Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


StrictlyLogical last won the day on January 3

StrictlyLogical had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About StrictlyLogical

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Previous Fields

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

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling

Recent Profile Visitors

13680 profile views
  1. I suppose in every endeavor of his life he generally had been able to size up the competition, adapt, and respond as need be, or at least understand. Here he must have felt a little in the dark. Knowing Dagny's past lovers might give him just a little more insight into who she is, what makes her tick, what she likes, and who, in her memory, he may be in competition with, whether she is conscious of that comparison or not. Being strong and confident generally means a man knows his worth, but working out how a woman responds to him and whether that is consistent with his self view or whether he needs to update it, himself, or her view, is still an exercise worth doing. Please note that Hank was not perfect by any standard... he was always on a personal journey. and in any case being reflective and introspective as well as sensitive to a very close relationship could only help in his goal to understand and improve himself and likewise understand and improve his relationship with Dagny. So asking about past lovers as such is not always a sign of weakness, it depends much on the motivation for doing so, both emotional and cognitive.
  2. I disagree. So if I need 3 sentences and 100 words to convey something in L1 and only 1 sentence and 25 words to convey the same meaning (with as much accuracy) in L2, then L2 is the better language... it is more powerful and efficient to communicate, express, and/or record (for posterity) complex ideas. (That said L2 would be harder to learn than L1, and would likely also have a larger dictionary)
  3. I think every language of sufficient complexity could be used to express ideas which are beyond everyday complexity and use of a language... but if a language included, as part of everyday usage, words which automatically express, clarify, or distinguish that extra complexity, then slightly more complex ideas are more straightforwardly communicable, and understandable. Assuming all languages can express any idea with sufficient number of words and sentences, then the economy of words and sentences with which a language can convey complex meaning is likely a good standard to judge languages, one against another. That said, some conceptual conflations may be avoided if the language has inherently built in checks to avoid them. I do not have any real world examples (I am no linguist) but I would assume if a language included modifiers to attach to nouns and such for everything previously experienced in reality, versus other modifiers to label nouns and such in connection with imagination or fiction or invention then that might be useful in orienting a mind toward distinguishing reality from fancy. A language without the word form of "wish" (as a verb), as in mentally wishing something... while doing nothing... might be equivalent to our lack of a common everyday single term designating something like: "casting a spell to do the impossible" or "using the force to move things" or "invoking a supernatural agency to effect some cause" (although "curse" or "bless" comes close to this last... two words I would also strike from the language if I could) ... The term "wish" then might commonly be replaced with more sensible phrases (whose use causes some reflection regarding the validity of the sentiment): "if that were to happen it would make me happy", or "if I had the ability to somehow cause that to happen, I would act to do so", or "I really would prefer it if you would stop talking". or "I would be much happier if it were the case that reality was different from the way it actually is" Again I have no real world examples, but since culture causes the evolution of language, a culture's philosophy and thinking inform and shape the commonly used words and phrases... so I would conjecture, a culture of rational thinkers would produce a better language.
  4. I would have assumed that at the beginning of a theory of free will you would define exactly what you mean by “free will” before addressing what you argue makes it possible (and what you submit is necessary for a complex system to do it) and why. Identifying “free will” is necessary to make a persuasive argument, to make a reasoned rational claim which justifies your theory as against any other speculation, and distinguishes your chosen topics (feelings, reflexes, purpose) as uniquely generating free will as opposed to generating mechanistic (determined) animation. Accordingly, for any particular aspect of your theory of free will, a reader should always be clear about what you mean by free will, and clearly shown how and why the particular aspect relates to it and not determinism.
  5. Well put. I only observe that the existence of some kinds of existents is mostly independent of other existents while the existence of other kinds of existents depends upon the existence of others. This kind of consideration distinguishes entities. A relationship such as spacetime is an existent wholly dependent on every other entity (possessing mass / energy... by the way how many entities other than spacetime wholly lack mass and energy?) and is more of a property of a system of entities than an entity itself. IMHO
  6. Using Rand's razor, spacetime as a separate entity is an unnecessary concept which can be let go. Conceiving of a curvature of spacetime as a causal relationship is preferable. 1. Spacetime has a curvature at any one point only as a consequence of its relationship to the mass and energy distribution (across time and space) i.e. it is a property wholly dependent on other entities, and wholly independent of the properties of any other spacetime point. 2. The properties (i.e. curvature) of any Spacetime point only affect other entities located at that spacetime point and only when they are there. Spacetime points affect nothing anywhere else, including the rest of spacetime. So IF and only IF an entity A is at point X of spacetime is it affected by the curvature of spacetime only of point X, which spacetime at point X is affected by and only by the relationship of that spacetime point X with other entities (mass/energy distribution) across space and time. Entity -> affected by Spacetime -> spacetime defined by relationship to other entities. One can see that spacetime can be easily be rolled back (from reification) and conceived as part of a direct relationship between the entity and the other entities. This reduces to entity A at spacetime point X is affected by other entities (which effect can be expressed as a curvature in spacetime) by its relationship to them across space and time (mass/energy distribution). EDIT: Recall, what does it mean, in concrete terms, to measure the curvature of spacetime at point X? It means IF we put some thing (other than spacetime itself...) at the spacetime point X it will act in a certain way... that certain way is determined by the relationship of that point to the rest of the universe (mass/energy over time and space).
  7. All well and good if we are dealing with apprehension ... i.e. if the statement’s referents are apprehension of things rather than things themselves. But that is the very thing I am questioning. Of course statements don’t have to always be about Friday, 2046, and jeans (and clearly some statements can be solely about those kinds of things) different ones could specifically refer to apprehension in connection with those things, others could refer to belief about those things, others could refer to other statements about those things or the truth of other statements about those things, but we should be careful not to conflate the types of statements we are actually dealing with. Statements about the process of thought are not the same as statements about reality used as part of a process of thought.
  8. I would like to say I like what you said but something about it makes me uneasy. I’m sorry if I haven’t followed perfectly, but with respect to your statements about Friday, 2046, and jeans, you seem to be characterizing those statements as if their referents were mental contents or beliefs, i.e. that’s what those statements are “really” about, whereas when I read them they seem quite straightforwardly and explicitly to refer to reality... specifically, Friday, 2046, and jeans. “IF” something in reality IS, what I grant or take for granted or suppose is beside the point... no?
  9. Agreed and whether or not there is any valid conceptual difference between p implies q and If p then q
  10. Are you talking about conceptualization, rules of logic, or observing reality? Not sure what you mean by your p's and q's.... If 1. is taken as true, and p and q are statements then 1. means "p implies q" 2. and 3. together are a kind of restatement of what "p implies q" means. so... Also, not sure what you mean by "come to know" this as a "rule"... Sorry my reply is likely unhelpful.
  11. Philosophy is not physics. Physics is a specialized science which builds on philosophy, philosophy does not deal with physics, it is the foundation of physics. With respect to philosophy, it deals with all existents. You can differentiate between entities, actions, and relationships, properties, attributes etc but philosophy fundamentally does not hinge upon which things fall into what, but it serves you to correctly identify them. IF space and time ARE merely relationships between entities, then to deal with it correctly you need to scientifically show this. Even if a philosophy provisionally conjectures something about it, unless it is fundamental to it, it is incidental... within the special sciences. BUT one must be careful to understand what philosophically speaking an entity is versus a relationship in order to correctly assess something in reality via experimentation. What characteristics do entities have in the broadest sense? Does space time AS SUCH qualify? ......... Rather than leaving this entirely as a Socratic exercise, recall that an entity's nature IS separately distinct and independent from anything else in the universe. What makes THIS water molecule a water molecule does not depend upon where it is, what is near it, what is interacting with it, what is affecting it in any way. In FACT the MORE you isolate the water molecule (reduce any interactions, causation, etc. with all other EXISTENTS), the more it simply SITS there AS a water molecule. (of course philosophically speaking it always is a water molecule when interacting or not, but my point is about seeing clearly that it is an entity rather than an action or interaction or relationship) Now, isolate a portion of space-time in the same philosophical sense... AS an entity.... then describe it.
  12. What do you mean by logically possible? Normally for something to be possible means there is some evidence for that something to exist in reality. Sounds like you are trying to characterize a something which you have already accepted as not existing in reality... but nonetheless "could" have existed... like say a universe with only 2 spatial dimensions or only 2 fundamental forces... as some kind of "possibility", as long as you can imagine it and it is not self-contradictory (notwithstanding the fact that it contradicts actual reality as we know it). If so, what is the standard among those which you can image which are self-consistent, to distinguish between those "could have" been... versus something which "could not have" been? One certainly can imagine arbitrary universes with different characteristics, and judge our ability to do so such that they are self consistent, but I do not think our analysis of these imagined universes says anything about reality, certainly not as much as it says something about our imagination and ability to create self-consistent fictions.
  13. I suspect the tracking "system" used by the shipping company did not provide the option for a secretary to choose a "no earlier than" date, but did have the option to enter a "no later than date", so instead of the machine being the tool... the opposite occurred.
  14. WE know that your statement is not true because it is an explicit contradiction. However, those purporting to BE Objectivists and who accept fascist/tribal ideas, might not understand how that statement is in fact self-contradictory. Do not be disheartened.
  15. Trolling... is the technique of trying to get a rise out of someone by not having an open and intellectually honest discourse. The Native American system ... of which I am not an expert, likely has a great many contextual issues which are significantly distinct from those that would be raised by any supposed "white tribe" nation... historical contexts, prior government and social organization, various treaties agreed to and sometimes broken, the issue of war and conquest, reparations etc. etc. I specifically did not want to call you out on those specific differences because it was unnecessary and seemed mean spirited... In any case we can discuss Objectivist principles of government anytime you wish. I seriously wouldn't worry about that happening any time soon. The Regressives on the Left are still a greater threat than white nationalism of the Degenerates of the Alt-Right. I do agree with you that anti-discrimination laws should be repealed as all laws which violate individual rights should be repealed.
  • Create New...