Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About human_murda

  • Rank

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

908 profile views
  1. Concepts refer to actual reality, but concepts do not refer to "appearances". Right. Somebody probably possess supernatural senses to know this "actual reality".
  2. And I'm sorry to say you don't understand English.
  3. To sum up: concepts are abstractions which refer to "appearances". Concepts are not the actual reality. They refer to the actual reality (which you know must exist from the evidence of the senses), which you call "appearances". Also from AR: "The arguments of those who attack the senses are merely variants of the fallacy of the “stolen concept.” "
  4. The entire problem with your argument is considering the actual, the concrete to be an "appearance" while considering your abstractions to be "actual" reality (and somehow invalidates the former or relegates them into an "appearance"). This is easily resolved since abstraction, as such, do not exist.
  5. Concepts do not invalidate the senses. The notion that the sight of bent pencil in a glass of water is an "appearance" while the concept of a straight pencil is "actual" reality is completely false. The fact is that the latter is an abstraction (identification of the essential ["straight pencil"] plus identification of another essential, refraction). Reality does not "actually" exist in parts. The separation into "straight pencil" plus "refraction" is a mental isolation, an abstraction. It is man-made. The number 5 does not invalidate the vision of 5 apples. You cannot say that the number 5 is "actually" real while the vision of 5 apples is just an "appearance". In the same way, the concept of a straight pencil does not invalidate the vision of a bent one. The vision is the concrete, the actual. The isolation of the pencil as a straight object is done for epistemological purposes. It is an essential (but does not exist as such in reality). To quote Ayn Rand: "Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete". By saying that your perception is just an appearance while your concepts are "actually" real and rises above and invalidates your senses, you'd be veering into Platonism. The "actual" reality that you speak of are abstractions. They do not exist, as such. You got the entire concept of an actual vs. fake by coming across one concrete instance where you thought something was a specific way but later found it out to be different (this is an abstraction from abstraction. This is different from what was discussed above: abstraction from perception). Your concept of "actual vs. fake" comes from that concrete. It does not invalidate that concrete. You already know how to distinguish between actual vs. fake. It doesn't need to be "proved". If you assume it needs to be proved, you're invalidating the concrete from which you arrived at the concept "actual". You'd be committing the fallacy of the stolen concept. The "actual" kitty that you speak of, is an abstraction. You do not first have a concept of an "actual" kitty and then go searching for its existence. Reality doesn't need to conform to your abstractions. An actual kitty (as in, what you might call the "appearance of a kitty") is the root of your abstraction. It is then that you form the abstraction of kitty. You cannot form the concept of a kitty and then ask: "where does this actually exist in reality?". From AR: "The Platonist school begins by accepting the primacy of consciousness, by reversing the relationship of consciousness to existence, by assuming that reality must conform to the content of consciousness, not the other way around—on the premise that the presence of any notion in man’s mind proves the existence of a corresponding referent in reality." Concepts do not invalidate the senses. They depend on it.
  6. I really want want you to clarify something: are you really saying that percepts for chair, human, cat, rabbit, etc don't exist? Are you really saying that something is either a sensation or a concept, with nothing in-between? What would be your definitions for sensations, percepts and concepts? How do you distinguish between percepts and concepts (for example, what would you say is the difference between the percept of a chair and the concept of a chair)?
  7. No. It is a new, unique sensation; but the same percept. Perceptions are retained. It doesn't need to be a concept. You seem to have to blurred the distinction between percepts and concepts. It is possible to have a percept for a chair. It is also possible to have a concept for a chair. This doesn't mean that percepts are a form of concepts. Percepts aren't first level abstractions.
  8. That one sentence isn't the entirety of my argument. It is an opening statement. There is no such distinction as an "actual motion" and an "appearance of motion". All motion is relative (from relativity, there's no such thing as an "absolute" motion). The distinction of causality/force is irrelevant. We're talking about motion. And this "vacuous" notion of "I see the Sun moving" is the conceptual statement of what you perceive (this is perception by the way, not sensation). The question of what revolves around what is at an entirely different level. Exactly. The physical phenomena which produce perception is real too. There is no such thing as perception without the apparatus of perception. Some phenomena in the eye produced that illusion. To deny that would be to claim that you are blind because you have eyes. You need some means of perception before you can perceive something. You cannot perceive something "directly". That is not perception. The "illusion" is physically real (although fake). It exists. Yes You are here talking about the relation between what exists (what you call "appearances") and what you know (what you call "actual reality"). Sensations are of something which exists (whatever it is: hallucinations, simulations, etc) and you are conscious of it. Existence and consciousness are implicit in sensations. Hallucinations are real: as hallucinations. Simulations are real: as simulations. Simulations cannot be produced without the apparatus that produces it. You know that something exists. The light that hits the retina in a Virtual Reality or impulse that travels through the nervous system and finally enters the brain: some physical phenomena exists. Otherwise, you can't sense it. This is the self-evident validity of the senses. As for the question of what something actually is, whether it is an illusion or if it is fake, etc: that is the issue of proof. It is fully at the conceptual level. This has nothing to do with the validity of the senses (something exists and you know it).
  9. Senses do not fool you. Sensations involve the various colors you see, the brightness of these colors, etc as you are aware of them in the present. There is no sensation in "Sun", "goes", "around", "the", "Earth". These are either percepts or concepts. "Sun goes around the Earth" or vice versa is a proposition that is not present in sensation. Secondarily, you are wrong about your concepts as well. The Sun does factually move relative to you. However, the Sun does not revolve around you. The difference is based on the gravitational force involved. Acceleration of a body with respect to a non-inertial observer cannot be assigned actual forces. You need to introduce fictitious forces. Thus it is only in terms of forces alone that "Sun revolves around the Earth" is false while "Earth revolves around the Sun" is correct. In terms of motion alone ("goes around"), both are correct. Non-inertial reference frames are not incorrect. They are not appearances. They are actual physical fact. No physicist would say that non-inertial frames are incorrect or exist outside reality. Just don't use them to derive forces.
  10. Is Dignity a Right?

    Of course, if that were the case. The problem is that, if you were correct, I would be wrong on my assumptions, not my conclusions/implications (you asked whether I want "employers to provide terminated employees with food until they find a new job". This is not a logical implication of my argument. You made additional assumptions. They may well be true. But you should be aware that you made those assumptions and assumed that I agree with them. Otherwise the final statement is your conclusion, not mine. No matter how much you believe them to be true or how true they are, those are your conclusions about my arguments). My conclusions are perfectly valid given my assumptions, which is what you should have attacked. Also: implications do not exist without intention (of course, you can be wrong in logic, but implications do not exist "out there" in nature. An authorship is necessary). Without accounting for intention, you can make whatever implications you want out of the arguments of another using assumptions you made about reality (forgetting that these are your own arguments). The notion is so bad because even arguments are true or false in reality. For example, you can ask a Flat Earther: "Are you saying that everything you say is bullshit?". Of course, they're not actually saying that but by your arguments, they are. According to you, that would be that intrinsic implication of their arguments ("implied" by nature), without authorship. You can say that you think they are talking bullshit, but you cannot ascribe authorship to them. You cannot say that they think they are saying bullshit. That is your conclusion. Not theirs. For the same reason, you can't say I want "employers to provide terminated employees with food until they find a new job". That is your conclusion using additional assumptions you made. To say that the implications are there whether or not you know it is to claim special knowledge. It is the argument that "you are so stupid you don't even know it". That shows how much respect have for the people you're arguing with.
  11. Is Dignity a Right?

    There is a difference between being incapable of survival in a specific instance and being incapable generally (and this issue was ignored in all the other threads concerning the morality of suicide as well as the life-boat scenarios. But that's a discussion for another thread).
  12. Is Dignity a Right?

    Humans aren't fundamentally incapable of survival. Thus they don't need to employ you to keep you alive. But in the specific instance of being in space, you are incapable of survival (to some extend). Thus, they have to bring you back. They don't have to employ you afterwards (because humans aren't fundamentally incapable of survival).
  13. Is Dignity a Right?

    I don't know what definition of "habitable" you are using. You are conflating two issues. It is not fundamentally impossible for human beings to survive. Therefore, other people don't have to help you. However, there are specific situations in which you are unable to survive. If other people caused this, they have initiated force. The first implies that employers are not required to employ you. The second implies that the space corporation is required to bring you back to safety, but (by the first reason) is not required to keep you employed afterwards. The assumption that humans are fundamentally incapable of survival always leads to altruism (whether that be a statement that "reason is limited" or "universe is malevolent" or "universe is incomprehensible" or "humans are evil"). That is your assumption, not mine. Hence my argument does not lead to the conclusion that employers are required to keep you employed. That is your conclusion. Don't insert your arguments into mine and say that I'm being contradictory.
  14. Is Dignity a Right?

    Well, humans did survive and evolve on the surface of Planet Earth. Besides, it is an issue of cause and effect. Employers aren't directly responsible for your death from starvation is they fired you on a habitable portion of the surface of the Earth... The issue is not one of employment. The space corporation doesn't have to employ you. They are well within their rights to fire you. However, they can't leave you in space (or at 1000ft under the sea).
  15. Is Dignity a Right?

    No, you are not free to leave. The captain of a submarine ship cannot kick you out at 1000ft depth under the ocean because they didn't like you. If you were a fish that could survive at that depth, perhaps that would be legal. The pilot of a helicopter cannot kick you out at 10,000ft altitude because they don't like you. If you were a bird that can fly at that altitude, perhaps it would be legal. The problem is that humans can't fly, nor can they breathe and survive at that depth. So it is illegal if you have the body of a human. The issue is similar concerning survival in space. In situations like these, it is assumed that the trip is not "one-way". It doesn't matter if they have to pay for it or if it costs them millions of dollars.