Maken
-
Posts
167 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Maken
-
-
What is Humane knowledge?
-
If someone claimed "God exists" and you said, "That's irrational" or "Prove it or I don't believe you" that's normal and not what I opened this thread about.
Ayn Rand made the claim "God does not exist." She also claimed it's easy to prove.
In the general case proving a negative does not require omniscience nor omnipresence.
If a pushy person looking for a donation claimed, "I know there's a quarter in your pants pocket." I could answer "Wouldn't you like to know?" (asserting he can't know or prove that) or I could pull out my pockets and show they're empty (proving the negative). If the police tomorrow called me and claimed I murdered someone at 9pm tonight in Madrid, Spain I would prove the negative by showing them recent receipts and naming a few witnesses who saw me tonight.
In the special case of "God exists." I agree that's unfalsifiable. In that case, you could say it's irrational to say anything about his existance. That's distinct from claiming he does not exist.
(Note: While theoretical unfalsifiability applies to "God exists", it doesn't apply to all specific Gods, especially ones who are claimed to have acted upon this world.)
In the interview, I don't see Donahue saying "God exists" and Ayn Rand saying "That's an irrational belief" or "I don't believe you, prove it."
I see Ayn Rand asserting "God does not exist" and further it's easy to prove. Maybe she wanted to sell more books.
What Rand is saying is that since there is no proof FOR a God, he doesn't exist. He can't be defined or even be recognized as possible until proof is represented. To do that is to give value and credibility to the arbitrary which is not logical.
Not to mention, Rand is refuting the claim that God exists that has presented in the course of history. Not everyone has to say that God exists for the claim to exist. The claim of the affirmation of a God came before the negation, obviously.
-
Precisely. The one who claims "God does not exist" or "Goed does exist" has the burden to prove their claim.
I would say it's possible, but unlikely as there's no compelling evidence of their existance.
We are merely denying the claim. To ask us to prove a negative (a negation of the claim the positive makes) is to ask us to prove the non-existent. Proving something to be non-existent is a contradiction in terms and requires omniscience and omnipresence. This is why it's a logical fallacy to ask us to prove that there is no God, especially when the claim is made in the positive in the first place.
Because of this contradiction, the negative does not have a burden of proof. You are asking us to do the impossible, to prove a non-existent, or the lack of something that exists. We, as the negation, do not even have to acknowledge the affirmation's claim until they fulfill the burden of proof. Until that burden is met, the statement is arbitrary.
-
The burden of proof lies on anyone who makes a claim or assertion, positive or negative.
"This impatience with ambiguity can be criticized in the phrase: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence." ~ Carl Sagan
To clarify, to assert something is possible requires no evidence that it is true, only no proof that it is not true:
Possible - Capable of happening, existing, or being true without contradicting proven facts, laws, or circumstances.
Maybe - Perhaps; possibly.
So, your methodology is to redefine the words possibly and maybe to mean plausible, and place the burden of proof on anyone making a positive claim as opposed to the usual anyone making a claim.
That sounds like a practical way to live life day to day, but creates less descriptive statements about the universe and conflicts with normal word usage.
Shifting the burden of proof to those denying a claim is a logical fallacy known as "ad ignorantium".
-
The dictionaries is full of definitions. The American Heritage is my usual choice. I chose definition #3, the first which fits most Gods that people tend to discuss, such as the Christian God or the god of the seas Poseidon: "A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality."
As far as I can tell, no part of that definition conflicts with any of what you've written.
I would also disagree with "One out of many". It's highly probably the being we just defined is non-existant and there's a slim possibility it's unique.
Since we just defined God that doesn't apply.
Then I ask you, what evidence is this definition based on?
You can't define or prove a non-existent. It doesn't exist. You are met with a contradiction.
"A definition must identify the nature of the units, i.e., the essential characteristics without which the units would not be the kind of existents they are," (ITOE page 42).
Before something can be defined and conceptualized, it has to be observed perceptually. Things are observed perceptually by our senses and after we form percepts we can identify units. Unit identification is essential before one can differentiate between units and omit measurements to form concepts and definitions. Unless you have directly perceived God on a perceptual level through your senses, your definition is invalid and arbitrary.
-
I don't disagree, but it's probably easier to find independent-thinking people in areas with higher population density anyway.
Only because there is a larger pool of people. It still comes down to INDIVIDUALS. But yes, I can agree with that
-
It is arrogant and it is elitist. Like someone else said, there are just as many people who are off their rockers in the big cities as there are in the rural areas. I come from Orange County (in Southern California right outside of LA), and, believe me, there are people who are like this everywhere. You cannot judge people as a collective mob, they have to be taken as individuals.
-
My favorite has to be when Francisco describes how he wrote a paper on the Immovable Mover. It isn't really that hidden but if someone were to pass through the text quickly they would never notice it. At the time I didn't know what this was so I actually went and looked into it.
-
-
When I first started reading Objectivist literature I at first came to a flawed conclusion that your (my) life should be me working as hard as I can to achieve my goals and that everything else was just a distraction really.
What I came to understand not long later is that you happiness can come from different sources, and that three of the central concepts of Objectivism work in synergy and can be applied to pretty much anything in your life to determine its value.
1. What is, is
2. Man's highest moral purpose is the pursuit of his own happiness
3. Rationality
Let me demonstrate:
You want to achieve goal x, presumably because you think/feel it will make you happy...
You first understand/accept that this sensation/craving is part of who you are.
Then rationally, you check that it is not just an irrational whim, and thus validate it as a worthwhile goal.
Therefore you pursue the goal, and achieve uncontradictory happiness.
...
So lets look at the situation of friends...
Firstly, depending on who you are - after all, people are necessarily different - you will either feel a need for friendship at whatever level or you wont. What is, is... You either experience the desire for friends or you don't. Either way, it "is".
So for you, you determine that having friends is/isn't part of your pursuit towards happiness.
Rationally you validate your motive for wanting (or not wanting) friends and determine whether or not your motives are rational or merely whims.
If they are rational, you pursue friendship and achieve your own uncontradictory joy.
...
Okay, a real friendship in my opinion is necessarily a form of love. From what I've observed, the majority of healthy intimate, loving relationships develop from a friendship of mutual respect and admiration. In sexually-available friends (of reciprocal sexual orientation) intimacy is a natural consequence.
The next question which comes to mind for me, is whether or not a husband (assuming a hetrosexual relationship) can, for example, have female friends without risking the development of an affair? The answer I think is two-part:
1. To my mind, and from my interpretation of Dagny's relationships in Atlas Shrugged, a man or woman can have as many friends of the opposite sex as they like without dilemma, so long as rationally, their partner is the highest human abstraction of their values. If rationally this is not the case, then it is possible you are in a relationship with the wrong person. (Eg. Dagny with Hank compared to Dagny with Galt)
2. It is quite possible to lust after someone of the opposite sex regardless of whether you have respect etc for them, but this constitutes an "Irrational whim"
Here you have to be careful in your understanding of values. There is a differences between values and opinions. It is quite possible for some to hold an opinion based on flawed knowledge. You can still be friends with that person provided their values are still the same as yours.
Values, on the other hand, are something which, if contrary, will make it nearly impossible to achieve a genuine friendship. If they share your values, you will respect them. If they don't, it will be impossible for you to respect them (without compromising your own values) and thus, it will be impossible to have a genuine friendship with them.
Does that answer your question with sufficient intelligibility?
That was a beautiful response, I don't even have secondary questions.
<3
-
-
- It would not be immoral to have friends that don't hold values similar to yourself, it would be impossible.
Basically friends are people you chose to socialise with - as opposed to colleagues and classmates, that your just stuck with.
There is always a shared interest or sense of life that started your friendship to begin with, and consequently why you keep hanging out with that person.
It does not have to be philosophical or political agreement - most of my friends are non-objectivists, but we have other hobbies in common, aswell as a common style, interests, and so on.
The purpose of friends for an Objectivist would be the same as most people - to improve your life and make your days more enjoyable.
That is where I was confused. I wasn't sure if it would be moral or not to assosciate with non-objectivists. I mean, reasonably, there are not very many O'ist in the world so you would be pretty lonely if that were the case.
-
I have a friend who hasn't read Rand's works but is generally just a very objective person to begin with and he finds Objectivism fascinating so he often asks me questions about it and I was faced with a question I didn't know how to answer yesterday:
What purpose do friends serve to an Objectivist?
Now, I was able to explain that friends are most likely made based on values and virtues that people hold, much like the way one falls in love with somebody. But, what differentiates a friend from someone you love? Would it be immoral to have friends that don't hold values that are similar to yours?
-
Has anyone read this yet? If so, what should I expect before I start to read it? I can't stand reading socially biased books on economics, just curious if that is the case here before I start...
-
I am no art critic by FAR but I felt compelled to share what I felt about Beethoven's 5th
It is one of my favorites because I think it represents a struggle. It goes back and forth from grandeur to almost a pessimistic and loathing melody and I think the few brief moments of life and grandeur it offers is representative of the struggle man has in this current state.
My two cents
-
What comments do you find particularly disgusting?
The author of this article is making his own fair share of misconceptions - that Ayn Rand was against charity completely. He makes the typical assumption that charity is the same thing as altruism.
Some of the comments about Objectivists in general bothered me. It just seems like people are ignorant and I hate ignorance...
-
I wanted to read some quotes from Atlas Shrugged because I was bored and I stumbled on this site that had a few choice quotes. Now, the interesting part about this, to me at least, were the comments that people left at the bottom. It really seems like people don't understand what O'ism is all about and it upset me!
http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/2008/01/02/quotes-from-atlas-shrugged/
-
In most cases I would agree, except that I have one friend who I regularly argue philosophy with. He's a very intelligent person and he studies philosophy fervently, however, he has not chosen to truly accept any philosophy as far as I know. He seems to be the ultimate skeptic, and I would call him one except that he has openly denounced skepticism. However, as I said, for most people this is 100% true
I find the anti-skeptic comment ironic.
-
Ron Paul over Romney?
-
She was grossly misrepresented there as well. I found that to be the most upsetting aspect of the thread.
-
http://www.revleft.com/vb/huge-appeal-ayn-t128559/index.html
*Moderator Note: Please do not start threads with a post that contains a link and no other information. This looks like spam and/or attempted Rickrolling.--JMeganSnow*
-
Well what about a lobotomy? That nearly destroys a human's ability to think. Is this moral in anyway?
-
Interesting question...
I would say that even if what you are trying to protect is not objectively valuable, there is no immorality in attempting to protect what you think is a value through blackmail. I would say this because the act of blackmailing to protect what you think is a value does not build up any habits that will be detrimental to you later in life. The fact that in this case your valuation is wrong does not introduce some negative effect on your character from the blackmail.
Now, the fact that you are pursuing something that is not objectively valuable in the first place indicates either an error of knowledge or a moral failing prior to this "value" being threatened. Once that error is made, however, using blackmail to protect that value does not compound the error (or immorality).
But, objectively speaking, if one maintains a value that is not objectively protected (say, something altruistic in nature), wouldn't they really have something that is a lack of a value? I thought Rand never accepted something as a value unless it was objectively defined?
*** Mod's note: Discussion on "false values", was split: see here. - sN ***
-
They are two completely different things. Blackmail is threatening to reveal sensitive information unless the person in question acceded to your demands. Extortion is threatening to intiate force on someone or violate his rights in some tangible fashion unless the person in question accedes to your demands.
It's the difference between threatening to tell a cheating husbands wife about his infidelities unless he pays up and threatening to kill his wife or break his kneecaps unless he pays up.
So the differentiating factor is that of force. Extortion is nothing more than blackmail threatening with force.
Is atheism rational?
in Metaphysics and Epistemology
Posted
Because you are still giving validity to the arbitrary by saying it is "unlikely". "Unlikely" is saying that "it probably isn't, but could be". If you give credit to one arbitrary argument, you give credit to every arbitrary argument and you destroy the validity of logical argumentation. If you accept the arbitrary argument of a god, then you have to hold the "Flying Spaghetti Monster" and "Santa" and "The Easter Bunny" as equally logical arguments.