lex_aver
-
Posts
203 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by lex_aver
-
-
It should read: This then means that we have to agree on what amounts to what a theory of truth means. See we properly don't understand in the same way what a fact of reality is.
For Objectivist definition of truth see Ayn Rand Lexicon
. If you disagree with that one, tell me why and propose the one yourself.
1) If you are standing in front of but out of reach of a picture, you are looking at, is it then true, that you know the picture exists?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
2a) If you then close your eyes, is it true, that you still know that the picture exists?It again depends on a context. If it can't be silently destroyed in a moment, then yes.
2b) If yes, how do you know this?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.
3a) Before you open your eyes, excluding that it has been removed, is it true that you know it will be there?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
-
So I hold it to be an empirical observable fact that the truth or falsity of a statement is relative to a social group or an individual.
Yet I can't see it, tell me where to look.
This then means that we have to agree on what amounts to a theory of truth means. See we properly don't understand in the same way what a fact of reality isYour English is probably too complex for me
So what is reality?Reality is all what exists.
-
Now I didn't not say that truth and falsity is relative, but that the truth or falsity of a statement is relative to a social group or an individual.
This requires a bit of explanation: truth and falsity of a statement as opposed to truth and falsity of what?
So here is an empirical test you can preform; you ask some humans this: Can 2+2=11 be true?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.
-
"She says crazy things about philosophers therefore she's not genue philosopher".
He says BS about Rand therefore he's not human.
-
Well, the last remaining respect I have for the Vatican has just shot out the window.
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".
-
OK. Now it's my turn to answer:
A question; how do you get from "the truth or falsity of a statement is relative to a social group or an individual" to "it denies existence of objective reality" and "subjectivism"?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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
Certainly not one written by Ayn Rand, or sold by the Ayn Rand Bookstore.
Right. It's strange, I don't usually make such big mistakes. Thank you for pointing it out.
-
• A high sense of entitlement
• Is interpersonally exploitative
• Lacks empathy
• Is often envious of others or believes that others are envious of him or her
• Shows arrogant, haughty behaviors or attitudes
How on Earth could the author judge whether Rand exhibited those traits if he hadn't ever met her in person?
-
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.
-
Introduction to Objectivist Metaphysics, five.
-
this non-physical entity called a soul intermingles with our physical mind
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.
-
Wait, Ayn Rand was an Aquarius???? I knew it, nah J/P, LOL
Lol, it took 5 minutes for me to understand that. I almost forgot what is astrology
-
I needn't say how important this day was, 2 February, 1905
-
I used to enjoy very sweet tastes, like sodas and malt shakes, but seem to be moving to enjoy bitter tastes, like coffee and beer, more and more as I get older.
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.
-
I just don't like the taste. It's bitter.
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.
-
I don't like the way alcohol makes me feel, even after a drink or two - namely, less in control of my own mind, and with dulled perception and clarity.
That is great argument against drinking at work, but when it's pasttime, relaxation and mood improvement can be benefatical. In moderation, of course.
I spent the night beating the pants off the computer at twitch video games, so it didn't slow down my reflexes any.Yeah, I still can't beat Ravin' Rabbids record I set on my birthday party.
Boy, can I relate to that!Heh, you look pretty good for a sweet tooth.
-
I suppose my question spurs from my surprise in finding that many Oists are drinkers, and many of them go further than just a nice glass of BV. They get shtinkin' drunk.
I was exaggerating!
-
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?
-
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.
-
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.
-
One word - University.
Cognitive relativism
in Debates
Posted · Edited by lex_aver
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.