Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Lisa Brincks

Regulars
  • Posts

    19
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Lisa Brincks

  • Birthday 09/03/1988

Contact Methods

  • Website URL
    http://
  • ICQ
    0

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Female
  • Location
    Ames

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    Iowa
  • Chat Nick
    Lisa
  • Relationship status
    Single
  • Sexual orientation
    Straight
  • Real Name
    Lisa
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • School or University
    ISU
  • Occupation
    Business-MIS

Lisa Brincks's Achievements

Novice

Novice (2/7)

0

Reputation

  1. Sorry, I am not sure if this is the best place for this but I thought this was interesting. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/03/books/re.../Dyer-t.html?em
  2. If no one can prove you wrong how can you prove yourself right? Last I checked you aren't a metaphysical being (i.e. God) who has some superior powers in comparison to the rest of the human race. Although Heidegger seems to believe such is the case for himself apparently.
  3. http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=New...ws_iv_ctrl=2553 Does anyone know if Fox will put this up on their site afterwards? Otherwise, is there any way we could get a recording of this up on the net for those of us that don't have Fox Business Channel? I would hate to miss out on this, not only because of the subject but since I have always liked John Stossel a good deal, and we have to pay extra for the channel here since our college only has regular cable.
  4. Also note that on all the other threads on this forum we provide good reasons for our positions. You and your friend Heidegger did not come up with some amazing philosophical insight that has stumped us, its because this thread is a mess. So kindly desist with the evasion/delusion comments.
  5. Nope, although this would explain why your posts have been nothing more than vaguely coherent at best or been references back to your original link, while others here have made fair arguments, of which the most stumping propositions (from your position in the discussion) you have ignored on several accounts. You might want to work on your own ability if you think you can properly understand this philosophy by reading a fiction work and nothing else. The reason no one has "refuted" your arguments is because the way you are going about it, it is near impossible, yet you continue to ignore these comments and continue on your merry way because you don't want to have a proper discussion of the matter. Either that, or when you have run into arguments against what you have said, you either misinterpret them, or don't understand our definitions, or some other conversational issue that is brought about by your misunderstanding of our philosophical views. The reason I personally haven't made any thorough arguments is because of the issues I just mentioned, it would be a pointless and wasted effort. Also, Atlas Shrugged is much much easier to understand in the philosophical sense in regards to a fully realized fictional interpretation of the philosophy if you have read some of the non-fiction first. That, as well as the fact that some of the things you are trying to discuss here are difficult to produce properly within the fictional setting. This is not what I said. You obviously don't understand the key points based on this thread, there are things that you are saying that have made this more than abundantly clear. We could highlight all of these comments but I have a feeling that it would not be worth the effort involved. This is quite an assumption. Why? Because: 1. Someone here has already told you that there is a specific section in OPAR that addresses this issue quite specifically. 2. There have been just as many mentions of other sources (including by myself), online, that would take very little of your time as partial substitutes to assist in this conversation which you seem to continue to wish to evade so that you may keep bringing up this argument that we are evading through this one book. I am not trying to be rude here, and I apologize if it comes off that way. What I am basically saying is that you should wait until you are serious about this discussion and have the proper background knowledge to discuss it in a way that will actually progress this discussion, because no one wants to waste their time here, and I don't want you to waste your own time either, but thats exactly what has been occurring.
  6. You are not an Objectivist, you do not follow the philosophy of Objectivism, you are arguing things contradictory to Objectivism, you do not understand Objectivism, and you are saying Objectivism takes stances on things that it does not take those stances on. The "rules" of Objectivism (I have no idea what that even means) do not apply to you. You need to start over. No rational conversation can be had here and no end to this conversation can occur because you don't even understand the perspective we take on this issue and terms are not properly defined, you are using different definitions than us, and you have contradicted yourself numerous times, often in the sentence or paragraph right after, leading me to believe you are not even completely certain what you are saying. I suggest you read the beginning, part 1 and part 2 of this: http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/wiki/Main_Page I also suggest you read this: http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/primacy_...sciousness.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/analytic..._dichotomy.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/axiomatic_concepts.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/consciousness.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/automatization.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/causality.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/determinism.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/existence.html http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/free_will.html Please read those before posting again. It will be quite obvious if you have not. You are all over the place, your definitions are not very clear and are different than the ones we are using for important terms in the conversation, and you are essentially wasting everyone's time, including your own, until you get your argument together and properly clarified (yes I know, the original article, whatever) and I would also like to mention your comments about how when we are not in agreeance with you our view is a "delusion" are not warranted nor appreciated and create a conversational environment that is not at all progressive, and for the love of god, pick up OPAR. It has already been stated that this discussion could be over (it should have been already, but apparently the key points aren't getting across so I guess we have to do it this way) in a few posts at most if you would just start over and do what you have been asked to do on multiple occasions by multiple people.
  7. As I said I cannot really comment properly as I haven't read that part of the book yet but from what I know of it I would agree with what you say here.
  8. Have you thought about perhaps sending an e-mail to Leonard Peikoff on this matter? Since obviously no one here is going to change their minds on this matter, including you as you have made this thoroughly obvious by this last statement. I would like to see his response to this matter. I cannot comment as I am just now getting through Fountainhead. While the philosophy was not as developed during this writing I find it quite hard to believe that such a glaring mistake would be made by Miss Rand, especially since, when mentioning 2 mistakes she wishes to clarify and correct in a revised, later print of Fountainhead she failed to mention this matter. Also, if Jonathan is the only one worth not ignoring on this site, then why waste your time here, why not just continue the correspondence via IM with Johnathan? You might be familiar with the term... moralizing? Further, on page 6, when Kendall refers to context as the reference for analyzing the morality of actions, a perfectly valid argument both in this discussion and one that holds true in the philosophy of Objectivism, instead of making a counterargument, which, frankly, I don't see how you could in regards to that specific statement, you chose instead to put him on ignore. I will not speak for the others here, nor have I read most of the comments on this thread, however your behavior is quite unbecoming. I noticed a comment about the use of cursing towards your direction. Note that in other discussions this is not the case, I would say your behavior here has warranted as much, because you are being hostile in a passive-aggressive manner through your ignore list. I will be waiting for your response where you tell me I have been added to it as well. To me, your actions on this site are what are irrational and would, in my mind, not be approved by the philosopher you claim to love so dearly. Perhaps others would be more receptive to your claims if you did not ignore those that disagree with you when you come to a sticky area of discussion.
  9. No I don't think he does. Without trying to be rude, this honestly feels like he is basing his argument completely off the original link, doesn't understand the implications of the original link's position, and is now scrounging around in the darkness grasping in the air. How about this, Steve, please restate your position, in full, and properly clarified with examples. Then we can resolve this entire discussion in about 2 to 3 posts. There is too much confusion and obfuscation going on here, when this is really a fairly simple matter.
  10. Chris I would suggest the chatroom. It seems to be much more friendly than the forums, since a select group of people tend to hang out in there versus the entire "masse" of loose membership that resides here on the forums.
  11. This is what I was referring to, I think there is some confusion. I do not think this discussion is a waste of time, I am speaking about things like this response of yours. Your statements and propositions, at least to me, are unnecessarily unclear and confusing, and you do not seem to have the kind of knowledge basis in Objectivism to have a proper discussion on this topic because otherwise there would not be comments like the one above, because it should be understood what he meant by "lives sustained only by rational action". Blood circulation as well as other bodily automated responses are already covered in-depth in this regard. That is why I said there would need to be a lot of ground covered for a proper, on-level discussion, to be had on this subject. I quickly skimmed through this thread before my original posting, I will go through it again tonight and see if I can get a better handle on what you are trying to posit here. How does this not cause contradiction issues? I will have to read this article, I didn't have the time before, I was going off the discussion after that. "If any of you are interested in going beyond objectivism" I am not sure what you are trying to imply here, but would going beyond objectivism suggest that it is defunct in comparison? Anyways, this is what I was going to post before, I don't know how well it applies to this discussion after reading your latest post, so please ignore parts that are not consistent because as I said your earlier postings, at least to me, were much more confusing than what I am used to dealing with in the nature of the delivery of information that I am responding to now, but here we are: There is but one basic alternative in reality. It applies only to living beings. Organisms face a constant alternative: the matter of life and death. Any organism must intitiate and sustain an ongoing series of actions to remain alive. If it fails to find or grow food, build shelter, etc. (things that require the use of reason when human beings are concerned, not animals) it will die. All living beings are endowed by nature with specific attributes by which they seek survival. For example, plants survive by means of purely physical functions. Automatically, with no faculty of awareness and consequently no power of choice, they dig their roots into the soil to gain chemical nutrients and grow their leaves toward the sun to gain light. The higher animals possess perceptual consciousness, the ability to perceieve entities, and based on this the capacity of locomotion. Also, if the use of reason to acknowledge and perceive reality is fallible, then how can we know that anything is true? You must contradict your notion of man as fallible in the context of gaining objective knowledge through the use of reason to even suggest such a contradiction. How do you know you are not wrong? This is one of the many issues with subjectivism. Skeptic: "Man is fallible. Even with the best of training and intentions, he is capable of error. SO how can you be certain you are not wrong.?" Objectivist: "Man's general capacity to err does not warrant a hypothesis of error in a particular case. And I have validated my conclusion; I have demonstrated that in this case I am right." S: "But your validation itself might be fallacious. How do you know it isn't?" O: "Can you point to any sign of such fallacy, such as a logical flaw in my argument, or a neglected fact, or an improperly defined term?" Here the skeptic is stopped. In order to identify specific fallacies, he would have to enter the field of knowledge; he would have to concede that he is able to assess evidence and thus distinguish truth from error. To do this reality must be objective, and man must be able to perceive and integrate this objectivity in his mind, via his consciousness, via his senses and observations, comparing items of observation to see if they are able to be integrated together, and in this way the false washes from the truth. So the discussion has to end with the skeptic simply sweeping aside the whole context and declaring: "I can't specify your error, but maybe it's there. I can't tell the different between your argument and a perfectly valid one, but still, I'm not sure. Prove that this non-detectable error does not exist." Your assertion is arbitrary in respect to the fallibility and subjectivity of man's mind. And I have already shown that reason is a primacy of man in his survival. Nature is not a primacy over reason, although it does play a part, as it creates the nature of the entity, and therefore attributes certain actions as necessary for him to survive and progress his life. For man, this is the use of his mind, his reason. The more a person is able to use reason in respect to his specific contextual relationships and situations, necessarily he will be more successful in his endeavors. I also ask you, that if you are going to continue this discussion, to clarify your position better, and not have these hard to understand and identify arguments and propositions as you have so far. It's barely worth taking the time to sort it all out. Stop talking like a Philosophy 101 professor that is blazed out of his mind, and make your arguments clear and well defined and provide proper evidence for your claims.
  12. Not to be rude but this is just nonsense. Seriously, go to your local Barnes & Noble right now and pick up OPAR, it's not much money especially with all the content it provides, and it will answer all of these types of questions and more quite throughly, and save everyone on here a lot of time that would be unnecessarily expended. Your argument is self-defeating in regards to reason and the fallibility of man's mind (the proposition of error) and in regards to nature, you understanding of it and how it applies is incorrect. Check your premises.
  13. Mark basically touches on it. There is but one basic alternative in reality. It applies only to living beings. Organisms face a constant alternative: the matter of life and death. Any organism must intitiate and sustain an ongoing series of actions to remain alive. If it fails to find or grow food, build shelter, etc. (things that require the use of reason when human beings are concerned, not animals) it will die. All living beings are endowed by nature with specific attributes by which they seek survival. For example, plants survive by means of purely physical functions. Automatically, with no faculty of awareness and consequently no power of choice, they dig their roots into the soil to gain chemical nutrients and grow their leaves toward the sun to gain light. The higher animals possess perceptual consciousness, the ability to perceieve entities, and based on this the capacity of locomotion. Also, if the use of reason to acknowledge and perceive reality is fallible, then how can we know that anything is true? You must contradict your notion of man as fallible in the context of gaining objective knowledge through the use of reason to even suggest such a contradiction. How do you know you are not wrong? This is one of the many issues with subjectivism. Skeptic: "Man is fallible. Even with the best of training and intentions, he is capable of error. SO how can you be certain you are not wrong.?" Objectivist: "Man's general capacity to err does not warrant a hypothesis of error in a particular case. And I have validated my conclusion; I have demonstrated that in this case I am right." S: "But your validation itself might be fallacious. How do you know it isn't?" O: "Can you point to any sign of such fallacy, such as a logical flaw in my argument, or a neglected fact, or an improperly defined term?" Here the skeptic is stopped. In order to identify specific fallacies, he would have to enter the field of knowledge; he would have to concede that he is able to assess evidence and thus distinguish truth from error. To do this reality must be objective, and man must be able to perceive and integrate this objectivity in his mind, via his consciousness, via his senses and observations, comparing items of observation to see if they are able to be integrated together, and in this way the false washes from the truth. So the discussion has to end with the skeptic simply sweeping aside the whole context and declaring: "I can't specify your error, but maybe it's there. I can't tell the different between your argument and a perfectly valid one, but still, I'm not sure. Prove that this non-detectable error does not exist." Your assertion is arbitrary in respect to the fallibility and subjectivity of man's mind. And I have already shown that reason is a primacy of man in his survival. Nature is not a primacy over reason, although it does play a part, as it creates the nature of the entity, and therefore attributes certain actions as necessary for him to survive and progress his life. For man, this is the use of his mind, his reason. The more a person is able to use reason in respect to his specific contextual relationships and situations, necessarily he will be more successful in his endeavors. I also ask you, that if you are going to continue this discussion, to clarify your position better, and not have these hard to understand and identify arguments and propositions as you have so far. It's barely worth taking the time to sort it all out. Stop talking like a Philosophy 101 professor that is blazed out of his mind, and make your arguments clear and well defined and provide proper evidence for your claims.
×
×
  • Create New...