This is demonstrably false, observation changes reality, there is no unmediated experience.
Blithely ignoring the subjectivity of beauty and ugliness…
Objectivism, time to meet game theory.
This has been the most interesting view I’ve ever seen, and it never ceases to amaze me. Reality is not external to the mind, and thus the mind shapes reality. I can point you to a thousand suffering individuals who wished you were right. I agree that perception of reality can be subjective, but that is only perception, it is not external reality. And I can point you to the years of our universe where there was no “observation” going on because no one was there to observe it. Clearly, however, the universe was there, reality was what it was.
It is also not suprising that you point fingers at the subjectivity of art. To a certian extent, I can agree that beauty is subjective, but not completely. A person being murdered as body art is not worthy of art because it involves destroying human life. Similarly, anything which, at its focus or core, exemplifies man as a disgusting or sacrificial animal is well out of the range of beauty.
Game theory, eh? “The Crucifixion Considered as an Uphill Bike Race?”
arl: I agree that perception of reality can be subjective, but that is only perception, it is not external reality.
And how, pray tell, do you acquire any knowledge about “external reality” without somehow involving perception? That, I think, was Collounsbury’s point. Your assertion of a past universe without an observer is no more than an assertion: we do not in fact “know” that such a universe ever existed. What we “know” is that our shared perceptions about the current physical universe and our mathematical models of its development make it reasonable to suppose that such a universe did formerly exist. But that’s all.
Now I’m not a radical antirealist, and I have no problem agreeing that there are indeed some perceptions and deductions that we all hold so much in common that we might as well describe them as “reality.” But any “philosopher” these days who attempts to claim that we have an epistemologically independent way of accessing that “reality” is going to get their ass handed to them on a platter by actual philosophers, as Rand did.
My quote was that perception CAN be subjective, not that it was necessarily so. To a schizophrenic who hears voices arguing in the background, we find that this is, in fact, a hallucination with no basis in external reality. His reality is partially subjective; there are things that he percieves that cannot be confirmed to be there.
To show that there is an external world we have perception of this world. We have a hypothesis about perceived reality, and we test this. Scientists do it formally, you and I much less so. Perhaps you’ve said this to someone, “Did you hear that?” and the other person has no idea what you are referring to. “I thought I heard the phone ring.” Does this mean that every time you hear the phone ring you dismiss it because it is not real? Equivalently, every time you think you hear something do you feel someone else didn’t hear it because they were decieved or illusioned? Of course not. The compenents which make up our perceptions can glitch. Thus, we confirm what we perceive in an effort to conclude that what we THINK we know about external reality is, in fact, what we DO know about external reality.
Inerestingly, even if reality were, as we can hypothesize, entirely subjective (not that this is the case against me, just hypoth.) we find that we still agree, subjectively, on many points independantly. What does that mean to me? It means that whether or not there is an external reality, there by all means appears to be an external reality, and so we would make no errors in assuming it were so. Indeed, much technology comes from that assumption; I do not know what has come from subjective reality theories. I would like to know, however.
Because Rand believed in an external reality she was dogged? Come on, that wasn’t her flaw. Her flaw, as I’ve stated, was in her epistemology. She couldn’t reconcile what she believed with what she could prove(though she thought she did). Which is much like every other philosopher I’ve read. In light of afore-mentioned nihlism, soggy existentialism, solipsism, and myriad other philosophies, Rand tried very hard to show that man is an honorable creature, that you can know reality, and truth is neither entirely subjective or Platonic. Its a shame that she failed, but I do not think she was wrong.
Locke must be read, concurrently or consecutively, with Hobbes and Mill. The Holy Trinity of political philosophy.
Speaking of Hobbes, the man gets a bad rap from those who know him solely by his “nasty, brutish, and short” comment. His views, as I see it, stand largely in direct contrast with Rand’s objectivism. Specifically, while Hobbes believed that each individual is (and should be) governed by self-interest, he felt that individuals served that interest best by achieving accord with others–that self-interest, when enlightened, will be social rather than anti-social, benevolent rather than indifferent. That all men are not always rational enough to see this, Hobbes felt, made it imperative to supplement reasonable sociability with governmental power which can force adherence to civil authority.
I don’t agree with his conclusions (I think Mill developed the theme to a more palatable degree), but Hobbes certainly pegged an element of self-interest that many objectivists dismiss: long-term interest, in which systematically contributing to the health of the society reaps dividends for each individual.
Yet again I find I’ve put words in your mouth. You, as well, noted that the problem was epistemological. 
That’s not a trait I got from Rand, however. I was like that before I ever read her.
Anyway, I found that as interesting a read as the link I posted earlier. I didn’t seem to notice that anyone was particularly challenging external reality but the problem of universals. She also, as I previously stated, had a problem with a priori knowledge which would have helped her immensely if she could have accepted it as obvious (well, I think its pretty obvious, anyway). I still have issues with the whole “cause and effect” thing, and this post isn’t about me anyway so I’ll shut up.
At any rate, I read yours so you read mine.
And I’m still an objectivist, even if Ayn would’ve hated me.
elucidator wrote:
She got laid probably more often than you did, though.
Ayn Rand is dead (something about a house falling…)
I am still sputtering along.
So, the jury is still out on that one.
Thanks for the link, *Kimstu. Scott Ryan’s remarks are an excellent read.
MR
aynrandlover: *At any rate, I read yours so you read mine. *
Okay. Yours had an annoying black figured background with yellow text, though, so I may have missed some of the steps due to eyestrain. But it seems to make some of the same points that Ryan does.
Maeglin: You’re welcome!
First off, let me say that I believe that Ayn Rand laid the basis for a revolutionary and truly wonderful system of philosophy, Objectivism.
That aside…
I would certainly say that I am not a Rand literalist/deifier. Rand’s personal problems are well-documented and it’s a real shame that she felt that she had to live up to a self-imposed superhuman posturing; ie, to literally be John Galt. Well, I believe that John Galt is more an archetype than a character and that many people who have read Atlas Shrugged/the Fountainhead have felt rather guilty that they couldn’t live up to that (impossible) standard (myself included, for a brief while). Dr Branden’s article at his website on the Benefits and Hazards of Objectivism (http://www.nathanielbranden.net/ayn/ayn03.shtml) as well as an article that Lindsay Perigo wrote at his Free Radical website about romantic love (http://www.freeradical.co.nz/content/44/44editorial.shtml),well, these helped me avoid this all-too-common trap and I urge anyone interested in Objectivism to read them as well. However, if you are an “orthodox” Randist, then you wouldn’t enjoy these articles as they commit the “unspeakable atrocity” of making Rand human. But if the only “acceptable” submissions to Objectivism are Rand’s work and the approved work of…well, sycophants like Leonard Peikoff, then by God I no longer wish to be called an Objectivist!!! But if we consider Objectivism an open philosophy then the voices of men like Dr. Nathaniel Branden (who many consider the true intellectual heir to Rand, if not for their split), David Kelley and Lindsay Perigo must be heard and their ideas should expand on Rand’s excellent base!
In short, I realize that I’ve now made enemies from within as well as the enemies from without, but I feel I had to make this statement and I fully stand by it.
Then who was there? who observed the formation of the universe?
Reality and Perception and Observation:
See the Uncertainty Principal. Observing reality effects it. Reality is wholly more slippery than one thinks.
Morality and beauty are not the same thing --you may argue otherwise of course but that merely highlights the wholly subjective nature of both morality and beauty.
So, you don’t know what game theory is or you’re trying unsuccessfully to be flip?
sigh how I long for the days when Ayn Rand was filed under Science Fiction rather than something more serious.
I started laughing when someone suggested reading Locke as the solution to a perceived Rand/Marx dichotomy.
Read Two Treatises of Government. Then read Atlas Shrugged.
Stop and think for a minute, pose the question of what you are going to do when: a) you can no longer send your population who haven’t expropriated enough land off to the colonies (the question never addressed by Locke) and b) when the magic power source or extractive technology remains a purely literary device (the question never addressed by Rand).
When you come to the realization that resources are (in practical terms) finite and that the challenge facing us all is a fair distribution of resources, then come back and talk to me.
Sitting back to reread Kropotkin’s “Mutual Aid”
Perhaps Atlas Shrugged should be in science fiction…part of a brilliant new future, and as far away from relics of the past that fizzled and died and never worked (cough Marxism cough)
Of course, the “most fair” allocation of these allegedly scarce resources is the government??? Well, the last time I checked, ALL of the efforts at government resource control have been a DISMAL failure (please point out ONE “workers paradise” that has succeeded!) Let’s face it, your socialist dream is dead and the free market has risen up and created prosperity the likes of which have never been seen in human history.
I won’t even touch the disgustingly altruistic implications of “fair distribution”.
Incidentally, Locke is hardly a split in the dichotomy of Marx/Rand. I’m sure that Rand would have highly approved of Locke’s wonderful ideas on individual freedom and is as polar from Marx as Rand is!!!
The HUP doesn’t allow for a subjective reality, either. Once an event or quality has been observed, it is definitely there: the probablility waveform has collapsed. Else there could be no quantum physics because experiments would not be repeatable. Surely you see this is not the case and HUP doesn’t give the perceiver a blank check to create reality…not even a really big check. If what you suggest is true, TVs only work because we want them to work, not because of the design of transistors, vaccuum tubes, circuit boards and transformers.
For someone who argues subjectivity I find a topic of morals to be moot. Whose morals? Surely no one external to ourselves, I hope. And if you create reality, then anything you do is moral.
Similarly, for the objectivity of beauty, have you never seen a great work and commented, “It is fantastic, but I do not like it”? One can objectively say something is good, beautiful, moral, well constructed, and whatever, even if this doesn’t mesh with personal opinion or taste. This are for those of us who know reality gets along fine without us.
I thought it was sort of funny, yes, having read it in a book that other people, also, have found amusing. I thought, perhaps, you might have even read it yourself. I withdraw the comment as unenlightening, selfishly amusing, and in general bad taste.
Great! Another person who doesn’t understand QM. Have you and jmullaney been exchanging notes? Neither you nor he understand that the Uncertainty Principle says only subatomic particles and photons are affected by observation, and not entire atoms. This is because the “uncertainness” of the particles cancel out. It IS possible to determine with absolute certainty the position and velocity of a sodium atom, for example. And I use that as an example because technicians once arranged individual sodium atoms to spell “IBM.” (See the latest Guinness Book of World Records for the smallest message ever written.) If the U.P. applied to atoms, it would not have been possible to arrange them so precisely and image them with an electron microscope.
Reality does not require an observer to define it. It is what it is whether we exist or not. It is a stage and we are merely the players; we did not construct reality, we simply live in it.
I don’t know what game theory is, either. Care to enlighten us?
Where, o where to begin!
Never mind the metaphysics, Ayn Rand gave about as much thought to metaphysics as she gave money to UNICEF. Reality is, thats that, what’s to discuss. Its part and parcel to her blitheringly hyper-rational and utterly souless materialism.
Fundamental flaw #1: Her touchingly naive belief in the rational mind as the be all and end all. Many are the wonders it has afforded us, I’d be the last to deny it, but, grasshopper, it has its limitations. Systems of logic consistently bite themselves in the ass, endless loop, fugue state. It works very well indeed for its purpose, but one simply does not hunt butterflys with a hammer. Well, she might have. Wouldn’t doubt it.
#2 Objectivism was constructed primarily out of Rand’s loathing for collectivism in any form, really, its just Leninism turned inside out, as if you stuck your arm down Kropotkins throat till you siezed his rectum and jerked him inside out. It overlooks the glaringly obvious fact that we are monkey-boys, collective behavior and sharing 'R US. Its what we do. (In Hell, they probably make her watch Sesame Street. Sic 'em, Big Bird!)
#3 Its elitist as all get out! What about the more or less average sort of shmoe who isn’t bright enough to outsmart the John Galts of the world? Are they his natural prey? By right, fodder for a Great Blonde Beast? Intelligence is a characteristic, not a virtue. Compassion is a virtue. Intelligence guided by compassion is a blessing to us all, intelligence guided by self-interest is just another jerk who got in touch with his Inner Asshole.
Enough. Shut up already. Suffice to say I suffered a bout of Objectivism in my salad years. Thank God for pot and rock 'n roll. Oh, and Kurt Vonnegut, while I’m at it.
No. Really. Heisenberg’s Uncertainty Principle is true for everything, both minute and gigantic. The reason you don’t see small felines phasing into and out of existance at random is because the falloff of the waveform is inversely proportional to the mass (actually, energy) of the object.
For the mathematics-enlightenable, the equation is:
E * t >= hbar
Where E is the uncertainty in the energy measurement, t is the uncertainty in the time measurement, and hbar is Planck’s constant, h, over 2 * pi.
As far as the Uncertainty Principle is concerned, the jury is still out, IMHO. There is experimental evidence that some people point to as showing that the “invisible clockwork” of Newton’s fantasy is only fantasy; that unobserved particles are not in any particular state until they interact with other particles[sup]1[/sup], which thereby alters their state. It is decidedly unintuitive, but don’t reject it out of hand.
Well, from memory…
Game theory is about reducing social interactions into more tractable, mathematically-expressable equations. Back in the 70’s, there was an interesting, repeatable observation in many of these “game” scenarios: “Kind-but-not-naive” motivations were much longer-lived than “everyone-for-themselves” motivations. KbNN-oriented entities were significantly more efficient than EFT-oriented entities, over the long run, and often wound up “converting” other entities to motivations compatable with their own.
EFT motivations led to strong individuals, but KbNN motivations led to strong “communities” of somewhat weaker individuals, which were more efficient with respect to resources than the “communities” dominated by EFT-oriented entities. I believe that this, or something similar from a more recent time, is what Collounsbury was alluding to.
[sup]1[/sup]Which, themselves, are in an indeterminate state until they interact with other particles, which, themselves, are in an indeterminate state until they interact with — well, after that, it’s turtles all the way down.
Thanks, this is more or less precisely the connection between Game Theory and the subject on hand. Some of the more interesting parts modern economic literature make extensive use of game theory to explain less than optimal outcomes etc.