Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dream_weaver

Admin
  • Content Count

    4627
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    171

dream_weaver last won the day on November 30

dream_weaver had the most liked content!

About dream_weaver

  • Rank
    protégé

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Michigan
  • Chat Nick
    Greg
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Real Name
    Greg
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Diverse.
  • Occupation
    Designer

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male

Recent Profile Visitors

41230 profile views
  1. Many places that sell paint offer to color match a sample brought into the store. Instead of red, yellow, blue, it identifies the particular pigment(s) as well as the amount(s) required to match it. Linguistically, it can be handled with color chips that get described in terms of lighter, darker, brighter, complementaries, clashing, etc. Programmatically, it is an ambitious project. Familiarity with an objective approach would certainly provide an upper hand in managing such an undertaking. Known epistemological approaches might be able to be automated. When a program encounters something it hasn't been programmed for, how would that get handled? Thinking "out loud" here, are there places that java scripts could be used to demonstrate the functionality expected via a web app?
  2. Do you throw your coffee cups out of the window of your home? Is it that inconvenient to dispose of your litter when you get to where a trash receptacle is available for your use?
  3. Beyond questioning the use of "information" "systems of information", the use of "theory" and omission of "hypothesis", the loose usage of the concepts make it harder to draw a conclusion of possible in my mind, and that's without having teleported it anywhere recently.
  4. World-first Temple? Ancient site older than Gobeklitepe may have been unearthed in Turkey Boncuklu Tarla is estimated to be around 12,000-years old. Boncuklu Tarla is almost 300 kilometers east of Gobeklitepe.
  5. If this is origin of the assumption, what of Hank Reardon's refusal to sell his metal to the state department of an example of how producers should act on principle?
  6. Sounds like he adopted, or is that adapted, well. I think you know what I meant,
  7. The runt of the litter abandoned by its mother before acquiring that capacity?
  8. The choice to live is quite literally the choice of remaining in existence, including all of which said choice entails. It is the choice of the somethingness of existence over the nothingness of non-existence. It is the choice of something over nothing. A choice made pre-conceptually would quite naturally defy many attempts to articulate it in a cognitive manner.
  9. From page 154 in the ITOE appendix: Prof. A: When you say a concept is a mental entity, you don't mean "entity" in the sense that a man is an entity, do you? AR: I mean it in the same sense in which I mean a thought, an emotion, or a memory is an entity, a mental entity—or put it this way: a phenomenon of consciousness. It serves as a nice precursor to the page 157 reference: AR: I kept saying, incidentally, that we can call them "mental entities" only metaphorically or for convenience. It is a "something." For instance, before you have a certain concept, that particular something doesn't exist in your mind. When you have formed the concept of "concept," that is a mental something; it isn't a nothing. But anything pertaining to the content of a mind always has to be treated metaphysically not as a separate existent, but only with this precondition, in effect: that it is a mental state, a mental concrete, a mental something. Actually, "mental something" is the nearest to an exact identification. Because "entity" does imply a physical thing. Nevertheless, since "something" is too vague a term, one can use the word "entity," but only to say that it is a mental something as distinguished from other mental somethings (or from nothing). But it isn't an entity in the primary, Aristotelian sense in which a primary substance exists.
  10. Peikoff's addressing the choice to live as pre-moral earlier referenced (51) See Atlas Shrugged, page 941. Atlas Shrugged (New York: Random House, 1957) New York: Signet, 1959 is the edition cited as the reference in OPAR. I have a 2005 centennial edition, and what appears to be a 1985 edition from the Research CD. The CD puts the reference into John Galt's speech, near the use of force as retaliation. What can be found on page 942 appears to be more in alignment with what raises a question in my mind regarding this choice as being pre-moral. If you desire ever again to live in an industrial society, it will be on our moral terms. Our terms and our motive power are the antithesis of yours. You have been using fear as your weapon and have been bringing death to man as his punishment for rejecting your morality. We offer him life as his reward for accepting ours. Objectivism is based on the Morality of Life. It is contrasted to the Morality of Death in Atlas Shrugged, becoming explicitly so in Galt's Speech. So if the choice to live is the prerequisite to morality, to whom does the Morality of Death apply? Only those who choose not to live? Is there a middle ground between those who reject the morality of death yet not having discovered the morality of life reside in a no-man's land? "You, who have lost the concept of the difference, you who claim that fear and joy are incentives of equal power—and secretly add that fear is the more 'practical'—you do not wish to live, and only fear of death still holds you to the existence you have damned. You dart in panic through the trap of your days, looking for the exit you have closed, running from a pursuer you dare not name to a terror you dare not acknowledge, and the greater your terror the greater your dread of the only act that could save you: thinking. The purpose of your struggle is not to know, not to grasp or name or hear the thing I shall now state to your hearing: that yours is the Morality of Death. Or does it extend to those who have chosen reason, or it's cousin 'common sense' and used it to live without expressly knowing that is what they have chosen? By the time she gets to page 973, this is the tone "Whoever you are—you who are alone with my words in this moment, with nothing but your honesty to help you understand—the choice is still open to be a human being, but the price is to start from scratch, to stand naked in the face of reality and, reversing a costly historical error, to declare: 'I am, therefore I'll think.' "Accept the irrevocable fact that your life depends upon your mind. Admit that the whole of your struggle, your doubts, your fakes, your evasions, was a desperate quest for escape from the responsibility of a volitional consciousness—a quest for automatic knowledge, for instinctive action, for intuitive certainty—and while you called it a longing for the state of an angel, what you were seeking was the state of an animal. Accept, as your moral ideal, the task of becoming a man. To those with which her words resonate, is this an exoneration for those who at this point choose the morality of life?
  11. A hypothesis and a theory can be used to convey quite different information. An addition of a systematic modifier to information to encompass the mind and/or consciousness should raise suspicion that an equivocation is being unwittingly invoked. A definition is what sets apart a concept in such a way as to distinguish its referents from any other concept or conceptual context. The analogous example that comes to mind was presented to me by Leonard Peikoff in his Introduction to Logic course. The example relied on the validity of congressional law makers creating the laws of society to lend credence and credibility to the laws of the universe being created by ... (guess who.) The equivocation is one that played on the difference between prescriptive and descriptive law.
  12. Which came first? When dealing with knowledge, it is epistemologically derived. To go on, is to inquire what knowledge is derived from. Indeed, in this regard, the primacy of existence is an epistemological accomplishment. To separate the epistemological from the metaphysical, look to her theory of concepts. The first concepts grasped as children are those of entities or existents. The objects are metaphysical. The process of identifying the objects is epistemological in nature.
  13. Delving a bit deeper into Objectivity in this 121st post, a definition which was requested and provided as the 41st post in this thread, a complimentary passage can be found in Who Is The Final Authority In Ethics. It is obvious that the root of such questions ["Is it intellectual plagiarism to accept and even to use philosophical principles and values discovered by someone else?"] is a certain kind of conceptual vacuum: the absence of the concept of objectivity in the questioner's mind. Objectivity is both a metaphysical and an epistemological concept. It pertains to the relationship of consciousness to existence. Metaphysically, it is the recognition of the fact that reality exists independent of any perceiver's consciousness. Epistemologically, it is the recognition of the fact that a perceiver's (man's) consciousness must acquire knowledge of reality by certain means (reason) in accordance with certain rules (logic). This means that although reality is immutable and, in any given context, only one answer is true, the truth is not automatically available to a human consciousness and can be obtained only by a certain mental process which is required of every man who seeks knowledge—that there is no substitute for this process, no escape from the responsibility for it, no shortcuts, no special revelations to privileged observers—and that there can be no such thing as a final "authority" in matters pertaining to human knowledge. Metaphysically, the only authority is reality; epistemologically—one's own mind. The first is the ultimate arbiter of the second. The concept of objectivity contains the reason why the question "Who decides what is right or wrong?" is wrong. Nobody "decides." Nature does not decide—it merely is; man does not decide, in issues of knowledge, he merely observes that which is. When it comes to applying his knowledge, man decides what he chooses to do, according to what he has learned, remembering that the basic principle of rational action in all aspects of human existence, is: "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed." This means that man does not create reality and can achieve his values only by making his decisions consonant with the facts of reality. This provides some rationale why volitional adherence to reality is prudent. It does not cover the fact that spectacular views of the Atlantic Ocean or of the Rocky Mountains exist. It does point out that in any given context, only one answer is true, thus trying to decide in a vacuum, i.e., trying to make a contextless decision, would be a departure from objectivity. If you do lift the corner of the aforementioned rug, could you check to see if this was inadvertently swept under it as well? "Do you cry that you find no answers? By what means did you hope to find them? You reject your tool of perception—your mind—then complain that the universe is a mystery. You discard your key, then wail that all doors are locked against you. You start out in pursuit of the irrational, then damn existence for making no sense. — This is John Galt Speaking
  14. That is an ad hominem, you are evaluating an argument using completely irrelevant facts From the other thread someone said that contradiction are possible and impossible at the same time. I try to know what he means and he start trolling. The solutions I give were that he was using a contradiction resistant logic, later I think that he is meaning a kind of Hegelian dialectic. In this thread, people went out of there way to evade my concern and even said that subjective criteria, could be used but don’t give a guidelines of when. Or when I explain the example said that I was moving the goal post. I really try to learn who Rand’s handle this scenario because is extremely simple so it was logical for me to look at what I’m missing. After both threads my only way to understand what is going on is that you guys just ignore and sweep under the rug everything that do not fit in your worldview. Aside from the grammatical difference, there is the housekeeping similarity. Rand offered some salient advice years ago that may still be relevant today. She was addressing herself to those who were genuinely interested in ideas, therefore having an authentic desire to understand Objectivism. Those whom she deemed were making an effort to fail to understand her were of no concern to her. She went as step further and offered some criteria for disagreeing with her. Start, she said, by identifying her basic premises, and then refuting them. She went another step further and identified her basic premises (in case the antagonist had difficulty in doing so, presumably.) A.) Men must be guided exclusively by reason. B.) That man has a right to exist for his own sake. And C.) That no-one has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. As difficult as it may be to believe, she went yet another step further and outlined what would be required to admit and maintain in order to refute her on the aforementioned premises. A.) Man ought to be irrational. B.) That man is a sacrificial animal. And C.) That you seek to impose your own ideas or wishes on others by means of physical force. If this is what you are maintaining is being "swept under the rug", pull back a corner of the rug and look into the mirror strategically placed under that rug, and report what you see therein.
  15. Most returns on the quote as cited point to Friedrich Nietzsche —"One repays a teacher badly if one always remains nothing but a pupil." Sensei used to say something along the lines "One learns more as a teacher than as a student." That doesn't get nearly as many Google nibbles.
×
×
  • Create New...