Selkc

On page 15 I'm having trouble with what exactly the ccd is and the distinguishing characteristics role in the ccd.

Can someone please demonstrate the meaning of Ms. Rand's algebra from the ITOE.

I haven't heard about the appeal to authority fallacy. anyways... perhaps you would educate me on who said it. Well perceptually I can see electricity causing motion. And I know that a current of electrically charged particles has a relationship with my computer. I think Ayn Rand would disagree with you, about knowing how to measure with tools to understand conceptually, because electricity must contain some measaurements, but any measurements. so the measurements of volts in the concept electricity is Omitted. Ayn Rand explicitely said you do not have to even know how to measure it, only that it can be measured. in epistemology, not in metaphysics. She pointed out people knew with reason - colours thousands of years before we could measure colour metaphysically I understand that "charged particles" means An energy contained withing a component of the physical world smaller than atoms - electrons. I conclude that since a current is a relation of things, from my television, and since I understand a television conceptually, the thing left to do is understand something about where the charged particles came from (a power source and it's conceptual definition, or either how static arises). Not to prove whether they exist at all in the first place by measurements. and probably a kind of conceptual understanding on the nature of particles that make them able to behave like that.. Also to understand things i see perceptually caused by static electricity, how hair stands up, and lightning. so knowing this without the proper investigation/integration (omitting measurements), but knowing the plan, is probably more true to the sense of "memorized" because I do not understand it all conceptually. I only understand conceptually Television, which lacks the full integration of electricity. So the goal is to Integrate that, and once I integrate electricity, I can understand better any existent that can be "plugged in." I think this goes to how Ayn Rand said conceptual definitions are "open ended" that can be improved upon. So, I think a memorization merely means an existent that does not have a simple conceptual definition. Someone who memorizes is like a child who points to a gold fish and says "gold fish" but does not understand anything about it other than observing it eats and poops every once in a while. And the child may measure how many times it poops a day, but that isn't something that concerns objectivist epistemology, Although Ayn Rand agrees it exists metaphysically. It doesn't belong in epistemology.

I'll be back

Back to post 6 and 3 please

my definition does not contradict the scientific evaluation etc

*points to a cat* "this cat is so and so" (giving it identity with my language) and I have an psycho epistomological connection, that can be further investigated with science, if I choose.

science and philosophy is the same. science is either on the outside as metaphysics, or it's integrated in your mind as psycho-epistomology. and you have to discover science through volitional symbolic language. A is A. Ayn Rand reinforces it in the Axiomatic Concepts chapter. But that's not my misunderstanding. My misunderstanding is Introspection.

So, at the bottom of page 31 - it is mentioned that a conscious concept is a mental integration of 2 or more instances of the pscyhological process possessing the same distinguishiong characteristics. 1 - 2 or more instances of what? what part of the psych process do i need instances of? 2 - what is the same distinguishing characteristic? Is this the distinguishing characteristics of the abstractions from the previous chapters or is this distinguishing characteristic special to concepts of consciousness

well electricity possesses identity. so I'm off to a good start and you are not. Thanks for the critique of my reason and avoiding the book.

My english isn't great.. sorry about this. Anyways, the whole prospect of living through life only on the lower conceptual level of introspection terrifies me. My first question is - when do I know I'm ready to move on to Introspection after learning X amount of things conceptually from existents? I'm confused about learning things conceptually because it feels like I'm only memorizing. Perhaps I'm understanding but still feeling like it's just memorized sounds? For example, I've learned several definitions around the house, and I can see from looking at a television I can learn about Electricity. I'm not sure this is getting me to understand things more, it feels like complex memorizing. Even though I understand now the 2 different types of ways electricity is brought about, either statically, or through a current. It just feels like memorizing.. Anyways.now to the chapter.. I mean from the first page, trying to understand what I think about electricity, i feel bottled up. The CCD is content and action. The content is the external world in my mind and I have to provide my mind with content, and I am able to be aware of it conceptually in consciousness if I provide it with volitional action. So I think It's the "action" part that is confusing me. I'm assuming the "content" is from the first 2 chapters, and "action" is getting the ball rolling with conceptual concepts and/or continuously adding content to the first 2 chapters I suspect with myself personally this is where I dropped the ball when I was young. I feel kind of guilty lol that I feel so bottled up thinking about electricity. So running through the concepts of consciousness on page 30 it seems like a given on such a level that it's over my head. Ok, electricity gives me CNN and changed the world. So I suppose this is where these concepts are going to kick in right? and I guess I'll finish with the top of page 31, about the concretes, the "units" (what?). So with every concept from chapter 1 and 2 I have to integrate every one with the concepts of consciousness (evaluation etc) to integrate into a new concept?

Hey, I've read the book over twice now, and on the third way through. But the chapter on concepts of consciousness has me a bit confused. Is it possible that I can get in touch with someone who is familiar with it to review it with me? I'm sure it wouldn't take up a lot of time..? I'm not even sure if I get it or not, I'm just confused about the meaning. Thanks.

Hello, well Ayn Rand did write that you need Aristotle and Aquinas. What will be invaluable in particular with Aristotle is his work on Logic, the Non Contradiction Law etc, and Metaphysics for now. I'm very interested in the theoretical inquiry of "what is reality" that modern philosophy is under cutting as Ayn Rand states by Kant and his successors. On a side note, I just ordered 2 Leonard Peikoff books, the DIM and the guide to Objectivism, and I can't wait for them to arrive... I'm from the same city Peikoff is from originally

Hello, I hope to have some good input in the near future. I'm skeptical of the forum, I'm assuming there's lots of people who are trolls and people who aren't understanding objectivism like i am. I'll mostly be touching on Aristotle.. If you are wondering how I am understanding Objectivism it is mostly coming from the angle from the essays of Philosophy: Who needs It. The new intellectual is here...

Perhaps it can be regarded as altruism towards the universe and you're depressed you can't fulfill your duty to heal it