Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

ashleyisachild

Regulars
  • Content Count

    21
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About ashleyisachild

  • Rank
    Novice

Previous Fields

  • Country
    Not Specified
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Not Specified
  • Real Name
    Ashley
  • School or University
    University of Chicago
  1. Can you please add a group for Chicago? (I was a little surprised to see that there wasn't one already; I think there's a fair number of us out here.) Thanks!
  2. Thanks for all your answers/input. They're very constructive. I have a few questions on stuff you said, though. I meant being attracted to someone because of their looks, or because they're good in bed, or because other people love them, etc. What do you mean? My question now indeed is "how do you tell when you love someone enough...enough to get sexually involved with them?" This is what I'm not sure about. I know; I was using both in a metaphorical sense. I know that's bad. My question was how to conduct an in-depth romantic relationship with someone without becomi
  3. Having unwanted thoughts that pop into my head is something I've always identified with my attentional problems. My thoughts just start to wander while my eyes keep scanning across a page, "reading" the words, but my consciousness is no longer processing it, so I have to catch myself and reorient myself back to what I was doing. I'm pretty sure it's one of the typical symptoms of ADHD, ie. it's possible that you could have it treated with amphetamine or methylphenidate, if you have other symptoms as well. Another thing I recommend is meditation. I think someone above mentioned this. Most fo
  4. I'm currently attempting to come up with a definition of love. My main questions that I'm trying to answer and would like to hear others' input on are: 1. What is love? 2. How do you tell whether you're in love vs. when you're attracted to someone for less moral reasons? What is the point of a romantic relationship? 3. Do romantic relationships necessarily involve codependence or symbiosis? 4. How does one go about having an in-depth romantic relationship without becoming codependent or symbiotic? 5. Since there's no such thing as "soulmates" or a "perfect match" or "missing pi
  5. So, does that mean that most mathematicians who consider the axiom a contradiction are expecting it to "well-order" the reals or something? Also, you seem to be saying that there's nothing wrong with the theory itself, just its metaphysical interpretation. If that were true, how could it lead to a proof of the Banach-Tarski paradox? I'm obviously not expecting a pea to be rearranged to fill volumes larger than the sun, but isn't there some clear-cut error in proof if something implies that it theoretically could? Wow, yeah, my friend mentioned that too, and I decided not to mention
  6. I was recently talking about the existence of contradictions with a friend who's studying math. He was citing that an exception to the rule of noncontradiction was the mathematical "axiom of choice". It essentially asserts that something very obviously true is true, but the proof of it necessarily ends in something that contradicts the nature of the real numbers. I'm no mathematician, so I didn't know how to address this, and I'm pretty sure my friend wasn't mistaken or lying. Does anyone know the solution to this dilemma?
  7. OOH! Yes, I know of a book that very clearly and easily explains complex economics. It's called Naked Economics by Charles Wheelan. A very fun book to read, and very useful.
  8. I have lately been trying to understand how the universe (or, I guess I should say, all of existence) could exist forever. It seems clear that all the matter of the universe didn't suddenly appear with the big bang 10 billion years ago. But I thought I saw several people on these forums stating that infinity does not exist in physical reality. How, then, could the universe NOT have a magical moment of materialization? Firstly, if it did have such a moment, what caused that materialization to occur? Such an event violates (I think) the first law of thermodynamics, and moreover, fuels the
  9. Ack, more posts were posted while I was writing mine.... Andrew Sternberg: In that case, the parrot's "proposition" certainly was true. I can see that 2+2=4, based on the data my senses give me; so it meets part 1's requirement. And there's no contradiction in the statement, so part 2 is met, too. My question wasn't that of how to distinguish whether or not an assertion is true, it was more of whether or not the parrot's declaration should even be viewed as a "proposition", and on the difference between "truth" and "fact". Stephen Speicher: Okay, I can understand that. My mai
  10. Well, I had a disclaimer in the title that my post is mainly just a question of semantics. Spearmint: I think it's easier to think about the parrot problem before considering the computer/robot problem, since a parrot has more obviously said those words only out randomnes. A computer is generally programmed to follow a set of steps based on inputs, ie. to use some systematical method to organize the information from its "senses". Well, now you're getting into what constitutes a conceptual faculty or not. My question is that, given the arbitrariness of a "statement" or set of sou
  11. Okay, this makes sense so far. I know that. Perhaps my wording was wrong. I guess I should have said "utterance" or something. And it sounds like you're saying that the parrot didn't make the proposition that 2+2=4. Does that mean that we shouldn't even try to evaluate it, since no one actually proposed anything? I don't think it's bad to say that the parrot's vocalization is true or false just because the parrot spoke in arbitrariness. Hmm. I know that the parrot itself was not speaking truth, but the thing that it said was still true as a statement. Peikoff's other example
  12. That's true. But doesn't that mean that parent(s) shouldn't necessarily be permitted by law to be in charge of their children solidly until the age of 18? Shouldn't it be something more along the lines of "until the parent/guardian deems the child self-sustaining"? Because, otherwise, it seems like the law might be allowing a gaurdian to inflict unjust rules on a "child" simply because of the guardian's poor judgment about the child/teenager's independence. I don't think it's a bizarre situation for a woman to either not have the financial means to get an abortion (although then she pr
  13. After going to a meeting for an OPAR discussion group, it seemed that most of us were confused (or at least disagreeing) over Rand's definition of the word "truth". She says (given on page 165 of OPAR) that truth is "the recognition of reality". Some of us at our meeting thought that truth is simply an attribute of a proposition, whether or not the speaker or listeners recognize it to be so or arbitrarily asserted it to be so. To use Peikoff's example, a parrot can arbitrarily declare that 2+2=4, but the parrot wasn't right or wrong, since it didn't know what it was talking about. However,
  14. Stephen: That makes sense, that the child no longer requires assistance/guardianship, but when does the parent no longer have the right to impose rules? A parent might forbid his child from, say, engaging in time-consuming activities that hinder the child's education when the child is too young to know how to organize his time and whatnot, but what if a parent a parent misjudge's the child's ability to make decisions, and continues this when the child is rather old, say 16 or 17, and forbids the teenager from holding a job, or travelling, or something? Does the parent still have the right t
  15. Like I said, it doesn't seem sufficient to justify the parents' responsibility by simply saying that they gave life to the child. What chain of reasoning does one follow to arrive at that conclusion? Also, how are you defining when a child has become an adult? How do you know when a child goes from inability to make decisions to a decision-making adult? Many adults seem to not know how to make decisions, or even how to think freely, but as far as I know, that doesn't justify allowing their parents to continue to physically control them. And just as many children seem totally capable
×
×
  • Create New...