Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

hunterrose

Regulars
  • Posts

    1217
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by hunterrose

  1. I hope to use constructs such as my definitions of deduction and induction, where induction means "You know one of these things is true... figure out what is true if any of these things is true" and deduction means "You know all of these things is true... figure out what is true if all of these things are true" and where logic is general enough to be used without EXPLICIT use of an axiom.

    ...I hope to start from here and refine what an axiom means first before capitulating myself into a situation where I need an axiom.

    You might be making this more complicated than necessary. I'd define "axiom" as an unproven statement that is accepted as true (validated?) and often used to validate other knowledge.

    I understand this desire for a method to "rigorously" validate an axiom (and don't think the fallacy of the stolen concept does so.) But everyone necessarily uses axioms - you're making implicit use of axioms in your gray box.

    I don't think there's ever a situation where you need to explicitly recognize axioms. But IMO it's more intellectually rigorous to do so.

  2. decades ago democrats figured out that... So liberal democrats set up... When liberal democrats... in 1977 democrat Jimmy Carter and his democratic congress passed... democrats during voting season... liberal democrats use this situation...
    Republicans are just as much to blame, and probably more to be condemned for their part in this affair.

    Interesting the way there is never recognition of the fact that government is responsible for much of the current troubles we are encountering. Whenever there is a crisis like this, it will be used as an excuse for more regulation. The Republicans aren't much different from the Democrats in this regard.
    Indeed.

    When the Democrat says we need more regulation :P the Republican replies... that we do need more regulation, just not as much regulation as the Democrat is asking for. :wacko: :wacko:

    Bad principle vs. no principle??

  3. Its understandable that these are the basic rights endowed upon any human who is born upon this earth, but why?

    Why did the forefathers feel that liberty and pursuit of happiness should be guarenteed to any man on this earth?

    I've been trying to clarify my answers through Human Right documents, but unfortunetly, I can't seem to cite any sources that explain WHY humans deserve life, WHY we deserve liberty and WHY every man has the right to pursue his own happiness.

    I don't think you should answer the question by showing why humans deserve life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, but rather answer the question by showing that humans require LL&PoH.
  4. I'm debating with an individual about the role of government, and it inevitably led to the discussion of individual rights... he attempted to refute my entire argument by labeling the right to life as an "arbitrary construct"
    What then is this individual saying about the role of government?

    Because if the right to life (and by extension all rights) are arbitrary constructs, wouldn't the idea of a "role of government" also be an arbitrary construct?

  5. Who made [a man's] identity what it is? If it were his inborn nature or his environment we're obviously not dealing with free will. The only other option is that he creates his own identity.
    Just so I understand: by "identity", here you mean values/preferences/reasons for choosing x over y?

    I argue a disjunction. Either there is no free will, or if there is, it creates itself.
    Again, correct me if I misinterpret:

    If man has free will, then he creates his own (initial?) values.

    I think that (if a person passively and volitionally allows it) one's environment/nurturing can affect the things a person values, as your America vs. Eastern countries example suggests.

    But I do not think, even if one's initial values are wholly/partially created by one's environment/nurturing, that such origination means that one doesn't have free will, or that this initial set of values can't be volitionally altered.

    I believe the disjunction to be a false dichotomy: I don't see why not volitionally creating one's initial values precludes one from having free will. I think I understand your argument for the disjunction, but since I've already assumed a lot, it's better that I explicitly ask. Why do you feel that

    Either there is no free will, or if there is, it creates itself.

    this is true? (If I've indeed misinterpreted your argument, please explain where I've misunderstood you, particularly what you mean by "it creates itself.")

    At any rate, this is an interesting topic :thumbsup:

  6. I think Gates gets undue criticism for these current efforts of his. It's kinda of fun to identify what's "fundamentally" wrong with the "world's richest man" when he decides to give up his day job for charity work, but I think it's offbase.

    Gates essentially said that the poor don't get some advances of technology as fast as the rich do. Does anyone really disagree with that?

    He suggests that organizations can do something about it. And while I have some disagreements with his proposed strategy and its implementation, I don't think the idea itself is such an abomination.

    After reading his paper, Gates isn't even being altruistic. He proposes that organizations go by his ideas for the benefits it provides.

    With that said, I do agree with this quote from another commentator on Gate's effort.

    At the World Economic Forum in Davos yesterday, Mr. Gates called for a "creative capitalism" to serve the poor. He thus established that applying a positive epithet to the "C" word is every bit as damning and dangerous as the more normal negative variety (e.g. "robber-," "crony-," " casino-," "untrammelled-," "hear tless-," etc., etc).
  7. Isn't that an issue to be decided by Physics?
    I don't see how physics can decide this.
    I don't see how it's a philosophical matter. AFAIK, "matter" isn't a fundamental concept in Objectivist metaphysics, and the relationship between energy and matter is even less relevant to philosophy.

    To the original poster: why did you look in a philosophy dictionary for a defintion of matter? IMO it's like looking in a philosophy dictionary for a definition of gravity - it's something that philosophy needn't (and probably shouldn't) be defining in the first place.

  8. I say existence exists, but where do I get my justification for saying only this existence exists?
    Like D'kian said, existence here is defined as everything that exists, so even unknown aspects of existence would still be included in the concept of existence - when they were discovered to exist in the first place.

    How does Objectivism justify that sensory perception is the foundation of knowledge? How does an objectivist debate against the ideas ...that hold sensory perception is not the foundation to knowledge?
    What would be the alternatives: 1) sensory perception is "important" but not fundamental to knowledge 2) sensory perception is immaterial to knowledge?

    If we are able to create such realistic environments that someone would not be able to tell the difference between what is real and what isn't, how do we justify that what we hold as reality now is actually real?
    If a computer were to simulate the sight, feel, and taste of ice cream through electrode stimulation, that would be a sensory perception. But what you have to remember is that this doesn't mean that the (simulated) ice cream exists. Just as seeing a stick bend when put in water doesn't mean that the stick is bending when put in water.
  9. The only question that you failed to answer is how can one define what is "rational"? My emphasis on skepticism was ... something that when used rationally...
    ...wait, how are you defining "rationally"?

    To me, it seems that the epistemological doctrine of certainty holds that knowledge is simply complete, preventing the desire for further discovery.
    Certainty of knowledge is contextual, not "complete" in the sense I *think* you mean. Different contexts of knowledge hold different discoveries. A certain person can still check her facts or desire to broaden the context of her knowledge.

    Whatever else it means, being certain doesn't mean being all-knowing or infallible in one's conclusions.

  10. lol NOW do you guys see how easy it is for a 9 year old to see it especially if he has graph paper at his disposal? :P
    So long as the problem is limited to whole numbers, it certainly is a very simple, effective, and intuitive solution.

    Take a number in base 2 like 1110111001. First, add up the digits in boldface, that is, alternate ones starting with the last digit; call that sum A (here=3). Then add up the other digits; call that B (here=4). Then add A and two times B (here giving 11). If this sum is divisible by three, then the original number is as well. In this case, 11 is not divisible by 3, so neither is the original number (which is, if my addition is right, 953).
    I was thinking in a similar vein. I used determining whether A-B (or B-A) is divisible by 3.
  11. First, when X and Y are not constrained to be integers there are an infinite number of rectangles with different proportions that fit the question. There is a solution to Y for every single X, except X=2.
    You meant that there is a solution for every x that is greater than 2?

    Heck, I suspect that the teacher wanted to be given a bunch of only 4x4 answers and would get a tad flustered by students who found 3x6, but I could be being too cynical.
    I agree, especially if a student asked why only those two solutions worked.

    I plan to try this one on my own 9 year old, to see how he tackles it. Will report back later.
    Tell us how it goes :)

    the most important question that follows that, is what my son hadn't yet figured out, is WHY are these the only possible answers? why can no other rectangle equal the perimiter # with the area #?
    Area A= x*y

    Perimeter P= 2(x+y)

    Like John McVey said, there's no solution, whole number or not, if x<=2 or y<=2. At 2, the square's perimeter would equal 2(A/2 + 2)=A+4 i.e. the perimeter's going to equal more than the area. All the more so for any number less than 2.

    And while I don't have a definitive quickeasyfast solution to show why no other numbers besides 4x4 and 3x6 work, I used

    A/x + x = P/2

    to test some values for x. (If A=P, then A/x=y.)

    At very low (e.g. at or below 2) values of x, the x makes the perimeter>area (units aside). And "high" values of x make A/x significantly lower than A/2, low enough that adding x isn't enough to prevent the area from being greater than the perimeter.

    </geekspeak>

  12. Ayn Rand had a positive sense of life; I had a rather negative sense of life. These are the two definitions of a sense of life that I understand as existing: the positive and the negative.
    There are much, much, much more than two types of sense of life. Take d'Anconia and Galt - both had positive ones, and yet their senses of life were unique. It showed in their reactions, and those unique senses of life might cause you to like one character more than the other.

    But see, there can't be two possible senses of life, with people fitting someone in between, otherwise finding the perfect partner in life would be insanely easy. You'd just find someone who was really positive about life.
    I kinda agree with that. IMO people with similar philosophies but antagonistic senses of life (even if they are both positive ones) aren't going to be very compatible.

    I agree that sense of life is not enough. Take excitement. If one is excited about a new scientific discovery and the other is excited about something the Pope said, there is probably going to be conflict.
    But based on this information (they both are excited about something) alone, those senses of life aren't similar.

    I do agree that sense of life isn't the only thing that should be considered in terms of relationships.

  13. I was watching Evil Dead just the other night :P

    I love good horror movies, and I'll probably check some of the Horrorfest movies, particularly if they're getting a good buzz.

    I've heard some here with less than positive opinions of horror movies as a genre, and there are some scare flicks that even I don't particularly care for (e.g. Devil's Rejects) but... meh.

  14. ...Not entirely :confused:

    Ignoring for a moment the subjectivity of "ordinary"...

    Why would government be legit in forcing parents to prove they can handle ordinary childcare needs, but be acting illegitimately in forcing parents to prove they can handle anything above and beyond ordinary childcare needs?

  15. I'm not speaking of exceptional cases. Normally when we speak of principles we speak in terms of the rule, not the exceptions.
    And what is your principle, then?

    As I understood it, your principle was

    • if you create a vulnerable human being, then you are responsible to mitigate that vulnerability

    According to that principle, if you create a human being who needs a million dollar surgery to survive, then you are responsible to mitigate that vulnerability... and if you were deemed unable to pay for a million-dollar surgery, you ought to be denied the right to reproduce?

    Your principle doesn't distinguish between "normal vulnerabilities" and "exceptional vulnerabilities" - so do you have a better principle, or is the distinction subjective?

  16. When one brings a child into the world through one's deliberate actions, then one is in essence physically forcing another human being (the child) into a mortally vulnerable position... it would become one's responsibility to mitigate that vulnerability...
    What if the child requires, say, a million dollars' worth of healthcare - ought the parents be forced to be legally responsible for this child's "forced vulnerability"?
  17. We might be a lot better off if American's were a little more...for wont of a better word: Tough. We enjoy all these freedoms but hate war. We let others go fight and die so that we can be free... laboring under the delusion that it cannot be taken away by force if some dictator or foreign power attempted to.
    I personally think Americans *are* tough, civilians included. I doubt there be many people unwilling to fight what they considered a necessary war.
  18. Good ole blackdiamond, keeping the boards busy :)

    There are two "understandings" here:

    1. if one cheats on his wife, he can not exhibit productiveness at work (your position).

    2. one can cheat on his wife and still exhibit productiveness in his work (my position).

    I think my position would be between those two understandings (assuming the statements are correct representations of the positions.)

    I don't think that infidelity will necessarily mean that this particular husband will be less productive at work in the long or short term.

    But black, would you agree/disagree that infidelity would necessarily prevent one's productiveness qua one's marriage from being as virtuous as it could be?

×
×
  • Create New...