Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Grames

  1. Donald Trump

    Everyone's a birther now.
  2. Donald Trump

  3. 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.
  4. Donald Trump

    That's ludicrous. There were and are much easier paths and positions on issues for him if he wanted to be popular.
  5. 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?
  6. 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.
  7. Hypocrisy. The Objectivist position on freedom of speech is to meet lies, propaganda and bad reasoning with more speech not censorship or indictments.
  8. Mueller's Comic Book Indictment: How to Prosecute A Great Big Nothingburger - By David Stockman. Posted On Tuesday, February 20th, 2018
  9. Flush your browser cache, Mr. IT professional. Or just try incognito mode if you use Google's Chrome browser.
  10. 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.
  11. Once again we are reminded how terrible it is when foreigners posing as citizens do jobs only Americans should be doing.
  12. You haven't felt a need to click your own link again? The NYT put a correction on the bottom of the article.
  13. 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".
  14. 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.
  15. Tests of General Relativity

    Keep posting these please, I always read these updates.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. A horse can be named Joe. Horses can be named anything. Proper nouns and pronouns are ways to refer to particulars using the mainly conceptual faculty of language. For thinking to be useful at all it is necessary to move from abstract thinking back to the particulars in front of us. "Words transform concepts into (mental) entities" and "Proper names are used in order to identify and include particular entities in a conceptual method of cognition." Both quoted sentences are Rand from IOE2 page 11.
  20. Philosophy and animals, two sets with no intersection. It might be interesting to try to play "Concepts in a hat" with 'animals' and 'philosophy' as the concepts.
  21. Universals

    Last question first, I don't know well enough to try to answer. I'm not a philosopher nor have I read closely Aristotle's Organon, and it has been a long time since I've read it at all. University was decades ago for me and what familiarity I have with Aristotle since then mostly comes from secondary sources writing about what he meant. Aristotle was a student of Plato so unless he could solve the problem of universals while also inventing logic and mastering every other contemporary field of knowledge he would carry over that basic approach from Plato, that essences are intrinsic to things or 'metaphysical' as described in this thread. 'Epistemic universal' is redundant for people that accept and use Rand's epistemological theories but in contexts (such as this thread) where there are people seriously contending the case for other kinds of universals it is good to spell out in full what kind of universal is being referred to. A classic example comes to me by way of Kelley: So, children, blackberry bush, colors, thats 3 examples. "Preconceptual awareness of qualitative recurrence", use that phrase a few times when speaking or writing and people will think you must be pretty smart.
  22. Universals

    Don't the concepts of "applicable" and "sensible" and their negations assume a certain epistemological theory? In other words aren't you arguing in circles? And, where did the metaphysical universal come into play in recognizing that tastes aren't measured by their lengths?
  23. Confucius Institute

    Well yes, I think of course it did. If you really want to pursue that train of thought the host universities are all already illegitimate to the extent they accept taxpayer money from any government, foreign or domestic. And this little gem: "Governmental encouragement does not order men to believe that the false is true: it merely makes them indifferent to the issue of truth or falsehood." Indifference to truth or falsehood is the essence of bullshit according to Harry G. Frankfurt in his slim booklet On Bullshit.
  24. Universals

    Take a step back away from the intricacies of the discussion thus far. Anyone can try to answer. In Objectivism, and most other theories of epistemology, its theory of concept formation is normative. Many concepts and methods of forming are possible but a particular method is advocated as best. Are there metaphysical universals for badly formed concepts? How could we know?