philosopher

Serenity (2005)

"We meddle."

"River?"

"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk.
We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."

Serenity (2005)

"We meddle."

"River?"

"People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think. Don't run, don't walk.
We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome."

Another reason to suspect it's a scam is he claims to be looking at 3rd world countries, and yet 5 of the points on his map are in Australia, a 1st world country and US ally. He hasn't even done his research, he just printed off a world map and put dots on areas that looked like desert, assuming they would be poor.

Whatever. I come to this board to discuss philosophy, not political schemes.

Good find. But the thing about Objectivism is that once you understand it, you realise it's not just an opinion, it's actually true - something she discovered.
But on that page he says he is not an Objectivist. So assuming he values truth, he mustn't have understood it yet. So he is teaching a course on something he doesn't understand.

Good find. But the thing about Objectivism is that once you understand it, you realise it's not just an opinion, it's actually true - something she discovered.
But on that page he says he is not an Objectivist. So assuming he values truth, he mustn't have understood it yet. So he is teaching a course on something he doesn't understand.

There is a stereotype that certainty is for children and growing up consists of realizing that nothing is ever black and white and values are all subjective.

That idea seems like a rejection of philosophy but is actually a philosophical position in itself and can be disproven.

When someone claims there is an all powerful being, the best you can do is imagine yourself looking, staring really hard, at reality trying to understand it, and they say that again. Because in that context, you can really see how useless of a statement it is.

It's just arbitrary. It doesn't get you anywhere. It doesn't advance the discussion or the understanding. It is just a furphy out of nowhere. It's like "Yeah thanks mate, now back to what we were doing."

There is no requirement in the method of reason to refute every claim anybody ever makes. Reason is not about answering claims, but about induction and deduction from what is.

Well, the Big Bang is not just "a big explosion 14 billion years ago," now is it?

It is, according to Wikipedia "the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development."

Also, are you aware that you did 3 emoticons in one post? How old are you?

Well, the Big Bang is not just "a big explosion 14 billion years ago," now is it?

It is, according to Wikipedia "the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development."

Also, are you aware that you did 3 emoticons in one post? How old are you?

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

Well, the Big Bang is not just "a big explosion 14 billion years ago," now is it?

It is, according to Wikipedia "the event which led to the formation of the universe, according to the prevailing cosmological theory of the universe's early development."

Also, are you aware that you did 3 emoticons in one post? How old are you?

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

His objection to the big bang seems to be connected to the amount of carbon produced, not the philosophical point that that the universe can not have a beginning. If he hasn't realised the later he can't be that much of a genius.

Isn't this a special case of Heraclitus? There are no entities, only change. You can't step in the same stream twice, etc.
I think Ayn Rand once said of Heraclitus that change without that which changes is a stolen concept but don't quote me on that. That is, you only get the concept of change by observing entities changing in the first place, so you can't very well turn around and use that concept to argue against their existence.

Isn't this a special case of Heraclitus? There are no entities, only change. You can't step in the same stream twice, etc.
I think Ayn Rand once said of Heraclitus that change without that which changes is a stolen concept but don't quote me on that. That is, you only get the concept of change by observing entities changing in the first place, so you can't very well turn around and use that concept to argue against their existence.

I agree that a standard is something you measure against. And yes, value requires a "to whom" and "for what."

I agree that choosing is a natural ability of man and thinking is a natural ability, but valuing and reasoning are not. Value is choosing + a standard, reason is thinking + a standard. And the the standards in both cases have to be discovered (we are not born with the knowledge).



I think we're pretty much on the same page here. I don't disagree that pleasure/pain can get us to a concept of value. But once we're on the conceptual level we realize that anything that has a "to whom" and "for what" can also potentially serve as a standard. Then there's comes the question of proof of any given standard. And life is the only provable ultimate standard.