Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited


About Plasmatic

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Male

Previous Fields

  • Country Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian) Not Specified
  • Relationship status Married
  • Sexual orientation Straight
  • Copyright Copyrighted

Recent Profile Visitors

8974 profile views
  1. If you do improve your knowledge you will find that its impossible that you could comprehend Ryan's argument for why "It makes any general knowledge or induction unjustifiable" if you don't even understand what "It" is. For Ryan "It" (universals) are akin to what Plato call the Form. By agreeing with Ryan (knowingly, or not) you are actually claiming that in order to have knowledge we need some kind of Platonic world of ideals (entities) with bizarre abilities. Does that sound like what you want to be accepting?
  2. Epistemolouge have you read my response in this thread? What about there being a metaphysical basis for similarity without a need for "strict Identity" makes the view of universality as epistemic problematic? There is a factual basis for similarity and it doesn't include the metaphysical nonsense of bizarre entities occupying many places at once but rather a mind grasping individual identities that have common structure/architecture while remaining physically distinct individuals.
  3. Huh? I don't get how you are going from concepts are an extended sense of entity to [i[ the extended sense of entity is about the perception of objects as wholes[/i]??? Concepts are integrations held together by concrete symbols. We perceive these unities via language. I don't see what your after. (edit: I agree that "mental entity" is not a ontological actor for Rand. )
  4. I don't recommend a first exposure to Oism by looking into what Rand fans think about an elected official. Every year around election time many Oist seem to go bat shit crazy and say all kinds of irrational nonsense. Study Rands books to find out what you think an Objectivist view of Trump would be.
  5. Neither the solar system, general motors, or a subatomic particle are "given to us" by our perception as wholes. These are the examples given in OPAR as the extended sense of entity. I dont see where you get this from.
  6. Your equivocating on "range" as well as missing the point as relates to Oist epistemology and the base of mathematics. 1+1=2 regardless of what qualitative differences the entities you are counting possess because we omit all measurements except quantity. That is, the one thing one cannot omit is the fundamental concept entity. Entity=1 and that is the information that is absolute and universal to every moment of perceptual awareness. Just as there is no range of existing there is no being more or less an entity. Metaphysically "to be, is to be an entity" (76 lectures). Thats why concepts rely on concrete symbols to exist. This relates to the topic because while the analytic synthetic dichotomy is in error there is definately something factual they were trying to explain. (Peikoff recounts his struggle to answer many questions posed by the dichotomy in one lecture. How he dealt with those questions is something I think everyone should be aware of) Buddha, McCaskey tries to deal with those "Exceptionless and universal statements" here: http://www.johnmccaskey.com/analytic-statements/
  7. What is the range of answers to 1+1 ? Why is quantity the one thing one must assume while measuring magnitudes? From Mathematics is About the World:
  8. That is not what the extended sense of entity is for Peikoff or Rand at all. The literature says the exact opposite. The perceptual given is the primary sense. Mental entities (concepts) are made such by actual concrete substitution with symbols. A square inch as an entity in the extended sense and clouds are in the same boat as a pile of sand for Rand. Both are a collection of entities.
  9. I think people here need to learn why Rand called it "omitting measurements" and not "omitting quantities"....why Rand called perception the arithmetic of knowledge and concepts the algebra.... There is absolutely nothing approximate about 1+1=2 and the metaphysical "base" of that undeniable fact is given in perception.....
  10. I have little time to deal with the many things I dissagree with in the recent posts but just wanted to point something out quickly: I dont know why your claims about Kant are so far off sometimes but this is demonstrably false. Kant believed in the "synthetic apriori". Also, Rand actually believed that one can know what properties belong to "things in themselves" through the special sciences....
  11. I wasn't making a claim about origins of JTB but about Gettier's claims about JTB. I assume you are referring to "The basic concepts involved in Gettier's JTB are:" I assume that knowledge of what Gettier said about JTB is sufficient to know what I was referring to. The basic concepts involved in Gettier's claims about JTB are: Better?
  12. The basic concepts involved in Gettier's JTB are: 1). Justification 2).Truth 3). Belief 4). Knowledge The debate here basically centers around how to define these concepts and the hierarchal relation of them to one another. All the Gettier examples given basically are ways to attempt to do the above. The added contentions are around what Oist epistemology says about the above 4 concepts and hierarchal relations. Finding out if we mean the same thing is usually done by simply stating your definition of a given concept. In this case the concept knowledge. Definition: Knowledge is the recognition/identification of the facts of reality. Do you agree with this definition?
  13. I still don't quite follow. But let's leave "motivation" aside for the moment, if possible. I'd like to get the basics squared away first. And if we can agree on the basics, then maybe I can more easily understand your point about motivation. All right. So let's start here: I have a belief that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. This belief that I have is either 1) knowledge or 2) not knowledge. This depends on whether or not it is true that Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11. Thus far, am I correct? If so, I guess my initial questions are: 1) Is it possible for me to determine whether my belief is knowledge or not knowledge? 2) If it is possible for me to do this, how exactly would I go about it in this case? You are thus far correct. 1). Yes, by reducing your beliefs via a valid epistemology back to the perceptual. A theory about unperceived causes is a special case of knowing that gets much more complicated and involves a whole theory of induction. Not what I would really call "the basics" of what constitutes knowledge. 2). Is asking for me to lay out an entire epistemology. (Theory of knowledge)
  14. This does no work for you. I don't agree with Grames' claims so that doesn't help you make sense to me. And this explains the relevance of your "promise" statement how? What does not being able to promise, or guarantee truth have to do with claiming that a false belief constitutes knowledge? Im certain what you are saying is false.
  15. The belief that Osama Bin Laden was responsible for 9/11 is only knowledge if it is true/ a fact that Bin laden was responsible for 9/11. (Whether or not I think your belief is true and therefore constitutes knowledge is irrelevant to the question of whether untrue beliefs are knowledge generally. ) I was trying to tell you that there are other reasons why one could hold that false beliefs are not knowledge other than the reasons you imputed in your analysis of the motivations of those who hold this.