Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
Ilya Startsev

Does Objectivism integrate philosophy and science well?

Rate this topic

Recommended Posts

Am I hearing crickets? I wonder what that means.

 

From where I'm standing, it means that your posts typically make no sense whatsoever.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From where I'm standing, it means that your posts typically make no sense whatsoever.

That's ok. I just want you to know that even if you do not understand, you are still in good hands under Neo-objectivism. Time will come, and all will understand, and everything will become perfectly clear.

 

P.S. Neo-objectivism may be Authenticism.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We have three principles of Objectivism: 1) Reason; 2) Purpose; 3) Self-esteem.

We have three principles from The Answers to your questions about life: 1) Love; 2) Create; 3) Learn.

I call the latter chain: Love what you do, create what you love, and learn from what you create.

 

From the first: The metaphysical Reason generates the physical Purpose and leads to the reward, the achievement, which is Self-esteem.

From the second: Love becomes its embodiment in Create(ion) and is re-created through Learn(ing).

 

Now, you try it. :)

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ilya,

 

I was using ontological in the context of how logic is based. Aristotelian logic, is usually described having an ontological basis for it, in the philosophic sense of pertaining to reality. Aristotle was looking for a principle to guide thought by seeking something that was true about everything, the fact of its being, or the fact of everything as being, as in being qua being. Your explanation goes into physics, biology and chemistry.

 

As logic is a method to guide ones thinking in the sciences and every other field of endeavor, it would be a subset of epistemology.

 

You stated "There are many ontological models out there that show what kinds of existences there are and how they are related."

Since existence refers to everything which exists, the singular tense is quite adequate to refer to everything which exists, and the relationships are then drawn from the existents.

Ontology in this sense would refer to the priority (ontos) of a particular perspective. What's essential; is the best way of looking at things. For Aristotle, as an example, it was cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In addition, from The Romantic Manifesto (1971:12): "men have outgrown the practice of seeking the guidance of mystic oracles whose qualification for the job was unintelligibility" and ibid., 27: "one of the most evil consequences of mysticism--in terms of human suffering--is the belief that love is a matter of "the heart," not the mind, that love is an emotion independent of reason, that love is blind and impervious to the power of philosophy."

 

All of these quotes, and I am sure that you can find more (as well as the instances of not understanding by Roark, Dagny, and Rand herself), are judgements of mystics. However, it should also be clear that these judgements are based on insufficient understanding of mysticism. In fact, it is slander. I have studied mysticism for 10 years, and I can tell that, for example, Blavatsky's theosophy is about integrating science and religion where the integration is based on the premise that "there is no religion higher than the truth." Indeed, they claim that "love is a matter of "the heart," " and I totally agree with that and, more than that, provide you evidence for it from the Institute of HeartMath's research, especially their book Science of the Heart and other related books, such as Neurocardiology: Anatomical and Functional Principles by J. Andrew Armour, M.D., Ph.D. What is completely clear, though, is that none say that love (or heart, sense of life, soul) is in conflict with reason (or mind, philosophy, consciousness). This is a totally groundless claim by Rand herself who implanted it into mysticism against reason.

 

I consider you an intelligent person, and, thus, I judge that you are able to understand that mystics have no conflict with Rand's ideology and ideas, such as "when love is a conscious integration of reason and emotion, of mind and values, then--and only then--it is the greatest reward of man's life" (ibid.). In fact, they (e.g., Drunvalo Melchizedek, Rupert Sheldrake, Ken Wilber, etc.) have been doing the same thing. Rand came up with new ideas, but she differentiated herself negatively from others. She did not want to be a mystic, so she called others mystics, implying something completely evil and irrational, even though most of those I named are also scientists. Please, keep in mind: it is very hard to accept those who hate you. In fact, it is very hard to even consider (not even speaking of love) those who only hate you in return. And for most people, who are non-Objectivists and therefore labeled mystics, the fact that they are hated and harshly and unfairly criticized remains whether they put an effort into studying Objectivism or none, where the second is a more obvious choice. It has been difficult for me as well, but I think that I am finally breaking through the barrier of hate that Rand has created around Objectivism.

The etymology of 'mystic' is the greek 'mystery'. It indicates that there's a secret form of knowledge accessable to only a few.

 

So yes, Rand is correct that Enlightemnment thought has rejected this claim of priveledge. Now, all truths are so because they're demonstrative in fact. 

 

As to how this demonstrates that O-ism has integrated science with philosophy is beyond me. Mysticism, in any case, is not central to doing philosophy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ontology in this sense would refer to the priority (ontos) of a particular perspective. What's essential; is the best way of looking at things. For Aristotle, as an example, it was cause.

My definition of ontology is an extension from philosophy to science. The metaphysical cause of my analysis, which you can see in post #6, is Existence--Nonexistence chain. The ultimate question (and the relationship of the final chain) is what exists and does not exist.

 

The etymology of 'mystic' is the greek 'mystery'. It indicates that there's a secret form of knowledge accessable to only a few.

 

So yes, Rand is correct that Enlightemnment thought has rejected this claim of priveledge. Now, all truths are so because they're demonstrative in fact. 

 

As to how this demonstrates that O-ism has integrated science with philosophy is beyond me. Mysticism, in any case, is not central to doing philosophy...

First, I claim that O-ism has not integrated science with philosophy. Second, we need to separate Science from mysticism that Rand hated so much. And third, her unjust hate towards all "mystics," whether they were right or not, is the topic of hate rhetoric probably better connected to the Objectivist Rhetoric thread.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My definition of ontology is an extension from philosophy to science. The metaphysical cause of my analysis, which you can see in post #6, is Existence--Nonexistence chain. The ultimate question (and the relationship of the final chain) is what exists and does not exist.

 

First, I claim that O-ism has not integrated science with philosophy. Second, we need to separate Science from mysticism that Rand hated so much. And third, her unjust hate towards all "mystics," whether they were right or not, is the topic of hate rhetoric probably better connected to the Objectivist Rhetoric thread.

1) I Have my doubts,as well, particularly concerning QM and both Relativities.

2) Scince is separated from mysticiem by its method of demanding proof.

3) Yes, I agree to a point: delving into mysteries is merely asking interesting questions about things we know little about. To this extent, its healthy. OTH, claiming to have some sort of priveleged access to truth qua mystuicism is nothing but mumbo-jumbo that rand was correct to denounce.

 

Re Ontology. I'm really not much for Humpty-Dumpty daffy-nitions. i believe communication goes better if we all get on the same definitional page.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) I Have my doubts,as well, particularly concerning QM and both Relativities.

2) Scince is separated from mysticiem by its method of demanding proof.

3) Yes, I agree to a point: delving into mysteries is merely asking interesting questions about things we know little about. To this extent, its healthy. OTH, claiming to have some sort of priveleged access to truth qua mystuicism is nothing but mumbo-jumbo that rand was correct to denounce.

 

Re Ontology. I'm really not much for Humpty-Dumpty daffy-nitions. i believe communication goes better if we all get on the same definitional page.

1) Indeed, and also evolution in all of its flavors, neurocardiology, and climate change.

2) I would say that Science is that which has the scientific consensus. There are very many "scientists" who go on their own and thus may lack proof. We need to make these "scientists" face Science and receive their proof or disproof. That will be justice, and mysticism should not be a label of which we need be afraid. After all, it is only a label, not the (dis)proof.

3) Agreed. No privileged access. Only scientific evaluations. Nobody knows more than I do how many interesting ideas and questions "mystics" have. If we find out that at least a few of these are factual, there will be another revolution of Science and our Life.

4) Agreed once again. I know that ontology is not a scientific term. However, all ideas point from philosophy to science. Maybe, there needs to be another term for the connection/relationship of the two.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

2) I would say that Science is that which has the scientific consensus. There are very many "scientists" who go on their own and thus may lack proof. We need to make these "scientists" face Science and receive their proof or disproof. That will be justice, and mysticism should not be a label of which we need be afraid. After all, it is only a label, not the (dis)proof.

 

 

I have a question for you: What does the consensus tell you about a theory?  How do you know the consensus is right?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have a question for you: What does the consensus tell you about a theory?  How do you know the consensus is right?

Good that you asked, Craig24. The consensus merely tells you that other scientists approve. It's important as far as Science is concerned. However, you are asking philosophic questions. It is important that we connect philosophy to the scientific consensus (not vice versa, since our philosophy stems from Science in the first place). We learn to represent both sides equally. If no connection is possible, then we defend our reasoning through an argument to explain to the scientific consensus to follow our side.

 

P.S. As an example and a hot issue -- the climate change debates. There is the scientific consensus on climate change. Climate change is a scientific fact. Our job is to understand how humans are involved. We need to evaluate this fact in how it relates to humans. Is it bad to humans? Or can we adapt?

 

P.P.S. In other words, for me, the idea of climate change naturally leads to the idea of evolution.

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I will read that book, thanks for the tip.

 

P.S. This is a marvelous argument. Let us look at it in more detail: "It consists of regarding “nothing” as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent. (For example, see Existentialism.) This fallacy breeds such symptoms as the notion that presence and absence, or being and non-being, are metaphysical forces of equal power, and that being is the absence of non-being." (ITOE from the lexicon).

 

I am always literal, so let's look at what Ayn Rand said literally, that is, exactly and logically.

1) Thing is an existent. Nothing is not an existent. (A for thing; thing is existent; ~A is ~A.) This is termed as fallacy by Rand. Is ~A=~A a fallacy? No.

In my philosophy nothing is like an empty spacetime. Neither emptiness, nor space nor time are things. Hence, I do not see nothing as a thing.

2) "fallacy breeds such symptoms as [...] being is the absence of non-being" (thing is existent is being; hence, the same terminology applies here). If ~A=~A, then A=~~A. By the law of double negation, we get:

If ~A=~A, then A=A. This is the law of identity. End proof.

Rand says that the law of identity is the Reification of the Zero.

If you are going to be literal, then recognize you are saying two different things.

1. Let's look at what Ayn Rand said literally, that is, exactly. The quote provided does just that.

 

One of the consequences (a vulgar variant of concept stealing, prevalent among avowed mystics and irrationalists) is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. It consists of regarding "nothing" as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent. (For example, see Existentialism.) This fallacy breeds such symptoms as the notion that presence and absence, or being and non-being, are metaphysical forces of equal power, and that being is the absence of non-being.

 

2. Let's look at what Ayn Rand said, logically.

 

One of the consequences is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. (APEIRON is the integration of everything and nothing. Everything is existence if seen by itself, viz., existence exists. Everything is everywhere and everywhen. Nothing is everywhere, everywhen, nowhere, and nowhen (cf. Gorgias, On the Nonexistent).) An example I thought might have been such a fallacy.

 

Existence is everything which exists.

Existence is everywhere.

Existence is a-temporal.

 

Everything is everywhere (a false premise) Every thing is precisely where it is at any given moment in time.

Everything is a-temporal (a false premise). Living organisms are quite temporal. Many comets have demonstrated the fact of being temporal.

 

Nothing is everywhere - this might be considered true, if parsed as above to state that "No thing is everywhere."

Nothing is a-temporal - again, taken as no thing being a-temporal ignores "what neither comes into being nor passes out of being."

 

This still pits "Everything is everywhere" against "Nothing is everywhere" as two statements that contradict one another as everything is not nothing. One or the other, or both cannot be true, at the same time, and in the same respect.

 

The more I try to parse this, it dawns on me - this struck me, at first, as an example of Reification of the Zero. Trying to break it into the component thoughts, it is just bad logic.

Everything is either everywhere, or it is not.

Everything is either every-when, or it is not. Likewise for nothing. (leaving aside what every-when is, if not a-temporal)

Nothing is either everywhere, or it is not.

 

Which is it (everything or nothing) that is supposedly everywhere?

 

Miss Rand's point in the passage was that the Reification of the Zero is an attack on the Law of Identity. Have you considered the possibility that you are not applying the law of identity correctly? Learning to do so would go a long way to integrating your philosophy, thus enabling you to apply an integrated philosophy to any of the sciences you have in mind.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to be literal, then recognize you are saying two different things.

1. Let's look at what Ayn Rand said literally, that is, exactly. The quote provided does just that.

 

One of the consequences (a vulgar variant of concept stealing, prevalent among avowed mystics and irrationalists) is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. It consists of regarding "nothing" as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent. (For example, see Existentialism.) This fallacy breeds such symptoms as the notion that presence and absence, or being and non-being, are metaphysical forces of equal power, and that being is the absence of non-being.

 

2. Let's look at what Ayn Rand said, logically.

 

One of the consequences is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. (APEIRON is the integration of everything and nothing. Everything is existence if seen by itself, viz., existence exists. Everything is everywhere and everywhen. Nothing is everywhere, everywhen, nowhere, and nowhen (cf. Gorgias, On the Nonexistent).) An example I thought might have been such a fallacy.

 

Existence is everything which exists.

Existence is everywhere.

Existence is a-temporal.

 

Everything is everywhere (a false premise) Every thing is precisely where it is at any given moment in time.

Everything is a-temporal (a false premise). Living organisms are quite temporal. Many comets have demonstrated the fact of being temporal.

 

Nothing is everywhere - this might be considered true, if parsed as above to state that "No thing is everywhere."

Nothing is a-temporal - again, taken as no thing being a-temporal ignores "what neither comes into being nor passes out of being."

 

This still pits "Everything is everywhere" against "Nothing is everywhere" as two statements that contradict one another as everything is not nothing. One or the other, or both cannot be true, at the same time, and in the same respect.

 

The more I try to parse this, it dawns on me - this struck me, at first, as an example of Reification of the Zero. Trying to break it into the component thoughts, it is just bad logic.

Everything is either everywhere, or it is not.

Everything is either every-when, or it is not. Likewise for nothing. (leaving aside what every-when is, if not a-temporal)

Nothing is either everywhere, or it is not.

 

Which is it (everything or nothing) that is supposedly everywhere?

 

Miss Rand's point in the passage was that the Reification of the Zero is an attack on the Law of Identity. Have you considered the possibility that you are not applying the law of identity correctly? Learning to do so would go a long way to integrating your philosophy, thus enabling you to apply an integrated philosophy to any of the sciences you have in mind.

First of all, I appreciate your analysis. It is indeed helpful in order to see where we connect (and disconnect).

 

What I said: "Everything is everywhere and everywhen. Nothing is everywhere, everywhen, nowhere, and nowhen."

1) Everything is not every (one) thing. Everything is the total sum of all things.

2) "Everything is everywhere" implies potential, not actual infinity. That is, everything is bounded at the limits of everywhere.

3) "Everything is everywhen" means it is temporal, but the temporality is of potential nature inseparable from the potential infinity described in the previous entry.

You said: "Everything is everywhere (a false premise) Every thing is precisely where it is at any given moment in time."

If you are not talking about the sum of things, then what specific things are you talking about and in what specific spatiotemporal context?

You said: "Everything is a-temporal (a false premise). Living organisms are quite temporal. Many comets have demonstrated the fact of being temporal."

"Everywhen" means "all the time; always." This means that everywhen is temporal, not atemporal. Living organisms or space bodies are not everything. You are talking about specific things when I am talking about the sum of all things. Conclusion: our definitions of "everything" differ.

Definition at fault: "every, thing or particular of an aggregate or total; all." Before we go on with the debate, we have to differentiate our usages of "everything." From now on, I will use Existence instead of everything in order to avoid any confusion.

You said: " "Everything is everywhere" against "Nothing is everywhere" as two statements that contradict one another as everything is not nothing"

Nothing is spacetime. It covers the same area as covered by everything as well as emptiness. Nothing provides the metaphysical form to Existence but ignores the content.

You said: "Everything is either everywhere, or it is not. Everything is either every-when, or it is not. Likewise for nothing. (leaving aside what every-when is, if not a-temporal) Nothing is either everywhere, or it is not."

You are ignoring the temporal nature of Existence. Otherwise, this is correct. Existence cannot be nowhere or nowhen. However, Existence and nothing are not the same--they are opposite. Hence, you cannot say "Nothing is either everywhere, or it is not." Nothing is not restricted like Existence. Nothing can be anywhere, everywhere, or nowhere--it does not matter where there is nothing.

You said: "Which is it (everything or nothing) that is supposedly everywhere?"

Existence is necessarily everywhere. Nothing can be everywhere as space of Existence. Nonetheless, this is not limiting on nothing.

You said: "Miss Rand's point in the passage was that the Reification of the Zero is an attack on the Law of Identity."

Miss Rand's point is an attack on Science. She completely ignored such concepts from physics as space, time, and spacetime. These concepts are proven, physical facts. There is a scientific consensus on the theories of relativity of Einstein that are based on spacetime. The simple issue here is to see how Existence and nothing are not the same, yet they share the same metaphysical "reality" (I call this the reality of realities.)

 

P.S. There is a linguistic inadequacy. Look at this definition of Existence from World English Dictionary:

3.     something that exists; a being or entity

4.     everything that exists, esp that is living

In light of this, please differentiate between an existent (definition 3) and Existence (definition 4, not limited to life).

P.P.S. Crap! I am going in circles! I hate human languages! lol

Edited by Ilya Startsev

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you are going to be literal, then recognize you are saying two different things.

1. Let's look at what Ayn Rand said literally, that is, exactly. The quote provided does just that.

 

One of the consequences (a vulgar variant of concept stealing, prevalent among avowed mystics and irrationalists) is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. It consists of regarding "nothing" as a thing, as a special, different kind of existent. (For example, see Existentialism.) This fallacy breeds such symptoms as the notion that presence and absence, or being and non-being, are metaphysical forces of equal power, and that being is the absence of non-being.

 

2. Let's look at what Ayn Rand said, logically.

 

One of the consequences is a fallacy I call the Reification of the Zero. (APEIRON is the integration of everything and nothing. Everything is existence if seen by itself, viz., existence exists. Everything is everywhere and everywhen. Nothing is everywhere, everywhen, nowhere, and nowhen (cf. Gorgias, On the Nonexistent).) An example I thought might have been such a fallacy.

 

Existence is everything which exists.

Existence is everywhere.

Existence is a-temporal.

 

Everything is everywhere (a false premise) Every thing is precisely where it is at any given moment in time.

Everything is a-temporal (a false premise). Living organisms are quite temporal. Many comets have demonstrated the fact of being temporal.

 

Nothing is everywhere - this might be considered true, if parsed as above to state that "No thing is everywhere."

Nothing is a-temporal - again, taken as no thing being a-temporal ignores "what neither comes into being nor passes out of being."

 

This still pits "Everything is everywhere" against "Nothing is everywhere" as two statements that contradict one another as everything is not nothing. One or the other, or both cannot be true, at the same time, and in the same respect.

 

The more I try to parse this, it dawns on me - this struck me, at first, as an example of Reification of the Zero. Trying to break it into the component thoughts, it is just bad logic.

Everything is either everywhere, or it is not.

Everything is either every-when, or it is not. Likewise for nothing. (leaving aside what every-when is, if not a-temporal)

Nothing is either everywhere, or it is not.

 

Which is it (everything or nothing) that is supposedly everywhere?

 

Miss Rand's point in the passage was that the Reification of the Zero is an attack on the Law of Identity. Have you considered the possibility that you are not applying the law of identity correctly? Learning to do so would go a long way to integrating your philosophy, thus enabling you to apply an integrated philosophy to any of the sciences you have in mind.

Several points, please:

 

1) Basic ZFC set theory includes the null set as operative thing-ness. Common sense, moreover, informs us that looking for an entity and failing to find it is meaningful.

 

For example, a genetic sweep of the murder scene indicated that Amanda Knox's DNA was not present at 'criminal grade' level..That the confessed killer's  (Guesde) was ivalidates the negative-positive. might we conclude from the ensuing legal blundering that the applelite magistrate was an Objectivist for whom null-ness is meaningless?

 

2)'A=A identity, as extracted from Aristotle, is the first principle of logic. It gives no indication as to what 'A' is, in reality. For example. Gork is a martian because he conforms to martianish criteria. 

 

3) Existentialist nothingness is specific to the ontological issue of being. Simply put, Sartre wrote (against Heidegger and Husserl) that there are no essentials. All is contingency and choice, Therefore all is possible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1) Indeed, and also evolution in all of its flavors, neurocardiology, and climate change.

2) I would say that Science is that which has the scientific consensus. There are very many "scientists" who go on their own and thus may lack proof. We need to make these "scientists" face Science and receive their proof or disproof. That will be justice, and mysticism should not be a label of which we need be afraid. After all, it is only a label, not the (dis)proof.

3) Agreed. No privileged access. Only scientific evaluations. Nobody knows more than I do how many interesting ideas and questions "mystics" have. If we find out that at least a few of these are factual, there will be another revolution of Science and our Life.

4) Agreed once again. I know that ontology is not a scientific term. However, all ideas point from philosophy to science. Maybe, there needs to be another term for the connection/relationship of the two.

Well first, Quine wrote that all philosophy should be a 'philosophy of science'--so you're in good company!

 

Re consensus (Craig 24): It simply means that in the majority of cases, the majority is usually correct.

 

Yet this does beg the question of 'majority of whom?' And since peerage defines who gets to call themself a 'scientist' what you really do have is a small group that serves as intellectual gatekeeper.

 

Now in the hard sciences, this really isn't a problem, excepting the epistemological status of probabalistic cause. But then, go to Economics and you find those such as marxists and austrians who reject quantification as useless.

 

Another half-way group, the Institutionalists such as Galbraith, , say that quantities are doable only within a framework, and that frameworks are incommensurate. Readers of keynes will recognize this stance as his pre-general theory work with Ramsay, Scraffa, and Russell.

 

On a positive note, conmmunity presence serves to pull in the famous, but recently having gome over the top. My two best examples here are Pauling (V-C) and prigogne (dissipative-evolution).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Philosophy is the science that answers the questions all the other sciences presuppose you have already answered....

For sure. philosophy is the only 'science' that has no need of either measuring or quantification.

Edited by frank harley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Several points, please:

 

1) Basic ZFC set theory includes the null set as operative thing-ness. Common sense, moreover, informs us that looking for an entity and failing to find it is meaningful.

 

For example, a genetic sweep of the murder scene indicated that Amanda Knox's DNA was not present at 'criminal grade' level..That the confessed killer's  (Guesde) was ivalidates the negative-positive. might we conclude from the ensuing legal blundering that the applelite magistrate was an Objectivist for whom null-ness is meaningless?

 

2)'A=A identity, as extracted from Aristotle, is the first principle of logic. It gives no indication as to what 'A' is, in reality. For example. Gork is a martian because he conforms to martianish criteria. 

 

3) Existentialist nothingness is specific to the ontological issue of being. Simply put, Sartre wrote (against Heidegger and Husserl) that there are no essentials. All is contingency and choice, Therefore all is possible.

1. This switches the context. Of course, if DNA is found at the murder scene, and the identification of the DNA matches Guesde's it demonstrates that the DNA is Guesde's, not Amanda's. Why is there a need to introduce null-ness?

 

2. A is A gives no indication as to what 'A' is. True. Reality does not come pre-labeled. A is A serves a principle, something to guide a method of labeling, of identification - where contradictory identification is to be avoided.

 

3. I'm not much of a Sarte fan.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, I appreciate your analysis. It is indeed helpful in order to see where we connect (and disconnect).

 

<snip>

 

P.S. There is a linguistic inadequacy. Look at this definition of Existence from World English Dictionary:

3.     something that exists; a being or entity

4.     everything that exists, esp that is living

In light of this, please differentiate between an existent (definition 3) and Existence (definition 4, not limited to life).

P.P.S. Crap! I am going in circles! I hate human languages! lol

Thanks. 

 

This offshoot started with a contrast of two-valued vs. multi-valued logic.

 

While multi-variables serve well in computer programming, engineering, physics, chemistry etc., it does so in a delimited fashion. I have some familiarity with computer programming, and with a little introspection, I understand how multi-values work by analyzing with a basic two valued "This line of programming works like this, and not something else",

 

As to the <snipped> section, I'm going to have to leave that for right now. Your re-wording still has me harkening to Rand's Reification of the Zero.

 

The P.S. deals with contextual usage. Generally, I use existence as a collective term of everything that exists (including that which is living), and existent to refer to specific entities.

 

The P.P.S. makes your claim of majoring in English come across as a love/hate relationship.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1. This switches the context. Of course, if DNA is found at the murder scene, and the identification of the DNA matches Guesde's it demonstrates that the DNA is Guesde's, not Amanda's. Why is there a need to introduce null-ness?

 

2. A is A gives no indication as to what 'A' is. True. Reality does not come pre-labeled. A is A serves a principle, something to guide a method of labeling, of identification - where contradictory identification is to be avoided.

 

3. I'm not much of a Sarte fan.

1) Because the trial was for Knox; Guesde had already confessed. His positive DNA served as a control to establish that the test worked. Knox's negative therefore proved that she wasn't there. In any case, there arte countless cases --legal and otherwise-in which negative results have significant meaning.

 

2) If A=A cannot indicate what A is (a point to wjhich I wholeheartedly agree) then the expression cannot served as an epistemological tool . This is because Epistemology is about how we justify our beliefs that certain things and exprtessions are true.

 

3) You're free to disagree with Sartre in three ways: a) maintain the Hussseain search for essences.B) claim that Husserl's project was not worth the effort to unend and c) Agree with Sartre that the search for  essences is over, but disagree with him that the solution is absolute freedom.

 

If ©, you'll more or less be obliged to take a naturalist account of humans as opposed to a phenomenological one. In other words, as a species, we're more or less conditioned by natural law, as are other animals.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) Yes, the positive result served to exclude her involvement. There is nothing in Aristotelian logic that prohibits this. If all of the evidence points thus, and there is nothing that contradicts it, nothing in this sense indicates an absence of evidence . . . not an evidence of absence (of nothing, or of nothingness).

 

2.) Epistemic justification is based on the self-evidency of the law of identity in conjunction with other developments in the field of epistemology.

 

3.) Essence is not a metaphysical quest. Aristotle missed this point as well.

 

4.) Human beings, as a species, are bound by natural law. In this sense, I admire some developments brought about by Cicero, Locke, and Paine,

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's ok. I just want you to know that even if you do not understand, you are still in good hands under Neo-objectivism. Time will come, and all will understand, and everything will become perfectly clear.

 

P.S. Neo-objectivism may be Authenticism.

I can't tell if this reply was intended as an obvious joke toward Dante, or if it is just ironic.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

1.) Yes, the positive result served to exclude her involvement. There is nothing in Aristotelian logic that prohibits this. If all of the evidence points thus, and there is nothing that contradicts it, nothing in this sense indicates an absence of evidence . . . not an evidence of absence (of nothing, or of nothingness).

 

2.) Epistemic justification is based on the self-evidency of the law of identity in conjunction with other developments in the field of epistemology.

 

3.) Essence is not a metaphysical quest. Aristotle missed this point as well.

 

4.) Human beings, as a species, are bound by natural law. In this sense, I admire some developments brought about by Cicero, Locke, and Paine,

*No, pleople have a hard time with the notion that zero is just as good a number as any other one. Moreover that, say, 'negative' results on a Pap smear means that you're healthy.

 

In law, again, 'no result' for a DNA test means that, criminally speaking, you were not present.

 

These, in any case are just a few examples as to why null set is included as a real entity in basic set theory (ZFC). Disagreeing Objectivists are free to express themselves accordingly while tested, and flunk.. LIkewise, that because Born's Equation demonstrates in-your-face non- communitivity of basic arithmetic, all of QM makes no Aristotelian sense.

 

*Yes, epistemic justification follows logic.And the logic of photon polarization (spin) is that the second particle measured from an emission will always be opposite that of the first, although we don't know the spin of the first until it's measured.

 

Logically, then, the particles must talk to each other at a speed far in excess of their own velocity. But Feynman himself said that this was 'illogical'...So help me...i'm confused....

 

* Aristotle saw that his fellow Greeks, et al, had demonstrated many ways of classifying the world of things. His 'meta', in this case, was simply to say that the essential way of classification is by causal reference, of which they're four.

 

 The birth of Phenomenology, centered on Husserl's project, was in great measure a reaction to Wittgenstein's proclamation in the Tractatus that, in essence, all metaphysics is nonsense. In this sense, phenomenology tries (or tried) to chart a causal reference of subjective human experience. In other words, what are we, essentially, in terms of how we feel? A

 

Again, Sartre's answer was that we should acknowledge the answer is 'nothing' as a real outcome in so far that is has real consequences.

 

*Locke and Paine's 'naturalism' refers more to an application of Aquinas pace Aristotle: That humans were born free is evinced by the anthropology of the native americans, ostensibly a 'natural state as opposed to the chains of their civilization.

 

The missing link is the Salamanca School of c1560 which wrote of universal human rights

 

OTH a modern critique of existentialism wrote that humans are subject not only to biological inevitability but constrained by social laws as well. In the case of Sartre, it was the encounter with Marx via Althusser: "Class struggle is the motor of history".

 

As for Cicero, yes, he wrote as a Stoic that we must accept things we cannot change because they're written 'rerum natura', or facts of nature. Human activity must therefore engage the sphere of activity that's changable. Indeed, I find him compelling, too.

Edited by frank harley

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hearts don't have *neurons*, emotions originate in the brain (don't equivocate my saying mind with rationality). Your heart can indicate the emotions you experience, but as a phenomena you experience, emotions happen in the brain. That's brain science 101.

 

The central nervous system refers to your brain and spinal chord.

 

The peripheral nervous system refers to all of the various nerves which permeate the rest of your body.

 

The human heart does, in fact, have its own dedicated neural net.  So do the intestines.  That these areas might exhibit consciousness is . . .  another matter.

 

This clearly does not contradict your post; I mention it simply because you might find it interesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The central nervous system refers to your brain and spinal chord.

 

The peripheral nervous system refers to all of the various nerves which permeate the rest of your body.

 

The human heart does, in fact, have its own dedicated neural net.  So do the intestines.  That these areas might exhibit consciousness is . . .  another matter.

 

This clearly does not contradict your post; I mention it simply because you might find it interesting.

Let's just say that the notion that we feel from the heart is an outworn metaphor. Emotions are derived from the brain.

 

Another goodie would be 'spirit' Prior to the discovery of metabolism--or the body's ability to produce its own energy-- humans believed that 'breath' (pnuma, atman, spiritus etc,,,) abandons the body upon death. And then it floats upwards to heaven because heat rises!

 

By contrast, n present day usage, 'spirit' has no material foundation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...