tadmjones

Nature has no good or evil , therefore morality is supranatural?

Science is science and philosophy is philosophy. Scientists are guided/constrained by their metaphysics. Philosophers should be happy just being Kings, lol.

Maybe some recent state actors implemented the same trick, break a poorer nation’s stuff , force them to flee and settle in.

The new guy’s syntax and complimentarianism feels chat bot-y.

Keep in mind the anecdotal nature of individual data points.

6 Author Posted Tuesday at 07:09 PM Hello everyone. I know it sounds ridiculous but hear me me out if you will. How does Objectivism counter the proposition that existence is meaningless as an axiom. We know that it must be implicit in sense perception. We know existence cannot be derived from being the opposite of non-existence. Non-existence does not exist metaphysically, only epistemologically. We know existence can't be derived from being the opposite of mental delusion. Even the mind and everything in it exists. That is the question of reality in contrast to mind. We know existence can't be defined as it is a metaphysical primary. So where is it in sense perception? What makes it meaningful? I want to understand but I can't seem to answer it. From the OP , asking for explicit formulation of the ineffable, and me suggesting that a formulation will not be satisfactory unless the self is recognized as part of the ‘make up’ of the external world even when trying articulate a separation.

So I should have said passive acceptance or recognition? ( I didn't use the word knowledge, so a little confused as to your point)

The implicit acceptance or the recognition of the external world or reality comes from the mere physicality. The feeling of tactile response to solidity, bump into the door jam on the way out of the room, oh yeah solid stuff. Knock your coffee over on the counter, oh yeah that gravity so useful when causing my car to work on roads , but maybe a little too much and too always right here on the counter, lol. Even more implicit is your awareness of ‘it’. Even more implicit is that awareness is the most finite thing , the locus from which all of ‘it’ impinges toward or radiates from. Formulating an explicit statement that articulates the distinction and relationship between the most finite self and ‘everything’ that awareness is shown can be discombobulating.

Namaste

The name Palestine is basically a Roman bitch slap on top of a genocide of uppity Jews.

Since axiomatic concepts are identifications of irreducible primaries, the only way to define one is by means of an ostensive definition—e.g., to define “existence,” one would have to sweep one’s arm around and say: “I mean this.” Definitions Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 41 If existence is/ has axiomatic primacy, then the 'this' being ostensibly defined by the sweeping of the arm are 'all' the objects of sense perception, so the 'cause' of the objects,no? What I am questioning is , is the awareness of 'this' , the experience 'as' fundamental at least equally fundamental that 'primacy' is somehow incorrect?

We stipulated that consciousness and products of consciousness are existents, and the question about the expansion of the universe following the actions of existent producing sentient beings should also follow, no? Unless mental extistents don't 'count', that their state of being is different from the state of being or nature from the nature of 'things' that make up the finite universe.

Without an implied physicalist monism , is there a coherent argument in favor of the validity of sense perception?

Ideas, emotions, and consciousness are existents. So as long as there are sentient beings the universe is expanding?

My interpretation of O'ism as being based on and grounded by non contradictory identification of physical reality is mistaken?