Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on January 15

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Member
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Recent Profile Visitors

21131 profile views
  1. Universals

    This post, SK. But posts after it clarify it. I was only arguing about if "universal" makes sense metaphysically speaking (exist without the presence of a mind), not if universals represent facts of the matter (these universals exist). EDIT: isn't a universal something that binds particulars together?
  2. Universals

    I said there is a fact of the matter and said how...
  3. Universals

    Yeah, but I don't see why I'm not justified. I did provide an account of how my notion of invariant facts for ALL existing members in the set fails to refer to a fact of the matter. I didn't like calling it a metaphysical universal.
  4. Universals

    I don't know how else to answer this, I tried as best I could. I don't see why, based on my explanation, that the best I can do is describe the set. Why can't I infer what newly-added set members will do? After all, if I use invariant facts, this is a connection to how reality is. As long as we reason out from essentials, we are already implying the members will behave a certain way and anything with the same essential. Give me am example of how what I'm saying would make it impossible to infer new information correctly. " Do you understand this distinction here at least? I've been trying to describe these two fundamentally different ideas of concepts/universals, and how very different they are philosophically. " I don't know. Would you explain here what you mean by natural class? Or, a link to an article that explains what you mean? I know what it means, but your specific theory might be more nuanced.
  5. Universals

    Because by definition the set is only things that meet the standard already selected. There is nothing to miss. There is nothing to leave out. Say I'm working with the concept "bird", and set the essential as "has wings". By definition, this will include all winged things. If you said "what about that red thing with wings, you forgot that", I'd say "so we add it, we don't need to think harder than that". Now, if you intend to refer to animals with wings, and not mechanical things with wings (if the red thing is a plane), that means the set fails to refer to what you wanted to reference. The problem isn't with the set missing something, it's that it has no cognitive role for thinking about animals. As I said before, our disagreement is whether it's right to -begin- with a set of concretes, or to -begin- with the category. I have no issue saying that intrinsic properties exist. I don't think Rand does either. My problem with the idea that particulars are naturally bound together without your mental intervention. Consider that a rock is bound together as a concrete entity. But to form the concept rock is different. The "set of all rocks" are bound together insofar as you performed a mental operation to do this. How do you propose that all rocks are bound together into a universal set? Why should I think they are bound, and metaphysically given as bound? If this is a belief in metaphysical universals, I really don't think this is accurate to say. It doesn't fit what I understand metaphysical means. I'm saying the timeless thing is manmade. The timeless thing is made of metaphysically given facts for the most basic concepts. All we need to do is define the starting set properly.
  6. Only if you stick to narrow political analysis. It isn't good for a country's interests that another country is able to exert its influence. I'm not saying that the hackers in question are responsible for the election - but influence doesn't need to be heavy for it to be bad. It isn't -good- that another country has, to some degree, attempted influence. In other words, using foreign power to rid the US of bad leaders runs the risk of allowing that foreign power's influence to grow. You do not appear to offer any idea how this is not a huge worry, the long-term consequences are worse than the short term benefits. You seem to overlook that the US doing this has harmed many other countries, but that somehow, Russia/Putin would not do the same. No, you forgot to take into account how much more military power the US had, the time to build up that power, and all the other global reach the US built in a century. Russia is not as big, and prior to Putin, it was rather pathetic. Russia didn't have the power to do anything, let alone do damage like the US has done with interventionism. It appears to me you don't want to quell the threat of Russian imperialism. I would rather we recognize the trend now, and not ignore that Russia has imperialist intentions overall. Right or wrong, Crimea does compare, as does Georgia. No, it's not as huge as Iraq, but the manner in which these occurred are worrisome. Right, so Trump was the best option. He's malleable and takes whatever position suits him upon any whim he wishes. Thus, exerting -some- influence for Trump was wise. and... Musk 2020! My initial thought is some sort of economic agreement, but I'm not sure.
  7. It's odd to me that you would spin it as some sort of kind act or at least beneficial. Indeed, the consequences help your view (FYI, I only thought Hillary was marginally better, and I think Trump is a heartless, warmongering, lying pig too). But we don't want to measure benefit with a short-term evaluation of consequence. Russia is a quite a shady entity, not to mention that there is no clear-cut way for us to know what the long-term strategy is. In this case, I bet it was independent of the Russian Federation, but Putin probably knew what was happening and did nothing about it. The politics here are likely aimed at allowing Russia to gain some control of their interests from easily manipulating Trump on the world stage. It's wiggle room for questionable actions elsewhere in the world. You already identified that the US is weak on the world stage - and ideally here, Russia is keeping it that way. The intention I think is to acquire an ally to control. This is a low bar. The US has been at it for a century. Putin's Russia has been at it for 18 years. I don't disagree with your points a lot. Put it into perspective. Remember the time scale. I'm not saying Russia is worse or as bad, but it isn't good at all. It annoys me when you talk to me as if I'm a liberal. I do not condemn -Russians- at all. I don't treat Russia as USSR 2.0. I think a lot of American politicians underestimate how the Russian government can be held in check with proper political savvy. We'd be in danger if no one took some fancy moves to get what we want out of Russia. Unfortunately... that's what's happening today - no action.
  8. There does, the main dispute is if it was state sponsored. You speak of how the US harms its reputation through imperialism, praise Russia (Putin) for its imperialism, then spin the US in terms of capitalism as "more pure than anywhere in the west" despite how you are stating that the US is an imperialist state. This is not making sense. Criticism of the US is fine, but you're so gentle about Russia doing the same. Sure, Russia/Putin does well for itself. Political savvy is good. But my praise ends there.
  9. Then please make a contribution. SK literally asked and your response is to troll. Your response is trivial, "if you knew what we knew, you'd know". Well, that's the point of a forum, and you know that. To see what others know. Don't discourage questions.
  10. Universals

    But "approximation" is a subjective standard, and does not capture what Rand means by similarity. It is based on definitive value ranges. Your idea here is more like this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reliabilism
  11. Not really, no. Marauders are still bad, though. It's only war in the sense of a violent campaign, but not intended as an attack on a nation/Empire/kingdom. "Death to America" and blowing up a national symbol wouldn't be the same as a Mexican cartel attacking some US border town, or pirates kidnapping Roman aristocracy.
  12. The hack still not an attack on the state. It still seems like the intent was to harm the DNC, not the government or its institutions. It's bad and malicious, but not an attack on the state. The intent of 9/11 was to harm the state as an act of war.
  13. Universals

    Well yeah, attributes are existents; bananas are fruits. Banana is a subspecies of a fruit. Your sense of causal is fine as long as you remember that attributes aren't actors.
  14. Universals

    Addendum: See this thread for my full answer:
  15. Universals

    Yes, exactly. I didn't "emphasize" that they are entities. See Grames' post.