What---if anything---can we learn from AYN RAND'S philosophy?

by Terry 93 Replies latest jw friends

  • THE GLADIATOR
    THE GLADIATOR
    Truth is subjective, just like reality is.

    This is an amazing statement!

    For example if I think that New York is in Canada , then I am fooling myself. This idea has no basis in reality. I am in fact unconscious, in the dark, deluded. Unless I change my false belief I will be unable to visit New York.

    Once I realize my mistake and bring my thinking in line with reality – New York is in America – I am conscious, in tune with reality, truth. Now I can function in the real world and avoid arriving in the wrong place.

    All people are in fact unconscious in some area of their life. It takes effort and honesty to strive for greater Consciousness.

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    This is an amazing statement!

    Indeed, see, Usain Bolt can run 100 meters in 9.58 seconds !

    That is HIS reality, but it is not mine.

    Andy Bolton cna deadlift 1008 LBS !

    That is HIS reality, not mine.

    Reality is subjective, it is dependant on the individual.

    Truth is even MORE subjective and it changes with the times, with cultures, with ideologies.

  • tec
    tec

    I think you are a lovely person. But, darn it---let's discuss IDEAS!!

    Terry - How could I possibly refuse to try and discuss ideas with you after that?

    What identity are they able to give to their superior realm? They keep telling you what it is not, but never tell you what it is. All their identifications

    consist of negating: God is that which no human mind can know, they say—and proceed to demand that you consider it knowledge—God is non-man,

    heaven is non-earth, soul is non-body, virtue is non-profit, A is non-A, perception is non-sensory, knowledge is non-reason. Their definitions are not

    acts of defining, but of wiping out.

    She is wrong in her assumption here, and that is the point I was addressing. None of my identifications with God consist of negating. I think only of what God is; else how could I know Him? So I am not surrendering to what I do not know, but to what I do know.

    Of course, I accept that there are things I will never know or understand in my short lifetime, but I don't waste time on these. I form beliefs and idea on the evidence that I have.

    (and if I am to be a true follower of Christ - then I must also submit that my beliefs and ideas are also based on the faith that God has granted me)

    Aren't these just slogans?

    First, I stated things about God to show that He is not defined merely with negated descriptions.

    But no, I don't think they're slogans... not to me, and certainly not if they're true. Then they're just truth.

    So I think the question becomes, (and the one I think you were posing) is how do I know that my knowledge is truth? Well, I know I can't prove it. I can only form knowledge based on the evidence at hand.

    The bible is a source of evidence for the nature of God, and a source showing what people of the past believed. In the OT we get an example of a God of justice, albeit harsh justice (eye for eye/tooth for tooth); a God of wrath and vengeance (sending the Israelites into captivity for worshipping idols); as well as a God of love and mercy. (rebuking the Israelites for not showing these qualities/ accepting them back over and over despite their constant betrayal of that love)

    It could well be that this was all the Israelites could accept or understand, in accordance to the harshness of life and the surrounding nations during those times.

    It is also evident, according to Christ and the earlier prophets, that the Israelites made mistakes concerning God's nature and what He wanted from them. Even that they handled the commands they were given, falsely. (the lying pens of the scribe have handled the laws of God falsely: Jeremiah 8:8) So God sent his son. The living Word, to show us through his example of what God wants, and of who He is.

    Now if someone does not believe in the bible (its accuracy or its message) or in Jesus as the son of God, then that is another discussion entirely :-)

    But the bottom line is that my knowledge is not based on what I believe God is not, but rather on what I believe God is.

    Tammy

  • THE GLADIATOR
    THE GLADIATOR

    Indeed, see, Usain Bolt can run 100 meters in 9.58 seconds !
    That is HIS reality, but it is not mine.

    This is your reality too. You are conscious of the FACT that - Usain Bolt can run 100 meters in 9.58 seconds!
    It is on record and provable. It has been demonstrated and accomplished.

    It is also a reality that neither you nor I can run that fast.

    Truth is not subjective it is always objective. Just because politics, religion and business, presents lies as truth does not alter truth just people's minds.

  • mindmelda
    mindmelda

    Those brainy physics guys define "reality" in a few different ways so they know what kind of reality they mean, because it's important in physics to distinguish. Probably for us too, when we start talking about science, religion, metaphysics, etc.

    1. Phenomenological reality: That's the kind PS up there is talking about, the relative nature of reality as experienced by the individual. Each person's subjective reality is particular to them and probably in every aspect experienced ONLY by them..unless you're a telepath or an empath of some sort and can share your exact reality with someone that way...highly debatable, if not a fun and interesting Scifi concept.

    2. Truth: that word that ex Witnesses are so allergic to. LOL But, in scientific terms, not used the way many use it, which is better defined as number one definition of reality, subjective or phenomenological reality. Truth is a toughy, because various definitions are valid. Metaphysical truth is not scientific truth but they are both truth. Okay?

    Scientific truth is what you can prove to exist through scientific method. That's it.

    The rest is nebulous stuff that is better left to long winded dudes like Proust and Kant...or Nietchze...those guys who apparently have a lot of time for navel gazing on their hands. There's all kinds of stuff like "consensus reality" . If enough of us say it's real, then by damn, it's real! Like believing that green paper can buy food and a place to live, for example, that's the consensus reality of American paper money.

    It's also what allows different religions to exist, because enough people got together and said, "Yep, this is what God is, this is what he says, this is what he wants, and we're going with that, and I don't care what you say it is, this is what WE say it is." Consensus reality is also the basis for a good many other social concepts, like political parties. As you can probably tell, Consensus reality leads to a lot of debates and hassles over what is so and what isn't so, but we seem to need it.

    If you're a strictly a realist, (kind of boring in my humble opinion, but some people like the same sandwich every time they go to Subway, too) you want truth to be "just the facts, Ma'am" and Joe Friday is your god...well, at least your role model. Realists like their truth served up with lots of concrete proof, and just to be able to grab hold of the truth by it's big truthy butt and hold it tight against the unreality of life, which can get pretty damn unreal at times. A lot of engineers I know thank God, are realists. When I'm in a plane, by golly, I want it designed by a guy who backs up every bit of his design with mathematical proof that the plane is going to stay in the air.

    If you're an anti-realist, your goal is to touch every realist and blow them up...LOL...no, it means simply that you have a more flexible notion of the truth... the inaccessibility of any final, objective truth means that there is no truth beyond the socially-accepted consensus. (Although this means there are many truths, not a single truth.) I'm like that, which is why I'm a Universalist Unitarian. A realist is going to think I'm flakier than hell, but um...remember, in terms of physics, ALL of these theories of the truth are VALID. So, don't be dissing a sistah simply because she has some weird notions of truth, kay?

    3. Fact: A fact or factual entity is a phenomenon that is perceived as an elemental principle. It is rarely one that could be subject to personal interpretation. Instead, it is most often an observed phenomenon of the natural world. The proposition that "viewed from most places on Earth, the Sun rises in the east" is a fact. It is a fact for people belonging to any group or nationality, regardless of which language they speak or which part of the hemisphere they come from.

    Basically, Copernicus and Gallileo were right, The Catholic Church was wrong (they weren't even going by the Bible, but by Ptolemy, a Greek dude, because the Catholics have always entirely fond of Greek Philosophy, another topic entirely, so IN your FACE WTS, the Catholics weren't misreading the Bible at all about that) and we still believe the sun is the center of the solar system because it's OBSERVABLE, no matter how much the Church paddles your behind because it wants to be right.

    This is the reality that Phillip K. Dick, the science fiction writer defined when he said, "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away".

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento

    It is also a reality that neither you nor I can run that fast.

    So reality is subject to...its subjects.

    Scientific truth is what you can prove to exist through scientific method. That's it

    Truth that is subjective to what can be proven at ANY given time.

    Scientific truth 200 years ago was that man couldn't fly.

    Scientific proof in 1969 was that Man can go to the moon, walk on it and come back.

    The truth of yesterday is NOT the truth of today and the truth of today MAY not be the truth of tomorrow.

  • tec
    tec

    Interesting read Mindmelda. Thanks for posting it.

    Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away

    This is how I define reality - though at any given time, I think most people believe that their personal reality IS this reality. Those who are sure in their beliefs that is. There are also people who are searching for what is real, so they would be more open to everything out there.

    I find it comforting actually, to know that no matter my mistakes in thought or speech or deed, I cannot change or harm this 'universal reality.'

    Tammy

  • snowbird
    snowbird

    Was it really truth, PSac, or opinion?

    The two are not necessarily the same.

    But, of course, you know that.

    Sylvia

  • PSacramento
    PSacramento
    Was it really truth, PSac, or opinion?

    The question that has been debated for centuries will not be answered so quickly my dear !

    Truth came to be when people started having an opinion on what the truth was !!

    LOL !

  • mindmelda
    mindmelda

    It doesn't do any good to use "reality" "fact" and "truth" interchangeably, because they're NOT, although they overlap a bit in definition.

    See definitions above.

    Truth is the most nebulously defined word of the three, but people are using it as if it were "fact". Truth is something different from fact, if the definitions of people who's job it is to define reality means anything to you.

    Truth often, but not always subjective...facts usually are NOT, they're observable and not dependent upon subjective reality or phenomenological reality.

    Some of you are arguing truth on a different definition than the other so it's confusing as HELL. Ow ow owowowowow, brain bleeding now!

    Saying that your subjective version of the truth is BETTER than another person's is exactly the kind of conflict you get into when you believe that it's only your individual reality that counts. YES, truth has subjective versions. It's a valid philosophical and scienfic point. Fact, not so much. If you think something is observable and undeniable it's a FACT, not the Truth! Okay?

    Your Truth counts, but only to you. The rest of us have our own, thanks. Which is actually what Rand is saying, not that everyone should discount the truth of others, that's not very individualistic or respecting of the individual, it's totalitarian, actually, to impose your version of political or social reality or anything else on everyone you can.

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit