Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Ilya Startsev

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Ilya Startsev last won the day on September 11 2018

Ilya Startsev had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About Ilya Startsev

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 04/05/1986

Contact Methods

  • Website URL

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    philosophy & videogames

Previous Fields

  • Country
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
  • Copyright
    Public Domain
  • Biography/Intro
    thanks to Rand, philosophizing as a hobby
  • Experience with Objectivism
    the ones I most like/admire: AS, ITOE, DIM, EoS
  • School or University
    Veda School
  • Occupation

Recent Profile Visitors

7751 profile views
  1. The whole confusion here is over the definition of mysticism. Mysticism is not brain-based, nor is it reason in the rationalist sense. Mysticism is heart-based and is prior to or outside of brain-reason. Hence mysticism is an emotional way of connecting your soul with reality outside, including God. Mysticism is exemplified by the following mystics in the biblical tradition: Elijah, Isaiah, John the Baptist, and John the Apostle. The opposite tradition, that of religious law-makers -- or idealists -- is the following: Abraham, Moses, David, and Solomon.
  2. You obviously took that quote out of context, as the added quotes show otherwise than what you thought.
  3. By the way, here are some other quotes by Carl Jung that touch upon his mystic nature:
  4. Thank you for the quote. This obviously shows that people like Jung and Carl Sagan took the word 'mystic' out of context, which is too bad for them, since, in relation to other individuals, they are obviously realists/mystics, that is, the true mysticism is always inseparable from reality: it's like aristotelian essentialism.
  5. Ilya Startsev

    Transcending Objectivism and Kantianism

    Thinking back on Peikoff's careful note on application of categories, there is an opinion of quite an opposite thinker, namely Alfred Korzybski, that can be used to justify the metaepistemological nature of the DIM categories:
  6. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    On page 409 (halfway through the book), Korzybski states a millionth time: So his entire book most probably consists of such repetitions without any justifications.
  7. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    I'm starting to think otherwise due to this quote, in which he removes Kant from the category of 'philosopher' to which Aristotle belongs: And because he attributes noumena to Aristotelian analytics:
  8. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    To elaborate and analyze one of the previous quotes, I want to note that in Korzybski's own words, the problem with the mentally ill is that they "identify the symbol with actualities" (p. 196, his italics), which he has done on the previous page when he "necessitated" the '1 = 1' formula to mean the following external (in Korzybski's words "outside of his skin") elements: "different nervous systems which produce and use these symbols"; "the surfaces" and "different parts of the paper"; "the distribution of ink"; other materials or material conditions. So what happens is the equivocation between symbolic language made as a tool for comprehending reality outside and the empirical data from reality outside to which our language refers. Without the link of reference, which Korzybski ignores in his definition of identity ('absolute sameness in all respects'), he projects his own disorienting confusion on the readers and Aristotle, whose works he never bothered to read. Although Korzybski states some truths in his work (e.g., "[A]n enormous amount of knowledge may be found in a mature occasional perusal of a good grammar or dictionary, the neglect of which acts as a psycho-logical blockage to the understanding" - p. 763), he doesn't usually follow his own advice.
  9. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Here is a quote by Korzybski that I think supports my evaluation of him as a mentally ill individual: And then, to make this absolutely clear, he adds:
  10. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    I agree that there is no significant difference between 'unknowable connection to reality' and 'no connection', but I disagree with your definition of idealism. To the contrary, look at Plato. The only true reality, according to him, is the reality of ideal forms only through which our mind can grasp physical and illusory reality outside, [which in itself is] not true reality. Hegel and Emerson were idealists in pretty much the same sense, in that mind is the connection between physical and true (or metaphysical) realities. Representationalism, on the other hand, is a very vague term, to which we can append Descartes, Locke, and Kant, philosophers of significant differences, in fact, differences so significant that we can fairly judge these men to belong to three different categories. The notions of constructs is essential to another vague term: constructivism, which is popular in academia, or at least it was popular at the end of the 20th century. What you describe sounds more like social constructivism, which attributes even to science as an institute such purely subjective and arbitrary constructs. And this is surely neither Kant's, not Korzybski's positions. Hence your arguments to equate Representationalism with Idealism don't work, except in the case with Descartes, but only because the main 'thing' for him that constructs everything, including the mind (or the brain), is God.
  11. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Yes, that's Korzybski's non-aristotelianism, ážš. But Rand also never discussed him.
  12. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    I start thinking that Korzybski was insane but escaped hospitalization by lucky chance. First he calls Aristotle a 'genius' and then he writes this: So far the claim that Aristotle is 'the extrovert' is unsupported and the claim that he, Rand, I, and everyone on this forum think feebly is in logical error. He also so many pages into the book has yet to cite Aristotle at least once or at least analyze sufficiently any of Aristotle's ideas. Rand, in comparison, did a much better job with Kant than Korzybski can boast of doing with Aristotle. We have no details on Aristotle from Korzybski, only calling names. I will keep you posted if I find anything.
  13. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Well, actually he does say that Aristotle's system is more comprehensive than those that followed during the two thousand years. On page xli (one of his prefaces), he includes this figure in which A (aristotelian system) contains "a more limited and less general system such as 'christianity' (C), within which is, for instance, the leibnitzian system (L), and within which there are individual, personal systems (P)."
  14. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Korzybski doesn't use the term 'anti-Aristotelian' and doesn't consider himself to be opposed to Aristotle's main mission, which he thought was to make a system to explain science and set its goals. Korzybski only does it for the 20th century's science. He claims that his non-Aristotelian system is the first of its kind, as previous attempts (he doesn't yet mention which ones) weren't as comprehensive and complete as his own.
  15. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Therein, tjohnson wrote: I think that's harmless. Here is some context by Korzybski: I mean, Aristotle's subject-predicate logic is also all structure and forms. Besides it's ontological. How is it that he thinks it doesn't correspond to facts? In the second paragraph it seems he reduces reality to a sort of kantian inversion: noumenon is the unspeakable and phenomenon is the sensation (like light rays). And in the first he reduces aristotelianism to linguistics a la language games and empty scholasticism. Does then Korzybski misrepresent Aristotle?