Renee Katz

Members
  • Posts

    13
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Renee Katz

Previous Fields

  • Full Name
    Renee Katz

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

Renee Katz's Achievements

Newbie

Newbie (1/14)

0

Reputation

  1. Speaking of Gordon Clark, he actually is one of the philosophers behind what is known for the "Transcendental Argument for the Existence of God." This argument states that to argue against the existence of God using either epistemological or ethical arguments (i.e. logic, evidence or the Problem of Evil etc.) is to deny the presuppositions of logic and morality, meaning that according to Clark, deduction and induction and ethics all presuppose the existence of God. Does the fallacy he accuses atheists of committing sound familiar to you? The Transcendental Argument (TAG) basically states we are stealing concepts. Of course, they refuse to accept that their own metaphysics is based on stealing concepts. Hey, I've always wondered whether Christian theologians got this directly from Rand . . .
  2. Reidy, that is an interesting opinion. I got the definition from dictionary.com. On the science stuff: I don't think anyone's saying that Peikoff or whoever aren't ALLOWED to speculate on scientific theories, the debate is over whether this is a proper subject for philosophy. On another note, I am extremely suspicious of any physics/cosmology done after 1900. I think most of you would agree that when science says that the universe came from nothing or that they have "disproved" the law of identity, then it's time to be skeptical. Oh, and Harriman's lecture on physics and philosophy is, I think, quite good and you can watch it for free on the ARI homepage (you have to register).
  3. It's hard not to get excited about the atheist movement, and to like people like Richard Dawkins and Chris Hitchens. As far as it represents a profound concern with truth and a love of this world, I think it is a good thing.
  4. I agree with MSK. I don't know how this disproves Objectivist ethics. I was particularly interested in the part where they say false propositions might actually disgust us, and that this includes mathematical propositions as well as ETHICAL ones. This seems to support the idea that our view of the world is important to us, and that abstractions are just as important to us as concrete facts. It seems to be evidence of the importance of philosophy, atleast as far as our brains our concerned.
  5. I'd be interested in hearing more about this. You're saying that Peikoff tried to do some cosmology?
  6. Ugh, that article made me want to vomit. A perfect example of what's wrong with so many atheists: They so insist on doubt and skepticism and being open-minded and yet they wouldn't even think for a second to religious morality, i.e., altruism.
  7. The word 'cosmology' is also used in philosophy. What I was interested in is whether Rand was right in saying that the subject matter of cosmology (time, space, matter, the origins of the universe, etc) is properly left to science and not philosophy.
  8. For a long time I did not know the difference between ontology and metaphysics. I thought they were basically the same thing. But then while doing some research I came along this view: Ontology, along with cosmology, are two subjects of metaphysics. Ontology studies the nature of existence, or "being qua being," and cosmology studies the nature and origins of the universe. A good way to illustrate the difference between cosmology and ontology is to look at the cosmological and ontological arguments for the existence of God - they are both trying to prove the same thing, but in two different ways. Now, for Objectivism, I guess it is safe to assume that ontology and metaphysics are interchangeable. Rand effectively banished cosmology from metaphysics on the grounds that it was properly the concern of science and not philosophy. I can kinda see where she's coming from. However, cosmology (philosophy) deals with very broad, abstract principles that I don't think science by itself would be able to answer (the nature of space, time, causality, etc.). I'm interested in hearing other opinions on this.
  9. http://ariwatch.com/ I love it! Thanks to ARI Watch I now know that not only is the Ayn Rand Institute actually detrimental to the Objectivist Movement, but they may very well be responsible for 9/11! Thanks ARI Watch!
  10. Hey Michael, if you are talking about the discussion that's going on at SOLO, then I'd rather not bother with it. I actually like the way this thread is going much better. And yes, I will definitely read those articles. This topic could never be like chewing on razor blades. EVER.
  11. Renee, Actually, if you are talking about the idea of existence, they both depend on consciousness. But as a state, we perceive "out there" that there are things that exist without consciousness. A whole bunch of them. Even things with consciousness do not have our consciousness. So we conclude that in the grand scheme of things, we are not fundamental to out there. Once our consciousness is gone, out there continues. If out there goes away, we go away with it. But like I said, the idea of all this needs a consciousness to figure it out. An axiom is an idea regardless of how you look at it. As an idea, it needs a consciousness. The whole shebang axiom-wise is like the gem stone I mentioned. Oh, I definitely agree that the concept of existence depends on consciousness, but I'm talking about their referents in reality. I thought that the order of the axioms was important because consciousness in reality can't exist without existence. The physical processes that make up colors exist, but the actual colors as perceived by a conscious being don't exist.
  12. Hi Michael, thank you for responding. I am not sure what you mean by this. What is the difference? Why does existence not depend on consciousness, but as an axiom it does? This is another issue of mine. In Objectivism Identity and Existence are not two different things, but I would disagree. I think that these are two different concepts. Identity means the sum of an entities attributes, the nature of an entity; but an entity doesn't have attributes apart from being perceived. I mean, a thing can't be red as opposed to blue without someone perceiving it. Attributes don't exist. So yeah, basically I would say that entity and action (awareness) are implicit in the law of identity, and not the other way around. Why would entity and action be parts of the law of identity?
  13. Basically my dissent involves the three basic axioms: Existence, consciousness, and identity. I don't think they're wrong or that they're in the wrong order, but I think that consciousness rests on two crucial concepts: entity and action. I think that these concepts are implicit in consciousness and that without them consciousness is a floating abstraction. Consciousness assumes that entites exist because if you are conscious of something, then there has to be a thing being perceived and a thing doing the perceving. Consciousness assumes that the entities act because without action or motion, consciousness doesn't work. Consciousness IS action. In order to be a aware, you have to DO something; the perception of reality is an ACTIVE process. Moreover the concepts "entity" and "action" are axioms. They can't be defined, they can't be reduced to other concepts, and they can't be denied without contradicting oneself. In short, I am challenging Objectivism in metaphysics because it fails to make explicit these two concepts (entity and action) that are inherent in the concept of consciousness, and that it does not recognize them as basic axioms. I'd like to discuss this.