From: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu (Daniel Kranowski)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: re: Objectivism/Existence
Date: 18 Aug 92 20:59:20 GMT
Organization: Virginia Tech (VPI & SU)


( response to message-id: <1992Aug17.203645.26278@cis.umassd.edu> )

     I had not heard the name of Ayn Rand many times before I heard it
strongly criticized, and those who sought to save me the trouble of
reading her works by maligning her name did me a disservice, because
nowhere did they state _why_ she was unworthy of respect, but merely that
she was so.  Mischievously, as if someone had sealed the cookie jar, my 
desire to find its contents was inflamed.  So I read The Fountainhead; 
or, rather, attempted to read it.  As a work of art it was dull, flat, 
and almost annoying.  Recently I found a copy of her Introduction to
Objectivist Epistemology in my bookcase, and -- out of reverence for the
Almighty God of Printed Word out there somewhere -- felt it my duty to 
read it.  Around chapter five, it actually became quite interesting, 
although I must confess that I still don't get her point, whatever it 
is.  For this reason I write to the net, in hopes of answering some 
questions.

     The claim of Rand's that so mystifies me, which has been reiterated
by Stephen Grossman, is that "Existence exists."  Wherefore, dear sirs,
and whereto?  I don't see what underlies this statement, either in
logical argument or first principle, unless the claim is itself intended
to be taken as a first principle, not amenable to direct proof.  And, on
the assumption that the claim has been proven in some fashion, what 
implications does it have?  That is to say: existence exists, but so what? 

     My impressions after reading Rand's words, "Existence is neither
true nor false.  It just is," were mixed.  I agree that existence is not
true or false any more than it is green or prickly; but it might be, and
then it might not be.  Insofar as I understand my perceptions, there
"exist" people who subscribe to objectivism, those who accept
subjectivism, and both philosophies "exist" as concepts.  I say this
because I experience sense-data, but they're only sense-data.  They
don't prove to me that the people I see are real, or that my
consciousness itself is not just a hallucination of some cranky 
extraterrestrial undergoing personality disorders.

     I think I understand Grossman's earlier claim that our philosophies
have limits.  This makes sense: everyone is prejudiced according to his
ingrained instincts towards good and evil, and his natural desires; and
everyone's conceptions are limited to amalgams of what he's experienced
before.  In this way do I interpret Grossman's statement, "Whatever
logic or other method one uses to understand this has some specific
metaphysical context or limit," to mean, "you can't know everything."
(Currently, I'm inclined to say "you can't know anything," but that is
not relevant.)

     However, I'm confused with the "conclusion" I think he and Rand 
have harped on so vaguely: you must simply stick to objective reality
and reason.  First of all, what for?  If you choose objectivism, then
what?  Second, how can you know "objective reality" anyway?  Grossman 
has stated that he operates within the limits of objectivism, whatever 
they are, although he claims to have a grasp on unlimited, universal 
truth.  Third, why has objectivism always been so controversial?  Almost 
everyone I've ever encountered believes in objective reality, and an 
unbroken channel from his mind to that reality.  Most are not arrogant 
like that statement suggests, but lurking within them is an unquestioned 
grasp on something fundamental and objective; they just don't heap on
everything else that Rand does.

     Perhaps the answer is that objectivists uphold that "there is no
metaphysically privileged realm," as Grossman asserts, but there is
instead an epistemologically privileged class; namely, them.  Does Rand
use the words "metaphysics" and "epistemology" the same way other
philosophers do?  What other way is there to explain their stance, of
which I still am not certain?  Possibly I will receive the admonition
that I have not read the available literature carefully enough, as I
have seen advised occasionally on this group; I don't deny the
possibility that the admonition will be correct, but I do ask for the
admonisher to be explicit about what I have overlooked.  Incidentally,
could someone provide for me a brief summary of Kant's transcendentalism?
(If a brief summary is possible.)  I've read Foundations of the 
Metaphysic of Morals several times, but have not read Critique 
of Pure Reason, which could be pertinent to all this.

---
Daniel Kranowski
email: daniel@vtserf.cc.vt.edu
humble student

Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta