Plasmatic

Lol, "the highest form of love", is one which we must choose without any virtue to be known or experienced and if we don't choose this absentee object of affection we burn in hell..... No thanks, I'd take a superficial blonde with DD's over that any day.

Red asked:

"Where does the concept of "geometrically perfect circle" come from? If you believe that it comes from observing and "integrating" a bunch of actual physical circles — all of which must, by necessity, be geometrically imperfect — then you'd be wrong. There is no incremental progression from the "physically imperfect" to the "geometrically and ideally perfect" in percepts; in fact, the very idea of "physically IMPERFECT" already relies on the concept of the "PERFECT" (i.e., the IMPERFECT is that which is NOT perfect). I'll wait patiently as you think of an answer and post it."

My answer is...... Geometry is not Philosophy.... But interestingly enough Ms. Rand answered this type of question during the QnA of the very lecture you claim to have attended. She classified in this way:

"this is a perfect example of rationalism at its rediculous stage" and admonished that the word "perfect" is a "very mystical concept" and when applied to " cognition and epistemology" ( as opposed to ethics) where "perfect correspondance" usually is thought to require omniscience about the object of cognition.

The Philosophy Of Objectivism Lecture 6 116:24 - 126:15

When I get home I'll get specific but:
" Logical is not synonymous with rational or reasonable" is the premise you need to check.

"Logic is the art of non contradictory identification OF THE FACTS OF REALITY".....

As to your first comment above. My objection has nothing to do with what you keep going on about in regards to "god", because that is not what aleph 1 or ruyven was claiming. When someone asks me "Do you believe in God?", the first thing I do is say, "What do you mean by God" and begin the task of discussing epistemology and concept formation.

As Peikoff says,any one answer to a philosophical query pressuposes an entire philosophy.

I wish someone would put my research CD on my IPhone! I'd buy that app.....

I wish someone would put my research CD on my IPhone! I'd buy that app.....

Ryan clearly does not ignore her position that the POU is an epistemological one. Make no mistake, Mrs. Rand definitely departs from the standard conception of what the POU is. It's definitely an ontological "problem" for philosophers since the middle ages [in its present form]. They have been seeking to answer the question, "Are there actual entities that are in several particulars at once?" and "Do these entities exist?". If you answer "yes", you consider that there are real entities out there in several places at once and are a realist about the existence of these entities called universals. If you say "no", you are a nominalist. Salimiari's work seeks to demonstrate that Aristotle attempted to respond to this sort of debate by coining the term universal (from kata holou), so as to reconceive the way we approach the "problem" of forms in Plato's theory. (the metaphysical basis of similarity).


Edit: If you havent read other philosophers talking about it and only read Rand on universals you will be culture shocked by the entirely different way of regarding the entire topic.

"But concepts are abstractions or universals"
ITOE

Introspection is a form of direct perception. It is self evident that one has free will. No amount of persuasion will convince someone that the tree in front of them is really there if they choose to deny the self evident.

Edit:it is also axiomatic.

It is not only the Rand's atheism that would be a liability to Ryan. Her political view would be so too. It is the left that has been criticizing Ryan. They paint his very luke-warm attempt to reduce the deficit as being some type of Ayn Rand plan to shrink government down to its bare essentials.

I think it is great that Ryan likes Rand's work, and also that he gets his staff to read her; but, I also think its a good idea for him to distance himself from her.

Direct perception.

I'm not being sarcastic or smart-assed. The knowledge of things not perceivable is grounded in things that are perceivable. Knowledge of things not perceivable and not grounded in things that are perceivable is unjustified and therefore not knowledge, but rather an arbitrary belief.

I would answer more on how the laws of logic are derived, because it's not really the case the the laws of logic are discovered by gazing upon entites in reality (like I look at the table in front of me and go "table is table, therefore A is A, therefore logic" or something) but judging from your past posting it would probably be a waste. My guess is this is a stealth argument trying to prove God?

Ninth Doctor I reject the entire edifice of BB cosmology and all it's high priest on both philosophical and special scientific grounds. I object completely to the use of such special science theories in a philosophical discussion.

Ninth doctor:



Sure do, but I don't come here to discuss this special science. If your interested we can discuss it at another forum on the topic.

Ninth Doctor I reject the entire edifice of BB cosmology and all it's high priest on both philosophical and special scientific grounds. I object completely to the use of such special science theories in a philosophical discussion.

That was somewhat encouraging, but it doesn't really apply to what the guy in Collapse is saying. He doesn't say that the only answer to the impending abscence is to place restrictions on liberty. He says there is no answer.

I would really like to hear from someone who has seen this documentary. Even the trailer is somewhat misleading, you need to watch the actual thing. I am fully aware of the philosophical and economical reasons for suporting our petroleum based societies. I'm not asking "should oil be banned?" or something like that.

I just wondering if anyone has actually listened to what this guy is saying and what they think about it.

And Element, you mentioned finding alternatives or living in science fiction, but that's the whole point of the movie. The guy is saying neither is possible without pretty much losing most of the population on Earth.


Our population has increased to the point it is at because of oil. When that is not as readily available, population will necessarily drop. At least that's what he propounds.

Cherring metaphysics is at the foundation of all knowledge. Philosophy has the veto on any special science in regards to invalid use of concepts such as incommensurate characteristics etc. Anyway Bohm does not have this contradiction from what I understand. You are in agreement with Peikoff and Harriman on this issue by the way.

Jacob said:



Yes I agree and understand. Any Oist who rejects this does not understand Rand.

He'll no! He has no idea what he's talking about! He has to assume LI and all it's corollaries to even make the stupid mistake many physicist have made in not understnading the foundational nature of philosophy. Let's not waste
any more time on such nonsense in this thread.

Need more time to respond to your other posts....