Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Plasmatic

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Everything posted by Plasmatic

  1. Repairman, it is a bit unclear if you are agreeing with the notion that Ms. Rand would agree that Marx et al were "well meaning". Are you agreeing that those people are "well meaning"?
  2. Cube-ness and sphere-ness are abstractions (katholou). You appear to be equating "substance" with essence. Shape is matter in a certain form. Form, matter and essence are not the same thing. Objectivism rejects the notion of a metaphysical essence. You mentioned Aristotle earlier. Are you familiar enough with the text to tell me if you are referring to "ousia" (οὐσία)?
  3. The only kind of "materialism" that is ever mentioned in objective literature is the kind that refers to the denial of consciousness as such. That is the scope of Ms. Rand's meaning of saying that Objectivism is not materialist. Dr. Peikoff in fact, says the opposite of what you claim in the 1976 lectures question period. He basically answered a question about the nature of consciousness along the lines of "how do we know there's anything more to know other than that when you have a brain and certain minimum amount of material conditions you get consciousness". I may have that particular
  4. Where did you get the idea that Oism claims consciousness is "immaterial"? Can you supply quotes?
  5. Strictly, that was an excellent post! Strictlylogical explained quite well why its arbitrary. It is false to anyone who tried to prove it because the statement contains a contradiction. "object", "thing", entity are all synonyms. Simple substances are metaphysically irreducible. All other objects are made of materials but that does not mean that these objects are multiplicities. Objects are particulars and are their attributes. They are integrated wholes. The merelogical difference between parts and wholes is where the differentiation needs to be made as regards a collection of entit
  6. Spooky said: Ostensive definitions apply to fundamental concepts. Santa Clause is both not a fundamental and is a proper name for a mythological entity. You cannot point to it because it is by its nature mythological and non-fundamental. Edit: Also does one "define" proper names or "describe" them? Spooky said: That is an invalid definition. Premise 1 is both arbitrary and false to anyone who wanted to attempt to prove it.
  7. Yes, that is what a strawman is. lets look at some examples. Person A sates: And person B responds: Equating: "one does not prove philosophical tenets the same way" with the false assertion: "philosophy isn't like science and doesn't have to prove anything." And then accusing person A of "trying to get out of proving" a philosophical tenet and conflating axioms with hierarchically dependent philosophical premises, is in fact a strawman! Similarly, taking an invitation to debate another person, in another thread, on a premise that person mad
  8. Ground rules for meaningful communication: Premise 1. Know what a concept is and how its formed and validated. Premise 2. Know what a definition is and how to apply it to any concept you deploy. Premise 3. Require your dialogical counterparts to present the same when they engage you in philosophical communication. (especially when they want to derive a metaphysical principle out of moving symbols around) There is no such thing as nothing. You think so? Tell me how to form the concept you want to communicate and define it so that I can know what you are referring to.
  9. I was in a hurry earlier and it occurred to me that I could have just dealt with "diameter" as a CCD instead of shape and size...
  10. Selkc, lets concretize the following passage: Every concept has what I call its generative context of differentiation. That is, every valid concept has its origin in a set of experiences that require the observer to separate a certain category of existents from another group by means of something both groups share in common, while also integrating the new group (or particular, to itself) to each other by an essential difference the new group doesn't share with the "from" group. An example: Imagine you have a box with two holes in the top of different diameter. You are inst
  11. How the hell can she say this and this: I can quote several more instances of her expressing her estimation of whole groups of people's sense of life and emotional/psychological states..... For the record, I agree with the latter and not the former. Jonathan, I will address you in a bit.
  12. There is more than one meaningful sense of objective, the metaphysical and the epistemic. I'd like to hear your definition of this sense of subjective you profess.
  13. You appear to have been infected with the upside down view of philosophy. One does not prove philosophical tenets the same way one does special science theory via "research" or "testing". All the facts necessary to validate a philosophical premise are ubiquitously available to anyone in any age. Listen, if you want to debate the Oist conception of objectivity, start a thread on it. As it stands you don't appear familiar with it. Again there are no "philosophical theories" because the facts that are the domain of philosophy are ubiquitous and timeless. If your notion of objectivity reg
  14. I understand that this is actually what she claimed she emphatically was not doing with art. She rejected the "didactic" view of art as a vehicle of proselytizing.
  15. Epistemologue said: How do you have elongated tones without words in this context?
  16. My frustration with WTL has always been related to this. If art is about "what might be and ought to be" then doesn't WTL fail to express these artistic virtues?
  17. I thought I'd tell a personal anecdote. I went to Cruz sign holders on the day of the local voting recently to do a "interview" of sorts. I had just listened to Yaron Brook talk about how he thought Cruz was wasting an opportunity against Trump by thumping the evangelical drum. Yaron suggested that Cruz should be focusing on constitutional issues and not worry about pandering to the evangelical because Romney etc. showed you don't need that to get the nomination. So I wanted to ask motivated Cruz supporters what they thought was the #1 thing that differentiated Cruz from Trump. To my surprise
  18. Is this the video? http://injo.com/2016/04/576982-after-megyn-kelly-asked-ted-cruz-why-atheists-should-support-him-cruz-offered-a-mic-dropping-answer/?utm_source=email&utm_campaign=afternoon-newsletter&utm_medium=owned
  19. I don't see the problem. There are ethical implicit concepts in the preconceptual stage like any other. Likewise, I supplied quotes explaining how a sense of life can be integrated with a fully conscious and explicit philosophy. I think it rather is a case of a sense of life that is consistent with having objective values. No, clearly not all Objectivist are at the same level of integration. At this point I have to table my views on what Ms. Rand claimed about music in particular and Aesthetics in general. I have studying to do and it doesn't look promis
  20. Louis said: The only thing I have found her say we have no conceptual vocabulary for is music. RM
  21. That is the first thing I thought of while reading the quotes you supplied. Emotional responses to lyrics could not be subject to the same claims without severe philosophical trouble.
×
×
  • Create New...