The is another route into this. Popper once described three worlds, an idea we can track back to Averoes and no doubt earlier religious thinking. His world 3 was objective or eternal - 'stuff' we worked on and found always to be the case. This from Wiki: Worlds 1, 2 and 3
Popperian cosmology splits the universe into three interacting sub- universes: World 1: the world of physical objects and events, including biological entities World 2: the world of mental objects and events World 3: the world of the products of the human mind The main argument for the existence of World 2 and World 3 is the direct or indirect causation on World 1. [edit]The interaction of World 1 and World 2 The theory of interaction between World 1 and World 2 is an alternative theory to Cartesian dualism. Cartesian dualism is based on the theory that the universe is composed of two essential substances: Res Cogitans and Res Extensa. Popperian cosmology rejects this essentialism, but maintains the common sense view that physical and mental states exist, and they interact. The interaction of World 1 and World 2 is also an alternative to epiphenomenalism, where World 2 objects and events are real but do not have any causal action on World 1. Popperian cosmology rejects this for the reason that "downward causation" is not impossible. [edit]World 3 Popperian cosmology claims the existence of a third world called World 3, which contains the products of the human mind. World 3 contains abstract objects such as scientific theories, stories, myths, tools, social institutions, and works of art. Karl Popper's theory of objective knowledge belongs to World 3. Scientific theories are formed in World 3, which enable them to be criticised and to be potentially falsified. [edit]The interaction of World 2 and World 3 The interaction of World 2 and World 3 is based on the theory that World 3 is partially autonomous. For example, the development of scientific theories in World 3 leads to unintended consequences, in that problems and contradictions are discovered by World 2. Another example is that the process of learning causes World 3 to change World 2. [edit]The interaction of World 1 and World 3 Contained in World 3 are also things as feats of engineering and art. The World 3 objects, although extant in World 1, are embodied and given extra meaning by World 3. For example, the intrinsic value of Hamlet as a World 3 object has many embodiments in World 1, the physical world. This idea would be something along the lines of a meta- object, or a form of a being. Hamlet, to certain minds at certain time, may be considered 'dog excrement' or 'fine literature'. I never liked the play, but would consider 'The Wire' an excellent example of fine literature acting as metaphor for what is really going on in the world. Others might consider it crude and opportunistic. I would generally say that we don't go about falsifying or substantiating our world 3 objects sufficiently. On 15 Sep, 09:49, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote: > Heh sorry Slip I'll try to play nice huh. > > Yes a fact is a fact and that is a fact! > > Although I think you would be hard pressed to find a true objective > (science not-withstanding) fact, your dog food example, for umm > example. > > Dog food is only for dogs because that is what we subjectivly use it > for. A fact is that most food can be eaten by most animals, including > ourselfs. > > I guess what I'm trying to show is that this: > > 'Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be, so we > should work from there.' > > Is not objectivly true. Of course facts can be subject to > subjectivity. If the meaning of the word 'fact' is a play on the word > 'truth' then any fact that is not scientific in nature can be > subjectivly true. > > It is an objective fact that I am 5 foot 6 inches tall, except of > coure if you measure me in meters. > > It is a subjective fact that a Socialist goverment is better for the > whole of sociaty than a Conservitive goverment. > > Philosophy, politics and religon are all subject to relative > arguments, each person will take a stance and claim it as truth. I > claim that Rands philosophy does not work in the real word, my > evidance is purly subjective and bassed upon my own interactions with > follows of Rand, but I can certianly say that my claim is fact, as > Rand can claim that: > > 'Every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose of > his life.' > > Is also a fact. The true fact is that both of us have uttered what is > no more than opinion. > > Unless of course you can objectivly show me why the above is fact? > > On 14 Sep, 19:09, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Come'on mon, stop jerkin me chain. > > > I changed it to "Product", not any specific product that you can turn > > into argumentative matter, but point is subjectivity does not change > > fact. > > It's "NOT" about any car lee, nor about debating a product's value. > > > FACT: Dog food is for dogs. > > Billy Bob: "I think dog food tastes good" > > Sally: "I mix dog food with my Ramen". > > Lee: "Dog food has real food in it" > > SO which is it? > > Fact A: Dog food is not dog food because "some" people like to eat it. > > OR > > Fact B: Dog food is still dog food even though some people like to eat > > it. Dog food is for dogs. > > > I go with Fact B. > > > On Sep 14, 7:41 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > wrote: > > > > Well I'll take that as a compliment Slip, cheers mate. > > > > Your reply to my first post was though full of subjectivity. You did > > > not mention any particular car, so without the full information I > > > could only assume you meant all cars, or cars in general. The fact is > > > that some cars are better built than most, yes some are junk some are > > > not. > > > > So when you say 'the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk', well I see > > > no fact there at all merely opinion, and thus my response. If you had > > > made your analogy clearer, then my response would have been differant, > > > or I may have even agreed with you. > > > > Yes I have agreed that I can see some validty in the quote of Rands > > > that you provided, my main thrust is that in my experiance the > > > philosphy of Rand simply does not work in the real word. > > > > I wonder now would you see such a statment as objective fact or > > > subjective opinion? > > > > On 14 Sep, 12:34, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Facts are facts but coloured by our subjective understanding>>Lee > > > > > You can color facts all you want but "fact" remains unchanged. > > > > > I think you have a tendency to get a bit microscopic in your analysis, > > > > not to mention that you are not addressing the point made but > > > > emphasizing subjectivity. It's not about cars! > > > > The "fact of subjectivity" does not alter the "fact". > > > > If a product is junk, the fact that people may perceive it to be other > > > > does not change the fact that the product is junk. > > > > > Rand can be chilly but not totally without validity in regards to > > > > alternative thinking. It's not about the differences in people. > > > > > On Sep 14, 3:56 am, "[email protected]" <[email protected]> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > Hey Slip. > > > > > > Umm much to say on this. > > > > > > Facts are facts but coloured by our subjective understanding. A car > > > > > to you may be a piece of junk, but to others represents freedom of > > > > > movment as well as being a marvel of engineering, these are both facts > > > > > also. However they seem to go against what you claim is the fact of > > > > > the matter re: cars. > > > > > > So which facts are objectivly correct? > > > > > > This: > > > > > > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of others. > > > > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to others > > > > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > > > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose > > > > > of > > > > > his life." > > > > > > On the surface does look like good advice and I do see some merit in > > > > > it, yet it still ignores the differances in people, and it reminds me > > > > > a ot of certain Church of Satan creeds, again I also have known many > > > > > such Satanists and I can say without fear of contridiction that such a > > > > > philosophy when put into practice makes for a cold human being. > > > > > > No I'm much more comfatable with the philosophy 'be the person you > > > > > wish to be'. If that is to be selfish then that is at least your > > > > > choice, and if that is to be alturisitic again that is personal > > > > > choice. > > > > > The highest moral porpouse then must be live your life how you will, > > > > > in accordance with the law of the land. > > > > > > I am not a fan of soldiers on the whole, our(the UK) armed forces > > > > > takes in children and passes out wankers, of course though I see the > > > > > need and I don't blame the individual squaddies for the lack of care > > > > > that our goverement gives them. Would you say that to be a soldier is > > > > > in keeping with Randian thought? Or that it is more self sacrificial > > > > > in nature? > > > > > > I would argue the latter. So you see the word Randriod is very apt, > > > > > no it would bloody awful if we all thought like that, viva la > > > > > differance! > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 08:25, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > > > Thanks for the link Molly; > > > > > > Lee, > > > > > > It's really just a ground level platform on which to expand. Rand > > > > > > simply pulls down the curtain and begins to unravel this tangled > > > > > > world. Facts 'are' facts regardless of what we perceive them to be, > > > > > > so we should work from there. It's like watching automobile > > > > > > commercials on television, the fact 'is' the car is a piece of junk > > > > > > but we perceive it to be a fascinating machine because we are not > > > > > > dealing on the level that Rand suggests. You can altruistically > > > > > > give > > > > > > a bag lady a million dollars but most likely down the road you will > > > > > > still have a bag lady. This is not to say that we should try in > > > > > > some > > > > > > way to help but we need to recognize it is our 'self' that takes > > > > > > precedence over the other. Rand states: > > > > > > "every man—is an end in himself, not the means to the ends of > > > > > > others. > > > > > > He must exist for his own sake, neither sacrificing himself to > > > > > > others > > > > > > nor sacrificing others to himself. The pursuit of his own rational > > > > > > self-interest and of his own happiness is the highest moral purpose > > > > > > of > > > > > > his life." > > > > > > It is from that 'core' belief that we can then extend our hand, that > > > > > > is why you are a benefit to your family. Your family is part of > > > > > > your > > > > > > own rational self interest. It wouldn't do your family much good if > > > > > > you put all your resources into some altruistic cause. Even if you > > > > > > were wealthy it would only prove that you were able to provide in > > > > > > excess of your self interest and happiness. > > > > > > > On Sep 9, 6:29 am, "[email protected]" > > > > > > <[email protected]> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > We should all know by know my own feelings on the philosphy of > > > > > > > Rand. > > > > > > > There is much that I disagree with yet some that I agree with. > > > > > > > > Rands achieving our own happiness as the highest moral purpose, > > > > > > > can > > > > > > > readily fit alongside my own, 'right to be'. But this idea that > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > all should rely on our own (absolute) reason, negects some > > > > > > > inherent > > > > > > > parts of our 'nature'. > > > > > > > > We are not purely reasonable creatures, and some of us seem to > > > > > > > live a > > > > > > > life without any form or reason at all. It is admiral that we > > > > > > > seek to > > > > > > > better ourselves, yet not all of us do, it is admiral that we > > > > > > > seek a > > > > > > > morality with which to better ourselvs, yet some are bound to > > > > > > > disagree > > > > > > > on what that morality should be. > > > > > > > > All in all I think that any philosophy NOT grounded in the > > > > > > > reality of > > > > > > > the situation is bound to fail. Rand discounts that most of us > > > > > > > work > > > > > > > on multilevels, some of our decistions and actions stem from > > > > > > > emotion, > > > > > > > some of our belifes are unreasonable. To suggest that doing so is > > > > > > > unethical ignores the way we work, indeed as I have said to > > > > > > > Chris, I > > > > > > > have met enough followers of Rand's philosophy to make up my mind > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > how such philosophy actualy works in the real world and what it > > > > > > > does > > > > > > > to people. They are on the whole, cold, selfish, unemotional > > > > > > > people, > > > > > > > yes of course this is merely my > > ... > > read more » --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/minds-eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
