Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Past hour
  2. This is probably the most dishonest article I have ever read about her. We've all heard the charges of "sociopathy" and "immaturity" before, and there is a reason for them; in these examples, we're "sociopaths" because we're not secondhanders and "immature" because we haven't given up on life. But "white"? She would only advocate for "white" businesswomen?
  3. Jewish culture is still distinctly Jewish because it doesn't stem from any European cultures. But then we get into the fact that anyplace can consist of multiple cultures and be fine. You can be German and Jewish, which is fine. You can even have a hierarchy of cultures, where one takes precedent, like immigrants who think themselves more American than Italian for example, but still maintained some amount of Italian culture. I'm not saying that the modern-day nationalists across Europe are all anti-Semitic, I'm saying that it's a dangerous and realistic possibility. It important to remember that Jewish culture is a thing, and that for centuries people in European countries thought Jews were a threat to their cultural and national identity, pretty much everywhere. It's only a side point, not really very important at the moment. Then don't say things you don't mean, or don't use words for brevity if it changes the meaning of what you said. I'm assuming that you meant what you said. (brevity that changes your meaning is bad writing and therefore bad for philosophical discussion) Fine, but Journo was making a normative criticism. I didn't see him say anything that would deny the fact that modern day nationalist sympathies are often a reaction to perceived threats. He spent most of the short article talking about what's more important in his estimation (but it is too bad he didn't provide at least an alternative). It wasn't a book review, so it wasn't going to give you a complete evaluation of everything Hazony said. He isn't doing comparative political history either. He's going right to saying that nationalism is morally flawed, even in this incarnation.
  4. Today
  5. Well, off the top of my head, its not. I don't remember where it was in John Galt's Speech but you can't prove an axiom; you just have to accept it because its opposite would be literally inconceivable. So he is right that the Law of Identity is "unfalsifiable". So is his belief in his own existence.
  6. It means a contradiction. Ayn Rand said that anyone who attacks the Law of Identity (such as by declaring the existence of contradictions) has to rely on it, themselves, in that very attack. StrictlyLogical was giving a practical demonstration of the fact that even YOU don't really believe "life is full of contradictions" - and every time you say there's something "wrong with that logic" you are confirming it, over and over again. And by your own logic, what can you say about it? Is there something WRONG with contradicting ourselves, now? I know you can grasp that. Please stop struggling not to because it is getting a bit old now.
  7. Okay, thanks. I follow (sort of). "Unfalsifiable"? I would be keen to read an Objectivist analysis of Popper's theory. Falsification looks quite trivial to me, but I probably don't understand it.
  8. He's trying to attack the Law of Identity (as in "contradictions have been scientifically proven to exist") so StrictlyLogical said that yes, contradictions exist all over reality, and yes, a contradiction is metaphysically impossible; we're both right (which I found hilarious). After much evasion he finally deigned to retort that "if the Law of Identity is unfalsifiable then it's just pseudoscience, so tell me what it'd take to prove a contradiction to you". So I asked what it'd take to disprove his own existence to him. He still hasn't answered that. Apparently he's waiting to know what SL meant by "sure, contradictions exist, and also couldn't possibly exist". I'm extremely amused with it all, but I'd prefer it if he didn't try circling back to points that have already been exploded. Just thought I'd give you guys a heads-up.
  9. "Life is full of contradictions and you need to learn how to live with them".
  10. "European" was clearly my brevity for all European countries and cultures - and any specific one...if you could assume the best 'read' for once. Next time, for your sake I will list them one by one. Yeah, Elan raised rational and individualist as the foil to nationalism. Nothing wrong. Except, I prefer to see the reality of what exists on the continent and what is immediately possible. Invoking individual rights in that arena is akin to wishful thinking at the moment. As i said, I think the movement to right-politics (a precursor to "nationalism", EJ implied) is for self-protection of the worried citizens' of "Europe". Journo's one headline stated and I quoted : "From family to tribe to nation" -- i.e. nationalism by conservatives. I took that concept further for the Left. Jews, I guess you don't know, have always been known as the best assimilators in European countries, especially the secular Jews. More German than a German, was once said about them, pre-war. "Jews aren't European" is an error. Where do you believe at least half lived for many100's of years?
  11. Hey, well done. You cleared the hurdle (that you set up, largely) and things can only get better.
  12. I just saw this, don't know what you've already heard. Contradictions are impossible in reality, but contradictions exist in people's heads. Keep the metaphysics separate from epistemology. Does that help?
  13. Yesterday
  14. He didn't say that it was (which is different than saying it generally leads that direction). What are you even talking about? That wouldn't be nationalism even to Hazony as far as I can tell. There is no monolithic European culture. There is culture that is Scandinavian, German, Italian, Hungarian, Spanish, French, etc. These cultures are all distinct. If you mean "the West", that isn't a national identity, it would be more like an imperialist identity (because it would be some universalist principal or identity that supersedes nation states). This is heavily connected to anti-Semitism by the way, because Jews aren't European and also have a distinct culture. I don't see why Journo would write about this. Why would he want to talk about "the West up until now" when he's talking about what is rational and individualist?
  15. Thanks for all the thoughtful responses and new insights. I appreciate them all as they gave me a strong conviction that it was necessary and important to do now, not *sometime* in the future. I took them out for dinner last night and told them. My mom started crying lol, which is actually I think part of what I was dreading (this is what I meant by dramatic, but it was kind of funny and endearing at the same time). I fought through all the discomfort and kept a clear head on the objective - I allowed them to say what they wanted without objection and thanked them for always supporting me and loving me. I feel pretty good as now I feel I can finally have a more authentic relationship with myself and the rest of the world. I think not telling my parents is what sort of kept me from really reaching my potential as I was always hesitant to be open about myself as it might get back to them. This was a weird psychological hurdle for me. Anyways, I feel more free and excited about what is to come. Thanks again. 😎
  16. I almost agree with you, but what do you mean by "expressive"? The music (rhythm and melody) primarily conveys feeling, while the lyric (words) primarily conveys thought. You can't say that, in general, one is more expressive than the other, because in that context they are dissimilar. They serve different functions in the song.
  17. I will as soon as my question gets answer ... Don't worry about corollary. I guess if I have so much trouble getting the answer, if I ask for more I will be shooting myself in the foot
  18. I disagree. Youre treating music as if melody were necessarily its primary characteristic or means of aesthetic expression. It's not, at least not in all cases or instances. Rap's primary musical means is rhythm. Rap is the same thing as traditional operatic patter song, only taken further in its rhythmic vocabulary. In effect, modern rap is what Howard Roark would do to patter song. The patter -- the beat and tempo -- are more expressive than the words. Try it yourself: Isolate both and experience each independently of the other. The words are dry and rather lifeless without the specific rhyth. But the rhythm is still just as stimulating even without identifiable words.
  19. Only if you can find them, and provide the corollary fact that demonstrates they're so.
  20. The question is not whether (1) Hilbert regarded no part of mathematics to be a merely meaningless symbol game. No one denies that (putting it a bit roughly) Hilbert regards evaluation of syntax onto itself as a meaningless symbol game. The point (that I have amply explained and shown by now) is that it is not the case that (2) Hilbert regarded mathematics to be a merely meaningless symbol game. Again, the Hilbert quote itself plainly denies that mathematics is a merely meaningless symbol game: "Contentual axiomatics introduces its basic notions by referring to common experience and presents its first truths either as evident facts or formulates them as extracts from experience-complexes. Thus, contentual mathematics conveys the belief that we have actually discovered laws of nature and intend to support this belief by the success of the theory." Truths, facts, notions, experience, conveys, belief, discovered laws, success of the theory. Yes, the infinitary part is meaningless from a finitary point of view. But the finitary part is not meaningless. Moreover, even though the infinitary part is literally meaningless, it still plays an instrumental role in the mathematics for the sciences. So mathematics is not a just a meaningless symbol game. And from the Zach article you mentioned, we have: "(finitarily) meaningful" . And, yes, the syntax in one regard is treated without semantics. But in other regards of course we may apply semantics. I've quite explained this already. And from the SEP quote you just adduced: "the finitary sector, whose sentences express contentual propositions". express, contentual. ------ The Hilbert volume is edited by Claus-Peter Wirth, et. al - published by College Publications 2011. ISBN 978-1-890-033-2. But I strenuously recommend that it is folly to read a volume such as this without first learning the basics of symbolic logic and then at least introductory mathematical logic. On the other hand, a person can merely skim over the technical terminology and mathematical formulas, ignoring or misconstruing the technical context, thus burdening oneself with half-baked misunderstandings that only engender even more falsehoods and confusions about these mathematicians and their mathematics and philosophies. Most particularly, just for starters, it is only by systematically working through a textbook that one sees how mathematical logic presents syntax as separate but then also links it with semantics.
  21. "It to be itself" is very similar to "A is A". For a thing to be itself does not require any awareness at all. Awareness is secondary to and dependent upon prior existing things.
  22. Thank you. The quote is not clear or extensive enough for me to accept as proof ‘Hilbert regarded no part of mathematics to be merely a meaningless symbol game.’ You even quoted Zach: “The infinitary part, on the other hand, is not meaningful from a finitary point of view." How did you get an English translation of Grundlagen der Mathematik? According to this page, some of Volume 1 has been translated to English. Anyway, it’s difficult for me to cite Hilbert himself about meaningful/meaningless without a full English translation available. Returning to the SEP entry Formalism in the Philosophy of Mathematics again: "The Hilbertian position differs because it depends on a distinction within mathematical language between a finitary sector, whose sentences express contentful propositions, and an ideal, or infinitary sector. Where exactly Hilbert drew the distinction, or where it should be drawn, is a matter of debate. Crucially, though, Hilbert adopted an instrumentalistic attitude towards the ideal sector. The formulae of this language are, or are treated as if they are, uninterpreted, having the syntactic form of sentences to which we can apply formal rules of transformation and inference but no semantics." "No semantics" means no meaning.
  23. Here's a list of virtues, according to Rand. it starts with the shortest summary, from Rand's short essay on Objectivist Ethics, published in "The Virtue of Selfishness": "The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics ... are: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride."
  24. So, thenelli, I'd like to preface this by saying that you seem to have pegged what the real issue is. I don't agree with your take on it, but at least we agree on where our disagreement is. When I was in 2nd grade I got into a fight over a "yo mama" joke. When I told my mom (who I considered the smartest person on Earth) he'd called her dumb, she laughed and asked if I thought that was true: "and if not then why should it upset you"? That stuck with me all throughout High School (when I was also called a faggot - even though I'm not!) and into my adulthood. I remembered it when I first read about Dagny telling Rearden "never get angry at a man for telling the truth". Those are the words I now use for that principle, and it's very applicable here. Yes, and they're also dependents in many other ways (such as food and shelter). We expect adults to stand on their own two feet, both materially and spiritually. Yes, but whether or not it actually does any damage primarily depends on the "victim", themselves. Some people can take a torrent of abuse and just not care; others can be brought to tears over nothing whatsoever. Because some people continue to gauge their value by other peoples' opinions well into adulthood. What if it's really funny? IDK how well you can see it in my profile picture but I'm a redhead. One of my favorite South Park episodes is the one about Gingervitis, because judging another human being by their skin color, hair color or sexual tastes (&etc) is ridiculous! It's not quite as silly as believing in a 2000 year old zombie but it's pretty close! And I'll be the first to admit that such an attitude isn't easy to cultivate. From time to time total strangers will call me a "colonizer" or a "white devil" (because Minnesota is a shit-hole country) and I haven't been able to laugh it off, yet. But I do think it's the right attitude to cultivate. How does that apply to "lispy queers"? The marketplace of ideas is a rough-and-tumble kind of place; it always has been and it always will be, as long as it is FREE. Which isn't to glamorize Crowder's antics: they're immature and shameful hooliganism. But for Maza to call for the silencing of his political opponent, over such playground-tier name-calling, is an outrage. And giving Maza's little pity-party any cognizance (although well within their political rights) was morally the wrong thing for YouTube to do. I would've referred him to a good psychiatrist and invited him to come back once he was ready to play with the big kids.
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...