TTI Forums

Olek wrote: Now, what are you talking about with regards with Hume? Show me his words that you are using. Find them yourself. You specifically stated that your rule for sourcing was for Objectivist claims only. I'm not required to do anything in regards to Hume. As you have remarked to me on severa...

Arakasi Takeda wrote: Olek wrote: 1. Of course, Hume's problem is not a problem except for his own mental problems. (Is-ought problem was resolved by Ayn Rand long time ago.) As a further demonstration of Olek's absolute hypocrisy, he made the above claim of Rand without sourcing it. He won't even ...

Olek wrote: 1. Of course, Hume's problem is not a problem except for his own mental problems. (Is-ought problem was resolved by Ayn Rand long time ago.) As a further demonstration of Olek's absolute hypocrisy, he made the above claim of Rand without sourcing it. He won't even abide by his own rules...

It would appear that I have now received my first experience with Olek's double standard: From Private Message: As per forum section rule, I ask you to provide a citation and a quote of where you take point 1. Thanks. P.S. Until then this post was removed. Subject: Absolute Truth Quote: Quote: Olek ...

Olek wrote: This reminds me of a time when my philosophy teacher in college introduced Hume's "problem" in a class. He went of course with blah-blah-blah, and everyone in class sits like a rabbit scared to make a noise, and just takes it in.... As amusing as laughing at your teachers may ...

So, in working through the epistomologies with Tolthar, I believe I have 'diagnosed' his particular position - I submit the following for him to consider. What you are engaging in is called Inductivism in philosophy. Inductivism is defined thus: The claim that inference in accordance with some versi...

Arakasi Takeda wrote: that Knowledge is a statement or concept, arrived at through induction or deduction by an observer, but which also contains an element of truthfulness. By truthfulness I mean "corresponding directly to an observation, or arrived at through deduction from a direct observat...

Tolthar wrote: First need to clarify. I am aware that you said that you think the opposite. What I am saying, however, is that your method accepts the platonic concept of truth, and then tries to approach it, but knowing that you never will. I still don't understand where you are drawing this infer...

Tolthar wrote: Knowledge is just some fact, reached through either induction, or using deduction on some induction. And all this process of reason implies an observer. Knowledge can not exists without someone to have that knowledge. It probably depends on what you mean by 'fact' in the above, but I...

So, AT, according to your views of what we can be certain of: that we can't be certain of truth but can be certain of falsehood, the following passage makes sense? "I'm not sure if I'm a human but I'm sure I'm not a donkey." No - falsification is not 'falsehood', as you are using it. It h...

The only meaningful question here is #4. I will clarify the reasoning behind this but not for AT, b/c I don't think he'll understand me anyway. I am indeed stating that statements for or against Objectivism will have a higher standard that claims against other philosophies, with exception of maybe ...

I don't know why AT needs secrecy There was no need or intent for secrecy - just appropriateness. Since my questions were specific to how you would exercise your authority as a moderator, I felt the questions were more appropriately directed to you . I decided after typing out my response that it w...

Message deleted - sent PM to the administrator instead.

AT

AT, a person interested in a discussion about some topic makes it their business to know what they are talking about. Instead, you are trying to talk (I mean refute) Objectivism, without having a damn clue what it is. There is not a single post when you do not make fabricated assumptions about Obje...

Quote: One and only rule: Do not make claims that Objectivism says something without a direct quote from one of Objectivist works. Does this rule stand for just Objectivism, or will it be applied to all philosophical counter-arguments? In other words, if you claim that something from 'Popper, Kant,...

Before going further, Tolthar, I need an 'epistomological clarification' of my own from you. 1) How are you defining the word 'Knowledge' in the context of this discussion. 2) You hold that induction is of equal 'value' to deduction - (by which you seem to imply utility). From that, can I assume tha...

Value to who? If its value to me, then I'd say that I use the knowledge gained from induction greatly! Value here is not a measure of utility, as you are using it. By value we mean 'truth value' - is a statement true or false, in the Aristotliean mode. The truth value of the statement "The sun...

I would have to ask you this: Accurate by what standard? By your own, of course. The contention is that induction can lead to certain and true knowledge, just as deduction can. I therefore want you to create, via induction only, a certain and true knowledge of the sun. Your daily observations of th...

reject that usage outright as well. Its a false concept that doesn't fit to reality. The difference is: I then don't use the false concept to explain other concepts. If a concept is not practical, then it shouldn't be used. But you seem to be using it to explain your point (like you do in all the f...

I think I see my problem with your epistemology, at least more explicitly now.... Plato, as you probably know, had his concept of 'The Forms'. He said that perfect concepts exists in some alternate reality not perceivable by humans. So while someone can strive for perfection, they can never reach i...

Oleksandr wrote: blah, blah, blah..... Seriously Olek, there's nothing in your post worth answering. You couldn't argue your way out of a paper bag, so you'll forgive me if I take zero stock of your valuation of my arguments. Every conversation we have ends in an insult and a threat from you. Your ...

After reading enough of this thread and your posts it is pretty obvious to me that your purpose here is to prove (maybe to yourself) that all those who "follow" Ayn Rand are blind believers who do not use reason but faith, and that her philosophy is full of contradictions. Perhaps it give...

Tolthar wrote: Okay, so if I lift a rock, and drop the rock, it would be wrong of me to say "I absolutely DID drop that rock."? I suppose that would depend on how you were using the word 'absolutely' in this context, and how far back the logic chain you wanted to go. To explain: 1) Using ...

Tolthar wrote: I think a better way of saying this is: Objectivism uses the word for its logical meaning. Kant's has no meaning that fits to reality. It's a better way to say it within your philosophical framework , you mean. Kant believed his version was very logical, reasonable, and 'fit with rea...

Sophid take note - Outsider wrote: Proving contradictions is the fuel of self-esteem of bad philosophers. No one here would appreciate that sort of thing, except, maybe, Arakasi Takeda. Again, the first direct interaction between myself and another poster on this forum - Outsider - and he/she chose...