NickOtani'sNeo-Objectivism

(John)I did not skip your argument about the liar's paradox, see post 37. It is not a logical argument precisely because it does not conform to the rules of logic, one being the law of identity. Logic has a set of objective rules to conform to for it to have any use. But all logic ought to be a representation of reality, not for just logic's sake otherwise of what use is it to my life? Human speech is capable of uttering a paradoxical statement as I said, but all that means is it does not conform to any coherent rules of logic or speech, because these rules are set up to help us make sense of reality. You don't throw out human speech because one is capable of uttering nonsense. The statement "I am lying" on it's own, ought to be rejected, it has no coherent meaning and certainly isn't logical.

(Nick)Okay, I see now that you did respond to the liar’s paradox. Your post didn’t appear until after my post was written and submitted.

The liar’s paradox does stand up and is respected by the most respected logicians, if not by you.

You are accepting the consistency of logic as axiomatic and calling anything which challenges this as not logical, but you haven’t really refuted the logic of the liar’s paradox with logic. And, you do come up with the standard rational that logic is just a representation of realty, not realty, but this just pushes the axiom back a little further. It assumes reality is rational and capable of being represented by logic, so long as logic doesn’t conflict with itself. Basically, you are just believing what you want to believe and calling it logical.

(John)To which I responded Laws of Nature, cannot keep you from being free, nor can it control you. The laws of nature, just are. Only you and other men can control you. Nature does not have a consciousness for it to be able to control you or keep you from being free.

(Nick)I never said nature had a consciousness. And, I never said nature can control me. I’m the one arguing that it can’t. You are the one saying I can’t do certain things because of the laws of nature.

(John)Being free is not just being responsible to your actions or to your goals, if you actions or goals are to destroy someone's rights, it's not freedom.

(Nick)I never said that. I do not believe people should violate other people’s rights.

John, this debate is turning into a flame war, and I’m not interested in such a contest. I don’t mind passion and bluntness in making a point, and I won’t get offended by a little rudeness in the heat of the argument. However, I will not tolerate being called dishonest and a troll. It’s my choice. Please use arguments and not insults. That will be your choice.

Nick

Post 41

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 3:02am

Nick,

===============
You are accepting the consistency of logic as axiomatic and calling anything which challenges this as not logical, but you haven’t really refuted the logic of the liar’s paradox with logic.
===============

The liar's paradox: "I am here, now, lying" -- is a Godelian mistake. Godel proposed that systems of logic couldn't, a priori, entail future conceptual containment. Another way to say this is that axioms can't -- themselves -- be used to demarcate truth (ie. there is an experiential element to "truth").

This, however, is inconsequential to Objectivist epistemology (which allows for experience -- in determining "truth").

Ed

Post 42

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 4:19am

The liar's paradox: "I am here, now, lying" -- is a Godelian mistake. Godel proposed that systems of logic couldn't, a priori, entail future conceptual containment. Another way to say this is that axioms can't -- themselves -- be used to demarcate truth (ie. there is an experiential element to "truth").

This, however, is inconsequential to Objectivist epistemology (which allows for experience -- in determining "truth").

Experience is very impure, affected as it is by our thoughts, feelings, and subjective attitudes. Have you read my piece on perception, logic, and language?

Goedel did have an impact on Russell's and Whitehead's attempt to explain everything with mathematics, in Principa Mathematica. He lets us know that we can't be 100% certain about logical arguments. Logic, even with experence, is not the new God.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 43

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 9:06am

(Nick)Experience is very impure, affected as it is by our thoughts, feelings, and subjective attitudes. Have you read my piece on perception, logic, and language?

(Me) Error, experience is neither pure nor impure, it is. This is the biggest problem with existentialism since it makes too many bold statements without explaining WHY theirs is right opposed to their opponents. Reaction to one's experience can be right/wrong but that does not mark the experience or perceptual event either way. It simply means one's judgement was in error. So, until you accept that fact, Nick, whatever you say will be an epistemological train wreck.

(Nick) Goedel did have an impact on Russell's and Whitehead's attempt to explain everything with mathematics, in Principa Mathematica. He lets us know that we can't be 100% certain about logical arguments. Logic, even with experence, is not the new God.

(Me) No Godel's proposition is more properly framed on the issue of how far certain systems of logic go before they reach a point where self-reference leads to singularities. In this regard, Godel's ideas have more to do with errors in the knowledge of math than in the acquisition or articulation of knowledge itself. Thusly, Godel's propositions need to be accepted as proof that certain forms of math are just pure garbage. And that he, incidentally, gave the demarcation between correct knowledge, knowledge that allows for self-reference without singularities, and incorrect knowledge (anti-concepts as Rand considered them...).

I'm quite surprised by the assumptions you make about the Nature of existence, experience, knowledge, and even logic. Not once have you shown yourself to be unrefutable.

The fact that you keep clinging to the argument that not being able to jump to the Moon isn't a limitation is down right retarded by anyone's estimation. Limitation is what it is. If I cannot do X, then it is excluded from my 'set' of options aka I am limited to this 'set' and no other unless otherwise. And that means either the definitions of limit and limitation are wrong, or you are wrong, Nick. I'll take the latter because it's clear to me, limit and limitation are not what you suppose to be.

Also, you make some broad ass statements about choice being the defining factor in consequence. It is true your choices open up one to consequences positive and negative, but you do not have direct control over the set of these consequences. Therefore, if I decide to go dancing in the middle of a busy street, I do not control the fact that the consequence of being hit by a fast moving car will kill me, or the other consequences of injury, arrest for obstructing traffic, and so forth. Just in that every day example, not once I control the consequences since they themselves come from entities that which I am not. This is why your proposition is flaw in on that front, you go for 'choice' causation instead of entity causation. Choice means jacksquat if you don't accept that choice is made by an entity that can do so.

Anyways, I'm done with this since I don't see any reason to continue other than that Nick needs to define his terms, stick with them and not deny the errors in them when they are pointed out.

-- Bridget

Post 44

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 11:16am

(Bridget) Error, experience is neither pure nor impure, it is. This is the biggest problem with existentialism since it makes too many bold statements without explaining WHY theirs is right opposed to their opponents. Reaction to one's experience can be right/wrong but that does not mark the experience or perceptual event either way. It simply means one's judgement was in error. So, until you accept that fact, Nick, whatever you say will be an epistemological train wreck.

(Nick)“Impure” can be defined here as “not a guarantee of truth.” If two people can experience the same thing and report two different findings, then experience s not the most reliable truth test.

If you want to list some of those “bold statements without explanation” you assert, without explanation, that Existentialists make, please do. Unsupported accusations are not arguments.

(Bridget)I'm quite surprised by the assumptions you make about the Nature of existence, experience, knowledge, and even logic. Not once have you shown yourself to be unrefutable.

(Nick)Please feel free to refute them.

(Bridget)The fact that you keep clinging to the argument that not being able to jump to the Moon isn't a limitation is down right retarded by anyone's estimation. Limitation is what it is. If I cannot do X, then it is excluded from my 'set' of options aka I am limited to this 'set' and no other unless otherwise. And that means either the definitions of limit and limitation are wrong, or you are wrong, Nick. I'll take the latter because it's clear to me, limit and limitation are not what you suppose to be.

(Nick)Where does the “limitation” originate? It originates in one’s goal to jump from here to the moon. It is brought into being by one’s free choice to make this jump. That value didn’t exist before someone’s free choice to make it a value. If I want to be an engineer, my difficulties with math will be a limitation. However, if I choose to be newspaper reporter, those difficulties are less of a limitation. It is thus the free choice of the individual which turns circumstances into either aids or limits to his or her freedom.

BTW, if you decide to go dancing in the middle of the street, you are responsible for the consequences of your decision. You are free to set goals, not escape consequences.

(Bridget)Anyways, I'm done with this …

(Nick)That’s your free choice. But lets not blame it on me. Take responsibility for your decisions. Show us that a woman can, figuratively speaking, be a man. ;)

Bis bald,

Nick

Post 45

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 11:30am

Good argumentation, Bridget.

Ed

Post 46

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 1:37pm

I've been trying to follow these threads of dissention and not replying, so as to not encourage Mr. Nick, but there are some statements that are so misconceived that they require a reply.

(Nick)My point, and the point of Existentialists, is that we set up our own limitations by the choices we make. If I choose to jump from here to the moon, then I am responsible for the obstacles and frustrations in my way, not some pre-existing realty (sic) that works against me. And, if that is not my life’s goal, then my inability to achieve it is not a limitation to me.

According to Mr. Nick, then, if you choose to sit like a rock as your life's goal you have not limited yourself. A rational person makes choices based on his perceived abilities and limitations.

Sam

Post 47

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 2:40pm

According to Mr. Nick, then, if you choose to sit like a rock as your life's goal you have not limited yourself. A rational person makes choices based on his perceived abilities and limitations.

Post 48

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 11:20pm

Nick,

===============
(Nick)Where does the “limitation” originate?
===============

In nature (existence is identity; things can't ever exceed their capacity for change -- ie. their identity).

You can jump off a bridge while disbelieving in gravity -- but this won't have any effect on the subsequent termination of your life.

Ed

Post 49

Saturday, July 8, 2006 - 11:42pm

(Ed)You can jump off a bridge while disbelieving in gravity -- but this won't have any effect on the subsequent termination of your life.

(Nick)I'm not argung that, Ed. You don't seem to be reading my posts carefully. Do you remember this:

BTW, if you decide to go dancing in the middle of the street, you are responsible for the consequences of your decision. You are free to set goals, not escape consequences.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 50

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 12:29am

Nick,

=================
(Nick)Where does the “limitation” originate? It originates in one’s goal to jump from here to the moon. It is brought into being by one’s free choice to make this jump. That value didn’t exist before someone’s free choice to make it a value.
=================

The whim-worship of wanting to jump to the moon is not an objective (viable) value. You can't -- by arbitrary will -- "make" something objectively valuable. Though you can wishful-think (you can harbor subjective values that, in all actuality, hurt yourself -- in a pursuit of human happiness).

=================
It is thus the free choice of the individual which turns circumstances into either aids or limits to his or her freedom.
=================

Nature is what it is that makes circumstances aids or limits to freedom, not "free choice."

Ed

Post 51

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 9:44am

(Ed)The whim-worship of wanting to jump to the moon is not an objective (viable) value. You can't -- by arbitrary will -- "make" something objectively valuable. Though you can wishful-think (you can harbor subjective values that, in all actuality, hurt yourself -- in a pursuit of human happiness).

My point, Ed, is that whatever project one chooses determines the obsticles he or she will deal with. So, if someone chooses a more viable goal, he or she still makes it a value and is responsble for the consequences of pursuing it. You can make something valuable by valuing it. If nobody valued diamonds anymore, they wouldn't be objectvely valuable.

(Ed)Nature is what it is that makes circumstances aids or limits to freedom, not "free choice.

(Nick)Nature doesn't do anything. It just is.

bis bald,

Nick

Post 52

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 3:50pm

(Ed)Nature is what it is that makes circumstances aids or limits to freedom, not "free choice.

(Nick)Nature doesn't do anything. It just is.

Yeah, that's what he said.

Sam

Post 53

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 3:58pm

You should go back to not responding so as not to encourage me, Sam. It's a nice safe choice.

Nick

Post 54

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 5:23pm

Nick, I'll bet you'd like to think that you are one intimidating fella', wouldn't you?

Well, you may be a judo fighter, but you don't scare me. Heck, I once grappled with Rene' Capo (4th place, 1992 Olympics) and he had a hard time controlling me (though, he DID control me). Not only that, but I spent a good 4 months training in a hard-core gym, boxing. And, if that ain't enough to put the fear of God into you -- I can deadlift 400-lbs (I could friggin' toss your head into the ceiling; as long as you are under 200-lbs).

I'm willing to bet that I'd knock you out cold, in a flat-out fist-o-cuffs (if it ever came down to that).

;-)

Ed
[But enough of the machismo, already -- the site's name is Rebirth of Reason for Christ-sakes!]

Post 55

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 5:57pm

You might be able to take me, Ed, if it is a large room and I can't get ahold of you. I am still strong, and over 200 pounds, but am not as fast and flexible as I once was. I can still do about 60 push-ups on demand and can run a marathon, but not as quickly as I once did. I am 57 years old. I used to think I was better at Judo than most marathoners and better at marathon runnng than most Judokas, but now I just want to have a little bit of a workout and feel good for myself. I don't have to prove anything to anybody. (I also, in my day, worked out with Olympic champians, but I forgot their names.)

bis bald,

Nick

.

Post 56

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 8:09pm

Nick,

================
I can still do about 60 push-ups on demand and can run a marathon, but not as quickly as I once did. I am 57 years old.
================

Holy Beegeezus (you're fit)! I recant my implicit "challenge" to you. Thinking I'd win because, though you are more skilled in combat, I was that much more athletic -- I now would put my money on YOU in a fight (with me); and I'm 38 years old. [snobbishly] I don't "do" marathons.

Now, with more of the relevant details, I'm pretty sure that the only way I'd triumph -- is to get in a lucky shot (ie. one that puts your "lights out").

Ed

Post 57

Sunday, July 9, 2006 - 8:33pm