Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Easy Truth last won the day on February 1 2018

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

About Easy Truth

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

854 profile views
  1. Causal connection. Physical, material causality through direct and indirect contact or through fields or whatever else physics may discover. Then that thing would be unknowable, and it would be arbitrary to speculate about its existence. So based on that, a false thought, a mistake or contradiction, a thought without referent, is "somehow" connected to everything/existence. That seems to be a known-unknown (a known nonsense). As opposed to a non-existent which is not connected and not noticed at all. That seems to be an unknown-unknown. (or would this be an unknowable or both) How do I know about the unknowable when it is not connected? (Why is one capable of forming the concept)
  2. How much awareness of anything do you have to have for it to be itself? Split second awareness? or some sort of continuous awareness? Doesn't induction requires a series of "hits" to one's perception mechanism.
  3. SL When you do the DA stuff I don't know who is who, I will just put in my two cents and talk about the particular statements: When I am asleep, and others are conscious of my existence, do I exist? Doesn't including a "subjective/objective delineation" necessary to deal with this issue. Subjectively speaking: Every item in existence, exists dependent on my consciousness of it That includes me as one of the items in existence. I do need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" in order for me to have "conscious awareness of myself". Objectively speaking: Every item in existence, exists independent of any consciousness of it (mine or others). That includes me as one of the items in existence. I do not need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" in order for me to have "conscious awareness of myself". I need to be aware of "my awareness of myself" to know that I exist to have the full subjective perspective, the subjective perspective of self. But the objective perspective of self comes from the fact of knowing "I was asleep, they know I was here even though I don't" I can't be aware of the fact that I am not aware of myself. Also Philosophically speaking, is there an awareness that is not conscious? (you say "conscious awareness" - seems redundant) Are you saying subconscious awareness of self? (certainly not unconscious awareness) My understanding is that philosophically, consciousness means "conscious of". Not the levels of consciousness in psychology.
  4. I will make a decision based on what I know. I could be wrong. When I decide, I will be certain that I am doing the best of all my choices. Otherwise, I would be in paralysis. Now, that is human certainty, that is the certainty that is possible, that is the certainty that is. You are implying that Rand said that you can't be wrong which is not true. The kind of certainty you are talking about is an omniscient type certainty, a supernatural certainty, a certainty that does not exist in this world. Knowing what will happen in 5 minutes, without possibility of error, means I have no free will. I can't do anything else, I can't chose anything else, I already know what I will do.
  5. And yet, you are certain about that. Then you might be dead. This is not an insult, simply playing out the logic you are putting forth. Or, maybe you are not honest. Or maybe you are honest but wrong.
  6. Not that simple. The common example is "tell that to the Nazi concentration camp guard". He was being responsible and realistic, he knew Jews and others were subhuman and should be treated like that. He probably was compassionate and loving when he went home at night. All he had that may have protected him, or illuminated him, were in fact his emotions, the gnawing feeling that something is wrong. But rationality was to ignore them.
  7. Having a meaningful life seems to be a necessity of survival qua man. A meaningless life, is painful, leading to depression anxiety etc. And granted for each it takes a different path, there are different interests etc. But there must be a core definition that is common to all. That all meaningful lives share. Further more, in the context, "meaning" has a particular definition. It is not like reading something and determining what it "means". Life has to have a meaning. Well, it is what it is. It has a nature. I have a nature. What can a person bring to it, other than observing this "so called meaning". In psychology, the closest seems to be the concept of the "flow". Being in the flow. But one can argue that one can be engrossed in the flow of meaningless activity too. There is also another aspect, that of being "good", avoiding being "evil".
  8. Who would be an example of this? The reasons I ask is that my experience is that usually someone who is irrational also seems irrational. Also, Doesn't being compassionate and loving require discerning, like you don't want to be compassionate and loving toward a rattle snake. Can't be dogmatic about it, it can kill you.
  9. There seem to be several contexts (word or concept), therefore different definitions of meaningless: 1. A word or phrase that is meaningless the word/phrase or symbol refers to no concept or concrete (lack of language understanding or gibberish) 2. A concept that is meaningless A concept that has no referent (as in a contradiction or falsehood or lack of exposure or knowledge) Regarding meaning, this also implies that: A word or phrase that has meaning, refers to a concept or concrete. A concept that has meaning, refers to two or more concretes. (a concept referring to only one concrete is not a concept) A meaningful word or phrase can be a meaningless concept. A meaningless concept can be a meaningful word or phrase. A meaningless word or phrase cannot ever be a meaningful concept.
  10. If you want to go down that road one could indicate "truly unimaginable" vs. unimaginable, as if it were another category. But I get your point. I suppose it is similar to "known unknown" vs. "unknown unknown". I make the distinction: variable x, is a place holder. The number 5 is a number. But one could say they are both numbers. I suppose you would say I imagine what is in x. Then I have to indicate the difference in some other way, perhaps the word imagine is not the right. Just because my mind fills in the blanks when reading poetry does not mean I imagined a referent. I personally can't imagine what something that is and isn't is. Although I as a concept, it defines what does not exist. Similar to the concept "nothing". As in, it isn't anything. I can use the word, work with the concept, but I can't imagine a referent because there is none. As in, there is no image.The fact that I put it into words does not mean that I can imagine it. Although perhaps, you can. I ask this seriously. (or you consider that which can be conceptualized automatically has been imagined). In the case of a table, I can and do imagine a table in addition to working with the concept table. In the case of infinity, I can't imagine infinity, but I work with the concept in Calculus etc. So you seem to say "if I understand a concept", I have imagined it. But I see a difference.
  11. There seem to be perspectives on types of reality. There are elements of consciousnesses like fiction or concepts that have been imagined or observed by someone. Aren't they real too? As in, Harry Potter is a "real" fictitious character. Not metaphysically real of course. Also, aren't "rights" real? (both objectively and normatively) Isn't fear or anger real? If they are NOT real, then we must be explicit and say metaphysically real rather than the ambiguous term "real" or "reality". I don't know the word for it, what is "the realm of consciousness" as in: mental entities, thoughts, emotions, concepts, imagination? Having said all there, there is an unambiguous category of unreal: The specific category of (meaningless/unreal) defined as: that which has no referent and is unimaginable. Example: That which is green and not green, soft and not soft, that which exists in every way and does not exist in every way. That which is unreal and non existent and unimaginable (nothing fits the description at all).
  12. Depending on what is meant. To say that something is slower, and then say it is faster, is to say it is slower and not slower. Which is to say nothing, i.e. meaningless, unknowable, indeterminable. But to say in this way it is faster but in this other way it is slower, is not a contradiction. You have to include the context, the time, the perspective.
  13. When there is a contradiction, there is a problem with "my thoughts". Why? Because contradictions exist, but as concepts, as thoughts, as imagination. They do not exist outside of consciousness. They are artifacts of a mind only (sort of a mental entity). So when someone says they don't exist, it is in that context. When something floats, it implies there is no gravity. It could. Or it could mean your thoughts are incorrect. You have to ask what holds the water down? Why doesn't the object float above the water? If there was no gravity, the water should float upward and the object should float above that too at some point. The implication is that "something holds it all down". If contradictions exist, the the water is the object which is the air which is the floor which is the sky which is you and me and gravity. If a contradictions exist, if they are out there, outside of the mind the the world that you see is and isn't, Anything is heavy and is not heavy, Nothing can be distinguished, everything is the same and different. There is no point in asking "why" anymore, the answer would be meaningless. In any face to face discussion, to claim that contradictions exist outside of the mind, ends up meaning "end of conversation".
  14. Another world simply goes against the law of identity. Another world means: A is A (at the same time and perspective) AND A is (not A) (at the same time and the same perspective BUT in another world). Sometimes the mistake is that "another world", is "another perspective of this world". Based on the definition of the universe (not in physics but in philosophy) (per the lexicon) "The universe is the total of that which exists—not merely the earth or the stars or the galaxies, but everything". In Physics, when other universes exist, that can only mean that their definition of "the universe", is not "everything". What is meant by the universe can only be "a subset of everything". As in perhaps the universe after the big bang and another before. Then one can ask the OP's question as "is there another everything"? Is there another "all"? But by definition, how many "all" 's are there? The "All" without filters, limitations, exceptions. "All" as in every one of them. How many "every one of them" can there be? Same with totality: 2+2 is 4, or are there other "totals" too? (in another world?) If there is more than one "all", then it contradicts the definition of all or totality. When one states "All living things have a choice to live or die", is there another "all" somewhere else? Are there dead things that are living things? (in another world?) If true, the logicalness would have to be of another world too. Clearly, we can imagine other worlds. Phenomenologically, we live in many worlds, a province of psychology/consciousness, but metaphysically, there is only one existence.
  • Create New...