Does Objectivism integrate philosophy and science well?

[Spiral Architect]

 I differentiated the ultimate existent from itself.

 

 

OK - that is the end game.  Your trying to justify mysticism and supernatural realms with this huge construct. You should have said so in the first place. 

[Ilya Startsev]

The "space" between the letters in this post is filled with actual things of a different color.

In case you do not know, those actual things are called photons. Otherwise, they do not exist.

 

you need to learn how to form a valid concept

I was going to tell you the same. As far as I know, no Objectivist ever created their own conceptual hierarchy. You all depend on Rand's theory of concepts.

Speaking of the theory of concepts--I want to show you how it perfectly matches my Model. On the level of sensations, the ultimate sensation is a particle (level 1-left, the bottom of M); on the level of perceptions--a body (level 8-left, the middle of M); on the level of conceptions--Existence (the top-left of my Model).

And I agree with this (cf. the Model):

"Prof. A: Wouldn’t the higher-level concepts, too, stand not just for the knowledge contained in the lower-level concepts, but also for all the knowledge ever to be obtained about their units?

AR: That’s right" (ITOE, 1990:151)

And totally disagree: "Philosophical problems have to be solved on a level of knowledge available to a normal adult at any period of human development; so that philosophical concepts are really not dependent on the development of individual sciences" (ibid., 163).

Then Ayn Rand was separating philosophy from science, and we cannot integrate them unless we overcome this obstacle. If you want to keep your philosophy undifferentiated for some simple-minded folks--that's fine, but if you want to advance it to perfection, to have it in the most effective defensive position, my Model is what you need.

 

You mean by "metaphysical" what Oism means by epistemological.(pertaining to and dependent on consciousness)

That's what you actually mean, but you don't think about it.

 

generally equivocating just about all the main concepts

At least I differentiate the two meanings of my "doubletalk," as you call it sometimes.

 

Differentiation REQUIRES two or more entities, or terms if you want to be picky. It is at least BINARY operation! You can't compare something to ITSELF. What's bigger: an elephant or an elephant? Formally, can X be bigger than X? This is basic logic here, this isn't even about Objectivism. Comparisons are NOT unary operations by definition. 

 

Caps for emphasis. If that doesn't clear it up, you really need a course on logic.

Differentiation requires context, which in your case is served by an entity. By true logic, an attribute of existence is inseparable from its entity/context. As Ayn Rand said about this in ITOE: "But it is basic" (187).

[Ilya Startsev]

Guess you wont find the work of David Bohm, J.S. Bell: http://prac.us.edu.pl/~ztpce/QM/Bell_beables.pdf, or Travis Norsen; http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.4553 scientific... you can always just read the Wiki I guess.....http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Tnorsen/Sandbox/Beables

Are you going to argue for imaginary numbers as well? Beables, since they are "associated to (or is an element of physical reality of) a given portion of spacetime," may be a method of analyzing spacetime like in general relativity, just as imaginary numbers are a method to analyze electrical circuits. Conceptual method =/= entity.

[Eiuol]

Differentiation requires context, which in your case is served by an entity. By true logic, an attribute of existence is inseparable from its entity/context. As Ayn Rand said about this in ITOE: "But it is basic" (187).

Sure, and at least two terms. You used one. I was pointing out that you didn't differentiate anything.

[Ilya Startsev]

Yes because in the 20th century everyone just knew man didn't have a heart........lol

In the seventeenth century, Descartes conceived of a heart merely as a pump, so maybe other people from the bygone era also omitted the heart in their conceptions of a human being as they do today.

 

Sure, and at least two terms. You used one. I was pointing out that you didn't differentiate anything.

I want to point out that we were analyzing existence as a whole and that existence is not the same as a particular existent in an epistemic reality. Existence is always singular and has to be viewed in this exclusive context as differentiating itself. Otherwise, there is no way to have "existence exists" axiom. Or should I say then there would be no way to derive it? But if I can derive it, it is not an axiom anymore, unless you just want to keep believing in it as an axiom.

 

P.S. I am not deriving it from an epistemic reality.

Edited July 5, 2014 by Ilya Startsev

[Ilya Startsev]

R'Amen to that. Praise the Lord, and praise his noodly appendage.

I know that you hate arguing with me. You probably consider what I wrote irrational. You do not want to understand it or ask questions about it. But as Ayn Rand said in her West Point speech: "you have to understand the enemy’s ideas and be prepared to refute them, you have to know his basic arguments and be able to blast them" (from Leonard Peikoff's and Barry Wood's Objective Communication: Writing, Speaking and Arguing. NAL Trade, 2013. p. 285. Digital.)

[Ilya Startsev]

Since you think that crows are only animals who can count to 3, you should also know that there is evidence that crows are "rational animals":

and http://animals.io9.com/crows-understand-a-fundamental-part-of-logical-reasonin-1553222215. Can you explain your definition of "man" again?

[Harrison Danneskjold]

Man is the innovative animal.

 

Any animal which can comprehend a spacecraft, integrated circuit or rhapsody- to conceive of what does not yet exist- is a man.

 

Any animal which cannot, is not.

 

--- disclaimer:

 

This is nothing Rand explicitly said.  It may or may not have been her opinion; it is mine.

Edited July 16, 2014 by Harrison Danneskjold

[Ilya Startsev]

Man is the innovative animal.

 

Any animal which can comprehend a spacecraft, integrated circuit or rhapsody- to conceive of what does not yet exist- is a man.

 

Any animal which cannot, is not.

 

--- disclaimer:

 

This is nothing Rand explicitly said.  It may or may not have been her opinion; it is mine.

I agree. I can differentiate man as either a body with consciousness (as the faculty of conception) or as a body that creates an economic environment.