Peikoff - Reality - The Metaphysically Given As Absolute Flashcards
(25 cards)
The Objectivist view of existence culminates in the principle that …?
NO ALTERNATIVE TO A FACT OF REALITY IS POSSIBLE OR IMAGINABLE.
==> ALL SUCH FACTS ARE NECESSARY.
“The metaphysically given is ABSOLUTE”.
By the “metaphysically given”, Ayn Rand means …?
Any fact inherent in existence apart from human (whether mental or physical)-as against “man-made facts”.
Let us focus now on the metaphysically given.
As soon as one says about any such fact:
“It is”-just that much-the whole Objectivist metaphysics is implicit.
==> If the fact is, it is what it is (law of identity).
==> It is lawful, inherent in the identities of the relevant entities (law of causality).
==> It is independent of consciousness, of anyone’s or everyone’s beliefs and feelings (the primacy of existence).
==> Such a fact HAS TO BE-NO ALTERNATIVE IS POSSIBLE.
==> If such a fact IS, then, within the relevant circumstances, it is immutable inescapable, ABSOLUTE.
***Absolute in this context means NECESSITATED by the nature of existence and, therefore, unchangeable by human (or any other) agency.
A fact is necessary IF …?
Its nonexistence would involve a contradiction.
==> Or to put the point positively: A fact that obtains “by necessity” is one that obtains “by identity”.
==> Given the nature of existence, this is the status of every (metaphysically given) fact.
==> Nothing more is required to ground necessity.
Hume and Kant searched for a perceptual manifestation labeled “necessity”, like a metaphysical glue sticking events together or holding facts in place.
Unable to find it, they proceeded to banish necessity from the world. Their search, however, was misbegotten:
“Necessity” in the present sense is not a datum over and above existents.
==> IT IS AN IDENTIFICATION OF EXISTENTS FROM A SPECIAL PERSPECTIVE.
==> “Necessary” names existents considered as governed by the law of identity.
***“To be”, accordingly, IS “to be necessary”.
The above formula does NOT apply to …?
Man-made facts.
The antonym of “necessary” is “chosen”, chosen by man.
Man-made facts, of course, also have …?
Identity.
They too have causes; and once they exist, they exist, whether or not any particular man decides to recognize them.
==> In their case, however, the ultimate cause is an act of human choice.
==> And even though the power of choice is an aspect of human identity, any choice by its nature COULD HAVE BEEN OTHERWISE.
==> No man-made fact, therefore, is necessary. NONE HAS TO BE.
The distinction between the metaphysically given and the man-made is crucial to every branch of philosophy and every area of human life.
The 2 kinds of facts must be treated differently, each in accordance with its nature:
Metaphysically given facts ARE reality.
==> As such, they are NOT subject to anyone’s appraisal.
==> They must be accepted WITHOUT EVALUATION.
==> Facts of reality must be greeted not by approval or condemnation, praise or blame, but a silent nod of acquiescence, amounting to the affirmation:
“They are, were, will be, and HAVE TO BE”.
The metaphysically given, writes Ayn Rand …?
CANNOT BE TRUE OR FALSE. IT SIMPLY IS.
==> Man determines the truth or falsehood of his judgements by whether they correspond to or contradict the facts of reality.
==> The metaphysically given cannot be right or wrong. It is the STANDARD of right or wrong, by which a (rational) man judges his goals, his values, his choices.
Man-made facts, by contrast, being products of choice, …?
MUST BE EVALUATED.
==> Since human choices can be rational or irrational, right or wrong, the man-made cannot be acquiesced in merely because it exists.
==> It cannot be given the automatic affirmation demanded by a fact of reality.
==> On the contrary, the man-made “must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary”.
To confuse the 2 kinds of facts is to court a series of disastrous errors.
- Regard the man-made as immutable and beyond challenge.
2. Regard the metaphysically given as alterable.
The first is typified by the idea that …?
“You can’t fight city hall, or tradition, or the consensus of the times-that’s reality”.
==> “Reality” is equated with any decisions men make and cling to, whether right or wrong.
==> “Realism”, accordingly, becomes a synonym for mindless conformity.
This approach leads to the …?
Sanctioning of ANY status quo, however debased, and thus turns its advocates into pawns and accessories of evil.
==> It makes sacrosanct any human conclusions, even those that contradict metaphysically given facts.
==> The essence of this so-called “realism” is the EVASION OF REALITY.
The other kind of error consists in regarding the metaphysically given as ALTERABLE:
This amounts not merely to evading reality, but to DECLARING WAR ON IT.
==> The attempt to alter the metaphysically given is described by AR as the FALLACY OF REWRITING REALITY.
==> They regard the metaphysically given facts as NON absolute and, therefore, feel free to imagine an alternative to them.
***In effect, they regard the universe as being merely a 1st DRAFT of reality, which anyone may decide at will to rewrite.
A variant of this pinning is the view that the fact of death makes life meaningless:
But if living organisms ARE mortal, then (within the relevant circumstances) they are so necessarily, by the nature of the life process.
==> To rebel against one’s eventual death is, therefore, to rebel against life-and reality.
==> It is also to ignore the fact that indestructible objects have NO NEED OF VALUES OR OF MEANING, which phenomena are possible ONLY TO MORTAL ENTITIES (see ch.7).
Another example of rewriting reality, taken from epistemology, is provided by those skeptics who condemn human knowledge as invalid because it rests on sensory data, the implication being …?
That knowledge should have depended on a “direct”, NON SENSORY illumination.
==> This amounts to the claim: “If I had created reality, I would have chosen a different cause for knowledge. Reality’s model of cognition is unacceptable to me. I prefer my own rewritten version”.
==> But if knowledge does rest on sensory data, then it does so NECESSARILY, and again no alternative can even be imagined, not if one keeps in mid the identity of all the relevant entities and processes. (Ch.2)
As with so many other errors, the historical root of the fallacy of rewriting reality lies in …?
RELIGION.
==> Specifically, in the idea that the universe was created by a supernatural omnipotence, who could have created things differently.
==> This is the kind of metaphysics that tempts men to spend their time projecting and wishing for alternatives to reality.
==> Christianity, indeed, invites such wishing, which it describes as the “virtue of hope” and the “duty of prayer”.
By the nature of existence, however, such …?
“Hope” and “prayer” are futile.
==> Leaving aside the man-made, NOTHING IS POSSIBLE EXCEPT WHAT IS ACTUAL.
==> The concept of omnipotence is LOGICALLY INCOMPATIBLE with the law of identity. It is one or the other.
Respect for reality does NOT guarantee success in every endeavor. The refusal to evade or rewrite the facts does not make one infallible or omnipotent.
But such respect is …?
The necessary condition of successful action, and it does guarantee that, if one fails in some undertaking, he will not harbor a metaphysical grudge as a result.
==> He will not blame existence for his failure.
==> The thinker who accepts the absolutism of the metaphysically given recognizes that it is HIS RESPONSIBILITY to conform to the universe, not the other way around.
If a thinker rejects the absolutism of reality, however, his mental set is REVERSED.
He expects existence to obey his wishes, and then he discovers that existence does NOT obey.
This will lead him to the idea of a FUNDAMENTAL DICHOTOMY:
He will come to view CONFLICT WITH REALITY AS BEING THE ESSENCE OF HUMAN LIFE.
==> He will feel that clash or warfare between the self and the external world is not a senseless torture caused by an aberration, BUT THE METAPHYSICAL RULE.
==> On one side of the clash, he will feel, are the desires and fantasies he seeks to elevate above existence.
==> On the other, the “brute” facts inexplicably impervious to them.
The classic statement of this philosophy is given by Plato. In the Timaeus, discussing the formation of the physical world, Plato recounts the myth of the demiurge:
Matter, we are told, was originally unformed and chaotic; a godlike soul enters and tries to shape the chaos into a realm of perfect beauty.
==> The demiurge, however, fails. Matter proves to be RECALCITRANT. It takes the imprint of beauty only so far and thereafter resists all efforts to perfect it.
==> Hence, Plato concludes, matter is a principle of imperfection, inherently in conflict with the highest ideals of the spirit.
==> In a perfect universe, matter SHOULD obey consciousness without reservation.
==> Since it does not, the universe-not any man-made group or institution, but the physical universe itself-IS FLAWED.
***It is a PERPETUAL BATTLEGROUND BETWEEN THE NOBLE vs THE ACTUAL.
What the Timaeus actually presents, in mythological form, is …?
The conflict between EXISTENCE and A MIND THAT TRIES TO REWRITE I, BUT CANNOT.
==> In effect, the myth’s meaning is the self-declared failure of the primacy of consciousness.
==> The same failure is inherent in any version of Plato’s creed.
==> Whenever men expect reality to conform to their wish simply because it is their wish, they are doomed to metaphysical disappointment.
==> This leads them to the DICHOTOMY: my dream vs the actual which thwarts it. The inner vs the outer. Value vs fact. The moral vs the practical.
==> The SPIRITUAL REALM vs THE MATERIAL REALM.
The theory of a mind-body conflict, which has corrupted every branch and issue of philosophy, does have its root in a real conflict, but of a special kind:
Its root is a BREACH between some men’s consciousness and existence.
==> In this sense, the basis of the theory is not reality, BUT A HUMAN ERROR.
==> The error of turning away from reality, of refusing to accept the absolutism of the metaphysically given.
The man who follows and understands the opposite policy comes to the opposite conclusion:
He dismisses out-of-hand the idea of a metaphysical dichotomy.
==> A faculty of perception, he knows, cannot be an adversary of the world or the body. It has no weapons with which to wage any such war.
==> It has no function EXCEPT TO PERCEIVE.
