Olex
-
Posts
343 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by Olex
-
-
Hello from a chess player. I was really serious about chess until recently, when I switched my attention.
Ever play on any internet servers?
-
Great post indeed, thanks for posting this IamM.P.Fantastic post!
Just wow.If you have not heard about this already, a caucasian Advanced Placement English Teacher was suspended for ten days for addressing a black student with "nigga" in response to the student's initial usage of the word. -
I would like to offer short analysis on Haggart's statement about 'intellectual arrogance.'
He seems to indicate that it is bad to state 'I know for this to be true, and I won't concede this point. Instead, I will accept whatever other point you (another person) have, and will not make myself stand above you, where by standing above I mean having another statement that I think is true, and which stands against your point.'
He also underlines how people can be wrong on points during their life, which he seems to use as a proof that nobody should be certain about their ideas.
Anyone else picked this up?
-
Kevin, your post was really weird from the point of view of Objectivism.
It was confusing as the beginning of it seemed to follow reason, but then in the middle the direction was switched. I had to re-read a portion of it, when it switched, because I missed the turning point there, and it got really weird.
Am I correct that portion of your post (last portion) was satire?
-
I was like that. At first, I thought: "Wow, someone actually says these correct things out loud in a book?" Later, it became, "Wow, it is actually intergrated," and "Now, I can intergrate my own thoughts and ideas under one cohesive system."... I found I had held very few contradictions. Who else here was like that? -
In this particular case, it is not copyright that comes into place, but the terms that the recording comes under. I think it is stated right under the video link that recording is prohibited.I'll have to check into that. That will be a bummer as I doubt I'll be able to listen to the course while it's available. -
What do you mean by this?...Just be sure you don't have a problem waiting tables the rest of your life, and writing on the side. -
Here is another interesting phenomenon, negative refraction: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metamaterial#...efractive_index
-
Good point. However, you did say under most definitions. So, I went a step further to cover all of them.Actually, it is false (under most definitions of "God"); it violates one or more axioms. There are several threads on this. -
Speaking of this point, I think it would serve well to remind ourselves with a monk who burned himself. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thích_Quảng_Đức
The story does not indicate that he deadened his nerves physically in any way, so this example can serve how such reflexes can be turned off with a use of a mind.
-
I would say so as well. Having come from post-Soviet country, Ukraine, the mentality of the society and the make up, i.e. the general and common trend is still largely Soviet, especially among adults and elderly. I think it is slightly changing with new generations that grew up mostly in post Soviet era (like me), but it is still a big problem there.Some would say so, but I wonder if it's true.P.S. Russia is probably the worst country in this respect among ex-Soviet countries.
-
@ softwareNerd and Ifat
We want the best possible definition so the sentences we communicate will be understood exactly with their original meaning of the person saying them. If the definition is messed up, if the definition leaves room for different interpretations, two people looking at the same sentence can understand different things from it. And then knowledge cannot be passed on through generations.The question inside quotes was asked by softwareNerd. I did not see sN respond or comment on it, however. sN, should I take your silence on this portion as the sign that you agree with the reply by Ifat or that you plan to tackle it later?
I disagree with that answer. I think that the purpose is not communication (communication with others, I assume is implied here, as communication with yourself doesn't make any sense). The purpose of definition should be to provide solid and logical grounds for building up knowledge about reality. I think this is what leads Objectivism to state that definition can be true or false - reality becomes the judge of definition.
Ifat, from your reply I deduce that for you the judge of definition is not reality, but the quality of communication with others. Am I correct?
P.S. If so, I find it really weird/illogical, that the standard of quality of a definition is communication with others.
-
Keep in mind that Robin Hood was mentioned in AS as an evil mythical character.... and even Robin Hood ... -
So, you are saying, degree is not really good, but doing something with your education is good. Something is not clear here. What do you mean by 'education' at the end there?Getting a college degree is far from a virtue, because all it boils down to is doing what other people tell you to do. Not that getting good grades is necessarily a bad thing, but if you put real stock into it, then i feel sorry for you. What counts is what you do with your education.
What does 'get a life' mean in this context?It's like listening to your mother when you were little. You probably should do what your mom says but if you keep attaching value to it like it was some great accomplishment, then yes, you need to get a life.
How is it different? Because midterm was not created by him, and thus wasn't his creation/choice, and therefore not worth of pursueing?On the other hand, Roark embarked upon a journey in which he created his own existence on values that he created for himself... very different from studying for a midterm.
What does this skill set contain? I presume this is something Roark could not have had, as he didn't date much if at all, am I correct?... It's a skill set ... -
Then how is it different from 'word' ? And doesn't that imply that different languages have different definitions of the same thing?According to my view, definition is a statement that attaches a symbol to a concept by providing a precise, full description of a concept. -
Isn't it time to change the title of this thread, since Pope did not show any guts as it turned out, but backed away?
-
I disagree. However, I will not debate this here. If you wish, you can start another thread for this.Olex, The reason why the concept of (what we now know as) "man" is denoted by the symbol "man" and not by the symbol "gifish" is arbitrary. -
I don't know what you mean by 'reject all choice of symbols.' Is this a meaning of something from my posts?But if you reject all choice of symbols, you end up with no language. -
There is a sersies of articles by Ayn Rand on the matter of government, and its financing. I saw a few in VoS.
Her idea was that it is too early to start something major like that. Rational philosophy must enter into the culture first, before this can be done or worth doing so.
-
Abritrary should be rejected. The only guide to action and judgement is reason, not social established taboos and rules.Sure, it's arbitrary! A lot of culture and language are, by necessity, arbitrary but that doesn't mean it should be rejected!
This discussion is not about changing what all of society thinks, but whenever human body must be covered in public or not.It would make a lot more trouble to try to change it than whatever supposed disadvantages it holds, so you all must provide actual reasons why it is a good idea to tear it down. -
This would be helpful, if you said it while considering if there was no social taboo on the naked body in public. You did not specify that. Did you say with the social taboo in mind or not?I said that I have never been so hot as to have wanted to take off my pants.
Yes, it is obvious what sexual organs are. However, this is not all there is to it. There are different forms of underwear, of different coverage, and of different transparency. What logic is used to determine which one of them is the correct one?Yes, it is obvious that sexual organs are used for having sex. Do not insult my intelligence by trying to claim otherwise.
OK, so you do see it as a man-made fact....so it is a man-made fact... but that is a fact.
This is an assumption, and I hope this was not a pressure on me, impying that if I (or whoever) disagree with that point, then I (or whoever) don't find breasts sexy.And frankly, I don't see why one would judge it to be bad. Unless you don't think breasts are sexy.Furthemore, it is very incomplete. It is as if that statement assumes that what one finds sexy, must be covered. Is this correct?
-
No, it is spelled with э in the opposite direction - e. So: "Опeра Бeдняка"Olex, would I spell that "Опэра Бэдняка"? Thanks! (I hope that's how. Otherwise I'll be disappointed that I've lost what I learned of the Russian alphabet.
) -
This does not help our point here in the thread, as we are not discussing the current popular stance, but wherever one should endure heat versus taking off some clothes. (Note that taking shirt is OK in many cases.)But I've never been so hot as to be tempted to take off my pants in public.
No, not obvious. Before someone can decide to hide those parts, one must decide that they are sexual beforehand. Not the other way around. Otherwise, we get into lunacy of "Jazz is defined as what jazz players play."Well, there is the obvious connection that the parts covered by my underwear are sexual in nature.
This looks like equating metaphysically given and man-made. Dogs exists, there is nothing good or bad about it. Cultural view on clothes are put in place by man (or men). Thus, it belongs to the sphere of ethics and morality - it can be either bad or good.I think that's more a cultural thing. But having said that, it is no less real, any more than the word "dog" referring to canines is also a cultural thing.Having to suffer heat, b/c one can not show too much of skin or whatever, does not sound like a good thing.
-
I've found the book nearby. Here is the snippet I'm referring to:
He [Roark]did not know that Wynand had once said all love is exception-making; and Wynand would not know that Roark had loved him enough to make his greatest exception, one moment when he tried to compromise. Then he knew it was useless, like all sacrifices.Pg. 698, top of the page, The Fountainhead, Book "Howard Roark", chapter XVII
Family Religious Background of Objectivists
in Introductions and Personal Notes
Posted
@ RichardParker:
It is true that God-claim would be an arbitrary statement.
However, the point there was that if some definition of God is wrong according to the existing body of knowledge, then the claim is false by definition.