Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


SpookyKitty last won the day on July 6

SpookyKitty had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About SpookyKitty

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Gender

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • Interested in meeting
  • Relationship status
    In a relationship
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Atlas Shrugged, Fountainhead, ITOE, Objectivism The Philosophy of Ayn Rand and various articles

Recent Profile Visitors

1047 profile views
  1. Truth as Disvalue

    I think I've figured out what's wrong with the OP. Value and disvalue can only be assigned to the possible states of reality, i.e. when you have a choice. Therefore, value or disvalue cannot be assigned to events that are inevitable (such as your own death). Hence, your feelings of despair about death are not valuations, they are emotions (of the whim kind). This suggests misintegration on your part.
  2. If You Could Have Any Superpower, What Would It Be?

    Oh wait. I already have that superpower.
  3. If You Could Have Any Superpower, What Would It Be?

    I would like to have the superpower to read and enslave Man's Mind.
  4. Truth as Disvalue

    Well, ok, I know you don't believe it. But you're making an argument as to why you ought to believe it, and part of that argument is that believing in an afterlife will make your life better somehow. So hypothetically, if you went through with this plan, and actually believed in an afterlife, then why not kill yourself? You did say you'd miss your friends and family, but you could kill them too.
  5. Truth as Disvalue

    @StrictlyLogical quick question: Why not kill yourself in order to get to this afterlife faster?
  6. Truth as Disvalue

    I meant to respond in more detail a couple of weeks ago, but forgot. Working on it now.
  7. Truth as Disvalue

    I don't know. It's just who I am. Peace of mind is boring.
  8. Truth as Disvalue

    If x is a higher value than y, that just means I would give up y in exchange for more x. Not for me.
  9. Truth as Disvalue

    For me, Truth is a value higher than pleasure, love, happiness, and even life itself. So I am perfectly happy to accept the limits of my existence, such as the inevitability of death.
  10. Peikoff is hopelessly confused. A tautology is a statement that is true by virtue of its form alone. For example, "The moon is made of cheese or it is not made of cheese" is a tautology. You don't have to know ANYTHING about the moon, cheese, or any part of reality to know that it is true. An analytic statement is one that, once you replace its subject by its definition, the result is a tautology. He doesn't even realize that this is 100% unadulterated Leibnizian rationalism.
  11. The Experience of Trying Marijuana

    It all depends. Each time I did marijuana was different. Not every effect listed below occurs on every use. (Also as a disclaimer, I almost always drank quite a bit of alcohol before use, so that might also have an effect). Just pick a random combination of at least three of the following: 1) Rapid heart rate. One time, so rapid, that I thought my heart would explode. 2) Severe anxiety. (This starts after about five minutes and goes away after like the first 20 minutes) 3) Intense euphoria. (This can get annoying after a while) 4) A loss of awareness of time. One time at a party I had to use the bathroom. For me it felt like 3 minutes. My friend later told me I'd been in there for 3 hours! 5) A loss of short-term memory. 6) Inability to focus on anything. Your thoughts just wonder like crazy. 7) A sensation of constantly falling or dizziness. 8) Impaired motor control. General clumbsiness and inability to walk. 9) Loss of consciousness (very short blackouts). As far as I can tell, it isn't even a little addictive. Cigarettes on the other hand... I told myself I'd try just one, and now I've been a smoker for 4 years.
  12. Quantum Mechanics and Objectivism

    It definitely has more to do with the phrasing. More specifically, it has a lot to do with popularizes of science not actually understanding QM, but, more seriously, physicists themselves didn't have a very good grasp of QM in its early days. So a lot of the old misconceptions have survived to the present day, even though quantum theory has moved on. With regard to states, nothing can ever be in two states at once. If a particle is in a superposition of two states A and B, then it is not correct to say that it is in both state A and in state B. Superposition really just means sum. So, for example, northeast is a superposition of the directions north and east (under vector addition). If you are traveling northeast, you are not traveling both due north and due east., obviously. Unfortunately, the probabilistic nature of quantum observables is inescapable.
  13. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    That's an interesting argument, but it is flawed. The statements: 1) "Humans (its easier to talk about humans rather than men to avoid confusion) exist," and 2) "Humanity exists" do not have the exact same meaning, (even though I agree with you that the method of proving each is the same). Formally, I believe the distinction is as follows: 1) There exists at least one x which is an instance of Humanity. 2) There exists at least one x which is Humanity. I believe that your (and I think Rand's) mistake is that you are literally identifying Humanity with its instances. That's nonsensical because you are treating a noun and a predicate as though they were identical. The reason you are making this error is because you are failing to differentiate between a relation of identity and a relation of definition. I think it is correct (and I think you would agree) to say that 3) An abstraction x exists if and only if there exists at least one particular y such that y is an instance of x. This statement is a definition of the existence of abstractions. Thus, there is a material equivalence between 1) and 2) but no logical equivalence. It is important to make this distinction. Another way of explaining this error is like this. First, if two things A and B are identical, then the existence of one necessarily entails the existence of the other. However, one cannot flip this statement and say that because the existence of A necessarily implies the existence of B and vice versa, that therefore A is B. An obvious counterexample here is that the existence of the number 1 necessarily entails the existence of the number 2, and vice versa, but that does not mean that 1 is 2. I think you are jumping to conclusions. Saying that man is an abstraction no more implies that he is only an abstraction than saying that John is tall implies that John is characterized only by tallness.
  14. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Huh, I was thinking you were asking the second question and changed my response. Because, I mean, uhh, I concluded what I did because that is the logical conclusion?