you don't want to read anything which disturbs them. Reminds me of Archie Bunker.

bis bald,

Nick

I certainly have read many of your posts, most of which I disagree with. I have told you my reasons and again ask you to speak clearly. Define your terms and your premises.

Wm

I still think relying too much on logic can constrain one. It is a prison.

When someone is too logical, he or she becomes predictable, boring. This is not always good. When competing with others, it is good to keep opponents off balance, to fake them out, to make them think one thing while going in another direction. The shortest distance between two points is a straight line, but a curved line may be more scenic. Lincoln said, “ Four score and seven years ago…,” yet “ 87 years ago” would have been more concise, more logical. Sometimes people are more interesting when they are not strictly logical.

Intuition and feeling are non-logical truth criterion. We do things sometimes for no reason.

Jameson and Leonid were advocating using intuition and feeling. I just reminded them that these are non-logical truth criterion. Then, I did say we do things sometimes for no reason. I used an example from Camus’ The Stranger to illustrate this point.

People who are really involved in life often find themselves in situations where reason just doesn't reach.

I gave examples such as when one faces a multiple option decision when all roads are worn equally the same. Or, when one is in the center of an open field with no pre-existing paths to follow. Logic doesn’t help people in those cases.

Martial artists have to "feel" when there is danger and when they should block and punch.

This is actually trained feeling, like being in the zone while playing basketball. One must rely on reflexes. There isn’t time for reflection.

Sometimes, no amount of logic will help one make a decision.
I gave examples such as when one faces a multiple option decision when all roads are worn equally the same. Or, when one is in the center of an open field with no pre-existing paths to follow. Logic doesn’t help people in those cases.

I try to think critically and, even using logic as my tool, I see problems in logic

Some problems are Goedel’s theorems, and some are the circularity of deductive arguments and the inconclusiveness of inductive arguments.

Well, I think the value of logic is its ability to point out its own inadequacies.

I contrasted logic, which is self-critical and self-correcting, to blind faith and revelation, which have no such safeguards.

Reason may be a good tool, as far as it goes, but it isn’t adequate enough to give us all the answers.

It isn’t. It is like a net which drags the ocean. We do catch some things which we can study and learn from, but other things keep slipping through the openings in the net.

It's fine to make reality the court of final appeal, but it can be exactly that reality which is in question.

Yes, The blind man, the turkey, and the frog each thought they knew reality.

Logic provides procedural tools for discourse and reasoning. It does not necessarily identify reality.

Yes. It is impossible to have discourse if terms are changing in the middle of an argument. A has to remain A. This is not necessarily the case for reality.
Rand: Mysticism is the belief that there is a short-cut to knowledge; the mystic doesn't bother with evidence and logic and relies instead upon intuition, revelations, feelings, tradition, or some authority.

One can also rely on one’s self and use logic as a tool, not a crutch or security blanket.

Rand:Objectivism rejects mysticism in every variant.

I do not endorse mysticism. I could make a case that Rand’s notion of consciousness is ultimately mysticism. It is not argued for with reason and evidence. It is true because it is true, according to objectivists, and it is not part of a mechanistic model of reality. Yes, she denies and rejects mysticism, but it still seems to be there. It is like a religious person who claims to believe in freedom when his or her dogma is deterministic.

Rand: It holds that there are no short-cuts to knowledge; the only way to gain knowledge is to scrupulously examine the available evidence and form for your own self the appropriate conclusions.

This doesn’t account for self-evident knowledge, and we don’t form for our own selves the appropriate conclusions. We derive conclusions from premises of valid or sound arguments. There are correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic tests for truth, but none of them are foolproof. We must keep in mind that we can be dead wrong, and, in that, we could be right.

Rand:Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

But man’s knowledge of reality is contextual.

Rand:Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

And it didn’t work all that well for the blind man, the turkey, and the frog.

Aristotle: A is A

This doesn’t tell us if it is raining outside.

Nick: A table may be a platform of a certain type on which we place objects, but it may also be a shelter under which we hide if the roof falls in on us. It may be a source of firewood if we need it for that purpose. It is what we make it.

Tell me how that statement or any of my other statements are untrue.

Bis bald,

Nick

Nick: I still think relying too much on logic can constrain one. It is a prison.

Logic provides procedural tools for discourse and reasoning. It does not necessarily identify reality.

Rand: Mysticism is the belief that there is a short-cut to knowledge; the mystic doesn't bother with evidence and logic and relies instead upon intuition, revelations, feelings, tradition, or some authority. Objectivism rejects mysticism in every variant. It holds that there are no short-cuts to knowledge; the only way to gain knowledge is to scrupulously examine the available evidence and form for your own self the appropriate conclusions.

Reality exists as an objective absolute--facts are facts, independent of man's feelings, wishes, hopes or fears.

Reason (the faculty which identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses) is man's only means of perceiving reality, his only source of knowledge, his only guide to action, and his basic means of survival.

Aristotle: A is A

Nick: A table may be a platform or a certain type on which we place objects, but it may also be a shelter under which we hide if the roof falls in on us. It may be a source of firewood if we need it for that purpose. It is what we make it.

You are, after all, willfully ignorant. You refuse to read something with which you disagree, something which might challenge and disturb your comfortable views. You want to feel safe and secure. Well, good luck!

bis bald,

Nick

Nor will I for the reasons I have stated before. I think I understand your malfunction more clearly. Perhaps you should start a new thread at meta-physics rather then your focus on epistemology. Your premises are so tangled I feel like I'm in a tar pit trying to pin you down.

Wm

Yes, I have my own copy of Goedel, Esher, and Bach. You haven't read part eight of Alice in Objectivist Land. It answers your point about process and identity.

bis bald,

Nick

You are making my point for me. Are we not comprehending the concept? Or are you equivocating? Define your terms and your premises!

What is a point in the context you are speaking of? What does it mean to be 'in the process of becoming?' At any point in time even a growing human has an identity. Identity is not unchanging, but at any point A can not be both A and non-A.
Each time you travel half way you are traveling a describe, finite distance.

Have you read GEB?

Wm

there is an infinite permutation to the Otani Quotient, which defies logic altogether…

...this is the way Jameson debates.

bis bald,

Nick

(Nick)We can do a lot of things with infinity. It is, by definition, beyond human comprehension. One can subtract all the even numbers from the set of all numbers, cutting it in half, and still have an infinite set. It is impossible to traverse an infinite number of points to reach a destination, yet we do it all the time. There are an infinite number of points between zero and one inch. Infinity, as a concept, doesn’t seem to follow the rules of other concepts, does it?

Infinity is not beyond human comprehension. It is a useful topic in mathematics where it has a rigorous definition.

If the definition says something about boundless or limitless, then it is not really confined and complete, not something around which we can completely wrap our brains, like that a circle is a single curved line an equal distance from a point in the center.

One can not subtract all the even numbers from the set of all natural numbers and get a finite set. The answer would still be infinite.

Yes, that’s exactly what I said: “One can subtract all the even numbers from the set of all numbers, cutting it in half, and still have an infinite set.”

There is not an infinite amount of space between two points set an inch apart. There is one inch. Space, like all entities, has identity and to have an identity is to be finite (in the actual, not the potential).

I wasn’t talking about space. I was talking about the number of points between two points. There is half way between. There is half way to that point. There is half way to that point, and so on into infinity. There are an infinite number of points between zero and one inch. And, if something is in the process of becoming, it doesn’t have a fixed identity. Human beings are like that, subjects and not objects. That is why they are free to participate in creating their own natures.

Bis bald,

Nick

there is an infinite permutation to the Otani Quotient, which defies logic altogether…

Infinity is not beyond human comprehension. It is a useful topic in mathematics where it has a rigorous definition. One can not subtract all the even numbers from the set of all natural numbers and get a finite set. The answer would still be infinite. There is not an infinite amount of space between two points set an inch apart. There is one inch. Space, like all entities, has identity and to have an identity is to be finite (in the actual, not the potential).

Wm

"Logic...it is a set of principles of procedure for discourse and conceptual thinking." Conceptual thinking is logic. Your definition is circular.

Conceptual thinking uses logic but is not identical with it. Ayn Rand defines logic as “the art of non-contradictory identification.” This is much more specific than “conceptual thinking.” Conceptual thinking requires placing symbols in a structured form. Some of those forms are the procedural rules Aristotle identified as logic. They are rules like (A is A) and (if A, then not (not-A)). Those are the axioms. Then there are rules of inference like the universal syllogism (All A’s are B, and S is an A. Therefore, S is a B.) Later, philosophers came up with rules of inference like modus ponens and modus tollens etc. This is used in conceptual thinking but is not identical to it. People can form meaningful sentences, which are complete thoughts, without putting them into logical arguments. It is only when they put them into logical arguments, using the procedural rules for discourse and thinking, that they are using logic. And, remember, discoursing and thinking about reality is not the same as identifying reality. It may be a form of creating reality, since words are sometimes more static then an ever-flowing reality.

" However, humans can also operate, when they need to, at sensual and perceptual levels" Yes,not very successfuly and not for long.

The point is, in times when logic doesn’t reach or can’t be applied, there are other ways to cope with the situation. This is better than being confined by logic and completely helpless or paralyzed without it.

Now about logic and information. Suppose you've been made unconscious and put in the sensory deprivation tank. Now you don't have any sensory input. Would you be able to figure out that you are in sensory deprivation tank when you regained your consciousness? I think it is possible only by using logic and reason. You may start to think:where I am,why I don't feel anything? Am I dead and now in heaven? No,this is arbitrary. Did they burried me alive? Why then I don't feel any gravity and besides I can breath...etc By chain of logical reasoning without any current information just by checking different possibilities you may arrive to the right conclusion. Can you do it on perceptual level when you have no percepts?

This might help refute the Objectivists’ claim that there is no analytic/synthetic dichotomy. If all knowledge starts in the senses and is abstracted and integrated from there, can one think when there is sensory deprivation? One can have memories, unless one is sensory deprived from birth. I’m sure one would be severely damaged, inhibited from learning, in such a situation. Research has been done on children, like Genie, who was abused by being locked in a room and tied to a potty chair and fed but not spoken to or allowed to hear anything, and Tarzan-like children who were raised by non-human animals, who were deprived of experiencing any human language at a crucial period in their development. This appears to have a significant impact on their later development. However, one can speculate that humans can still do certain mathematical type thinking which requires no physical contact, unless one thinks even mathematical type thinking begins with the senses. Descartes cogito ergo sum is an example of a deductive, a-priori argument which denies experience. The ontological argument for the existence of God denies sensory and perceptual experience. If such thought is possible, then there is an analytic/synthetic dichotomy.

"If we agree that contradictory concepts do not exist, and we can prove that some concepts are contradictory, then we can prove that they don’t exist, atleast in an objective reality"-this is not proof of a negative, this is a notion that they are arbitrary concepts,not pertained to reality. Existence or non-existence is not applicable in this case.

Yes it is. “Square circles do not exist,” is not a meaningless sentence. It doesn’t mean they don’t have a referent. They do exist in the realm of contradictory concepts, just as Santa Claus and the current King of France exist in the realm of mythical concepts. The statement “X doesn’t exist,” when X isn’t even a concept, is either always false of meaningless because if X cannot even be referred to. This is what the Ontological argument depends on. It is like saying “This existing thing does not exist.” If something really doesn’t exist in any realm or category, we just can think or talk about it. We can’t refer to it. This is not the same, however, as a nonsense statement, sentences like Lewis Carroll came up with in the Jabberwalky. These are sentences with pronounceable words which sound like they should make sense and in grammatically correct sentences, but they don’t really mean anything.

"I mean that reality may be in question. If it is contextual, it is relative. Your reality may not be the same as my reality. " Existence exists, and there is only one reality unless you're subjective idealist and think that everybody is creating his own reality.

You say that and expect everyone to accept it. If knowledge is contextual and the frog’s context is different from Alice’s context, then reality, for the frog, is different than it is for Alice. Now, perhaps they are both wrong. Reality is independent of their knowledge of it. This is just what kant said, that there is an ultimate reality, a noumena, but we have various impressions of it, since we only deal with the appearances, the phenomena.

"Right. Rand allows too much for relativism" You don't understand Rand. What she said is exactly opposite to Kant. Kant claimed that because knowledge has identity that is context we never can know anything. Rand claimes that because knowledge is contextual we are able to know. Knowledge like numbers can be infinite only in potentia,but any given number and any given amount of knowledge is finite at any given moment,limited by its identity.Besides,would you really answer to the question" Where is your car?"-" It's high probality that it is in the parking lot." If it so then you have to start "It is high probability that it is high probability.....N times-never come to the answer.You've created infinite regress. The reason: like in the case of knowledge you use potential infinity to the limited actual situation

We can do a lot of things with infinity. It is, by definition, beyond human comprehension. One can subtract all the even numbers from the set of all numbers, cutting it in half, and still have an infinite set. It is impossible to traverse an infinite number of points to reach a destination, yet we do it all the time. There are an infinite number of points between zero and one inch. Infinity, as a concept, doesn’t seem to follow the rules of other concepts, does it? Anyway, if knowledge is contextual, as I said before, it is conditioned by current information. Conditional knowledge is not necessarily real or ultimate knowledge of reality. The blind man, the turkey, and the frog all had contextual knowledge, and they were all wrong about objective reality.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid

"Logic...it is a set of principles of procedure for discourse and conceptual thinking." Conceptual thinking is logic. Your definition is circular.

" However, humans can also operate, when they need to, at sensual and perceptual levels" Yes,not very successfuly and not for long.Now about logic and information. Suppose you've been made unconscious and put in the sensory deprivation tank. Now you don't have any sensory input. Would you be able to figure out that you are in sensory deprivation tank when you regained your consciousness? I think it is possible only by using logic and reason. You may start to think:where I am,why I don't feel anything? Am I dead and now in heaven? No,this is arbitrary. Did they burried me alive? Why then I don't feel any gravity and besides I can breath...etc By chain of logical reasoning without any current information just by checking different possibilities you may arrive to the right conclusion. Can you do it on perceptual level when you have no percepts?

"If we agree that contradictory concepts do not exist, and we can prove that some concepts are contradictory, then we can prove that they don’t exist, atleast in an objective reality"-this is not proof of a negative, this is a notion that they are arbitrary concepts,not pertained to reality. Existence or non-existence is not applicable in this case.

"I mean that reality may be in question. If it is contextual, it is relative. Your reality may not be the same as my reality. " Existence exists, and there is only one reality unless you're subjective idealist and think that everybody is creating his own reality.

"Right. Rand allows too much for relativism" You don't understand Rand. What she said is exactly opposite to Kant. Kant claimed that because knowledge has identity that is context we never can know anything. Rand claimes that because knowledge is contextual we are able to know. Knowledge like numbers can be infinite only in potentia,but any given number and any given amount of knowledge is finite at any given moment,limited by its identity.Besides,would you really answer to the question" Where is your car?"-" It's high probality that it is in the parking lot." If it so then you have to start "It is high probability that it is high probability.....N times-never come to the answer.You've created infinite regress. The reason: like in the case of knowledge you use potential infinity to the limited actual situation

Well, you are the one who said logic reaches all situations. I said that I doubted you spoke from experience, that you have already been everywhere and always found that logic reached. You responded that your problems have been with a LACK of logic, that you made mistakes bla, bla, bla. Of course, this doesn’t support your contention that logic reaches all situations.

You said, if it’s a toss of the coin, it’s a toss of the coin. Tossing a coin, however, is not using logic. You talk about intuition, inkling, and reflexes. These may be deep seeded integrations which are rational, just not consciously so. True, or they could just be guesses. When one takes an objective test and has no idea, one often just starts marking answers. This doesn’t work well for me. I usually don’t do well when I choose answers this way, but it is an example of another place where I can’t use much logic. I don’t have enough information on which to apply it.

I said that people who are really involved in life find themselves in such situations a lot, and I derided you saying you should get out more. You responded that you lived in four countries and worked in six cities, been married twice and had two children. Good, I lived in five countries and worked in about twenty or thirty cities in Germany and Turkey, as a permanent TDY employee, and a few in the States. I was married once and had one child, and both wife and son no longer want to have anything to do with me. My son, who is 28 now, thinks I have a boring life. This doesn’t have anything to do with anything, but we’ve both been around the block a few times. I prefer this to working in one office or factory for thirty years.

Now, the rest of your post doesn’t really refute me. You call me a pseud. You tell me I’m verbose, and basically deride me some more.

I still think relying too much on logic can constrain one. It is a prison. Shit happens, and we need to be resourceful and creative. We should live our own lives and not subjugate them to God, society, another person, or logic. This doesn’t mean I toss out logic and live by whim. I use it, but I try to be logical about it.

Bis bald,

Nick

I doubt you speak from experience. Have you been everywhere and always found that logic reached there? Have you never been in a situation where no amount of logic would help you in your decision? If not, I’d think you haven’t done much in your short boring life. People more involved in life choose to get married, bla, bla, bla…

If I’m guilty of anything, Nick, it’s a LACK of logic in the my choice of wives: I let emotion dictate on both occasions and I’m still paying for my last mistake (to the tune of $800+ a month plus incalculable emotional expenses).

Choice comes in when the decision is positive/positive or negative/negative. Logic doesn’t tell one which to choose.

If it’s a toss of the coin it’s a toss of the coin – i.e. random – and feelings have nothing to do with it. All things being equal and you have “an inkling” as to which path to take, take it, because – logically – that means there may be some factor in the equation that you can’t immediately recall. No matter how tiny that ‘inkling’ may be, be assured that it is the same thing as intuition, which emanates from the same place as reflexes, i.e. accumulated and integrated knowledge upon which one may rationally draw.

Those who are really involved in life find themselves in these situations much more often than they do in situations where they can simply make a logical choice. But, perhaps Jameson doesn’t get out much.

I’ve lived in four countries and worked in six cities, been married twice and had two children, but I’m not sure what that has to do with the price of logic.

[Frost] could just as easily failed. Then, people would have said he made the irrational choice. He was a little lucky, and luck is not necessarily rational, bla, bla, bla… The existentialist sees life this way, as being absurd with no pre-existing paths to follow, but one can forge one’s own path and put meaning into his or her life.

You may make those deductions, Nick, but for fucksake stop assigning yourself the over-inflated title of neo-Objectivist – you’re a pseud through and through.

Right, intuition is not the same as reason. It is an inner feeling. Nevertheless, this example is the simple positive/negative decision which is pretty much self-evident. It’s the same kind of “free choice” a crook offers his or her victim when he or she says, “Give me all your money or I’ll blow your head off.” Yes, it is better than no choice, but it is kind’a narrow. It’s kind’a like bla, bla, bla….

Jesus, could you be anymore verbose?

… We don’t really understand talent yet.

As a pseud I imagine you would have a great deal of trouble understanding talent…

However, I was also talking about the ordinary person who walks along the street and sees a house on fire and reflexively runs in to save someone. One doesn’t train for things like that. And, thinking reflectively about it, even if one is a computer going at super speed, analyzing all the angles and what should be done, would take too much time. It would be better to just do, not think.

Fact: those who don’t engage brain in emergencies die young; species that don’t engage brain in emergencies become extinct. How is it you’ve made it this far and not disappeared into the margins of the Darwinian Awards?

First, this is Sartre’s statement, not mine. I think it is profound.

Well, you are a pseud…

It means we are “forced into freedom,” which is also a paradox. We can choose not to choose, and that is a choice.

Those who don’t choose freedom are destined for slavery.

And, one can also choose not to wait for logic. One can let life pass one by while waiting to make a logical choice.

A pseud and a slow thinker… you’re truly a natural wonder…

It’s okay to take some risks once in awhile. Just accept responsibility for whatever consequences come about. One has no one and nothing else to blame when one acts alone, independently.

Calculated risks: good. Whimsical, emotional, non-thinking risks: deadly – and yes, you would be the only one to blame. I offer my condolences in advance.

To start from where you've finished:
"logic seem to be the new God for some Objectivists. Are you still trying to argue against that?"
1.The answer is:absolutly yes,100% affirmative. I'd agree with you that not every thing always absolutly known and we may use possibilties and probabilites in certain circumstances but in this particular case I can say with certainty that whoever makes such a claim doesn't understand neither concept of logic,nor God.I not going to repeat my arguments about God or definition of logic,but I want to mention that you never gave any of them. So please define logic and then we may see how it can or cannot be new God.

I know that Rand defines logic as “the art of non-contradictory indentification.” It is the method of “reason,” which is “…the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man’s senses.” By all this, however, she means a little more than what Aristotle meant by “logic.” For Aristotle, it is a set of principles of procedure for discourse and conceptual thinking. It does not necessarily identify reality. It is tool for humans to use, not something above them to which humans must conform or die. Rand does not believe in subjugating one’s self to God or a collective, but she does think we should subjugate ourselves to reason and logic.

2."certain situations in life where logic won’t be of much help, situations like not having enough information to apply logic. Do you see now there are such situations?"
The answer is: definitely NO. The use of logic has nothing to do with amount of available information. Some people by using minimal information and right epistemology able to arrive to right conclusions. When they do it subconciously they call it intuition or "gut-feelings". Actually when you don't have enough information you need your reason and logic most.In many situations it's no need to apply reason explicitly but one has to apply it nevertheless on implicit level.

One applies logic to data, information. When there is no data, there is nothing to which one can apply logic. This refutes the proposition that the use of logic has nothing to do with amount of available information. Yes, it does have something to do with amount of available information. If no information on which to use logic, then no way to use logic. Intuition and feeling are non-logical truth criterion. They are pre-conceptual. Most non-human animals use them instead of conceptual reason, which only humans use. However, humans can also operate, when they need to, at sensual and perceptual levels.

Also, not all human behavior has reasons. We do things sometimes for no reason. Meursault couldn’t explain why he killed the Arab. There was the heat and the glare of the sun, but it just happened. It wasn’t rational. It was absurd.

3."you didn’t respond much to my refutation of your charge that I was claiming omniscience by claiming some unknowability. You cannot make that charge and deny my claim of unknowability without claiming omniscience yourself. Did you get that?"
Yes,I do. Since this claim of yours is connected to your another claim that is possible to prove a negative I'll answer both. First what is proof? To prove something means to bring evidence which is pertains to reality that something exists. How you can bring evidence of non-existence? What in reality which pertains to A will indicate to you that it is no A? This is contradiction in terms. So you claim on the knowledge of uknowability is simple not valid and to refute such a claim one doesn't need omniscience, just a bit of commonsense.

If we agree that contradictory concepts do not exist, and we can prove that some concepts are contradictory, then we can prove that they don’t exist, atleast in an objective reality. This is proving a negative. We can also say that mythical things, such as Santa Claus, do not exist. However, if something doesn’t exist even as a concept, we cannot say it does or does not exist because it would have no referent. This has nothing to do with the issue of omniscience. You are the one who charged that I was claiming unknowability, something which would require omniscience. Yet, to counter my claim of unknowability, you have to have complete knowability, which requires omniscience. You leave yourself open to the same criticism you level at me. Is it okay in your case but not in mine?

4."You integrate it according to the knowledge you have in your life. This makes it relative, not universal and not objective"
Objective simple means pertained to reality. Do you mean that my life is not real?

I mean that reality may be in question. If it is contextual, it is relative. Your reality may not be the same as my reality. This means that “Objective” is essentially personal and private, subjective, not the usual meaning of “Objective,” independent of consciousness.

5."I would not use the word “absolute” in that case. I would say I have a high degree of certainty that my car is in the parking lot where I left it." No, unless you have any reason to suspect that something happened to your car. Here you confuse potential and actual.

No, I’m not confusing anything. Potential and actual means that the clay is potentially the sculpture, the pile of wood is potentially the completed house. This has nothing to do with my car being in the parking lot. It is not absolute that my car is in the parking lot, but there is a high degree of certainty that it is.

6."That’s not the way philosophers use the term “absolute.” “Absolute” is supposedly unconditional. Limiting something by context is conditionalizing it. “Limited absolute” or “conditioned absolute” is a contradiction in terms" No. Knowledge as every thing else has identity,that is-context. Paraphrasing Ayn Rand knowledge is context.Limitless knowledge would be knowledge about nothing in particular. That is contradiction in terms

Right. Rand allows too much for relativism. If all knowledge is contextual, as she claims, then she is really not that different from Kant, who she criticizes for saying we can never get to the real reality. All we have are the appearances, the phenomena, not the noumena. The knowledge of the blind man, the turkey, and the frog were all contextual and not consistent with reality.

bis bald,

Nick

Leonid

To start from where you've finished:
"logic seem to be the new God for some Objectivists. Are you still trying to argue against that?"

1.The answer is:absolutly yes,100% affirmative. I'd agree with you that not every thing always absolutly known and we may use possibilties and probabilites in certain circumstances but in this particular case I can say with certainty that whoever makes such a claim doesn't understand neither concept of logic,nor God.I not going to repeat my arguments about God or definition of logic,but I want to mention that you never gave any of them. So please define logic and then we may see how it can or cannot be new God.

2."certain situations in life where logic won’t be of much help, situations like not having enough information to apply logic. Do you see now there are such situations?"

The answer is: definitely NO. The use of logic has nothing to do with amount of available information. Some people by using minimal information and right epistemology able to arrive to right conclusions. When they do it subconciously they call it intuition or "gut-feelings". Actually when you don't have enough information you need your reason and logic most.In many situations it's no need to apply reason explicitly but one has to apply it nevertheless on implicit level.

3."you didn’t respond much to my refutation of your charge that I was claiming omniscience by claiming some unknowability. You cannot make that charge and deny my claim of unknowability without claiming omniscience yourself. Did you get that?"
Yes,I do. Since this claim of yours is connected to your another claim that is possible to prove a negative I'll answer both. First what is proof? To prove something means to bring evidence which is pertains to reality that something exists. How you can bring evidence of non-existence? What in reality which pertains to A will indicate to you that it is no A? This is contradiction in terms. So you claim on the knowledge of uknowability is simple not valid and to refute such a claim one doesn't need omniscience, just a bit of commonsense.

4."You integrate it according to the knowledge you have in your life. This makes it relative, not universal and not objective"
Objective simple means pertained to reality. Do you mean that my life is not real?

5."I would not use the word “absolute” in that case. I would say I have a high degree of certainty that my car is in the parking lot where I left it." No, unless you have any reason to suspect that something happened to your car. Here you confuse potential and actual.

6."That’s not the way philosophers use the term “absolute.” “Absolute” is supposedly unconditional. Limiting something by context is conditionalizing it. “Limited absolute” or “conditioned absolute” is a contradiction in terms" No. Knowledge as every thing else has identity,that is-context. Paraphrasing Ayn Rand knowledge is context.Limitless knowledge would be knowledge about nothing in particular. That is contradiction in terms

While Leonid gets down to the nitty-gritty deconstruction of Nick's airy-fairy world, I'll take a broader approach in deciphering his gibberish.

Leonid hasn’t gotten anywhere. You won’t either.

There is quite simply no place where reason will not reach.

I doubt you speak from experience. Have you been everywhere and always found that logic reached there? Have you never been in a situation where no amount of logic would help you in your decision? If not, I’d think you haven’t done much in your short boring life. People more involved in life choose to get married, when to get married, what job to apply for, whether or not to buy a house and which house to buy. Some are lucky to reflect on predictable consequences and always have those easy positive/negative choices, which are really not choices at all. Choice comes in when the decision is positive/positive or negative/negative. Logic doesn’t tell one which to choose. Or, one could be in a situation where he or she just doesn’t know what lies ahead with any choice. Where would he or she apply logic? Those who are really involved in life find themselves in these situations much more often than they do in situations where they can simply make a logical choice. But, perhaps Jameson doesn’t get out much.

First we hear about the poet. When Frost was faced with a choice between a well-trodden path and one that was unworn, he employed his reason: “Should I take the path upon which many others have gone, the safer route with no surprises; or should I try something less certain and more adventurous?” At this point his risk/reward assessment kicked in and he chose the road less traveled, where he discovered that one may experience the new, survive and indeed have one's horizons broadened. The poet was not unthinking; while he may have ‘felt’ something about his choices before he made one, his cognition was most certainly active.

Certainly, his cognition was active. I didn’t say he was passive. I think he chose to take a risk, and that made the difference. It wasn’t certain that he would become successful. He could just as easily failed. Then, people would have said he made the irrational choice. He was a little lucky, and luck is not necessarily rational. Plenty of talented people are not as successful as was Frost. Anyway, what about my example of the decision maker facing several paths all equally worn or in the center of an open field with no pre-existing paths? The existentialist sees life this way, as being absurd with no pre-existing paths to follow, but one can forge one’s own path and put meaning into his or her life.

As a thought experiment, let’s change the context: if the poet were faced with a fork in the road in a notorious part of town where his choices were a dark, unpopulated alleyway and a well-lit bustling thoroughfare, I’m sure (even with half a brain) his intuition would have told him to leave his desire for adventure to his Sunday strolls in the largely benign woodlands.

Right, intuition is not the same as reason. It is an inner feeling. Nevertheless, this example is the simple positive/negative decision which is pretty much self-evident. It’s the same kind of “free choice” a crook offers his or her victim when he or she says, “Give me all your money or I’ll blow your head off.” Yes, it is better than no choice, but it is kind’a narrow. It’s kind’a like the choice offered in Christianity, follow God’s will or go to Hell. It’s not real freedom.

Next the Hatter tells us about reflexes, as if this was knowledge received from outside oneself, from some place other than logic and reason. A sporting star isn’t born with his skills; he has to learn them. Practice, practice, practice… adjusting hand/eye/brain coordination incrementally until THWACK! the ball soars into the bleachers for a home run. He didn’t get there by not thinking - and once he got there all his aquired knowledge came to play, condensing into a nanosecond a complex array of contextual readings, which seemingly produce a magical result. When his coach tells him to “empty” the brain, he’s simply saying, “there isn’t any more thinking to be done here – just hit the bastard out of the stadium like you did in practice.” And even then, whether the player is present to it or not, the brain still performs the logical arithmetic needed to hit the mark.

This is true. Athletes do train to make their actions second nature. Then, as I said, their heads have to in the game, not wandering off somewhere. For some, this is easier than it is for others. We don’t really understand talent yet. However, I was also talking about the ordinary person who walks along the street and sees a house on fire and reflexively runs in to save someone. One doesn’t train for things like that. And, thinking reflectively about it, even if one is a computer going at super speed, analyzing all the angles and what should be done, would take too much time. It would be better to just do, not think.

Lastly, ignore this esoteric bullshit: Nick: “Not making a decision is also a decision." … when somebody fails to make a choice or a decision they are inert, ineffective and most definitely NOT thinking. The only time to decide not to decide is when you have time to wait for more information to make a logical call.

First, this is Sartre’s statement, not mine. I think it is profound. It means we are “forced into freedom,” which is also a paradox. We can choose not to choose, and that is a choice. And, one can also choose not to wait for logic. One can let life pass one by while waiting to make a logical choice. It’s okay to take some risks once in awhile. Just accept responsibility for whatever consequences come about. One has no one and nothing else to blame when one acts alone, independently.

bis bald,

Nick

While Leonid gets down to the nitty-gritty deconstruction of Nick's airy-fairy world, I'll take a broader approach in deciphering his gibberish.

There is quite simply no place where reason will not reach.

First we hear about the poet. When Frost was faced with a choice between a well-trodden path and one that was unworn, he employed his reason: “Should I take the path upon which many others have gone, the safer route with no surprises; or should I try something less certain and more adventurous?” At this point his risk/reward assessment kicked in and he chose the road less traveled, where he discovered that one may experience the new, survive and indeed have one's horizons broadened. The poet was not unthinking; while he may have ‘felt’ something about his choices before he made one, his cognition was most certainly active.

As a thought experiment, let’s change the context: if the poet were faced with a fork in the road in a notorious part of town where his choices were a dark, unpopulated alleyway and a well-lit bustling thoroughfare, I’m sure (even with half a brain) his intuition would have told him to leave his desire for adventure to his Sunday strolls in the largely benign woodlands.

Next the Hatter tells us about reflexes, as if this was knowledge received from outside oneself, from some place other than logic and reason. A sporting star isn’t born with his skills; he has to learn them. Practice, practice, practice… adjusting hand/eye/brain coordination incrementally until THWACK! the ball soars into the bleachers for a home run. He didn’t get there by not thinking - and once he got there all his aquired knowledge came to play, condensing into a nanosecond a complex array of contextual readings, which seemingly produce a magical result. When his coach tells him to “empty” the brain, he’s simply saying, “there isn’t any more thinking to be done here – just hit the bastard out of the stadium like you did in practice.” And even then, whether the player is present to it or not, the brain still performs the logical arithmetic needed to hit the mark.

Lastly, ignore this esoteric bullshit: Nick: “Not making a decision is also a decision." … when somebody fails to make a choice or a decision they are inert, ineffective and most definitely NOT thinking. The only time to decide not to decide is when you have time to wait for more information to make a logical call.

But that true. It is no such a thing as absolute knowledge of every thing without context To claim knowlewdge of unknowability is akin to the claim to proof negative.

But one can prove a negative. One can demonstrate that certain definitions of God are contradictory concepts, and it is meaningful to say, then, they don’t exist. This is proving that such a God does not exist. It is proving a negative. If something doesn’t exist even as a concept, contradictory or not, one cannot say it exists or doesn’t exist because it doesn’t have a referent. Even gremlins on Mars have a referent, so they exist at least as imaginary concepts. They just don’t exist in objective reality.

However knowledge which is limited by context is absolute.

That’s not the way philosophers use the term “absolute.” “Absolute” is supposedly unconditional. Limiting something by context is conditionalizing it. “Limited absolute” or “conditioned absolute” is a contradiction in terms.

For example if I ask you "where is your car?"-your answer may be "in the parking area, where I left it." Then I go: "How you can be so sure? Your car could've been stolen,parking area could've been destroyed by meteorite attack, or by earthquake, your memory is not perfect,maybe you don't remember where did you parked and so on." Your reasonable,logical answer would be " Do you have any evidence of any of these things? No? Then in the context of my present knowledge I'm absolutly sure that my car in the parking area where I left it.

I would not use the word “absolute” in that case. I would say I have a high degree of certainty that my car is in the parking lot where I left it. It is possible that something could have happened to it, but it is more plausible that nothing did. I can only have a high degree of certainty that the ground on which I walk will not collapse under me with the next step I take, but this is enough for me to risk it. It’s also enough for science to make sophisticated technology like computers and spacecraft. However, if I discover a black swan, I can say absolutely that not all swans are white.

If you bring any new evidence,then the context of my knowledge will be different but I have to integrate this new knowledge by means of reason and logic in non-contradictory way."

You integrate it according to the knowledge you have in your life. This makes it relative, not universal and not objective. It is the kind of knowledge the blind man, the turkey, and the frog had. And, as we saw, that knowledge was not necessarily true.

BTW, you didn’t respond much to my refutation of your charge that I was claiming omniscience by claiming some unknowability. You cannot make that charge and deny my claim of unknowability without claiming omniscience yourself. Did you get that?

You also seem to be dropping your denial of my contention that there are certain situations in life where logic won’t be of much help, situations like not having enough information to apply logic. Do you see now there are such situations?

Nothing you have said yet really challenges the proposition in this thread that reason and logic seem to be the new God for some Objectivists. Are you still trying to argue against that?

Bis bald,

Nick