Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tomer

Regulars
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tomer

  1. After reading this, I found that it may not be as clear to you as it is to me. I'll explain - the concept of 'View', epistemologicaly, may not be regarded always as metaphysicaly infalliable. When one uses it in such a way as - "Mr. X's view on abortion", it doesn't neccecerily have to be consistent with reality or not. The sentence simply states Mr. X's opinion. The concept 'Deals', pretains to one's reaction to the metaphysicaly given. I think that it is a psychological term that reflects how one relates to facts of reality - to knowledge that was already gained. The concept 'Studies', on the other hand, is not psychological. To study means to gain knowledge about reality, which means to gain it through facts and only facts. One may very well have A view on the fundamental nature of existence but until he STUDIES those fundamentals, it is not a philosophy because it is not yet KNOWLEDGE, ONLY OPNIONS.
  2. ashleyisachild, Have you read my posts in this thread? If so, what are your thoughts?
  3. You quoted me right and then referred to another concept which doesn't really fit here: I used the terms 'Deals' and 'Studies'. You used the term 'View'. Do you see the difference?
  4. The fallacy of the frozen abstraction? Not really. It may be hard for some people to understand that fallacy without a proper example. Rand offered one: (Rand, 'Collectivized Ethics', VOS, 94.) The fallacy of the frozen abstraction can be easily identified by the best tool for any epistemological analysis - Rand's 'Theory of Concepts.' Let's check Rand's example and later, mine. The definition of the term 'Ethics': Ethics is the third branch of philosophy that, in Ayn Rand's words, provides "a code of values to guide man's choices and actions - the choices which determine the purpose and the course of his life. It is a code by means of which he judges what is right or wrong, good or evil"(Rand, 'Faith and Force', PHNI, 61.) 'Altruism' is: (Rand, 'The Objectivist Ethics', VOS 37-38.) Now, it is clear that if one raises a question such as :"What will be done about the poor or the handicapped in a free society?", "he accepts thereby the collectivist premise that men's lives belong to society...". Why? Because the term 'Ethics' is not defind as 'the best (good, right, etc,) way to live' but as a code of values to guide his choices. Man is free to choose whether he wants to live or die. Ethics simply guides him after he makes that choice. If he chooses to die, the specific ethics of Altruism could guide his actions, but not if he chooses to live. Here, the fallacy of the frozen abstraction screams out. Let us now check my alleged fallacy. First, identifing the accusation: I was accused of using the fallacy of the frozen abstraction when I said that "Kant is not a philosopher because he doesn't deal with reality (even if it is only to some extent)." The term that need to be investigate is: 'Philosopher'. As I wrote before, the first thing that comes to mind when asking what is a philosopher is :"A Philosopher - A person who deals with philosophy." But that is not enough. The following question would be: What is 'Philosophy'? Or better yet, what precisely is a philosopher (since the first definition uses the same concept in it)? I wrote that a Philosopher is "a person who deals with, and studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man's relationship to existence." If I were to prove that Kant didn't 'deal' with the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man's relationship to existence, would it still be right to accuse me of the fallacy? I'll assume that the answer is no, and proceed to prove my argument: If one's concern is to deal with, and study the fundamental nature of existence and of man, he would have to start with the axiomatic concepts which are the base of our knowledge. It is in this point that Kant departs himself from the realm of reality (The axiomatic concepts are: Existence, Identity and Consiousness). (Rand, 'Consciousness and Identity', IOE, 80.) And, reffering to the 'philosophy' of Kant, as well as others like him, Rand writes: (Rand, 'Consciousness and Identity', IOE, 79.) Kant denies the axiomatic concepts (which are, of course, undeniable), therefore denies the base of human knowledge, thus does not deal with reality but rather evade it, not study the fundamental nature of existence but rather teach us that such a study is impossible, not search to discover the truth but hide it and make all that can be done in order for the truth never to be revealed.
  5. Don, you've defeated your apponent eloquently. Nothing is left for anarchistic theory to speak-of once it is properly identified for what it really is, which is a theory that is "totally removed from reality." Rand answered all of those rationalistic arguments in her essay "The Nature of Government". One point I'd like to clarify which is the basis for Mr. Garner assumptions is his false definition for anarchy: He writes that the term 'Anarchy' means the ÔÇťabsence of ruler". that is incorrect. The right definition is : "The absence of organized government." (Oxford dic.) It would have been reasonable to assume that Mr. Garner simply confused the term 'Government' with 'Ruler.' But, amazingly enough, he DOES KNOW the difference. To those who missed it, He actually quotes Ayn Rand on this issue (and left it as only a sideline issue): (Taken from Rand's VOS 129, 'The Nature of Goverment,' emphasis mine). (Anarchist Illusions by Roy A. Childs, Jr.) Evil is impotent? I think so!
  6. This is how I decide: The definition of ice is: Solid water. The proposition is: ice is solid. Ice is water = ice is ice. Try another example (also from IOE): i) 2+2 = 4 ii)2 qts. of water mixed with 2 qts. of ethyl alchohol yeild 3.86 qts. of liquid, at 15.56 C. The first is obviously analytic (2+2 =4 => 1+1+1+1=1+1+1+1) do you think the seconed is also analytic? Nol, I wasn't joking. What made you think that?
  7. Who said that a dichotomy exist?
  8. An Analytic truth is a proposition that can be validated merely by an analysis of the meaning of its constituent concepts (also called "logical truths"). Example: i)Ice is solid. ii)Ice floats on water. The first proposition is Analytic, the seconed synthetic. "A 'Synthetic' proposition is defined as one which cannot be validated merely by an analysis of the meanings or definitions of its constituent concepts." *Both definitions and the example were taken from Leonard Peikoff's 'The Analytic- Synthetic dichtomy' (IOE, 90-91).
  9. Do you still see Kant (for example) as a philosopher, not from a layman's point of view but from yours? Consider two definitions: 1) A Philosopher - A person who deals with philosophy. 2) A Philosopher - A person who deals with, and studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man and of man's relationship to existence. It is obvious that both are analitic truths but, as you see, the first depends on the other. Some people will accept only the first as a valid definition while failing to understand what philosophy is (as defined in the seconed). I claim that Kant is not a philosopher because he doesn't deal with reality (even if it is only to some extent). He deals with his own fantasy world created out of his own pschological problems and failures. It is all a matter of context. If I'm engaged in a conversation with a non-objectivist, I would treat other schools of thought as philosophies only until I've succeeded in proving otherwise. For a man living 2500 years ago, the bible can assume the role of philosophy. For a priest living after Ayn Rand, the bible can only be used as a tool for evading reality (if he read AS). After identifying any philosophical system's contradictions it makes no sense to keep treating it as a philosophy to those who know it. Explain. I argue (as Rand did long before me) that the U.S. Constitution is incomplete. "There were contradictions in the Constitution, which allowed the staists to gain an entering wedge, to enlarge the breach, and, gradually, to wreck the structure" (A.R., CUI 47) What do I think the US Supreme Court has been doing for the past 210 years?? Either working "to wreck the structure" or trying to fight the logical consequenses of an incomplete Constitution.
  10. Look for the loopholes in your constitution. Every effect has a cause.
  11. 1)Philosophy is an integrated system. One which "studies the fundamental nature of existence, of man, and of man's relationship to existence." (PWNI 2) There can be no contradictions. A 'philosophy' with contradictions fails to be an integrated system (since contradictions cannot exist, they cannot be integrated), fails to identify the fundamental nature of existence and of man. Therefore any philosophy that contradicts itself. Is not really a philosophy. For the best of my knowledge, Objectivism is the only truely integrated philosophy, therefore, the only philosophy that deserves its title. 2)An immoral law can exist, only that there is no justification for its existence. Meaning, that a constitution that doesn't set the limits to other laws, is a contradiction.
  12. whatever, my argument will stay in this forum to all those who wish to think. my work here is done! REASON IS NOT AUTOMATIC. THOSE WHO DENY IT CANNOT BE CONQUERED BY IT. DON'T COUNT ON THEM. LEAVE THEM ALONE. -A. R.
  13. For the first time I agree. I am a visitor here and know that I'm here only with permission. If the owners wish that I won't be registered, I'll leave. I respect their rights.
  14. I base the opinion I posted of Stephen based on this one thread. And to be more clear, my opinion was that he was rude. I am not rude. I see rudness as a vice, therefore I concluded that we are not equal from THAT one perspective.
  15. This is not true. Try to read my entire argument. "If any," would be the first question. Notice that some use the fallacy of "begging the question" (borrowing Peikoff's words)when asking that question while leaving out the "if any", which means that they presuppose that psychological differences exist between men and women. I assume you are speaking of physical differences. Am I right? I can't see the logical connection here. "Couldn't" is a metaphysically given (in that context), "should't" is not. I hope that mistake was not made intentionally. In the way you said it, (if you ment that both assertions are acting against reality) with the mistake, I agree. What, on earth, made you think that??? Egalitarian views all individuals as equals. I'm an extra-extra-extreme capitalist. I know that is not possible. But it is the mind and only the mind that is the subject of differentiation between individuals (my proof was that volition is possible). I can't imagine what made you say that. it was never an issue here. Again, try reading my entire argument.
  16. Have you read our entire correspondence? All through it, Stephen behaved in an uncivilized manner. THIS is unacceptable. I am open to reason, but not to slurs. If the subject is of any interest to you, I ask you to take the time and read the whole thread. It'll be much clearer.
  17. You are taking two unrelated issues out of context. I wrote that: Do you consider yourself equal to those who spend their time trashing you without a shred of a reasonable argument? That would mean pure egalitarianism.
  18. What does "VES" means? I follow the best teacher I've ever had: "Reason is not automatic. Those who deny it cannot be conquered by it. Do not count on them. Leave them alone." *Ayn Rand, The 35th anniversary edition of Atlas Shrugged, pg. 3
  19. You could also ask him whether Leonard Peikoff applied the Godwin's Law when writing "The Ominous Parallels". Or is it only applicable on the internet forums? d180586, leave him be... he is not an equel (and knows it perfectly well) yet you treat him as one. Leave him to his insults and cynisism. Try to focus on other rational individuals. There are many excellent users here... THEY ARE WORTH IT! but not him.
  20. Stephen wrote: Try to keep this in mind for the rest of this post (this, at least, is clear. Or is it?). d180586 wrote a while ago, reffering to the differences between men and women: I agreed then and I agree now... Stephen wrote: All of which proves that physical differences exist. Well... I already said they were self evident. Nothing new here. At the time, Natzis thought that "differing sizes in the cortex" and other physical differences can prove something about an individual's personality, claiming that a hierarchical order exists between races. A notion like the one I've just quoted reflects the same thinking with one execption: claiming that an hierarchical order between human genders exist. Stephen continues: Is he suggesting that those differences control our process of thinking?? That the process of consciousness is controled by "the hormonal structure"?? Let's define our terms: CONSIOUSNESS (IOE, 29) (IOE, 29) REASON (VOS, 22) It is reason (and only reason) that gives us information about reality. Values, as a corollary are determined by the reality in which we live, but is guided by our volitional consciousness. Claiming that there is a fundamental difference between a man's values (which are derived from a volitional process) and a woman's (which is, in the same manner, also derived from a volitional process), would have to mean that there is a fundamental difference in regard to their nature. Ayn Rand devides the categories in the following way: we first distinguish between existant and non-existant. Then, between living entities and inanimate matter. Then by the type of consiousness, i.e, between perceptual awarness and conceptual awarness. There is no necessity for farther distinguishing between the genders for any conclusion regarding those who possess a conceptual awareness, apart from physiological differences. The reason is that only among those possessing the conceptual awareness, volition is possible. POSSESSING VOLITION ENTAILS THE USE OF IT ON ANY PROCCESS OF THINKING AND EVALUATION, ANY ISSUE AND ANY VALUE JUDGMENT. Sexual desires are derived from value judgements which are derived from a process of thinking which derives from a volitional, conceptual consiousness. Volitional counsciousness, not any physiological similarities or differences between those possesing it. Are you still keeping in mind what Stephen wrote? just to remind you: Now, Stephen actually says that: (!) To soften the blow, Stephen returns again to what is actually, scientifically proveable, which is, that physical differences exist. At the end, Stephen resorts to the old 'mind-body dichotomy': No one is suggesting otherwise. We are neither flesh alone nor disconnected consciousness. putting this notion (despite its irrelevance) here was not an innocent mistake. It was done intentionally. why? - Stephen writes in his following post that: I will end this post by paraphrasing him: This is, at best, dishonest to one's self, and, at worst, misleading to others.
  21. My point was that a non-objectivist constitution is a non-constitution. In a very general way, constitution is a law which sets the limits to other laws (in this sense, a law that breaks or contradicts a constitutional law creates a non-sense meaning of the term constitution.)
×
×
  • Create New...