Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Ayn Rand, on Materialism

innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 12:37:35 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I'm watching a documentary on the life of Ayn Rand in her own words. It's decent enough, and thought provoking. At one point she explains how in the USSR they abandon the concept of the soul, and understand a human being to be no more than a collection of cells, material, that can be owned by the state. This was materialism in the soviet union and justification for the devaluation of life, because under materialism there is no inherent rights of man.

I guess this could have gone in the religion forum, but I am confused how an atheist libertarian can think beyond the implications of materialism; how anyone can reconcile a Jeffersonian model of libertarianism and the rights of man in a purely atheistic mindset without it being a completely subjective opinion on the subject.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Jeffersonian model
I don't think Ayn Rand wants a nation of yeomen farmers and a revolution every few years (She supported one revolution she lived through and then not the other a few years later, in fact!).

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."
There's some imprecision here that I usually get rid of when I rephrase (specifically... "he has a right to live as a rational being,: nature forbids him the irrational" is rather silly, contradicting her rules on usage for the words and the second clause seems absurd, but a nonessential phrase for the argument). The core of what I usually say is there though.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 1:27:59 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Erm, not quite absurd on second thought, just an exaggeration really. Nature certainly doesn't reward the irrational among humans, regardless of its lack of forbiddance-- act irrationally and you will likely become obese or poisoned or any number of other things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:06:45 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Jeffersonian model
I don't think Ayn Rand wants a nation of yeomen farmers and a revolution every few years (She supported one revolution she lived through and then not the other a few years later, in fact!).

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."
There's some imprecision here that I usually get rid of when I rephrase (specifically... "he has a right to live as a rational being,: nature forbids him the irrational" is rather silly, contradicting her rules on usage for the words and the second clause seems absurd, but a nonessential phrase for the argument). The core of what I usually say is there though.

Still seems very subjective, because you say 'it is right' doesn't make it so. Surely wouldn't nature agree that might makes right not something that has been given anything but exists within the limitations of his existance and the acheivement of his abilities. I see contradictions in her sense of obligatory morality and self interest.

I read a lot of her stuff in college but don't remember being so critical of it since hearing her speak of it in her own words.
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:09:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I guess this could have gone in the religion forum, but I am confused how an atheist libertarian can think beyond the implications of materialism; how anyone can reconcile a Jeffersonian model of libertarianism and the rights of man in a purely atheistic mindset without it being a completely subjective opinion on the subject.:

The same way Jefferson himself did. Jefferson, being a deist, seemed to only believe in a Creator based on him not understanding any other way to account for why life exists. None of his arguments on state versus private ever seemed to correlate with God.

I personally don't see it as relevant.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:21:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 2:06:45 PM, innomen wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Jeffersonian model
I don't think Ayn Rand wants a nation of yeomen farmers and a revolution every few years (She supported one revolution she lived through and then not the other a few years later, in fact!).

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."
There's some imprecision here that I usually get rid of when I rephrase (specifically... "he has a right to live as a rational being,: nature forbids him the irrational" is rather silly, contradicting her rules on usage for the words and the second clause seems absurd, but a nonessential phrase for the argument). The core of what I usually say is there though.

Still seems very subjective, because you say 'it is right' doesn't make it so.
The goal to live sets the context through which the morality comes to exist. "If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind." It's not right because she said so, it's because he seeks to live-- "It is right" in the sentence means "To achieve this, it will be necessary..." Morality is a goal-oriented code of general-case behavior.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:30:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Jeffersonian model
I don't think Ayn Rand wants a nation of yeomen farmers and a revolution every few years (She supported one revolution she lived through and then not the other a few years later, in fact!).

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."
There's some imprecision here that I usually get rid of when I rephrase (specifically... "he has a right to live as a rational being,: nature forbids him the irrational" is rather silly, contradicting her rules on usage for the words and the second clause seems absurd, but a nonessential phrase for the argument). The core of what I usually say is there though.

notice how she kinda sneaks a value judgement in there with the use of the word proper? its because she knows that men (nor women :P) do NOT need unlimited property rights in order to live. to say so would be clearly false. so she confuses people by insisting that you must either have unlimited property rights or no property rights at all, but thats simply a false dichotomy. there are literally infinite possibilities in between regarding how to best delineate property rights, and its an open question whether or not inviolable property rights would really be best for anyone's life or happiness as opposed to a more nuanced view of them. you (and she) are just assuming that is true. this fact alone considerably weakens the moral imperative for unlimited property rights on which the rest of her argument stands.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:39:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 2:30:26 PM, belle wrote:
notice how she kinda sneaks a value judgement in there with the use of the word proper?
That is there in large part to recognize the fact that it's impossible to value a life without a mind, i.e., no valuing time as a vegetable against time as a rational animal.

its because she knows that men (nor women :P) do NOT need unlimited property rights in order to live.
They need to produce to live, they need access to what they've produced to know whether they'll live tomorrow. Since limiting someone's rights (aside from by defining, definitions are after all limits) is contradictory...

so she confuses people by insisting that you must either have unlimited property rights or no property rights at all, but thats simply a false dichotomy.
No, it's not. Either I have what I have created, or I don't, and I don't have my property rights respected. I might have certain privileges from the state that decided to "limit property rights," but in so deciding they have abolished the applicability of the descriptor "rights" for them.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:39:44 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Jeffersonian model
I don't think Ayn Rand wants a nation of yeomen farmers and a revolution every few years (She supported one revolution she lived through and then not the other a few years later, in fact!).

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."


....was rand aware that it doesn't follow from the law of identity that man has a nature?
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:42:09 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 2:39:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Jeffersonian model
I don't think Ayn Rand wants a nation of yeomen farmers and a revolution every few years (She supported one revolution she lived through and then not the other a few years later, in fact!).

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."


....was rand aware that it doesn't follow from the law of identity that man has a nature?

For A to have Aness, for Man to have Manness, is for man to have a nature. We call the Manness, the property which makes us call something "Man," "Man's Nature." Man is a rational animal. Something that isn't a rational animal is not a Man-- it is disqualified by not having Man's nature.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 2:43:10 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
That is to say, nature here is just another word for identity.

I don't really like the word, I'd ideally prefer to leave it in the hands of treehuggers, but... Rand isn't me.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 3:05:53 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 2:42:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:39:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

....was rand aware that it doesn't follow from the law of identity that man has a nature?

For A to have Aness, for Man to have Manness, is for man to have a nature. We call the Manness, the property which makes us call something "Man," "Man's Nature." Man is a rational animal. Something that isn't a rational animal is not a Man-- it is disqualified by not having Man's nature.

Nope, that's bad metaphysics. The law of identity only entails that something is necessarily self identical. A nature consists of all and only the essential properties of an object. The law of identity doesn't gaurantee that something has essential properties - it's entirely possible that an object be made up of all accidental properties which would mean it doesn't have a nature. An accidentally propertied object doesn't have a nature yet is identical with itself. Again, any nature, much less mans', doesn't follow from identity.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 3:16:03 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 3:05:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:42:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:39:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

....was rand aware that it doesn't follow from the law of identity that man has a nature?

For A to have Aness, for Man to have Manness, is for man to have a nature. We call the Manness, the property which makes us call something "Man," "Man's Nature." Man is a rational animal. Something that isn't a rational animal is not a Man-- it is disqualified by not having Man's nature.

Nope, that's bad metaphysics. The law of identity only entails that something is necessarily self identical. A nature consists of all and only the essential properties of an object. The law of identity doesn't gaurantee that something has essential properties - it's entirely possible that an object be made up of all accidental properties which would mean it doesn't have a nature.
Fallacy of equivocation, Rand doesn't mean by nature whatever you do. Using language like "Accidental" sounds like a teleological fallacy a-brewin.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 3:24:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 3:16:03 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/21/2011 3:05:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:42:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:39:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

....was rand aware that it doesn't follow from the law of identity that man has a nature?

For A to have Aness, for Man to have Manness, is for man to have a nature. We call the Manness, the property which makes us call something "Man," "Man's Nature." Man is a rational animal. Something that isn't a rational animal is not a Man-- it is disqualified by not having Man's nature.

Nope, that's bad metaphysics. The law of identity only entails that something is necessarily self identical. A nature consists of all and only the essential properties of an object. The law of identity doesn't gaurantee that something has essential properties - it's entirely possible that an object be made up of all accidental properties which would mean it doesn't have a nature.

Fallacy of equivocation, Rand doesn't mean by nature whatever you do.

Neither do I.

Using language like "Accidental" sounds like a teleological fallacy a-brewin.

It's not. Look up the difference between accidental and essential properties.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 3:32:57 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 3:24:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Fallacy of equivocation, Rand doesn't mean by nature whatever you do.

Neither do I.
You don't mean by nature whatever you mean by nature?


Using language like "Accidental" sounds like a teleological fallacy a-brewin.

It's not. Look up the difference between accidental and essential properties.
Already did, and it was invented by a guy famous for (among other, better things) teleological issues. Every property of everything not man-made is an accident, that doesn't mean those properties are not essential to the things.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/21/2011 6:16:24 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 3:32:57 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/21/2011 3:24:24 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Fallacy of equivocation, Rand doesn't mean by nature whatever you do.

Neither do I.
You don't mean by nature whatever you mean by nature?


I read that the wrong way. Sorry.

What I meant to say is that if Rand just means self-identicality by nature then her metaphysics makes no sense at all. Once you disambiguate the terms it becomes clear one can't derive some x's nature just from saying x = x. She tries to do this with whole host of other things too (deriving grandoise metaphysical conclusions from the law of identity) and it just doesn't work.


Using language like "Accidental" sounds like a teleological fallacy a-brewin.

It's not. Look up the difference between accidental and essential properties.
Already did, and it was invented by a guy famous for (among other, better things) teleological issues. Every property of everything not man-made is an accident, that doesn't mean those properties are not essential to the things.

The modern usage is a different than the original usage considering the fact that one need not be wedded to aristotelian metaphysics in using the terms.

It makes no sense to say that an accidental property (some property that an object might not have had) is essential to an object. Essential properties are ones that an object must necessarily have i.e. all essential properties it has constitute it's nature. Like, you for instance, are saying it's a necessary/essential property that man is a rational animal. You can't derive that from just saying man is man. That doesn't follow.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
belle
Posts: 4,113
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2011 11:52:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 2:39:34 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:30:26 PM, belle wrote:
notice how she kinda sneaks a value judgement in there with the use of the word proper?
That is there in large part to recognize the fact that it's impossible to value a life without a mind, i.e., no valuing time as a vegetable against time as a rational animal.

i doubt it. there are many ways to use the mind that are inimical to her philosophy (though its true she would probably attempt to define them out of existence). a "proper" life is one lived according to her value judgments. unless you honestly believe that the people who disagree with you don't think...?

its because she knows that men (nor women :P) do NOT need unlimited property rights in order to live.
They need to produce to live, they need access to what they've produced to know whether they'll live tomorrow. Since limiting someone's rights (aside from by defining, definitions are after all limits) is contradictory...

since when? you can define it that way to avoid the argument, but that doesn't make it true. why can't i define a right to 95% of everything i produce or a right that applies when some conditions obtain but not others?

so she confuses people by insisting that you must either have unlimited property rights or no property rights at all, but thats simply a false dichotomy.
No, it's not. Either I have what I have created, or I don't, and I don't have my property rights respected. I might have certain privileges from the state that decided to "limit property rights," but in so deciding they have abolished the applicability of the descriptor "rights" for them.

either you have one specific object you've created or you don't. either you have everything you've created or you don't. that doesn't imply that either you have everything you've created or you have nothing, and that fact alone contradicts the need for an unlimited property right.
evidently i only come to ddo to avoid doing homework...
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 1:41:12 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
If you read Ayn Rand's political views, there is something interesting to keep in mind:

Rand's entire philosophy is the mirror image of Communism. It involves the same class warfare, except the elites are being rooted for. Instead of sacrifice for the group, it focuses entirely on the needs of the individual.

It's no mistake since she grew up under Communism.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 4:20:40 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 1:41:12 AM, Wnope wrote:
If you read Ayn Rand's political views, there is something interesting to keep in mind:

Rand's entire philosophy is the mirror image of Communism. It involves the same class warfare, except the elites are being rooted for. Instead of sacrifice for the group, it focuses entirely on the needs of the individual.

It's no mistake since she grew up under Communism.

Specifically Stalinism, but she lived through the revolution, and yeah, it's incredibly apparent that her thinking is greatly skewed because of it.

In the interview she was asked: it seems like love to you is just like a business arrangement, is that true? There was a long pause, and essentially she agreed with it. There is a paradox, or as Ragnar would say it is hypocritical in that the selfishness is dependent on selflessness in an arrangement of love; in that you put the other's needs before yours (sometimes to your detriment), but that provides you with satisfaction. - It's a tortured view of making the case of self-interest, but it works.

This is just the trailer, but the whole thing is available on Netflix.

She is a powerful force of thought, but there are holes in her philosophy. There just seems to be too many contortions of reason to justify her conclusions.
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:14:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 2:39:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
Jeffersonian model
I don't think Ayn Rand wants a nation of yeomen farmers and a revolution every few years (She supported one revolution she lived through and then not the other a few years later, in fact!).

"The source of man's rights is not divine law or congressional law, but the law of identity. A is A—and Man is Man. Rights are conditions of existence required by man's nature for his proper survival. If man is to live on earth, it is right for him to use his mind, it is right to act on his own free judgment, it is right to work for his values and to keep the product of his work. If life on earth is his purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being: nature forbids him the irrational. Any group, any gang, any nation that attempts to negate man's rights, is wrong, which means: is evil, which means: is anti-life."


....was rand aware that it doesn't follow from the law of identity that man has a nature?

any "thing" is something...

no "Thing" is nothing.

I don't care if it's the law of identity or not.. Every "thing" is something.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:18:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/21/2011 3:05:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:42:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:39:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

....was rand aware that it doesn't follow from the law of identity that man has a nature?

For A to have Aness, for Man to have Manness, is for man to have a nature. We call the Manness, the property which makes us call something "Man," "Man's Nature." Man is a rational animal. Something that isn't a rational animal is not a Man-- it is disqualified by not having Man's nature.

Nope, that's bad metaphysics. The law of identity only entails that something is necessarily self identical. A nature consists of all and only the essential properties of an object. The law of identity doesn't gaurantee that something has essential properties - it's entirely possible that an object be made up of all accidental properties which would mean it doesn't have a nature. An accidentally propertied object doesn't have a nature yet is identical with itself. Again, any nature, much less mans', doesn't follow from identity.

There are no Things made up of only Accidental properties.

not a one.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:22:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:18:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/21/2011 3:05:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Nope, that's bad metaphysics. The law of identity only entails that something is necessarily self identical. A nature consists of all and only the essential properties of an object. The law of identity doesn't gaurantee that something has essential properties - it's entirely possible that an object be made up of all accidental properties which would mean it doesn't have a nature. An accidentally propertied object doesn't have a nature yet is identical with itself. Again, any nature, much less mans', doesn't follow from identity.

There are no Things made up of only Accidental properties.

not a one.

For example you could say the chair could be over there instead of over here.. it's only Accidental that it's here.

but you can't say it could be metal instead of wood... for then it would be another chair...

we might still call it a chair.. but it's not the same chair.. Instead of making This chair.. the maker could've made a different chair.. but this doesn't mean the properties of the given chair COULD be metal.. b/c it's not.. it's wood.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:39:22 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:18:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/21/2011 3:05:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:42:09 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 8/21/2011 2:39:44 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
At 8/21/2011 1:25:45 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:

....was rand aware that it doesn't follow from the law of identity that man has a nature?

For A to have Aness, for Man to have Manness, is for man to have a nature. We call the Manness, the property which makes us call something "Man," "Man's Nature." Man is a rational animal. Something that isn't a rational animal is not a Man-- it is disqualified by not having Man's nature.

Nope, that's bad metaphysics. The law of identity only entails that something is necessarily self identical. A nature consists of all and only the essential properties of an object. The law of identity doesn't gaurantee that something has essential properties - it's entirely possible that an object be made up of all accidental properties which would mean it doesn't have a nature. An accidentally propertied object doesn't have a nature yet is identical with itself. Again, any nature, much less mans', doesn't follow from identity.

There are no Things made up of only Accidental properties.

not a one.

now things Do constantly change...

Drawing out, and Naming, a Particular "Thing" in the first place.. and Holding to that thing as being Constant/secure in the first place might have problems..

For "I" am not the same thing I was before...

Though this line of talk doesn't land you with a defensible, Accidental, "I" to hold to Throughout the waves of change... it makes you understand that holding to any name is indefensible.

Names describe PARTICULAR Things... when those things change they should be understood as Changed.

now the thing that I am is still called Matthew, though I am no longer the child that was called matthew.

The name does not reach to describe ANY particular Concrete thing... and we shouldn't confuse ourselves that it does.

However, this does not mean that I as I currently am do not exist as I am.. OR that the properties that thing that is me Currently has is in any way Accidental.

the thing that is Me, Now, is what I am.. the properties that describe me are Essential properties.

Later other, different, properties might fall under the name Matthew.. but that Matthew will not be the same as the Matthew that is Me Now.

The problem isn't that Matthew doesn't have essential properties.. it's in confusing our naming conventions with Reality... Things, like myself, are described by essential properties.. Natures... however any things change, and the thing you see tomorrow might not be what was there yesterday.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 7:50:34 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 7:22:31 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/23/2011 7:18:47 AM, mattrodstrom wrote:
At 8/21/2011 3:05:53 PM, popculturepooka wrote:
Nope, that's bad metaphysics. The law of identity only entails that something is necessarily self identical. A nature consists of all and only the essential properties of an object. The law of identity doesn't gaurantee that something has essential properties - it's entirely possible that an object be made up of all accidental properties which would mean it doesn't have a nature. An accidentally propertied object doesn't have a nature yet is identical with itself. Again, any nature, much less mans', doesn't follow from identity.

There are no Things made up of only Accidental properties.

not a one.

For example you could say the chair could be over there instead of over here.. it's only Accidental that it's here.

but you can't say it could be metal instead of wood... for then it would be another chair...

we might still call it a chair.. but it's not the same chair.. Instead of making This chair.. the maker could've made a different chair.. but this doesn't mean the properties of the given chair COULD be metal.. b/c it's not.. it's wood.

picking out Things in the first place is the real issue.

for just as with "people" who do not remain constant.. Chairs don't either.

A weathered chair which is Cracked and raw.. is not simply ACCIDENTALLY cracked and raw... it couldn't Not be cracked and raw and be the Same chair.

Sure, before "Chair A" was not cracked and raw, and now "Chair A" is...

but "Chair A" is Not the same chair as it was before... it's being weathered and used are aspects of the chair... not Accidental aspects.. Actual aspects which describe the chair's nature.

we may call Both the chair from before, and the chair now "chair A" but this doesn't mean that the two are The Same.

there are bits of the Previous incarnation that are now off in a termite's belly.. or rubbed off on some guys pants...

the chair that is there now is Essentially different from the one that was there before.. we would still call it "chair A" b/c we recognize there's some continuity.. but this shouldn't be confused as implying that it's the same.

Identifying particular "things" in the first place is the issue here.

Given "things".. they can ONLY be described in terms of Essential properties.

"accidental" properties describe the given things relation to other things.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 8:17:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Once again matt's ridiculously obnoxious typing style has made it impossible to focus on what I was going to say by the time I got through attempting to read just one of his posts. Maybe that's his way of trying to win an argument? It works!
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 9:13:37 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 8:17:05 AM, Danielle wrote:
Once again matt's ridiculously obnoxious typing style has made it impossible to focus on what I was going to say by the time I got through attempting to read just one of his posts. Maybe that's his way of trying to win an argument? It works!

some people seem to be able to work through it..

either way, I'm right 8)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
OMGJustinBieber
Posts: 3,484
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:06:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Why do you type that way? I assume you type differently in school than on DDO. Why do you capitalize random words in the middle of sentences when you type on DDO, and why is every 2 sentences its own paragraph?
Danielle
Posts: 21,330
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:08:32 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:06:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Why do you type that way? I assume you type differently in school than on DDO. Why do you capitalize random words in the middle of sentences when you type on DDO, and why is every 2 sentences its own paragraph?

Don't forget the really annoying, random and unnecessary ellipsises.

I'd much rather someone tYpE LiKe tHiS than whatever bullshiit he does. It makes my head hurt.
President of DDO
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:22:25 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:06:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Why do you type that way? I assume you type differently in school than on DDO.

I do, and it takes me forever to make it how i want it.
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."
mattrodstrom
Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2011 11:25:04 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 8/23/2011 11:06:19 AM, OMGJustinBieber wrote:
Why do you type that way? I assume you type differently in school than on DDO. Why do you capitalize random words in the middle of sentences when you type on DDO, and why is every 2 sentences its own paragraph?

OMG!!!

why do you have OMG!!! in your name :P

go swish your head in a toilet :o)
"He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already."

Metaphysics:
"The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths."