About
Content
Store
Forum

Rebirth of Reason
War
People
Archives
Objectivism

Post to this threadMark all messages in this thread as readMark all messages in this thread as unreadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


Post 40

Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 6:30pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
Then that must make it how bald bis Nick is...... ;-)

I don't see an argument there. Do you ever write more than one line?

Post 41

Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 7:46pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
bis bald:
Objectivists also say they believe in freedom. Rand said man has free-will. Yes, they also believe in causation and an objective reality which cannot be controlled by man. They believe in immutable laws of logic and physics, but they also believe in free-will because Rand said entites cause things, and this somehow fits in, self-evidently, with thier other beliefs.
"Yes, they also believe in causation and an objective reality which cannot be controlled by man." How is this supposed to be an argument against Objectivism? No Objectivist believes that one can change reality but we can use free will to work within reality to accomplish our dreams and ambitions.

"Rand said entites (sic) cause things." Did she? Where? What does a rock cause?

How are we supposed to take you seriously?

Sam


Post 42

Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 8:04pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
tis bald:

Just read your comment on post #15 on the A Few of Rand's Contradictions thread where you say:
Tell me exactly where you think I misrepresented Rand and prove it.
Well, I don't think that Rand ever said that entities cause things — and I think that the statement is more than a misrepresentation. But I can't prove that she never said it because I can't prove a negative.

Sam


Post 43

Saturday, August 19, 2006 - 10:37pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit

Well, I don't think that Rand ever said that entities cause things — and I think that the statement is more than a misrepresentation. But I can't prove that she never said it because I can't prove a negative.

 

Check Galt’s Speech in For the New Intellectual, 188; pb 151. Or, check page 64 n the Ayn Rand Lexicon, the first entry under Causality. It says:

 

The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. All actions are caused by entities. The nature of an action is caused and determined by the nature of entities that act; a thing cannot act in contradiction to its nature…

 

Then check “The Metaphysical Verses the Man-Made.” PWNI, 38;pb31, or page 179 in the Ayn Rand Lexicon, under free-will:

 

What the unalterable basic constituents are to nature, the attribute of a volitional consciousness is to the entity “man.”

 

Peikoff says, in The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy,” ITOE, 149:

 

Volition is not an exception to the Law of Casualty; it is a type of causation.

 

Okay, are you going to concede, Sam. I think it would be the honest thing to do.


Post 44

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 6:44amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
bis bald:

You are just being obtuse. Your statement, "Entities cause things" implies that all entities have the capacity to cause things. Rand's statement, "All actions are caused by entities" doesn't imply that a rock can change anything.

Sam


Post 45

Sunday, August 20, 2006 - 9:49amSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
You are just being obtuse. Your statement, "Entities cause things" implies that all entities have the capacity to cause things. Rand's statement, "All actions are caused by entities" doesn't imply that a rock can change anything.

No, Sam, I didn't say "all" entites cause things. If only "some" entities cause things, then the statement "entities cause things" is accurate. The implication that I meant all entities cause things is coming from you and being projected onto my words. It isn't objectively there. The only difference between "All actions are caused by entities," and "Entities cause all actions," is that the later is more concise. You are trying to weasel your way out of admitting that you were wrong, Sam. You shame yourself.

Please don't make fun of my signiture of "bis bald."

Nick


Post 46

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 2:54pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
If Descartes set the tone for modern metaphysics, then modern metaphysics was in a whole heap of trouble from the beginning.  I mean, even the short summary of his "starting points" and reasoning methods is a small bit of insight into how his system of philosophy is doomed, and how those taking a cue from his approach were likewise doomed.  The brief history of modern philosophy given in Mr. Otani's article shows just how much a wild, unintegrated mess it all has been.

It's not clear that Descartes and those proceeding in the same path learned anything at all from the ancients and particularly Aristotle.  The only major modern that seemed to be significantly familiar with Aristotle was Hegel, and that's not to say that Hegel took Aristotelian-influenced ideas in a positive direction.


Post 47

Monday, August 21, 2006 - 6:06pmSanction this postReply
Bookmark
Link
Edit
It's hard to agree or disagree with your observations here, Chris. They are so general as to not be very meaningful. In what way is Descartes's system doomed and modern philosophy likewise doomed? In what way was Hegel familiar with Aristotle? Can you develop your thought a little?

bis bald,

Nick

(Edited by Mr. Nicholas Neal Otani on 8/21, 6:07pm)


Post to this threadBack one pagePage 0Page 1Page 2


User ID Password or create a free account.