TheEgoist

Folks, this may be the greatest question ever asked on these here forums...

Rand's got some similarity to the nominalists, particularly to medieval Thomas Abelard. She's certainly distinct from the tradition in that she thinks there is a nature to concepts beyond man's cognition, but not without it. This paper by Allan Gotthelf discusses Rand and her relation to realism VS nominalism to some extent. EDIT: Also, here is a topic where I discussed the similarities and differences between Rand and famous nominalist Peter Abelard http://forum.ObjectivismOnline.com/index.php?showtopic=20528&st=0&p=264014&#entry264014

No, logical positivism says that any statement needs to be in principle verifiable, empirically. We're dealing with a strict sense of empirical evidence here. It needs to be brought to you. You can't bring to the scientist that "all ravens are black", only that all observed ravens are black. This is why the logical positivists did not taken subatomic particles to be real entities. They weren't observable, so they weren't real. They were descriptions, not entities themselves.

Verificationism is dead and was never really alive in science. Science requires universal generalizations over many entities. You can't make a universal generalization and be a verificationist. Simple as that.

No.

Really, Mubarak, a U.S Ally? You want to be allied with this filth?

Did just a tiny bit of internet research and found that Roderick Long wrote up a piece in The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies on the integration of Rand, Putnam and Kripke's theories of reference. Apparently some guy wrote a whole book?! If interested, here is the table of contents containing the entry. http://www.aynrandstudies.com/jars/v7_n1/7_1toc.asp

Wow, I doubt the original poster is still around, but if anyone cares, Onkar Ghate actually wrote his dissertation on direct realism and within it contains a critique of Putnam's theory of perception. That theory includes his theory of reference. You can find the PDF here. To conjecture what Gotthelf might have meant; I have noticed some similarities between Kripke's scientific essentialism and Objectivist positions on the matter. Scientific essentialism basically states that there are natural kinds out there and that these natural kinds necessitate how some entity interacts. Causal interaction is therefore not contingent but necessary based on some entity's nature. And, as a poster said above, Kripke's theory of reference is about tracking our concepts to concrete entities. It's known as the Causal Theory of Reference. It too has similarities to how some Objectivists seem to think reference works. However, it's important to remember Rand never really tackled much of this herself. And as far as Putnam, he is like Wittgenstein in that he has a career of disagreeing with his earlier self. He's been both an externalist and internalist. To XAll, Kripke's biggest accomplishment is his development of a system of modal logic, a system still accepted as at least basically right by most Logicians. Briefly, modal logic is a formal logic that seeks to notate various kinds of possibility. He created this system in his teen years. He's gone on to make marks in philosophy of language and general metaphysics as well.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GeuLDRwfOhs Hitchens gives an interview, explaining his cancer has worsened and it's in stage 4, which Christopher remarks "The worst thing about stage 4 is that there is no stage 5.". It's pretty painful to watch. Hitchens is one of my personal heroes, despite our many disagreements. THis was very hard to watch.

Here is what I think: 1) Rand's ideas are not presented by herself as rigorous theories of academia. This is usually a prescription for being taken seriously in an American university's philosophy department, since almost every department is at least leaning analytical. Rand presents ideas for a general audience, in a common sense manner. Because of this approach, she does not address common objections that would arise against her ideas on, say, perception. Philosophers have objections to direct theories of perception that they think are still valid. They will commonly accuse Rand of ignoring these objections. 2) Rather than remedy this, I think a large portion of the Objectivist community has chosen to just abandon academia. That, of course, has changed in the past decade.

Clearly google imaging something gives you precise knowledge as to what pits are. While you're at it, google image "sex"

How many concerts have you been to that have had a mosh pit? How many circle pits? Skank pits? Do you also think dancing is "mindless"?

I goto a lot of local punk/metal/alternative music shows. I will pit a few times at most shows I attend. However, I've lately found violent pits rather unappealing. It's just kind of fun to let loose completely, run around in circles with fellow punks and have a good time. You bump into each other, but that's really just a result of the craziness. You sound like you like a lot of Ska. Just skank the night away, my friend.

Again, you translate wrong. That's not what the question is supposed to make you think. That isn't what it is leading to. This is not a difficult point to wrap your head around.

You miss the point. The question, taken to task by a philosopher, would be whether sounds are dispositions. Is a sound a relational quality? Can you define sound by only its primary, physical manifestation? Or do you need to include in it our sensation? It's not saying nothing happened, but if a sound happened. And contrary to what others say, it isn't just a matter of semantics either. It's a matter of metaphysics and perception.

He likes guns and fiscal irresponsibility. Of course he is.

It's pizza.

Give me a man who rejects something based on actual reasoning over someone who rejects it by faith.

Hitchens apparently had a debate over capitalism with an Objectivist in the 80s.

It's relative to your position on the information released. If you come across military docs that prove that the government is acting in a heinous and immoral manner, you have a moral obligation to expose the truth. The question is whether these documents should have been leaked, if they damage the U.S government or if they're just neutral. I'm with the last option right now. I don't see the big deal. This is not going to amount to a whole lot in the end.

loligetitallphysicistssuck.

That's really not the meaning of that somewhat trivialized question. In essence, it's asking about your opinion on the powers/dispositions of physical things. Is a sound a power (more commonly known as a secondary quality) of a tree when it falls in the woods? Does that sound exist even though it wasn't realized as a sound in a perceiver's ear? Indeed it may be true that there wasn't a sound made, just as there isn't actually color without normal color-perceiving percipients. It's an aspect of the world that may indeed be mind or more accurately perceiver-dependent.

He's looking more healthy in newer public appearances. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA9D9gRqZ8M

Same on the PS3. I loved to "soundwhore" as it were. This game makes it impossible normally, and only a little less impossible with Ninja Pro.