Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Shading Inc.

Regulars
  • Posts

    65
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Shading Inc.

  • Birthday 07/01/1985

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    -
  • MSN
    -
  • Website URL
    http://www.bazaarofmagic.nl
  • ICQ
    0
  • Yahoo
    -

Profile Information

  • Location
    Netherlands
  • Interests
    Philosophy, playing my saxophone, literature, gymnastics - if hobbies count as interests too. And well, of course all usual things such as listening to music, watching a movie now and then, you know...

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Netherlands
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Chat Nick
    Shading Inc.
  • Real Name
    Jan
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Digg Nick
    -

Shading Inc.'s Achievements

Junior Member

Junior Member (3/7)

0

Reputation

  1. No, I can't define time. Not in a way that makes sense, that is. But can you? If you can imagine a universe where truly nothing happens, you could still also imagine a clock sitting 'next to' (that is, not within) this sad universe obediently ticking away time. Nothing is happening within the frozen universe, but thanks to the clock that's not a part of it, you still know that time is passing within it. What does time mean in this context? It means what it always does: The universe passing from time-state to time-state. There's just no way of knowing that this is happening, but that doesn't mean there is no time. You can still imagine that if there were a working clock in this frozen universe, you would be able to know that time was passing in it. Stopping all movement isn't going to stop time, it merely stops our being able to know that time passes. And consider this: If you imagine a universe, this universe should include you yourself as well. The universe is everything that is, after all. If every movement in the imagined universe is stopped, you could still know that time was passing in it. Just think "one, two" and you'll know. Thoughts take time. Then perhaps we should stop all thought as well? In that case you're not going to be able to know what a timeless universe is like, or whether it exists in the first place. Knowing takes time as well. At this point we're at the esse est percipi again, but I actually darenot flatout deny it at this point. In this context I can see where people advocating it are coming from.
  2. I'm glad you put 'two' between quotation marks. You're supposing there're two worlds - now stick to it: They're not the same thing. And besides, I think there's a difference between a world with time and one without: The latter would not exist. My intuition is that time and being presuppose each other. You'll have to agree with me that for example height and lenght are quite interchangable. If height becomes lenght and vice versa, you'll just have to tilt your head to get the old picture. I'd say there's no really fundamental difference between the three directions - but there is between spatiality and temporality. To me these really seem to be (two of?) the most fundamental 'axes' of our thinking, and I don't see how one of them might be reduced to the other, or how both of them might be reduced to something even more fundamental.
  3. I'm not into Smith, nor into Tiedeman or Bastiat. Nietzsche, Spinoza, Aristotle, Bacon, Locke and Aquinas I can tell you however, are fundamentally incompatible with objectivism.
  4. Not denying, merely saying that when it really comes down to it, we may me somehow be justified to believe that something is a choice - but that we can never really know for sure that this is a true belief. As such, if you want to be able to speak or think about anything at all, you're going to have to make concessions and identify propositions and the like you're going to take for granted, without being able to completely validate them.
  5. You 're juggling with concepts. It's not very helpful. It really makes no difference. Either time is a measurement of motion, or motion is a measurement of time. Which is more basic? Motion, or time? Whatever be the case, it still leaves us with at least one incomprehensible factor. I've said this before: Things moving presuppose time.
  6. I think that this is how any sane person would access the concept mentally, when giving the matter some serious thought, but still - it explains nothing. Knowing what time looks like (as in, somehow having perceptions of it) isn't the same as knowing what it is.
  7. Quoting philosophers is very flashy of course. Gives a book an intellectual touch - to laymen, that is. You should treat these quotations not as actual content, but as mere figures of speech; empty rhetorics. What do writers of 'public speech course books' think they know of philosophy anyway? And even if they know about it, what business do they have displaying it in non-philosophical works?
  8. Of course, but I was talking about philosophical skepticism, not about feeling skeptical, or having a skeptical sense of life.
  9. Compairing time with lenght might not be a good idea, length being spatial, time not. There's a huge difference there. I have access to all the six basic directions of the universe: I can climb up, or jump down, and take steps forward, backward, to the right and to the left. I can turn my senses to any of these directions as well. But I can't move around in time, nor can I turn my senses towards the future or the past. (Yes, I have memories and I have expectations about what's going to happen next, but this is not something I do by turning my eyes or any other of my senses towards this or that direction.) In contrast to my freedom within the three spatial dimensions, I seem to be locked up within some sort of eternal now. As such, time isn't much of a dimension, taking dimension to mean a being (= verb) extended in two opposite directions. As I said, compairing time with length may be kind of confusing.
  10. Alright then. So "exposure to thinking for oneself can inspire a person to think". What on Earth does that mean?
  11. Who needs the Earth rotating on its axis or revolving around the sun nowadays? We got watches right? But I get your point, time is measured by reference to a (preferably) stable and continuous motion: Time depends on motion. But then again, the exact opposite holds as well: Motion depends on time. "Things happening" presupposes time. I think it'd be more correct to say that time keeps things from not happening at all. Are you saying that esse est percipi? Because I won't buy into that. And what's the intensional object of something that doesn't exist, by my reckoning couldn't even exist, in the first place? But that's not what I was thinking. If I imagine a universe and then delete time from it, my first intuition would be to say that everything in this universe freezes, but does this really mean that in this universe there's no time anymore? I don't think so. It is merely the case that because everything has frozen still, it has become impossible to measure time - but if something can't be measured, does that necessarily mean it doesn't exist? You'll have to agree with me on grounds of simple logic that that's not a sound inference. Change is the only evidence we have of this thing we refer to as time, but I think we shouldn't mistake our perceptions with the thing these perceptions are about.
  12. That's not a very constructive question. How do you know anything is ever a choice?
  13. While this may be a fine description of your own bouts of scepticism and those of a lot of other people, it doesn't hold for philosophical scepticism: It's not as easy as you make it seem. In that case the people who don't hold objectivist points of view don't exactly choose not to do so: You're blaming their 'flawed thinking' on their environment.
  14. Still, theoretically speaking, James Bond could be, while practically everything in the fantasy genre could never be. What's the use of dreaming about the absolutely unreachable?
  15. If this is the gist of it, they're not denying existence is self-evident. Rather, they're (or at least the person you quote is) denying that reality is what we (that is, most people) think it is: In quoting Berkeley, St. Augustine and Descartes this person is not saying that existence isn't self-evident, but that material reality isn't. Which for all I know it actually really isn't. Denying the self-evidence of existence would be to say that Descartes' cogito-argument is false. If anything Descartes (and St. Augustine too I believe) explicitly confirm that existence (of oneself) is self-evident, and I don't doubt Berkeley held similar ideas.
×
×
  • Create New...