Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


StrictlyLogical last won the day on October 12

StrictlyLogical had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About StrictlyLogical

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright

Recent Profile Visitors

13397 profile views
  1. I've read through your response and I must admit I am still at a loss to even grasp what you are proposing. It is as thought the concept itself, when thrown at my brain simply does not stick... I will address some more specifics of your post farther below and offer more commentary but first I want to hone in on your latest reformulation: First, "being itself" is somewhat of a redundancy. I do not mean to be facetious and I know similar sounding statements are often made, but observe that "being" cannot mean anything other than "Its being what it is". To "Be" other than itself is ab initio a contradiction, "self" is inherent in the term "be". Only once one has followed the road down some kind of floating abstract insanity could one entertain anything being, anything other than what it is... its being IS its Is. lol. Observe also that a thing "being different" is only a fragment, whose completion is a thing "being different from something else"...Now observe that the something else, its attributes, properties, and the sheer fact that the something else IS, has nothing to do with the sheer fact that the thing IS. No thing borrows its IS-ness from anything else, at least not entities. Some existents have properties or attributes which are inseparable from the entities, which do not exist apart from the entities but are distinguishable as properties. An electron's charge and mass for example go along with the electron in a paired fashion, but it would be a leap to claim the electron creates its properties... (this leads to all sorts of detached philosophizing like conjecturing abut entities without any properties)... its better to say (and I believe Rand says something similar to this) things are their attributes. Differences, assuming they are perceivable, are what allow us to see the fact that the thing and the something else are not one and the same, but what you mean by "has something essential to do with" is nebulous and elusive, and my Spidey senses are tingling at the term "essential". I really think you have to nail down just exactly what you are trying to say. Is it about metaphysics? Is it about perception? It is about concept formation? What exactly is it THAT you are claiming? In this particular example one might state that each pixel in the screen is set to a different color which forms a pattern, a number of them together are black while another are group is white. Each pixel is driven separately to display its own color. What you see looks as though a group of pixels affect another group but that is not what is happening (I know you know this). I tried to go through your other points but I am at a loss to analyze them in the context of your idea because I cannot form the concept in my mind. Are you talking about how we perceive things? Are you talking about how things interact? Sometimes A and B interact and they are each affected by the other in ways which conserve certain physical quantities but which might redistribute them... A solid object displaces water... defines the shape of the water ...? Are you drawing a distinction between a thing and its absence, rather than between a thing and some other thing? Are you stating that it is incoherent to try to conceive of two things being exactly the same in every respect? (i.e. what then would be the justification of trying to claim that there ARE two things)...
  2. StrictlyLogical

    Abstract Surrealism

    Veering slightly to the side of the topic... "Life imitating Art" is a concept whose existence illustrates a very sad state of things. Life is not an imitation of anything. Art, by definition, is manmade and derivative of his concepts and experiences, which only can originate by virtue of his living. Of Life and Art clearly Art is derivative and Life foundational. The sad fact which the statement "Life Imitating Art" represents is a paucity of selfhood and experience. We've all heard it said as though a truism, and by very intelligent and influential people, sentiments to the effect that "Life is like a play" "Life is poem" Life is wonderful story", it has its ups and down but it has to be that way ... a drama isn't drama without conflict etc. Joseph Campbell once said that Life is a "wonderful opera", "it hurts" but we should "participate in it". [The sentiments I here am identifying here exclude the opposite type of pronouncements by insipid and pompous people in the art community that have lost all grasp of reality] These heartfelt sentiments of Life and Art are proffered as inspiration and I do not doubt the earnestness with which they are stated... but they suffer from the most tragic of observations mixed with a false premise. The tragic observation is that many people do not engage with life, are not fully alive but instead are going through the motions, in a confused fog of learned helplessness and despair. Not knowing what life is, they aspire to a representation of life, Art, and the device used, is to imagine themselves in a story, or that the life that they could and should be leading is like a story. The false premise is that it is possible for life to be derivative of art, and that art is in any sense primary to life. Art can show what life is and some art can show what life can and ought to be. In that sense a real Life can draw inspiration from Art, and Art is crucial to man's mental well being, but in the end Life imitates Life, and Art is but a mediator. As Joseph Campbell once said, "A vital life vitalizes". Note: I have made reference to Jo a few times because he was a scholar of Story, of Myth, and its origins and relationship to Man and his Life throughout history and around the world.
  3. StrictlyLogical

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    I am an Objectivist. I love my family, they are my highest values, as though they are my very life and being. If I lost them I would lose myself... in that way we are in spirit, inseparable. I do not flinch at the sky, or look over my shoulder, or worry about Big Brother, God or Gods or my neighbour when I think, feel, and act in relation to my family. Neither does something intrinsic in the Universe vibrate to impinge upon my will. The is no Duty anywhere, only free will, and my choice to live as great and flourishing a life as I can, and that means MY values, MY Life, MY family. Anyone who acted obediently to Duty but in contradiction with their values, their life, their loves, to do anything for the welfare of a family member they "really" would rather not have done would have NO place telling an egoist what family is about. It surely is NOT duty. A mother who declares it is a "sacrifice" to forego buying a hat to buy food for her child, is confessing that she values the hat more than the child's welfare, and rather than being praised for her sense of duty (or guilt) she should be condemned for her lack of humanity, her superficiality, and ignorance of the true value of family to flourishing. A mother who loves her child less than a hat clearly has issues. She should do some soul searching or seek some major therapy... and if she continues to literally love a hat, a HAT, more than her child (after years of what should have been love filled, close, high quality bonding for both her and her child) it would likely be best for them both if she gave up the child for adoption. True family, true love of any kind requires true egoism and quite the opposite of any belief in some kind of Duty... which in any case, whether supernatural or intrinsic, would purely be an illusion. Unfortunately it takes an Egoist, a fully rational, valuing, and feeling Egoist to understand this.
  4. I am getting mixed messages (I think)... On the one hand you state that the term is a kind of "deductive logical necessity" on the other you state you are "focusing on metaphysical rather than epistemological ontology". If you understand what Objectivity means to an Objectivist, you will see how this could be confusing: To an Objectivist it cannot be both. The realm of logic is squarely in epistemology and what is really "out there" (metaphysics) does not include "logical necessity". Note, IF you are speaking of metaphysics, Objectivism holds that things simply are what they are. It is meaningless to speak of things "necessarily" or "having" to BE. If it IS it IS. We do not and could not perceive anything under existence, which "causes" existence to exist. Such a concept is self-refuting.. as that anything, by its own existence would need something under it, or need to be "under itself". One must enter a fantasy world of irrationality cut off from perception of reality in order to hold any musings as to "that which causes existence". Existence IS that which IS and there is no thing under it. That is the sense and meaning of "simply" in this context. Also, as to your "Existence = Difference", if you understand what we call "stolen concepts", notice that the concept "Difference" presupposes things which exist as well as differences in reality (which also exist) between them. This is an attempt to formulate/define something based upon something which presupposes it, which is circular. Equivalently, the formulation tries to deny "existence" as more fundamental than "difference" while relying on the fact (what "difference" actually is) that "existence" is more fundamental than "difference". As for Rand's razor, I cannot as of yet in our discussion discern the proposed concept which would need to be slashed away, nor does there seem to be any phenomena requiring integration of a new concept or anything requiring a new explanation.... I suppose my retort is: "Contrasts and differences can be identified BECAUSE "A is A" and "A is not non A" and because we can identify these facts"
  5. It is noted that your use of the term "because" implies either causation or implies deductive logical necessity (it could also imply an empirical perception based sort of necessity). That there ARE a plurality of entities rather than a single entity is self-evident... and it is likely that nothing would be evident or conscious if only a singular undifferentiated and undifferentiable entity existed.. in fact it strains coherent conceptualization to ponder what a universe of a single thing would or could be, but that is because such a thing is a non-existent fiction, which we, being part of a non-fictional reality, are not a part of. To think about "what if" in that fashion is incoherent and irrational, so I will stick to what it IS for the actual universe. The actual universe consists of a plurality, it is a fact that there is at least an A AND there is at least an A2 which is not A. Given this fact, A is not non-A, or A is not A2, is not "because" of anything, A simply IS A, A2 IS A2, and A is not A2. As such it really is not causation nor any logical necessity linking A is A and A is not non-A... they are separate independent entities and their separate "existences" are separate identifiable facts. Now, given a universe filled with As, Bs, Cs, and XYZs, it is the task of consciousness to identify what IS and what ARE. Part of that involves differentiation. In the sense that if some X were really I, j and k, then in order to identify I,j, and k in X, we have to be able to distinguish them from each other, otherwise we are limited to seeing the amorphous undifferentiated X. In that sense, discovery that any A is A in a wider context including one of the multitudinous non-As, i.e. the identification of A, requires the ability to distinguish A from those non-As. This would be impossible if we could not perceive the differences, or if we could not conceptually differentiate them, with use of concepts which integrate those perceptions. It appears to me ACE is a sort of empirically based sort of necessity. i.e. We can only identify that A is A because we can identify that A is not non-A. Those Ghost like neutrinos, particles with travel (almost?) at the speed of light, interact so weakly with matter, and weigh hardly anything at all, are identified through a very complex and indirect method of differentiation... so our knowledge of them depends on much but their existence is simply a sheer fact of reality.
  6. Does the new concept withstand Rand's Razor? How and why?
  7. StrictlyLogical

    New Quantum Experiments

    Observe the illustrations in Fig. 1. There are two distinct and separate causal chains, which diverge due to the application of the control qubit (in a superposition), and the two separate chains are in superposition, see 1(d). The A that "causes" a B is not the same A "caused" by a B,, the As and Bs are not the same: A1 causes B1 is superposed with B2 causes A2. As such the title would appear to be misleading, the "causal order" is not indefinite, what is "indefinite" is which of two different causal chains was followed. Such titles lead to all sorts of pop science misunderstandings...
  8. So disgusting. The idiot mentality who choose to take a statement from a fictional character which is clearly portrayed as an absolute villain by an author, and attribute the fictional statement to the author, as if that author made that statement in reality or endorsed the meaning of that statement, is complete and utter scum.
  9. omg a quote of Ellsworth Toohey was attributed directly to Rand on Objectivism online? Start looking for a mole, double agent, saboteur... lol
  10. This is not quite a parallel or symmetrical analogy with Rand's central general idea of "measurement omission" and its relationship with conceptualization and abstraction, although you have presented an isolated concrete example to which Rand's measurement omission may be applied. Your identification of limits and granularity and their "omission" is not the same sort of thing as Rand's "measurement omission". The concept of "numerical measurement" I will call " quantification" in order to avoid confusing Rand's idea of measurement omission with the context of its application here, which is numerical quantification. Numerical quantifiability as a concept applies to physical and mathematical quantities and states that objects which are subject to such quantification can be quantified at various resolutions and within limits. The general idea of quantification which spans various applications, i. e. an idea that subsumes quantifiabilty is a property of a class of entities physical and mathematical, omits the specific quantity in question and its unitary bases (charge, momentum, etc) and associated granularity or limits of quantification as specifics i.e. as "measurements" characterizing the particular quantification as simply being quantifiable. So the concept of quantifiability itself may be abstracted away from its particular concretes using "measurement omission" in the same way any other concept.
  11. Nicky has an excellent point about not betraying your values because of pain. IF you can get to a point where she can be only a friend to you it might be worth the effort.. and the risk. The other side of the coin is the RISK... the risk of betraying your potential values because of a false hope which keeps you "stuck" in a fabricated present. In this sense the strength of the feelings DO matter. IF your "want" for the person rises to the level of a deep and strong romantic love, constantly being with the person could lead to its enduring indefinitely, and could lead to holding onto an irrational hope that the two of you could one day be compatible. The conundrum arises that IF you are deeply "in love" with a person, so that in your heart you cannot but feel she IS the only one for you, you risk betraying your possible attainment of an actual two way fulfilling love relationship with someone else. An emotion as strong and deep as love, although informed by your values and as all emotions ultimately by the way you think, is not something you can think your way directly out of or into. As pure speculation, such a relationship of friendship might be maintained with a great deal of work, not simply by putting up with pain, but by constant directed conscious effort. I am no psychiatrist, but one part of love is that selfish knowledge that the person wants you, not only finds you a value, but also that person's highest value which crosses into a deep attraction for you. Part of your romantic love is a response to that. Even though painful, remind yourself of the fact that the relationship IS one of friendship, and THAT she sees you ONLY as a friend or like a "brother". Remind yourself, no matter how strongly you feel for her, that what she feels for you is different, and that it LACKS an element of romantic love. When you see a stranger you are physically attracted to, remind yourself that she might also be the kind of person you could admire, and value, and love deeply if you got to know her... you don't know... maybe THAT one could be the one, maybe THAT one could be the one... Perhaps the thoughts will translate into an emotional distancing which will enable you to have ONLY emotions appropriate to a friendship with this woman, and open you up to possibility of deep romantic love for another. IF you cannot distance yourself emotionally AND if your feeling and emotions prevent you from finding mutual deep love with someone, then you are risking one of the greatest values a human can attain. Fulfilling romantic love.
  12. StrictlyLogical

    The Genuine Problem Of Universals

    What conceptuallly is the standard for judging and identifying the existence of a "problem"?
  13. StrictlyLogical

    The Genuine Problem Of Universals

    Electric charge is a property of entities of nature, some fundamental entities possess it and others do not, some possess it in the exact same quantities as others and in different quantities as compared to still others (quarks have 1/3 of an electron charge, and a proton and an electron have the same magnitude but opposite sign of charge). Electric charge is a property of some entities, but it exists only as a property OF entities and is not a property of anything apart from entities. We interact and identify this property of reality with use of perception and conception, and we know of it via our means of perception and conception. Objectivity is neither realism, nor nominalism.
  14. StrictlyLogical

    "Egoism and Others" by Merlin Jetton

    Rand was successful at explicitly blasting false dichotomies and reusing language to her own purposes ("morality" being the perfect example). I find her use of the phrase "end in itself" makes complete sense to me in the context of a "self", whose end IS itself, but makes little sense to me when referring to something other than the self. X can be an "end in itself" to itself, but I cannot find the conceptual basis in reality for what anyone could mean (Rand included) by an "end in itself" for anything other than that "self". A fly is an end in itself to the fly, but to the sun, the universe, or to me... it is a fly (which I could still love and value... but "it" is not "me"). I find Rand's use of the term "end in itself" (hopefully a re-use of the term which I cant quite put my finger on) not as illuminating as her retooling of other various terms, which clearly have been given a meaning by her markedly different from the standard meanings accepted by the culture. I also suspect there is a sort of false dichotomy of "means" and "ends" in certain contexts (voluntary contexts?) which allows Rand to use terms such as "end in itself" when relating disparate identities without implying intrinsicism. [If I know anything about Objectivism, it is that Rand was not an intrinsicist.] If I "use" a person in ways which are voluntary and desired by them, to mutual benefit, they are not "abused" by me and hence are conceptually "means" to my end only in a benevolent sense of the term. Rand's holding that there are no conflicts among rational men, implies that on some level "means-ends" (as commonly interpreted and implied in popular moral hypotheticals) IS a false dichotomy, and the false dichotomy only arises when one colors the term "means" with "abuse" rather than a mutually beneficial and desired "use". When I am asked to act as a means to someone else's end to which (and possibly with which) I agree and during which they act as a means to my ends, and I note that mutual benefit occurs, then the act of being means (acting to benefit) repeatedly becomes an end... and the repeated completion of those ends (mutual benefit) becomes a means to life. There are no ends, which are not means, TO (and FOR) the self. Any such purported end would not be an end. So for X to be an "end in itself" to me, means the same thing as "X is an end to and FOR me (my life)", but any apparent dichotomy between means and ends is illusory (in that instance). IF this last is so, I could conclude, my son is "an end in himself" to me, BUT I could not ever conclude that a complete stranger is an end in himself to me, precisely because my son is my life, but a stranger is not.
  15. StrictlyLogical

    OCON 2018

    I think it is funnier (and more likely true) the other way around.