dream_weaver

Aristotle identified that infinity first arises in the case of continuous quantity. In the case of lengths from zero to one foot, you may continue to subdivide the unit until you reach the level of precision required. When you cease to subdivide the unit, you have a finite number of increments to quantify your length. Infinity in this regard, as a concept of method, says you may subdivide as many times as required to reach that level of precision. While I've never seen one, a quark is considered to be the smallest particle known to man. If you established a quark as your unit of measurement to quantify your length of one foot, can the quark be subdivided? As a thought experiment, perhaps, and if we managed to subdivide a quark into other particles, can the process be repeated? If the unit of length is beyond the capability to measure it, can it be objectively validated?

We selectively attend our mind, we deliberately isolate within the scope of our awareness, we choose to direct our focus on the specific existents (be it entities, attributes, actions, events, relationships, phenomenon) for consideration. In the case of existence, it is the explicit identification of what every fact has in common. It is the fact derived from all facts. Or as stated in ITOE, "It is not the abstraction of an attribute from a group of existents, but of a basic fact from all facts." In the case of identity, it is the basis, the foundation, the cornerstone of differentiation and integration. In the case of (conceptual) consciousness, it is the root, it is present with, it is the cause of every identification. We certainly have the criteria to evaluate, test for, and identify a concept to ensure that it would qualify as axiomatic. We know that percepts are the foundation, are at the base of, the building blocks of concepts. Analogously, axiomatic concepts serve the same function with regard to knowledge.

Do you consider them to all be equally valid theories? Can they all be simultaneously equally true? At any rate, as you put it, the idea that the universe is uncaused is not one that is axiomatic. It is derived from understanding how existence, identity and consciousness are axiomatic concepts, and the relationship each shares with the others.

I found this site by doing a search on "circular time theory". To my delight, there was enough to glean a tease of the gist of the topic. To my disappointment, the "meat" of the thread had been removed at the author's behest. From a marketing perspective, to promote and make the website more attractive to people is pretty broad. What might be a potential profile of a people you desire to attract? Young, old - male, female - pro-Objectivists, anti-Objectivists - ?

Instead of taking umbrage with what is meant here by religion, why not take the opportunity to explain how you formulated the concept of religion, what you differentiate religion from, what do you consider as the fundamentals or essence of religion, in short, illustrate how your history of the concept is good or bad. Otherwise, you are basically back to this issue, as pointed out in this other thread.

It suggests that conceptually you are essentially a Thomist.

What is the process by which Thomism organizes concretes into different groups? How does Rand distinguish her process from his?

Oops. (Note to self: Remember to spell check, always remember to spell check.)

A remark I employ with some people who use relative frequent profanity in my presence is in essence: It's a shame that with the plethera of adjectives and adverbs available, you've only seemed to accumulate the one or two in your lifetime.

I would certainly agree that the capability to abstract ideas is natural to man, but ability carries with it overtones of developed skill, proficiency, competence in performing a particular task.

I certainly would not refer to the ability to abstract ideas as natural. We certainly have the capacity to abstract ideas, but the ability to abstract an idea has to be developed in order to ensure proper formulation, and avoid improper formulation, to ensure those ideas are used properly and avoid improper usage.

An appeal to tradition simply means: This argument is correct because this is the manner we have always presented argument as long as we can remember. If the proper study of man is determined by the way we have always studied it, it assumes the proper method of study is to do it the way it has traditionally been done. If there is a proper method of study, is there also an improper method of study? Is there a science studies the proper methods of study and distinguishes them from improper methods of study? If so, which science would it be? And to follow up on that question with the question that Plasmatic asked in post #685, just what do you think or believe science to be?

If you don't look at the basis of the concepts that you use to formulate your question, the resulting rationalization can seem plausible, no doubt. If you grasp what it takes to formulate the axiomatic concepts of "existence", "identity" and "consciousness", then the context of the application of the "watchmaker" being switched from the man-made to the metaphysically given becomes the distinguishing characteristic, rendering the concept of "origins" the "stolen concept" you prefer not to deal with.

Just a few thoughts at large, as I cannot fully state my position in full, cogently. 1. A division point in politics is capitalism vs. statism, which is to say between freedom and slavery, which is essentially a life and death distinction. 2. Freedom and economic freedom are inseparable in my mind. Lapsing into metaphor here, money is like a lubricant in a complex economic machine. Honest money would be likened unto a clean lubricant, dishonest money a contaminated lubricant. That being said, money is a complex derivative concept. It entail many relationships which move both up and down many conceptual chains. Those relationships entail measurements. Measurements require standards. Back to the metaphor. Honest money would be that which those relationships can be identified and quantified. Dishonest money often sidesteps and evades that requirement especially in the areas where the appropriate standards and methods of measurement are not as easily apparent. While I lean toward a gold standard or even a bi- or tri-metallic standard, the essential in the arena of money is to determine the requirements necessary in the areas where the appropriate standards and methods of measurement are not as easily apparent. You appeared to be moving somewhat in this direction in the other thread which merited you a green square in my opinion. As to which of the many other inter-related areas of focus to which might be attended from government managed education, taxation, media lap-dogs, etc, all stem from the predominant philosophic ideology which resists identifying the principles required and/or their relationship to the various effects which manifest themselves as poverty and crime, just to mention a couple. To use another metaphor here, are you seeking to just prune a few branches, or identify the trunk and determine the most effective means of chopping through it? [edited to add comma between full and cogently]

At which point you may want to consider the distinctive difference between the mind of man, which gave rise to the concept of rights, and the minds of the animals that abide by the rules of the jungle.

If I Could Put Time In A Poem. The pendulum swung to and fro within the etched glass case, to numbers hands were pointed sure affront its ornate face. Motion built into the piece through gears and springs Relates, with skillful understanding that the clockmaker collates. The sun announces each morning enlightening east horizon, ensconcing clouds can make it seem as if it were bedizen. When nightfall brings its splendor forth for those who wish to gaze, Cycles of the moon from night to night reveal its phase. Seasons follow one another successions Regularized, Winter, Spring, Summer, Fall, quite Temporalized. Days sequentially keep the pace a new moon would appear, Months served the same purpose for the passage of a Year. Historians study for the Future many eras Past, and if analyzed properly it may prevent aghast. Finding information when the records are obscure, requires extra research when one wants to be for sure. . As the Disc began to rise it touched both sides to earth, some water thus was set aside determined by its Girth. More water through a hole was let until the dawn returned, then measured very carefully by those who were concerned. Seven hundred twenty parts were one full trip Ole Sol, from that an hour was set to be just thirty of the Whole. The distance walked in that short span they called a parasang thus motion measured motion pictured here with rhyming slang. Advances in the Sciences soon required more precision, seconds split from minutes got another sub-division. The study of the atom did reveal an Oscillation, and this gave Chronology a different Alteration. Many things the universe has always on the move, with varying velocities and other stuff to prove. Complexity of measurement, standards of selection, beyond a doubt the unit must avail to detection. Movement presumes that which moves, in short causality. This we grasp from observations of reality. Duration too, we can apply this form of quantity, exempted though’s a special case that’s called eternity. When an axiomatic concept’s formed it takes a conscious act. What’s retained metaphysically’s a fundamental fact. One genus of a magnitude remains to be omitted, irrespective of the While awareness was committed. Gregory S. Lewis

Your formulation and usage of terms having to do with infinity, eternal, time, necessity and logic are providing you with the correspondingly commensurate level of clarity. In addition to the use of an invalid concept rendering an argument or explanation null and void, a partial or vague grasp of valid concepts will lead you to mistaken and erroneous conclusions. Floating abstractions often lead to the fallacy of the stolen concepts. You enter into this arena requesting a refutation of your position. It would seem more prudent to ascertain what is necessary to validate a position in general, in order to judge for yourself how it may or not comply with that criteria.

Ayn Rand addresses that in Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology in the chapter on Axiomatic Concepts where she states: It may be said that existence can be differentiated from non-existence; but non-existence is not a fact, it is the absence of a fact, it is a derivative concept pertaining to a relationship, i.e., a concept which can be formed or grasped only in relation to some existent that has ceased to exist. In essence, you would be appealing to an absence of a fact as the basis or foundation of your assertion.

An argument [explaination] is comprised of words i.e. concepts, which are man-made devices. If a word used in an argument [explaination] is invalid, the argument [explaination] is invalid.

The axiomtic concept existence exists is not an explaination. It is the fact that is at the base of all facts. An explaination is comprised of words i.e. concepts, which are man-made devices. If a word used in an explaination is invalid, the explaination is invalid.

Words The dictionary’s full of them on each and every page, They’re listed alphabetically each in its own cage. The definition sometimes gives some insight to a referent, While other explanations tend to homage blatant deferent. A newspaper has journalists who craft their lines to fit between the narrow columns into which it all must sit. The wordsmith picks so carefully the terms and formulation, much more concerned with how it’s perceived within the publication. An author pens a book to read or get a point across, sometimes missing how the form might render it pathos. Poets seem a different breed engrossed in metaphor, rhyme and prose with metered sway and sometimes anaphor. People use them every day just to communicate, listening is how to hear precisely what they state. To understand just what they mean and to what they referred Study how they come to be and grasp just how they’re formed.

Granted, most of existence is not conscious. But to describe something as vague, and then follow it up by describing it as the complexity of the material universe with physical laws. Is existence some vague undefined ambigous blob? Can existence be aprehended and understood, its constituent parts identified as specific things with causal relationships serving as the basis for identifying physical laws?

My apologies for my earlier assessment. It was premature considering the apparent tenure of your inquiry.

From your profile section on Experience with Objectivism, Avila: "Have read quite a number of her books, including Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal, The Virtue of Selfishness, Introduction to Objectivist Epistemolgy, Atlas Shrugged, The Fountainhead, the Romantic manifesto" Seeing the words on a page, reading the words aloud or enunciating the words within the mind is not the same as grasping and comprehending the materials with to which you exposed yourself. to.