Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Grames last won the day on February 27 2020

Grames had the most liked content!

About Grames

  • Rank
    Serial Thinker

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
  • Sexual orientation
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
  • ICQ

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

18116 profile views
  1. For a universal to be a universal by definition it cannot be a concrete. Reality is only the concretes which comprise it. Universals are therefore not real, they can only be derived from and justified by concretes. Universals are epistemological, not physical and certainly not metaphysical.
  2. Never fear, the Gods of the Copybook Headings always put things aright again.
  3. Sweet and sour are on the same range by virtue of being perceived by the same sense mode. Vision is the the same as taste in this respect. The body neither knows nor cares about the order of colors on a spectrum, it just has specialized cells for different colors.
  4. Excuse me but could you please clarify if you think length is a quality or a quantity? What are examples of qualitative thinking and quantitative thinking with respect to length? My answer to those questions is that metaphysically what exists is entities with quantities of extension, and length is an human concept which refers to those quantities abstracted from the entities. If attribute, characteristic, property, and quality are all taken as synonyms then the relationship between quality and quantity becomes clear. The summary case of why all qualitative things are epistemologica
  5. The quirk about orientation compared to regular attributes of an entity is that it is relative to some reference, either oneself as observing subject or some relevant thing in the environment. Orientation then is a relationship not an attribute. It still exists in the form of some angular rotation with respect to that reference and could be measured. Saying that something is "facing up" is dropping/omitting the measurement because it is within a certain range. So in conclusion orientation is no more qualitative than color, and describing a thing as "facing up" is similar to claiming it is
  6. "Common solution sets of differential equations" is an abstraction, and using that commonality among abstractions as a basis to perform a mental integration into a concept is abstraction from an abstraction. Its all well and good that there is some chain of validation for the differential equations reaching back to the concretes involved but the path to finally discriminate the commonality (Rand's CCD) was quite abstract. Your second point relates to what is called 'perceptual relativity'. Practice and knowledge makes improved discrimination possible, so two men can perceive the same th
  7. If it isn't quantitatively measurable then it does not exist. In non-trivial way what it means to exist is to be measurable. Qualities are epistemological artifacts, abstractions just as are universals and essentials.
  8. Given that Rand allowed for abstraction from abstractions and concepts of concepts, an abstract description and categorization based on common solution sets of an underlying set of differential equations is actually still a kind of measurement if that premise that there is 'describing' going on is true. Not only concretes are measurable. Now it appears you conflate what is not possible to the theory with what is not possible to a man without a particular set of concepts. Nothing about the physicist's integration of multiple and highly abstract concepts is uniquely impossible t
  9. I hope you may someday come realize that "merely classifying things" is precisely what concepts do and are for. Knowing in depth about what the concepts refer to is a different problem. That a string of numbers in one format seems meaningless but in another is easily recognizable has little to do with Rand's theory of concepts but is rather about the human body's means of perceiving. The implicit measurements of perception are actually easier to work with conceptually than the explicit measurements of an abstract set of numbers. That said, there is no reason why an artificial structure
  10. 1. 'Book' is a first level concept that even an illiterate child or adult can have and use correctly. One can also understand that the words (content) are the essential characteristic of books that cause the other characteristics and that the book only exists at all for the sake of the words within, all while being unable to read them or read at all. Certainly one understands books better if one were literate but not a different set of objects. 2. This boat example is merely taking for granted the quality of the locomotive power, treating it as a primary when it is not. Oared boats di
  11. Reading a book by proceeding a page at a time front to back until done is not the best technique. I would suggest something more like: Look at the front cover, look at the back cover. See how big it is by page count. Look at the table of contents, read the chapter titles. Flip through the book looking at the pictures. See if there is an index or a section of notes. Read the introduction. Skip ahead to the most interesting chapter and see if what is there depends upon what is covered in earlier chapters and if so go read those. After you've done all that, then you are prepared
  12. When you omit the measurements a quantitative measurement becomes qualitative. That is what a quality is: a certain range of measurements. The quality of red means (refers to) any of the various shades and intensities of color within the range of red, and it does so open-endedly (all reds near, far, past, future, known, unknown). Quality is itself a concept, not a concrete. The philosophical problem is relating concepts to concretes. Once a method of handling concretes conceptually is found, handling qualitative thinking is just more of the same. And I don't understand how any of t
  13. If all that existed was an identical shade of red except for that one patch of blue (how weird) then the genus of the definition of blue would equally valid as "red" or "existence". If it were imagined as green instead of red it would make no difference as long as there was the phenomena of not-blue and blue. I agree with MisterSwig about attributes. We never actually encounter colors on their own but only things that have colors. So the colors as a category are distinguished from the other aspects of those things, their size and weight and roughness and softness and smell etc.
  14. There is no third unit, at least not regarded as a unit of the concept you are trying to make. The definition of a concept requires a genus and a differentia. You are having trouble identifying the genus of force. But it is a very elementary or fundamental thing which can only be identified as an existent, one of the things that exists. Force, mass, space, electric charge and a few other concepts refer to what existence is. Existence (as concept or as being) itself does not have a genus, a larger category or background from which it is abstracted. When dealing with such primary exist
  15. The "broken units" problem is an aspect of the "problem of two definitions" covered by Dr. Peikoff in lecture 3 of "Unity in Epistemology and Ethics". A 'broken unit' in the context of this thread is only possible when a concept has a two definitions, and the criteria of the second more normative or teleological definition is absent.
  • Create New...