Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Veritas

Regulars
  • Content Count

    89
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Veritas last won the day on March 27 2012

Veritas had the most liked content!

2 Followers

About Veritas

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

1236 profile views
  1. Right, hence the primacy of existence. If it is mental in "nature" is it simply descriptive of an action? If it is not material can it be said to have identity?
  2. Thanks. The grip analogy makes sense. Curious though how HB can be a dualist with Objectivist epistemology.
  3. I have just started reading, “How We Know” and and in the section, “Consciousness as Irreducible” and I am wondering if someone can help me understand this a bit better. The part that I am hung up on is where Harry says, “Consciousness exists and matter exist” and then starts to talk about materielists. I am missing something conceptually. Can someone help me better understand conpeteptually the idea that consciousness and matter are seperate? It almost sound as if consciousness is something mystical, but I have always rejected mysticism on the grounds that it has no grounding in the natural world.
  4. If it is not exactly a match then doens't this ontradict A = A and mean that in your example above that identity would be more like A = Ab?
  5. But, isn't causation a result of identity as opposed to forces acting on the outside of the object?
  6. If the law of identity states that a thing is what is, referring to all the charactacteristics that make it what it is in particular, how then is evolution possible? Is evolution not change over time? Is evolution simply a change in the code or is a change in identity via speciation? Is my understanding of identity incorrect or my understanding of evolution?
  7. I am not making the connection between they don't have language to they cannot have concepts. Is not language the way that you are referring to it strictly human?
  8. How can we be certain to any level that an animal can not identify units? Is this just an underlying assumption or has there been a test run to verify this claim? I am asking because I am reading OPAR and Leonard Peikoff mention this with a pretty good level of certainty. Just curious about the justification.
  9. Does that mean I should take the hardest path in every endeavor? In this scenario, all I want to do is get to the top. I will use my local gym for my fitness needs.
  10. If I want to get to the top of a mountain, two possible options are available to me. I can take a helicopter or a can climb it. What is appreciations relationship to value? Does appreciation come necessarily from struggle or from something else? My end goal is to get to the top. From an emotional standpoint will I appreciate being at the top if I do so at the expense of the struggle to get there (there will be a lot of secondary accomplishments ie; muscle growth, a better understanding of climbing) or will I appreciate being at the top simply because I have accomplished my goal. In other words what role does the amount of struggle place in achieving my values? Does struggle enhance the achievement of my goals or is it negligible to the achievement of my goals? So in a another example, a person that is given enough money (given the have values to sustain it) vs a person that has earned it through hard work....
  11. Veritas

    Sex and Trade

    What makes "sex" a higher value than an other value?
  12. Veritas

    Sex and Trade

    What do people think is right or wrong about this... Husband: I want to have sex tonight Wife: No Wife: Will you run to the store for me and get some eggs. Husband: Sure but only if when I return you will have sex with me Wife: ...but I don’t feel like it... Husband: No problem, so then when you feel like it...since I am agreeing to go to the store for you I would like for you at some point to have sex with me in return.... quid pro quo... Wife: I don’t want to trade favors for sex... Husband: Why not? You can ask me to do anything... I will do it as long as you will have sex with me in return....
  13. The goal of the question is to remove bias. The scenario Mother is watching a movie where government is trying to find a boy. The boy is with a girl and they run to a “trustworthy” place. In each step of the movie electronic devices have been used to be tracked. Yet, in this trust worthy place the girl who was with the boy decided to call her uncle on a phone inside the trustworthy place. The mother claims that this is unreasonable and that everyone would know that the phones would be tapped. It was stated in response to that that it is not necessarily true that everyone would automatically know. The person that picked up the phone in the movie was a teenager. It was stated that it is Not unlikely that a teenager would pick up the phone not thinking about the consequences of the action. in order to demonstrate this the mother asked her teenage son to come in the room, to hear the scenario,and then to see how he would respond. The Son comes into the room the scenario is given and this is the question that is asked... Question A ”If you were in this same situation would you use the phone to call someone” ? tihe objection to the question by the other person was the it was leading the person to the answer. The alternate question that was given to remove bias is to ask this question instead, Question B ”If you were in this same scenario and you saw a phone who would be the first person that you would call”? Which question would be better to see how the Son would truly respond in this scenario and in order to remove any kid of bias?
  14. What would be the benifit to the children?
  15. Should a woman who is married attend the funeral of the ex. The context. The divorce was due to disrespect and verbal abuse. After several years the ex was forgiven and the ex was amicable and not the same as they used to be. I say that this is disrespectful to the current spouse. Here is something that was said to me that I am arguing against. The point of a funeral is to pay respect to the person that passed and to honor their life. This is because they had child with that person and that is meaningful. My question is who is this benefiting. If it is benefiting the spouse that is attending the funeral in what way are they benefiting that is not in the face of their current spouse? Also does not to “pay respect to someone” assume that the respect is owed to them? If the divorce was due to disrespect what is owed to the deceased? As far as compassion goes what about simply being compassionate to the person that decided to marry you and respect you and treat you very well and not go to the funeral of your ex? What are your thoughts?
×
×
  • Create New...