From: hooker@aristotle.ils.mwu.edu ( BOB HOOKER)
Newsgroups: sci.philosophy.meta
Subject: Re: Request for critiques of Objectivism, and for intro's to philosophy
Date: 14 Sep 92 21:12:49 GMT
Organization: ILS

In article <1992Sep12.220522.17755@wuecl.wustl.edu>, jaf@wucs1.wustl.edu
(Andy Fingerhut) writes:

> (1) Something exists.  This includes consciousness, but also a "real
> world" which is not subject to direct control by anyone's
> consciousness (that is, existence has primacy over consciousness).

I would like to apply Carnap's test of the validity of statements to this
particular one to show how non-philosophical it is.  Carnap and the Vienna
school propsed a simple test of the validity of statemetns.  Say I take the
assertion "this key is siron",  I can draw conclusion that follow from this
statement and physical laws that I am reasonably certain are true.  Like
"iron is attracted by a magnet" therefore I expect the key to be attracted
by the magnet.  The more conclusion that I draw concerning the key that are
confirmed by my observations the more certain I am that my hypothesis is
true.  

Rand asserts that Reality exist.  Note that she is making a statement about
the nature of reality rather then simply formal ideas themselves so if she
is correct, validation of this must be found in reality itself.

Now what are conclusions that I can draw from Reality exists, or even some
things exist, that can be confirmed by observation.  Here I come into great
difficulty,  for I don't really understand what she means.  Her comment at
first seems to express something,  but on a closer look I don't understand
what something exists means.  I ask myself what would it mean if her
comment were not true,  is something did not exist?  I assume that things
that I percieve I exist,  for if they do not exist then I do not see them. 
I say that it is true that a computer exists on my desk,  for I am using
it.  I also say that it is untrue that a city called Tortonia exist in the
center of chicago.  If all things are like Tortonia, that is nothing exist,
 then I would not be here on my computer becuase my computer exits.  In
this sense Rand's comment makes no real sense.  

I think that she means something else,  that there is a reality sperate
from my perceptions.  Though I can't think of what this means.    

Nor can I draw any conclusion from something exists that I can confirm with
direct observation.  I see no reason to conlude that something exists is
valid over the statement,  somethings seems to exist but really doesn't.

Therefore Something exists can not be validated,  so it must be taken as an
article of faith on the part of those who hold it.  Personally I can't draw
any conclusions from it so I assume it is jsut more "philosophical games" 
and Rand is as much of a time wasting philosopher for wondering if "things
exists" as the pope is for asking if God could make a rock so heavy that he
could not lift it.   


> (2) The senses are a valid means of gaining knowledge about reality,
> although not infallible.

This conclusion depends on the premise that reality is,  which stands to be
proven.


> (3) A person's use of consciousness and (optionally) reason is not
> infallible, but that does not automatically discount it as a useful
> faculty for understanding, i.e., knowledge of reality is not
> impossible.

Same as above.


> 
> These are things that sound very plausible to one not versed in
> philosophy, and this plausibility is another reason for Objectivism's
> popularity, IMHO.

Rand spends alot of time talking about reason,  but her Objectivists
assertions are articles of faith.  I would not go as far as Carnap might as
to say that any Metaphysical questions of this kind are a waste of time, 
but I would assert that Rand is pl;aying the same philosophical time
wasting as the worste of the Idealist or mystics.  Perhapes even worse in
that they lack the physcological or spiritual insight of good mystics.