Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

itsjames

Regulars
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by itsjames

  1. Yes, I think you're right. I admittedly was attracted to mathematics originally because I thought it required more rationality than other disciplines. But I've come to realize that isn't true, and I've also discovered that many of the best mathematicians I've met are very reality oriented and are rational in the other areas of their lives also, particularly the combinatorists.
  2. Yes, there is. Depending on your purpose in a particular moment, "conscious deliberate action" might mean something which requires little effort or a lot of effort. For instance, when taking a walk outside, I can consciously observe my surroundings and identify them, but if for instance I spot a bird flying through the sky, I might not choose to identify the genus and species of the bird, because that would require more effort and wouldn't suit my purpose of "casual observation". I know this is a little off topic, but I have to defend my career here: Mathematics is not by it's nature rationalistic. The concepts with which mathematicians deal (most mathematicians) are derived from things in reality. And higher-level mathematics does not consist of "cranking" mental wheels to get answers. Proving theorems can requiring a tremendous amount of thought. The formulas you're talking about only exist because mathematicians labored over them for many years. The formulas are an end result of a long chain of conceptual reasoning. So is Objectivism. The difference is that it's easier to know how to apply mathematical formulas to particular problems because mathematical concepts are very simply defined, compared to the concepts used in philosophy.
  3. Thanks a lot for all the responses. My diet is much better than what it used to be, but I know it could still be better. I've started cooking at home more often, and in addition to it being healthier, I've found it's also a lot of fun! But the main benefit I have definitely noticed from foods is that eating fruits (particularly apples and berries) really helps with my focus. And the effects are almost immediate, which is great. I don't know much about nutrition, but I'm assuming this is due to the natural sugars in fruits. Thanks for the link, CastleBravo, I'll check that out. And Tyco, I totally agree with you. My mind is usually refreshed each morning though, so I rarely feel "saturated" for more than one day in a row.
  4. This is called metaphysical monism, the belief that everything which exists can be reduced down to a single substance. Monism is an example of what Ayn Rand called the fallacy of "rewriting reality", ie. instead of looking outward and forming conclusions inductively, looking inward and forcing your conclusions on reality. To further say that the one element underlying everything which exists is consciousness is even worse. Consciousness is not a material. It is a process, and like any process, it can't exist independent of matter, and it absolutely can't compose matter.
  5. Over the past year, as I've been learning more and more about Objectivism, the amount of thinking I do on a regular basis has increased dramatically. But I still have moments, and sometimes entire days, where I feel very lethargic mentally and find it hard to focus on tasks that demand much thought. Sometimes I try taking a nap, which can help, but there are also times when I don't feel like falling asleep. I'm wondering how common this is, and what to do about it. I'm a graduate student in mathematics, so I definitely can overwork myself sometimes until I'm exhausted, but this isn't always the cause of the lethargy. Sometimes it seems to come out of nowhere. In OPAR, Peikoff discusses how people who are used to being out of focus mentally will have to struggle to reverse the habit, but that eventually it will become easier and feel more natural to enter that state. I haven't been very mentally focused for the majority of my life (I've always done well in school, but until recently I haven't learned to apply my intelligence to other areas). So it could be that going through a gradual mental readjustment and that's the cause of the lethargy, but I'm still not sure. Any help/advice would be appreciated.
  6. Dictionary.com defines truth as "conformity with fact or reality". So, I think a truth is a statement about a fact of reality, but it is not the fact itself. Truth presupposes a consciousness capable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood.
  7. It wasn't intended to be an explanation of the law of identity. I thought it was the best way of describing the essence of Objectivism while at the same time contrasting it with the "definition" of atheism that was given. The law of identity is obviously not equivalent to "the entirety" of Objectivism, but, as Peikoff put it, Objectivism is "the primacy of existence come to a full, systematic expression in Western thought for the first time." In other words, it is the application of the law identity on a massive scale.
  8. I prefer this one: Objectivism: The belief that nothing is nothing and everything is something.
  9. In order to apply the law of causality to subatomic phenomena, you have to have first grasped why it is a consequence of identity. If you have only induced the law of causality, then the law is only applicable under the context in which the concept was formed, which wouldn't include subatomic phenomena. To apply causality to subatomic phenomena, you have to first observe that the everyday entities with which you deal obey causality (however you wouldn't yet know the concept "causality", so you wouldn't be able to grasp it explicitly in those words). After making these observations, and after you've explicitly grasped the concept of identity and shown that causality follows from the law of identity, you can then deduce that causality must apply to all other entities as well.
  10. Thanks for the replies. After a lot of deliberation, I agree now the statement does follow from the law of identity. Here's my thought process if anyone is interested: Say you have two entities A and B. The identities of each of these entities consists of all their attributes, including their current actions and locations. If you then consider the entity "A together with B", this conglomerate entity must also have particular attributes, and a specific action. It can have only one action, since the entity is what it is, and that's just one thing. And it is this action which describes how A and B interact. So all else being equal, this interaction must always be the same. Hence, in any given set of circumstances, there is only one action possible to an entity.
  11. Capitalism Forever, I agree that an entity must act in accordance with it's nature. I don't see how it follows that there is only one action possible to an entity in any given set of circumstances. Perhaps the word "possible" is causing some confusion. Let me restate what I mean to say. If I throw a baseball in a certain way, I know the baseball will soar through the air with only one particular trajectory. I know that it cannot and will not take on two different trajectories at once. My question is: Is there only one trajectory which is consistent with the identity of the baseball and the air temperature, windiness, etc? My answer would be yes, but only after performing an experiment and throwing the ball in the same way several different times and observing that the trajectory was the same each time.
  12. Dante, I agree. Thomas, I agree that in any set of circumstance man will do only one thing and cannot act in two incompatible ways at the same time. This is also true for all other entities. But then you said, I don't know what you mean by the word "lead." Do you mean "determine"? If so, then you are merely saying man's actions are determined by his identity (and the set of circumstances he is in), meaning there is only one action possible to him given any set of circumstances. How can you conclude that? If you didn't mean "determine", then we aren't in disagreement.
  13. In the Causality section of OPAR, Peikoff says that in a given set of circumstances there is only one way in which an entity (excluding man) can act. My question is: Does one use induction to arrive at this fact or does it follow directly from the concept of identity? I don't see how it could follow from the concept identity. But it seems like a perfectly valid inductive conclusion to make in the context of everyday life. For instance if we throw a baseball once, and then throw it again in the same way, we can predict that it will have the same trajectory as it did the first time, and we will probably be right. (Assuming you have a good arm of course, and that it's not terribly windy.) It also makes sense to me why man would be excluded from this, since we cannot predict what another man will do in some set of circumstances no matter how many variables we try to control. So the context under which this induction would take place would be the set of all inanimate objects with which we deal in our daily lives. So it would follow that, just as we can't include man in this statement, we also can't include the phenomena which occur at the subatomic level, since we can't predict these phenomena with a significant accuracy. I have other questions, but I'll stop here since I'm pretty sure not everyone will agree with this. Thanks.
  14. Ah, yes. Good point. But a man cannot predict that he himself will be 'lucky' in the future. Not by any objective means anyway. He can predict whether good fortune will come upon on him if he makes a particular choice. But this amounts to just predicting good fortune, not luck. Luck, as I understand it, can only be defined relative to a particular person's knowledge. So, in reference to a particular man: He was only lucky if he didn't predict it. In other words: He can't predict his own luck. But also, you can only identify an outcome as having been 'luck' after it has occurred. So what I'm saying is not that luck is unpredictable in a metaphysical sense, but rather that the phrase "predict luck" is meaningless, because it implies you have already identified an outcome as being "luck" before it has occurred.
  15. It's valid to say that a man was lucky, referring to a specific occurrence in the past. But I agree that it is nonsensical to say he is lucky, as that would imply he will continue to be lucky in specific situations in the future. Luck, by its nature, isn't predictable. So this kind of statement attempts to predict the unpredictable which is ludicrous. I think you're absolutely right that a lot of people treat luck as a kind of spiritual essence. That's a great example of how people use concepts non-objectively.
  16. This is absolutely appalling. To anyone just stepping into this topic, I suggest you read all the previous posts, not just jumping in and picking and choosing which lines you want to read. This is my last post on the topic.
  17. You're taking that out of context. I said numerous times that a mind is in contact with reality in the sense that it perceives reality. It's (for all intents and purposes) independent functions are what we refer to when we say free will. If you're not going to read and try to understand my posts there is no point in having this discussion.
  18. Grames, I don't understand how that is a refutation of anything I've said. I never claimed consciousness was independent of existence.
  19. I agree they are the same concept, in the same sense that reality and existence are the same concept--that they refer to the same existents, but come from two different differentiations. In other words, the difference between homo sapiens and men is not in the referents but in the existents from which the set of referents were differentiated. Homo sapiens are differentiated from the genus Homo, whereas men are differentiated from animals.
  20. Newtonian physics does not pertain to the functioning of a man's mind. However, since all matter is composed of particles, particle physics does. The fact is that the material of which man's mind is made, is particles. So there should not be a contradiction between our theory of free will and the laws of particle physics.
  21. Being rational does not guarantee happiness. But I think it is necessary in order to attain a certain kind of happiness. This kind of happiness is only possible to a man who understands reality and is in control of his own life. Understanding is only possible through reason and rationality. For an irrational person, "happiness" can only be attained through an act of dishonesty to oneself. To be happy, an irrational person would need to convince himself somehow that he is in control of his life or he would need to blank out the fact that he isn't in control. But you can never completely convince yourself of something without using reason. There would always be a dim sense that something wasn't quite right, which you would have to suppress. The second option, blanking out, kills your capacity to be fully happy, because happiness, like any emotion, is a response to reality. If you're blanking out a fact of reality, you can't make an evaluation of that fact, and so you can't have an emotion with respect to it.
  22. I don't know what it means to be a "derivative" of existence. The mind exists. Period. According to merriam webster, the mind is "the element or complex of elements in an individual that feels, perceives, thinks, wills, and especially reasons". A brain is what makes a mind possible. The mind is in "contact" with the surrounding environment of the organism only in the sense that it perceives that environment. "Free" modifies "will" in the phrase 'free will'. Our will, our ability to choose our actions, is what is free, not our perception of reality. We have no choice over what material our senses gather for us.
  23. I did not claim that the mind is separate from existence. I said it is separate from it's environment. Please don't interpret that to mean TOTALLY CUT OFF FROM its surrounding environment. That would neither be possible nor necessary for free will. But it is separated enough to function, for all intents and purposes, independently.
  24. SuperMetroid, from what I've read, my understanding of free will is essentially the same as yours. I agree that this is however not the view most Objectivists take. I believe free will is axiomatic, but I think the argument that it is consistent with causality would go something like this (I pulled this from one of my posts in the forum topic Law of Causation and Free Will): We did not will ourselves into existence. Our existence is the result of the universe acting in accordance with it's nature. So, yes, we did originate from forces outside of our control (obviously.) But once we come into existence, the primary motive force that determines the development of the rest of our lives, which determines the choices we make, is our mind, which is what we are. The existence of free will follows from the nature of the human mind. The mind is separated from it's environment, it requires fuel from outside sources, but other than that, it runs totally on it's own. Free will is not anymore complicated than that.
×
×
  • Create New...