I found this the most difficult one, so far, of this series. I mean trying to track the progression of thought here has taken me days and it's still so foggy, hopefully by Kant things will "clear" up. I'm really enjoying chewing this course, and my thanks to ARI for offering it for free I've wanted to hear it for some time.
So far this lecture took me the longest to get through because I had to keep stopping it to wrestle with the concepts, very fundamental, like deep roots that need to be explored. Very rewarding though, and to think I didn't have to pay a dime for it.
Despite the fact that it is nonsense, let's suppose that we can't be sure if we are dreaming or not. What practically does it change, and why can't we apply the standard reasoning methods to whatever state of presence in which we are? The fact that I can't be sure that I am not dreaming leads to the simple conclusion - I can't be sure that I am as well. So it would be irrational to behave like you have stuck in a dream having at least one chance of a million that you haven't. Therefore, no matter of a potential state of presence, you have always try to live and do your best.
@@cas343 no, Kant says an absolutely different thing. He says: we CAN'T know TRUE REALITY; I say that it doesn't matter if we sleep or not - we still study and follow the objective reality around us.
@@TyyylerDurden Saying you don't know if you're dreaming or not is logically identical to saying you don't know true reality. This is phenomenalism by a different name.
@@cas343I am not the one saying this - it is obvious nonsense for me. I merely offer what we can answer to the lunatics who stuck with this "theory", because they can argue without the end - every argument would be countered with "how are you sure that we are not dreaming?!".
@@TyyylerDurden You answer how piekoff did: Existence exists. A is A. Piekoff committed the last few sections of this series to answer these dumb objections. You can also read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for an advanced treatment. Lastly you're under no obligation to respond to irrational people. And definitely not with the kantian/pragmatic response you gave.
One doesn't define reality. It is an axiomatic concept: ¶ Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason. ¶ An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest. ¶ aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html
@@zardozcys2912 ... "a primary fact of reality." Oh really? I think a guy like Einstein, or perhaps a Socrates would just shake their heads at your oh-so-sure starting definitional points.
@@garythomas4936 then they would be absurd and arbitrary.... where else is there to start except by saying there is something of which i am aware that exist/
I found this the most difficult one, so far, of this series. I mean trying to track the progression of thought here has taken me days and it's still so foggy, hopefully by Kant things will "clear" up.
I'm really enjoying chewing this course, and my thanks to ARI for offering it for free I've wanted to hear it for some time.
Thank you, this was very useful to understand the thoughts of Descartes.
So far this lecture took me the longest to get through because I had to keep stopping it to wrestle with the concepts, very fundamental, like deep roots that need to be explored. Very rewarding though, and to think I didn't have to pay a dime for it.
you are paying with your time and atteniton.
Great .Thanks for these videos ..I am following complete series ..few more to go
Wow, it’s very depressing that our world was built on such shoddy philosophy.
Despite the fact that it is nonsense, let's suppose that we can't be sure if we are dreaming or not. What practically does it change, and why can't we apply the standard reasoning methods to whatever state of presence in which we are? The fact that I can't be sure that I am not dreaming leads to the simple conclusion - I can't be sure that I am as well. So it would be irrational to behave like you have stuck in a dream having at least one chance of a million that you haven't. Therefore, no matter of a potential state of presence, you have always try to live and do your best.
That's exactly what Kant said. The remaining lectures will explain what a life-threatening error that is.
@@cas343 no, Kant says an absolutely different thing. He says: we CAN'T know TRUE REALITY; I say that it doesn't matter if we sleep or not - we still study and follow the objective reality around us.
@@TyyylerDurden Saying you don't know if you're dreaming or not is logically identical to saying you don't know true reality. This is phenomenalism by a different name.
@@cas343I am not the one saying this - it is obvious nonsense for me. I merely offer what we can answer to the lunatics who stuck with this "theory", because they can argue without the end - every argument would be countered with "how are you sure that we are not dreaming?!".
@@TyyylerDurden You answer how piekoff did: Existence exists. A is A.
Piekoff committed the last few sections of this series to answer these dumb objections.
You can also read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology for an advanced treatment.
Lastly you're under no obligation to respond to irrational people. And definitely not with the kantian/pragmatic response you gave.
This was not an objective approach to Descartes' philosophy but within a certain ideology. Thanks,
Renault the Cart
Really feels like Descartes just got tired half way through his system and said fuk it: God is how we know Lol
This guy doesn't attempt to define reality. That is problematic in this discussion.
One doesn't define reality. It is an axiomatic concept:
¶
Reality is that which exists; the unreal does not exist; the unreal is merely that negation of existence which is the content of a human consciousness when it attempts to abandon reason.
¶
An axiomatic concept is the identification of a primary fact of reality, which cannot be analyzed, i.e., reduced to other facts or broken into component parts. It is implicit in all facts and in all knowledge. It is the fundamentally given and directly perceived or experienced, which requires no proof or explanation, but on which all proofs and explanations rest.
¶
aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html
@@zardozcys2912 ... "a primary fact of reality." Oh really? I think a guy like Einstein, or perhaps a Socrates would just shake their heads at your oh-so-sure starting definitional points.
@@garythomas4936 then they would be absurd and arbitrary.... where else is there to start except by saying there is something of which i am aware that exist/
@@garythomas4936 that which there is