Relativism and objectvity
Acar
are not nailed to a post. There is no objective evidence for absolutism.
Reality may be immutable, but our knowledge of it is not. The waves are
real, but the floating cork will weave.
Acar
----- Original Message -----
From: "Agent Cooper" <agentc...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: humanities.philosophy.objectivism
Sent: Thursday, March 03, 2005 12:47 PM
Subject: Re: Relativism and objectvity
> Acar wrote:
> > Only relativists can be objective.
>
> That's true-for-you, but it isn't true-for-me.
He he. I hope that's a quip, not an argument.
Atlas Bugged
news:003b01c52013$6d417140$64fe...@cinci.rr.com...
> Only relativists can be objective.
[visualize Sam Kinison: "Ahhhhh Ahhhhh Ahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!]
>They go with the evidence because they
> are not nailed to a post. There is no objective evidence for absolutism.
> Reality may be immutable, but our knowledge of it is not. The waves are
> real, but the floating cork will weave.
What is the sound of one hand clapping? Acar gives us ice-cream koans.
Ralph Hertle
[unmarked end of post]
Acar is on record as an epoused anti-Objectivist.
The above post is a sloppy amalgam of lies that contradicts so many facts
of reality and Objectivism, that one may safely conclude that Acar's goal,
like the Surrealist, Madam Blavatsky, is to destroy the perceptual and
rational faculties of the reader.
Let us pick some sample Platonic flaws that were set forth by the
Platonist, Acar:
He says,
> Only relativists can be objective.
Not true. The identifying characteristic of rational humans is that they
can identify the facts of existence. Relationships are only one of the
possible types of concepts. A person who non-contradictorily identifies the
facts of existence is objective.
> They go with the evidence because they
> are not nailed to a post.
Acar's evidence of whatever is lacking.
> There is no objective evidence for absolutism.
The metaphysical fact of the existence of a continuing plurality of
existents in the universe is evidence enough. Existence is the primary, and
it is the absolute that cannot be altered. The universe is existing - and
that is what makes it an absolute.
Reason is the human faculty that non-contradictorily identifies the facts
of the universe, and in the realm of ideas, that is, epistemology, reason
is an absolute. Facts can be known by means of reason, and without reason,
no facts can be known. Either-or, reason is an absolute.
> Reality may be immutable,
That is, existence, cannot be caused to exist or its continuation ended. I
think that is what immutable means. If the meaning of "immutable" is taken
to mean "unchanging in total", that would be correct. However, the
constituent existents of the universe may change according to several
principles, and if one declared that the parts of a plural, or physical,
universe are immutable, that would be incorrect. It is obvious to any
observer that the existents of the universe are functioning and changing
all the time.
Acar has not defined his terms, and has left wide gaps of ambiguity in his
statements. It is grossly clear that he has not read Aristotle's or Ayn
Rand's work on these topics.
> but our knowledge of it is not.
Immutability is an incorrect term for use in describing the product of the
intellect.
All knowledge of Objective reality is factual, and knowledge identifies the
facts of reality, that is, of the universe or of metaphysical or
epistemological existents. If the facts change, e.g., the previously liquid
water freezes, then other concepts are needed to identify the
characteristics of that same water.
Acar rejects the use of definitions. If he were guided by proper
definitions for science, he would have to discover a realm of
irreconcilable Surrealism of his own ideas. Or, of true science. His mental
reality would certainly not be immutable.
> The waves are
> real, but the floating cork will weave.
Who could possibly know what Acar could possibly know regarding relative
and absolute concepts. Weaving through waves? That truly is the inane
drivel of the non-absolutist relativist.
Ralph Hertle
Mark N
> Acar wrote:
>
>> Only relativists can be objective. They go with the evidence because they
>> are not nailed to a post. There is no objective evidence for absolutism.
>> Reality may be immutable, but our knowledge of it is not. The waves are
>> real, but the floating cork will weave.
>
> [unmarked end of post]
>
> Acar is on record as an epoused anti-Objectivist.
Hey, speaking of Acorn, where has he been lately? I miss that little nut
with the hard outer shell! :-)
Mark
x
x
George Vernon Skivington
> > Acar is on record as an epoused anti-Objectivist.
> Hey, speaking of Acorn, where has he been lately? I miss that little
nut
> with the hard outer shell! :-)
Ralph just told you: his wife won't let him play.
Mark N
Ah, I was wondering what exactly Ralph meant by "e[s]poused" there!
Thanks for clarifying that! :-)
Mark
x
x
Malrassic Park
<ralph....@verizon.net> wrote:
>HPO:
>Acar wrote:
>> Only relativists can be objective. They go with the evidence because they
>> are not nailed to a post. There is no objective evidence for absolutism.
>> Reality may be immutable, but our knowledge of it is not. The waves are
>> real, but the floating cork will weave.
>[unmarked end of post]
>Acar is on record as an epoused anti-Objectivist.
>The above post is a sloppy amalgam of lies that contradicts so many facts
>of reality and Objectivism, that one may safely conclude that Acar's goal,
>like the Surrealist, Madam Blavatsky, is to destroy the perceptual and
>rational faculties of the reader.
Oh of course, Ralph, but so what? We are all out to destroy your
rational mind. WE ARE ALL OUT TO GET YOU...
>Let us pick some sample Platonic flaws that were set forth by the
>Platonist, Acar:
>He says,
> > Only relativists can be objective.
>Not true.
As usual, you are picking on the conclusion of an argument before
dealing with its premises. That is what Acar means by being nailed to
a post.
>The identifying characteristic of rational humans is that they
>can identify the facts of existence. Relationships are only one of the
>possible types of concepts. A person who non-contradictorily identifies the
>facts of existence is objective.
> >They go with the evidence because they are not nailed to a post.
>Acar's evidence of whatever is lacking.
Your response is evidence, along with thousands of other Randroid
messages sent to this forum.
> > There is no objective evidence for absolutism.
>The metaphysical fact of the existence of a continuing plurality of
>existents in the universe is evidence enough. Existence is the primary, and
>it is the absolute that cannot be altered. The universe is existing - and
>that is what makes it an absolute.
>
>Reason is the human faculty that non-contradictorily identifies the facts
>of the universe, and in the realm of ideas, that is, epistemology, reason
>is an absolute. Facts can be known by means of reason, and without reason,
>no facts can be known. Either-or, reason is an absolute.
> > Reality may be immutable,
>That is, existence, cannot be caused to exist or its continuation ended. I
>think that is what immutable means. If the meaning of "immutable" is taken
>to mean "unchanging in total", that would be correct. However, the
>constituent existents of the universe may change according to several
>principles, and if one declared that the parts of a plural, or physical,
>universe are immutable, that would be incorrect. It is obvious to any
>observer that the existents of the universe are functioning and changing
>all the time.
You cannot deal with an argument as a whole, but must break it into
tiny bits and pieces which your tiny brain may more readily consume.
>Acar has not defined his terms, and has left wide gaps of ambiguity in his
>statements. It is grossly clear that he has not read Aristotle's or Ayn
>Rand's work on these topics.
As if those two had the only word to say on any topic. You are nailed
to a post.
> > but our knowledge of it is not.
>Immutability is an incorrect term for use in describing the product of the
>intellect.
"Incorrect, incorrect, you are all incorrect."
>All knowledge of Objective reality is factual, and knowledge identifies the
>facts of reality, that is, of the universe or of metaphysical or
>epistemological existents. If the facts change, e.g., the previously liquid
>water freezes, then other concepts are needed to identify the
>characteristics of that same water.
>Acar rejects the use of definitions. If he were guided by proper
>definitions for science, he would have to discover a realm of
>irreconcilable Surrealism of his own ideas. Or, of true science. His mental
>reality would certainly not be immutable.
I must have missed your definition of "water" in the example above
this. If you're such a king of definitions, why didn't you bother to
define your subject? Perhaps your own premises aren't lacking in a
certain amount of Surrealism.
> > The waves are real, but the floating cork will weave.
>Who could possibly know what Acar could possibly know regarding relative
>and absolute concepts. Weaving through waves? That truly is the inane
>drivel of the non-absolutist relativist.
Ralph, you're not an absolutist, you're supposed to be an objectivist,
and so is Acar as he told you above, "Only relativists can be
objective."
These are all statements about the physical world and its objectivity,
so if you say there are absolutes, and if these physical objects are
bound to absolute physical laws, then you have a relationship in which
one stands relative to the other. So the question is: How does the law
of identity affect things? And how does the law of causality affect
things causally? Where are these laws such that they can affect these
things?
If you answer honestly (which I doubt), you will find that these
so-called laws were inductively derived, and thus their truth stands
in relation to the evidence and to other knowledge, and are therefore
not absolutes.
--
"Sometimes his trolling proves useful to make a
point. A foil for my sword. =)"
Ken Gardner
>Oh of course, Ralph, but so what? We are all out to destroy your
>rational mind. WE ARE ALL OUT TO GET YOU...
We are all too late. Someone already beat us to the punch.
[...]
Ken
Ralph Hertle
Mark N wrote:
> Ah, I was wondering what exactly Ralph meant by "e[s]poused" there!
> Thanks for clarifying that! :-)
Ralph doesn't know what was meant by that either.