Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


User-Operated Forums
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on November 22

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Partner
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

24686 profile views
  1. There is no part outside the whole, if by whole we mean existence. The question doesn't make sense. You know that the other parts are part of the same hole because there is something that unites or integrates them - a universal (the integration is a mental act, so the thing that does the uniting is epistemic). At the very least, everything that exists is part of the whole because, well, they exist, meaning they have identity.
  2. The value of the court system is that if you trust it, you can trust that the evidence has been considered sufficiently. Of course you can know things before the court case, but a court goes through the evidence to prove the allegations. But you know this. You just don't trust the US government for anything. Q is one of those people, but he uses that power for good, right? Don't trust the courts, trust Q!
  3. Get it through your head: your QAnon nonsense is not taken seriously. It's not like I can even talk about it, because your wildest beliefs here are premised on what Q says.
  4. I agree that this is the implication, but I would say it's a correct conclusion. "Within" only implies that there are parts of a whole. There might be an outside of the parts, but not of the whole. I don't see why you would think within implies that there is an outside. A totality where all the pieces have an impact on every other piece. I don't know you mean a "whole what", especially since you listened to the lecture. The question is answered repeatedly over and over in different ways. Can you ask your question in a different way? I think it's fine to say that sp
  5. I know it might sound repetitive here, but have you listened to the lecture? I mean, Peikoff doesn't argue that existence should be conceived of as an object (although I personally have argued that it should be), but he certainly argues for existence as a totality.
  6. I agree with you. One point of clarification, I think Rand would say that there is an objective meaning to the art that people create, regardless of their intention. It's like saying an artist cannot avoid portraying their metaphysical value judgments, even if they intend not to.
  7. Something along those lines. The counterfactual itself is the world where only matter exists, nothing else. A complete and unitary whole. But this can be problematic. What does it mean to be a completely unitary object? Why can't there be sections within the unity? We know that matter consists of particles that contain space within them, so do you mean something else by matter than what a physicist means? From this, you might be better able to consider what space is in reality, and what unity is in reality. The lecture I linked explains exactly how the universe is a unity and connected w
  8. Can you give an example of where this was ever done? I would bet that if you did come up with an example, it would be some example where the artist is trying to portray the thing they reject for the reasons they reject it. When I write, as a matter of psychology, I can think from the perspective of a nihilist, and through the themes of the story, portray something negative about the person. I'm not sure if I could actually portray a nihilist in a positive light. Even if I wanted to, I don't think I could. It's not just what you portray, but how.
  9. I mean, I guess that was a little sarcastic on your part, but you're using counterfactual thinking to come up with true principles. It's fine to do, but you do it, you need to be very careful about what you presuppose. By coming up with counterfactuals, it's a way to figure out the assumptions you may be using to figure out how the world actually is.
  10. How come you just moved a few posts you made recently into one big post? If anything, I would hope that you edit for clarity and precision, rather than gluing everything together after the fact.
  11. Admittedly I didn't think very hard about that part of my response, just get rid of the word internal, it's redundant. The point is that you presupposed how movement works in that world despite trying to conclude movement doesn't work in that world. "Solid" also presupposes a lot.
  12. I know it might seem silly to consider reality being a completely solid mass (and then consider how such a solid mass could still have movement). It can sound like an exercise in imagination. But even the silliness can get at something even by reasoning why it might be incorrect, and not using bad reasons to say it is incorrect. Check out between 44-47 minutes. This discussion in the thread is is close to what Peikoff discusses about Parmenides. https://courses.aynrand.org/campus-courses/unity-in-epistemology-and-ethics/knowledge-as-a-unity/ I think it's fine to point out that
  13. Sure. I just wish there was somebody that was effective at pushing back against that. The sooner you acknowledge that Trump failed in this regard, the sooner you will find someone that will be effective in the next election.
  14. "I WON THE ELECTION, BY A LOT!" - Donald Trump
  15. Why is it confounding? I didn't say "if he was effective at those things then he should have been effective at winning the election". I'm saying that regardless of how he was or was not effective at all kinds of things, he wasn't effective at beating his opponents in the election. Maybe he won all the battles, but he sure as hell lost the war. ...better persuasion?
  • Create New...