Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Plasmatic

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1960
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    30

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Nathaniel Branden, RIP   
    I don't see Galt's speech as containing nearly all of Oist epistemology. Even ITOE was merely an introduction. Where is hierarchy, reduction, first-level concepts..... I could go on.
  2. Thanks
    Plasmatic reacted to dream_weaver in Anything For Anybody Is Everything   
    There are several matches for "certain" on 100 Philosophical Quotes from Bertrand Russell. Here are the most relevant ones:
    “Not to be absolutely certain is, I think, one of the essential things in rationality.”
    “A religious creed differs from a scientific theory in claiming to embody eternal and absolutely certain truth, whereas science is always tentative, expecting that modification in its present theories will sooner or later be found necessary, and aware that its method is one which is logically incapable of arriving at a complete and final demonstration.”
    “Dogmatism and skepticism are both, in a sense, absolute philosophies; one is certain of knowing, the other of not knowing. What philosophy should dissipate is certainty, whether of knowledge or ignorance.”
    “To teach how to live without certainty, and yet without being paralyzed by hesitation, is perhaps the chief thing that philosophy, in our age, can still do for those who study it.”
    “Philosophy, though unable to tell us with certainty what is the true answer to the doubts which it raises, is able to suggest many possibilities which enlarge our thoughts and free them from the tyranny of custom.”
    None are footnoted. They do tend to belie the same essence.
    Many of the Google results on "nobody can be certain of anything" are Miss Rand's usage. Citing from Ayn Rand is dead, which has a few footnotes I didn't pursue:
    "Despite the quotation marks, she is the actual author. It is a false, incorrect paraphrase of Hume’s Problem of Induction plus an anachronistic paraphrase of Bertrand Russell."
    Once “There are no absolutes,” they chatter, blanking out the fact that they are uttering an absolute." is grasped, the rest is dotting i's and crossing t's.
  3. Confused
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Easy Truth in "Emergence" succinctly   
    Louie, do you honestly think that anything in that quote supports the ridiculous notion that entities are epistemological? Everything I'm saying is about the claim that boundaries would disappear if all consciousness was gone being a failure to grasp what she meant by "objective rules and facts."
  4. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from New Buddha in White Supremacist Protest Violence   
    Trump should have responded to the frantic reporter who asked if he was putting the alt-left and the alt-right (the tiny racist minority therein) on equal moral footing, he should have said "ABSOLUTELY!"...
    How many more commie idiots are at all these stupid protests waving red flags? How many times have these Marxist clowns been busted faking hate crimes, impersonating Nazi's? How many white supremacist idiots have tenure in american universities? How many Marxist's??? 
    This chimera of "white supremacy" is a farce.  
  5. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from softwareNerd in Is Dignity a Right?   
    Dude, you beat me to it. After warning them of the consequences of such barbarism, no choice but to meet this kind of situation with what terms the managers insist on bringing on themselves.
  6. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to human_murda in Is Dignity a Right?   
    Changing the conditions of your work in a way that is different from your contract could be construed as an initiation of force/fraud (and a contract is definitely needed in situations like these).

    And there would be legal issues associated with holding you ransom. You might say that the corporation didn't force you to stay there. But the issue of force is determined by the nature of reality. If somebody locked you in a room only they can open, you would essentially be held as a prisoner. By the nature of reality (i.e., by the constraints placed by the fact that you are physically unable to leave), the situation is very similar and legal issues can be involved.

    Also another thing: if this is the mentality, I doubt they would be the first to do anything in space. So situation is very unlikely as well.
  7. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to softwareNerd in Is Dignity a Right?   
    Luckily one employee smuggled a copy of Rands works. He inspires the others. They rise up, kill all their managers, and create the first Capitalist country in the universe.
  8. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Will Capitalism Collapse?   
    You're missing the point Mindborg. Let me put it this way. There has never been a state which has in principle separated economics from interference of the state.
    Black markets presuppose the state is involved in economics.
  9. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from dream_weaver in Will Capitalism Collapse?   
    For those whom capitalism is still an unknown ideal, capitalism is the complete seperation of economics and state and that has never existed.
    This clear, non-foggy, definition of capitalism is the basis for Rand's argument, that Laika just led himself to discover, on the difference between economic and political power.
  10. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from EC in Will Capitalism Collapse?   
    For those whom capitalism is still an unknown ideal, capitalism is the complete seperation of economics and state and that has never existed.
    This clear, non-foggy, definition of capitalism is the basis for Rand's argument, that Laika just led himself to discover, on the difference between economic and political power.
  11. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to StrictlyLogical in Will Capitalism Collapse?   
    Laika:
    Your decision to purchase and actually read a work by Rand herself is an impressive display of your intent to learn for yourself and make up your own mind about her philosophy. You are to be commended for it and with that kind of approach nothing will stop you from finding all the answers you need.
  12. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to StrictlyLogical in Will Capitalism Collapse?   
    Such an obvious, absolute, and undeniably true statement of fact and of Rand's position, will resonate with those who get it. 
    Well said.
    Unfortunately, lesser minds will quibble, squirm, equivocate, whine, and in the end babble some anti-conceptual, inconsistent, irrelevancy, and I am decidedly not talking about Laika. 
  13. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from New Buddha in Will Capitalism Collapse?   
    For those whom capitalism is still an unknown ideal, capitalism is the complete seperation of economics and state and that has never existed.
    This clear, non-foggy, definition of capitalism is the basis for Rand's argument, that Laika just led himself to discover, on the difference between economic and political power.
  14. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Will Capitalism Collapse?   
    For those whom capitalism is still an unknown ideal, capitalism is the complete seperation of economics and state and that has never existed.
    This clear, non-foggy, definition of capitalism is the basis for Rand's argument, that Laika just led himself to discover, on the difference between economic and political power.
  15. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in A Few Question from a Communist   
    Laika said:


    Laika, there are a few things anyone who takes Objectivism seriously would need to know about your context before engaging in this discussion.
    How old are you? 
    Do you currently consider yourself a Communist? If so, are you saying you are doubting Communism as a philosophy as a result of your awareness of the outcomes of it in practice?
    You should note that just because you are getting answers from members here doesnt mean they are Objectivist and, or, are presenting Objectivism in their responses. That is why studying Rand for yourself is the best approach to any questions about Oism.
  16. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Subjectivity and Pragmatism in Objectivist Epistemology   
    If you do improve your knowledge you will find that its impossible that you could comprehend Ryan's argument for why "It makes any general knowledge or induction unjustifiable" if you don't even understand what "It" is. 
    For Ryan "It" (universals) are akin to what Plato call the Form. By agreeing with Ryan (knowingly, or not) you are actually claiming that in order to have knowledge we need some kind of Platonic world of ideals (entities) with bizarre abilities.
    Does that sound like what you want to be accepting?  
  17. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in Subjectivity and Pragmatism in Objectivist Epistemology   
    Epistemolouge have you read my response in this thread?
    What about there being a metaphysical basis for similarity without a need for "strict Identity" makes the view of universality as epistemic problematic? 
    There is a factual basis for similarity and it doesn't include the metaphysical nonsense of bizarre entities occupying many places at once but rather a mind grasping individual identities that have common structure/architecture while remaining physically distinct individuals.
     
  18. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from New Buddha in The Gettier counterexamples to Justified True Belief as knowledge   
    SK you may, or may not be aware of certain arguments about what Oist call "contextual absolutes". The contention you and Grames are discussing is related to this topic. Many are influenced by Dr. Peikoff's theory of induction as relates to this type of debate. There are Objectivist who take issue with Dr. Peikoff's theory of induction such as Prof. John McCaskey and myself. 
    One of the contentions is the idea that a universal claim can be meaningfully limited to a certain context such that it does not render the epistemology that says it can contradictory and subjectivist.
  19. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from epistemologue in The Gettier counterexamples to Justified True Belief as knowledge   
    Grames, I'm interested in any examples that you take as justifying the belief that Objectivism supports this premise. I am very curious to see your process here.
  20. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from dream_weaver in The Gettier counterexamples to Justified True Belief as knowledge   
    I fear for the future of Oism.... 
    Knowledge is not a "method" it is obtained by method. It is the outcome of method. 
    Objectivism is about "adhering to the object" (76 lectures) in the relation of the "s"ubject to the object.
    Patrik this thread is a mess and I recommend you read Greg Salmieri's paper Conceptualization and Justification in the book Concepts and Their Role in Knowledge.
    The answers in this thread seem oblivious to the acontextual nature of axiomatic knowledge. Once grasped its impossible to be wrong about that knowldge and all knowledge rests on non-propositional "justification".
  21. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from StrictlyLogical in The Gettier counterexamples to Justified True Belief as knowledge   
    I fear for the future of Oism.... 
    Knowledge is not a "method" it is obtained by method. It is the outcome of method. 
    Objectivism is about "adhering to the object" (76 lectures) in the relation of the "s"ubject to the object.
    Patrik this thread is a mess and I recommend you read Greg Salmieri's paper Conceptualization and Justification in the book Concepts and Their Role in Knowledge.
    The answers in this thread seem oblivious to the acontextual nature of axiomatic knowledge. Once grasped its impossible to be wrong about that knowldge and all knowledge rests on non-propositional "justification".
  22. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from epistemologue in Identity - Object or Product of Identification   
    The reversal you ask of is nothing else but the primacy of consciousness. This turns measurement into construction, objectivity into creation, consciousness from the faculty of perceiving that which exists into the faculty of creating it.
    All of which not only undermines Oist premises but makes everything nonsensical contradictions and philosophy meaningless.
     
    Identification does not "produce" identity but discovers it.
    Edit: "common parlance" I've actually never heard anyone say identification "produces identities "
    Where did you hear such a silly thing? The closest thing I know of is the Copenhagen "measurement miracle" of quantum mystics. 
  23. Like
    Plasmatic got a reaction from AlexL in Everything is made of Nothing   
    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. Otherwise there is no reason to make such an ado about nothing....
     Fundamental concepts such as entity are defined ostensively. Can you point out a "nothing" for me?
  24. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. in Reblogged:Hillary Clinton Lost the Election, Not the Russians   
    So let me get this straight.
    Hillary Clinton loses the election. She knew the rules going in: The one with the most electoral votes wins. She would have gladly accepted the outcome if Trump had won the popular vote but not the Electoral College.
    At first, her supporters scream “election fraud!” in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania and Michigan. Despite no evidence of any fraud, recounts are ordered in all three states. Donald Trump ends up with more votes than he started.
    Then, all of a sudden, we’re told, “The Russians hacked our election.” Evidence? None needed. It’s the words that matter. Feelings trump reality. If Hillary Clinton supporters feel it happened, it happened. The onus of proof shifts to the non-believers, not the True Believing Progressives who are right about all things.
    Let’s assume the evidence is solid. OK, the Russians hacked into DNC headquarters. The result? Data was exposed that hurt Hillary Clinton’s chances of winning, we’re told. But why did this data hurt Hillary Clinton? Because it was true, and because it exposed the lies and manipulations of her campaign. It reinforced doubts about her lack of integrity and character.
    Basically, we’re expected to believe that the Russians threw the election to Donald Trump because they exposed truthful information about Hillary Clinton that made a lot of people decide not to vote for her. The evidence is shaky if not entirely arbitrary. And in the meantime, Hillary Clinton gets none of the blame for doing things that made people not want to vote for her.
    What are we supposed to take away from this? That the Russians made Hillary Clinton look bad, by exposing unpleasant truths about her, and therefore SHE should now be sworn in on January 20, rather than Donald Trump?
    I’m not minimizing the importance of foreign governments interfering with American elections, if and when it’s true. With all the hacking that goes on nowadays, it seems naïve to think that governments don’t hack into prominent people’s computers, particularly authoritarian or dictatorial governments, which nearly all of them are. But doesn’t it seem a little suspicious that the Democratic Party only cares about alleged hacking in this case, and only became concerned after their attempted recount in crucial swing states went down in flames?
    It tells us something about democratic socialism, something that those paying attention already knew: It’s all based on feelings. Socialism and collectivism are economically and morally toxic. They destroy economic growth and they undermine human initiative, innovation and self-responsibility. None of the things the Democratic Party stands for in other contexts make sense other than in purely subjective, emotionalist terms. Is it any wonder their response to the election results is exactly the same?
    Hillary Clinton lost the election by the rules of our system. Not the Russians. If the Russians did anything bad or wrong, they should be held accountable. But they’re not the ones who brought Clinton down. Her own lying, corruption and never-ending (to this day) lust for unbridled power did.
    Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
    Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!
    Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.
    The post Hillary Clinton Lost the Election, Not the Russians appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.
    View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com
  25. Like
    Plasmatic reacted to Michael J. Hurd Ph.D. in Reblogged:Who’s the Boss? Facebook Is Here to Remind Us   
    Warning Label: Facebook has determined that the following article is deemed “fake” by its crack team of unbiased objective fact-checkers including, but not limited to, the Democrat-supporting ABC, Snopes, and PolitiFact. While we’re worried enough about profitability and advertising to mostly just go through the motions of this to mollify shrieking, tantrum-throwing and crying Hillary Clinton supporters, it’s also a way to hopefully chill the edge of dissenting opinion we blame for electing Donald Trump president and possibly doing other things such as criticizing Islam, repealing Obamacare, lowering taxes or reducing government regulations. We just won’t have it. Consider this our way of reminding you who’s the boss.
    Keep in mind that Facebook is a private company. It has a right to totally banish news opinions or articles with which its owners disagree. They should at least have the nerve to say so openly. Instead, they provide us with the spectacle of hiring openly left-wing censors to screen against “fake news.”
    What we badly need is a market solution, not a government-regulation solution. Before it’s all over, if Facebook really means to chill dissension, millions of people who currently communicate ideas or attitudes via Facebook may simply have to walk away in mass numbers, and set up operations elsewhere.
    It’s ironic. Socialistic democratic leftists like Facebook head Mark Zuckerberg don’t want a free market. They want a government-regulated and essentially government-run economy, propped by manipulative and high taxation as well as government regulations designed to foster outcomes they consider good. Were the situation reversed, progressives and Democrats would be screaming and shrieking for lawsuits and government controls. It’s ironic that they now depend on the free market they so despise to try and rid Facebook of dissenting opinion which they self-righteously label “fake news.”
    Remember that leftist-progressive intellectuals, the sort who will be deeming stories as “fake” or “not fake” on Facebook, are philosophical subjectivists. They don’t think there’s such a thing as objective reality. They view reality as a projection based upon one’s gender, racial or class identity. When determining what’s “objectively” valid, they don’t mean true or false in the rational sense of the term. They only consider as true whatever advances and supports their socialist, collectivist, feminist, environmentalist or Islamofascist narrative. If Facebook is serious about this policy, we can expect to see more of these narratives going forward, and fewer dissenting perspectives of any kind.
    Suggested caveat you might want to place on any article you choose to post on Facebook in the future: “Warning: Facebook may deem this article as fake based on its leftist-progressive ideology. Let the reader beware. The censors are not objective.”
    Follow Dr. Hurd on Facebook. Search under “Michael  Hurd” (Rehoboth Beach DE). Get up-to-the-minute postings, recommended articles and links, and engage in back-and-forth discussion with Dr. Hurd on topics of interest. Also follow Dr. Hurd on Twitter at @MichaelJHurd1
    Check out Dr. Hurd’s latest Newsmax Insider column here!
    Dr. Hurd’s writings read on the air by Rush Limbaugh! Read more HERE.
     
    The post Who’s the Boss? Facebook Is Here to Remind Us appeared first on Michael J. Hurd, Ph.D. | Living Resources Center.
    View the full article @ www.DrHurd.com
×
×
  • Create New...