"Fact and Value"

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

I would like to open this topic for questions or comments about Leonard Peikoff's article, "Fact and Value." (It is available on The Ayn Rand Institute website here.)

I have not mastered the article, which is written to a more knowledgeable audience than is common for most of Ayn Rand's and Leonard Peikoff's essays. I welcome a chance to think more about it and to discuss it.

Dr. Peikoff's article, "Fact and Value" (originally published in The Intellectual Activist and now also available at the Ayn Rand Institute website), discusses this issue.

←

That was a point that I disagreed with.

←

With what point do you disagree?

[Paul's Here 0]

[The quotes are not working and I cant figure out how to correct it, so I've had to eliminate Burgesses comments]

Reply To Burgess:

It will take me a few days to address this. I will have to reread the article again. Also, you asked a whole slew of questions of me in another tread and I have yet to get back to you that.

Please be patient. I have Friday off work and should be able to get to this by then.

Perhaps to get you started thinking, I don't understand how every fact implies a value. Where is that issue addressed in anything Miss Rand wrote? The only principle that I can recall is the brief discussion concerning the relationship between the "is-ought" principle in The Objectivist Ethics. If this is where you believe Dr. Peikoff gets his principle (or if it's another source, please cite it), could you give some examples and reasoning involved.

[Elizabeth 0]

I would like to open this topic for questions or comments about Leonard Peikoff's article, "Fact and Value." (It is available on The Ayn Rand Institute website here.)

Mr. Laughlin, thank you very much for sharing a link to this article!

I find it extremely valuable at this point in my life, and have printed it to review again and share with my husband.

On page 6, under the bolded words “Even in Regard”, 5 paragraphs down, beginning with the words “There is only one basic issue in philosophy and in all judgment …”, I find very profound, precise and logical. I would not know how to find such wording to describe what I believe to be true when attempting to discuss Objectivism with others who are not familiar with the philosophy.

The article also explains (enough for me) differences with Kelley and Branden. Prior to reading this I was under the impression there were some who “believe” in a watered down version of the Objectivist philosophy, but not aware of the particulars.

[AisA 0]

Perhaps to get you started thinking, I don't understand how every fact implies a value. 

←

Forgive me for responding to a question directed to Burgess, but I don't think the article says that every fact implies a value. What it says is that every fact demands an evaluation, i.e. a value-judgment to assess the fact's implications for one's self-preservation.

[Betsy Speicher 0]

Forgive me for responding to a question directed to Burgess, but I don't think the article says that every fact implies a value.  What it says is that every fact demands an evaluation, i.e. a value-judgment to assess the fact's implications for one's self-preservation.

←

I agree. Right after "What is it?" comes "What's it to me?"

Many times, the answer is "Not much, one way or another," because the fact has no impact on one's life, but that is an evaluation too.

[Paul's Here 0]

Forgive me for responding to a question directed to Burgess, but I don't think the article says that every fact implies a value.  What it says is that every fact demands an evaluation, i.e. a value-judgment to assess the fact's implications for one's self-preservation.

←

Please quote that from the source. I don't read it that way.

Below also addresses Burgess' questions.

From F&V:

"[V]alues are a type of facts; they are facts considered in relation to the choice to live." Followed by "In the objective approach, since every fact bears on the choice to live..." Then, "metaphysically given facts ... cannot as such be evaluated." And "every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or indirectly, an implication for man's self-preservation and thus for his proper course of action." Then there is a switch, "sunlight is a fact of metaphysical reality; but once its effects are discovered by man and integrated to his goals, a long series of evaluations follows..." Apparently, it is not the facts that bear on the choice to live, but the effects and the evaluation of those effects.

Which is it? Values are types of facts, or all facts affect values, or some facts affect values? Please show me where Miss Rand made such implications in any of her writings.

In The Objectivist Ethics Rand formulates the "is-ought" idea in context of showing how the fact of life is the foundation for the concept value, thus tying values to facts. She did not tie facts to values. "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." Where is the implication "the fact that there are nine planets orbiting the sun determine what I ought to do?" How does that fact have any effect on my self-reservation? There are many facts out there that are yet to be discovered. Do they all have a bearing on my choice to live?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

It will take me a few days to address this.

←

Part of the beauty of philosophical discussion is that the issues never go away. So, there is no rush -- for anyone in this topic.

Where is that issue addressed in anything Miss Rand wrote?

At this point, perhaps we should distinguish various issues:

1. What are Leonard Peikoff's views on the relation of facts and values, as he has stated those views in his article, "Fact and Value"?

2. What are Ayn Rand's published views, if any, on the same issue?

3. What is the relationship between Leonard Peikoff's published views and Ayn Rand's published views on this issue?

4. What is the correct position on the issue?

My own interest, in starting this thread, is mainly issue no. 1, but that, of course, is an initial means to an end (issue no. 4).

If this is where you believe Dr. Peikoff gets his principle [...]

Until I know otherwise, I assume that Dr. Peikoff holds his position, philosophically, because he concludes that it is objective. What, if anything, in Ayn Rand's writings -- or her private discussions with Dr. Peikoff -- stimulated his thinking and focused his observations, I can't address, because I don't know. Besides, that your question is an historical question, not a philosophical question.

[khaight 0]

I'll take a whack at three questions:

1) In what way is the metaphysically-given evaluated differently from the man-made, and why?

The notion that metaphysically-given facts cannot as such be evaluated is discussed in Rand's article "The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made", in Philosophy: Who Needs It. She writes: "It is the metaphysically given that must be accepted: it cannot be changed. It is the man-made that must never be accepted uncritically: it must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary... The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is -- and 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. The metaphysically given is, was, will be, and had to be. Nothing made by man had to be: it was made by choice." A bit later, she defines the metaphysically given as "any event which occurs without human participation" and the man-made as "any phenemenon involving human action".

Rand is drawing a distinction between those aspects of reality which are the way they are independent of human choices, and those aspects of reality which are the way they are as a consequence of human choices. Evaluation of the former rests solely on the consequences of those aspects of reality on human life; evaluation of the latter includes an additional element -- the evaluation of the choices which led to those aspects of reality being the way they are. I think that covers the question of why metaphysically given facts cannot as such be evaluated, but their consequences can. There is no alternative, no choice, in how a metaphysically given fact came to be... but there is a choice in how men respond to the implications of metaphysically given facts.

2) Are values a kind of fact?

In her essay "What Is Capitalism?" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand writes that "The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man..." (Peikoff's statement in "Fact and Value" that values are "facts considered in relation to the choice to live" is a close restatement of Rand's point here.) When we say that something is a value, we are making a factual claim about the relationship between that thing and the requirements of human life. That food is a value simply means that food contributes to human life, and food's contribution to human life is a fact. Values, therefore, are a type of fact.

3) Do facts imply values?

I don't have a ready quote from Rand on this question yet, but I think the basic answer is clear. Whether the pursuit of a particular goal contributes to or detracts from one's life obviously depends on what the facts are. You ask how "the fact that there are nine planets orbiting the sun" determines what you ought to do. The connection between facts and your choice of actions clearly depends on what the fact is and what action you are considering taking. If I am considering whether to cross a street, the fact that there is a truck heading my way means I should wait. It doesn't mean that to you because you're not there. It is not the case that every fact has an equal implication for every person at all times. The action implication of most facts at any given moment is "ignore them, they're not relevant right now".

If you are a mission planner at NASA plotting the path of the Voyager II space probe, however, the fact that there are nine planets orbiting the sun has major implications for what actions you should take. If you were to ignore such a fact, the space probe could be pulled off-course by the gravity of the planets you ignored, causing the mission to fail and you to lose your job.

Conversely, even if your sphere of operations is more terrestrial, that still has implications for your actions -- you should not spend time thinking about the makeup of the solar system to the exclusion of considering facts with a more immediate relationship to your situation. (The old story of the philosopher Thales being so caught up in contemplating the sky that he fell into a hole in the ground comes to mind here.)

I think Betsy Speicher put the point well. Every identification that some given fact is should lead immediately to the question "and what does that mean for me?" Even the answer "nothing" is an evaluation, and carries with it implications for how you should act -- specifically that you should not act as though the fact has meaning for you.

[khaight 0]

Oh, one other thing. AisA wrote that he doesn't think the article says that "every fact implies a value. What it says is that every fact demands an evaluation, i.e. a value-judgment to assess the fact's implications for one's self-preservation." You wanted some textual citations from "Fact and Value" to back up that interpretation. Here are some:

"In the objective approach, since every fact bears on the choice to live, every truth necessarily entails a value-judgment... if one chooses to live and to be objective, a process of evaluation is coextensive with and implicit in every act of cognition."

"Justice is an aspect of the principle that cognition demands evaluation; it is that principle applied to human choices and their products."

"Justice -- being an aspect of the principle that every cognition demands an evaluation -- requires moral judgment of men and their works across-the-board, with no areas of life excepted or exempted."

Peikoff's example of a boss responding to an idea from an employee to improve the operation of his business illustrates the point as well. The identification of a fact (that a certain change would make the business more profitable) is shown to carry with it an evaluation (that the identification is good, contributes to human well-being, and should be adopted). Rand's statement in "The Objectivist Ethics" was "to a living consciousness, every 'is' implies an 'ought'." Peikoff's summary of the employee example ties back to Rand's point: "That 'good' is the evaluation or the 'ought'; it represents the practice of justice and the tie to life.

[Paul's Here 0]

Part of the beauty of philosophical discussion is that the issues never go away. So, there is no rush -- for anyone in this topic.

At this point, perhaps we should distinguish various issues:

1. What are Leonard Peikoff's views on the relation of facts and values, as he has stated those views in his article, "Fact and Value"?

2. What are Ayn Rand's published views, if any, on the same issue?

3. What is the relationship between Leonard Peikoff's published views and Ayn Rand's published views on this issue?

4. What is the correct position on the issue?

My own interest, in starting this thread, is mainly issue no. 1, but that, of course, is an initial means to an end (issue no. 4).

Until I know otherwise, I assume that Dr. Peikoff holds his position, philosophically, because he concludes that it is objective. What, if anything, in Ayn Rand's writings -- or her private discussions with Dr. Peikoff -- stimulated his thinking and focused his observations, I can't address, because I don't know. Besides, that your question is an historical question, not a philosophical question.

←

As far as No. 1 is concerned, all one has to do is read the article. I'm not aware of this issue being addressed anywhere else. For No. 2, I don't know of any, except as I've stated above (at least my understanding of the issue as formulated by No. 1). For No. 3, answer follows from No. 1 and No. 2. Per No. 4, as I've previously addressed in above posts, I don't think it is correct, unless you can point me in the right direction.

[Paul's Here 0]

I'll take a whack at three questions:

1) In what way is the metaphysically-given evaluated differently from the man-made, and why?

The notion that metaphysically-given facts cannot as such be evaluated is discussed in Rand's article "The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made", in Philosophy: Who Needs It.  She writes: "It is the metaphysically given that must be accepted: it cannot be changed.  It is the man-made that must never be accepted uncritically: it must be judged, then accepted or rejected and changed when necessary...  The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is -- and 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.  The metaphysically given is, was, will be, and had to be.  Nothing made by man had to be: it was made by choice."  A bit later, she defines the metaphysically given as "any event which occurs without human participation" and the man-made as "any phenemenon involving human action".

Rand is drawing a distinction between those aspects of reality which are the way they are independent of human choices, and those aspects of reality which are the way they are as a consequence of human choices.  Evaluation of the former rests solely on the consequences of those aspects of reality on human life; evaluation of the latter includes an additional element -- the evaluation of the choices which led to those aspects of reality being the way they are.  I think that covers the question of why metaphysically given facts cannot as such be evaluated, but their consequences can.  There is no alternative, no choice, in how a metaphysically given fact came to be... but there is a choice in how men respond to the implications of metaphysically given facts.

2) Are values a kind of fact?

In her essay "What Is Capitalism?" in Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, Rand writes that "The objective theory holds that the good is an aspect of reality in relation to man..."  (Peikoff's statement in "Fact and Value" that values are "facts considered in relation to the choice to live" is a close restatement of Rand's point here.)  When we say that something is a value, we are making a factual claim about the relationship between that thing and the requirements of human life.  That food is a value simply means that food contributes to human life, and food's contribution to human life is a fact.  Values, therefore, are a type of fact.

I completely agree. But then, what do you make of the statement in F&V: "Metaphysically given facts ... cannot as such be evaluated." "This does not, however, alter the principle that every 'is' implies an 'ought.' " "The reason is that every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or indirectly, an implication for man's self-preservation and thus for his proper course of action." [My emphasis] As I understand this, not only are values types of facts, but facts are types of values. I do not agree with that fairly clear implication. Am I wrong in my interpretation here?

3) Do facts imply values?

I don't have a ready quote from Rand on this question yet, but I think the basic answer is clear.  Whether the pursuit of a particular goal contributes to or detracts from one's life obviously depends on what the facts are.  You ask how "the fact that there are nine planets orbiting the sun" determines what you ought to do.  The  connection between facts and your choice of actions clearly depends on what the fact is and what action you are considering taking.  If I am considering whether to cross a street, the fact that there is a truck heading my way means I should wait.  It doesn't mean that to you because you're not there.  It is not the case that every fact has an equal implication for every person at all times.  The action implication of most facts at any given moment is "ignore them, they're not relevant right now".

It is not the fact of "truck heading my way" that determines your action, it is the fact you are a living being who has values to achieve that determines whether you should wait. If you were suicidal, then the fact of the truck heading your way would have different action implications. The moving truck is evaluated in relationship to your values; qua moving truck, it is value neutral, it has no value implications, just as a metaphysical fact. If I am in New York City, the fact that a truck is moving down a street in Los Angeles (I may not even have such knowledge of that fact) has no value significance whatsoever to me. How can you state that a fact that I may not be aware of, or has no relationship to my values or life, is simply something that I should state "I'll ignore that fact, it's not relevant right now?" Why would I even pass a such a judgment on that fact? It is out of any context to my life. This is the reason that each fact does not have an equal implication for everyone.

If you are a mission planner at NASA plotting the path of the Voyager II space probe, however, the fact that there are nine planets orbiting the sun has major implications for what actions you should take.  If you were to ignore such a fact, the space probe could be pulled off-course by the gravity of the planets you ignored, causing the mission to fail and you to lose your job.

As above, it is not the fact of the nine planets, but the fact of the values that you are pursuing in relation to those nine planets that determines your actions.

Conversely, even if your sphere of operations is more terrestrial, that still has implications for your actions -- you should not spend time thinking about the makeup of the solar system to the exclusion of considering facts with a more immediate relationship to your situation.  (The old story of the philosopher Thales being so caught up in contemplating the sky that he fell into a hole in the ground comes to mind here.)

I think Betsy Speicher put the point well.  Every identification that some given fact is should lead immediately to the question "and what does that mean for me?"  Even the answer "nothing" is an evaluation, and carries with it implications for how you should act -- specifically that you should not act as though the fact has meaning for you.

←

That is quite an interesting way of looking at facts. That is simply a way of reformulating the principle that knowledge is contextual and that one should act on one's knowledge. Let me ask you, what do you mean by "fact"? If someone states "there is a truck right now moving down 5th Avenue in NYC" should I simply say "OK, but that fact has no implications for me to act, so I don't care"? Or should I say "I have no knowledge of that fact, therefore, it has no value to me"?

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

In the following quotation, I have underlined two phrases.

F&V: "Metaphysically given facts ... cannot as such be evaluated."  "This does not, however, alter the principle that every 'is' implies an 'ought.' "  "The reason is that every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or indirectly, an implication for man's self-preservation and thus for his proper course of action."  [My emphasis]

←

For possible discussion I would like to draw attention to a point that I have noticed only in rereading "Fact and Value." The point is that Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff are saying that every fact, once cognized, demands evaluation (identification of the relationship between identified facts and values).

They are not saying every fact (aspect of reality) demands evaluation. In the passage you quoted, the phrase "as such" and the clause "which we discover" are significant. Such distinctions -- between facts independent of cognition vs. cognized facts (that is, truths) -- appear, with no fanfare, throughout Dr. Peikoff's article. I suspect this distinction needs some attention, to make clear the assumptions, perhaps, behind it.

Any truth (an identification of a fact) should be integrated with other truths we hold -- such as values. So, if I hold integration of all my knowledge as good, shouldn't I then integrate newly grasped facts with my values? And isn't an evaluation (identifying the relationship between a [cognized] fact and my values) an act of integration?

If my understanding is correct, then I now see that the tolerationists are disintegrationists.

[AisA 0]

I agree with Burgess' distinction between "facts independent of cognition vs. cognized facts (that is, truths)." The facts Peikoff is speaking of are those truths learned in the pursuit of knowledge to guide one's actions. Peikoff says: "All these evaluations are demanded by the cognitions involved—if one pursues knowledge in order to guide one's actions." The "cognitions involved" are the discovery of the effects (which, by the way, are also facts) which various aspects of existence have on man.

I would like to add one clarification regarding the evaluation of metaphysically given facts. As I read it, Miss Rand says the metaphysically given cannot be evaluated as true or false, right or wrong. She does not say it cannot be evaluated relative to man, i.e. as good or bad. I think Peikoff has clearly shown that it can be evaluated in this manner, given additional information and a context. Thus we can determine that a certain amount of metaphysically given sunlight is beneficial under certain conditions, while another amount is harmful under other conditions.

[Paul's Here 0]

In the following quotation, I have underlined two phrases.

For possible discussion I would like to draw attention to a point that I have noticed only in rereading "Fact and Value." The point is that Ayn Rand and Leonard Peikoff are saying that every fact, once cognized, demands evaluation (identification of the relationship between identified facts and values).

It would be nice if you could support that claim with examples or citations from Rand's writing. I have maintained that what I think Rand meant, see my examples in my remarks in Post 11, was that it is the facts of one's values in relation to the cognized facts that demand the evaluation. Or, to put it another way, it is not that every fact we discover has implications for our self-preservation, it is the fact of one's own life that requires newly discovered facts be evaluated. "The fact that a living entity is, determines what it ought to do." (The Objectivist Ethics)

As khaight quotes Rand in Post 8, "The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is -- and 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." I don't see how the foregoing is consistent with "every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or indirectly, an implication for man's self-preservation and thus for his proper course of action."

They are not saying every fact (aspect of reality) demands evaluation.

I think it is important at this point to define exactly what we mean by the concept "fact". Can something (event, action, attribute) be called a fact if it is not cognized? In ITOE, 2nd ed, Q&A section, Rand states " 'Fact' is merely an epistemological convenience. The term 'fact' can apply to a particular existent, to an aspect, to an attribute, or to an event." Further, Rand continues "when we say something is a fact, we distinguish primarily from error, lie, or any aberration of consciousness. And it serves another function: it delimits the concept 'existence' or 'reality.' For instance, you may have noticed I often use in writing the expression 'facts of reality.' What have I added to the term 'reality' by saying 'facts'? I have narrowed it. I have said: whichever aspects, events, or existents you happen to know, these are the facts of reality—meaning: these are the things which actually exist." (Obj. Research CD ROM)

So the question I have is, what are "facts independent of cognition?" It would seem from the foregoing that if you don't know it or are not aware of it, it can not be classified as a fact! The simple fact of "cognizing a fact" already incorporates a host of evaluations: the mental effort required to focus, the time required to grasp, learn, and understand the fact, etc. So knowledge of a fact already has as a corollary some value to the perceiver.

Further, the claim "there is a truck travelling down 5th Avenue" is not a fact unless I become aware that the event is actually occurring. You may know it is actually occurring, but if I am not aware of it, then the event has no value significance to me.

In the passage you quoted, the phrase "as such" and the clause "which we discover" are significant. Such distinctions -- between facts independent of cognition vs. cognized facts (that is, truths) -- appear, with no fanfare, throughout Dr. Peikoff's article. I suspect this distinction needs some attention, to make clear the assumptions, perhaps, behind it.

Any truth (an identification of a fact) should be integrated with other truths we hold -- such as values. So, if I hold integration of all my knowledge as good, shouldn't I then integrate newly grasped facts with my values? And isn't an evaluation (identifying the relationship between a [cognized] fact and my values) an act of integration?

If my understanding is correct, then I now see that the tolerationists are disintegrationists.

←

[Betsy Speicher 0]

I think it is important at this point to define exactly what we mean by the concept "fact".  Can something (event, action, attribute) be called a fact if it is not cognized?

←

Certainly! "Fact" is distinguished from "truth" in Ayn Rand's usage. In Galt's speech we have "Truth is the recognition of reality." Facts are what reality is and truth is the recognition of what reality is.

Again, from ItOE, Chapter 5: "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts."

So -- a "fact" is what is there in reality whether anyone recognizes it or not. A "truth" is a fact that someone recognizes.

In ITOE, 2nd ed, Q&A section, Rand states " 'Fact' is merely an epistemological convenience. The term 'fact' can apply to a particular existent, to an aspect, to an attribute, or to an event."

Right. It can apply to any aspect of reality.

Further, Rand continues "when we say something is a fact, we distinguish primarily from error, lie, or any aberration of consciousness.  And it serves another function: it delimits the concept 'existence' or 'reality.' For instance, you may have noticed I often use in writing the expression 'facts of reality.' What have I added to the term 'reality' by saying 'facts'? I have narrowed it. I have said: whichever aspects, events, or existents you happen to know, these are the facts of reality—meaning: these are the things which actually exist." (Obj. Research CD ROM)

I looked that up and that is from a passage about the context in which whether something is or is not a fact arises. It arises when people are determining whether what they claim to know as a fact (i.e., as a truth) actually exists in reality.

Sometimes "fact" and "truth" are used more or less synonymously, so I can understand the confusion. Peikoff attempts to avoid this by explicitly saying "every fact of reality which we discover." He is talking about recognized reality -- i.e., truth.

So the question I have is, what are "facts independent of cognition?" 

They are everything in reality you know about or don't know about.

It would seem from the foregoing that if you don't know it or are not aware of it, it can not be classified as a fact! 

It is a fact, but it is not a truth.

[Ed from OC 0]

As khaight quotes Rand in Post 8, "The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is -- and 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."  I don't see how the foregoing is consistent with "every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or indirectly, an implication for man's self-preservation and thus for his proper course of action."

←

The first quote distinguishes truth (consciousness) from fact (existence). The second quote deals with the objective basis of Ayn Rand's ethical code. I don't see how the two are INconsistent.

The simple fact of "cognizing a fact" already incorporates a host of evaluations: the mental effort required to focus, the time required to grasp, learn, and understand the fact, etc. So knowledge of a fact already has as a corollary some value to the perceiver.

The wording here bothers me, because it implies a certain intrinsicism or innate value-judgement, i.e., that one must pass judgement about a fact before one is cognizant of it. That is not correct. We often have a general awareness of reality and an automatized value-judgement toward reality that says: I ought to perceive what's going on out there in the world. This is the choice to focus or not; it is like a switch being on or off.

Now this orientation is not sufficient for perceiving a particular fact. One must make a further choice to focus one's consciousness on a particular aspect of reality. THAT choice is an act of will, guided by one's values, purpose, context, awaress of other facts, and more.

I don't know if that's along the lines of what you mean here, because what you wrote could be misinterpreted to imply something else.

Further, the claim "there is a truck travelling down 5th Avenue" is not a fact unless I become aware that the event is actually occurring. You may know it is actually occurring, but if I am not aware of it, then the event has no value significance to me.

So if I close my eyes forever, nothing bad will happen to me? No. Things out there in reality can help or harm me, based on the nature of those things and of what's required to preserve my life. It is that fact that makes it so damn important that one's judgement be true.

Also, let me re-emphasize an important point. A claim as such is not a fact; it can be true or false (or arbitrary). The wording is crucial, because a statement is a product of consciousness, while the actual facts the statement is intended to describe is an aspect of existence. The whole issue of primacy of consciousness vs. primacy of existence gets muddled unless the distinction between truth and fact is kept clear. So, the distinction is: 1. The real truck on the real 5th avenue; vs. 2. The awareness of a truck on 5th avenue.

The actual fact just is. The awareness of that fact is a volition-driven process open to error, and therefore may not be true. The truth is determined by whether the awareness actually corresponds to the fact.

[Ed from OC 0]

If someone states "there is a truck right now moving down 5th Avenue in NYC" should I simply say "OK, but that fact has no implications for me to act, so I don't care"?  Or should I say "I have no knowledge of that fact, therefore, it has no value to me"?

←

The last doesn't make sense. How can you judge whether it has value to you if you have no knowledge of it? For instance, what if a loved one was in the path of the truck? Or the truck was driven by a terrorist and carried a large bomb? Or it was a package delivery truck that carried the organ you're waiting for to save your life? Or it carries Christmas presents for your relatives and friends? Or what if none of these is the case?

The point is, you have to look further to know whether it has value to you, and what that value is. Now in most cases, you know that on any given day, in any given location, the odds that a particular truck goes down a particular street at a particular time has any impact on you is very small. So you can say in advance that such a truck is not a specific value to you.

If someone told me about this truck, my first question to him would be Betsy's question: what's it to me?

Bottom line: one can't pass judgement without knowing sufficient facts. What's sufficient? That's contextual.

[Paul's Here 0]

Certainly!  "Fact" is distinguished from "truth" in Ayn Rand's usage.  In Galt's speech we have "Truth is the recognition of reality."  Facts are what reality is and truth is the recognition of what reality is.

Not that I disagree with your formulation, but some clarification is required for the context in which the concept of "fact" was being addressed. Note that she did NOT state "truth is the recognition of the facts of reality." (Do not confuse with your citation below that states "truth is the product of the recognition of the facts of reality.") "... only entities are metaphysical primaries." (ITOE) She does not state facts are primary. Metaphysically, reality consists of entities, not facts.

Again, from ItOE, Chapter 5: "Truth is the product of the recognition (i.e., identification) of the facts of reality. Man identifies and integrates the facts of reality by means of concepts."

So -- a "fact" is what is there in reality whether anyone recognizes it or not.

The issue is not whether the existent, action, or event is there in reality, the issue is at what point do you call it a fact and what distinguishes using the concept "fact" from these other 3 uses? It is an epistemological issue, not a metaphysical issue. Clearly, the existent is there whether you perceive it or not. The issue is when does it get referred to as a fact? The ITOE reference clearly states "whichever aspects, events, or existents you happen to know, these are the facts of reality—meaning: these are the things which actually exist." (ITOE, my emphasis)

A "truth" is a fact that someone recognizes.

Right.  It can apply to any aspect of reality.

I looked that up and that is from a passage about the context in which whether something is or is not a fact arises.  It arises when people are determining whether what they claim to know as a fact (i.e., as a truth) actually exists in reality.

That's not the way I read the context. They are trying to distinguish the concept "fact" from "existent," "attribute," and "event."

Sometimes "fact" and "truth" are used more or less synonymously, so I can understand the confusion.  Peikoff attempts to avoid this by explicitly saying "every fact of reality which we discover."  He is talking about recognized reality -- i.e., truth.

I don't think that I was using the two terms interchangeably. Nowhere in my post did I refer to the concept "truth" as it pertained to my use of the term fact. And I base my usage of both terms on my understanding of the Objectivist usage.

They are everything in reality you know about or don't know about.

It is a fact, but it is not a truth.

←

[Paul's Here 0]

As khaight quotes Rand in Post 8, "The metaphysically given cannot be true or false, it simply is -- and 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."  I don't see how the foregoing is consistent with "every fact of reality which we discover has, directly or indirectly, an implication for man's self-preservation and thus for his proper course of action."

The first quote distinguishes truth (consciousness) from fact (existence).  The second quote deals with the objective basis of Ayn Rand's ethical code.  I don't see how the two are INconsistent.

------------

←

If some rock in a Nebraska plain is neither true nor false, right or wrong, then how does someone else's discovery of that rock have any implication for my self-preservation if I have no awareness that the rock is there?

[Paul's Here 0]

The simple fact of "cognizing a fact" already incorporates a host of evaluations: the mental effort required to focus, the time required to grasp, learn, and understand the fact, etc. So knowledge of a fact already has as a corollary some value to the perceiver.

----------

The wording here bothers me, because it implies a certain intrinsicism or innate value-judgement, i.e., that one must pass judgement about a fact before one is cognizant of it.  That is not correct.  We often have a general awareness of reality and an automatized value-judgement toward reality that says: I ought to perceive what's going on out there in the world.  This is the choice to focus or not; it is like a switch being on or off.

Now this orientation is not sufficient for perceiving a particular fact.  One must make a further choice to focus one's consciousness on a particular aspect of reality.  THAT choice is an act of will, guided by one's values, purpose, context, awaress of other facts, and more.

I don't know if that's along the lines of what you mean here, because what you wrote could be misinterpreted to imply something else.

-----------------

←

I did not mean to imply that "that one must pass judgement about a fact before one is cognizant of it." One is aware of entities, attributes, events simply by opening one's eyes. However, any of these three concepts can be classified as facts. To use the example in ITOE,

"[F]act" is merely a way of saying, "This is something which exists in reality..."  "That the American Revolution took place is a fact," or, "That George Washington existed is a fact." In the first case you refer to an enormously complex series of events over a period of years. In the second case you refer to just one  individual. Both are facts.

To grasp these facts requires a host of previous knowledge and evaluations.

[Ed from OC 0]

If some rock in a Nebraska plain is neither true nor false, right or wrong, then how does someone else's discovery of that rock have any implication for my self-preservation if I have no awareness that the rock is there?

←

That rock can just exist. Other facts may mean that rock matters a great deal to you.

Look, there's no sense to saying the rock itself is "true" or "false", any more than there is to saying the number seven is red, or blue is heavy. Such statements ascribe attributes to things that shouldn't have them.

[Paul's Here 0]

Further, the claim "there is a truck travelling down 5th Avenue" is not a fact unless I become aware that the event is actually occurring. You may know it is actually occurring, but if I am not aware of it, then the event has no value significance to me.

------------------

So if I close my eyes forever, nothing bad will happen to me?

Not if you're in Los Angeles!

No.  Things out there in reality can help or harm me, based on the nature of those things and of what's required to preserve my life.  It is that fact that makes it so damn important that one's judgement be true.

I was not arguing against that point.

Also, let me re-emphasize an important point.  A claim as such is not a fact; it can be true or false (or arbitrary).  The wording is crucial, because a statement is a product of consciousness, while the actual facts the statement is intended to describe is an aspect of existence.  The whole issue of primacy of consciousness vs. primacy of existence gets muddled unless the distinction between truth and fact is kept clear.  So, the distinction is: 1. The real truck on the real 5th avenue; vs. 2. The awareness of a truck on 5th avenue.

The actual fact just is.  The awareness of that fact is a volition-driven process open to error, and therefore may not be true.  The truth is determined by whether the awareness actually corresponds to the fact.

←

I would agree with the last point if you're talking about conceptual knowledge. There is no issue of whether perceptual awareness corresponds to reality. Why are you apparently limiting my usage of the term "fact" to simply perceptual level facts? If you agree that "concepts are formed by omitting measurements" is a fact, there is an enormous amount of knowledge and evaluation that goes into grasping that fact. I'm not sure how I could simply state, "that fact just is" and expect anyone to agree with it on that basis.

[Paul's Here 0]

If someone states "there is a truck right now moving down 5th Avenue in NYC" should I simply say "OK, but that fact has no implications for me to act, so I don't care"?  Or should I say "I have no knowledge of that fact, therefore, it has no value to me"?

The last doesn't make sense.  How can you judge whether it has value to you if you have no knowledge of it?

I can say it for the simple reason that there is an ethical equivalent to the onus of proof principle. If something is of value to me, then I have to have positive knowledge about it. Else, it has no value. The implication would be that everything in the universe has potential and actual value to me, whether I know it or not. I think that was what the Inquisition was aimed at achieving.

For instance, what if a loved one was in the path of the truck?  Or the truck was driven by a terrorist and carried a large bomb?  Or it was a package delivery truck that carried the organ you're waiting for to save your life?  Or it carries Christmas presents for your relatives and friends?  Or what if none of these is the case?

What if the person who told me about the car was lying to me?

The point is, you have to look further to know whether it has value to you, and what that value is.  Now in most cases, you know that on any given day, in any given location, the odds that a particular truck goes down a particular street at a particular time has any impact on you is very small.  So you can say in advance that such a truck is not a specific value to you.

You're really introducing a lot of issues that raise more questions that they answer. Why do / should I look further? Actually, the odds of getting hit by a truck are quite large if I don't pay attention to where I'm going. But then, I'd have to actually be on the street where the truck was. In other words, the facts of your example are different than the facts of my example.

If someone told me about this truck, my first question to him would be Betsy's question: what's it to me?

Bottom line: one can't pass judgement without knowing sufficient facts.  What's sufficient?  That's contextual.

←

[Paul's Here 0]

That rock can just exist.  Other facts may mean that rock matters a great deal to you.

Look, there's no sense to saying the rock itself is "true" or "false", any more than there is to saying the number seven is red, or blue is heavy.

Isn't that what I stated, that "rock in a Nebraska plain is neither true nor false, right or wrong?"

Such statements ascribe attributes to things that shouldn't have them.

←

[Burgess Laughlin 0]

It would be nice if you could support that claim with examples or citations from Rand's writing.

←

Paul, you asked if I would "support [my] claim" that Ayn Rand holds that every fact, once cognized, demands evaluation (which means, I think, an identification of the relationship between identified facts and values).

Providing an example is easy to do. With my underlining for emphasis, Ayn Rand says: "Just as sensations are the first step of the development of a human consciousness in the realm of cognition, so they are its first step in the realm of evaluation." ("The Objectivist Ethics," Virtue of Selfishness, p. 7, pb. 17; Ayn Rand Lexicon, p. 521)

In that passage, she specifies the first step, and by doing so implies a continuing relationship between cognition and evaluation. In other words, all cognition is (or should be) connected to evaluation.

For me, the case is closed on this sub-issue. If you want to further argue the point, I will leave that to others. After my next post, I want to move back to the main point of the article, which is the subject of this topic-thread: the relationship of fact and value, particularly as it applies to the tolerationists.