Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Grames

  1. Rand insists that existence IS identity, that an entity is its attributes, all of them. There is no place for any form of dualism in Objectivism.
  2. Binswanger himself compiled the Lexicon, here is soul-body dichotomy Rand comprehensively rejects the mind-body dichotomy in ethics and epistemology but somehow Binswanger thinks that leaves space open in ontology for some kind of substance that makes consciousness possible, or which is the essence of consciousness. But if that were true it would be rather impossible reject that dualism in the logically dependent fields of epistemology and ethics. Binswanger can't be understood as an Objectivist philosopher any longer. What more needs to be said?
  3. Yeah, but it would be a digression from the topic of the thread to go over Binswanger's dualism and then why dualism is bad. A heuristic was in order, IMHO.
  4. OTI was created long ago with the laudable goal of combating a tendency toward rationalism. However, there was not an actual theory of induction within Objectivism during Rand's lifespan (and arguably there still isn't since Objectivism as Rand knew it became a closed system upon her death). So it is a question whether what Peikoff and Rand were doing in OTI is actually induction in the technical philosophical sense. Binwanger is unreliable due to his radical dualism. In any contradiction between Binwanger and Rand or a Peikoff/Rand presentation dump Binswanger. Peikoff and Harriman authored "The Logical Leap: Induction in Physics" which is little more than the claim that the process of concept formation is induction. That doesn't satisfy many people looking for a theory of induction who are not already Objectivists and many who are. Peikoff's lecture course "Art of Thinking" lecture 6 covers "aspects of certainty excised from OPAR for space". The four aspects covered are thinking about the future, thinking in terms of statistics, does present context of knowledge limit certainty, and does certainty imply error is impossible. I wonder how much your line questioning here is motivated by an underlying confusion about certainty, and if that should be your next question.
  5. Grames

    A theory of "theory"

    The appearance of the term 'probable' could be a problem unless objectively defined. If 'probable' is allowed to be construed informally as 'highly plausible' then subjectivity creeps in when what seems plausible to one person seems less plausible to another. And then there is the related issue of 'how high is "highly"?'.
  6. Of course spies never spoof their IP addresses. It is known.
  7. Flat no. No author of 'Objectivist literature' would see the need, it is literally a blind spot. By 'the need' I mean a purely pedagogical need to address those who first come to understand math and physics and only later Objectivism or philosophy in general, and so fall into a common and near unavoidable trap in their thinking. For example here is Peikoff in OPAR This is a rationalist argumentation style, it does not address the premises that lead one to believe that the determinism of nature directly and naively applies to man. That volition is axiomatic, that axioms cannot be coherently contradicted is all well and good as a shortcut for those of us who have cleared the hurdle of understanding and accepting what Rand considered axiomatic but most people that are determinists have not cleared that hurdle and so any version of that shortcut is incomprehensible or deeply unsatisfying.
  8. Grames

    Donald Trump

    Everyone's a birther now.
  9. Grames

    Donald Trump

  10. Grames

    Donald Trump

    By not caring about illegal immigration, not leaving the Paris Climate Accord, not repealing Net Neutrality, not removing Obama's freeze on drilling and mining on federal lands on offshore zones, not daring to include corporate tax reductions in tax reform, not withdrawing from UNESCO, not recognizing Jerusalem as the capitol of Israel or moving the embassy there, not halting the federal gov't land grab tactic of declaring new national monuments, not ending the foreign policy of regime change and fomenting wars, not using the "bully pulpit" he has as President to call out the kneelers of the NFL, by continuing to pretend the fascist and mercantilist regimes in China and Mexico are legitimate partners in "free trade" deals, . . . it's getting late here.
  11. Grames

    Donald Trump

    That's ludicrous. There were and are much easier paths and positions on issues for him if he wanted to be popular.
  12. Okay you win one, I was mislead by the date stamp which is not in fact a date stamp until some indefinite number of days go by. It only said Monday not February 17 for the longest time. It still needs to be settled why you even bothered to post this? NYT first posted the story because they thought hundreds of Russians were killed, then they had to run the correction which killed the significance of the story. If mercenenaries were killed that were Russian it doesn't matter for diplomatic purposes. NYT made an error, what's your excuse?
  13. The NYT posted the story on Monday the 12th, you (Nicky) posted the link here on Monday the 12th, the correction is dated on the 13th. So the original link when you posted it did have an error in it, a big one which was in fact the leading fact and essence of the story. You claim "The article hasn't been altered in any way since I first posted it." Well, okay then.
  14. Hypocrisy. The Objectivist position on freedom of speech is to meet lies, propaganda and bad reasoning with more speech not censorship or indictments.
  15. Mueller's Comic Book Indictment: How to Prosecute A Great Big Nothingburger - By David Stockman. Posted On Tuesday, February 20th, 2018
  16. Flush your browser cache, Mr. IT professional. Or just try incognito mode if you use Google's Chrome browser.
  17. Grames

    Neuromarketing and choice

    To be fair, it takes a very active mind to be always on guard against various advertising persuasion techniques and to deliberately disregard them after identifying them. Some are hard to resist even after identifying them. As most people aren't that mentally active and no one is on guard at all times then advertising can have some dependable level of success with a large number of exposures. My point is that it is possible for people to have free will and choose to not exercise it at all times.
  18. Once again we are reminded how terrible it is when foreigners posing as citizens do jobs only Americans should be doing.
  19. You haven't felt a need to click your own link again? The NYT put a correction on the bottom of the article.
  20. Correction by NY Times: Correction: February 13, 2018 Because of an editing error, an earlier version of this article incorrectly described an account by a Syrian military officer. He said that about 100 Syrian — not Russian — soldiers died in fighting on Feb. 7 and 8. But isn't this off topic here? That has nothing to do with Mueller's impending show trial of Russian Twitter trolls who are safely in Russia and will never face "justice".
  21. At thefederalist.com: Hillary Clinton’s Fingerprints Are All Over The FBI’s Investigation Into Trump’s Russia Ties It was Obama who was the real fascist all along, subverting America's intelligence agencies to interfere in an election.
  22. Grames

    Tests of General Relativity

    Keep posting these please, I always read these updates.
  23. I don't think I understand this. I translate this to mean that Epistemology is to show how one "should" know, not how one "does" know. But I don't think you mean that so an elaboration would be great. I mean exactly that. Epistemology teaches how one "should" know, not how one "does" know. "Knowing" here being an active process, and everyone having near complete, total mental freedom, it is therefore a choice to know. First comes the choice to know, then logically afterward comes the attempt to know and the testing against reality. Choosing to know is the essence of volition.
  24. Eh, I for one would not invest time or energy in making someone else's rationalistic scheme make sense, thats up to him (or in general, up to them). Also making one referent a special case while accepting zero seems awkward. Concepts exist before definitions of them, they have to to avoid logical paradox. The instant you start making a definition of concept then one is discriminating between better or worse concepts, useful and useless concepts, valid or invalid concepts but not whether something is a concept or not. Rand's definition follows the genus and differentia format. Anything in the genus "mental integration" has to accepted as a concept in principle, and what conforms to the definition can be a valid concept. Epistemology is a normative field, not something discovered and described. Plurals are useful for referring to finite sets of particulars, but also depend on the word and language in use. The plural of deer is 'deer', but there is no grand philosophical conclusion to draw from that.
  25. A proper noun such as "Joe the Horse" is not an invalid concept. This is because it is not even a concept. Also, the alternative of valid or invalid does not apply to names. "Presidency in Saudi Arabia" - "Presidency" is an abstract high level concept in the area of politics. As a concept of method it would be a valid concept even if there were no presidents because there were presidents in the past and could be presidents in the future. "Presidency in Saudi Arabia" can be used validly when advocating a change in the method of governance of Saudi Arabia, even though it is true that there are no current or past presidents in Saudi Arabia. "The President of Saudi Arabia" could be used validly in a conditional or future tense, but would be nonsensical in the context of current events or the history of S.A. Context matters. We have more concepts than we have words for them. A single word can refer to several concepts and the ambiguity is usually resolved by the context and careful writing or speaking. Actual concretes can be the referents of many different valid concepts. Concepts of concepts can divided up in several alternative yet valid ways as well. There is no one-to-one correspondence between words and concepts or between concepts and referents. An invalid concept is still referred to as a concept, because if it wasn't a concept at all no rules would apply and there would be no justification to judge it as valid or invalid. So in the sense of badly formed and thus invalid concepts there can be a concept with zero referents.