|
Post by maximus on Mar 13, 2008 3:46:30 GMT
I experience identity independently of my existence as a human. A thing is—what it is; its characteristics constitute its identity. An existent apart from its characteristics, would be an existent apart from its identity, which means: a nothing, a non-existent. So, you are denying your existance as a human being.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 13, 2008 3:50:47 GMT
Existence is a self-sufficient primary. It is not a product of a supernatural dimension, or of anything else. There is nothing antecedent to existence, nothing apart from it—and no alternative to it. God! And therefore we are all eternal... like the temple in the heavens not made with hands. The true us can never not exist in one form or the other... consciously speaking. Super natural dimensions - if they exist they are just misnamed - other dimensions exist, we can already figure out three of them so any above that number should be considered natural dimensions. Maat
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 13, 2008 3:58:15 GMT
God! And therefore we are all eternal... like the temple in the heavens not made with hands. The true us can never not exist in one form or the other... consciously speaking. Energy can not be destroyed, it can only change form. You're starting to think clearly, dear.
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 13, 2008 3:58:54 GMT
free to explore the "hidden mysteries of nature and science." ;D Russell and I really have freed ourselves enough to do that, and we do it quite well, but you would be amazed at how many people try to turn us back from this path less trodden. Well meaningly I am sure. Maat
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 13, 2008 4:05:35 GMT
You need me to keep you grounded. ;D
|
|
|
Post by maat on Mar 13, 2008 4:05:51 GMT
You're starting to think clearly, dear. That is what I have always thought, for dimensions or otherwise. There is no thing that is not natural. Aliens, ghosts, angels ... ;D back at you.. Maat
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 13, 2008 4:52:18 GMT
>its characteristics constitute its identity.
So if I change my mind is it still me?
How about a change of heart?
What does a "life changing" experience do to my identity?
And now we discover that organ transplants can turn a macho into a music lover. What then for identity?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 13, 2008 5:06:24 GMT
>its characteristics constitute its identity. So if I change my mind is it still me? How about a change of heart? What does a "life changing" experience do to my identity? And now we discover that organ transplants can turn a macho into a music lover. What then for identity? You are still a human being. Changing your mind, or recieving a heart transplant will not transform you into a bird, a rock, or a star. The concept "identity" does not indicate the particular natures of the existents it subsumes; it merely underscores the primary fact that they are what they are.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 13, 2008 5:27:42 GMT
>You are still a human being. Changing your mind, or recieving a heart transplant will not transform you into a bird, a rock, or a star.
Quite so
But when objectivism says "its characteristics constitute its identity" how are we supposed to apply that to discovering identity in humans?
We have 2 immediate questions of identity:
- how to discover if an animated being has human identity - how to discover if humans have separable identities of their own
So how would we apply objectivism to determining identity in those cases?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 13, 2008 6:01:24 GMT
We have 2 immediate questions of identity: - how to discover if an animated being has human identity - how to discover if humans have separable identities of their own So how would we apply objectivism to determining identity in those cases? You must be able to define what your concept is as a first step. Did you miss this part? In other words, things are what they are. A is A. A is never non-A. The problem here, I think, is that you are attempting to prove the irrational by means of the rational. Particularly since Kant, the philosophical technique of concept stealing, of attempting to negate reason by means of reason, has become a general bromide, a gimmick worn transparently thin. "When modern philosophers declare that axioms are a matter of arbitrary choice, and proceed to choose complex, derivative concepts as the alleged axioms of their alleged reasoning, one can observe that their statements imply and depend on "existence," "consciousness," "identity," which they profess to negate, but which are smuggled into their arguments in the form of unacknowledged, "stolen" concepts." Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, 79.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 13, 2008 11:45:23 GMT
Thus when we say "its characteristics constitute its identity" we are saying that those characteristics are unique and undefined and therefore no thing is comparable to any other thing
I always thought of operationalism as form of objectivism but it now looks as if objectivism has no operations of its own. If so I do not know how to make use of it
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 13, 2008 11:59:43 GMT
Thus when we say "its characteristics constitute its identity" we are saying that those characteristics are unique and undefined and therefore no thing is comparable to any other thing how do you get that "no thing is compareable to any other thing" from "it's charactaristics constitute it's identity?" Objectivism has a well thought out epistimology, but I am unable to teach it to someone who does not wish to learn. Besides, we are discussing an idea of yours, not my philosophical beliefs. I'm pointing out what I consider flaws in your reasoning in order to help you, however, you must be willing to be helped for that to have any effect. You were originally postulating that our thoughts were controlled by an outside source. Such can not be proven by logic. Your premise is illogical to begin with.
|
|
|
Post by brandt on Mar 13, 2008 15:39:36 GMT
I am curious. There seems to be a rather negative reaction against Objectivist philosophy. Why is this? What is it about Objectivism that inspires such a reaction? Are there any particular points or is an overall matter?
Brandt
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 13, 2008 22:14:00 GMT
>You were originally postulating that our thoughts were controlled by an outside source. Such can not be proven by logic.
Well in the absence of evidence I suppose it is difficult to prove anything.
How would we gather evidence to test the hypothesis?
Alternatively are there any existing phenomena that might be evidence for such a situation?
>Your premise is illogical to begin with.
I am not sure how to demonstrate a premise is illogical unless it is internally inconsistent.
On the other hand a premise could be inconsistent with other beliefs in which case it might be illogical for the believer to believe it. That seems a different case to me
But I would still like to see an example of applying "its characteristics constitute its identity"
Could we take something well known - lets say a cat or any other commonly observed being - and demonstrate how its characteristics define its identity?
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 14, 2008 15:47:02 GMT
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 15, 2008 3:44:22 GMT
>Could we take something well known - lets say a cat or any other commonly observed being - and demonstrate how its characteristics define its identity?
It appears there are no takers. I am not surprised. No matter how you describe the characteristics to define identity there are always exceptions through genetic variation, accident or mutation.
Thus we finish with a loop: A cat is a being that ought to have the characteristics of a cat but may not actually have them all. Thus catness is a transcendental identity that generates a range of characteristics most of which are shared by beings currently classified as Felis silvestris catus.
The taxonomy is occasionally reviewed - potentially dividing or aggregating species
Maximus, thanks for the links to the videos
I watched the first one. Ayn Rand tells us that:
- we have no obligation to the brotherhood of man - people must deserve to be loved
I might stick with Masonry
Cheers
Russell
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 15, 2008 4:38:07 GMT
>Could we take something well known - lets say a cat or any other commonly observed being - and demonstrate how its characteristics define its identity? It appears there are no takers. I am not surprised. No matter how you describe the characteristics to define identity there are always exceptions through genetic variation, accident or mutation. Thus we finish with a loop: A cat is a being that ought to have the characteristics of a cat but may not actually have them all. Thus catness is a transcendental identity that generates a range of characteristics most of which are shared by beings currently classified as Felis silvestris catus. The taxonomy is occasionally reviewed - potentially dividing or aggregating species What you are advocating is Plato's Forms, that reality is a reflection of archetypes, which exist in another dimension in perfection, and that the world around us is an imperfect copy of these archetypes. What I am advocating is Aristotle's logic, that reality exists as we precieve it. What is, is. A is A. A cat exists. It has form that we precieve and define as cat. It is the general charactaristics of cat, not the particular variations thereof, that define it as cat. That a specific cat has an injury or mutation does not invalidate its identity as cat. A characteristic is an aspect of an existent. It is not a disembodied, Platonic universal. Just as a concept cannot mean existents apart from their identity, so it cannot mean identities apart from that which exists. Existence is Identity. The concept "identity" does not indicate the particular natures of the existents it subsumes; it merely underscores the primary fact that they are what they are. Your statement that catness is a trancendental identity is gibberish. I never suggested that you abandon Masonry, Russell. You should have watched the entire interview, you would have learned more. You are misunderstanding what she means. Objectivism rejects the concept of Altruism, that we sacrifice ourselves to others in disregard of ourselves. It does not mean that we do not help others if we so choose, and they are deserving of our help. We do not love everyone indiscriminately, but love those whom we so choose, based on thier virtue and value to ourself.
|
|
Tamrin
Member
Nosce te ipsum
Posts: 3,586
|
Post by Tamrin on Mar 15, 2008 4:39:53 GMT
I might stick with Masonry Your anti-Semitic "new dispensation?" I might stick with Masonry!
|
|
|
Post by maximus on Mar 15, 2008 5:06:27 GMT
This is an example of trancendental identity: "There is little doubt that throughout the space of the Cosmic Ocean, our universe, there flow a multitude of ephemeral individuations that in varying degrees sustain their borders over time—a myriad swarm of waves within waves of perceptible patterns identified into countless arrays of objects and entities: galaxies, stars, planets, atoms, quarks …. Somewhere between the ceaselessly disintegrating and integrating chaotic microscopic waves of complexes and the ceaselessly fluctuating macroscopic waves of complexes there emerge from out of the flux the bundles which we find ourselves identified as—“the faces myriad yet curiously identical in their lack of individual identity,” to borrow Faulkner’s words—living human beings, themselves whirlpools of ever-changing patterns through whose borders flow the amorphous experiences and conceptions in which the conscious contemplation of this entire Cosmic array consists." I Am You The Metaphysical Foundations for Global Ethics - Daniel Kolak Utter gibberish.
|
|
|
Post by hollandr on Mar 15, 2008 6:54:23 GMT
>What you are advocating is Plato's Forms
Plato sounds good to me
>We do not love everyone indiscriminately, but love those whom we so choose,
I am not sure that is the same concept as the brotherhood of man
>based on their virtue and value to ourself.
And I am pleased my mother loved me regardless of my virtue and value both of which were questionable for quite some time.
|
|