nimble
-
Posts
621 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by nimble
-
-
Objectivism Online is fast becoming THE place to come if you want to discuss and debate Objectivism on the Internet. Let's not ruin that by forgetting our manners.
Im glad someone other than me thinks that way.
-
thank you once again
-
so let me get this straight, you study math? Yet if you claim that reality is subjective, how exactly do you know that what you study is real? How do you know that those principles in math are true? Were they not discovered by some FALLIBLE man with FALLIBLE senses, who cannot claim certainty? yet you still study mathematics even though you have no idea if what you are learning is true? Why spend 25000+ a year on college if you dont know what you are learning is even going to be true? Kinda sounds like a dumb investment to me.
-
Rationalism isn't at all the same thing as being rational. The term comes from the epistemological approach of the Rationalist philosophers like Descartes who scorned sense perception and, instead, tried to deduce what reality is from ideas.
Here's an example. The proper Objectivist approach to understanding why balls roll is to look at reality. Try to roll a ball, feel its shape, try to roll a cube and see what happens, etc. A rationalist approach would be to start with abstract ideas and try to deduce that the ball rolls from "A is A" or from the mathematical equation describing the surface of a sphere.
The best discussion of rationalism and what to do about it is in Dr. Peikoff's "Understanding Objectivism" course which I highly recommend.
thank you.
That cleared it up quite well. Is it not possible though to arrive at the same conclusion through rationalism, even though it is obvious that there is an ungodly amount of room for error in rationalism? -
I would have to agree with Rad Cap. If you were to go back and review a few of your posts, you would realize that you are using circular arguments, and hiding behind the concept of infallibility. If you remotely believe that reality is objective, then how is perception going to change that?
I am going to paraphase Atlas Shrugged to make a quick point. You know that humans possess consciousness. That is self-evident. A consciousness conscious of only itself is a contradiction. It must first be conscious of SOMETHING, before it can label itself as consciousness. Thus is the concept of an objective reality. you must IDENTIFY SOMETHING. That allows the discovery of existence and that reality lies outside of consciousness. These are axioms: The foundation of knowledge. You have no choice in the matter of axioms. You accept and validate them with every breath you take.
-
can you summarize a rationalist's characteristics please? I just wondered, what one is exactly, and why you would consider it a disease? I dont know exactly what it is, but it doesnt sound bad. I assume to be rational is a good quality, but maybe if you'd explain it I might get it.
-
welcome!!!!!!!!!
-
That was not the only thing he was arguing. He was arguing that certainty, itself, is not possible. And he clearly revealed this sentiment in the end, stating, "I think every person's beliefs are meaningless."
Do you believe, along with Bondo, that your beliefs are meaningless?
Getting you to accept the idea that you cannot be certain about God's non-existence is merely a step toward getting you to reject the idea of certainty itself.
Bondo never defined his vision of God, because he doesn't care about God. All he wants is for you to reject the idea of certainty.
And if you let people like that run around, unchallenged, then you end up with more of their kind.
I never agreed that certainty isnt possible. In fact, I argued against that. But when he argues a vague concept without definition, I cannot be certain it doesnt exist, because i cannot be certain even about what he is claiming exists. See my point? So the best thing to do is just ignore him...and the meaningless question. I have better things to do with my time than argue a moot point.
Nothing he says will change my belief that certainty is possible. So, I can ignore him, and not feel all that bad.
And I dont think my beliefs are meaningless. from his perspective and most others, they are meaningless. But to me, which is all that matters to me, they are very meaningful.
-
I have yet to read a basic intro to objectivist epistomology. But I can help a little. The only way we can obtain knowledge is from our senses. Objectivist know that reality is objective (that should be obvious). It exists outside of our consciousness. So that automatically rules out other philosophies theories that there is collective knowledge or that we create our world. Each object in reality, to be real, must have an identity. That identity is made up of characteristics, which are five senses can interpret and intergrate into our minds. Once you classify something in your mind, you must then make sure that it doesnt contradict anything you have learned before. If it passes that test then you have obtained a bit of knowledge. I dont know where else to go...so someone who has read IOE should probably take over from here.
-
im done with this. its obvious that you like arguing. I'll leave you to argue with yourself. Before I become very disrespectful I am removing myself from any further discussion with you in any part of this forum. I apologize for accusing you of an attack, and I retract the statement. Good-life to you, sir.
-
republicans believe in small government = provided it is large enough to force their way of life onto everybody else$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
i dont see your point...can you clarify?
-
I cannot retract the statement it was already said. Would it make you FEEL better if i said that I retract the statement? If so, then I will, "I retract the statement." But as you were arguing earlier about facts of reality, here is one: I said it and it cannot be unsaid. I can apologize which I did. And I will apologize again: sorry.
This is a joke so DONT BE OFFENDED: maybe you were too busy being indignant to see my apology.
-
UGGGGG... He isnt arguing that god exists. He is arguing that certainty that god doesnt exist isnt possible. There is no need even for this argument. I cant understand why the He11 any of you are arguing this. Once I understood his (Bondolon) point, I realized that he wasnt really arguing anything. Until someone offers proof of God, the word "god" shouldnt even be used, since it isnt even a valid concept. So can you be certain that what isnt defined isnt real? No you cannot be certain, because you dont even know what god is. So how can you know if it exists or not?
It is the equivalent of me saying "akjdklja oajfsda is real." You wouldnt have a clue what i was talking about because I made an assertion without any evidence. You wouldnt even know what i am saying is real. It is undefined. I could be talking about an apple, but just using a different word. You dont know yet. The only thing you should morally do is ignore me, because I havent defined what I am saying is real, and I havent offered any evidence. So you cant say you dont know its not real, and you have no reason to believe that its real.
But once I define god the way that christians do, then you can say it isnt real, because they define him as being outside of reality, where nothing real can exist. See his point. It is moot. I dont understand why he asked it....and i dont understand why you are arguing with him.
-
Rad Cap: I already apologized.
As for everyone one else: If i step in and act like "a parent" I apologize. I just think that when people discuss, they should have tact. And when I see someone whose tone does seem a bit off. I will call them on it. And if it is a menace to people, I will from now on close my eyes, because i will not subject myself to such a discussion.
-
Im just saying God doesnt exist. I can make that statement. If god has nothing to do with reality, existence is only in the realm of reality. you go into non-existence in any other realm that you want to conjure up. That is the whole of my statement.
-
well it is a negative stance. there is NO god. I dont need to prove a negative stance. In fact i do not even NEED to make that assertion. Until it has been proven, it shouldnt get the dignity of being a term. But when others define god as an indefinable object, it would contradict all of my knowledge that real things have identities. SO at that point im left with a choice. Do i discard all previous knowledge to rid myself of the contradiction or do i discard the fallacious concept of god. I choose god and I stand by that choice.
-
Nimble here is an amusing aside for you. 2qts of water mixed with 2 qts of ethyl alcohol yield 3.86 qts of liquid, at 15.56 degrees C.
have you taken a math class (not to sound condescending) the principle behind addition is that you must add like terms in order for the principles to work. 2+2=4 isnt the same as 2a+2b.
-
-
By the way I think Rad Cap is right in this one. You did attack the rational faculty. He never claimed that humans were infallible, he just claimed that certainty is possible. And it is.
-
I think this forum is meant for rational discussion. I dont think any name calling or condescending attitudes have a place here. If two people disagree they can discuss it, and if they still disagree, who cares? If you are right, do you NEED the other person to think your way? That is like the christians who force others to think their way. Because they NEED others to think like them, because their thoughts cant stand on their own, they need the support of a mass of people to "prove" themselves true. It is not worth fighting on an online forum. Just keep that in mind.
-
something that you know, maybe like a math principle, but you havent grounded it yet to reality. So, lets say you know that if a=b and b=c, that a=c. You can do math problems that use that principle but yet you dont truly know what it means, because you havent given it an example in reality. So to ground the floating abstraction you could use it in a instance like this: jimmy is as tall as timmy and timmy is as tall sally. You can use the principle to say jimmy is as tall as sally even though you didnt compare the two standing back to back.
-
david: the bases dont actually matter. They will on paper. But not in a real situation. You will always be able to say "I have 2 apples, if i get 2 more I will have 4."
-
Thank you.
-
Rad Cap:
You said "Note to FC - I would suggest changing your nick, because you aint rejecting collectivism at all."
I want you to fist notice the date he joined this forum. Its only been a month. I am assuming he is young, because of the swear word in his name, and I am assuming he is new to Objectivism. Yet you throw this odd little remark at him. You accuse him of being a collectivist. This is to me the worst thing you can say to another Objectivist. Also, I thought it was supposed to be a joke, because the grammar in that was atrocious. I thought it was intended to be an attack like those of Jerry Springer, thus the word "ain't." When I compare it to Jerry Springer, it was an attack, but not a serious one, because I thought you intended it to be a joke.
Now as for your reaction to me saying that. Don't you think you got a little defensive? This is an online forum. You most-likely will never meet any of these people in your life. Don't take it too seriously. Argue your points, if you feel like it, and enjoy being here. I am assuming you do this for recreation. So it should be fun, not something you take personally and let hurt you. I meant NO OFFENSE, I think you overreact. As you get older, you will realize that there are important things, which are worth fighting about, and there are little stupid things like "me making a joking comment on an ONLINE FORUM" which arent worth fighting over.
Quantum Reality And Objectivism
in Physics and Mathematics
Posted
HAHAHAHAHAHA