tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37095350.post8387423833939253560..comments2024-02-07T02:21:40.638-08:00Comments on Idiot Philosophy: A Response to DawsonAndrew Louishttp://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37095350.post-45372912190920836742010-09-06T18:38:15.593-07:002010-09-06T18:38:15.593-07:00Vagon,
honestly, I'm not all that interested i...Vagon,<br />honestly, I'm not all that interested in certainty, epistemology, [T]ruth, etc.. As a pragmatist I find them wanting, question begging, and ultimately useless. <br /><br />The reality is I popped in at Dawson's because I caught wind that Sye was there and was interested to see what bull shit he was flinging around this time. When at first I saw Dawson's argument, and Sye was quite, well, I couldn't help myself. What Dawson was saying looked (and may be) fraught with the same or similar baggage. Now of course I could be wrong, and I seem to be far enough into this that I'm really interested to see if I am, and/or if (in the end) perhaps our thought isn't all that different. <br /><br />Ultimately we do agree on one thing - Sye's argument is bull shit...Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37095350.post-25579815535445886042010-09-06T16:45:49.515-07:002010-09-06T16:45:49.515-07:00Fair enough, you'll find its roots are in Aris...Fair enough, you'll find its roots are in Aristotle, and by extension Plato and by extension socrates etc etc. <br /><br />As with any school there's a number of differences.<br /><br />I've only looked into it as much as an ontological and epistemological system so (assuming you consider language to be separate to epistemology) I wont be much help.<br /><br />CheersVagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05758734418127314111noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37095350.post-6090690300332779852010-09-06T06:55:30.696-07:002010-09-06T06:55:30.696-07:00Vagon,
I'll be addressing these things in anot...Vagon,<br />I'll be addressing these things in another post. Part of what's happening here is me trying to see to the bottom of Dawson's (Rand's) position. How is it not just more Platonism, etc.? <br /><br />I'm starting to gather the real contention here (I'll ignore the axioms for now) is the idea that "words are representations". That's problematic for many reasons, however before even approaching the problems (which I previously started to do), I have to confirm whether or not that's true.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-37095350.post-71002336431734482102010-09-05T20:08:47.238-07:002010-09-05T20:08:47.238-07:00Hi Andrew.
The incontestible certainties are Obje...Hi Andrew.<br /><br />The incontestible certainties are Objectivism's axioms:<br /><br />Existence,<br />Conciousness &<br />Identity.<br /><br />Even if you take absurdity as a possibility to start with, you still unavoidably come to the conclusion that these are correct.<br /><br />In order for anything at all to be happening, existence exists. If existence exist, then it is identified. If it can be identified, it is identified through conciousness. QED.<br /><br />What the rest of your questions relate to is the primacy of existence or the primacy of conciousness. I think you should read up on this in objectivist literature, but it is impossible not to place first the primacy of existence without ruining either the validity or the necessity of your argument.<br /><br />The rest of your various arguments are layered from those foundations, so I think it would be most worthwhile discussing that before moving on.Vagonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05758734418127314111noreply@blogger.com