Hi

Introductions and Personal Notes
1

Hi I’m an undergraduate attending Universtity of Toronto but I’m from New York. I wouldn’t call myself an Objectivist, but I share many Objectivist views (minimal government, atheism, raw hatred for hippies and environmentalism, existence exists, etc.), most of which were formed before I really became familiar with Ayn Rand’s works (only a couple months ago). Im not an Objectivist because I view it as an incomplete philosophical system, but I believe its a good approximation of one. Furthermore I think we can mutually benefit from trading ideas. And, I find Rand’s work to be refreshing considering its accessibility versus the mass of modern philosophical garbage I have unfortunately witnessed firsthand(I attended art school for a while). If any of you are good Objectivists and wish to debate me on whether Objectivism is a closed system, that would be interesting- but really I’m looking for some pure philosophical discussion, especially metaphysics, religion, human destiny, art, mathematics.

Some philosophers/artists I respect: Aristotle, Newton, Gadamer, Bergson, Popper/Poussin, Redon, Turner, Renoir, Rubens.

philosophers/artists I hate: Plato, Kant, Marx, Hegel, Nietzsche, Derrida, Wittgenstein/Marcel Duchamp, Pollack, Dali, Picasso, post-Marcel Duchamp(with few exceptions).

My own views are based on these assumptions (in a nutshell):

the utimate basis of reality is time(defined as pure change).

time is indistinguishable from the mathematical one.

and from that:

complexity cannot be posited independent of time.

(2 presupposes 1)

so I agree with Aristotle in the necessity of an original cause. And then from that- reality is one, the ultimate value is the future, reason is the ability to control the future and comprehend time, temporal definitions are always the most basic and accurate, Being is only time in disguise (first cause). Actions speak louder than words.

2

My own views are based on these assumptions (in a nutshell):

the utimate basis of reality is time(defined as pure change).

time is indistinguishable from the mathematical one.

and from that:

complexity cannot be posited independent of time.

(2 presupposes 1)

so I agree with Aristotle in the necessity of an original cause.  And then from that- reality is one, the ultimate value is the future, reason is the ability to control the future and comprehend time, temporal definitions are always the most basic and accurate, Being is only time in disguise (first cause). Actions speak louder than words.

:smiley:

This is a good example of why one’s views shouldn’t rest ultimately on assumptions. :confused:

Welcome to the board, though.

3

:smiley: Hey AshRyan I’m curious to know what your views ultimately rest on if they’re facts? Perhaps you misunderstand me? Try looking up assume in the dictionary. The fifth or sixth definition is " to take for granted, suppose". I can safely assume any fact, and that says nothing about whether it is a fact or not. I can safely assume that 2+2 =4. This is what I meant. In as logical system, you always proceed from axioms and deduce conclusions. The only ultimate source of your axioms is your senses, and you assume them to be true. Whats the proof for your senses? There is none, because your senses are the standard for proof. I realize that my Ideas may be strange to you (as many people think of yours), but I give you my word (and anyone else) that I will rationally consider anything you have to say and admit it if you ever SHOW me to be false. I only ask that you don’t ASSUME you can predict me.

4

The only ultimate source of your axioms is your senses, and you assume them to be true. Whats the proof for your senses? There is none, because your senses are the standard for proof.

I agree with this much of what you said. However, the word “assume” has the connotation of supposing something just for the sake of convenience–and that is not what you are doing by using sense perception as the standard of proof. Just because you can’t “prove” their content, doesn’t mean that you can’t know whether they are valid and must just “assume” it.

I may still be misunderstanding you, and that might not be what you mean. However, given some of your assumptions that you listed, I’m wondering what their basis in sense perception is.

5

I ask you this, did the word really have that connotation within my context, or did you perhaps translate it to have that connotation? Perhaps I should have anticipated such an interpretation. Perhaps you should just have said that you don’t believe they have any basis in sense perception. Such an interpretation is understandable, and I am obliged to defend my somewhat peculiar assumptions, as you demand of me. I might also add that I take any evidence of my senses into account (except for when I have reason to believe they are being decieved) and I always find I can reconcile them with these ideas.

Let me explain briefly why I take the 1 to be ontologically primordial to the 2:

2 = 1+1.

It means that I can rationally posit a one without positing a two: but the opposite is impossible.

i can say:

2 exists -> 1 exists

because a 2 defined as an abstraction of 2 observed objects, each is a unit.

but the converse is not true:

1 exists -> 2 exists

because I would need 2 or more simultaneous instances of 1.

So therefore in any universe where a 1 and a 2 exist, then logically the 2 must have been made from the one, and time must have coexisted with the one(or else the state of existence could not change). Now let there exist time, and let there exist 1 (this is like saying there’s only one object in the universe). Then the universe has 2 aspects, and I contradict myself (or if you like, how could time pass without difference?). so it must be true that time = 1 (or the 1 is just another way of thinking about time- which is understandable considering its the most basic thing in the universe).

Think about it: all objects except for a purely undifferentiated universe are made of simpler objects. Why? Objects are in fact equivalent to motions (E=mc2). The creation of a complex object requires simpler parts that are recombined in a novel way. Any complex object will involve difference. Unless you say the object is eternal and transcendent, it must have been made from simpler parts. Aristotle thought about this too, thats why temporal ideas such as the original cause are so prominent in his work.

think of any great discovery, calculus for example. Careful analysis will reveal that the discovery is great because it constitutes a fuller understanding of time (more and more purely as the subject matter becomes basic), the original element of the universe.

Consider Platonism. Plato is my arch enemy, because his entire philosophy rests on the principle that time is an illusion. His philosophy was ghastly wrong because it posited complex forms outside of time. Its a pure negation of reality. Its like chopping up a body and putting the pieces on display, and saying each piece existed before the body did.

I’m not trying to undermine reality, just trying to purify it. Though its true we don’t step in the same river twice (in a sense), that doesn’t give us sanction to believe the river does not exist, because time is the ultimate measure of reality, the definition of existence.

Good job unmasking The Ghost of David Hume, hopefully he won’t be haunting you anymore. Its all in good fun.

6

Is it me or is meade failing to make logical connections between his ideas? (I know he is not actually answering questions asked of him). His statements are simply becoming bizarre and his paragraphs seem to make assumptions that are not explained anywhere.

7

Please clarify and give examples, RedCap. Its not good manners to so viciously denounce a man without evidence. Or perhaps your basis of truth is social agreement, thus the appeal to your buddies (is it just me?). What assumptions? What failed logical connections? AshRyan asked what my basis in sense perception was. It wasn’t a very specific question, because the sensual evidence spans my entire lifetime. I elaborated to argue that my assertions were true. 1 comes before 2. A universe containing one element is an undifferentiated whole. Complex objects are made of simpler ones. This is really trivial stuff. Perhaps it seems that I am not making logical connections because you are unconsciously refusing (i hope) to make them yourself. As with AshRyan, I am fully prepared to admit I am wrong if you show me to be. Of course, that is impossible if you already assume I can’t understand what you say or i’m not worth the effort, but in that case please note that I am at least paying you that respect. And I might ask you (as I asked Ash) to express your own assumptions and given comparable evidence for them.

8

Meade - I was not speaking to you. I was speaking to my fellow posters here. And the point of my post was to ascertain if I was correct in my assesment of your posts or if I was missing some major connections somewhere.

I await their responses.

9

Is it me or is meade failing to make logical connections between his ideas?  (I know he is not actually answering questions asked of him).  His statements are simply becoming bizarre and his paragraphs seem to make assumptions that are not explained anywhere.

Earlier this year, I was watching the sequel to the Matrix. I unsuccessfully tried to follow the philosophy presented in the film, when I realized that it wasn’t that I wasn’t bright enough to follow it, but that it was pure gibberish meant to impress your average moviegoer. Since then, I’ve come to the conclusion that when I have no clue what someone is saying, it’s usually safe to assume that the speaker has no clue of what he’s saying either. I think that applies to this case as well.

10

Meade - I am willing to give you a bit more benefit of the doubt than some of my fellow posters. Let me address what exactly is wrong with some of your assumptions, and then I’ll see what you do with my explanations from there before I come to any conclusions about your rationality.

First, this:

Let me explain briefly why I take the 1 to be ontologically primordial to the 2:

2 = 1+1.

It means that I can rationally posit a one without positing a two: but the opposite is impossible.

i can say:

2 exists -> 1 exists

because a 2 defined as an abstraction of 2 observed objects, each is a unit.

but the converse is not true:

1 exists -> 2 exists

because I would need 2 or more simultaneous instances of 1.

The argument given here, which depends upon what you can rationally say, shows not that 1 is ontologically prior to 2, but rather epistemologically (with which I would agree). Whether it is in fact ontologically prior is a question that I don’t think philosophical speculation can answer. Only a more specialized science (probably physics) can answer what the ultimate constituents of the universe were–and there’s really no reason to think that it had to have only been one. Your argument certainly doesn’t establish that.

So therefore in any universe where a 1 and a 2 exist, then logically the 2 must have been made from the one, and time must have coexisted with the one(or else the state of existence could not change). Now let there exist time, and let there exist 1 (this is like saying there’s only one object in the universe). Then the universe has 2 aspects, and I contradict myself (or if you like, how could time pass without difference?). so it must be true that time = 1 (or the 1 is just another way of thinking about time- which is understandable considering its the most basic thing in the universe).

In fact, you have contradicted yourself here. You stated in your original post that “time” has to do with “change.” But change presupposes that which changes (since change is a relational concept). You can’t have “pure change” existing prior to anything else, as the primary element of the universe, or else what is it that’s changing? Do you see the mistake you’re making here? Entities are primary–their actions (i.e., changes) are dependent on them for their existence. I thought you considered yourself an Aristotelian, so this should sound very familiar to you.

Consider Platonism. Plato is my arch enemy, because his entire philosophy rests on the principle that time is an illusion. His philosophy was ghastly wrong because it posited complex forms outside of time. Its a pure negation of reality. Its like chopping up a body and putting the pieces on display, and saying each piece existed before the body did.

Actually, I think I detect a bit of a Platonist influence in your premises. I’m not sure, though–it’s apparent that you’ve been reading way too much Greek cosmology and that it’s influenced you a lot, but the exact influence is a bit difficult to place (but there’s definitely something besides Aristotelianism); maybe Pythagorean. Anyway, that’s not really important.

I’m not trying to undermine reality, just trying to purify it.

The problem is, you think that there’s some need to reduce reality to one ultimate element, and (incorrectly) decide it must be time. But philosophically, there’s really no reason to suppose that there are one or ten or a billion different elements. That’s a question for the specialized sciences to answer. Why exactly do you think that it’s philosophically relevent, anyway? How does your hypothesis about time=1 help you understand and guide your own life?

I think the problem is methodological:

I might also add that I take any evidence of my senses into account (except for when I have reason to believe they are being decieved) and I always find I can reconcile them with these ideas.

Just because you can reconcile your ideas to your sense experience, doesn’t mean that they’re true. Your ideas should be formed by a valid inductive process, starting with observation of reality. But what you seem to be doing is starting with some hypotheses that are only half based on perceptual evidence, and then looking at reality to see whether that evidence _dis_proves them. And if it doesn’t immediately or obviously do so, you take that as positive evidence for your hypotheses. But that’s epistemologically improper.

11

Ash

Just to clarify, I was not questioning his rationality. I was questioning his ability to communicate his ideas in a rational fashion.

12

the utimate basis of reality is time(defined as pure change).

“Time” as an entity doesn’t exist. Time is a measurement of the rotation of the earth (the break-down from day, to hour, to minute, to second), the revolution of the earth around the sun( the break-down from year, to month, to day) and the revolution of the moon around the earth (specifically months).

This is why “time travel” is not valid; there is no “time” to travel through.

Time is not “pure change” but a progression of mathematical precision.

13

“Time” as an entity doesn’t exist. Time is a measurement of the rotation of the earth (the break-down from day, to hour, to minute, to second), the revolution of the earth around the sun( the break-down from year, to month, to day) and the revolution of the moon around the earth (specifically months).

This is why “time travel” is not valid; there is no “time” to travel through.

Time is not “pure change” but a progression of mathematical precision.

I wouldn’t say that time is necessarily a measurement of the rotation of the earth. That’s just the standard unit by which we happen to measure it. Of course, our reasons for using that unit are objective–but presumably an intelligent species from another planet would use a different one (perhaps radically different). So it’s not quite right to chalk time up to that one specific phenomenon (the earth’s rotation), as you seem to be doing here.

14

I agree, my definition is from a distinctly human stand point.

In regards to a different race, the methodology may be different, but the fundamentals are the same: time isn’t an independently existing entity, its a system of measurement (of whatever).

15

I, too, took the Matrix to be philoso-babble at first. But I’ve been somewhat persuaded by an article in the school paper here that it is actually a strictly Gnostic film. The movie is definitely strange, but be careful about calling it gibberish. The same goes for people in this forum.