Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Grames last won the day on September 14

Grames had the most liked content!

About Grames

  • Rank
    Serial Thinker

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Recent Profile Visitors

15422 profile views
  1. False concept

    Nothingness is like zero, the end result of the process of repeated subtraction. Start with something, such as money, and spend it on necessities and frivolities without corresponding income. Eventually the sum dwindles to very little and then no money at all. Generalizing the idea of "no money" and "no cattle" and "no girlfriend" to "no thing" gets you to the idea of nothing. Reifiying "nothing" is an error because it treats "nothing" as a primary that has a direct correspondence with something rather than an idea derived from a process based on collections of actual existing concretes. There must be light before there can be darkness, presence before absence, and something before nothing. "John Galt" has the conceptual status of a man you've never met. In fact most people that actually exist you will never meet. That is the space where fiction writers work, making up more people that you will never meet. This last bit about triangles, this depends on how much you know and how seriously you take geometry as a method of thinking. Triangular things exist, but triangles do not exist. There is no distinction between a triangle and a perfect triangle; either a three sided figure is a triangle or it is not. All triangles are equally perfect in the eyes of Euclid because they all only exist on the imaginary flat Euclidean plane where nothing can interfere with their perfection. Geometry is all concepts of method.
  2. False concept

    These are categorized as concepts of consciousness as described in Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology chapter 4. These in particular are concepts of method, and mathematics as a whole is a collection of concepts of method. Concepts formed from other concepts don't have direct concrete correspondences, but they are reducible to concretes through the concepts from which they were derived. From ITOE 2nd ed starting page 35
  3. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Cultural Marxism is more formally known as the Frankfurt School. It has a wikipedia page and everything. The "Critical Theory" is a corruption of epistemology with far reaching applications because epistemology is so fundamental. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy: Critical theory As for calling it a conspiracy theory, on the same basis we Objectivists are also conspirators.
  4. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    I laughed out loud at this. A power hungry person spends his life in politics accruing actual power. Example: both Clintons. And no, money is not power.
  5. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    No. Abstractions are man-made, and no one man nor the collective activity of all of them together has ever encountered and named all the concretes that exist. That would the activity of an omniscient and quite energetic God.
  6. The paradox is only superficial, a result of another logical fallacy: equivocation. Equivocation is when the the same word is used in two different senses to reach a conclusion. Existence can be used properly as Rand uses it to refer to all the of particular individual things that exist at once, or it can be used in a reified sense which I signified with the scare quote version "existence". No, the abstractions we make are attributes of us not of the things out in the world. That is where the correspondence theory of truth comes in, that it is up to us to make our abstractions conform to the concretes out in the world. "Existence is" is not a concrete because "existence" is a collective noun but a concrete is singular. An existent (the word refers to a single thing that exists) can be a concrete. A relationship is an existent but not a concrete. (By definition a relationship in the primary sense is between two or more concretes , and then you can note similarities between kinds of relationships in a secondary sense).
  7. By putting it that way you are, in a sense, deliberately avoiding the point. In Aristotle's terms, no matter can exist without being in some specific form and no form can exist without being matter. The danger with considering form and matter separately, or with considering existing and identity separately, is the fallacy of reification. Existence and identity are actually very abstract ideas. By emphasizing their abstractness I also emphasize that they do not exist because only concretes exist. Ideas are ways of thinking about what you perceive; it is an error to take a manner of thinking about something and regard it as thing-in-itself instead of as an entirely derivative and logically dependent product of your work to understand some object. That something exists as opposed to not existing is a thought. That this exists as opposed to that is another thought. The point of statements like "existence exists" and "existence is identity" is to make explicit rules for reasoning. They are in Rand's philosophy a necessary preface to the law of identity and the law of non-contradiction. Here is a deliberately shocking paradoxical restatement: Only Concretes exist "Existence" is an abstraction Abstractions do not exist Therefore "Existence" does not exist What does exist is the concretes, all of them, everywhere at once.
  8. You wouldn't happen to be familiar with Aristotle's Four Causes would you? To review, they are: form, matter, efficient, and final causes. Causality as I and others have been explaining it is "efficient causation" which is the immediate last thing to touch the object of the action, and what is the identity of a thing inherently includes and refers to both an entity's form and matter (which when you get down to atomic physics are the same thing). Final causation is the end goal, the "for sake of which" a thing is done. You might have purpose in making a green thing into red, so when you do so it is appropriate to say you are the cause of the thing becoming red. But the efficient cause of the thing becoming red is the paint and the paint brush (or air brush or whatever) that applied it. In the efficient cause analysis the intermediate steps are singled out, and you (your hand and the whole body indirectly) are the efficient cause of moving the paint and paint brush to apply the paint.
  9. Abstractions vs. concretes : "Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man’s epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete." Abstractions are man-made and can be wrong. Concretes cannot be wrong because they are the standard of what is right or wrong.
  10. This second method is (hopefully) an attempt to use Mill's methods to find a possible general cause, 'general' in the sense that it is a generalization attributing a new characteristic to a concept; it deals with abstractions. All particular specific events (such as a Jack throwing a ball, which imparts new energy and momemtum to the ball, which subsequently causes a glass window to shatter when the ball's trajectory intersects with the spatial extension of the window) are instances of causality; causality applies to concretes.
  11. To exist at all is to act, "act" in the ordinary active sense not a contrived passive sense. A table which holds up a glass is acting in accord with Newton's Third Law of Motion (for every action there is an equal and opposite reaction) as applied to static entities. Analyzing the same table-and-glass with the latest state-of-the-art physics does not change the conclusion that there are multiple entities acting and interacting as their attributes dictate.. A passive sense of action attributed to merely existing is an empty concept because it cannot refer to anything which is solely inherent to existing. Any possible candidate referent of such a concept would have to be an attribute that necessarily interacted with other entities before we could become aware of it. To return to Rand's short style phrases, "Existence is Identity" strictly contradicts "Existence has Identity".
  12. There are no disembodied actions. Actions are verbs enacted by things which are nouns. "Jumping" cannot exist without the thing which jumps. Why would this be hard to explain or understand?
  13. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Is it true that people in general never can change their minds? Is it true that this one, Sally, is incapable of changing her mind? Sally consented to the date, she consented to the after-date, she consented to the dark room, the she consented to partial disrobing, she may have consented to other things which happen during make-out sessions but are omitted from this story. And she consented to all those things without saying a word. She could also consent to sex without saying a word. Whether she did or not is the point of controversy but would you at least admit that she could have? Does she have to verbalize consent to make it count? And no Chris did not even act immorally. If Sally has some relevant pre-existing condition it is up to her to bring it up and discuss it with Chris beforehand, not play "gotcha" games retroactively. There is no evidence within the story that Chris would not have stopped if asked or was pushed away.
  14. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    It is a requirement that force or the threat of force must be present to violate a rights. Bank robberies and muggings are sometimes not actively resisted because of the threat of force. Rape is accomplished by force or the threat of force, usually a much longer and drawn out sequence of pushing around, threatening, disrobing, striking . ... etc than the "surprise sex" of this contrived scenario. Sally is not presented with any threats or employment of force and gives every sign of consent to what happens in the darkness up until the moment that penis is in vagina, and then nothing changes after that moment. Chris doesn't need to use force or even a threat of force. Why does Chris not need to use force or the threat of force? Because Sally is cooperating and participating, and actively consenting in the make-out session up until the moment of penetration. After the moment of penetration nothing changes except in the secret recesses of Sally's thoughts. The consent that was present the moment before penetration is by every outward sign still present after the moment of penetration. And no, that she said she didn't want to have sex hours ago does not mean she did not change her mind. To put the point positively, it is always in Sally's power to decide to have sex. That decision is communicated by actions and words, but in this case actions speak louder than words because Sally decided not to use any words. All her actions said "yes".
  15. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    But PTSD is a DISORDER, a malady, an abnormal condition, an unusual case. That Sally of the OP had PTSD from prior sexual abuse is not a part of the setup. It should not be assumed all women are like that. Even if it were true Chris was not telepathic and could not know without explicitly being told. This is retroactive rape from Chris' perspective.