So I'm trying to understand the Objectivist POV on sense perception, but I'm having some trouble here. I was reading Leonard Peikoff's book about Objectivism, and in it, he stated that our sense perceptions are correct as an axiom.
How can this be? If humans can have dreams and hallucinations where they can see, touch, and even smell and taste figments, how can we know for sure that the "physical" world around us is actually physical and not just a kind of dream or hallucination?
Isn't it possible that we're just a bunch of brain cells in a petri dish somewhere? I'm not saying that that's necessarily true, but that it is impossible to prove beyond doubt the existence of the world and the universe as we know it.
As for Objectivist ethics, I don't quite understand why we should follow our own "rational self interest." As I understand it, Rand's argument was that since survival/life is a universal value, we should follow it as well, which leads us to rational self interest as the primary ethical goal. However, isn't this just a naturalistic fallacy? Only because all organisms try to survive, does that mean we should do the same?
I understand that it is rational to act in your own self interest, but I don't understand how it is ethical. In other words, it makes sense that one should improve oneself, but it doesn't make sense why not doing so would be unethical.
Furthermore, doesn't Rand's ethics depend on her epistemology/metaphysics? If one cannot prove that the physical world, and therefore the organisms within it, exist, can one really say that we should follow our own self interest because it is, in a sense, a universal value?
So wouldn't a more rational approach to ethics try to determine if there is some basis for ethics a priori instead of a posteriori?
Please correct me if I'm wrong in anything I've written, and please help me understand the Objectivist view on senses. Thanks. :)
Political Atheists Blog
krazy kaju: if you're trying to formulate an ethical theory, it would make more sense to do so on an a priori basis. As for data "of an external reality," I suppose you've never heard of the debate over analytic a priori, logic, and mathematics?
if you're trying to formulate an ethical theory, it would make more sense to do so on an a priori basis.
As for data "of an external reality," I suppose you've never heard of the debate over analytic a priori, logic, and mathematics?
I'm having trouble coming up with any a priori argument that isn't ultimately based on sense data. Mises' "man acts", for example, would be impossible to formulate without the awareness of men and action. Logic is always based upon some kind of premise, and where do those premises come from? Mathematics is just another logical construct. How could it have been developed without the basic development of arithmetic, which was derived from emprical observation of objects (sense data)?
krazy kaju: Even if our sense data is flawed in some way, there's no way to show otherwise, there is no other data we can gather and compare with our sense data, except for more sense data. That is almost a kind of argument from ignorance.
Even if our sense data is flawed in some way, there's no way to show otherwise, there is no other data we can gather and compare with our sense data, except for more sense data.
That is almost a kind of argument from ignorance.
It's not an argument--I'm making what seems to be a statement of fact to me. If it's true, then complaining about the validity of sense data is pointlessly absurd, because there are no other options.
krazy kaju:That doesn't make sense data axiomatic. An axiom is something that can be proven true by default
No, an axiom is something that is self-evident or true without proof. If there is absolutely no alternative to the senses as a source of data, then it must be self-evidently true, no proof required, and thus axiomatic. As A. Conan Doyle had Sherlock Holmes say, "When you have eliminated the impossible, whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth."
And if there is no alternative, how can it be faith? It's not just practical, it's all there is to go by. You have no choice.
That's called faith. Although I agree that for practical reasons we must use our sense data, if you're trying to formulate an ethical theory, it would make more sense to do so on an a priori basis.
Wait, there's no reason to believe in the senses? There's no reason to believe in causality? Because faith is belief without reason. Don't just throw around a term for effect. One cannot but assume causality and one cannot but assume the reliability of the senses. Hence both are taken to be a priori by Austrians. I think you need to give Hoppe a read.
How does it relate? How is knowledge of mathematics possible without contact with the external world? Mathematics is only a priori in the sense that it does not required repeated testing, not in the sense that it can be known by a pure process of introspection.
That doesn't make sense data axiomatic. An axiom is something that can be proven true by default, e.g. human action. You can't prove that human action is false because in doing so you are acting. Sensory data is not the same.
How, pray tell, would you know you're acting without sensory data? One way of "proving" (improper term to use in conjunction with 'axioms') an axiom is negative demonstration.
This is what I'm doing. I'm asking for evidence to be presented but nobody is presenting any evidence which is my problem here.
What do you want? A deductive proof? Which you will ultimately apprehend through your senses? There is no such thing in connection to this.
-Jon
Freedom of markets is positively correlated with the degree of evolution in any society...