Phil Elmore: Individual Authoring Services

Leonard Peikoff on Certainty
In Which I Extract Salient Points from Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand

Curious about the nature of objective reality, while remembering vaguely that Leonard Peikoff had said something about incomplete knowledge and absolute truth in his Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, I reread the section on Reason in the text. He makes several very lucid points.

Peikoff states that while knowledge is limited, certainty is contextual, and it is proper context that makes all the difference. The problem, he says, arises when we attempt to treat "absolutes" as out-of-context absolutes rather than contextual absolutes. An out-of-context absolute is not related to any other fact or cognition; to what value would such a pronouncement be, unconnected to anything else in the world of our senses? Peikoff points out that an out-of-context absolute can only be reached through some sort of mystical revelation, rendering it useless to us.

Logical processing of an idea within a specific context of knowledge is necessary and sufficient to establish the idea's truth... ...[O]ne cannot demand omniscience."

Peikoff goes on to elaborate on the idea of scientific discoveries and the addition of later information. Knowledge arrived at through the proper application of logic is not threatened by additional -- even contradictory -- information; it is expanded and augmented by it. An apparent contradiction -- the appearance of the temporary condition of doubt -- simply points us to a previously undiscovered component of the theory in question.

He illustrates using the example of blood types. It is proper, he says, for scientists to have stated, "In the context of the conditions we have thus far encountered, A bloods are compatible with each other." When it was discovered that certain A bloods weren't compatible, this apparent contradiction did not destroy the logical processing that had come before; it did not render blood typing an uncertain, mystical science impenetrable to human reason. On the contrary: it lead us to discover the RH factor. Proper context -- and the contextual certainty of our previous logical conclusions -- is what permits us to arrive at the conclusion that another factor, rather than a mystical relativism, must be responsible for the apparent contradiction.

Absolutism, says Peikoff, is not incompatible with a contextual approach to knowledge, and relationships aren't the enemy of absolutism. It is, in fact, relationships that make absolutism possible, for only in context and with relationship to other facts and cognitions can we apply logic to our observations.

Peikoff elaborates using the example of gravity and airplanes. That a heavier-than-air object can fly does not mean that the principle of gravity is subjective, or that it does not adhere to certain laws; all it means is that gravitation operates within a specific context. When opposed by another force, its effects can be counteracted; this does not mean the fact of gravity is not an absolute truth (when treated contextually).

Objective truth, therefore, is indeed possible. We can be certain -- but we must remember that certainty is contextual.