Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SpookyKitty

Regulars
  • Content count

    337
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

SpookyKitty last won the day on July 6

SpookyKitty had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About SpookyKitty

  • Rank
    Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • Interested in meeting
    No
  • 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

969 profile views
  1. 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.
  2. 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?
  3. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    I don't fuckin' know.
  4. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Then, clearly, at least one abstraction exists?
  5. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    So, again, it is correct to say that Man exists and that Man is an abstraction?
  6. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    That is completely irrelevant. The concept Man still refers to all humans regardless of whether or not this or that person has realized it or not. But "things" is itself an abstraction. How can things exist if the totality of all those things doesn't?
  7. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Indeed. And that can only be if it is an abstraction?
  8. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Exactly. So it is correct to say then, that Man exists?
  9. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    On what conceivable rational epistemological basis could you possibly be justified in saying that an abstraction is something that it is not? PS: I'm pretty sure I don't have any such mystical power, and you don't either.
  10. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Whoa whoa whoa whoa. You are "interpreting" an abstraction as a concrete? How did you do that? Do you have magical transmutation powers that can turn a thing from one metaphysical type to another? Because you are now saying that Man, an abstraction, is something that it is not, namely a concrete.
  11. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Yes it is a simple question! It doesn't get any simpler! The context is absolutely clear. In fact, I've made it clearer by pointing out that I wasn't asking about mental pictures and suchlike. Does Man exist? Does justice exist? Does art exist? Does existence exist? How are these not simple questions?
  12. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Wait, so it's accurate to say "Man does not exist."? I didn't say anything about mental pictures nor man "as an abstraction". It's a simple question. Does Man exist? Yes or no.
  13. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    "Man" is an abstraction. Does Man exist?
  14. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Do you also believe that leaving your door unlocked is an invitation to your house?
  15. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Wow, this is so fucking dumb, I can't believe you're not trolling. You do realize that victims of sexual abuse and rape are often traumatized and can go into shock even while having consensual sex let alone going through another rape? You seriously need to pull your head out of your ass if you think any part of Chris' behavior is ok. Imagine if you told me that I'm not allowed to take your car, but that later you leave your car keys in front of me on the table. Should I interpret this as your consent to take and keep your car? I guess now I know why California passed those ridiculously restrictive new rape laws. It's because of creepers like you.
×