BaalChatzaf Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 In Objectivist circles (if I am not mistaken) a distinction is made between the man-made and the metaphysical. The latter I take to mean natural or what arises by itself in nature. Take a close look at humans. What are we? We are animals, recently evolved members of the animal kingdom and latter day descendants of the first replicators that formed naturally on the earth (or somewhere else in the cosmos) billions of years ago. We are natural things. To make a distinction between the man-made and natural is to assume there is something at work within us as that is not at work in the rest of nature, particularly those parts of nature which are living. But we arose from non-life. We are made of the same sort of stuff as rocks and trees. We operate in the same manner as all other physical, material beings (at a detailed enough level, at a small enough scale). To assert that there is something about us that is not subject to physical laws is to assert there are non-physical things in the universe. If so where? If they do not exist in the spacetime continuum then how ans where do such things -exist-. I say this this is dualism. Look at it this way: Man is Nature's way of making a 747 Jet Plane. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Bob, Is Nature, the causal element, an entity?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 Bob, Is Nature, the causal element in your view, an entity?Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rich Engle Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 I kind of always have the same answer to the question, and it is yes.But you can't fault AR for it, really. There was little work out at that time. I mean, yes, she could have (but surely didn't) read stuff available back then like "The Tao of Physics," and such. In spiritual circles, we'd be talking about things like monism, connectedness, and such. Are things connected? Duh, you know? The question more becomes what are you going to do with that, once you know it on the atomic level.Again, some of the most recent work I've seen (and there's not a lot) comes out of Ken Wilber. Big topic. Big. rdeKen Wilber can stop his own brainwaves, which either means he's a Holy Man or the next thing after that is him going and scoring some crack. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rodney Posted January 16, 2008 Share Posted January 16, 2008 AR's distinction is based upon the idea that man has free will, and that therefore the man-made could have been otherwise. Anything not influenced by human choice is metaphysically necessary, and had to be. Thus it is futile to rail at the fact that man must work to survive, and desirable to fight laziness. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 AshleyPA:~ Agreed. I totally buy into the idea of a 'Laplacian' universe (chaos 'theory' and QM interpretations nwst), sometimes nicknamed Laplace's Demon (check Wiki)...but for where sapients ratiocinate about what they 'will' do in the face of their recognized alternatives. Here, we then have a quite modified 'Laplacian' universe to consider.LLAPJ:D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
studiodekadent Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 Look at it this way: Man is Nature's way of making a 747 Jet Plane.Nature is not a person with free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 (edited) Ba'al:~ Cute. But, don't ignore that......man is also Nature's way of......making 'Nature' change to... :question: .LLAPJ:D Edited January 17, 2008 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted January 17, 2008 Author Share Posted January 17, 2008 Ba'al:~ Cute. But, don't ignore that......man is also Nature's way of......making 'Nature' change to... :question: .LLAPJ:DNothing we do changes the nature of nature. We are physical beings which interact with the rest of the cosmos according to physical laws. Beavers do the same kind of thing. They build dams where none have existed previously, but they do not transcend any physical laws. Energy, momentum and angular momentum, charge, baryon count are preserved no matter what is done. Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 17, 2008 Share Posted January 17, 2008 I keep hearing this kind of insinuation time and time again: volition is not a causal agent in the rest of nature so, man being a part of nature, cannot have volition.Bunk. Donkeys don't fly because they don't have wings, but that doesn't mean birds can't fly. As a matter of fact, birds do fly because they have wings.Man has volition because he has a soul (however you want to define it). That's a fact.I guess the cure for bickering is, if you are a bird, do not get your flying information from donkeys.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Dailey Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 (edited) Ba'al:~ You're insinuating that I implied that man can change the 'nature' of Nature. You should know me better than that by now. --- As far as I'm concerned, us humans DON'T KNOW THE 'NATURE' OF NATURE...we're still working on it all (and discovering there's more than we even think we already 'know.') --- How often has a 'professional' put their foot in their mouth implying "We know all that needs be known, fundamentally; all else is mere details"?~ Whatever you've decided about what are the forever-'unchangeable' aspects of nature (as we so far know now), I'll not disagree...nor will I agree.~ But, barring our species' elimination (self-caused, alien, catastrophe, whatever)...one day there will be a (functional) Pegasus (maybe even with Wilbur as a friend).LLAPJ:DMSK: I don't think that such will get any info from 'FRANCIS' Edited January 18, 2008 by John Dailey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 I keep hearing this kind of insinuation time and time again: volition is not a causal agent in the rest of nature so, man being a part of nature, cannot have volition.Bunk. Donkeys don't fly because they don't have wings, but that doesn't mean birds can't fly. As a matter of fact, birds do fly because they have wings.Man has volition because he has a soul (however you want to define it). That's a fact.I guess the cure for bickering is, if you are a bird, do not get your flying information from donkeys.MichaelDodos didn't fly. They had wings and are now--gone. --Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Dodos didn't fly. They had wings and are now--gone. Brant,And some people are real soulless bastards who can't help themselves, but they are still here. Exceptions, not the rule.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Dodos didn't fly. They had wings and are now--gone. Brant,And some people are real soulless bastards who can't help themselves, but they are still here. Exceptions, not the rule.MichaelMoi?!--Brant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Stuart Kelly Posted January 18, 2008 Share Posted January 18, 2008 Brant,How could you even ask that? You have a heart about the size of the USA.Michael Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brant Gaede Posted January 20, 2008 Share Posted January 20, 2008 (edited) Brant,How could you even ask that? You have a heart about the size of the USA.MichaelMoi?! (Blush.)--Brant Edited January 20, 2008 by Brant Gaede Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BaalChatzaf Posted March 3, 2008 Author Share Posted March 3, 2008 Moi?!--BrantVous? Mais non. C'est moi, d'accord.I have neither a mind nor a soul. I came equipped with a functioning brain and glands. They suffice.Ba'al Chatzaf Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now