Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dondigitalia

Patron
  • Content Count

    930
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

dondigitalia last won the day on September 6 2012

dondigitalia had the most liked content!

1 Follower

About dondigitalia

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 10/18/1978

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    California
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    SFSU & OAC
  • Occupation
    Starving student

Contact Methods

  • AIM
    killfolksingers
  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Location
    San Francisco, CA
  • Interests
    All sorts of literature, movies that make me laugh, just about anything else that makes me laugh, music (some of most genres, but particularly indie rock), health & fitness, great food (especially a good burger), giraffes, sneakers, beautiful & intelligent women, the people I love, the people I may grow to love, and myself<br /><br />I almost forgot to mention Diet Coke, the nectar of the gods!
  1. This semester, the SFSU Objectivist Club will be engaging in an OPAR study group, which is open to students and non-students alike. The study group will be of special interest to those who are auditing or enrolled in SARPO, as we will be more-or-less moving through OPAR along with SARPO, since several club members are enrolled in OAC. The study group will meet weekly on Thursdays, at 5:00 pm, in either Rosa Parks conference room D or E of the Cesar Chavez Student Center on the SFSU campus. The specific room will change from week to week, but they are right next door to each other, so we
  2. The Objectivist Club of Berkeley and the SFSU Objectivist Club are co-hosting Andrew Berstein will to speak on "Global capitalism: The solution to world oppression." The lecture will be held Wednesday, April 26th at 7:30pm in 22 Warrens, on the Berkeley Campus. For more information, feel free to PM me or e-mail [email protected]
  3. It's not that complex, and I did give support, way back at the beginning. You asked for references of what, in the Objectivist theory of concepts gave rise to it, which I also gave. To repeat what I said earlier (since you seem to have forgotten): it follows from the idea of a fundamental characteristic as the one which causes the greatest number of others--characteristic which does not exist cannot be said to cause anything about an existent. I gave two references to support this claim: Rand's explanation of essential characteristics and her discussion of concepts formed on the basis of a non
  4. Rand formulated two razors, both of which she mentions in ITOE. The one Peikoff refers two is mentioned only in the appendix, and she refers to it as the"original 'Rand's Razor.'" (ITOE, 251) The other is a "razor of concepts." (ITOE, 72) I suggest that, until you have read those passages, you refrain from saying that no support has been given. Secondly, I never said that negatives cannot ever be used. I said that, except in rare cases, they cannot be the proper basis for forming a concept. Rand specifically points out a few of such concepts (such as "nothing" and "non-existence")
  5. Having a hierarchy does not mean that extending a theory must be based only on the more fundamental facts that have already been established. What it means is that the later knowledge cannot contradict the more fundamental facts. It's not my theory; it's Ayn Rand's, so if you have a problem with her idea (which, admittedly, does not follow directly from the axioms) that one should not form new concepts unless there is some cognitive need for them, talk to her. If you want my opinion on why she formulated her Razor, I think it stems from her view of epistemology as a practical science--that'
  6. That depends on the context--what the units of the concept are, their place in the conceptual hierarchy, all sorts of thing. In the context of the particular concept(s) being discussed here, since there is a valid categorization being drawn, in order to validate the concepts, it needs to be shown that the differentiation leads to real consquences in the concepts themselves. So far, all that has been shown is a difference between sets which have been constructed from the concepts. Yes, one does have to show that they ARE necessary, when called to task to do so. That is the principle of the
  7. The current referents of the concept are those of the past and the future. This is a crucial point in Objectivist epistemology. Concepts don't (at present) integrate that which exists right now, and then a year from now, integrate the things which exist then--they are atemporal. The measurement that the specific referents have to exist at some time is retained in the concept, but the specific time is completely omitted. I know of no concept which is an exception to this rule. Once you start talking in terms of the referents which exist right now, instead of all the referent of any era, you are
  8. I would honestly love to be able to simplify it in a manner that's conducive to a message board, but I'm afraid I just wouldn't even know where to begin. He spends about an hour on the justification in the lecture, so I don't know that I could honestly and convincingly present the whole thing in a few paragraphs. He doesn't spend that long on irrational numbers specifically, but the justification, which invalidates a number of mathematical concepts as they are traditionally defined. Others that he discusses are negative numbers and fractions, as well as geometric concepts such as line, point,
  9. The big deal with the characteristic of "fully listable" is that it has nothing to do with the concepts themselves. It is a characteristic of sets you have constructed from the concepts. Since the concepts are more fundamental than the sets you constructed from them, characteristics of the sets cannot be fundamental, distinguishing characteristics which form the basis for forming the derivative concepts of NSRC vs. SRC.
  10. In the case of methods, facility is the cause--it is the reason we create methods in the first place. The characteristic is only non-essential when you reject the idea of irrational number as a method rather than a number. In any event, it's not really fruitful to quibble over the formation and definition of individual concepts--at least it's not something I'm particularly interested in doing. Well, I told you where you could find such justification. In case you missed it, here's a link.
  11. Concepts do have attributes, and they are existents, but concepts are not the ultimate referents of any concept save one. In all other cases, they are ultimate reducible to concretes. The difference between the concept of "concept" and the others is that it is an integration of concepts qua concretes, rather than concepts qua integrations of other concretes.
  12. In Objectivism, an essential characteristic is the causal characteristic, not the result. Disagree with it all you like, but that isn't what Ayn Rand meant when she used the term. However most people define non-alcholic beer, it would not be considered a proper, philosophic definition under Objectivism. No, it possesses the characteristic of being able to facilitate calculations that rational numbers cannot. So what if it's far-flung. Lots of the ideas that arose from Objectivism are; far-flung-ness has no significance whatsoever. I'll address anything else later. I'm away for th
  13. The refer to actions of consciousness, which are not necessarily themselves concepts.
  14. Well, numbers are concepts of quantity, of a particular identification, i.e. action, of consciousness, so the causal existents involved are both the consciousness performing the identification and all of the actual instances of the quantities in reality. Mostly, though, in mathematics, we deal with concepts of method, so the causal entity involved is usually consciousness. If you're asking for the positive characteristics: An even number is a natural number which, when halved (by a consciousness) yields another natural number. A prime is a number with exactly two natural divisors.
×
×
  • Create New...