Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Apparently he did not touch the subject https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/popper/ Even by myself? You do not give me any details so I have to ask. So someone that thinks that life do not have several, and is depressed (to avoid the it only exist in the person head) but do not kill himself. What do you call it?
  3. And let me see if I understand what you mean ... If a contradiction is found is wrong, because the law of Identity has to be taken as an article of faith? Yes please. Philosophie is a science, you like it or not. When I talked about my belief?
  4. Neither do I, but (to use your flawed terminology) I take it as an "article of faith" that I exist. Even if we're all in the matrix or something my mind must exist SOMEHOW, in SOME form. And I'm guessing that you feel the same way about your own existence, too. I bring this up because it's another axiom (just like the Law of Identity). It's something we all have to assume in order to even function. I exist, I think and I try my best to do so in non-contradictory ways (because contradictions are always wrong). It's interesting to me to find out how you can even claim not to, but if you're fundamentally opposed to such "articles of faith" then at the end of the day that's your problem. You can never get away from them.
  5. The Law of Identity is what says that contradictions cannot exist. You violated the Law of Identity when you claimed that contradictions do exist. You then appealed to the Law of Identity when you claimed that this DISPROVES the Law of Identity. It's a disproof by CONTRADICTION, isn't it? If "life is full of contradictions" then that doesn't disprove the Law of Identity, just because it contradicts it. Hence: "sure, contradictions exist, and also are metaphysically impossible". Do you need a diagram? Sure. It's not science; it's what science is based on. But it's not "faith" either. And you've proven pretty conclusively (and hilariously) that it's a belief which you share. You can't disprove it; the very concept of "proof" or "disproof" assumes it (which is what I mean about science being "based on it"). You can call it "pseudoscience" all you want, but nobody here is pretending that it is science and anything you have to say about the moral character of those who hold it applies equally to you, too. You're more than welcome to try and disprove ANYTHING I just said WITHOUT using the Law of Identity, but please try and come up with some new arguments for it. Your old ones are all dead already.
  6. No one said otherwise (the thing you are arguing against, no one made that argument).
  7. Yesterday
  8. It's necessary to bear in mind that the religious are not going to conveniently disappear anytime soon, merely because *we know* that Objectivism is right and proper, and that the Christians, etc.are "mystics" who - it could be wrongly supposed -will eventually have "revealed" to them this fact and become persuaded by the philosophy. Which is why I can agree with the principled argument made by Journo and still think he's dropping context. He is preaching to the O'ist choir and partly ignoring that vast number of religious conservatives for whom family, community etc. is their mainstay - and won't change. My argument still, that nationalism and individuality/individual rights are not necessarily mutually exclusive. Even when a country and several others perhaps, adopt individual rights, e.g. when trade is undertaken by *individuals* - not controlled by bureaucrats/government agreements and tariff wars ("economic nationalism")- and when people can move freely from one to the other - and, say, a person is a Christian who holds to family, community, nation and God, those individual rights 'accomodate' all the people and all their ethics throughout the free nations. As irrational as one rates those ethics to be. Now, such a reduced govt. would have no intention, consent or resources, to do any more, militarily, than protect its border integrity from other un-free countries (which would still be around). Then and still, I don't see why each (free) nation would not continue to possess its own *sovereignty*, the core of nationalism (since Left/Right, socialist/fascist collectivism is dropped from the equation). And if one values one's nation for these accomplishments, for protecting one's freedoms, even national patriotism could be in order.
  9. As far I've read, absorbing material - not so trivial I admit. Thank you. I will need to return to this exchange on Karl Popper, further.
  10. Over at Hacker News this morning, I learned that something I have been doing for years has a nickname, "do-nothing scripts." (I was calling them "guide scripts.") The basic idea is that one can write a script for a cumbersome process one might ultimately want to automate, even when only pieces of it are immediately amenable to automation. In other words, the script serves to provide cues, help one keep one's place in the procedure, and act as scaffolding for a piecemeal automatization: Image by Jannis Brandt, via Unsplash, license.At first glance, it might not be obvious that this script provides value. Maybe it looks like all we've done is make the instructions harder to read. But the value of a do-nothing script is immense: It's now much less likely that you'll lose your place and skip a step. This makes it easier to maintain focus and power through the slog. Each step of the procedure is now encapsulated in a function, which makes it possible to replace the text in any given step with code that performs the action automatically. Over time, you'll develop a library of useful steps, which will make future automation tasks more efficient. A do-nothing script doesn't save your team any manual effort. It lowers the activation energy for automating tasks, which allows the team to eliminate toil over time.I do not write software for a living -- I see my software more as an "exoskeleton" -- and I am always on the alert for ways to make it even more useful. I stumbled upon the idea for this kind of script a couple of years ago, when I had to generate a large number of reports with very similar steps very quickly. I saw right away how to automate some of the steps, and knew I could do the same for others, but that I'd need to learn more about some software before I could do those. I also wasn't sure how long I'd need to keep creating the reports, so I doubted that getting myself up to speed on the unknown software was really a good use of my time. But in thinking about doing this, I did realize the value of having the computer keep track of where I was, so I wrote the script, anyway. This was so helpful that I have since written several other "do-nothing" guide scripts. The one I use for weekly data backups has been helpful in that that process has a couple of time-consuming steps. I don't need to babysit them, so I can focus on something else. I can turn again for a moment to backups at any convenient time, when the script awaits input between steps -- and I am in between tasks that require my full attention. -- CAVLink to Original
  11. Causal connection. Physical, material causality through direct and indirect contact or through fields or whatever else physics may discover. Then that thing would be unknowable, and it would be arbitrary to speculate about its existence. So based on that, a false thought, a mistake or contradiction, a thought without referent, is "somehow" connected to everything/existence. That seems to be a known-unknown (a known nonsense). As opposed to a non-existent which is not connected and not noticed at all. That seems to be an unknown-unknown. (or would this be an unknowable or both) How do I know about the unknowable when it is not connected? (Why is one capable of forming the concept)
  12. "Falsifiablity" is not about proving something wrong. Is about the possibility for the profe to exist. If it is not possible to prove that something is wrong there is an article of faith and not science. I don't know what is Popper’s position on existence.
  13. I did not grasp it because your explanation is very bad and please explain how my explanation violate the law of identity.
  14. 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?
  15. 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.
  16. 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.
  17. 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.
  18. 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.
  19. 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.
  20. "Life is full of contradictions and you need to learn how to live with them".
  21. "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?
  22. Hey, well done. You cleared the hurdle (that you set up, largely) and things can only get better.
  23. 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?
  24. Last week
  1. Load more activity
×
×
  • Create New...