Lecture 4: Objective reality

In this 30-minute presentation, philosopher and author David Kelley covers the essentials of the Objectivist view of metaphysical objectivity: the axiomatic concepts of existence, identity, causality, and consciousness, and their implication: the primacy of existence.

This is Lecture 4 in the course "Reason." The 10-part video lecture series by David Kelley and William R Thomas presents the essentials of the Objectivist view of knowledge. It explains why reason is an absolute; why emotions are not tools of cognition, despite their psychological importance; and why mysticism is a cognitive dead-end. It presents Ayn Rand's innovative theory of concepts and objectivity, including the role of sense-perception, logic, and axioms, as well as the nature of certainty. The course shows why a rational approach to life is a vital human need.

While the lectures form a natural sequence as a whole, they are sufficiently independent that you can profitably view individual lectures as you choose.

ABOUT DAVID KELLEY:
David Kelley earned his Ph.D. in philosophy from Princeton University in 1975, and later taught cognitive science and philosophy at Vassar College and Brandeis University. His articles on social issues and public policy have appeared in Harper's, The Sciences, Reason, Harvard Business Review, The Freeman, and elsewhere. His books include Unrugged Individualism: The Selfish Basis of Benevolence; The Contested Legacy of Ayn Rand; The Evidence of the Senses; and The Art of Reasoning, one of the most widely used logic textbooks in the country. Kelley is founder and chief intellectual officer of The Atlas Society.

[lucbedard]

This is the first time i heard this, i learned a lot in just 8 min 23 sec

[sisyphusunboundatlaslaughe]

I am not subject to somethings solipsism!
The world existed before me!
There is existence besides me alone!
There is external substance!
Things will exist after my existence!
I can sense what is apart from me!
People can sense my existence apart from themselves!
The world itself relies on nothing for it's existence!
The world appears to others when I'm absent!
Without material substance there is nothing!
I am objectively particular!
Things and knowledge can be known and grasped in the known universe regardless of a solipsistic observer!
I am not a subject but a particular individual!

[jorgefigueroa]

Amazing lecture, great insights, simple and clear way to deliver the subject.

[michaelsherwin]

lol, this is so good, never found a video like that

[minimaxima]

If conscıousness was prımary, and you were sharıng a room wıth someone and they fell ınto a state of non-REM sleep and therefore rendered themselves unconscıous, accordıng to the ıdea of the prımacy of conscıousness you, the observer of the sleeper would cease to exıst, but you do not cease to exıst.

[InTheHouseNasrul]

Amazing... best presentation about objective reality..

[paulhurren]

An excellent lecture. And refreshingly grounded.

[dc]

Very clear and concise. I cringe a bit when Ayn Rand is referenced, but on this point at least she got it right. Thanks for this video.

[TheMandomaniac]

The point here is that, given the primacy of existence, in a sense, every *distinct* thing that we see is, most fundamentally, an aspect of existence. Equivalently we could say that every *thing* is an aspect of the universe, or an aspect of reality. The differentiation of the tree from the reality from which it emerges is a *useful*, but not Absolutely Factual designation made by the human mind in order to more easily navigate the world.
So, rather than identity being a fact of an object, I see more utility and versatility in the notion that reality may appear to us in forms that appear to be different from each other in their characteristics, but that are all simply aspects of the whole (we could refer to the whole as “Objective Reality”).
Zizek has an interesting lecture on this (The Parallax of Ontology: Reality and its Transcendental Supplement) which I think expresses this idea quite well. I’ll paraphrase a bit – the category “Absolute Truth” (or “Objective Reality”) references something that is total, and thus any attempt to pin it down into a single category is reductive. That does not make it “invalid, ” but rather we are doing our due diligence in acknowledging that a reference to a thing is not the thing itself. The reference is a tool we use to navigate the temporal & impermanent nature of *our* existence, whereas the existence of existence itself must be perpetual & permanent.
This video touches briefly on Kant’s notion of the material world that exists independently of our understanding, or what Kant would call the “noumenal realm.” What is interesting about this noumenal realm is that we have the capacity to reference it, and thus, a facet of the noumenal realm’s existence is that it is tethered to the subjective realm (the primacy of existence even implies
that the subjective realm’s existence is contingent upon the noumenal realm’s existence). By “tethered, ” I mean that we have the capacity to reference and refer to it, and because it can be referenced, it is in some sense a part of our existence (I would posit that anything that can be referenced is a part of our existence, because a category can be constructed from that reference or designation).

I hope this is somewhat clear. I am curious if anyone else here sees this issue with the axiom of identity specifically.

[deathsoulger]

how do people create math before it is observed in nature if consciousness is dependant on observation?
in other words how can they prove new forms of mathematics, and to think of new maths does the math need to represent something,
Is maths reason, or is maths a tool of reason?

[MrDarkLord]

Are there links to the rest? I am a self studied Objectivist who needs as must firepower as possible in this world.

[brinham]

Well worth waiting for. Bravo to another brilliant lecture.

[SageAndOnions]

This in not the whole story of the metaphysics of reality - go read some Heidegger before making up your mind. The mind/ reality dualism is not even relevant in Heidegger.

[SageAndOnions]

Seriously, this is analytic philosophy - a.k.a. not philosophy. Go learn about European thinkers (excluding UK) about what philosophy is.

[Jan_von_Gratschoff]

Right, this kind of shit would have value if it did have value. And it doesn't, because philosophy is a joke from the bronze age still inflicting academia today.

[lesseridiot]

i recognize that im a bit late but there is an assumption here that is troubling that is why cant a consciousness be conscious of another conscious? this would make the entirety of reality based on the combined agreement between conscious entities and allow for potential action outside of such agreements which seems to be more inline with my minimal understanding of quantum mechanics despite the fact that quantum mechanics is not bound by logic (hence superposition). this doesn't seem inherently wrong and seems to mitigate the flaws in both schools of thought.

[tristants]

20:26 That is exactly what Hume said - how do you know there won't be any change of nature or the 'laws of nature'?
So how can you say Hume was wrong?

[mika]

As quantum physics have demonstrated. Objective reality is not as rigid as it may appear. The every day laws of physics only appear real, due to the mind/brain's (software/hardware) limited ability to process information needed to overcome those same laws.

Technology and philosophy are entwined and feed off one another. One without the other is unsustainable.

[charlesfraunhofer]

The more real it is, the more physical, even objective it is, the more the truth hurts! Subjective "truth" isn't so painful, my father can't handle real reality which contradicts God, real truth, that is, objectivity, is painful to most people. Therefore objectivity is simple: it strips away all assumptions in the mind, I don't think objectivity is defined as outside of your perception, I can't accept this, objective means "of reality and observable and verifiable", I know my own mind, but it's matter that's all that exists, even the atoms in your mind. The mind is conscious, it's aware not of reality but what it thinks. I can't accept a fraudulent concept of reality by an objective philosopher who has no proof of reality, science is there for a reason you fool! It's empirical, so reality can't be accepted without empirical evidence and logic.

[SageAndOnions]

How do you know anything 'exists out there' if you have never experienced anything independent of your experience of it? The bias of being a human is inescapable. Have you ever experienced anything without experiencing it? You should answer yes if you believe in this ridiculous idea of 'objectivity'.