Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

NameYourAxioms

Regulars
  • Content Count

    47
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by NameYourAxioms

  1. If anyone needs proof that modern theoretical science has been completely corrupted by bad philosophy, I encourage you to watch, at least, the first 15 minutes of this show. This show is a good example of how bad philosophy can lead to complete skepticism regarding the validity of all scientific knowledge. Hawking starts with his assertion that "a black hole contains a lot of information" then makes an embarrassing chain of deductions that he should be ashamed of. Notice how rationalists are more concerned with connecting ideas to other ideas rather than connecting their ideas to
  2. The "pluriverse" is an arbitrarily-constructed invalid concept. The rational response to an arbitrary assertion is to dismiss it, recognize it as fantasy, and turn one's attention to reality. The arbitrary is not logically entitled to a refutation.
  3. The original post in this thread made the following point in the conclusion: One must choose a side. Either there are universals which actually hold in reality, or else there is no such thing. As an intrinsicist, he holds that essences are what we currently happen to consider the fundamental essential characteristics of a concrete actually exist in concretes themselves independent of the human mind. That is Intrincism (Aristotle himself made this mistake) which was refuted by Ayn Rand, and replaced by Objectivism. What we observe in concretes is real (metaphysical) but
  4. One’s mental file folders (concepts) are not for storing a concept’s units. Concepts are folders for storing KNOWLEDGE about the units. Intrinsicists believed that essences are metaphysical, meaning that they believed that metaphysical entities themselves have essences (they don’t). Intrinsicism concludes that all cognition is like sense perception (where everything is metaphysically given). It means automatic illumination on conceptual issues. It relies on intuition and revelation. Famous intrinsicist expression: “To those who understand, no explanation is necessary.
  5. What does it mean to regard concepts as epistemological? That means that the essence of a concept is determined contextually and may be altered with the growth of man's knowledge. All definitions are contextual and a primitive definition does not contradict a more advanced one. The latter merely expands the former. When new evidence confronts him metaphysically (a black swan), he has to expand his definitions. Realist theories take the generality that exists only in man's mind and make it a universal existing in the external world. As a legal preamble, every definition begin
  6. Wealth is stuff: homes, cars, food, fuel. Money is nothing but a claim on wealth. Gold makes good money because it is scarce; i.e., it limits how much a government can inflate the money supply or multiply claims on existing wealth. Waiter: Would you like your pizza cut into 6 slices or 8? Fed chairman: Make it 8. I’m extra hungry today. The pizza represents wealth. Subdividing it into a million slices won’t make the pizza grow. People used to be able to redeem dollars for gold. The threat of redemption kept the Fed honest. Domestic convertibility ended i
  7. What else are you going to follow? Is there a better, more reliable, alternative to thinking? Obeying authority? Instinct? If it feels good, do it? Psychics, horoscopes, Ouija boards, Magic 8-balls, fortune cookies, numerology. Wish-fulfillment fantasy?
  8. Quoted from Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology: "Since everything possesses identity, the universe possesses identity. Since EVERYTHING is FINITE, the UNIVERSE is FINITE. [drops mic, leaves room]
  9. http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/infinity.html Every unit of length, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, has some specific extension; every unit if time, NO MATTER HOW SMALL, has some specific duration. The idea of some INFINITELY SMALL amount of length or temporal duration has validity ONLY as a MATHEMATICAL DEVICE. By analogy: the average family has 2.2 children, but no actual family has 2.2 children; the "average family" exists only as a mathematical device.
  10. There are 5 branches of philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of existence. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Ethics is the study of action. Politics is the study of force. Esthetics is the study of art. Of the 5 branches of philosophy, metaphysics is the trunk of the tree. The whole purpose of Ayn Rand's West Point speech was to drive home the utter importance of metaphysics. Her spacecraft metaphor laid it out: Where am I? (metaphysics) How do I know it? (epistemology) What should I do? (ethics). You cannot answer the last 2 questions unless you know where you are (metaphysics).
  11. Wrong. Aristotle rejected Plato's metaphysics and completely denied Plato's World of Forms. Aristotle maintained that there is only 1 reality, the world of concrete entities that we perceive.
  12. There are 5 branches of philosophy. Metaphysics is the study of existence. Epistemology is the study of knowledge. Ethics is the study of action. Politics is the study of force. Esthetics is the study of art. Of the 5 branches of philosophy, metaphysics is the trunk of the tree. The whole purpose of Ayn Rand's West Point speech was to drive home the utter importance of metaphysics. Her spacecraft metaphor laid it out: Where am I? (metaphysics) How do I know it? (epistemology) What should I do? (ethics). You cannot answer the last 2 questions unless you know where you are (metaphysics).
  13. How do you account for "Objectivists regard essences as epistemological" in Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology?
  14. How do you account for this quote from Ayn Rand's Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology? Aristotle regarded essences as metaphysical; Objectivists regard essences as epistemological.
  15. Of course, tadpoles become frogs? How do you explain the tadpoles that become toads? Of course, caterpillars become butterflies? How do you explain the caterpillars that become moths?
  16. Consciousness is not an attribute any more than identity is an attribute. Consciousness is one of the 3 axioms: Existence, consciousness, and identity.
  17. According to the Law of Causality, the actions of an entity are an expression of its identity. What an entity can do is determined by what it is. Tadpoles do not "turn into" frogs and caterpillars do not "turn into" butterflies. The Law of Causality permits no miracles. A thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature. The larval stage of a frog is known as a tadpole. The larval stage of a toad is also known as a tadpole. A frog tadpole cannot "turn into" a toad and a toad tadpole cannot "turn into" frog. It was either a frog all along or a toad all along. A butterfly ca
  18. As I stated previously, reification is the fallacy of taking a (real) aspect of a (real) thing, grasped by mental analysis, as if were an entity capable of a separate existence. Your definition of reification as the error of "holding up the unreal as real" is a straw man where you misstate what was said then waste everyone's time refuting your own mis-statement. What do you allege was said to be "unreal"?
  19. According to the Law of Causality, a thing can only act in accordance with its nature. Since man is not born full grown, it is in his nature to grow. The distance between my eyes has grown as expected since growth is part of man's identity. My appearance has changed since infancy yet my identity has NOT changed. The distance between my eyes is part of MY identity. It is absurd to say that the distance between my eyes has its OWN identity. Attributes are inseparable from entities. Your statement "The distance between your eyes has metaphysical identity" is invalid because it reifies
  20. Yes, the distance between my eyes is part of my identity. The measurement of the distance between them is what's infinitely divisible. Division is a mental action.
  21. You don't "identify" A and B as 5 feet apart. Being 5 feet apart is not part of either object's identity any more than you standing next to a fire hydrant is part of your identity. Your identity doesn't change when you walk away from the fire hydrant. Distance is a measurable relationship between metaphysical entities. The measurement is infinitely divisible. Measurement must be performed by man. Measurement is an epistemological tool we use to understand metaphysical reality. Division is a mental action.
  22. Both are equally invalid since both refer to a nameless system with multiple identities. Distance is a relationship between objects. Your so-called metaphysical entity that you call a system is an arbitrary construct. The only entities is your scenario are the 2 objects. There is no third object known as a system with multiple identities.
  23. Motion is an action (verb) of an entity relative to other entities. Motions are not attributes (adjective) of entities. This is like not understanding the difference between a verb and adjective. An object's identity doesn't change as it moves. According to the Law of Causality, which is a corollary of the Law of Identity, a thing can only act in accordance with its nature. A man cannot fly to the moon by flapping his arms like a bird but he can walk, run, swim, dance, etc. His identity doesn't change with every step he takes. A particular object in motion at a particular time relati
  24. Hopefully this is sufficient proof that your comment that Ayn Rand rarely used the term “metaphysics" is way off. Has anyone in this forum actually read anything that Ayn Rand wrote? From "Philosophy: Who Needs It?" by Ayn Rand: Concepts serve as units and are treated epistemologically as if each were a single mental concrete- always remembering that metaphysically each unit stands for an unlimited number of actual concretes of a certain kind. Aristotle held that definitions refer to metaphysical essences, which exist in concretes Aristotle regarded essence
  25. In regard to tautologies, nominalists don't get it that concepts refer to metaphysical referents, not definitions. It is an error to think that a concept is equal to its definition (nominalism). The Russellian paradoxes arise because philosophers have attempted to treat truth as if it were a matter of correspondence between words and facts. The word is not the object of cognition, but its form. According to Wittgenstein "To say that John and Paul are both men is to say nothing more than we apply the word “man” to each." The word is not what the units have in common; what they have in
×
×
  • Create New...