Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Zoso

Regulars
  • Posts

    197
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Zoso

  1. After reading Peikoff's essay, my curiosity on this subject is piqued. Are all non-Objectivists evil? What about people who just aren't philosophical people and don't think about it? My girlfriend, and future wife, is a Catholic...although, pretty much in name only...she isn't really sure what she believes. Another girl in one of my classes is about as far left as you can get, but she's one of the nicest people I've ever known. Should I label these people as evil?

  2. I just read (most of) Peikoff's essay on Kelly's philosophy. I agree with all the major points, but I am confused by one of them. Okay, I agree with him when he says that we should pass moral judgment on ideas, and not just actions. But I don't quite follow the logic of the idea that we shouldn't even converse with people who have opposing viewpoints. Maybe I just read that wrong, but that's how it sounded to me. Why wouldn't we converse with opposing viewpoints? First off, it seems logical to do so, in the sense that we can try and convince them that they are wrong. Secondly, it helps you learn about their own personal philosophies so that you can spend some time, by yourself, picking it apart and preparing yourself for your next conversation. I'm not suggesting that we "learn from them" in the same way that Kelly does...I'm saying we can learn about them, instead. Did I just read something wrong? Any responses are appreciated. Thanks.

  3. I honestly believe that we are on the verge of a new era in human philosophical development, and Ayn Rand was the catalyst.

    If only it were true. I have a hard time believing it though...all you have to do is have a conversation with the average American to see that it ain't happening any time soon.

  4. Has anyone else seen this movie? I'm not sure what prompted me to start this thread, but I just think this is an amazing movie. If you haven't seen it, but you like movies like Goodfellas, Casino, and The Godfather, you should check it out. It's got Robert DeNiro, Joe Pesci (minor role), and James Woods, and is by far the best gangster movie I've ever seen. But only watch it if you have a whole afternoon to spare, b/c it's about 4 hours long.

  5. If we accept a volitional entity can act differently under the same physical circumstances without violating identity, then why is it logically impossible for a non-volitional entity do likewise?

    Because "non-volitional" is a negation of "volitional," and the volitional freely chooses among alternatives. There are no alternatives available to matter; it acts in the single way possible that is in accord with its nature and the physical circumstances that it is within.

    You mean, why can't we re-define "non-deterministic" to mean "deterministic?" Well, we can, but that would be silly. Our job is to recognize the facts of reality, not obliterate them. That which is volitional is not deterministic; that which is not volitional is determinstic. (And, hey, don't blame me for this. I just report the facts of reality as they exist. I am not responsible for creating them.)

    Like I said, I'm no expert by any means, but I have trouble taking your words over people who are experts. From what I understand, there is no proof that quantum mechanics is undetermined but, the more we look at it, the more it looks like that might be the case. Maybe I'm just choosing bad experts or something, but I have never heard a single physicist try to refute quantum randomness. It seems to be pretty generally accepted.

  6. They aren't, if by randomness, you are describing an epistemological, not a metaphysical state.

    This is the kind of answer I was looking for. I guess I was just confused. To my knowledge, the HUP simply means that we can't know for certain both the position and momentum of an electron...not that each electron does not have a definite momentum and position. Why, then, does Peikoff seem to reject it?

  7. I'm not going to look for the exact quotes, but Peikoff mentions it in The Ominous Parallels. I'm sure you know of the apparent contradiction between the law of causality and free will, so I won't go into detail...I will, however, ask you how Objectivism rectifies this apparent contradiction. Also, while I am by no means an expert on the subject, I am aware that many experts in quantum mechanics believe in the precise form of randomness that, according to Objectivism, I should reject. What scientific evidence is there to the contrary?

×
×
  • Create New...