Wednesday, December 28, 2005

Logic and Reality

The following is because I think this is important, and because I needed to explain myself more clearly. It rose out of the comments section from this post at Sasca's blog. Logic is reality, apprehended in principles. Logic is reality in epistemic form. Logic is the form of principles that we have formulated to speak generally and wholly of reality itself. Thus, when you think abstractly of the principle "A cannot be A and non-A at the same time in the same respect" -- you have abstracted concrete reality -- you have NOT made reality "fit" into that principle, the principle is itself reality apprehended differently, i.e. not through physical sensory organs, but through cognitive conceptualization. Thus, when I say reality does not violate the law of non-contradiction, I am speaking of a general abstract principle that is obedient to the very brute nature of reality itself - eg. This chair cannot exist and not exist in the same respect at the same time. By saying that reality cannot fit inside a "logic box", one is infact being epistemologically Kantian. By saying that our consciousness is structured in such a way that it is restrained by logic - or a "box" of logical principles, one subsribes to a Kantian position that is so ubiquitous in our culture, it is almost inconspicuous and subconscious! The basic point of Objectivism is that reality does not and cannot fit into any "box" or man-made principles -- and one has no business trying to say it does or attempting to do it. Objectivism correctly points out that our abstract principles of logic should correspond or "fit" with reality -- not the other way around.


Blogger Ergo Sum said...

P.S. Notice the implication this has for "Intelligent Design" arguments.
The ID argument is the flip side of the same counterfeit coin (to borrow Rand's verbage)... on the one hand, they want to consider the Universe as intelligently designed (by someone), while on the other hand they want to argue that we human perceive that intelligent design passively from the Universe.
So, the question to ask is: which came first? The Intelligent Designer? Or the Intelligent Universe? If they say "the Intelligent Designer" - then they must also admit that the Designer "created" the Universe to "fit" logical principles (since the Universe seems logical). Thus, they must admit that logical principles have primacy and/or creative power. They must also then admit that the Designer deemed logical principles as "Intelligent" principles and probably also functions in adherence to those principles because, by definition, the Designer is ALSO INTELLIGENT.

12/28/2005 06:58:00 PM  
Blogger S.R. Deardorff said...

great posts, as usual...

i will revisit our earlier convo, a little later; i'm pretty sure i can better explain what i meant-->>i had written that "logical" post rather kwikly; obviously, there were a few flaws in my communication...

however, i want to give myself a day to read your rec'd "The Logical Structure of objectivism." i just wish i could d/l the damn thing as one file, perhaps morpheus has it compiled for me?!



12/29/2005 12:10:00 PM  
Blogger Rubicund Y. Logorrhea said...

Or, sean, you could perhaps cut and paste...

12/30/2005 10:42:00 AM  
Blogger Ergo Sum said...

No.. he can't copy and paste. It's in PDF format, and you have to view each chapter at a time. It's a pain... yes.

12/30/2005 04:25:00 PM  

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home