Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Harrison Danneskjold

Regulars
  • Content Count

    2418
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    39

Harrison Danneskjold last won the day on July 6 2018

Harrison Danneskjold had the most liked content!

4 Followers

About Harrison Danneskjold

  • Rank
    The High Lord Infallible
  • Birthday 02/09/1991

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Minnesota
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    William Harrison Jodeit
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • School or University
    Hard Knox
  • Occupation
    General Specialist

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Saint Paul
  • Interests
    Interests.

Recent Profile Visitors

17385 profile views
  1. Neither do I, but (to use your flawed terminology) I take it as an "article of faith" that I exist. Even if we're all in the matrix or something my mind must exist SOMEHOW, in SOME form. And I'm guessing that you feel the same way about your own existence, too. I bring this up because it's another axiom (just like the Law of Identity). It's something we all have to assume in order to even function. I exist, I think and I try my best to do so in non-contradictory ways (because contradictions are always wrong). It's interesting to me to find out how you can even claim not to, but if you're fundamentally opposed to such "articles of faith" then at the end of the day that's your problem. You can never get away from them.
  2. The Law of Identity is what says that contradictions cannot exist. You violated the Law of Identity when you claimed that contradictions do exist. You then appealed to the Law of Identity when you claimed that this DISPROVES the Law of Identity. It's a disproof by CONTRADICTION, isn't it? If "life is full of contradictions" then that doesn't disprove the Law of Identity, just because it contradicts it. Hence: "sure, contradictions exist, and also are metaphysically impossible". Do you need a diagram? Sure. It's not science; it's what science is based on. But it's not "faith" either. And you've proven pretty conclusively (and hilariously) that it's a belief which you share. You can't disprove it; the very concept of "proof" or "disproof" assumes it (which is what I mean about science being "based on it"). You can call it "pseudoscience" all you want, but nobody here is pretending that it is science and anything you have to say about the moral character of those who hold it applies equally to you, too. You're more than welcome to try and disprove ANYTHING I just said WITHOUT using the Law of Identity, but please try and come up with some new arguments for it. Your old ones are all dead already.
  3. This is probably the most dishonest article I have ever read about her. We've all heard the charges of "sociopathy" and "immaturity" before, and there is a reason for them; in these examples, we're "sociopaths" because we're not secondhanders and "immature" because we haven't given up on life. But "white"? She would only advocate for "white" businesswomen?
  4. Well, off the top of my head, its not. I don't remember where it was in John Galt's Speech but you can't prove an axiom; you just have to accept it because its opposite would be literally inconceivable. So he is right that the Law of Identity is "unfalsifiable". So is his belief in his own existence.
  5. It means a contradiction. Ayn Rand said that anyone who attacks the Law of Identity (such as by declaring the existence of contradictions) has to rely on it, themselves, in that very attack. StrictlyLogical was giving a practical demonstration of the fact that even YOU don't really believe "life is full of contradictions" - and every time you say there's something "wrong with that logic" you are confirming it, over and over again. And by your own logic, what can you say about it? Is there something WRONG with contradicting ourselves, now? I know you can grasp that. Please stop struggling not to because it is getting a bit old now.
  6. He's trying to attack the Law of Identity (as in "contradictions have been scientifically proven to exist") so StrictlyLogical said that yes, contradictions exist all over reality, and yes, a contradiction is metaphysically impossible; we're both right (which I found hilarious). After much evasion he finally deigned to retort that "if the Law of Identity is unfalsifiable then it's just pseudoscience, so tell me what it'd take to prove a contradiction to you". So I asked what it'd take to disprove his own existence to him. He still hasn't answered that. Apparently he's waiting to know what SL meant by "sure, contradictions exist, and also couldn't possibly exist". I'm extremely amused with it all, but I'd prefer it if he didn't try circling back to points that have already been exploded. Just thought I'd give you guys a heads-up.
  7. "Life is full of contradictions and you need to learn how to live with them".
  8. So, thenelli, I'd like to preface this by saying that you seem to have pegged what the real issue is. I don't agree with your take on it, but at least we agree on where our disagreement is. When I was in 2nd grade I got into a fight over a "yo mama" joke. When I told my mom (who I considered the smartest person on Earth) he'd called her dumb, she laughed and asked if I thought that was true: "and if not then why should it upset you"? That stuck with me all throughout High School (when I was also called a faggot - even though I'm not!) and into my adulthood. I remembered it when I first read about Dagny telling Rearden "never get angry at a man for telling the truth". Those are the words I now use for that principle, and it's very applicable here. Yes, and they're also dependents in many other ways (such as food and shelter). We expect adults to stand on their own two feet, both materially and spiritually. Yes, but whether or not it actually does any damage primarily depends on the "victim", themselves. Some people can take a torrent of abuse and just not care; others can be brought to tears over nothing whatsoever. Because some people continue to gauge their value by other peoples' opinions well into adulthood. What if it's really funny? IDK how well you can see it in my profile picture but I'm a redhead. One of my favorite South Park episodes is the one about Gingervitis, because judging another human being by their skin color, hair color or sexual tastes (&etc) is ridiculous! It's not quite as silly as believing in a 2000 year old zombie but it's pretty close! And I'll be the first to admit that such an attitude isn't easy to cultivate. From time to time total strangers will call me a "colonizer" or a "white devil" (because Minnesota is a shit-hole country) and I haven't been able to laugh it off, yet. But I do think it's the right attitude to cultivate. How does that apply to "lispy queers"? The marketplace of ideas is a rough-and-tumble kind of place; it always has been and it always will be, as long as it is FREE. Which isn't to glamorize Crowder's antics: they're immature and shameful hooliganism. But for Maza to call for the silencing of his political opponent, over such playground-tier name-calling, is an outrage. And giving Maza's little pity-party any cognizance (although well within their political rights) was morally the wrong thing for YouTube to do. I would've referred him to a good psychiatrist and invited him to come back once he was ready to play with the big kids.
  9. And, believe it and/or not, the reference to "cogito ergo sum" was actually meant as a hint. Among other things. Descartes said he could never doubt the existence of his own mind, no matter what; that at least the existence of his own consciousness was unfalsifiable, irrefutable, solid ground. Do you disagree with him? Will you stop demanding that the Law of Identity somehow be falsifiable or can you conjure up a way to disprove that you are (or think)? If you can prove THAT I will not dispute it! QED
  10. So is substituting his opinion for a proper argument. Exactly. And you didn't provide any theory to make YOUR OWN statement part of the "physical knowledge" which makes it "just an idea" by YOUR OWN TERMS. I'm just pointing out how those terms can't be applied to themselves without contradiction. You sound pretty certain of that for someone who believes in the existence of contradictions. Wouldn't you have to say "it is and also is not"? Unless, of course, you see this whole thing as some kind of game that has nothing to do with anything? I could beat you at your own game by simply responding to everything you say with "yes and also no" or "according to what theory", but I won't. I'm curious to know whether you're actually serious about the "falsifiability" criteria. What would it take for you to stop believing in you?
  11. Pease tell me what REAL (EMPIRICAL) evidence would disprove you to yourself. What conditions in reality would falsify your own belief in your own conscious awareness, as such? Your own belief in your self wouldn't be unfalsifiable, would it? If "I think therefore I am" Then you obviously are not
  12. By chucking out the law of identity? That's gonna help us find hard and certain facts? Nice appeal to authority. Maybe your life is, brother. I don't suppose you've got a theory to explain how that is? Or is it "just an idea" we don't actually have to take seriously? That's so far beyond this guy it isn't even funny. At least, it really shouldn't be as funny as certain people (terrible, awful, purely hypothetical people) might find it...
  13. I can't find any factual inaccuracies in his "History of Philosophy" rap. I CAN think of a few musical aspects I would've changed (such as having it be a rap in the first place) but I don't feel comfortable enough sharing them without trying MY OWN hand at the music thing, first. Just wouldn't seem fair, you know?
  14. Oh, man. The reviews will be forthcoming presently...
×
×
  • Create New...