Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing most liked content on 05/04/17 in all areas

  1. 1 point
    epistemologue, your source holds that universals are entities: "The phenomenon of similarity or attribute agreement gives rise to the debate between realists and nominalists. Realists claim that where objects are similar or agree in attribute, there is some one thing that they share or have in common; nominalists deny this. Realists call these shared entities universals; they say that universals are entities that can be simultaneously exemplified by several different objects; and they claim that universals encompass the properties things possess, the relations into which they enter, and the kinds to which they belong." Underlining mine. That's from near the beginning of Chapter 1 in Objectivism and the Corruption of Rationality. Will you grant the point now? If you are a realist, you are defending the existence of a kind of entity.
  2. 1 point
    Traditionally, realists about universals assert that they are entities. "Universals are a class of mind-independent entities, usually contrasted with individuals (or so-called "particulars"), postulated to ground and explain relations of qualitative identity and resemblance among individuals." http://www.iep.utm.edu/universa/ As far as I can tell, you have not given a definition of "universals," which is a prerequisite for your position.
  3. 1 point
    Szalapski

    Too many subforums?

    Just start merging several forums as an experiment, and see how you like it. I think it will be better to have fewer to keep track of. The only reason to have separate subforums is when they get too active to keep track of, so that visitors can focus on the subforums they care about the most. However, having a subforum for aesthetics and a subforum for literature and arts. I understand the differences between the two, but niether one is popular enough to stand on its own. See also: https://blog.codinghorror.com/dont-make-me-think-second-edition/ We want to make the users think about Objectivism, not about the forum nuances.
  4. 1 point
    dream_weaver

    In the news

    The fact check site Snopes sets the record straight on an Ayn Rand quote by checking with Onkar Ghate associated with the Ayn Rand Institute. Did Ayn Rand Say 'The Question Isn’t Who Is Going to Let Me; It’s Who Is Going to Stop Me'?
  5. 1 point
    hunterrose

    Ought from Is

    I get you somewhat on the is-ought question: if you can determine what your value is (and has to be,) you know can then figure out what ought to be done to attain the value. I question whether life has to be that ultimate end, though. What exactly do you mean child's welfare as the "ultimate value" inevitably leads to the alternative of life or death?
×