Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SpookyKitty

Regulars
  • Posts

    510
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    8

Everything posted by SpookyKitty

  1. So, again, it is correct to say that Man exists and that Man is an abstraction?
  2. 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?
  3. Indeed. And that can only be if it is an abstraction?
  4. Exactly. So it is correct to say then, that Man exists?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. Do you also believe that leaving your door unlocked is an invitation to your house?
  10. 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.
  11. This is a red-herring. Whether or not reality is stable has nothing to do with whether or not the senses accurately report the facts. Yes it does. It plainly does. I cannot for the life of me even begin to comprehend why or how someone could possibly think otherwise.
  12. But that's completely trivial and can in no way justify higher level knowledge. Sufficiently.
  13. The claim that the senses are self-evident is that "In every case where it appears that x, it is the case that x". The logical negation of this is that "There is at least one case where it appears that x, but it is not the case that x". That does not mean that the senses can never be trusted, just that there is at least one case where they can't be trusted.
  14. Pure semantic bullshit. When a computer tells me that 1 + 1 = 3, I call that an "error".
  15. This argument has already been addressed. The senses do not need to have volition in order to be mistaken. If they are not perfect, then that just means that they are poorly built. In the same sense, a computer does not need volition in order to malfunction.
×
×
  • Create New...