Jacob86

Ryan clearly does not ignore her position that the POU is an epistemological one. Make no mistake, Mrs. Rand definitely departs from the standard conception of what the POU is. It's definitely an ontological "problem" for philosophers since the middle ages [in its present form]. They have been seeking to answer the question, "Are there actual entities that are in several particulars at once?" and "Do these entities exist?". If you answer "yes", you consider that there are real entities out there in several places at once and are a realist about the existence of these entities called universals. If you say "no", you are a nominalist. Salimiari's work seeks to demonstrate that Aristotle attempted to respond to this sort of debate by coining the term universal (from kata holou), so as to reconceive the way we approach the "problem" of forms in Plato's theory. (the metaphysical basis of similarity).


Edit: If you havent read other philosophers talking about it and only read Rand on universals you will be culture shocked by the entirely different way of regarding the entire topic.

"But concepts are abstractions or universals"
ITOE

You assume that "benevolent" = "altruistic". Perhaps God is an Egoist and allows evil to exist as an instrumental means to satisfy a more ultimate purpose of enjoying and displaying Himself-- His benevolence being that He shares the good with whom He chooses... rather than Him having some sort of altruistic obligation to give good to everyone equally.


"can an omnipotent being create a rock He, Himself cannot lift?"
"Can an omnipotent being be incapable of something?"
"Can an all-powerful being lack a power?"
"Can A = ~A?"
All you've done is throw together a meaningless combination of words (a convoluted contradiction), slapped a question mark at the end, and considered yourself profound. As C.S. Lewis once said (this is a rough paraphrase): A meaningless combination of words does not gain meaning because you slap the words "can God" in front of it.
You either don't understand basic logic, or you don't understand the meaning of the terms you are using. Omnipotent/all-powerful means "able to do all THINGS". A contradiction is not a "thing" and contradicting one's self is not a power/ability-- it is a weakness.
So, no, God is not "capable" of contradictions -- but that "incapability" is not a weakness, but a strength. Likewise, God is not capable of weakness, and that "incapability" is NOT a weakness. lol.

I understand, I think, unless I'm misunderstanding I answered your question. Or Branden did actually in that quote - You perceive an axiom but validate it later after you have fully formed the idea of Identity. I don't see an argument in the fact the axiom validates itself. It's supposed to.

Well, first I need to preface by saying I can't speak for all Objectivists. While I've been a long time reader that studies ideas, Objectivist or otherwise, I've only recently gotten involved in online discussions in Objectivist circles. What I can tell you from my own reading and use of axioms is that axioms are perceptual but require the Laws of Logic to validate since non-contradictory identification is the method of validating. That is why Identity is listed at the top with Existence and Consciousness versus being a corollary of them.

That something contradicts "known facts" doesn't mean that it is a logical contradiction. It can mean that our knowledge so far was not complete: what seemed to us to be incontrovertible facts, were not. So it seemed to us for centuries that time was a universal variable, for everyone the same. Now we know that this is not true, see the twin paradox, which breaks a law that we thought to be an incontrovertible truth. A famous statement by Arthur C. Clarke is "Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic", the fact that something looks to us like magic doesn't mean that it is a contradiction, something impossible. A God who could use the most advanced technology you can imagine, could very well do things that would look like pure magic to us. A logical contradiction would be for example a triangle with 4 angles or a married bachelor, there is no way that these could exist, but the fact that a known law is shown to be violated in some cases is not a logical contradiction. You cannot disprove the existence of God by pure logic.

I don't understand. The claim for a theist would be the God is one out of many. Why would him being something distinct from everything else make him not God? Also, how do you justify the claim that God can't be defined? Wouldn't it be more accurate to say you simply don't know how he can be defined instead of the assertion that He can't be defined?

Because Objectivism does not contain any principles that reject scholarly standards, this leads me to believe you are confusing standards of valid debate with something like "opinions held by cetain people." Objectivism cuts through "opinions held by certain people," but nothing in Objectivism seeks to avoid normative procedures of reasoned discussion, since these can be derived from the intellectual virtues and the laws of logic.

This is a great example of certain Objectivists' impotent debate tactics. You call him insane (not a valid argument against his point), you say he's wrong because he's "divorced his mind from reality" (not a valid argument against his point), then you just link to the lexicon (which doesn't really help, since you don't do anything to explain how these writings bears on his point), then, the ultimate insult, compare him to the nefarious Immanuel Kant, fit with lexicon link and waxing poetically against the "Kantian world" we live in. What Jacob is doing is arguing against a straw man of Objectivism from a Humean position on the foundations of knowledge, it's not "insane" or mentally ill, or anything else. Confused, yes, but this kind of argument from intimidation or hyperbole would not be tolerated in scholarly debate and would not do anything to fight against the anti-realist trend you complain about or to help advance Objectivism.

Just to save you some time, Jacob has explained his position throughout the thread (there's a post somewhere I'm sure summarizing his ideas), but the issue or disagreement seems to be over how anyone can justify that the law of identity applies to all things if you haven't seen all things in existence. Sort of like "how can an Objectivist say there are no people who are thirty feet tall unless you see all people in existence?" Whether his objections are sensible is a separate issue (and seem to me mostly missing how Objectivist episetmology even works).

Ron Paul would not agree with the idea that war is inherently extra-legal. No, he would likely say, there are laws on when we can be said to be at war or not, viz. Article I, Section 8, Clause 11 of the US Constitution. If treason be the crime, then that too is prosecutable under the law of the land. As to what court, this is a minor question. The Somali pirate, Abdiwali Abdiqadir, was tried in federal court in New York City, under Judge Mark Davis. Ron Paul might endorse a similar procedure. Is this unsatisfactory?

The US Constitution and US Code authorizes prosecution of piracy, acts of terrorism, and war crimes. Is this unsatisfactory? Again, Timothy McVeigh, "The Unabomber" Ted Kaczynski, even Hermann Göring, Rudolf Hess, or Martin Bormann (tried in absentia), all openly took part in "war" declared against the United States, and received trials (and no, to respond to Snerd's argument, they all weren't necessarily in custody, as indicated), and where the US military was put into action, Congress had time to and did declare war. Again, Ron Paul sponsored declarations of war, which were voted down. Again, Ron Paul also sponsored Letters of Marque and Reprisal, as per the Constitution, treating the Sept. 11 attacks as acts of "air piracy" and war crimes, against Al-Qaeda and other terrorist organizations, which were voted down.

Ron Paul simply opposes the idea that American citizens can be taken out on the President's say-so alone. What is needed is a Congressional declaration of war, thus statutorily putting the US at war, Letters of Marque and Reprisal, or a federal trial. In short, Ron Paul simply wants to law to be followed. Now, as Objectivists, why should we prefer the status quo of Obama's decision to Ron Paul's decision?

If I can play Ron Paul's advocate here, I think his response would consist of questioning the legitimacy of H J Res 64 in 2001. It wasn't a legitimate declaration of war, it was an intentionally vaguely worded, open-ended proclamation that the Congress was handing over its war-making power to the executive, and hence it is unconstitutional. It gives the President ability to treat the military and intelligence agencies as his personal army, with its sweeping declaration of authority to kill any "persons" said (by whom?) to be engaged in "any future acts of international terrorism." After all, as Ron Paul points out, someone simply making his own personal gold coins was charged as a "terrorist" and imprisoned unjustly.

Moreover, Paul might say (I base this on his Fox interview with Cavuto below), Awlaki has never been shown to have "planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons." That's not even what the charges are, he was not involved at all. The attack then, was not legal, even pursuant to H J Res 64.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=agT4SlqLayU

To me the whole abortion debate is loaded with problems. For one thing the argument centers about the womans rights, but what of the man's rights? I believe that abortions are simply murder, to explain my reasoning:

Bacteria are considered living, therefore any single cell that is reproducing is considered living, therefore a fetus is alive.
A fetus is undeniably human. (as a species)
A fetus does not have a choice in becoming a fetus, it is forced into it by the mother and fathers actions.
Therefore a fetus is incable of violating a mothers right to her body, as she is responsible for it being there. (you may say in cases of rape that that is not her responsibility, but she could have prevented the pregnancy by taking contraceptive pills, something I believe is a pragmatic thing women should do just in case, and to manage PMS)
It is not like a mentally retarded individual firing a handgun in a mall, it is like kidnapping someone off the street, locking them in your basement, then claiming they are violating your property rights.
While a fetus may not be currently capable of rational thought, it will become capable.
Newborns are not capable of ration thought at the moment of birth, yet they will become capable of rational thought.
Disposing of a newborn is murder.
Therefore disposing of a fetus is murder.

There is also the issue that if a woman is in a consenting relationship with her partner, whether the partner should be allowed to prevent the abortion. I believe that if we are going to hold men responsible for their children through child support ( a broken system that needs a major overhaul) then they should be allowed to ensure they are born.

As for the example of a three year old with liver cancer, that is different as the government is compelling you to act, not preventing you from acting. Abortions are a conscious action to end the life of a human, not donating organs is a conscious inaction, which may not even result in the death of the individual. The difference between action and inaction is paramount here.

Yes. God.
Have I ever seen Him? Do I have empirical proof that He exists and that He doesn't have a cause?
No.
Do I need it?
No.

Instead of asking insinuating questions with vague implications of your approximate (but unspoken) epistemological laws, why not just STATE them in the open and accuse me of violating them?

Yes. God.
Have I ever seen Him? Do I have empirical proof that He exists and that He doesn't have a cause?
No.
Do I need it?
No.

Instead of asking insinuating questions with vague implications of your approximate (but unspoken) epistemological laws, why not just STATE them in the open and accuse me of violating them?

Take just a minute to THINK about the implications of what you're saying. If the laws of Identity, Non-Contradiction, & Excluded Middle do not hold on the God Level, then they do not hold, PERIOD. If the laws of logic do not hold, then nothing can be known with any amount of certainty. If nothing can be known with any amount of certainty, then neither can THAT be known. It is self-refuting. One need only step back from all the blinking lights (data) for a moment and do some basic elementary analysis to realize this.

Where did the energy come from? Did it cause itself to come into existence? In which case, is energy volitional?

Yes- you are stumbling onto something important. It's basic. But important.
At the end, you said "if we know that we can know something, that's also knowledge.." This is true.
Now, in order to be fully convinced that knowledge is possible, assume the opposite position:
"if we know that we CANNOT know something, that's also knowledge". Do you see how this position (that knowledge is impossible) is self-refuting?
This should help you to see why the ability to have knowledge is also axiomatic.

The "agnostics of truth" try to say "we cannot know anything for sure", while assuming that they CAN know THAT for sure.
In their guise of "humility" they are being extremely arrogant. They are implicitly saying that THEY ALONE have access to objective knowledge and that everyone else is "blind and confused".
If you've ever heard the analogy of the "elephant and blind men" this becomes very evident.

Here's my earnest effort to identify Jacob86's metaphysics:

God exists (He is who and what he is; he is sui generis) and is conscious (without a brain or sense organs, etc. — his consciousness is not consciousness as we humans know it, awareness of things, external things primarily, but of ourselves secondarily, mediated via sense organs, brains, nerves, etc). 

Originally, or previously, before everything else existed (as the universe or all of existence is currently), only God existed, and God was conscious only of himself. If and when God "thought" — "thought" for God is not like thought for us humans — to himself, "Existence exists," the thought referred only to himself. He was all of existence and he was all that he was conscious of.

Eventually, some time previous to now, God created the rest of existence, all of existence which is not himself, and he created all that is not himself out of nothing, out of non-existence, bringing into existence that which had not existed, creating it out of nothing, from non-existence, "ex nihilo." (God's creation is not like any other creation; it is not the creation of something from something else, but of something from nothing.)

Given that existents (things or entities) can only act in two fundamental ways: volitionally (not caused by anything beyond itself) or reactively (caused by the actions of other existents), without an initial action, a beginning action, an action possible only to a conscious existent, in this case necessarily the eternally existing God, there would be no action beyond his own actions. God created the rest of existence and then set it into motion. And, presumably, God acts to keep the universe (all existence) moving. Without God, presumably, the universe, or that part of existence which is not God, would come to a halt. God keeps it all going, and God can take it all away. All but himself; God is eternal and indestructible. His ex nihilo creations he can surely destroy, making them all nothing once again.

Currently, given God's eventual creation of the rest of existence (existence that is non-God) ex nihilo, the axiom "Existence exists" refers to God's existence as well as the rest of existence which God created from nothing. "Existence exists" now refers to the eternal God and God's ex nihilo creations.

God then is the primary, eternal existent, the eternally existent creator (being eternal, God did not create himself) of all else that exists, and God, of necessity, is the prime mover, the primary motive power of the universe. He is the prime mover of himself by his own volitional choice, and he is the prime mover of all the rest of the universe which he created ex nihilo by his own volitional choice as well. All else, beyond God, which God created ex nihilo, acts in reaction to God's primary and volitionally chosen action(s).

The universe as it were is metaphorically a billiard table with a fresh rack of billiard balls. God created the balls, the table, the cue sticks, etc. ex nihilo, and then God, by his own volitional choice, took the break shot with an all-powerful force that set the rest of existence into motion, a motion that is still going strong (which certainly lends credibility to God's awesome and all-powerful role as the prime mover of existence).

God's existence does not require an explanation because God is the eternal existent, the uncaused cause of all else, the primary existent that exists eternally. What God has created out of nothing, surely he has the power to destroy. If he were to choose to do so, he could revert the universe, existence, back to the state of being solely that of his own existence with him being once again conscious of nothing but himself. (More awesome testament to God's all-powerful power, and his appreciation of his ex nihilo creation(s), with which he is content, at least sufficiently enough, to permit to continue to exist and remain in motion.)

Though God requires no explanation, all the rest of existence, which God created from nothing, ex nihilo, does require an explanation. That explanation is God's volition. God's volition is the cause for all else (beyond God) which exists as well as the cause of all action in existence, God's own volitionally chosen actions of his consciousness and the actions of all of his ex nihilo creations.

At the beginning of all of existence beyond God and the actions of all existence including God, there is God's volitional choice(s) to set everything into motion, himself as well as his ex nihilo creations — everything that is not God.

God is all-powerful, and yet God cannot contradict the fundamental laws of existence: Identity, Causality and Consciousness.

However, God can create something from nothing, from non-existence, ex nihilo, and God is conscious without having a brain or material means of consciousness. His consciousness is not limited by means, and God is omniscient (although Jacob86 has not, to my knowledge, yet stated this, I assume he holds this view). God is conscious of existence — he is conscious of his own eternal existence, and he is conscious of all that he has created ex nihilo.

Every thing is what it is (Identity) and acts in accord with its identify (Causality). Consciousness is consciousness (awareness) of existence. These laws of existence are inherent in existence and universally apply. God cannot contradict these laws. God is who he is, the primary existent and primary motive power of existence (by his voluntary choice). Although God is all-powerful, God's power cannot contradict the laws of existence. He is what he is; he acts in accord with his identity; he is conscious of existence (of his own eternal existence as well as his ex nihilo creations).

The essential argument (validation) that necessitates this metaphysics, according to Jacob86, if I understand correctly, is his claim that there cannot be a series of actions (reactions) going back to infinity, that a series of actions presupposes a beginning, a first action. Without such a beginning, without a prime mover, we would have a claim of an infinite regress of actions, a logical impossibility. The beginning then of all series of actions (of all actions indeed), directly or indirectly, is God's primary choice to act: to be conscious and to create all the rest of existence (beyond himself) ex nihilo and to also set his creation(s) into action or motion. The rest, as they say, is history.

Ex nihilo creation, Jacob86 apparently does not consider to be a contradiction of existence. Consciousness without a brain he apparently also does not consider to be a contradiction of existence. A series of actions without a beginning, he does hold to be a contradiction of existence — there cannot exist a series of actions without a first action, and there cannot be a first action without it being the action of a consciousness.

God then, according to Jacob86, is the primary existent and the prime mover of all existence, himself as well as his ex nihilo creation(s).

I do not know of ANY Theistic Philosopher who argued that "existence" as such requires a cause. I certainly have not. I do not know of any Theist who has argued that God was non-existent and created existence. I do not know of any sophisticated Theologian who ever claimed that "everything" requires a cause. I haven't read much of Aristotle first hand, but I would venture to guess that he didn't posit the ridiculous positions that are set up as strawmen among Objectivists. I know that Aquinas did not posit such ridiculous positions. And I know that I have not posited such ridiculous positions.
Branden's argument there (and the major Objectivist responses in this forum) are perfect in response to anyone who would like to posit that God is a non-existent being who caused existence as such based on the fact that existence as such and everything requires a causes.
Unfortunately, that position has NOT been presented here, or by any major Theistic philosopher in history. So I have NO clue who Objectivists are arguing against on that issue.

I will not answer this objection again until the objector can accurately repeat back to me MY position: that every action requires a cause and that a volitional actor is required to begin the chain of causation - NOT TO BEGIN EXISTENCE, but action/causation.
If you do not care to accurately understand my position, then don't bother responding to it.

1) As Dante pointed out, this definition of omnipotence is currently under discussion in this thread.
2) Allow me to demonstrate why:

This question essentially asks "Can an all-powerful being be not all-powerful?" Or "Can an all-powerful being have the "power" to make himself not all-powerful?"
The question (i.e. "refutation") is an inherent contradiction. "All-powerful" means the inability to lack a power.
If you want to equate "ability to be weak" with a "power" than you destroy the meaning of power and turn Objectivist ethics on its head.

1) As Dante pointed out, this definition of omnipotence is currently under discussion in this thread.
2) Allow me to demonstrate why:

This question essentially asks "Can an all-powerful being be not all-powerful?" Or "Can an all-powerful being have the "power" to make himself not all-powerful?"
The question (i.e. "refutation") is an inherent contradiction. "All-powerful" means the inability to lack a power.
If you want to equate "ability to be weak" with a "power" than you destroy the meaning of power and turn Objectivist ethics on its head.

I have read almost all of Rand's writing and had many discussions with various Objectivists which has led me to ask this question:
Do Objectivists consider themselves as distinct in any respect from Nominalism concerning concepts, etc..? If so, how?

(emphasis mine)

FYI, no major theologian has understood faith to be belief in the absence of evidence. Seriously. That's an artifact of people like the New Atheists.

According to Swinburne, there are three major conceptions of faith in the tradition of Christian theology: The Thomistic view, the Lutheran view, and the Pragmatic view.

According to Aquinas, faith is "a form of mental certitude about absent realities that is greater than opinion and less than scientific knowledge." Let me explain - the idea here is not that you believe something without a good reason to believe it is true.

The distinction between opinion and scientific knowledge, for Aquinas, works like this. You have opinions about matters of fact when you don't know the principles that make them true. (For example, a caveman would know that a rock would fall when he dropped it without knowing the principles of physics. The caveman would therefore have a mere opinion that the rock would fall when he dropped it, in Aquinas' sense.) You have scientific knowledge about a matter of fact when you do know the principles behind it. (For example, a modern physicist would have scientific knowledge that a rock would fall when he dropped it.)

Faith in the Thomistic conception is different from either opinion or scientific knowledge. You first get some good reason to think that God exists, then you get some good reason to think that God informed the world of such and such a proposition. Your certitude of that proposition is then justifiedly higher than in the case of a proposition that you only have an opinion about, because you trust in God's goodness.

Notice that Thomistic faith in a proposition is not even possible in the absence of a good reason to believe that God exists and that the proposition is true.

The Lutheran view of faith is similar to Thomistic faith, but it adds to the Thomistic conception a certain trust in God as a person. The Pragmatic view cuts out the belief element of faith altogether, and merely requires that you trust God. Neither of these involves believing things for no good reason.

I'm not convinced that some of the contributors to this thread have studied the worldview that they are criticizing. That's not a good thing, especially when you are claiming to have refuted the worldview in question.

It is baffling to me that Objectivists are incapable of seeing the horrendous error in equating "inability" to "ability" and "weakness" to "strength".

Your argument basically says that in order for a being to be all powerful, He must have the "power" to possess a weakness. In order for Him to be able to do all things, He must have an inability. This is so absurdly altruistic. Strength does NOT require weakness. Ability does not require inability.

The "ability" to posess an inability is NOT an ability. The "ability" to be weak is NOT a strength. It is a weakness.

An omnipotent being could not do any of the things listed in all of your silly objections because all of those things are weaknesses, inabilities, deprivations. An omnipotent being is not "able" to be non-omnipotent; and the inability to be non-omnipotent is NOT a weakness, but a strenght. The inability to be weak is NOT a weakness.
If you wish to argue otherwise, then I cannot fathom how you can separate yourself from the envious, sniveling, altruistic, greatness-haters running rampant in the world.

It is baffling to me that Objectivists are incapable of seeing the horrendous error in equating "inability" to "ability" and "weakness" to "strength".

Your argument basically says that in order for a being to be all powerful, He must have the "power" to possess a weakness. In order for Him to be able to do all things, He must have an inability. This is so absurdly altruistic. Strength does NOT require weakness. Ability does not require inability.

The "ability" to posess an inability is NOT an ability. The "ability" to be weak is NOT a strength. It is a weakness.

An omnipotent being could not do any of the things listed in all of your silly objections because all of those things are weaknesses, inabilities, deprivations. An omnipotent being is not "able" to be non-omnipotent; and the inability to be non-omnipotent is NOT a weakness, but a strenght. The inability to be weak is NOT a weakness.
If you wish to argue otherwise, then I cannot fathom how you can separate yourself from the envious, sniveling, altruistic, greatness-haters running rampant in the world.

A few respondents seem to be assuming that one can simply look at the term "all powerful" to divine its meaning. The reasoning seems to go like this: "the phrase 'all powerful' includes the word 'all,' so it must mean the ability to do absolutely all things, including contradictory things."

Well, you can't do that. If you don't want to create a straw man, you have to look at what theologians have said about the concept of "all powerful." The term has a technical meaning in Christian philosophy.

I think that most people know this, so I'm not sure why you have chosen to address a concept of "all powerful" that very few theologians have held to.