Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by lex_aver

  1. Ifat, are you sure you understand Objectivist view on free will properly? What was tricky for me to understand (and I struggled with the same problem you do now) is that free will does not mean there is a dice inside your head that can make you do unpredictable things. You always do what YOU decide to do, your actions are determined by YOUR identity, not somebody else's. And the part of that identity is that, unlike many other enities, what you can be initiated by your choice to do it (which you could have decided otherwise), not external influence. A ball in space will continue inertial motion until affected by external force, man will not. That's what free will means.
  2. You should elaborate on this, right now I don't understand what you are trying to say. The X here is Hitler, and the property is evilness. Hitler cannot be evil and not evil at the same time. So unless we're talking about different people (and in that case you should re-read what I wrote earlier about sentences versus statements) our statements contradict each other.
  3. For Objectivist definition of truth see Ayn Rand Lexicon . If you disagree with that one, tell me why and propose the one yourself. I certainly know that something exists. Depending on the context (am I drugged, is illumination sufficient, etc.) I can be certain of its existence as picture with various degrees of rational doubt. For example, right now I know (ie. sure beyond rational doubt) that I see text printed on LCD display in front of me. Also, I know it since its existence is a part of premise of this thought experiment It again depends on a context. If it can't be silently destroyed in a moment, then yes. By my reason and memory. You see, Objectivism holds that reason is man's primary mean of cognition, senses being just sensory evidence providers, so to say. Since man is not omniscient, in general case of this context I can't know it, I can only assume it is there, if it is the most plausible thing to conclude. But, again, since you say it was not removed, I know it is there for sure in context of a thought experiment
  4. Yet I can't see it, tell me where to look. Your English is probably too complex for me Reality is all what exists.
  5. This requires a bit of explanation: truth and falsity of a statement as opposed to truth and falsity of what? I you are not going to cheat like "Aha, what about trinary numbers?!" You should distinguish between different contexts in which same words mean different things. Suppose you ask a man on a street, how much is 2*2. The proper answer would be four, because it is assumed that you use decimal numbers. However, if you explicitly say that you use trinary numbers, 11 would be proper answer. And in both cases what unites proper answers is that they correctly identify the same fact of reality. The fact that there are different digits used for an answer there is irrelevant, because a statement in essence not relation between words, but between concepts, which can only be formed and used in a context.
  6. "She says crazy things about philosophers therefore she's not genue philosopher". He says BS about Rand therefore he's not human.
  7. Same here. John Paul II really had my respect, but to this new guy I have only one thing to say: "Mr. Pope, kiss my ass".
  8. OK. Now it's my turn to answer: My premise is that there is objective reality. That also implies three axioms of metaphysics. In order for a statement to be true it must correctly describe reality, in other words, it must correctly identify that an entity has a property (or more than one). But if you say that truth and falsity is relative, you imply that there is at least one statement that is both true and false at the same time. That means that there is a property which both applies and not applies to an entity, and that contradicts second axiom. Therefore, in oreder for you theory to be internally consistent, it must nessesarily deny my premise: existence of objective reality. P.S.: I cincerely apologise: I thought that you said "cognitive realism", not "cognitive relativism". That doesn't change my argument, but I certainly misjudged you as very dishonest. Sorry.
  9. First of all, I would like you to comment DavidOdden's post, which is very valuable. I also choose him as moderator in this debate, if neither you nor him mind.
  10. I am willing to debate. However, I find your claims to be unrelated to the real issue of what you call "cognitive realism": that it denies existance of objective reality. In fact, there is a better term already attached to such theory, this term is subjectivism.
  11. How voting for incremental destroyers is not as bad as voting for immediate destroyers, if you have a choice not to vote for them at all?
  12. Right. It's strange, I don't usually make such big mistakes. Thank you for pointing it out.
  13. How on Earth could the author judge whether Rand exhibited those traits if he hadn't ever met her in person?
  14. There is one, I'm sure about it. There is informal "Big Five", each book addressing corresponding branch of Objectivism, I guess they all should be read in order to understand Objectivism completely, if OPAR is not enough.
  15. Introduction to Objectivist Metaphysics, five.
  16. Ask him to show you his mind bouncing off the wall (no pun intended). If it is physical, material thing, it by definition can be done.
  17. Lol, it took 5 minutes for me to understand that. I almost forgot what is astrology
  18. I needn't say how important this day was, 2 February, 1905
  19. Same here, although I'm just 18. I think love of sugar is caused by active development of child's brain, which needs carbohydrates as it grows. I don't know about bitterness, but yesterday I found that most of the snack and drinks I enjoyed were slightly bitter.
  20. I had the same complaint when I started eating olives. And bitter chocolate (especially truffles). And drinking coffee. It is interesting that of all four basic tastes, bitterness is the only one that most people find unpleasant.
  21. That is great argument against drinking at work, but when it's pasttime, relaxation and mood improvement can be benefatical. In moderation, of course. Yeah, I still can't beat Ravin' Rabbids record I set on my birthday party. Heh, you look pretty good for a sweet tooth.
  22. I liked the movie. Although not thought-provoking, it succeeded to entertain me. All those chases, puzzle-solving, incredible plots are great. And I also liked Francis Drake's statue beheaded What do you think?
  23. I don't think that fighting Jihad or Communism is Objectivists' first concern. It is an error to try to promote Objectivism by saying what it is against, rather than what it is for and what it is.
  24. Slug - for acting cruelly for the sake of acting cruelly (there was no justice in beating Gregory). Abigail - for enjoying Gregory's suffering and poor value-judgement. Sinbad - for desiring unearned (possibly as a result of poor value-judgement). Ivan - his case is quite contextual, depending on what he could have done and would it be a sacrifice. In worst case he is on par with Sinbad. Gregory - for rejecting a whore.
  • Create New...