Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About StrictlyLogical

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Contact Methods

  • ICQ 0

Profile Information

  • Gender Not Telling

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

11956 profile views
  1. EPIST Just to follow up: Take the example of whether or not the taste of "chocolate" is pleasurable to John. Prior to John's ever having tasted chocolate the statement: "John finds the taste of chocolate pleasurable." Is false, because he cannot find the taste of something which he has not tasted to have any quality or character whereas the statement: "John will find the taste of chocolate pleasurable." might be true, depending upon the nature of John, his brain, his taste-buds etc... the facts of which are currently not accessible to testing by modern science. The reason the above obtains is because the question regarding whether John finds the taste of something pleasurable requires that he taste it, whereas the question of whether or not John would find it pleasurable is in the form of a hypothetical, i.e. it attempts to answer whether he would find the taste pleasurable IF he tasted it. Similarly, consider whether or not a movie, a locket from a lost love, or anything in particular has meaning to Kevin. Prior to Kevin's experiencing the movie or receiving the locket, or experiencing the "anything", the statement (substituting X for any of these) : "Kevin finds X has meaning for him." Is false because the requirements for Kevin finding meaning in something have not been met. Consider also the possibility that Kevin would also have to think about, ponder, or contemplate the movie or the locket prior to the possibility of his finding it to have meaning for him. Then even if Kevin saw the movie or received the locket, but prior to thinking about it, maybe he does not have the time, he is not very introspective etc. these might not have meaning for him. Consider now the following question: "Kevin will (or would) find X to be meaningful when (or if) he reflects upon it." This statement CAN be true, depending upon Kevin and what in him determines what he finds meaning in. The above might be perfectly obvious, but I thought I should clarify the difference between actually finding meaning in something and what we can call the potential to find meaning in something.
  2. I like to use the phrase "Good job. You should be proud of yourself!"
  3. If there is a something which is literally meaningless to everyone, i.e. if everyone looked at it and carefully thought about it, and it meant nothing to them, to whom or what could that something possibly be "meaningful", and in what way could that something be "meaningful"? Now, people can err, and forget things, ignore things, and perhaps not be aware consciously that something is meaningful for them, or perhaps they never really thought about it. Such is a case where the something IS meaningful to that person, but it requires their focus or turning their mind to it in order to recognize it first. It is difficult to see how the concept of an "objective meaning" which is not known does not become entangled with mystical or intrinsicist notions. Can you give examples of something with objective meaning which is not known?
  4. Given how you blithely and arbitrarily you misconstrue what I say, I highly doubt you actually want to know what I think and really ... I don't care.
  5. We agree to disagree. Now please STOP misstating what I say and misquoting me. Actually I would prefer if you simply ignored every post I make here... then you wont be tempted to misconstrue what I say. Can we agree to that? IF you CANNOT stop misconstruing what I say I DEMAND that you refrain from referring to me or what I say AT ALL. This is not acceptable.
  6. No. No. You are you, and "You" are not a "moral issue". NO! Factually false. Straw man. If every "link" is wiped out then statistically speaking every family will be "the same" randomly "following no particular traditional pattern" family. Not weird to ask... purposeful evasion, illogic, and denial of common sense often has its roots, psychologically speaking, in emotional reaction of the subconscious.
  7. These factually are false statements. As an example consider any family who had systematically indoctrinated their children with religious dogma, and abused them physically and sexually, and the pattern repeated generation after generation for a statistically significant number of offspring... Consider now a family rich in civility and tradition who provided great educational and philosophical instruction, inspired and demanded of their children high standing and achievement and the pattern repeated generation after generation for a statistically significant offspring... These two families did not become EXACTLY the same after ONE generation. There IS a causative link. It is not a 100% deterministic link because there is volition. Some offspring no doubt turned their backs on achievement and some escaped the cycle of violence, but there is a causative link in reality between what happens in each generation. To "blame" or "credit" the patterns of these families as solely due to genes would be fall into the trap of ranking people by their "blood" alone. No, there is much more causatively happening than mere genes. That said, it is factually true that genes do play in role, but how and to what extent exactly, that is for the scientists to determine. As shown above... "wrong". I'm not saying it has "importance". Some people find it has meaning for them others do not. Some people, because of the particular circumstances are affected more by it (people in families with strong traditions etc) than others (people given up for adoption). It's almost as if you take my sense of family and meaning personally? Does it threaten you somehow?
  8. It depends on what precisely you mean by "objective meaning". Do you mean by "objective meaning" that things have meaning independent of the existence of any individual? Also, I am not sure what you mean by "pure" subjectivism. If by subjective, you mean things that are dependent upon the individual and only the individual, some things in reality are subjective. A person, however is not divorced from reality and identity, but as long as that is kept in mind, some things which are subjective can also be purely subjective. Some tastes, likes, dislikes, are correctly characterized as subjective. As for pure subjectivism, I would equate that with a complete denial of everything which is not subjective, i.e. a denial of all things in the universe which are objective, metaphysical, inherent... etc. which would be irrational. I am uncertain that one can "aim" for a meaning or measure oneself against sheer meaning... one can aim to achieve a goal which has meaning for him/her... and one can measure oneself against something in which one finds meaning, yes. Again whether the meaning you find in the goal at which you aim or the something against which you compare yourself is "objective", I would need to better understand what you mean by its being "objective" as against not "objective". BTW: My sense of the word meaning is akin to "personal significance", or "deep personal value" not ... meaning as in definitional or clarification assisting.
  9. STOP MISQUOTING ME Eioul, JUST STOP IT. I NEVER said anyone "SHOULD"... you just cant arbitrarily LIE about what someone said. STOP IT!!!!! I NEVER said family ancestry "has moral weight". STOP misquoting me! What is WRONG with you? as a MODERATOR you should know better than to MISQUOTE AND LIE ABOUT WHAT OTHER POSTERS STATE!
  10. DA I have been thinking much about the subjects you have recently been addressing. As it turns out my pondering of the concept "meaning" in the wider scheme of being human, and how it and other aspects interplay between such things as "pleasure", "happiness", "choice", "subjectivity", "reality", "objectivity", "morality", "freedom", "duty", "rationalism" I have the seed of an idea which tells me that on the widest integration we are not so far apart... and that it is a reaction against a rationalist element not in Objectivism proper but in some of its self proclaimed proponents. This seed of an idea is borne of our disagreement about pleasure being part of the standard of morality versus its being only part of the purpose for having a morality in the first place. It is borne from discussions with rationalists who would put man in service of morality rather than morality in service of man, and those who proffer rationality as the reason to live rather than a tool to enable man to live his life. It is borne from the idea that in the same way politics cannot be a tyrant to ethics and the very freedom of morality with which it must be consistent, so too morality, rationality, and ethics cannot be a tyrant to a living being and the very freedom of subjective choices those ethics are committed to enable and guide within the limits of reality. Politics cannot (and should not) attempt to dictate to ethics, and objective rationality and morality cannot (and should not) attempt to dictate away what are properly subjective personal freedoms. Politics serves to enable a person to be ethical, and ethics serves to enable a person to live the life they choose. I will provide a better explanation in due course but I see a dark Randroidian on a horse (putting the cart before itself...), exalting ideas above men and their lives... making men slaves to philosophy rather than its beneficiary, taking its scythe to lop off all meaning and subjectivity, leaving in its wake meaningless joyless walking corpses. Make no mistake, there are Objectivists who have the sense of life Rand had, a full emotive and rational life filled with meaning and value, but there are also the rationalist Randroids who unconsciously seek to destroy all subjectivity, choice, meaning, and joy with cold calculation... bowing before logic devoid of meaning or purpose as their cold and remote God. Particulars in life ARE subjective, they ARE personal, often they are chosen, and Man does need rationality and an Objective morality to live life successfully in reality. This is not an inconsistency it's what makes us human. Insofar as there is overlap between our positions I will attempt to bring them to the fore in due course.
  11. I made no such claim. Your quote of my statement about people to more or less of a degree (which literally includes great amounts and incredibly small amounts of degree) are who they are (which is a huge category spanning everything about a person), by nature and by nurture because of their parents says nothing about geneology being morally important for anyone. All it says is that the string of people in your family are causative and linked to who a person is. I also mentions some links can be severed or weakened but that is obvious. It is clear that this effect can be larger with people who have stronger nurturing loving families and a higher sense of family than those who come from bad weakly linked unloving families or for people who are themselves callous rotters who value no other people including those closest to them. I'm not some rationalist idiot saying all people must find family meaningful... of stating in some terms that some people do and why they do. Nowhere do I say geneology is morally "important", as if were a some kind of Kantian duty. Rationality is morally important... you'll die if you step in front of a train, but geneology "by its very nature" being morally important??... this does not even make sense. Actions of an individual can be morally important, virtues of an individual are morally important, the value hierarchy of a man can be morally important... But geneology being "morally important" by its very nature makes no sense. I said no such thing.
  12. Categorically?? Life? What is the meaning of a flea? WRT to humans some people find meaning in life, others will profess they do not. Some will say that they can prove every person's life has no meaning whatever... and cite a blind universe unimaginably larger and older than each person. Others will say every person's life has meaning to the universe or some God... and support it with some mystic insanity. In reality, only people hold things as having meaning, things do not possess metaphysically an intrinsic "meaning". Meaning presupposes a person holding that something has meaning to or for them. I said what I said. Which is MY life has meaning FOR ME. Moreover, that I do not care what others wish to say about my relationship with my life. I choose life. It's no one else's business and nothing anyone can say will change my own sense of meaning I have for my own life. There is no risk in stating that I find meaning in my life. I cannot be wrong. It would be a risk if I were to naively assume everyone finds meaning in life or thinks their life has meaning... that, I literally CANNOT claim. I'm not starting from premises, or trying to justify myself. No rational argument can dissuade me from finding meaning in my own life. Period. I don't care what people think. Period. If you believe it is rational to find meaning in your life good for you. Others will argue that it is irrational for you to find meaning, or perhaps that the entire concept "meaning" is irrational. Others will argue that your life has no meaning whatever.. and therefor conclude that it is rational to find no meaning in life. I don't care what they think and perhaps you do or don't, but in the end you shouldn't, not about the meaning you find in your life if you have it. If you find meaning in your life, and you have some reasons for it then that's perfectly fine. Live your life, enjoy it, pursue happiness.
  14. The answers for you to consider are to the questions which have you flummoxed: Why DOES Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastián d'Anconia care at all about his family background and what his ancestors did? Why doesn't he care about and/or identify with and/or feel proud about the accomplishments, actions, virtues, of perfect strangers such as Aristotle, The Founding Fathers, John D. Rockefeller, Cornelius Vanderbilt, Nat Taggart in the same way that he DOES care identify and feel proud about those of his family? i.e. How is it different and WHY? Please refer to ATLAS SHRUGGED. Let me know when you have the answers.
  15. This straw man is weaker than the previous one. No one has asked whether culture is important. Interest in geneology or ancestry is NOT the same thing as interest in one's race or ethnic traditions. You're getting sloppy. Francisco Domingo Carlos Andres Sebastián d'Anconia's strong interest, meaning, and pride in his family ancestry is NOT "ethnicism" or "racism". Shame on you.