Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Grames

  1. Ok, what about the other half? Relate to "standard of value" as Rand used it. (This would be an example of integrating your knowledge, as discussed in another thread).
  2. Why don't you start by reconciling the concept of "standard" and what it refers to in the phrase "standard of value" and your use of the same word and what it refers to in your phrase "a standard of its flourishing".
  3. It is an essay posing the question or problem in the title and then answering it in the negative. I was wondering myself why he would argue such a thing but then he turned it around. Got any links to interesting examples?
  4. Yes, that was a kind of typo. Peikoff's "inductive proof of causality" is the subject under discussion. Yes, and by the way proof is also a method of integration because what is proved is related to other knowledge. Yes, the fact that you can contemplate the axioms and relate them to each other is a form of integration even though Peikoff would deny there is proof or derivation or deduction happening. The order of Existence, Identity, and Consciousness has methodological (epistemological) significance in order to affirm Primacy of Existence and deny Primacy of Consciousness, but each is a mentally abstracted facet of existence which exhibits all three simultaneously. Causality merely appears to come "after" Identity in that it is easier to understand or imagine some object as static and then add the dynamics but in reality everything that exists is always acting (even if slowly). Understanding Identity as static omits the greater part of an existent's Identity, how it acts.
  5. Horizontal integration should be performed with more than just one other concept. Ideally it would be done with every other concept one held. But who has time for that? So this is a task that is never fully completed, it can only be partially completed. Still, some of those pairwise selections H(A,B) would be better than others, better in being not trivial and potentially revealing obscured contradictions. Possibly some heuristic could be invented for selecting two different concepts (or given one, find another) that would have the most potentially fruitful result. I would think something about the concepts being "far apart" would be one good metric to employ. Your 2) V(A,C) AND V(B,C) is merely one way to go about performing H(A,B). I don't know of other methods and don't want to commit to ruling out the possibility of there being others. So I can't actually answer this question.
  6. Well, no. The point of doing a horizontal integration is to make your knowledge a noncontradictory unity. The two reductions don't themselves rule out the possibility of a contradiction. It is good to be able to reduce a concept, and is a requirement of a well formed concept, but it could still be in contradiction to some other concept. Consider the recent memewar entrant "Islam is right about women". This is an attempt to provoke horizontal integration in the reader. It is quite possible for some feminist to able to identify Islam without actually knowing all of the attributes of the religion. It is possible to have a concept but have it ordered around nonessentials. To feminists, Islam and muslims are simply a non-white and non-christian ally in the fight against the white christian patriarchal power structure of America and the whole western tradition. As one of the Abrahamic religions it is in fact patriarchal also, vehemently so when compared to Christianity. The feminist concept of Islam is apparently no more than that group of people who claim to be muslims, and a feminist would reduce the concept to its referents and stop. Horizontal integration is need to provoke the feminist into realizing this level of concept formation about Islam is inadequate.
  7. Remember that question you started with. the about Peikoff's so-called (at the time) proof of induction? It is no proof but it does serve as a nifty horizontal integration. Higher level concepts can be related and integrated with two vertical integrations to something in common, but that is not applicable to axioms and first level concepts. Horizontal integration also refers to checking for noncontradiction. Noncontradiction always applies and is the chief means by which we become suspicious of perceptual illusions. Technically existence comes before identity. But the placement of existence as prior to identity (the "primacy of existence principle" is not derived or proven, because it too is part of the mechanics that make logic and proof possible.
  8. He is saying that it is no proof. Causality is axiomatic, and axioms are not proven. His given motivation for this correction was to combat rationalism. Rationalism is word-thinking rather than concept-thinking (my description). Vertical integration is when one relates a higher level concept to a lower level concept, possibly through additional concepts in between them, by demonstrating the hierarchical dependency of one upon the other. Horizontal integration is performed between two concepts that are not hierarchically dependent upon each other. They can be related through some other concept(s) are are hierarchically prior to both, and they should not contradict each other directly or indirectly.
  9. You said it was a sign. Being tangible is an attribute of such an object. If you want to proceed with your silly hypothetical, call it something else to avoid me calling attention to all those other attributes you did not want to think about.
  10. Radio waves are not invisible signs. You took a physical, material object that people could touch and hold and wave around and look at and then made it hypothetically invisible. But making it invisible didn't make it intangible. Radio waves are intangible and your invisible sign is not so your hypothetical fails. You could have used Pokemon Go as a better example, but now I'm doing your work.
  11. Just a matter of time until someone trips over or walks into that thing. Given that the socialist isn't passing out the special glasses, no complaint will be made until someone gets hurt and the socialist will be guilty of trespass and something worse than trespass. If the socialist is passing out the glasses then there is no point in making the sign invisible in the first place and this is ordinary trespass. Next.
  12. Harm is shorthand for "violation of a right", and since violation of a right requires the use of force there should be evidence of the force that was used (wounds, broken glass, footprints, fingerprints, missing property, etc...). His presence standing on your lawn was physical and objective and he moved himself there using the forces created by his legs and as long as he continues to stand there he is exerting the force of his body weight upon your lawn. Thus his harm of violating your property right was caused by his employment of physical, objective force. As a matter of formal legal methods, his insistence on remaining after you asked him to leave establishes his mens rea ("guilty mind" or "bad intent") beyond all doubt and excuse making. Ethically he was in the wrong the instant he stepped onto your lawn, but the law doesn't want to act on every trivial controversy that can arise, hence the need for the mens rea. Nonviolent fraud and some contract breaking are also an employment of force when someone physically possesses property when he should not.
  13. Harm can only be caused by force. Relying upon this principle, then given some person claiming harm then one can expect to find a cause of that harm. Some people claim harm improperly and falsely usually based on their emotions. If some person is falsely accused of causing harm the defense is to show no force was used or not enough force to cause the claimed harm. For example, merely brushing past someone while walking in a crowd does not reach the standard involved for assault and battery even if there was physical contact. Low power radio waves do not trespass on a human body because they are undetectable by the body. Radio waves can trespass on an unauthorized frequency in a particular area if a radio receiver detects it there when it should not be present. The property rights regime for radio transmissions is premised upon the use of radio receivers, not unaided human bodies.
  14. There is a threshold involved. Like sound, unless the intensity is great enough to cause harm then EM radiation is not force. Nor is it any form of trespass since it is undetectable.
  15. Only force, objective physical force, can ever violate any right. This applies to all possible human rights, including property rights. That is what is wrong with this entire analysis. Property rights regimes for entirely new mediums such as radio spectrum, ocean bottoms or intellectual property "spaces" such as patents and copyrights will naturally differ because the identities of the "mediums" or "spaces" differ. All property is ultimately intellectual property because it is our intellects that move us in any medium even the physical space of objects and land. Once the concept of property is understood and accepted, then mere possession (such as possession of the space through which radio waves move) cannot constitute proof of property right because that then makes theft by definition impossible and negates the concept of property. Property is created, justified and proven by causation, not possession. It is one of the proper purposes of government to de-conflict claims of property, because property is a right and it is government's task to work to protect rights. Claims for radio stations were based on broadcast range from the transmitter site and bandwidth used. The U.S. government prevented conflicts over radio spectrum by not honoring claims to arbitrarily large broadcast ranges and also required frequency separation of claimed bandwidths of different transmitters in the same area. As an individual who may not wish to experience the continuous radiant generosity of your local broadcasters you may build yourself a Faraday cage. That is your right, and as far as your rights go.
  16. I agree with the insight that determinism holds everything and anything can be a cause except for a person causing something about himself. Determinists will even explain how persons can deterministically affect other persons by means of oppression or inflicting poverty or violence but will not accept a person deterministically affecting himself. It is fallacious reasoning. Self-causation applies to the actions and attributes of things that already exist. An elementary particle or field is called into existence by a prior cause even if it is simple and cannot be analyzed into parts. Even people are created biologically by prior parents. The concept of a Universe which refers to everything must include its own cause, and so the Universe is self-caused by the principle that the set of all sets includes itself. Finally, choices are to people as barks are to dogs. Choices do not cause themselves. Choices are actions, actions of prior existing entities, the people that make them.
  17. Grames

    Which Eternity?

    Are you familiar with Peikoff's D.I.M. theory? If so, would you contend that there is no such thing as M, the misintegration?
  18. Grames

    Which Eternity?

    So let's turn our attention now to the last three thousand years of writings on the subject of God. Does it not exist? edit: The writings, do they not exist? I take that you agree with me that God does not exist.
  19. Grames

    Which Eternity?

    But that claim is that every concept is valid. You used the phrase "properly conceive". Not every concept is properly conceived.
  20. SABATON - Winged Hussars (Official Lyric Video)
  21. Holy hell, I did get something out following this thread.
  22. Grames

    Which Eternity?

    Yes, the in real world where we live on the surface of an oblate spheroid "you can't get there from here" is, taken literally, wrong. There is always an indirect path. But in hypothetical space-by-analogy network of man-made concepts that need to be in principle reducible back to percepts to be valid it is possible to create concepts that are not valid because they are not so reducible. To claim otherwise is to claim every concept is valid. "X is unknowable" means it is not reducible back to percepts by any means, direct or indirect.
  23. As far as corrective measures go, I don't like government schools. But one good thing that has come out of this hubbub around a potential "national conservatism" faction is that a proposal has been advanced to defund the universities of government money. There is a growing realization that the primary vector encouraging the growth of wild eyed communism decades after the death of the Soviet Union are the universities. Censorship is not legally possible, but we should stop subsidizing our own destruction.
  24. He wrote his chapter nine in terms of "extension of the sense of self" and how values come to be shared in common. It is NOT altruism or altruistic, not philosophically or psychologically. This is congruent with Rand's statements about being willing to die for her husband, or in her fiction of characters musing about protecting a city with their bodies. It is not necessary, and in fact incorrect, to interpret his chapter nine as a peaen to a Kantian sense of duty. Classical political liberal theory IS utopian and unrealistic, both communist and libertarian. The Kantian categorical imperative sense of duty is NOT essential, merely a sense of responsibility that underlies parents care for their children and what ought to create a sense of gratitude and some degree of obligation in those children when the relationship is healthy (an obligation certainly far short of any version of Confucian filial piety construed as total obedience). That governments do not derive from the consent of the governed is not uncontroversial. That loyalty and mutual loyalty is actually a thing that exists and is important to political theory is not uncontroversial, not here anyway.
  25. That's a good article. I'm not much interested in the particular corrective measures Hazony has called for because I'm not a conservative.
  • Create New...