- This topic has 1 reply, 2 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Question Page 5 – How does existence not specify the existence of a physical world? I would think physical existence and physical world are synonymous.
𝗨𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀Question Page 9 – Are post-Aristotelian anti-axiomatics really beneath savages? In what sense? Does this relationship carry through all the way up to those who accept all truths in objectivism but cherry pick one to contradict, and isn’t that problematic? Interesting that on page 15 she refers to such sophisticates as “worse philosophic offenders,” which is much more delineated, and more comprehensible to me because it suggests that someone might be better company than a savage, but in some discreet way catastrophically wrong on a philosophic idea.
𝗨𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀Question Page 11 – If an axiom is an concept that people have to use in order to reject, isn’t capitalism an axiom because people need to use its results in order to deny its benefits? While we’re at it, is time an axiom because you have to use it in order to deny it? Is free will?
𝗔𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿: 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗻𝗲𝗲𝗱 𝘁𝗼 𝘂𝘀𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝗰𝗲𝗽𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝘆 𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗳𝘂𝗻𝗱𝗮𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗮𝗹 𝗾𝘂𝗮𝗹𝗶𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗮𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮𝗻 𝗮𝘅𝗶𝗼𝗺. 𝗔𝘅𝗶𝗼𝗺𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗼𝘀𝗲 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗔𝗟𝗟 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀, 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝗶𝗰𝗶𝘁 𝗶𝗻 𝗮𝗻𝘆 𝗼𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝘀𝘁𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗺𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗡𝗼𝘁𝗲: 𝗣𝗶𝗲𝗸𝗼𝗳𝗳 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲𝘀 𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗺 𝗽𝗼𝘀𝗶𝘁𝗶𝘃𝗲𝗹𝘆 𝗶𝗻 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗰𝗵𝗮𝗽𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗶𝗿𝘀𝘁, 𝗮𝗻𝗱 𝗽𝗿𝗼𝗰𝗲𝗲𝗱𝘀 𝘁𝗼 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗹𝗮𝘁𝗲𝗿 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝘁𝗵𝗶𝘀 𝗿𝗲𝗮𝘀𝗼𝗻. 𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗽𝗼𝗹𝗲𝗺𝗶𝗰𝘀 𝗮𝗿𝗲 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘁𝗵𝗲 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗼𝗻.Question Page 11 – Do those who deny the three fundamental axioms ultimately need to be dealt with by force, or are there ways to rationally persuade someone without establishing the fundamentals?
𝗨𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀Question Page 13 – Is General Motors a “solid object with a perceivable shape?”
𝗔𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿: 𝗘𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗻𝗼𝘁 𝘀𝘆𝗻𝗼𝗻𝘆𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝗮𝘀 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝟭𝟯 𝗺𝗶𝗴𝗵𝘁 𝘀𝗲𝗲𝗺 𝘁𝗼 𝗶𝗺𝗽𝗹𝘆. 𝗡𝗲𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗲𝗿 𝗶𝘀 𝗶𝘁 𝘀𝘆𝗻𝗼𝗻𝘆𝗺𝗼𝘂𝘀 𝘄𝗶𝘁𝗵 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁. 𝗜𝗻 𝗜𝗧𝗢𝗘 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗶𝘀 𝗱𝗲𝗳𝗶𝗻𝗲𝗱 𝗮𝘀 “𝗮 𝘀𝗲𝗹𝗳-𝘀𝘂𝗳𝗳𝗶𝗰𝗶𝗲𝗻𝘁 𝗳𝗼𝗿𝗺 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝗰𝗲” 𝗮𝘀 𝗮𝗽𝗮𝗿𝘁 𝗳𝗿𝗼𝗺 𝗮𝘁𝘁𝗿𝗶𝗯𝘂𝘁𝗲𝘀 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝗶𝗲𝘀, 𝘄𝗵𝗶𝗰𝗵 𝗮𝗴𝗮𝗶𝗻 𝘀𝗼𝘂𝗻𝗱𝘀 𝗹𝗶𝗸𝗲 𝗼𝗯𝗷𝗲𝗰𝘁 𝘁𝗼 𝗺𝗲, 𝗯𝘂𝘁 𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗰𝗲 𝘁𝗵𝗮𝘁 𝗼𝗻 𝗽𝗮𝗴𝗲 𝟭𝟯 𝗵𝗲 𝘀𝗮𝘆𝘀 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗺𝗮𝘆 𝗯𝗲 𝗨𝗦𝗘𝗗 𝗜𝗡 𝗩𝗔𝗥𝗜𝗢𝗨𝗦 𝗖𝗢𝗡𝗧𝗘𝗫𝗧𝗦 𝘁𝗼 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗲 𝗮 𝘃𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀. 𝗚𝗲𝗻𝗲𝗿𝗮𝗹 𝗠𝗼𝘁𝗼𝗿𝘀 𝗶𝘀 𝗮 𝗹𝗲𝗴𝗮𝗹 𝗲𝗻𝘁𝗶𝘁𝘆 𝗱𝗲𝗻𝗼𝘁𝗶𝗻𝗴 𝗮 𝘃𝗮𝘀𝘁 𝗮𝗿𝗿𝗮𝘆 𝗼𝗳 𝗲𝘅𝗶𝘀𝘁𝗲𝗻𝘁𝘀.Question Page 15 – How can a corollary be considered self-evident if it ‘depends on an antecedent context,’ and is ‘not self-evident apart from the principle at its root.’ Sounds like… evident.
𝗨𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀Question Page 22 – Are there issues and times when it’s okay to go by what pretty much everyone says? (There are many topics and issues that I don’t take personal interest in where I default to consensus because I haven’t had the time to look into it.)
𝗨𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀Question Page 24 – How can objects (of human origin) not be metaphysically given? I understand an idea being non-absolute, but once the things is there, it’s there.
Continuing on page 25, is a wooden chair absolute or chosen? Intuitively, I would think it is an absolute.
𝗨𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀Question Page 26 – Does existence include consciousness, and if so, isn’t that monist? Isn’t that a good thing?
𝗨𝗻𝗮𝗻𝘀𝘄𝗲𝗿𝗲𝗱 𝗱𝘂𝗲 𝘁𝗼 𝘁𝗶𝗺𝗲 𝗰𝗼𝗻𝘀𝘁𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝘁𝘀Page 5 question – “existence” says something exists but nothing at all about the identity of the something. Page 24 question – “metaphysically given” means the thing necessarily exists ie is not the product of volition. Objects which are the product of a volitional consciousness (eg chair) do not necessarily exist ie they are the product of choices which could have been different. Page 22 question – it would depend on whether you judge that “everyone” is generally correct in what they say and whether you have any evidence that the common belief is wrong. For example, I accept the common belief among scientists that the surface of our moon is mostly dust. Scientists are generally correct and I have no evidence to the contrary about the moon’s surface.
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.