Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

intrinsicist

Regulars
  • Content Count

    90
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

intrinsicist last won the day on March 4

intrinsicist had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About intrinsicist

  • Rank
    Junior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

1038 profile views
  1. This is an irrefutable presuppositionalist (or, transcendental) argument against determinism, but it is not an attempt to reconcile physics with free will, as the OP requested. You can find my own such attempt here: https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/4EbnT8uTcJKGDwNj4/philosophical-theory-with-an-empirical-prediction
  2. I wanted to bump this thread with some quotes on suicide: epistemologue: splitprimary: Kant: Tom K: Matt Walsh: Gotthelf: Spinoza: secondhander:
  3. I don't think that's entirely fair. Citizenship is voluntary, and its terms are written down in law. There is something of a legitimate social contract for that reason. Should it require a signed document, with informed consent? Yes, of course I agree. In fact, it should require much more than that (see my essay on Criteria for Citizenship). But that doesn't mean the social contract justification is entirely baseless in the United States and similar countries. You do have to take some responsibility for your choice to remain a citizen and participate in the system according to its la
  4. You're right to call me on it; I need to flesh out a more comprehensive theory of positive ethics to justify this claim. I would still argue that my position here is largely correct. In the sense of having a so-called "central purpose in life", this is what I think it should be. There's more to positive ethics than this sense of a "central purpose in life", but it's still an important one, and I think it's properly related to life extension and the pursuit of physical immortality. I'll have to come back to this point.
  5. See above "Positive values are possible despite suffering" and related sections.
  6. But that's precisely what Ayn Rand defined morality to be in The Objectivist Ethics: is implies ought. Morality comes from your metaphysically-given nature, and moral significance comes precisely from your following that. To go against your nature is to violate exactly this fundamental principle, that is implies ought. This is why life is the ultimate standard of value in Objectivism.
  7. But isn't this exactly true? Where do you think desires come from if not human nature?
  8. I'm simply saying that making any choice, taking any action, logically implies a commitment to life, and that's whether you intend it or not, whether you are conscious of the logical implications or not. It is possible to proceed in a self-contradictory way without explicitly acknowledging it (see, "On moral condemnation" above), but there is still something inherently immoral in evading the responsibility of justifying your actions, if you are going to act at all.
  9. Yes, I've come to agree with you. I am an intrinsicist, hence the name. However, I do disagree on the point about objectivity. I think only intrinsicism can be objective. Objectivism, whenever it consists in denying intrinsicist metaphysics, is not objective. Hence I go back and forth on whether my philosophy of intrinsicism is a fundamentally different philosophy, or merely a correction to what is in essence exactly the philosophy of Objectivism originally discovered by Ayn Rand.
  10. The "manness" in man, or the "roseness" in rose", as in, Why would my ability or inability to present a perfect definition of something undermine my position? The reality of universals and our knowledge of them are two different issues, and as I've argued, the fact that universals are real does not imply that we have perfect, automatic knowledge of them. Why would it? I am wondering if the issue you are really asking about is around this idea of "no borderline cases", but you will need to clarify what you are getting at.
  11. I notice this post is highly rated, and yet does not engage with the argument presented whatsoever. You are simply asserting the opposite position. Well, how do you address his argument in the OP?
  12. Why do you think that? I don't see why immortality implies a lack of ability to kill yourself. It certainly isn't necessary to the point of this thread - one could imagine such a strong power of resilience that involuntary death is a solved problem, while voluntary death is still entirely possible. Secondly, why should one wish such a thing? Why should one ever be bored? Does a rose not smell sweet having smelled one before? Is a kiss not enjoyable because you've kissed before? I enjoy the sunrise despite having seen a thousand of them. It holds intrinsic beauty and pleasu
  13. You are making a circular argument. For a universal to be real does not imply that it's a concrete. That's only true under the premises of a non-realist metaphysics. You are assuming a metaphysics in which only concretes are real, and then telling me abstractions therefore cannot be real because only concretes are real. But it's your premise that I'm disagreeing with in the first place. The distinction between "abstract" and "concrete" is whether some thing is universal or specific - not whether the thing exists or not. The question of the reality of universals is a question of wheth
  14. Sorry, but this won't help you. If the theory is non-realist, then you have to own up to the fact that there are no universals in reality, and therefore "concepts" claiming universality (as in man referring to all men at all times, past present or future), are false and misleading.
  15. This Limited Liability Partnership isn't "our company"; companies are not owned by a collective. The flaw in your argument is that you're missing out on the concept of a contract. Citizenship is a contract, which is the whole argument of my article you didn't read. I even specifically addressed this point:
×
×
  • Create New...