On objective existence and objectivism

James Lee77 said:The whole idea was that numbers—and really, all of math—aren't actually built into nature, but are just something humans project onto the world to describe it.
But look, if there's a real difference between hydrogen and helium out there in the universe, and that difference is nothing more than a difference in the number of something, then that theory totally falls apart.
Basically, numbers exist just as much as crows do.

I disagree. Crows objectively exist. Numbers don't—they're just relationships between objects. A number is nothing more than a human approximation of those relationships, which means the concept of a "number" doesn't exist as an independent object.

ironmarlin1 said:Look, I know perfectly well what epistemology is, but nobody actually asked for a freshman survey course on the subject; they wanted answers to specific questions. As for abstractions, my point was simply that within this particular context, we really ought to define what they signify, because it's such a fuzzy, imprecise term—and if you ask me, it acts as a convenient little loophole used to smuggle in all sorts of nonsense under the guise of equivocation ☕).

I’d suggest picking up the book I mentioned earlier (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Once you’ve had a chance to go through it, I would be more than happy to sit down and hash this out with you properly.
No offense intended!!! 🙂

Well, if we follow that logic, I suppose I should start sending you links to various epistemology textbooks so we can just endlessly trade reading lists instead of actually discussing the ideas we’ve gathered from them. 🤷 Though, looking at the reviews for that book on Amazon, I noticed someone citing a passage regarding the split between the analytic and the synthetic, claiming that the distinction "is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher." To me, that seems quite extraordinary, considering the author of that book appears to be largely unacquainted with modern philosophy. 🤷 Not to mention, as far as I can tell, Objectivism is more of a cult-like movement than a serious philosophical system.

Maybe we should just start a new thread called "Objective Epistemology" or something, and hash this all out from scratch over there... I'm not really feeling like starting from square one in this thread... but hey, if you're down, we can try.

ironmarlin1 said:Look, I know perfectly well what epistemology is, but nobody actually asked for a freshman survey course on the subject; they wanted answers to specific questions. As for abstractions, my point was simply that within this particular context, we really ought to define what they signify, because it's such a fuzzy, imprecise term—and if you ask me, it acts as a convenient little loophole used to smuggle in all sorts of nonsense under the guise of equivocation ☕).

I’d suggest picking up the book I mentioned earlier (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Once you’ve had a chance to go through it, I would be more than happy to sit down and hash this out with you properly.
No offense intended!!! 🙂

Well, if we follow that logic, I suppose I should start sending you links to various epistemology textbooks so we can just endlessly trade reading lists instead of actually discussing the ideas we’ve gathered from them. 🤷 Though, looking at the reviews for that book on Amazon, I noticed someone citing a passage regarding the split between the analytic and the synthetic, claiming that the distinction "is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher." To me, that seems quite extraordinary, considering the author of that book appears to be largely unacquainted with modern philosophy. 🤷 Not to mention, as far as I can tell, Objectivism is more of a cult-like movement than a serious philosophical system.

That's not even a full quote... and we aren't really gonna judge a whole book based on incomplete snippets, right?

ironmarlin1 said:Look, I know perfectly well what epistemology is, but nobody actually asked for a freshman survey course on the subject; they wanted answers to specific questions. As for abstractions, my point was simply that within this particular context, we really ought to define what they signify, because it's such a fuzzy, imprecise term—and if you ask me, it acts as a convenient little loophole used to smuggle in all sorts of nonsense under the guise of equivocation ☕).

I’d suggest picking up the book I mentioned earlier (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology). Once you’ve had a chance to go through it, I would be more than happy to sit down and hash this out with you properly.
No offense intended!!! 🙂

Well, if we follow that logic, I suppose I should start sending you links to various epistemology textbooks so we can just endlessly trade reading lists instead of actually discussing the ideas we’ve gathered from them. 🤷 Though, looking at the reviews for that book on Amazon, I noticed someone citing a passage regarding the split between the analytic and the synthetic, claiming that the distinction "is accepted, in some form, by virtually every influential contemporary philosopher." To me, that seems quite extraordinary, considering the author of that book appears to be largely unacquainted with modern philosophy. 🤷 Not to mention, as far as I can tell, Objectivism is more of a cult-like movement than a serious philosophical system.

What am I supposed to say to that? That I'm part of a cult?? 🙂

If you don't feel like reading the book, nobody's forcing your hand, right?

Anyway, back to the point—what's your take on the idea that the Sun can count and that Pi is just baked into nature?

Of course it exists (just like numbers do) for us humans.
It might exist for some other (intelligent) beings out there, but we have no way of knowing that.

I. Kant essentially took Protagoras's premise and formalized it:

We can only perceive things through our own unique human lens.

In doing so, he philosophically dismantled any possibility of true objectivism,
yet so many people still "philosophize" as if Kant never even existed.

Numbers are certainly more "objective" than simple digits, but both are human constructs.

"Objective" existence and objectivism are complete nonsense
because perception always belongs to the subject, and "objective existence"
is nothing more than an assumption—essentially, a leap of faith. 👎

As social creatures, humans reach a consensus over generations
regarding what we call "reality"—what is actually just intersubjectivity.
Calling that objectivity is simply a mistake.
A better term would be impartiality.

In that sense, numbers are just as "objective" (intersubjective)
as crows, angels, dragons, rocks, abstractions, or black holes.

swiftcobra15 said:

I. Kant essentially took Protagoras's premise and formalized it:

In doing so, he philosophically dismantled any possibility of true objectivism,
yet so many people still "philosophize" as if Kant never even existed.

Numbers are certainly more "objective" than simple digits, but both are human constructs.

"Objective" existence and objectivism are complete nonsense
because perception always belongs to the subject, and "objective existence"
is nothing more than an assumption—essentially, a leap of faith. 👎

In that sense, numbers are just as "objective" (intersubjective)
as crows, angels, dragons, rocks, abstractions, or black holes.

Look, try seeing if you can wrap your head around objectivity like this:

The fact is, we exist just like everything else out there—we have our own objective traits (like, the simplest example being—everyone dies eventually, and nobody can fly just by flapping their arms).

Claiming you can't be objective just because you're human would imply you belong to some weird meta-reality that’s disconnected from the actual world. But humans are part of the world. Our senses are objective and specific, so I don't see why that should stop us from being objective...

Maybe we don't know as much about a person as we do about, say, a Ford Mustang, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to learn.

Arthur Anderson49 said:See, you're assuming the core issue is just about numerical values. But wouldn't it be more likely that Los Angeles perceives things in a completely different way?

Yeah, exactly. I mean, what else would I be doing? The subforum's literally called "thought topics free from dogma." Look, I can't really know how the Sun "perceives" things—we aren't exactly speaking the same language, right?—but maybe you, or anyone else here, could try explaining what you actually mean by the difference not being about quantity. 🤷

ironmarlin1 said:What exactly do you mean when you claim that numbers are inherent to nature? Are you simply asserting their existence? And honestly, why wouldn't we apply Occam’s razor here to limit ourselves—or perhaps expand our scope, depending on how you look at it—strictly to sets?

I don't really care about the specifics here—I just used a number as the simplest example. What I'm trying to get at is that math deals with stuff that is inherently part of nature (it’s not just some random thing humans made up). Basically, I mean math deals with things that are totally real, rather than just being a matter of convention.

fadedbison17 said:Look, try seeing if you can wrap your head around objectivity like this:

The fact is, we exist just like everything else out there—we have our own objective traits (like, the simplest example being—everyone dies eventually, and nobody can fly just by flapping their arms).

Claiming you can't be objective just because you're human would imply you belong to some weird meta-reality that’s disconnected from the actual world. But humans are part of the world. Our senses are objective and specific, so I don't see why that should stop us from being objective...

Maybe we don't know as much about a person as we do about, say, a Ford Mustang, but that doesn't mean it's impossible to learn.

From an epistemological standpoint, a human being isn't truly part of the world.
The individual (acting as the subject) perceives and constructs their own reality;
therefore, the world exists within them, rather than them existing within the world.

It is only within a completed system of knowledge that we could
even attempt such an absurd claim as "man is part of the world."
However, every single system is built upon unprovable assumptions,
making it vulnerable to criticism at that level and preventing it from being universally true.

Mark Torres14 said:I disagree. Crows objectively exist. Numbers don't—they're just relationships between objects. A number is nothing more than a human approximation of those relationships, which means the concept of a "number" doesn't exist as an independent object.

But even saying something is a "crow" is already establishing a relationship. Like, when you say "this here is a crow," you're basically saying this specific object has a certain relationship to other things that lets us group them all together under the label "crow."
It’s kind of the same deal with "two"—it just means these objects have a specific relationship where we can call any similar setup "two."

So, I guess all concepts are just "relationships"—and "two" is just as much a relationship as "crow" is.

Without pointing out relationships, maybe you could just say "this thing" (or like, "an object")—but anything else you add, whether it's "crow," "magpie," or "two"... that's all just defining relationships.

James Lee77 said:Yeah, exactly. I mean, what else would I be doing? The subforum's literally called "thought topics free from dogma." Look, I can't really know how the Sun "perceives" things—we aren't exactly speaking the same language, right?—but maybe you, or anyone else here, could try explaining what you actually mean by the difference not being about quantity. 🤷

Next you'll be fighting for the civil rights of atoms 🙂

Look, man, I'm a human being—you get that, right? Seriously, I'm asking.
I know how to count, so I can tell you clearly—yeah, the difference between atoms is just the number.
If you try asking sun anything, it won't answer because sun doesn't talk, or count, or do any of the stuff people do. You're mixing up two different things, and that's how you end up with weird conclusions like numbers existing without people or sun doing math.

So, basically, there's a distinction between stuff humans do (counting, categorizing) and stuff sun does (shining, heating up... I'm no physicist, you know).

The mere fact that you can actually tell a hydrogen atom from a helium atom should be enough to make you realize that *you* are the one doing the counting and the distinguishing...

fadedbison17 said:Counting is a human thing—something we learn...
Los Angeles can't count.

🙏

But I guess the real question isn't really "can Los Angeles count," it's more like "do numbers even exist if nobody is there to count them?"

It’s kind of like asking "does Los Angeles still exist if nobody is looking at it?" You'd probably say "yeah, obviously." But when it comes to numbers, you seem to be saying they don't actually exist.

So here's the thing—if Los Angeles exists regardless of whether anyone perceives it, and if it's made of hydrogen and helium, and if the whole city undergoes a massive change once all that hydrogen turns into helium (which means the difference between hydrogen and helium matters for the object we call Los Angeles, which you admit exists)... Then I gotta ask: what actually makes hydrogen different from helium? If that difference is just a number, then it feels like numbers define how Los Angeles exists, even when there isn't a single human around to count anything.

ironmarlin1 said:I mean, does an equator even exist if there isn't a single human being there to measure it? Are our judgments about the equator objective truths, or are they just subjective interpretations forced upon the landscape? ☕

I'm curious, John Doe—did we actually manage to answer your original question? And if so, what's your final take on it?

fadedbison17 said:Next you'll be fighting for the civil rights of atoms 🙂

Look, man, I'm a human being—you get that, right? Seriously, I'm asking.
I know how to count, so I can tell you clearly—yeah, the difference between atoms is just the number.
If you try asking sun anything, it won't answer because sun doesn't talk, or count, or do any of the stuff people do. You're mixing up two different things, and that's how you end up with weird conclusions like numbers existing without people or sun doing math.

So, basically, there's a distinction between stuff humans do (counting, categorizing) and stuff sun does (shining, heating up... I'm no physicist, you know).

The mere fact that you can actually tell a hydrogen atom from a helium atom should be enough to make you realize that *you* are the one doing the counting and the distinguishing...

No, you're totally mixing them up. And the point isn't that the sun counts 😵 it's that numbers still exist even when nobody is counting them.

So, we've got a distinction between things humans do (counting, categorizing) and things the sun does (shining, heating... I'm no physicist, you know).

The mere fact that you can actually grasp the difference between a hydrogen atom and a helium atom should be enough to make you realize that *you* are the one doing the counting and the distinguishing.

Beautifully said, Christopher.
So, what, there's zero difference between objects unless a human is there to distinguish them? Are you really sure that's what you're trying to say?

James Lee77 said:🙏

But I guess the real question isn't really "can Los Angeles count," it's more like "do numbers even exist if nobody is there to count them?"

It’s kind of like asking "does Los Angeles still exist if nobody is looking at it?" You'd probably say "yeah, obviously." But when it comes to numbers, you seem to be saying they don't actually exist.

So here's the thing—if Los Angeles exists regardless of whether anyone perceives it, and if it's made of hydrogen and helium, and if the whole city undergoes a massive change once all that hydrogen turns into helium (which means the difference between hydrogen and helium matters for the object we call Los Angeles, which you admit exists)... Then I gotta ask: what actually makes hydrogen different from helium? If that difference is just a number, then it feels like numbers define how Los Angeles exists, even when there isn't a single human around to count anything.

Let me try this one more time... whatever happens, happens... 😉

I'll Throw a few facts your way—just let me know which ones you disagree with and why:
- To even ask a question like yours, you had to have the ability to count and the ability to distinguish things—skills you used to gather the data for this whole argument.
- The world around you doesn't care about your skills. You could learn to count totally wrong and the Sun wouldn't change one bit.
- Aside from humans (and if you want to be pedantic, man-made stuff like a calculator), there isn't any entity out there that can understand the concept of counting.
- Talking about counting as something separate from humanity just doesn't make sense...

James Lee77 said:No, you're totally mixing them up. And the point isn't that the sun counts 😵 it's that numbers still exist even when nobody is counting them.

So, we've got a distinction between things humans do (counting, categorizing) and things the sun does (shining, heating... I'm no physicist, you know).

The mere fact that you can actually grasp the difference between a hydrogen atom and a helium atom should be enough to make you realize that *you* are the one doing the counting and the distinguishing.

Beautifully said, Christopher.
So, what, there's zero difference between objects unless a human is there to distinguish them? Are you really sure that's what you're trying to say?

Exactly! That's my point! 👍
What's the point of using the word 'difference' if there isn't someone around to actually understand what that means??
Well, by that logic—what's the point of the word 'number' if there's nobody there to grasp the concept!

Then how can the Sun have anything to do with math—humans are the ones looking at the Sun, describing it, and making distinctions!?

And does the 'Sun' even exist, or is it just a label humans use to mark an object?
Can we two even talk about the Sun just because we learned what it was earlier?
Is the only reason we can chat about numbers, helium, hydrogen, and the Sun because we're people and these are just our labels for things?

fadedbison17 said:Exactly! That's my point! 👍
What's the point of using the word 'difference' if there isn't someone around to actually understand what that means??
Well, by that logic—what's the point of the word 'number' if there's nobody there to grasp the concept!

Then how can the Sun have anything to do with math—humans are the ones looking at the Sun, describing it, and making distinctions!?

And does the 'Sun' even exist, or is it just a label humans use to mark an object?
Can we two even talk about the Sun just because we learned what it was earlier?
Is the only reason we can chat about numbers, helium, hydrogen, and the Sun because we're people and these are just our labels for things?

Man, you are such a philosopher. 😉

So, basically, you're saying that only humans create the distinction between The Sun and the Crow.

Without us, all of it—The Sun, the crow, hydrogen, helium... it's all just one big, undifferentiated... what? A thing in itself? Matter? Objective reality?

James Lee77 said:But even saying something is a "crow" is already establishing a relationship. Like, when you say "this here is a crow," you're basically saying this specific object has a certain relationship to other things that lets us group them all together under the label "crow."
It’s kind of the same deal with "two"—it just means these objects have a specific relationship where we can call any similar setup "two."

So, I guess all concepts are just "relationships"—and "two" is just as much a relationship as "crow" is.

Without pointing out relationships, maybe you could just say "this thing" (or like, "an object")—but anything else you add, whether it's "crow," "magpie," or "two"... that's all just defining relationships.

Does the concept of "feeling" even exist if there’s no human around to experience it?

James Lee77 said:I don't really care about the specifics here—I just used a number as the simplest example. What I'm trying to get at is that math deals with stuff that is inherently part of nature (it’s not just some random thing humans made up). Basically, I mean math deals with things that are totally real, rather than just being a matter of convention.

As far as I’m concerned, whether we’re talking about a kitchen table, a redwood tree, a train station, or even molecules, atoms, and electrons, they are all just as much "inventions" as numbers are. We essentially conjure these concepts up to make sense of our daily experiences. To claim something is truly real, you have to be able to point to it through language, but there's a catch: the very language we choose is dictated by our current theories of reality or our scientific models. For instance, is an electron as understood at the dawn of the twentieth century actually the same thing as the electron we discuss today? Are we merely applying a sort of metaphysical glue, sticking labels onto objects in reality, or are those objects simply constructs within our prevailing theory?

fadedbison17 said:I'm curious, John Doe—did we actually manage to answer your original question? And if so, what's your final take on it?

What we have here is the idea that all of this is essentially just a useful fiction, a convenient little narrative designed to make sense of our lived experiences.

James Lee77 said:Man, you are such a philosopher. 😉

So, basically, you're saying that only humans create the distinction between The Sun and the Crow.

Without us, all of it—The Sun, the crow, hydrogen, helium... it's all just one big, undifferentiated... what? A thing in itself? Matter? Objective reality?

You keep asking questions while totally ignoring the context. You want these obvious answers, but you don't want to take responsibility for the fact that *you*, being a human, are the one asking the question in the first place.

Look, I'm telling you that humans acquire knowledge about objective reality by distinguishing between objects. And those objects don't distinguish themselves—that's a human capability.
Plus, we learn letters, numbers, and all that stuff, so there's zero sense in talking about math from the perspective of The Sun and pretending you aren't human—because if you weren't human, neither numbers, nor The Sun, nor even this text would exist. Get it? You're losing the plot here...

Just accept that you learned numbers as a human and then applied them to describe things. Then you'll see how nonsensical it is to claim The Sun can count or has any kind of relationship with math.

P.S. I'm not a Kantian. Don't jump to conclusions. I'm not jumping to conclusions about you, so please don't do it to me. 😉

Here's a quote from an old post of mine about what you're getting at (the second half of your question)...

fadedbison17 said:The axioms of Axiom Objectivism are:
1) Consciousness is conscious.
Descartes argued that consciousness is axiomatic ("I think, therefore I am") because you can't logically deny your own mind while simultaneously using that mind to deny it. Still, his wording was off and his derivation of the axiom was flawed because he assumed someone could be conscious without being conscious *of* something.
Consciousness is the ability to perceive what exists.
Whether directly or indirectly, every phenomenon of consciousness is derived from someone's consciousness of the external world.
Extrospection is the process of perceiving directed outward—understanding something that exists in the outside world.
Introspection is the process of perceiving directed inward—understanding one's own psychological actions in relation to what exists in the external world, like thinking, feeling, remembering, etc.
A contentless state of consciousness is a contradiction in terms.
For consciousness to be aware, there has to be something outside of it to be aware of so it can function. Consciousness requires existence to work.
Basically, consciousness can't be conscious of itself, contrary to what Descartes suggested. To be conscious, it has to be conscious of something outside itself. Only after being aware of something external can it identify itself. It's like a car battery generating power for its own use—it needs to be triggered by something external. Consciousness needs existence.

2) Existence exists is an axiom stating that there’s actually *something* out there instead of nothing. At the core of every single thought is the observation: "I am aware of something." Just the fact that you’re aware of anything at all proves that something—in some form—exists... existence exists. And honestly, existence is everything that is. Plus, to even reach the thought "I am aware of something," you have to be conscious first (1).
Existence is axiomatic for all knowledge because you can't deny it without basically admitting it's true.
If I try to deny existence, I'm basically saying something doesn't exist. But you can't deny something unless existence is already a thing.

3) A is A: Aristotle's 'law of identity'
Everything that exists has a specific nature. Every entity—any "thing"—exists as something specific with characteristics that make it what it is. Like, "this leaf is red, dry, rough, and flammable." Or "this book is blue and has 190 pages." Or "this quarter is round, thick, smooth, and has a face on it." In all three cases, we're pointing to a specific identity. It doesn't matter which type of identity or characteristic we're talking about—their identities (leaf, book, quarter) include all those traits
Identity is just a concept describing an aspect of existence; specifically, existing as something definite with certain characteristics. An entity without an identity couldn't exist because it would be nothing. To exist means to exist as *something*, which means existing with a specific identity.

Having an identity means having one identity; an object can't have two. A tree can't be a smartphone and a dog can't be a cat. Every entity exists as something specific—its identity is set and it can't be something else. An entity can have multiple characteristics, but every single trait it has is part of its identity. A car could be red or it could be blue, but not both at once and not in the same way. Some parts of the car could be red and others blue, sure... but the whole car can't be red and blue simultaneously. Those two traits (red and blue) belong to one specific identity.

The concept of identity matters because it explicitly points out that reality has a definite (clear, precise) nature. Since reality has an identity, it's actually knowable. Since it exists in a specific way—there are no contradictions.

translated from: http://objectivism101.com/

James Lee77 said:Man, you are such a philosopher. 😉

So, basically, you're saying that only humans create the distinction between The Sun and the Crow.

Without us, all of it—The Sun, the crow, hydrogen, helium... it's all just one big, undifferentiated... what? A thing in itself? Matter? Objective reality?

Honestly, trying to defend subjectivity by using questions posed by a human being—someone who inherently experiences differences—and then labeling the result of that mental gymnastics as "objectivism" is more than just wild... it's fundamentally inconsistent. It feels like the line between "objectivity" and subjectivity always gets drawn exactly where it's most convenient for the person doing the interpreting.

The fact that there's such an obvious avoidance of answering a very straightforward question really points toward the idea that "objectivism" belongs more in the realm of spirituality than actual philosophy. If there's any kind of "golden rule" in philosophy—a reliable method for reaching a conclusion—it has to be consistency. The moment we start shifting the goalposts whenever it suits us, our "search for truth" effectively ends; all those ambiguities and debates just get swept under the rug through moving boundaries and sloppy interpretations. I'd argue that's exactly how you end up with politics masquerading as philosophy.

I might be pushing it a bit here, but I'd go as far as to say that anyone who claims they can "objectively" experience anything when faced with a direct question about objectivity is actually admitting they don't grasp the strict, abstract meaning of the word. Real objective perception can only exist when there isn't a "subject" present to perceive the surroundings in the first place. The only way we’d have an objective experience is if we were dead—whatever that implies. As long as there's a subject involved, perception is always subjective. Until we somehow develop the ability to undergo a total metamorphosis, the concept of "objective" is going to remain just as tangible and relevant as "God" or "faith."