Victor Pross

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Victor Pross

  1. Brant, Repeat: The name of this post is THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR---PERIOD! THIS says it all. The source of the subject matter IS THE SUBJECT MATTER. -V-
  3. Victor, You are right about favoritism. I have played favoritism in your favor for far too long. I am not trying to groom you. I tried to give you space to catch your breath from the attacks and learn. Bottom line. It doesn't matter anymore. I want you to stop plagiarizing on my site. Michael Michael, THIS post is not an example. Period. I am talking about the last chapter in OPAR, breaking down to the core what that chapter talks about--and you know that! And whatever my snotty attitude about this merely being a chat-room, I would never--ever--plagiarize when it comes to professionally published-for-profit works. And any works afixed with "By Victor Pross" means just that. It is not a conversation in a chewing ideas section. Having said this, I am not arguing against what you ask for. -Victor
  4. THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR Michael, Couched with the far reaching twisting of exonerating Dragonfly (when all else fell into silence) your post shifts from hand-slapping to become a critique in writing and formulation as such. (“Victor does not usually use the word ‘virulent’’”) And then you complain about the esthetics. WTF! The name of this post is THE DUEL BETWEEN PLATO AND ARISTOTLE THE EPILOGUE OF OPAR---PERIOD! THIS says it all. The source of the subject matter IS THE SUBJECT MATTER. In is a condescend snap-snot of a chapter in OPAR) for discussion.
  5. :bug: Dragonfly: “It is now some 20 years ago I read the complete works by Flaubert, so my memory is a bit vague, but I recall that I found Madame Bovary one of his best works. One of the contributing factors….” [The fly goes on the spew, and then in the next post, loveable Kori asked]: Dragonfly, Where'd you get that information, uh? Born with innate knowledge, were we? To which the reply was: From Souvenirs littéraires by Maxime du Camp. Kori again follows up: Why not credit that source initially? And then….silence. Shhhh, don’t say anything. Hee-hee! You godda love the double standards.
  6. Will, Ah, the school hallway monitor needs to get his two-cents in. I need to figure out that ‘ignore’ feature on this chat-room. Yes, a chat-room it is. (That's not an insult, that's what it is). And for the record, I never claimed that the argument against universal skepticism is mine. It is, to use Danny boy’s words, an “old argument.” I stated it has been argued by many. And even now, in my exchange with Danny, I have used that arguement. Try to pay attention. And if you are up to it, would you do another photoshop ‘caricature’ of me? I loved the first one. :turned: Edit: Plus, I don’t give a shit about O’ist quarters that would regard me as Victor Pross—nihilist modernist caricaturist who wants to cut down the good! :alien: -Victor
  7. Tootsie, it takes a certain kind of artist who is willing to expose his naked soul in either art or a memoir, and you can’t really ask this of James. But sure, I would love to see something like this. Speaking of that, I am writing yet another “autobio” installment for Icons and Idols: How I survived Art School. It is rather funny, I think.
  8. In the effort to untangle the webs of your epistemological stance, it comes out sounding convoluted, granted. And when your glaring contradictions come out from the shadows, you engage in witless cracks and 'humor' to distract attention from this. But my argument at the end of the day is only this: you are claiming a positive truth in regards to whatever epistemological position you take—skeptical, religious, innate, contextual…or whatever else. That is all.
  9. I recall you made this remark to Prime, but I would have to search for it. But, meanwhile, what have ye to say here and now? You are a not "100% skeptic"? edit: You said: "....just so we can retire this naiive line of argument once and for all - skepticism is itself not 100% certain! It may, in fact, turn out to be false. Thus we can hold it without falling into logical error." Well, granted, it is worded differently than I recalled it. But I would like to know how you know that skepticism is not 100% certain--and you do say it IS not 100% certain. Ah, the contradictions of it all!
  10. This is not desperation, but a valid point. Anybody who holds a specific and general stance in epistemology (even the skeptic’s) regards that stance as ‘truth’—even if he claims that he may be wrong about that! Seriously though, tell me this, why should you…or Popper, or any thinker—or anybody for that matter—struggle to develop suppositions, ideas, constructs (whatever) in epistemology? I mean, for what? For naught? What is at the end of this path? The absolute certainty that we know nothing? Er, I mean, for the hypothesis that we can know knowing? Why? To what end is this? And what the hell did you mean when you said that you are not a "100% skeptic"...if I recall correctly?
  11. You are plumping for 'never', huh. Humor as a distraction. Very good. ;] But I do get it. Sounds like universal skepticism to me: We can never know. Is that it? BUT then on other posts you claim that you are not a “100% skeptic.” If you make up your mind for this latter one, flip-flop, then it means certain knowledge is possible, eh? :whistle:
  12. Truth claims, obviously, can only be true. <Yes, this is the ever elusive garnish that is being employed to distract that the fallacy of the Stolen Concept is at hand. (Yeah, yeah, to use the Randian term). Alas, it still remains a positive statement in regards to the nature of knowledge. You are claiming a truth! You can't escape this conclusion. Every time a skeptic (depending on the species of skepticism we have at hand) sticks in self-contradicting foot in his mouth, but he wishes to slouch off his positive epistemological principles as—some how, by the grace of magic fairy polemist elf—“hypothetical” to ignore the absolutism of anything. "....Thus...amazingly....hypotheses are not truth claims, so...let's follow the bouncing ball r-e-a-l s-l-o-w here... thus there is no contradiction. Claiming certain knowledge leads to a contradiction? Are you really going to argue hypotheses are the same as truth claims, Victor? Not in regard to the specific inquiry of whatever is being investigated, tested or argued for, (it may be true or false) ---but the general principle, as you have formulated it above, is a positive stance in epistemology. That is: there is an absolute difference between hypothesis claims and truth claims. THIS is the dead-end, self-canceling stance that skepticism leads to. You want a contradiction, here it is.
  13. Are you positively sure? (Oh, that CLASSIC argument comes around full-circle again!): Are you sure? Get it! Get it! Danny boy: ...."But even if we did have it, we can never finally prove, and thus finally know, that it is the absolute truth. We could NEVER, NEVER...bla, bla, bla. Sounds like a positive statement to me.
  14. Mark, We have all heard the bromides “life is too short” and “this is not a dress rehearsal” and each cliché is meant to underscore the message of how brief and precious life is---and sometimes the extreme is taken where one is exhorted to live everyday “as if it were one’s last”—which could have profound ethical ramifications if carried out to its logical conclusion. Seriously though—life is too short. Life’s relatively epigrammatic span, for some people, renders it meaningless. “What’s the point?” they ask. “It’s all going to come to an end”. This is a state of mind I have never been sympathetic to. For others, (as it is for me) it is this very fact, the fact that life will end one day—and this fact alone—that imbues their life with vitality and meaning (“This is not a dress rehearsal!”). After all, what would be the purpose to set objectives and goals if life were something infinite? NEVER-ending! Wow, I believe “life eternal” would zap life of any meaning! Granting the reality of the inevitable end, the search for a meaningful and purposeful life goes on. And with varying degrees of stumbling in the dark, large amounts of people find varying degrees of satisfaction while others seem hopelessly unfulfilled, as measured by their own standards. “What is the meaning of life?” is the classic inquiry of philosophers down the ages. Both Philosophers and theologians, in fact, have stepped up to the plate to offer their wares to the age old angst question, and millions have found contentment in the “words of the wise” while others still feel a hollowness at the center of their being---regardless of the large intakes of eclectic belief systems, esoteric philosophies and pop self-help books. On this account, Mark, I don’t know where you are. Are you seeking to overcome whatever troubles you have? Some people are on an ever urgent quest to find meaning and purpose in this finite life, hungry for adventure, new experiences and romance at every corner and THIS is what I would describe as being profoundly MORAL. Morality is just as much about the quality of life: Yes, indeed, the pursuit of happiness. THIS is what it is about. But others are languishing through their lives, taking their anguish and muted despair as a “natural state of affairs”--never questioning their proclivity to not question their intellectual indolent stagnation. They have somehow bought into the whole “nausea of nothingness” and the absurdity of life. The search for a meaningful and purposeful life goes on. Sadly, that quest can take some rather bizarre and sad turns in this dire search for meaning and purpose in a finite life: religion, psychoanalysis, Anthony Robins, crystals, herbs, Prozac, recreational drug use, sexual promiscuity, marriage and children, philanthropy, Zen Buddhism, graduate school, message boards, message boards, message boards, message boards...and more message boards, [ ] meditation, primal screams, Dr. Laura, Deepack Chopra—you name it! And for others “the big sleep” is the big reward (Those are the types who speak of there being “something better” after this earthly life; the projection of a ‘post-mortem happiness’ as being the “meaning of life” has troubling logical implications). Mark, what turn—if anything—is your quest taking in the search for happiness? Mark, life is the search for an intellectual and emotional Atlantis, as Angie, my girlfriend, said. And in this regard, let me quote Ayn Rand: “When people look at their childhood or youth, their wistfulness comes not from the memory, not of what their lives had been in those years, but of what life had then promised to be. The expectation of some indefinable splendor, of the unusual, the exciting, the great, is an attribute of youth—and the process of aging is the process of that expectation’s gradual extinction. One does not have to let it happen." No, one does not have to let it happen. God, I love this quote because it really cuts to the center of a profound truth. Humans are, by nature, thinking creatures. And thinking, by nature, is a volitional function carried out autonomously by individual minds. Use your free will to choose renewed appreciation of every moment rather than despair. “Nothing contributes so much to tranquilize the mind as a steady purpose,” writes Mary Wollstonecraft, “a point on which the soul may fix its intellectual eye.” After all, life is too short, and this is not a dress rehearsal. Come on, Mark. Take heed. :turned: Victor
  15. Victor:>THIS is an orginal counter-argument?? Dan the man: No I said it was an old argument. You don't seem to know the difference between...Bla, bla, bla... Danny boy! Oh, I see. It's an OLD argument. NOT yours? Hmm, I see. The argument against universal skepticism is, as I have said, "classic" and has been argued by many people. Why not? The argument is sound. And by the way, you know very little of the history of skepticism---that much is clear. They are making a positive claim, not a 'hypothtical' claim. Give me break, and argue against what it is actually about, son of Hume. :turned: Danny boy: But that's only because, in addition to only pretending to have read the thinkers you criticise, you don't seem to be able to understand a simple logical argument either! Um, yeah. Victor
  16. Just to be clear, my position is that we might, through effort and a vast amount of luck, arrive at a theory that is the unvarnished truth. But even if we did have it, we can never finally prove, and thus finally know, that it is the absolute truth. Is this one of them there, um, hypothetical claims? :turned:
  17. Jim, Did you ever get, as a kid or adult, the sort of cathartic and therapeutic charge from music as I did from art? -Victor
  18. >>>>>>But the skeptic is not. The skeptic is making a hypothetical claim: a claim that itself can be criticised, and might be true or false. (I may think this hypothesis to be true on the basis of logic and evidence to date, but obviously that does not make it so!) THIS is an orginal counter-argument?? (It's a lame argument, either way). Dan, let's write a script: Theist: "God exists. You see, everything has a cause. The universe exists, and therefore it has a cause. Thus, God exists. God created--caused--the universe" Atheist: "Well, everything must have a cause, then...." [finish the argument, and make sure it does not exist elsewhere].
  19. Kori, this draft of ‘portrait of an artist’ was edited and proof-read since the first draft you read, long ago—and I can still see mistakes! It drives me crazy. I’ll need the services of professional editor and proof reader for the book.
  20. Daniel, Grow up. I don’t know of this site. The arguments against skepticism are classic. They are what have been pointed out a billion times—like all the classic arguments against the existence of God. You are truly acting like a child. I am bringing to Johnny’s attention the fact of universal skepticism and the weakness they are subject to. No one thinker "owns" the case to be made against the nonsense of universal skepticism, and it is a common objection. As I said: This has been pointed out time and again, yet skeptics pretend that the argument is not really there---as if by ignoring it, it won't be brought up.
  21. Johnny, Regardless of what wikipedia states, there is in philosophy a skepticism that denies knowledge outright, which is universal skepticism. Universal skepticism is approached in two ways: In its ‘positive’ form it consists of the dogma that human beings can know nothing. This stance can be rejected because anybody who accepts it finds himself deep in ludicrousness and contradictions—which have been pointed out by thinkers outside of Objectivism over and over. The basic crux of the objection to universal skepticism is thus: When the skeptic claims that there is no knowledge, the skeptic is asserting a knowledge claim. According to his own theory this is impossible. This is the classic retort, and it’s valid. The second form of universal skepticism consists of the doctrine that we must doubt every claim of knowledge. By this ‘negative’ approach, the universal skeptic wants to avoid the contradiction of asserting a knowledge claim while denying the existence of knowledge. And so the doctrine that we should doubt every knowledge claim boils down to positive assertion that we can never obtain certainty. This has been pointed out time and again, yet skeptics pretend that the argument is not really there---as if by ignoring it, it won't be brought up. I wonder if “universal doubt” is itself certain, or is it susceptible to doubt as well. :turned: -Victor edit: There are dozens of arguements debunking skepticism outside of Objectivism, Johnny. I could suggest a few. Still, David Kelley's 'evidence of the senses' is a good Objectivist work that I would suggest. For those who are interested: History of skepticism--here:
  22. The Face of God. (Hey, what's that he's smokin'?)
  23. GOD EXISTS AFTER ALL! Tootsie, an extraordinary event has occurred! Remember the ugly monstrosity that I once was? Well look at me now! I’m restored! Touched by the hand of God and reinstated to my youthful beauty! And now I have an artist mustache too boot! Oh, Angie is going to have a good time with that! ;]
  24. Tootsie, you may not be aware, but you are actually supplying theists with further arguments for the existence of God not far removed from the ludicrousness of what is used now. :rofl:
  25. I think the evidence is clear. God was a Freudian who designed phallic shaped Bananas. It all makes sense to me now. I love this new twist on the “argument from design.” It’s also interesting to note that penises look like bananas…that look like penises. A random collection of atoms? I think not!