From: baruch@nynexst.com (Robert Baruch)
Subject: Re: Premises of "objectivism?"
Reply-To: baruch@nynexst.com
Organization: NYNEX Science & Technology, Inc
Date: Tue, 5 Jan 93 21:25:46 GMT

In article 93Jan5185540@lludd.sics.se, torkel@sics.se (Torkel Franzen) writes:
> In article <1993Jan5.153415.3877@nynexst.com> baruch@nynexst.com 
> (Robert Baruch) writes:
> 
>   >The first was "A is A", or "existence exists", or the law of identity, which
>   >states essentially that before you can talk about something, you must know
>   >what you are talking about.  Those who wish to dispute the validity of
>   >the law of identity should first realize that to question the law is to
> 
>   There isn't a great deal to dispute, since your various formulations of the
> supposed principle are on the face of it either vacuous, highly ambiguous, or
> grammatically dubious. Why not give us a derivation of some interesting
> Objectivist conclusion from the supposed principle?

Very well.  Here is a puzzle from Raymond Smullyan.
The law of identity can show that the reasoning is false.  I will let you
determine why it is false reasoning:

Santa Claus exists if I am not mistaken.  This sentence is certainly
true and hence, I am not mistaken and therefore Santa Claus exists.

Prove that the reasoning is false *without* using the law of identity, and
you will see why the law of identity is important, and not "vacuous".

> 
>    >I must also accept that my senses are part of reality, and that they have
>    >limitations.  I must accept my senses, and my senses tell me that existence
>    >exists.  Red is red.  
> 
>   As a first reflection on the very traditional problem of the
> validity of sensory input, your comments are woefully inadequate. For
> one thing, you don't even touch on what is traditionally a central
> problem, namely that people's senses also tell them a lot of things
> that we believe are false.

Until it is proven otherwise, I CANNOT doubt my senses.  If I were to see
a magic trick for the first time, and knew nothing of the deceptions involved,
nor of the laws of physics, I would look in awe upon this powerful magician
who can make things disappear, or read minds.

If my senses deceive me, then I can only determine what the deception is
through reason and logic.  If I cannot determine the deception, then I 
must accept the fact that senses have not deceived me.

To accept that I cannot act upon my sensory input is to accept paralysis of
thought.

I ask you:  If YOU claim that a man's sensory input is not valid, then tell me
how you can reply to my post.  After all, your senses may be deceiving you
by telling you:

(1) I replied to your post
(2) Your post existed
(3) My reply existed
(4) You exist
(5) I exist

and so on.

Let me give you a concrete example.

If I eat an apple and smell an orange at the same time, certainly my tongue
will tell me that I am eating an orange.  But through logic and reason I can
determine that I am indeed eating an apple.  And if I were blind, and could
not sense the texture of the apple, I would have no way of knowing or reasoning
that I were eating an apple.  I would therefore conclude that I was eating
an orange.  How could I think otherwise?  If I were to say that my senses were
deceiving me, then I would be riddled with doubt whenever I ate something.

From Branden:

"If a mountain appeared the same size no matter how far from it I was, then
I could not tell you how far away it was. Man's senses operate in a context.
They cannot deceive you but they can mislead you.  An appeal to the rest of
your senses and to your ability to reason, experiment, and learn will allow
you to draw valid conclusions about the nature of reality."

--Rob




Newsgroups: alt.philosophy.objectivism