Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

NameYourAxioms

Regulars
  • Content Count

    41
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About NameYourAxioms

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Texas
  • Experience with Objectivism
    I've read 7 non-fiction books written by Ayn Rand (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, The Virtue of Selfishness, Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Romantic Manifesto, Philosophy: Who Needs It?, For The New Intellectual,but Return of the Primitive), plus several books written by Objectivists like Leonard Peikoff (The Ominous Parallels, the DIM Hypothesis, Teaching Johnny to Think, Objective Communication, Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand), Robert Knapp (Mathematics is About The World), David Harriman (The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics), Harry Binswanger (How We Know: Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation), Craig Biddle (Loving Life: The Morality of Self-Interest and The Facts That Support It), John Allison (The Financial Crisis and The Free Market Cure) and Yaron Brook (Free Market Revolution, Equal is Unfair).
  • School or University
    Syracuse University

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. What else are you going to follow? Is there a better, more reliable, alternative to thinking? Obeying authority? Instinct? If it feels good, do it? Psychics, horoscopes, Ouija boards, Magic 8-balls, fortune cookies, numerology. Wish-fulfillment fantasy?
  2. Quoted from Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: "Since everything possesses identity, the universe possesses identity. Since EVERYTHING is FINITE, the UNIVERSE is FINITE. [drops mic, leaves room]
  3. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/infinity.html Every unit of length, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, has some specific extension; every unit if time, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, has some specific duration. The idea of some INFINITELY SMALL amount of length or temporal duration has validity ONLY as a MATHEMATICAL DEVICE. By analogy: the average family has 2.2 children, but no actual family has 2.2 children; the "average family" exists only as a mathematical device.
  4. There are 5 branches of philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of existence. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Ethics is the study of action. Politics is the study of force. Esthetics is the study of art. Of the 5 branches of philosophy, metaphysics is the trunk of the tree. The whole purpose of Ayn Rand's West Point speech was to drive home the utter importance of metaphysics. Her spacecraft metaphor laid it out: Where am I? (metaphysics) How do I know it? (epistemology) What should I do? (ethics). You cannot answer the last 2 questions unless you know where you are (metaphysics).
  5. Wrong. Aristotle rejected Plato's metaphysics and completely denied Plato's World of Forms. Aristotle maintained that there is only 1 reality, the world of concrete entities that we perceive.
  6. There are 5 branches of philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of existence. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Ethics is the study of action. Politics is the study of force. Esthetics is the study of art. Of the 5 branches of philosophy, metaphysics is the trunk of the tree. The whole purpose of Ayn Rand's West Point speech was to drive home the utter importance of metaphysics. Her spacecraft metaphor laid it out: Where am I? (metaphysics) How do I know it? (epistemology) What should I do? (ethics). You cannot answer the last 2 questions unless you know where you are (metaphysics).
  7. How do you account for "Objectivists regard essences as epistemological" in Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
  8. How do you account for this quote from Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Aristotle regarded essences as metaphysical; Objectivists regard essences as epistemological.
  9. Of course, tadpoles become frogs? How do you explain the tadpoles that become toads? Of course, caterpillars become butterflies? How do you explain the caterpillars that become moths?
  10. Consciousness is not an attribute any more than identity is an attribute. Consciousness is one of the 3 axioms: Existence, consciousness, and identity.
  11. According to the Law of Causality, the actions of an entity are an expression of its identity. What an entity can do is determined by what it is. Tadpoles do not "turn into" frogs and caterpillars do not "turn into" butterflies. The Law of Causality permits no miracles. A thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature. The larval stage of a frog is known as a tadpole. The larval stage of a toad is also known as a tadpole. A frog tadpole cannot "turn into" a toad and a toad tadpole cannot "turn into" frog. It was either a frog all along or a toad all along. A butterfly caterpillar cannot "turn into" a moth and a moth caterpillar cannot "turn into" a butterfly. It was either a butterfly all along or a moth all along. Acting according to its identity, a frog will progress from its egg stage to its larval stage (tadpole) to its adult stage. It was ALWAYS a frog. We refer to humans at various ages as infants, toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, and seniors because it serves an epistemological need. Metaphysically, an infant is a man and so are toddlers, children, adolescents, adults, and seniors. The identity of man doesn't change. The infant was a man all along. Don't believe me? Exactly when does an adolescent "turn into" an adult?
  12. As I stated previously, reification is the fallacy of taking a (real) aspect of a (real) thing, grasped by mental analysis, as if were an entity capable of a separate existence. Your definition of reification as the error of "holding up the unreal as real" is a straw man where you misstate what was said then waste everyone's time refuting your own mis-statement. What do you allege was said to be "unreal"?
  13. According to the Law of Causality, a thing can only act in accordance with its nature. Since man is not born full grown, it is in his nature to grow. The distance between my eyes has grown as expected since growth is part of man's identity. My appearance has changed since infancy yet my identity has NOT changed. The distance between my eyes is part of MY identity. It is absurd to say that the distance between my eyes has its OWN identity. Attributes are inseparable from entities. Your statement "The distance between your eyes has metaphysical identity" is invalid because it reifies an attribute of MY identity.
  14. Yes, the distance between my eyes is part of my identity. The measurement of the distance between them is what's infinitely divisible. Division is a mental action.
  15. You don't "identify" A and B as 5 feet apart. Being 5 feet apart is not part of either object's identity any more than you standing next to a fire hydrant is part of your identity. Your identity doesn't change when you walk away from the fire hydrant. Distance is a measurable relationship between metaphysical entities. The measurement is infinitely divisible. Measurement must be performed by man. Measurement is an epistemological tool we use to understand metaphysical reality. Division is a mental action.
×
×
  • Create New...