| Topic: |
Science > Philosophy |
| User: |
"Stephen Stink" |
| Date: |
01 Oct 2006 06:45:37 PM |
| Object: |
Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UiqEFwHne0
.
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
02 Oct 2006 02:52:08 AM |
|
|
Stephen Stink wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UiqEFwHne0
The Randaphobic retarded, reason abandoning intellectual brainwashed
collectivist's on here, chazzzzlost, kevirwinnn and Rogerrrr to name
but three, will be shitting in their pants with absolute fear right
about now.
Without any doubt, Ayn Rand was the greatest thinker and philosopher of
the 20 Century, a thinker, who the retards on here deliberately choose
not debate her ideas and instead, like the moronic cowards that they
are, attack her as a person.
For many of the posters at this group that will be their first exposure
to any of Rand's ideas.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
03 Oct 2006 03:33:16 PM |
|
|
wrote:
Stephen Stink wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UiqEFwHne0
The Randaphobic retarded, reason abandoning intellectual brainwashed
collectivist's on here, chazzzzlost, kevirwinnn and Rogerrrr to name
Hehehe - little Mikey has found a new word to describe people he
doesn't like!!!!
AH didums!
Without any doubt, Ayn Rand was the greatest thinker and philosopher of
the 20 Century, a thinker, who the retards on here deliberately choose
not debate her ideas and instead, like the moronic cowards that they
are, attack her as a person.
Your problem is that you have completely misunderstood her.
Her philosophy was bankrupt: little more than a wank fetish for teenage
rebels.
For many of the posters at this group that will be their first exposure
to any of Rand's ideas.
Just what is it that you think she said that was so fucking brilliant??
She was just product of her own bourgois upbringing. Her peasant
expoiting, jewish money lending family was booted out of Russia and her
response was an unfeeling right wing reaction and pathological distaste
of any politics to the left of Adolf Hilter. Lets remember how she
insisted that we should not have attacked Hitler or Japan. Her right
wing obsession drover her to such a stupid outlook: irrational and
stupid just like here followers who seem to ignore her pacifism against
right wing dictators.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
03 Oct 2006 04:27:24 PM |
|
|
chazwin wrote:
Context dropping moronic Randaphobic trash, back to the context chaz.
BTW Randaphobia and Randaphobic are words originated at this forum by
ME.
chazlost wrote
Ok chew on this. The statement I made corresponds with state-of-affairs
in which I have experienced via my senses that all those versions of
truth can be seen in everyday life.
Which of the many meanings of truth are you using for truth as you have
used it in that nonsense?
The world is still waiting for your answer chaz.
Hint, you can NOT use truth in ANY answer to the question;
Which of the many meanings of truth are you giving to truth, when you
say, *truth has many meanings*.
Hint, you can NOT use the word truth in your answer, you are required
to replace *truth* in the statement *there are many defintions of
truth* with the defintion you are using of truth.
Hint, I am being cruel, I am asking you to do the impossible, the
impossible because, it requires you to contradictict yourself, but I
will leave that a while longer to see if you can work that out for
yourself.
You see chaz, this is right back where we started and which you refuse
to finish and is where we can NOT continue past this point until there
is an agreement on a fundamental requirement in debating, i.e. common
ground for adjudication.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
03 Oct 2006 05:10:18 PM |
|
|
wrote:
chazwin wrote:
Context dropping moronic Randaphobic trash, back to the context chaz.
BTW Randaphobia and Randaphobic are words originated at this forum by wankers like me.
Okay - according to your version of truth show us all how you have
concluded the above?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
04 Oct 2006 02:07:12 AM |
|
|
chazwin wrote:
Okay - .........?
Okay - nothing egghead.
You are not even in the same universe as those who are capable of
asking questions let alone undertanding the validity of answers chaz,
so stop the silly Strawman nonsense and get back to the issue which you
have been avoiding since our very first exchanges.
The world is waiting, YOUR claim is *The truth has many meanings*
The question is, which of the *many meanings of truth* are used for
*truth* in YOUR claim that *the truth has many meanings*?
Michael Gordge
PS Haven't you stopped to wonder why all of the other Mystics
Platonians Russellians Poppereens Kantians are not even offering to
help you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
04 Oct 2006 12:22:52 PM |
|
|
wrote:
chazwin wrote:
Okay - .........?
Okay - nothing egghead.
You are not even in the same universe as those who are capable of
asking questions let alone undertanding the validity of answers chaz,
so stop the silly Strawman nonsense and get back to the issue which you
have been avoiding since our very first exchanges.
The world is waiting, YOUR claim is *The truth has many meanings*
I think you need to support your answer first. You have insisted that
"truth" has only one meaning. Are you changing your position on this?
Are you now saying that truth has many meanings as you rnext question
seems to imply that!
The question is, which of the *many meanings of truth* are used for
*truth* in YOUR claim that *the truth has many meanings*?
I already told you. CORRESPONDENCE from sensory data.
You are obviously having a problem. Why don't you open an fucking
philosophy book to find out what it means?
Michael Gordge
PS Haven't you stopped to wonder why all of the other Mystics
Platonians Russellians Poppereens Kantians are not even offering to
help you?
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
04 Oct 2006 05:32:16 PM |
|
|
chazwin wrote:
I think..........
Oh no you dont, and the evidence is overwhelming now that you do
nothing of the sort.
YOUR claim that STARTED this, so stop the silly Strawman nonsense.
YOUR claim IS, *the truth has many meanings* it is a very straigt
forward question; which of those many meanings for truth, that you
claim there are, are you using in YOUR claim that, *the truth has many
meanings*?
For someone as clever as you obviously like to think you are, then it
should be very very easy for you to replace the word *truth* - with its
meaning - in YOUR claim that *the truth has many meanings*
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
02 Oct 2006 09:00:12 AM |
|
|
wrote:
Stephen Stink wrote:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4UiqEFwHne0
The Randaphobic retarded, reason abandoning intellectual brainwashed
collectivist's on here, chazzzzlost, kevirwinnn and Rogerrrr to name
but three, will be shitting in their pants with absolute fear right
about now.
Without any doubt, Ayn Rand was the greatest thinker and philosopher of
the 20 Century, a thinker, who the retards on here deliberately choose
not debate her ideas and instead, like the moronic cowards that they
are, attack her as a person.
Well, I'm glad to know that I'm not one of those. I've written a
considerable amount on Ayn Rand's ideas. Interested readers are
referred to: http://tinyurl.com/mvjv8.
For many of the posters at this group that will be their first exposure
to any of Rand's ideas.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
02 Oct 2006 04:13:39 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Well, I'm glad to know that I'm not one of those. I've written a
considerable amount on Ayn Rand's ideas. Interested readers are
referred to: http://tinyurl.com/mvjv8.
Its a pity you didn't read with the intent to understand and learn
anything from Rand's thinking, as the following of yours shows you
clearly didn't learn anything about Rand's ideas at all.
quoting you George
"Obviously you missd the sense, if you thought I was making an analogy.
I gave you an example of two facts - that (1) my computer is turned on
and that (2) I'm typing at it. Neither were facts two hours ago; at
that time, the facts were that
(1') my computer as turned off and (2') I was sleeping. That's two
facts that changed, in the space of only two hours." quote unquote
*Facts* DO NOT and CAN NOT change George, if you had absorbed anything
at all of Rand's writtings then you would know that it was a fact of
reality that your computer was turned off and it is a fact of reality
that it is now turned on. I've read a lot of your stuff George and
similar examples of how you dont understand Rand at all, can be found
pretty much all of the way through your ideas.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "kevirwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand and Mikey gets an ally and then stabs him in the back |
02 Oct 2006 09:44:13 PM |
|
|
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Well, I'm glad to know that I'm not one of those. I've written a
considerable amount on Ayn Rand's ideas. Interested readers are
referred to: http://tinyurl.com/mvjv8.
Its a pity you didn't read with the intent to understand and learn
anything from Rand's thinking, as the following of yours shows you
clearly didn't learn anything about Rand's ideas at all.
quoting you George
"Obviously you missd the sense, if you thought I was making an analogy.
I gave you an example of two facts - that (1) my computer is turned on
and that (2) I'm typing at it. Neither were facts two hours ago; at
that time, the facts were that
(1') my computer as turned off and (2') I was sleeping. That's two
facts that changed, in the space of only two hours." quote unquote
*Facts* DO NOT and CAN NOT change George, if you had absorbed anything
at all of Rand's writtings then you would know that it was a fact of
reality that your computer was turned off and it is a fact of reality
that it is now turned on. I've read a lot of your stuff George and
similar examples of how you dont understand Rand at all, can be found
pretty much all of the way through your ideas.
Michael Gordge
Hiya Mikey,
You are fucking incredible!!!! Somebody actually endorses your main
squeeze (yea man, she was a real hottie!!!!) and you ***** all over him.
It could have been your ONE FRIEND on the Internet and you ***** him!!!
(oh that's right, I'm your best internet buddy, I reply to your
*****!!)
I was right; your goal is to alienate ***every*** fucking person you
come into contact with!!!!
It's Super Duper Mikey taking on all comers in his world of fantasy
and delusion. He slays his opponents with clever insults, like my
favorite, "rude *****"; renders them speechless with his repetitive
incoherence; brilliantly ignores ANYTHING said to him and just makes up
any crap that enters his pea (maybe pee) brain!!!!
All bow before the greatest internet troll of all time!!!!!
Mike, the grudge, scourge of New Zealand!!!!!!
Stop it Mikey, you're killing me, my sides are starting to hurt!!!
Kev
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand and Mikey gets an ally and then stabs him in the back |
03 Oct 2006 02:51:47 AM |
|
|
kevirwin wrote:
You are fucking incredible!!!!
Thank you, you could be too if it wasn't for your IQ of 151.
Somebody actually endorses your main
squeeze (yea man, she was a real hottie!!!!) and you ***** all over him.
George and me go way back, so calm down ewe commie clown, his review of
Rand's work was excellent, his understanding of Rand's ideas are not.
It could have been your ONE FRIEND on the Internet and you ***** him!!!
Typical leftist loon, nosey busy body delinquent masochist cockhead,
***** off noddy and mind your own fucking business bozo, you let ME
worry about who be ME friends, OK?
All bow before the greatest internet troll of all time!!!!!
Trust a leftist fence sitting issue evading agnostic and a mystic in
waiting fuckwit like ewe kev to even think that bowing to another human
being means anything.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "kevirwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand and Mikey gets an ally and then stabs him in the back |
03 Oct 2006 11:06:53 PM |
|
|
All bow before the greatest internet troll of all time!!!!!
Trust a leftist fence sitting issue evading agnostic and a mystic in
waiting fuckwit like ewe kev to even think that bowing to another human
being means anything.
Michael Gordge
Trust Mikey to be too fucking full of himself (thereby making him the
largest human container of ***** on the planet) to understand when he's
being mocked. Or maybe since you're ridiculed by everyone directly (and
probably indirectly by your family, when your not there, or maybe not
), you have learned just to block reality out entirely.
is "fuckwit" the new stinging expeletive you've relaced "rude *****"
with....
pleasure doin' business with you *****,
K e v
.
|
|
|
| User: "chazwin" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand and Mikey gets an ally and then stabs him in the back |
04 Oct 2006 12:17:39 PM |
|
|
kevirwin wrote:
All bow before the greatest internet troll of all time!!!!!
Trust a leftist fence sitting issue evading agnostic and a mystic in
waiting fuckwit like ewe kev to even think that bowing to another human
being means anything.
Michael Gordge
Trust Mikey to be too fucking full of himself (thereby making him the
largest human container of ***** on the planet) to understand when he's
being mocked. Or maybe since you're ridiculed by everyone directly (and
probably indirectly by your family, when your not there, or maybe not
), you have learned just to block reality out entirely.
is "fuckwit" the new stinging expeletive you've replaced "rude *****"
with....
Heheheheh. I think "fuckwit" is one that he has picked up from me
describing him!!! ROLF. Mikey may not be able to learn but maybe he is
showing signs of mimicry!!!! There is hope yet!
pleasure doin' business with you *****,
K e v
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand and Mikey gets an ally and then stabs him in the back |
04 Oct 2006 05:17:08 PM |
|
|
chazwin wrote:
I think.....
There's been absolutely no evidence of that, so prove it, your claim is
"truth has many meanings," soooooo which of those many meanings are you
using for truth in that claim chaz?
Its a very simple question.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
03 Oct 2006 03:28:31 AM |
|
|
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
Well, I'm glad to know that I'm not one of those. I've written a
considerable amount on Ayn Rand's ideas. Interested readers are
referred to: http://tinyurl.com/mvjv8.
Its a pity you didn't read with the intent to understand and learn
anything from Rand's thinking, as the following of yours shows you
clearly didn't learn anything about Rand's ideas at all.
First of all, that's a logical non sequitur; as
1. You didn't understand X.
------------------------
2. You didn't intend to understand X in the first place.
is not a valid inference.
(In turn, that's called a 'demonstration' - I not only called your
comment a nons equitur, but explained why it was a non sequitur.)
quoting you George
"Obviously you missd the sense, if you thought I was making an analogy.
I gave you an example of two facts - that (1) my computer is turned on
and that (2) I'm typing at it. Neither were facts two hours ago; at
that time, the facts were that
(1') my computer as turned off and (2') I was sleeping. That's two
facts that changed, in the space of only two hours." quote unquote
*Facts* DO NOT and CAN NOT change George, if you had absorbed anything
at all of Rand's writtings then you would know that it was a fact of
reality that your computer was turned off and it is a fact of reality
that it is now turned on.
That's what I said. In one case, it was a fact of reality that my
computer was off, and in a second case (two hours later) it was a fact
that I was sleeping; two hours later, it wasn't. The proof of that is
simple: "My computer is off" was true in the first case because of the
fact that that computer was on But "My computer is off" was false in
the second case (in which it was a fact that my computer was on). By
the same reasoning, it was a fact in the second case that my computer
was on, but it was not a fact in the first case. Those facts were
different in the two cases; therefore they changed in the intervening
time.
(Of course, this assumes that there's such a thing as time. Since you
deny that there is any time in reality, it would be interesting to see
how you explain the apparent contradiction (of my computer being both
on and off).
I've read a lot of your stuff George and
similar examples of how you dont understand Rand at all, can be found
pretty much all of the way through your ideas.
Well, now it's time for you to provide a 'demonstration' or 'support'
of your own. Using any of the more than 200 posts I just sent you,
post a passage from me that (IYO) contains a misunderstanding of
something Rand wrote, along with the Rand cite in question (or a
suitable link). We can go on from there.
If you can't even support your claim to that simple extent, your
criticism reduces to simple name-calling, which makes you look as
stupid as if you'd just called me a *****.
(Yes, I know that you do call men 'cunts' a lot - I just wanted to
point out that it does make you look stupid.)
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
04 Oct 2006 02:41:59 AM |
|
|
"George Dance" <georgedance04@yahoo.ca> wrote:
That's what I said. In one case, it was a fact of reality that my
computer was off, and in a second case (two hours later) it was a fact
that I was sleeping; two hours later, it wasn't. The proof of that is
simple: "My computer is off" was true in the first case because of the
fact that that computer was on But "My computer is off" was false in
the second case (in which it was a fact that my computer was on). By
the same reasoning, it was a fact in the second case that my computer
was on, but it was not a fact in the first case. Those facts were
different in the two cases; therefore they changed in the intervening
time.
(Of course, this assumes that there's such a thing as time. Since you
deny that there is any time in reality, it would be interesting to see
how you explain the apparent contradiction (of my computer being both
on and off).
You don't even need time:
There's a computer on my desk.
There's not a computer on my desk.
Both are true, as meant, but incomplete as expressed (I have two
desks).
A shortcoming of language (correspondance between science and
mathematics, in their broader senses, if you will) is that no
statement (including this one) can be perfectly complete and
unambiguous.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
04 Oct 2006 03:52:10 AM |
|
|
AlanS wrote:..
no
statement (including this one) can be perfectly complete and
unambiguous.
Is that best excuse you have for your stupidity?
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
05 Oct 2006 03:28:20 AM |
|
|
On 4 Oct 2006 01:52:10 -0700, wrote:
AlanS wrote:..
no
statement (including this one) can be perfectly complete and
unambiguous.
Is that best excuse you have for your stupidity?
I won't go into a pissing contest, as I'm sure you have a better one
for yours.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
05 Oct 2006 04:57:23 PM |
|
|
AlanS wrote:
A shortcoming of language ..... is that no
statement ...... can be perfectly complete and
unambiguous.
What the ***** does *language - words* have to do with the *meaning* /
*theory* / *epistemology* of that trashy nonsensical idiotic Kantian
Russellian Rawlian Poppereen Platonian regurgitation?
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
05 Oct 2006 08:37:00 PM |
|
|
On 5 Oct 2006 14:57:23 -0700, wrote:
AlanS wrote:
A shortcoming of language ..... is that no
statement ...... can be perfectly complete and
unambiguous.
What the ***** does *language - words* have to do with the *meaning* /
*theory* / *epistemology* of that trashy nonsensical idiotic Kantian
Russellian Rawlian Poppereen Platonian regurgitation?
Ask that without words and I will tell you.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
05 Oct 2006 09:29:16 PM |
|
|
AlanS wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 14:57:23 -0700, wrote:
AlanS wrote:
A shortcoming of language ..... is that no
statement ...... can be perfectly complete and
unambiguous.
What the ***** does *language - words* have to do with the *meaning* /
*theory* / *epistemology* of that trashy nonsensical idiotic Kantian
Russellian Rawlian Poppereen Platonian regurgitation?
Ask that without words and I will tell you.
Dumb arse, ignorant, arrogance, conedescending or deliberately obtuse?
My question was epistemology.
Explain what you MEAN.
Give an example of the *shortcoming of language* to substantiate your
claim that no statement is complete and unambiguous, or is there a
shortcoming of language stopping you from doing that?
Explain what you ****mean**** and see if you can do it without being
silly.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
05 Oct 2006 11:43:33 PM |
|
|
In article <1160101755.980311.154010@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com>,
wrote:
!! AlanS wrote:
!! > On 5 Oct 2006 14:57:23 -0700, wrote:
!! > >AlanS wrote:
!! >
!! > >> A shortcoming of language ..... is that no
!! > >> statement ...... can be perfectly complete and
!! > >> unambiguous.
!! >
!! > >What the ***** does *language - words* have to do with the *meaning* /
!! > >*theory* / *epistemology* of that trashy nonsensical idiotic Kantian
!! > >Russellian Rawlian Poppereen Platonian regurgitation?
!! >
!! > Ask that without words and I will tell you.
!!
!! Dumb arse, ignorant, arrogance, conedescending or deliberately obtuse?
!!
!! My question was epistemology.
!!
!! Explain what you MEAN.
!!
!! Give an example of the *shortcoming of language* to substantiate your
!! claim that no statement is complete and unambiguous, or is there a
!! shortcoming of language stopping you from doing that?
!!
!! Explain what you ****mean**** and see if you can do it without being
!! silly.
it is not considered proper netiquette
to do someone's homework for them
but it is considered proper to give references
word and object, wvo quine
foudations of cognitive grammer, ronald w langacker
tractatus logico-philosophicus, ludwig wittgenstein
the synthetic modeling of language origins, luc steel
and a couple of good hints for your studies
- not all answers are to be found in an ayn rand library
so further purchases or library use may be necessary
- serious questions may have lengthy answers
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
06 Oct 2006 12:56:09 AM |
|
|
galathaea wrote:
who knows?
Your post are by far the most difficult to follow, the use of the !!!s
and the added >s are very distracting and turn me off big time from
trying to figure where your silliness starts and stops.
So until it changes I cant be fucked trying to sort out what appears to
be some major problems going on inside your head.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "AlanS" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
06 Oct 2006 05:51:42 AM |
|
|
On 5 Oct 2006 19:29:16 -0700, wrote:
AlanS wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 14:57:23 -0700, wrote:
What the ***** does *language - words* have to do with the *meaning* /
*theory* / *epistemology* of that trashy nonsensical idiotic Kantian
Russellian Rawlian Poppereen Platonian regurgitation?
Ask that without words and I will tell you.
Dumb arse, ignorant, arrogance, conedescending or deliberately obtuse?
Those look like words, and not all of them are even well formed. You
have a lot to learn. Alas, I don't have the time or energy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
06 Oct 2006 05:31:44 PM |
|
|
AlanS wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 19:29:16 -0700, wrote:
AlanS wrote:
On 5 Oct 2006 14:57:23 -0700, wrote:
What the ***** does *language - words* have to do with the *meaning* /
*theory* / *epistemology* of that trashy nonsensical idiotic Kantian
Russellian Rawlian Poppereen Platonian regurgitation?
Ask that without words and I will tell you.
Dumb arse, ignorant, arrogance, conedescending or deliberately obtuse?
Those look like words, and not all of them are even well formed. You
have a lot to learn. Alas, I don't have the time or energy.
Waving white flags consume a lot of energy? Hmmmm must be a socialist
parasite, not used to hard work, feeding off the life blood of
producers.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
03 Oct 2006 02:09:05 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
First of all, that's a logical non sequitur; as
1. You didn't understand X.
George look, If you understood anything of Rand's writtings you would
know that she held the premise that A is A
Two seperate entities can both occupy the exact same space at the exact
same time, a cat is a cat, a cat can not be a dog, a cat can not exist
in the exact same space as a dog at the exact same time.
Your computer is turned on is a fact, is A
or
Your computer is turned off is a fact, is A
Your computer can not be both on and off at the same time. A is A
That was dealing with the *theory* (epistemology) of a fact George.
Facts do NOT change George, is a statement on the theory of fact.
When you say *a statement of fact changes* because your *computer's
state* changes from being turned off, to being turned on, then that IS
dealing with metaphysics.
Epistemology and metaphysics are TWO totally seperate subjects, one
does NOT equate to the other.
Rand identified that particular confused condition of thinking i.e.
equating epistemology with metaphysics, as being the philosophy with
the primacy of consciousness.
Which translates to means, your philosophy is founded upon the notion
that, your state of consciousness preceeds reality, preceeds existence
that reality is whatever your mind says it is, whereas in reality, your
state of consciousness means, a state of mind able to identify that
which exists, as it exists, and what exists exists without
contradiction, which IS the role of your mind i.e. to identify the
contradictions between your ideas and reality.
Why?
Because, contradictions do not exist in reality because what is real is
real, when faced with a contradiction check your premise/s because one
of them is wrong.
That is a statement of and is the standard of, reality, which oddly
enough can not be denied without using it as the standard to so do, in
other words, it can not be denied without holding a contradiction.
Gosh that would just about have filled your head, so best we stop and
see what problems you are having with that so far.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Dance" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
04 Oct 2006 01:29:11 PM |
|
|
wrote:
George look, If you understood anything of Rand's writtings you would
know that she held the premise that A is A
I do know she held tht premise. So what? She also owned a pair of
stuff lions. So what?
Two seperate entities can both occupy the exact same space at the exact
same time, a cat is a cat, a cat can not be a dog, a cat can not exist
in the exact same space as a dog at the exact same time.
Right. Again, so what?
Your computer is turned on is a fact, is A
or
Your computer is turned off is a fact, is A
??? "A" stands for both "My computer is on" and 'My computer is off?"
That's ridiculous; when my computer is on, it is *not* off. And if A
meant both, then (since A always is A), my computer would always be
both on and off at the same time. Which it never is.
Your computer can not be both on and off at the same time.
So it can't always be both on and off, either. .
A is A
"'My computer's being on' is 'My computer's being off' is not a
substitution instance of "A is A."
That was dealing with the *theory* (epistemology) of a fact George.
No, all that had absolutely nothing to do with epistemology.
Epistemology is the theory of consciousness and knowledge.
Facts do NOT change George, is a statement on the theory of fact.
Let's see how your theory deals with a counterexample: To make it
easier, let's take something that has been a fact all through this
discussion; that this computer (calll it a) is either switched on or
swithed off (call that fact A). Imagine that I take a sledgehammer
and crush a to pieces. At that point A is no longer a fact; therefore
the facts are different; therefore they've changed.
When you say *a statement of fact changes* because your *computer's
state* changes from being turned off, to being turned on, then that IS
dealing with metaphysics.
What do you mean, "a statement of fact changes"? I've never said
anything like that. When my computer is switched from off and off, the
*truth of two statements of fact ("a is on" and "a is off" changes).
But since the truth of any statement is its correspondence with a fact,
by the correspondence theory the truth of any statement cannot change
unless a facts change.
I'm going to repeat myself, because unless you're able to understand
that sentence, there's not much point talking to you:
By the correspondence theory, the truth of any statement cannot change
unless a fact changes.
IOW, Different statements cannot be true or false at different times
unless facts are different at different times.
Understand? Yes or no?
Agree or disagree?
Epistemology and metaphysics are TWO totally seperate subjects, one
does NOT equate to the other.
Rand identified that particular confused condition of thinking i.e.
equating epistemology with metaphysics, as being the philosophy with
the primacy of consciousness.
What 'equating epistemology with metaphysics' are you babbling on
about? Are you denying that (epistemological) truth is correspondence
with the (metaphysical) facts of reality?
Which translates to means, your philosophy is founded upon the notion
that, your state of consciousness preceeds reality, preceeds existence
that reality is whatever your mind says it is
Oh, really? You produce a quote where I said any such thing as
"Reality is whatever [any mind whatsoever] says it is." Don't go
around making up claims of your own and putting them into my mouth.
It's bad enough when you snip everything I wrote previously; but
atributing comments to me that I did not write makes you no better than
a liar.
, whereas in reality, your
state of consciousness means, a state of mind able to identify that
which exists, as it exists,
That's not in question. What is in question, as I see it, is whether
you have a mind able to identify that which exists, as it exists. So
let's see your evidence: let's see just what statement you claim to
have identified as my saying that "Reality is whatever [any mind
whatsoever] says it is."
If yu cannot or will not do that, then there is no point tryig to
discuss this with you reasonably.
and what exists exists without
contradiction, which IS the role of your mind i.e. to identify the
contradictions between your ideas and reality.
Why?
Because, contradictions do not exist in reality because what is real is
real, when faced with a contradiction check your premise/s because one
of them is wrong.
That is a statement of and is the standard of, reality, which oddly
enough can not be denied without using it as the standard to so do, in
other words, it can not be denied without holding a contradiction.
Gosh that would just about have filled your head, so best we stop and
see what problems you are having with that so far.
If you answer both my argument and my request for a cite, no problems
so far. If you snip and/or ignore either, two big problems.
.
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
05 Oct 2006 06:08:18 AM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
???
Are you deaf?
"A" stands for both "My computer is on" and 'My computer is off?"
A means your computer is turned on, i.e. Which *means* (the theory of)
the power has access to the mechanism to make it work.
And
A can mean your computer is turned off, i.e. Which *means* (the theory
of) the power has no access to the mechanism that makes it work.
And
A stands for cat when talking about a cat i.e. a cat is a cat
And
A stands for dog when talking about a dog i.e. a dog is a dog
This will come as a shock to you George but, off and on are TWO
seperate situations for a computer to be in.
So it can't always be both on and off, either. .
Not at the same time it cant, A is A George.
A is A or On is On
A is A or Off is Off
No, all that had absolutely nothing to do with epistemology.
Epistemology deals with the theory of EVERY single aspect of our
knowledge, which means, even words have an epistemology, a theory.
Epistemology is the theory of consciousness..
Consciousness has a theory, that theory is, *a state of mind able to
identify that which exists external of it*
and knowledge.
EVERY single aspect of knowledge including especially the words we use
for our knowledge have their own epistemology George.
Let's see how your theory deals with a counterexample: To make it
easier, let's take something that has been a fact all through this
discussion; that this computer (calll it a) is either switched on or
swithed off (call that fact A). Imagine that I take a sledgehammer
and crush a to pieces. At that point A is no longer a fact; therefore
the facts are different; therefore they've changed.
Oh dear me George, EACH and EVERY piece of knowledge we have, has
context.
When the context of a situcation changes so does the knowledge of that
situation.
The facts dont change, the context does.
Knowledge is contextual and hierarchical.
Information A (context) + Infornation B (context) when in the situation
of C (context) = the sum of knowledge.
Change A or B or C and the knowledge logically changes.
What 'equating epistemology with metaphysics' are you babbling on
about?
Example
There are no contradictions in reality because what is real is real.
Is the *theory or the epsitemology of reality*
When that statement is responded to with (as it usually is by the
Randaphobic Platonian Russellian Rawlian Poppereen retards)
"There are contradictions in reality"
Then that is a classic example of the *dropping of context* or
*equating metaphysics with epistemology.*
Why? How?
Because, contradictions DO EXIST, HOWEVER, they exist as problems of
man's mind, in his thinking process, they do NOT exist in reality.
Oh, really? You produce a quote where I said any such thing as
"Reality is whatever [any mind whatsoever] says it is." Don't go
around making up claims of your own and putting them into my mouth.
Oh come of George, you know that you do not use *non-contradictory
identification and integration of the matter of your senses* as the
ONLY means of your knowledge.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
04 Oct 2006 03:56:49 PM |
|
|
George Dance wrote:
Epistemology is the theory of consciousness and knowledge.
So explain the theory of knowledge of the words *turned* and *on*, as
used in the context of your computer being turned *on*.
Michael Gordge
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "galathaea" |
|
| Title: Re: Check out this video of Ayn Rand |
04 Oct 2006 02:26:05 AM |
|
|
wrote:
George Dance wrote:
First of all, that's a logical non sequitur; as
1. You didn't understand X.
George look, If you understood anything of Rand's writtings you would
know that she held the premise that A is A
Two seperate entities can both occupy the exact same space at the exact
same time, a cat is a cat, a cat can not be a dog, a cat can not exist
in the exact same space as a dog at the exact same time.
Your computer is turned on is a fact, is A
or
Your computer is turned off is a fact, is A
Your computer can not be both on and off at the same time. A is A
That was dealing with the *theory* (epistemology) of a fact George.
Facts do NOT change George, is a statement on the theory of fact.
When you say *a statement of fact changes* because your *computer's
state* changes from being turned off, to being turned on, then that IS
dealing with metaphysics.
Epistemology and metaphysics are TWO totally seperate subjects, one
does NOT equate to the other.
Rand identified that particular confused condition of thinking i.e.
equating epistemology with metaphysics, as being the philosophy with
the primacy of consciousness.
Which translates to means, your philosophy is founded upon the notion
that, your state of consciousness preceeds reality, preceeds existence
that reality is whatever your mind says it is, whereas in reality, your
state of consciousness means, a state of mind able to identify that
which exists, as it exists, and what exists exists without
contradiction, which IS the role of your mind i.e. to identify the
contradictions between your ideas and reality.
Why?
Because, contradictions do not exist in reality because what is real is
real, when faced with a contradiction check your premise/s because one
of them is wrong.
That is a statement of and is the standard of, reality, which oddly
enough can not be denied without using it as the standard to so do, in
other words, it can not be denied without holding a contradiction.
Gosh that would just about have filled your head, so best we stop and
see what problems you are having with that so far.
this is why ayn rand's ideas
will likely not be a major philosophical player this century
she could have stuck to the purely platonic propositions
but often made assertions far too overreaching
because her logic cannot accomodate the logic of observed reality
which is quantum
and thus incompatible with rand's assertions
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kochen-specker/
(as an aside
ayn rand was the first philosopher i cried while reading
she has a beautiful romanticism of human spirit)
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
galathaea: prankster, fablist, magician, liar
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
