Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Marnee

Regulars
  • Posts

    3
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • State (US/Canadian)
    Arizona
  • Country
    United States
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted

Marnee's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Okay let me see if I can figure this out.... In refercence to Kyle's SRC: His sentence is self-referring, indeed. It is an artifact of the sentence structure. The notion of a concept of "concept" is not. Try diagramming the sentences. Try to more clearly explain what a concept of a concept is and the paradox will be eliminated. Let me break down the sentence. THE SUBJECT By definition: The concept “concept” = = concept Just like: The concept “paradox” = = paradox ENTER THE PREDICATE It follows then: The concept “concept” is one self referring concept. = = Concept is one self-referring concept. “Concept is one self-referring concept” is a meaningless sentence. Let’s try replacing concept with its definition: A mental device that refers to a set or group of sets is one self referring concept. A mental device that refers to a set or group of sets is one self-referring mental device that refers to a set or group of sets. Take out self-referring: A mental device that refers to a set or group of sets is a mental device that refers to a set or group of sets. A is A. Who knew? Where’s the (even indirect??) paradox?
  2. Marnee

    Debitism

    Call me crazy but Felix treats the market as if it were a gambling casino, dropped out of the sky. This casino only allows a certain number of people in, represented by nothing more than dollars, and never lets them leave. The casino never changes. No new dollars are let in and none are let out. Everyone just continues gambling forever and ever and ever. His so-called theory would only be meaningful if this were true of markets but it is not (would it be right to say “metaphysically impossible?”). He ignores the crucial fact that a market is a system of trading values, not simply dollars. Most importantly, value does not require money to produce or a dollar amount to trade. I think I can make this clearer with this simple illustration. John enters a market with 0$ and leave with $1000. How? By trading work for value, with Frank. John traded work for money. Yes Frank is now down $1000, but he also gains the value of John’s work. This is something Frank did not have before. I believe that if Felix’s ledger book “theory” of economics were meaningful or useful this example would be impossible. But it happens everyday. FELIX: why do you ignore externalities, and more importantly, opportunity costs? Why do you continue to ignore what money represents? Why do you ignore the influx of values (potential dollars) that previously did not exist in the given system (think mining companies)? HAVE YOU EVER WONDERED WHAT WAS THE ROOT OF ALL MONEY? $ Marnee
  3. JRS writes "... Dr. Peikoff's version of the law of causality which insists on only one possible outcome" in regards to the possible choices of focus or not focus. He claims the law of causality is contradicted by the existence of two possible outcomes. I think what JRS is trying to pull here is plain but just to clear up the mud .... This is a misrepresentation. JRS mixes up choices with outcomes and packages it into causality. Not the same things. And I beleive a stollen concept? Anyway, even with regards to exactly what I quoted above, JRS gets it backwards. The point is that a result of a choice, or causality in any context, cannot be one thing and a contradictory thing. In other words, assuming focus and not focus are exact opposites, the result of a choice cannot be to FOCUS AND NOT FOCUS at the same time. -- The sun cannot shine and not shine at the same time: Hence only one possible outcome -- An extension of A is A. The law of causality still stands. My apologies if this doesnt help the free will debate. Logically, if the law of causality is sound then free will follows, as several posters have pointed out. Perhaps I missed something? $
×
×
  • Create New...