|
Inlägg #41: Postat: 2002-10-29 19:05:00
|
|
Kent Davidsson |
I am waiting for your answer to 33 and 34, SW.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #42: Postat: 2002-10-29 19:09:00
|
|
Kent Davidsson svar på 38 |
What do you mean when you say "Någonting FINNS. Så fort vi ser med våra ögon..."?
|
| |
|
Inlägg #43: Postat: 2002-10-29 20:52:00
|
|
Frederik |
David, what do you mean with the axioms of existence, identity and consciousness?
|
| |
|
Inlägg #44: Postat: 2002-10-31 13:16:00
|
|
Kent Davidsson |
I have briefly gone through the arguments of objectivsm on Länk: objectivistcenter.org. It appears to me that objectivism is based on a number of axioms. One of these is "Man has free will". However, it is not presented as an xiom. Instead it is deduced somehow. Wether the objectivists are aware that axioms cannot be deduced is an open question. Maybe the deduction is a way to embed the axiom so that it looks more acceptable. |
| |
|
Inlägg #45: Postat: 2002-10-31 13:23:00
|
|
Kent Davidsson |
The deduction of "Man has free will" is not very impressive though. The only argument seems to be that it is self-evident: "The fact of free will is self-evident: each of us knows we have the ability to control our own minds, to focus our thoughts on one issue or another, and to direct our own actions.". Why dont the objectivists tell us HOW they know this? Because they do not know. It is an axiom and as such it is no better than "man has not free will".
|
| |
|
Inlägg #46: Postat: 2002-10-31 14:03:00
|
|
Frederik |
Ahaaa... Interesting site. Now at least I know where SW got his strange ideas about philosophy from. Quite fun, actually. They claim to think for themselves, yet refer to only one philosopher on which to base their ideology. Talk about living by the judgment of ones own mind...
|
| |
|
Inlägg #47: Postat: 2002-10-31 14:12:00
|
|
Frederik |
Mind me, I should perhaps read a bit more in their site before I make claims like that. Nevertheless, Ill always be wary of people who claim to have all answers.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #48: Postat: 2002-11-04 05:24:00
|
|
David Woxberg |
Kent Davidsson: An axiom is a statement which identifies the basis of knowledge, i.e. a statement which has to be accepted by everyone - even the ones who choose to deny it. Free will is indeed one of these.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #49: Postat: 2002-11-04 05:26:00
|
|
David Woxberg |
All knowledge, including axioms, has to be grasped somehow. When it comes to higher, conceptual knowledge one gains knowledge by the method of inference. Axioms, however, are not reached through deduction but through direct sensory perception. They are not derived from already established knowledge: they are the basis of all knowledge, including the argument that they are the basis of all knowledge.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #50: Postat: 2002-11-04 05:29:00
|
|
David Woxberg |
It should already be clear why the objectivist you are referring to David Kelley, I suspect are saying that free will is an axiom. It is because it IS self-evident. It is something that can be grasped in every action you undertake, mental or physical, i.e. self-evident.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #51: Postat: 2002-11-04 05:32:00
|
|
Frederik |
1 Objectivism WAS based and developed largely by one philosopher, and that was Ayn Rand. However, there are lots of thinkers, objectivists and others, that are supported by The Objectivist Center.
If you read some more material you will see that. But I do not expect that of you, since you seem to be more interested in delivering low insinuations.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #52: Postat: 2002-11-04 05:34:00
|
|
David Woxberg |
Message 51 was from me, and it was directed to Frederik. I incidently typed in the wrong name. Sorry.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #53: Postat: 2002-11-04 05:37:00
|
|
David Woxberg |
2 Who is saying that objectivists "claim to have all the answers"? I dont expect you to answer, and if you dont have anything else to deliver than rude insults, then dont even bother.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #54: Postat: 2002-11-04 08:52:00
|
|
Kent Davidsson svar på 48 |
The "free will" has been discussed in philosophy more than 2000 years. It is indeed not "accepted by everyone".
|
| |
|
Inlägg #55: Postat: 2002-11-04 14:21:00
|
|
Frederik |
My apologies if I sounded arrogant. Mind me, I wanted to provoke, but mainly SW who actually quite annoyed me with his grand claims on what philosophy and consciousness are, without even considering or even reacting to any of our counter-arguments.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #56: Postat: 2002-11-04 14:25:00
|
|
Frederik |
As for objectivism, Ill answer anyway. I actually did read a bit in the site and had read about Ayn Rand before. I disagree with most of its basic tenets and views for many reasons, too many to mention here. The most basic one is however in its very name: Objectivism.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #57: Postat: 2002-11-04 14:30:00
|
|
Frederik |
I.e., the name itself says that its main consideration is objective truth, truth that is so based in logic and reason that it is beyond argument and doubt. Truth like that is impossible for us humans to reach, and thus Objectivism seems to me like an ideology that claims more than it can deliver.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #58: Postat: 2002-11-04 14:34:00
|
|
Frederik |
Furthermore, with its celebration of the individual and its survival of the fittest-mentality it leaves little room for humility and self-doubt, which according to me are essential to at least come closer to truth If you think you know all the answers, then youve asked the wrong questions.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #59: Postat: 2002-11-04 14:42:00
|
|
Frederik |
In other words, Objectivists may claim and feel themselves to be objective and to hold the truth of reason and logic, but their ideology can become as dogmatic and narrow-minded as any form of religion. If in addition you link this to policy-making, then you get a situation that can be compared to the Christian crusaders exterminating people, feeling proud about it because its all in the Name of God.
|
| |
|
Inlägg #60: Postat: 2002-11-04 23:11:00
|
|
jamiila |
fredrik I would like to mail you, if thats ok, there are somethings I need to ask you about,may I have your e-mail, if its not too much to ask, or should I leave mine?
|
| |