Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

organon1973

Regulars
  • Posts

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    4

Everything posted by organon1973

  1. Perhaps it would be best to begin with a clear definition of causation. I would offer: An entity will act in accordance with its nature, given the context of the forces acting upon it.
  2. To say something has 'intrinsic value' is to say it has value independent of evaluation (by a consciousness). Which is a contradiction in terms.
  3. "Why is there something rather than nothing?" Because it's there.
  4. I also prefer "rational being" to Aristotle's "rational animal".
  5. How about the nature of anger -- or love -- or despair -- and the causes thereof?
  6. Neither of you address the issue here. (In general, do not take intros such as this as jabs in any way -- if your concern is reason, then interpret all I write/say in a benevolent context.) You speak of the referents of a concept (which are objective and unchanging), versus its definition (which is contextual, wholly epistemological)? You mention that there is no thought, outside of a sensory context? Neither of these have any bearing on the case. There are things that exist inside the mind, that exist solely in the context of consciousness, and her definition -- of Reason -- limits the field of that faculty to only sensory data. But "nothing is outside the province of reason." What is a valid definition of Reason? Try this: Reason is the faculty that integrates and identifies that which is (with the understood context that that which is, is grasped by objective means). (In general, addressed in general: what is your first concern? Is it Reality, or her written philosophy? What do you think her first concern would be? Challenge every word she wrote, when it is called for, and know that she would love you the more for it. Pardon, unsure this parenthetical should be here. In any case -- hitting 'Add Reply'.)
  7. Pardon? Regardless of what she says here, her formal definition of reason is what it is -- and is not consistent either with this quote (which is fine), or with her statement in the Romantic Manifesto (again, "nothing is outside the province of reason"). I hesitate to speculate as to what caused her to formulate her definition as she did, at the time; rather, why it came to her in that way. Rendering it invulnerable to mysticism/subjectivism in any respect, given the then-present epistemological corruption, and the state of psychology? No, I will not speculate here. (Behaviorism, as a psychological school, is, by the way, fundamentally flawed due to the fact that the behavior of a conscious organism cannot be understood without reference to its consciousness.) No, I am not an Objectivist, though I would describe myself as one were I to know of no errors of any kind in her written philosophy. But even then, even were that the case, my primary context is that of: Reality, Reason, and the Right; and, in relation to philosophy, I would call myself first and foremost a rational philosopher, and a student/adherent of Rational Philosophy.
  8. Hello Quo, This is not relevant: although they can be prompted by sensory concerns, they still have an existence that is wholly consciousness-based. And even emotions can be triggered by wholly 'internal' data, e.g., by a memory. Note, in this context, she also restricts productive work to material manifestation -- something that exists in the world (see her re productivity) -- by which, a psychotherapist, engaged solely in therapeutic practice, does not qualify as productive. I am unsure whether I should say this, but will in any case, so that you might know what I think of Miss Rand: in terms of historical value and importance, she competes only with Aristotle.
  9. Her definition entirely excludes the facts of which one is introspectively aware, which are nonetheless facts although they cannot be perceived with the senses. These include, but are not limited to: thoughts; beliefs; evaluations; values; emotions; desires.
  10. Only to have the clearest definition possible of this idea, Grames. :-) Good stuff by Peikoff there.
  11. If one has a line, and wishes to transform it to a flat, plane square, another dimension is drawn, and, by virtue of that 'expansion', a new form is created. The area of the new shape? Obtained by multiplying the two dimensions. The new dimension that was drawn is the 'translation factor' there, in obtaining area. And from a flat, plane square, to a cube: another dimension (depth) drawn. The volume? Obtained by multiplying by the added dimension, that dimension, serving as a 'translation factor', the product, volume. The new, third dimension, the translation factor that results in the product of volume. So, area (2 dimensions), volume (3 dimensions). And for 4 dimensions -- space. How does one calculate space? Is time part of that equation? I do not know; perhaps unstated (unnecessary to do so), as space and time are inseparable, but always there. (Trafalgar Square does not exist apart from time -- it exists now, it existed in 1990, it didn't always exist, it may not always exist.) But: E=mc2. I think of it in this way: Matter, transformed to the other primary form of existence (the two, matter and energy), according to a specified translation factor, that factor being the speed of light. The particular amount of energy, for a given amount of matter, specified by that factor. E=mc2 Why is the dimension of c squared? No doubt the fact it is accurate has been demonstrated experimentally. But I do not know why it is the case. I need to pick up Einstein.
  12. If the universe is a 4-dimensional hypersphere (a hypersphere, any sphere of greater than 4 dimensions -- our universe, of 4 dimensions), why is it curved? And why do objects move toward one another, in a straight line, by virtue of gravity? Thoughts: If the universe is indeed a sphere -- what is the shortest path between two points on a sphere? A curve. Do objects move toward one another, by virtue of gravity, along the shortest possible path? Yes, they do -- we do not see two objects taking detours during that course of motion and stopping at celestial Starbuck's.
  13. No one hurrying to the podium, I see. Very well; I'll start with my own: Economics: the science that studies the principles relating to the creation and exchange of wealth. Price: the equilibrium point between the amount of a good available for sale and the demand for it (in a given context). The word 'priceless' is one of those conceptual mindblowers, that disables rational thought. No, nothing is priceless -- unless it is off the market (not available for sale), in which case the word does not apply. Given it is on the market, and not worthless (and even a used styrofoam coffee cup is not wholly worthless), it has a price. If a man, with no other options, who has ten billion dollars in diamonds were he to have access to an exchange 7,000 miles from where he stands (in the desert, 500 miles from water), is offered, by a man (they are alone, and the diamond-holder is near death), a gallon of water for his whole hoard, yes, he will pay it. Throw out "marginal utility" -- although it is/was a good first step in relating context to price. Another mindblower (this belongs in another thread): infinite. Nothing is infinite; alright, you know that. But what of potential growth? Of adding ten thousand trees daily, to a logger's forest, over a potentially infinite period of time? Better word: unlimited. Without a limit relating to the nature of things. Does anything have a limit, relating to the nature of things? The speed of light, and nothing else? I do not know. Is fusion a process that produces a net gain of energy? And thus will the universe never run down, but endure forever, growing in its "volume" and overall magnitude constantly over time? I do not know. And, while (2nd law of thermo?) energy spontaneously disorganizes by spreading from a source (hot pan on a stove, once the burner is turned off), does matter (vastly concentrated energy) spontaneously organize by means of gravity, in all cases? Pardon, belongs elsewhere. All for now. Be well; happy holidays.
  14. Here you are; I can think of none better: The perspective in and from which a thing is viewed. Not only 'from' which a thing is viewed, but 'in' which a thing is viewed. Both needed. Why? I need myself to formulate this explicitly; is it a matter of tying perspectives together, a need relating to integration? Both 'internal', and 'external'? Linking all that is known, into a unified, non-contradictory 'model', that ties to, integrates with, all that is? "A fact never went into partnership with a miracle. Truth scorns the assistance of wonders. A fact will fit every other fact in the universe, and that is how you can tell whether it is or is not a fact. A lie will not fit anything except another lie." - Robert Ingersoll
  15. In the Romantic Manifesto, Ayn Rand wrote (and rightly so) that "nothing is outside the province of reason". However, she defined reason as the following: "Reason is the faculty that identifies and integrates the material provided by man's senses." Leaving aside the fact that sensory perception (sense-based identification) is not excluded by this definition ("identified ... by man's senses"), and is not a rational process, does anyone see a problem here?
  16. x > y (the relation, relating to the nature of things -- if x is the case, then y must be the case -- y is the prerequisite of x) And what is called Modus Tollens, I think: -y > -x Given that y is not the case, x cannot be the case. Example: "If it is snowing, then it must be 32 degrees or lower outside." "If it is not 32 degrees or lower outside, then it cannot be snowing."
  17. Less than clear on the part of the Philosopher, there. How about this: A statement of conditional necessity that derives from the nature of things.
  18. Yes, it emits vibrations ('sound waves') -- and yes, a 'green' object reflects wavelengths in a certain range ('green', a concept that exists in the context of consciousness -- see ITOE). But no, there is no sound (in the sense of 'make a sound', see dictionary.com re the relevant definition -- 'sound' and 'sound waves' (which refers specifically to the vibrations) are emphatically not equivalent). But there is no green, in the absence of eyes and a brain that grasps it as such; and no sound, in the absence of ears and a brain that grasps it as such.
  19. I responded here. Don't know what the hell happened to my post. Again: If a tape recorder is there, the only event is changes to the relevant media, when the vibrations impinge upon the apparatus -- no, there is no sound, not until a consciousness plays and hears that media. As Leonard Peikoff wrote, perception is a marriage of object and apparatus -- in the case of sight, and sound, as well as the others: the relevant sensory organs perceiving by their own means, then transmitting the information to the brain, where it is interpreted in accordance with the nature of that brain, and all attendant structures. There is no 'green' in the absence of the eyes that see it, and transmit the data (in the case of man) by means of the thalamus? (sensory relay station?) to the occipital cortex? (been quite some time since Intro to Neuroscience) -- where we then grasp it, though virtually instantly, as green. Destroy that cortex -- the thalamus -- the brain -- the man -- animals in general -- nothing left there but a certain range of wavelengths of visible light, interpreted, seen, by nothing at all. In the absence of one who hears, there is no sound. In the absence of one who sees, there is no sight.
  20. Are there current best, most integrative, definitions of economics (as a science) and of price? Thank you; be well.
  21. Did Dr. Peikoff once say/write something in relation to that in the 19th century, people would walk to the home of strangers, and freely be admitted to see the beauty of the decorated home during the Christmas season? I am unsure of the details. In any case, in the spirit of the holiday, of joy, and friendship, and values, and love, please post a picture of your tree to the thread. I would very much like to see the incarnation of that particular joy in your own home, should you celebrate the holiday and have one.
  22. *** Mod's note: Merged with an earlier tread. - sN *** "If a tree falls in a forest and no one is around, does it make a sound?" An argument in relation to this question: Sound involves the interaction of vibrations in some medium caused by some agent, e.g., a falling tree, or a rock hitting the side of a granite wall, upon the relevant "sensory modality", i.e., our auditory organs. A proper grasp of any given word relating to perception, e.g., "sight", or "sound", includes the context of a consciousness that is perceiving (listening, or seeing) whatever thing we may be referring to. If there is no consciousness present to perceive (in the case of sound) the vibrations in a medium, there is no sound, even though the vibrations are there. In the absence of one who hears, there is no sound, even though the vibrations are there. In the absence of one who sees, there is no sight, even though an object is reflecting visible light.
×
×
  • Create New...