Just Joined

[editorgialis]

In my case Editorgial is the name and |1| - |-1| = ? is the game, LOL. Excuse my copying of Dustin's rhyme. I am learning English fot the time being, and tend to use newly appointed words and phrases.

Words simply said- hardly understood is my primary "bible" as am used to interact with minds without reason!

I am currently an Economics student in some University. I work as a strategy developer/manager of a tiny Hotel in Southern Pelloponeese which i happen to own up to a certain percent. I temporarily reside within the borders of Cambridgeshire in the United Kingdom.

My birth took place on the 4th of February in 1984.

My religious beliefs will be introduced through the respective threads. In any case, I am not an atheist nor a theist. I am not an Agnosticist nor a Gnostic.

My moto comes from Socrates's argument during his trial on the Aryo Pago(Supreme Court of Athens)

"En oida oti ouden oida"

Translation:

I know one "thing", that i know nothing.

Just for info the above argument does not justify Agnosticism, it just reasons the multilateralism of logical argumentation.

My origins are from Athens Greece, the primary source of logical reasoning, as far as i am concerned.

My interent attributes are fairly new, hence my absence from objectively fair Internet communities such as Objectivism online.

I am not fully aware of the Objectivist philosophy and the propable wisdom of Ayn Rand.

As you might have noticed my objective features source from my Hellenic ancestors and their work on the matter as well as from Pythagorian geometry and the basic calculus which i was introduced during my high-school years and continued their applications up to this moment.

Ambitions:

- Secure a fairly reasonable income through the virtues of capitalism.

- Maintain my Objectivity as a human being till the end of my puny term on Earth.

And finally, the purpose of my existence:

Correlation of the square with the circle and vice versa up to the 99,9% level of significance.

Meaning, for those not aware with geometrical and statistical features, break down relatively-accustomed facts to absolutely-accustomed laws.

Editors Note:

I hope my contributions on this community will be, if not more than, equal to the contribution that the community abides.

P.S.: My registration came before my integration with the existing discussions. Possible mistake.

Sincerely Yours,

Editorgialis.

[editorgialis]

(This and a few other posts in this thread were moved from another thread to this one. - SoftwareNerd)

Welcome!

Love as you clarified is subjective as it is attributed by 2 or more consenting individuals. Nevertheless the subjectivity adhered should and can not cast love invalid as love is not bound to scientific measurements.

Edited May 27, 2005 by softwareNerd

[editorgialis]

As for the measurement of subjectivity, in my opinion, yes there is no absolute way of measuring it as there is no absolute about anything.

The purpose of objectivism, though, is to create a relatively(99%) virtual objective certainty since maths and statistics are not naturally able to go furtrher beyond this 99% point.

Likewise, if one manages to create a correlation of R^2 =1 which means a positive relationship between the Null hypothesis and the question posed. For example if the relationship of my subjectivity and my objectivity graphically equals to where the correlation coefficient is 1 there is a positive linear relationship and my subjective argument is equally objective.

The again if one wants to Test this positive realtionship on a certain degree of significance, the t and z statistics are available to justify both Hypotheses.

For more information on the matter, visit

http://www.cas.lancs.ac.uk/glossary_v1.1/car.html#pairsampt

for a basic glossary of statistical measurements and their applications

or more a bit more advanced statistical measurements visit:

http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~jhardin/applets/signed/LevelZ.html

press on the button to perform a simple test on the respective levels of significance.

If not aware of these measurements it will propably take you a while before realizing the full potential of such applications.

But anyway, these applications make it possible for us to produce arguments that can be 99% true, no more no less. They are also able to provide the user with some insight on the standard deviation and its potential source(external factors, 4-d uncertainty)

My english are not very good so if someone can summarize my basic points so that they are easier understood would be helpful.

[JMeganSnow]

Judging from your other posts, I would say that you definitely need to become acquainted with Ayn Rand's philosophy Objectivism before you make any more. It isn't necessary that you read her works, but that you familiarize yourself with the basic tenants.

Firstly: there is a very stringent distinction between capital-O Objectivism and small-o objectivism. There is no such thing as large-O Objectivity. Large-O Objectivism refers exclusively to Ayn Rand's philosophy of reality, reason, rights, and ABSOLUTES. Not 99% accuracy, ABSOLUTES. That, right there, is the most important thing for you to recognize right up front. Philosophy is not a game for approximating the truth. It is the way one defines what IS truth and your proper relationship to it. Small-o objectivism is a school of thought that considers concepts to have a relationship to reality IIRC. It is strictly an epistemological stance.

Secondly: agnosticism is an invalid philosophical position, and since you either ARE or ARE NOT a theist or an atheist, you've pronounced upon yourself the fact of your own non-existence, a blatant contradiction.

This is not a general philosophical discussion forum, in other words. Some ideas will not even be seriously considered as an approach to acquiring facts. Be aware of this and you will serve yourself better in the discussions.

Anyway, welcome to the forum. You seem to be doing fairly well with the English, although it could use some polish.

[editorgialis]

OK, if you had spent some time reading my introduction, you would see that am not aware of the Objectivism philosophy. And my intentions were not to speak for or against it.

The intention of my post was to show how objective, as in objective the word not the philosophical term, a person can be if he/she/it tries to use mathematical tools to enhance the objective certainty of his argumentation.

As far as the term objective is concerned the definition that i am aware of is when

"one's viewpoint it subjected to external reality and not his own biased reality."

How far ones reality and the "objective" reality goes i cannot elaborate on yet.

I see that i have a lot of studying ahead of to fully integrate with the above terms.

If you managed to understand my poor English, i believe you wouldnt have casted my post as "bull****", taking into account the "uneducated" mans' definition of truth, falsehood.

Why do the statistical proximity of truth is not fully grounded in reality and reason?

[JMeganSnow]

Statistics only have validity within certain specialized sciences and only within certain contexts. The same is true for mathematics; both are concepts of method. Facts don't have a statistical probability associated with them.

For example: It is a FACT, say, that 60% of Americans are overweight. This doesn't mean that it's 60% true that Americans are overweight. It's 100% true that 60% of Americans are overweight.

There may be a slight error factor depending on the way that the statistics were gathered, but if something is a fact it is 100% true.

Another example: you have an ice cream cone. What is the statistical probability that this is ice cream? Probability is an invalid concept when determining whether something is or is not ice cream.

[editorgialis]

Thank you for your brief insight on the matter and the Welcoming note.

[editorgialis]

Indeed propabilities power can be in no use to a newbie and of small dynamics even to an advanced user. However maths and statistics are currently used to produce True or False arguments within some certain context. It all begins with 1=1 not 2.

And can be extended to the infinite numbers. All assumptions(hypothesis) start within a basic context and evolve to more and more assumptions to create a fact, then a law then a constitution/religion or science.

You said they are concepts of method......meaning/so?

I hope that my ignorance on the matter of Objectivism the philosophy does not arise any ignorant questions as far as the use and importance of the natural sciences and their applications on developing, modifying, shaping philosophies at start and sciences next, is concerned.

As the science X is the derivative of the Philosophy X or X,Y,Z.

[editorgialis]

A "blatant contradiction" according to me can be regarded as a binary opposition to emphasize cynicism, the heart of Philosophical argumentation.

Philosophy:

Socrate's "maieytiki" ,"binary opposition" blatant contradiction" in your case gave birth to the official use of the term Philosophy, which then led to the birth of Science or Epistimology. Some others argue that the Miletians gave birth to philosophical matter as they tried to explain Nature through a logical perspective. Even so Philosophy the term is a term used to indicate ones pursuit for the absolute objective truth acquired through logical/mathematical reasoning.

"Heidegger put forth that the truer intention is rather the 'wisdom of love'."

What Heidegger possibly meant is very clear for a classically educated Greek.

Love in the Greek society was treated as "magnetism" or better the force that holds particles together or for a simple mind; GOD.

Love for the Greeks was an autonomous unique being Eros. They had anthropomorhized him as they had done with all the natural sciences so that it is easier to gather, manipulate and retrieve data about matter.

Being that as such the term philosophy(Heidegers wisdom of love) enables Philosophers to create assumptions about everything bind to the three Laws of Newton.

But even if we do not accept Heiddegers suggestion on "wisdom of love" the next best alternative "Love for wisdom" is bound again to the three natural laws of Newton; as wisdom can be acquired solely by trying to understand particles linked to each other and not unique absolutes, since no Hypotheses can take place.

Now Statistics and Maths examine Hypotheses, Philosophy depends on the Hypothetical assumptions as it is its base for debate.

On which part exactly my mathematical, hence scientifical, therefore philosophical assumptions on objectivism-without any external "philosophies" disturbing its dictionary meaning-do they not comply with?

I realized that this not a general philosophical forum, but it is one that debates on objectivity and its virtues.....aint that so?

[realitycheck44]

I realized that this not a general philosophical forum, but it is one that debates on objectivity and its virtues.....aint that so?

No, this is a forum that discusses Ayn Rand's philosophy, Objectivism, and it's application to different and current situations. I think that you have a very weird definition of reatity. There is only ONE. There is not one that you percieve and one that is "objective" (thus implying that yours is not somehow). A is A. There is only one reality that does not contradict itself EVER.

Also, your philosophy (implicit or explicit) is the way you view the world and thus the way you conduct scientific experiments. It is not the other way around. Scientific experiment, mathematics, etc, do not shape your philosophy.

Zak

[softwareNerd]

editorgialis replied as follows:

If there is only one "reality", then why the distinction between object and subject?

What you just suggested is that my "objective", reality is my subjective one? thus one and the same? If yes, can you please tell me how the subjective reality is always objective and vice versa?

Why when i know that X=10 after a series of calculations of variables, and someone else tells me that X=12 because he has used either different values on the variables or different variables.

Which X is true, which is false?

We are both subjective for we both have picked our variables and their respective values ourselves, but only one of our X's is either closer or equal to the relatively unique and relatively absolute "objective reality".