The term "post-modernist" is meaningless, in the first place. What is modern is the present, the here and now, the what is at this time. What is after that (post) will never exist because whenever "then" is will only be the present. The two concepts ("post" and "modern") are not compatible because they can't exist together.
you are incoherent. settle down and ask clarification questions, then if there is a reasonable objection to be made...make it. Otherwise you sound like and angry rambling lunitic
Don't waste your time with slithering snakes. When they respond with metaphors, don't concretize them on your own -- either ask them what they mean concretely or just ignore them. If they can't reply or they won't reply, that's proof enough that they're idiots.
How do Objectivists rectify their views of objective realism with quantum mechanics? When there is no clear cut distinction between subject and object, then the idea of objective realism is dead in the water. Even special relativity shows that time intervals and simultaneity are subjective, not objective.
Bohmian mechanics has its problems and it doesn't fully account for the indeterministic and non-classical behaviors of quantum mechanics. There are some things which simply can't be explained through aclassical formulation, like super fluids. But this denial of reality is simply an example of Objectivism's predilection to close the mind to alternative ideas, especially those which contradict its assumptions, as I pointed out in a comment on your "closing american mind" video.
I'm going to get back to my debate on Platonism soon -been busy recently, but I DID see your videos on Bohm and I liked them.
I even have some of his ideas integrated in my quantum gravity theory. It meshes VERY NICELY with the holographic universe notion. However I'm not certain you are going to like him once I show you where his ideas go. Hint ask the other Objectivist Dhorpatan what he makes of Bohm and his "Implicate Order" idea. ;)
@MrCropper (continued) But other than what you don't know about Bohm's ideas. (It saves determinism, but adds in something far worse from an Objectivist point of view) and our disagreement about Platonism nice video. The post-modernists are complete idiots. Literally if you look at their arguments they are recycled almost verbatim from the ancient Athenian sophists.
@TexanProgressive "How do Objectivists rectify their views of objective realism with quantum mechanics?"
The only way around that is to assert that objectivity is based on Platonism. Penrose does this when he says that the quantum information collapsed out of the wave-function is Platonic in nature. Though of course this is problematic to Objectivists who reject Platonism.
Well. The only axiom which is objectively true, is the axiom of existence. The law of identity might be very reasonable, yet not necesarrily objectively true. Logic cannot be justified by logic.
Rand begins a cartesian project without realising what descartes himself realised. So, objectivism builds a belief system of being objectively true, on premises which aren't. I can't even comprehend how dismissive objectivists are of skepticism.
@Samanmotlagh If the axiom of identity is not true than the argument against the axiom of identity can't be true either, so that means skepticism isn't a path to any kind of knowledge if it denies the validity of the axiom of identity.
@Samanmotlagh IANA philosopher, but axioms are supposed to be self-evident facts that form an inescapable basis for any further philosophic discussion. So Objectivism's axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness must be utilized by any philosopher that tries to refute them, contradicting his attempt to do so.
I might disagree with further conclusions in objectivism. For instance the notion of the ability to realise what is actual happiness for humans thru logic. You might not, which is ok. Then we can discuss. Just don't claim you are objectively right.
Do you believe that objectivism has such a bad reputation because people are stupid? If what you say is the objective truth and so natural to realise, why do so few acknowledge this?
Are you joking?You call fellow utubers equal with concentration camps and hitler and you accuse me of smearing?I don't think you're a fascist in the political sense;I was using the term more loosely in that your attitude exudes authority and intellectually repressive tendencies.The term can be used in more than just a political context.Concentration camps rose out of German nationalism,not utube videos.Your non sequitur is beyond any logic or reason.
The dog ribs here.Calling fellow youtubers Hitler is a faulty analogy,a hasty generalization,and naive.You don't know anything about the methods of those regimes or how they came to power.I'd suggest you go spend a decade at the library or traveling the world.You're attitude of shut up to an open dialogue is dictatorial.Fascism comes in many voices and forms,and your brand of one-dimensional thinking is where it starts.
Excellent point.Finally people are starting to expose this amateur.My biggest problem with cropper is that he stays on the same rail like a petulant kid putting a pot over his head and banging it with a wooden spoon.I'm sick of his peevish little stance.
It seems like in your mind everything is clear cut into absolute dichotomies, and everyone must ultimately fall into either realist or relativist camps. The reason you're frustrated as a realist is because you don't know how to even approach most of the criticisms but this is because realism is an overly simplistic view. I think realism and relativism are both naively simplistic. The impossibility of absolute knowledge does not lead to relativism or total skepticism (science proves this).
Semantics. To clarify. From a point of limited knowledge, it is not possible to demonstrate absolute knowledge. This is, as it were, an a priori necessity. Of course, in principle it is possible we can stumble upon a completely accurate understanding of the world and decide this is correct but we could never look 'outside' of our knowledge to compare it to the actual state-of-affairs.
Semantics. To clarify. From a point of limited knowledge, it is not possible to demonstrate absolute knowledge. This is, as it were, an a priori necessity. Of course, in principle it is possible we can stumble upon a completely accurate understanding of the world and decide this is correct but we could never look 'outside' of our knowledge to compare it to the actual state-of-affairs.
This holds little water unless the people attempting to gain knowledge were drunk or under the influence of drugs, which most definitely would distort their view of the "actual state of affairs".
Failure of the senses to percieve reality are the exception, not the rule.
I respect questioning the direction of modern philosophy, but I have to say, attacking the use of metaphor is odd... If you can find a single influential philosophical tract bereft of metaphor, I'll curl up and die right then & there. Metaphor has been one of the primary tools of the philosopher since the pre-Socratics, as it will continue to be.
Besides, unless you wish to be absurdly nominalistic, defining each word to its death, you're never more than spitting distance from metaphor anyway.
Objectively if anything is more authoritarian today it'd be science, there is only one science, one biology, one chemistry, one math., one method, one concept: utility/repeatability.
Alternately religion is divided amongst hundreds of different authorities, bishoprics, parishes, pastors, all with varying beliefs over concrete matters (eg, Wright Vs Hagee) but sharing a very thin belief in something little extra can be said about ie, about God, nirvana, heaven, etc.
Language comes to be, or grows, by re-applying one concept or word to a new area ie, metaphorically. Our language would be still at a very primitive level without it. Almost all the language science took up was borrowed from other areas, they all began life as metaphors. So your desperate search for literalness is a fools errant, or a childish nostalgia for some primitive "Da Da" language that is long gone, if it ever could have been described as language in the first place.
Whatever my experience, it's not as obvious as your general ignorance! Do try and write intelligible messages here, and try also to throw less of this ignorant litter around, you're only one step away from Tourette's.
Give me a break. You know and I know that Nazi comparisons are so tired, worn-out, and banal that they have completely lost any effect. Do me a favor and think of an original argument.
If the earth wasn't round, you'd have just fallen off the edge. Luckily science is here to tell us it's not. Do you think, Cropper, that scientific descriptions would be possible without metaphor? What could Darwin have meant by "natural selection" if not a metaphor? What could Crick have meant when he said DNA "makes" protein? What does it mean to say that an organism is a "mechanism"?
Would it be inapropriate to call you out for using vague metaphors when critizing people that use methaphors? Or you are trying to silence people ("shut up") while claiming they have concentration-camps in their pockets?
Sir, I don't want to be rude but your double standards and inconcistencies in this video where either quite entertaining or shocking.
Mr. Cropper, you're saying "they" are laying the groundwork for concentration camps and dictatorships. Then how do you end your vid? By telling them to "Shut up!"
You showed us all where your Objectivist philosophy really leads.
It is logical, "if...then" is logic. Experience is as it is but you can't use axioms to provide evidence for it as logic is subordinate to experience. But there is no logical architecture which can be built on this in an absolute sense because it's a circular argument to begin with and even if we ignore that the premises are illogical. The only way to move past this is by incorporating the imagination.
Each of you have ridiculous, convoluted "points" and are so confused that it's comical. Youtube philosophers including Mr. Cropper are under-educated wannabes. Objectivism is a form of mental retardation and consequent frustration. Most postmodernists are no better, but some of them are clever. Objectivists are members of a cult but are not dangerous because they're so damned uninteresting that they will never be significant. Kant bitch slaps them-they're losers.
yep. often non-concrete and flawed false metaphor. yep also dangerous. they don't comprehend how this enables evil, if they haven't already bought the BS about evil not existing.
Very clever. The fact that you made less sense than you normally do results in you making more sense than you normally do, as you were speaking on post-modernism. Brilliant, really.
I appreciate your transparent bid for a return to relevance. How long has it been since you received a collective, or even concerted, response? I suggest an increased focus on comedy, as I suspect that beneath your frustrated pundit exterior beats the heart of a n equally frustrated, but more effective, comedian. You did get me with the "something bizarre... like an idea" line. Pure gold.
This is why even religious thought is superior to post-modern thought.
Rational thought is best of course, but both rational and religious thought are at least in the form of truth post-modern thought can't even be propositionalized thought. To put it another; way they're not even wrong.
In the opening 30 seconds of your video "Public Schools - the Modern Witch Doctor" - you talk about Ayn Rand´s metaphores... So I guess you have now decided that Ayn Rand is a Post-modernist and that she should shut up? - Well this is new:)
SciDisc: he's not saying "metaphors are bad" -- he's saying that these people are *using* metaphors to slip their way out of saying anything concrete. Either you were not paying any attention at all or you knew better and were just looking for a cheap shot.
You're just reinforcing everything he's been saying about the intellectual vacuousness of his critics.
"he's saying that these people are *using* metaphors to slip their way out of saying anything concrete." But this is such a unreflected critique. It doesnt provide any definition of the misuse of metaphors, niether quantitative or qualitative; it´s completely arbitrary. I might just as easily say that Rand used her metaphors because she was unable to say anything concrete and I would be just as right as Cropper. cont.
But the real issue here is where does Cropper get his definition from (refering to our previous discussion on academic discourse) - I cant belive he defines postmodernism in regards to the use of metaphors - it´s begging for a references to a study on postmodernism. Crop. uses metaphors all the time; now is this because he cant communicate "concretely"? BTW; every use of language is metaphorical - How uneducated does one have to be in order to state that language could ever be concrete?
"But this is such a unreflected critique. It doesnt provide any definition of the misuse of metaphors" He says, point blank, that when he tries to pin a concrete meaning on what postmodernists say, they'll respond with a metaphor that's too nebulous to convey any real meaning that can be critiqued.
This is right there in the video for all to see. And yet you're folding your arms saying "You haven't given a definition of the proper use of metaphors." Bullshit. You're acting as though you're confused over whether obfuscation may or may not be an improper use of metaphores, and that you need Brandon to explain that for you.
Where do these concretes come from in objectivism? If from the being in time, they vanish like the quicksand they came from and if we bypass that with reason there is no rational grounds for a specific unique experience in time.
Where do concretes "come from"? They are the given. We differentiate concretes via their specific traits, and we define them by assigning words to them.
According to your premises, the existence of time means there are no concretes. Yet... look around!
It seems you're getting tied up in floating abstractions. A proper abstraction is derived from perceptual and conceptual concretes. You're trying to reverse the process, and the inevitable result is a bundle of contradictions.
Don't you ever question why you are who you are as a unique person? How is your personal unique experience in the world logical? Not from logic inward, but from your experience outward. You look around. I'm not tied up in floating abstractions, this is like the pot calling the kettle black.
"Don't you ever question why you are who you are as a unique person?"
A question that's as nebulous as that is going to have just as nebulous an answer. What makes me unique are the choices I make, my DNA (which is unique), and my upbringing (which is also unique).
But that's probably not the answer you're looking for. You're looking for an answer that makes the question look like it's philosophically meaningful. But it isn't.
The pretend game of turning specificity into homogeneity is only played for useful pursuits, it's not meant to be elevated to a religious practice. You need to be aware of your roots. You don't have to worship them but burying them is a serious mistake.
I think I understand the problem in communication here. I am defining a concrete as a unique experience in time with the pinnacle being sensation. You jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about the objective world when I said abstractions chip away at concretes, I was talking about how abstractions chip away at concretes in thought! I wasn't talking about the objective world.
"How is your personal unique experience in the world logical?"
This question doesn't even make sense. An experience is a single concrete; only abstractions put together to form conclusions can form a rational *process.* A thing can't be *logical*, it just is.
You basically summed up my point. In order for logic to be useful you must abstract concretes. To do this you chip away at the concrete. But you just bury those pieces and forget about them. Post modernists consider these pieces because they are foundational and they always simmer under the surface, as much we try to ignore them.
uh, huh? Your basically assuming that once an Objectivist creates an abstraction, they just forget the concretes... what the hell? I don't even think thats possible without alot of work.
The whole point of an abstraction anyways is to put more information in one's consciousness at one time. You can't remember all types of chairs all at once. Depending on the context, you might have to abstract with just: chair.
Man, you even suggest that Objectivist "try to ignore" them. Be a man, and use reason, not context dropping low blows.
Also, when I say chair, I'm not saying forget all the concretes. "Chair" is actually meant to be a pointer, or identifier, for all those concrete things in reality know as chairs. You seem to be thinking that when I say "chair", I'm meaning, concretes don't exists anymore, just the abstraction chair.
You are probably also thinking of "abstraction" as being isolated to language, unaware that regardless of language the abstractions are occurring in thought and so also apply to experience, period. We think in abstractions but we experience concrete reality. We can only scribble the objective like a little kid with crayons. I only do one argument at a time. When I'm done with this girl, I'll get to you.
That sounds nasty. But it probably fits your personality.
And you keep making assumptions about her and I that are false. We do think in abstractions. Its how our mind works. But as long as those abstractions are based on the concretes, we are fine.
When I say, "dog", I am actually referring to all the concrete examples of dogs in my life.
If you are an objectivist who feels the concrete, as the pinnacle of sensation, before the abstraction, what is your justification in putting the abstraction, as what arises out of a certain relationship in conjunction with the concrete, before the concrete? It seems like a confused position to take for someone claiming to be so "reasonable". Is it just a "we are fine", because of the element of predictability? Cut the ad hominem stuff btw.
You are right I am an Objectivist. So I'm scribbling like a little kid with crayons? Oh, and aren't you calling a woman a girl? I'd say one's personality has to do with their creditability--but back to the main topic.
And I said that an abstraction is a pointer the concretes. Are you asking the point of making abstractions? Its because I can't think of every type of dog in my head at once. A person's consciousness is limited to thinking about 3-7 things at one time.
If one cannot think of the concretes of an abstraction he is talking about, then they don't really understand the abstraction. This is called a "floating abstraction" and is a bad thing. Its not putting the abstraction first, its sticking to essentials.
Your ad hominem approach is pretty weak. Your whole philosophy is a floating abstraction, what you consider to be concrete is only a watered down Frankenstein representation of a concrete. How can you think up a geniune sensation? Objectivism cuts itself off from the concrete, right at the bud, to ensure a grey death. Your philosophy has no blood pumping through it and so strangely appropriates it from existentialism like a stumbling drunk.
Your Claim "your whole philosophy is a floating abstraction"
Your non-Answer "what you consider to be concrete is only a watered down Frankenstein representation of a concrete"
Your Claim: "Objectivism cuts itself off from the concrete"
Your non-Answer: "right at the bud, to ensure a grey death. Your philosophy has no blood pumping through it and so strangely appropriates it from existentialism like a stumbling drunk."
Your speaking isn't working. Its like a banana watered down by soy sauce.
At best, those metaphors are just repeating your claim. At worse, they don't really have a meaning. And even the best, in this case, is meaningless sense its just repetition.
I don't even care to ask what the hell it is that you are talking about. It's just a stupid ass ad hominem. And so, back to the content of the argument...How does your "concrete" (moment), if it is the pinnacle of sensation, extend beyond the sensation? If by "integration", integration of what? What specifically are we integrating? Are we juggling balls of light in our minds? Are we moving objects around like Yoda? Am I being too metaphorical?
Humans have memories. Abstractions, like "dog" basically point to all these concretes. So when I say "dog", I am actually referring to those concretes I remember.
If one can not take an abstraction, and match it back in their memory to some concrete moment or example, then that is a floating abstraction to them.
So when I see lots of different examples of chairs, it is an act of integration to take their similar characteristics and make an abstraction called "chair".
Your reference material is not concrete regardless of its deliverance. And what is the "you" that is referring to the memory in the first place Horvay? What is the process of "matching back to a concrete" through memory in a regular abstraction? How do we match back to a concrete? (Concrete as in a concrete block falling on your foot)
"Your reference material is not concrete regardless of its deliverance."
Concrete is merely that which exists. If its in reality, then its concrete. Abstractions on the other hand do not exists apart from human consciousness. They are a human's means to dealing with massive amounts of concretes.
Again, the very purpose of an abstraction is so we can reference an entire category of concretes (in which the concretes have something in common) at once since the consciousness is limited.
One should build abstractions by matching similar things in concretes that they perceive. Then, with the knowledge to create an abstraction, one should have the knowledge in memory to reference back to the concretes for which the abstraction was built from.
I'm not sure I really understand exactly what you are asking however; did I answer it?
You didn't answer my questions. Concretes, at least in the sense you are using them, as what exists out there (as in a concrete block dropping on your foot) are discovered through the senses, not by thought alone. One might think you were cropper's impression of a Kantian by how you are talking.
I said: "One should build abstractions by matching similar things in concretes that they perceive"
Perception is the next step after sensations. But I didn't mean to leave sensations out. I agree that one senses something, then perceives it, then conceptualizes (creates abstractions) it.
Our identity in time stands in complete logical disagreement with our concrete sensations as sensations both occur and do not occur in relation to a being, relative to ones position in space and time. But logically the existent can't exist without accepting certain contradictions in experience. How do you solve that Horvay? You aren't really responding to the points I am raising. You sound like a Kantian.
"Our identity ... space and time." Okay, so not everyone experiences everything at once.
"But logically the existent can't exist without accepting certain contradictions in experience." There are no contradictions in sensations... only in conceptualizations--and only by someone making an error of some sort.
There is nothing to solve here. I don't disintegrate cognition from evaluation like you are trying to do.
There are contradictions in conceptualization, as I have pointed out in explaining how our logical notion of time (as without a subject in it) contradicts with our experience of it (which includes a subject). Being that our logical notion of time is entirely grounded in our experience of it; the former is entirely reliant on the latter without question. Sensations are sufficiently causal in character but not absolutely.
1. The "experience" of time, witnessed in oneself, passes without our control; the conceptualization of time is representational and moves within our control. The ability for us to control the passage of time is not an aspect of time, but of the imagination. 2. The idea of time passing without the restrictions of a subject can only be conceived in the imagination. 3. This is one of those "contradictions in conceptualization" you mentioned.
So someone could conceptualize something in a way that would be a contradiction, I understand this.
But I don't think that conceptualization is, by its very nature, a contradiction.
If one accepts that existence exists, and that consciousness does not cause existence (existentialism), then by no means is conceptualizations contradictory by nature.
I agree that we can't know time without experiencing it. To "know" anything presupposes a subject that knows it.
"You aren't really responding to the points I am raising." Actually I am, when you raise them. Searching for some evaluation of reality apart from _someone_ evaluating it is pointless, and Platonic in nature.
"You sound like a Kantian." Only when you put words in my mouth that sound like Kant. How about you keep those nasty assumptions about me to yourself. I merely say we sense things, and conceptualize from our senses.. and you assumed that I was searching for some Platonic "pure knowledge".
If you attempt to use logic to prove that "there are no contradictions in sensations" it should be obvious that you are putting the carriage in front of the horse. What makes you think I am trying to disintegrate cognition?
"Our identity in time stands in complete logical disagreement with our concrete sensations as sensations both occur and do not occur in relation to a being, relative to ones position in space and time. But logically the existent can't exist without accepting certain contradictions in experience."
I took this as saying that people can't know everything that everyone else knows at once--which is searching for a platonic truth. Maybe I misunderstood, could you supply an example if so?
All contradictions are conceptual, first of all. If I said "contradictions in experience", I meant contradictions in the conceptualization of experience. Example: At the age of 10 you are 10 immediately and concretely, at the age of 20 you are 20 immediately and concretely. So, this means you are 10 and 20 years old immediately and concretely, a contradiction in conceptualization.
The only way that that would be true is if you drop the context of time. To say that, "at some point I was concretely 10, and at some point I was concretely 20" would not be a contradiction.
I agree contradictions don't exists, in anything other than our conceptualizations.
I can only say existence exists in the preontological sense because I experience existence and it is self evident as it is. Any logical argument to prove this however is totally circular. Besides, existentialism is a theory that the existent exists in spite of logic, not because of it.
You are right. One doesn't prove it, they just accept it. Its pointless and self defeating not to. Even if you did try to deny it, you'd be accepting it in the process.
Are you sure about existentialism? I thought existence only exists (to them) when someone thinks. And then it only exists to the thinker.
The problem I am having is that you need to add "even if you did try to deny it, you'd be accepting it in the process", which points to logical contradiction as the foundation of your conclusions which justify being as the seeds of existence. Existence exists simply because we experience it. It has nothing to do with logical proofs existing entirely subordinate to our experiences. In fact, the only thing proofs like this do is further damage the credibility of logic.
I'm not trying to prove it; it is unprovable. I'm merely saying that its pointless to deny it, because everything one does (including trying to deny it) accepts it as true implicitly.
Your argument is still grounded in logic. The words you are using, everything one does affirms it, is a logical structure such as if D (one does) then E (existence). Logic does not affirm being, which is why it can't be an axiom. We can say being exists plain and simple but not in a logical sense. Existence comes before logic, whereas logical existence is completely cut away.
I get such a violent emotional response to these people's response videos to you that I won't even watch them anymore. Life's too short to walk around pissed off all the time.
I'd recommend Sciabarra's series on intellectual history/political philosophy. They provide a good example of ruthlessly critical and unbiased thinking among even the most distant philosophers, ie Marx/Hayek, Rand and the postmodernists, or even you and dospook.
As for postmodernity and the legitimacy of metaphors as argument, I'm undecided. It seems in most continental philosophy, in order to be correct, you have to be part of the finite set of priviliged, elite philosophers to be taken seriously. Still, the same thing goes for Objectivism to a point. So maybe we should take a step back.
I think your quote in the beginning of this video characterizes most of dospook's thought as well as my own experience when watching his videos. I'll start giving him credit for about 14 seconds when I think he's making an argument then it just comes out as nothing at all.
And metaphors are not there for purposively being ineffable, the intent is actually the oppostite: With the realisation that language is limited, the postmodernist attempts to communicate by means of metaphors and poetry.
Is it efficient? I'd say no, but it is an attempt at para-linguistic communication and is worth trying. The goal is to make communication complete, which it isn't.
lol I get thumbs down for pointing out fallacies! I so love you objectivists: every thing is objective as long as you agree, religions are like that too.
Cropper - I don't intend this question to be rude or insulting: Are you slightly drunk or on some sort of medication in this video? Your mannerisms seem a little wobbled... Good video, though.
Dude! No joke: I've been thinking the same thing lately. I didn't want to say anything because I didn't want him to offense, but... I think he's F'd up (not that I care or think that's a bad thing). I'm all for inebriated vlogging! Go Cropper!
I love metaphores like a fat boy loves lard. ^__^ But yea I still don't get the whole post modernist things. Sounds a lot like Christians, or at least there way of argueing. "But the carbon dating? How can the earth be only 6,000 years old?" "God's testing us, HA try and disprove that!" And sometimes ur videos are a bit boring, I mean the angry hand gestures are nice but to keep people interested maybe you should show a little more skin ;-) Or at least take that god damn ritzy jacket off.
"You reinforce a hierarchal moral order by claiming that Az shouldn't be taken seriously because he doesn't have a 'degree' from an 'accredited university.' Then you turn around with a 'poem' and and actually denounce universities. Hypocrite"
You misunderstand that bit. I have a long history of denouncing universities. A degree is almost never to a person's credit.
'Concentration camps in their back pockets.' Wow! Out of all the people in this exchange, I'm sorry, but you seem to be the most authoritative! If you're such a 'man of logic,' why do you commit so many 'logical fallacies?'
You reinforce a hierarchal moral order by claiming that Az shouldn't be taken seriously because he doesn't have a 'degree' from an 'accredited university.' Then you turn around with a 'poem' and and actually denounce universities. Hypocrite!
What he's arguing is that post-modernism can lead to anything --hence concentration camps.
Not that they will necessarily but that there is absolutely no defense against concentration camps once you remove an absolute basis for those defenses.
"What he's arguing is that post-modernism can lead to anything --hence concentration camps."
No he's not. Postmodernism can't "lead to anything"--it's not going to lead to great scientific achievements and prosperous societies. The extent of postmodernism is the extent of estrangement from reality.
The chain of reasoning from pomo to concentration camps is: *Denial of objective good and evil-->*Cowardice in the face of evil-->*Triumph of evil.
Indeed, this video is filled with appeals to ridicule, appeals to fear, appeals to motive, ad hominem abuse, straw men, bare assertions and faulty generalizations. The concluding remark is particularly startling.
stepping into the realm of cognitive science, it can be demonstrated somewhat convincingly--although with wiggle room--that our sensation and perception is colored, illusory, and transient. i need not resort to metaphor (though, most of our language takes care of that already) in showing that, for instance, our capabilities of proprioception is neither hardwired, nor an "accurate" representation of the without.
Ummm Azienoch is giving away his new book for free? Theres gotta be catch there. I know what it is, he's trying to get peeps hooked, then he'll start charging big time.
Challenge: Go find a time when I say, "Everyone agrees that..." You'll be hard pressed to find any examples. When you do find an instance, and I'm sure they exist, tell me that you disagree and why.
Notice that when philosophers use metaphors to argue that you can't be certain of sensory evidence, they make the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept? Why take Plato's "cave metaphor" seriously when he employs the metaphor to argue that caves & shadows might not exist? As EpistemicDuty pointed out on YouTube, the metaphor is valid only as far as concretes are real. If I metaphorically refer to Osama as a "pig," the metaphor only makes sense as far as *literal* pigs exist.
If someone says lots of stupid things on YouTube, I wouldn't tell him to shut up, because I don't have to subject myself to any of his irrational verbiage; I can ignore it. And if other people choose to believe in quacks, that's their problem, not mine.
Well, it wouldn't be my problem except we live in a dem(agog)ocracy. When people swallow Ralph Nader's demagoguery, that leads them to clamor for more laws to take away my freedom.
True, Objectivists can't debate irrationalists' arbitrary (and self-disproving) pronouncements like "You can't prove that you can actually hear or see real existents," as you can't convince a close-minded person of something against his consent.
All the same, whenever you speak out about these things in a rational manner, you give us rational people a viable alternative in the marketplace of ideas.
So the best way to fight against the irrationalists is not to point out to the irrationalists themselves how wrong they are (they're too close-minded to be swayed by any rational appeals you make).
The best way is to carry on with providing the rational alternative, as you have been doing. YouTube would be benefiting from your rationality even if anti-induction philosophers like Hume and Kant never existed.
"...And the ghosts attack the castle" metaphor from your other video. May I add you sound drunk.
DrPtrVenkman 20 hours ago
The term "post-modernist" is meaningless, in the first place. What is modern is the present, the here and now, the what is at this time. What is after that (post) will never exist because whenever "then" is will only be the present. The two concepts ("post" and "modern") are not compatible because they can't exist together.
JeffersonDinedAlone 8 months ago
you are incoherent. settle down and ask clarification questions, then if there is a reasonable objection to be made...make it. Otherwise you sound like and angry rambling lunitic
ebsilver3 1 year ago
@ebsilver3 lunatic*****
ebsilver3 1 year ago
Dude,
Don't waste your time with slithering snakes. When they respond with metaphors, don't concretize them on your own -- either ask them what they mean concretely or just ignore them. If they can't reply or they won't reply, that's proof enough that they're idiots.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
How do Objectivists rectify their views of objective realism with quantum mechanics? When there is no clear cut distinction between subject and object, then the idea of objective realism is dead in the water. Even special relativity shows that time intervals and simultaneity are subjective, not objective.
TexanProgressive 2 years ago
"How do Objectivists rectify their views of objective realism with quantum mechanics? "
See my video titled "Problems in Modern Physics" and my playlist on David Bohm.
MrCropper 2 years ago
Yes, I am familiar with the pilot wave theory. I will definitely check out your video though. Thanks!
TexanProgressive 2 years ago
Bohmian mechanics has its problems and it doesn't fully account for the indeterministic and non-classical behaviors of quantum mechanics. There are some things which simply can't be explained through aclassical formulation, like super fluids. But this denial of reality is simply an example of Objectivism's predilection to close the mind to alternative ideas, especially those which contradict its assumptions, as I pointed out in a comment on your "closing american mind" video.
SpazzzDog 2 years ago
@MrCropper "my playlist on David Bohm."
I'm going to get back to my debate on Platonism soon -been busy recently, but I DID see your videos on Bohm and I liked them.
I even have some of his ideas integrated in my quantum gravity theory. It meshes VERY NICELY with the holographic universe notion. However I'm not certain you are going to like him once I show you where his ideas go. Hint ask the other Objectivist Dhorpatan what he makes of Bohm and his "Implicate Order" idea. ;)
JohananRaatz 8 months ago
@MrCropper (continued) But other than what you don't know about Bohm's ideas. (It saves determinism, but adds in something far worse from an Objectivist point of view) and our disagreement about Platonism nice video. The post-modernists are complete idiots. Literally if you look at their arguments they are recycled almost verbatim from the ancient Athenian sophists.
JohananRaatz 8 months ago
@TexanProgressive "How do Objectivists rectify their views of objective realism with quantum mechanics?"
The only way around that is to assert that objectivity is based on Platonism. Penrose does this when he says that the quantum information collapsed out of the wave-function is Platonic in nature. Though of course this is problematic to Objectivists who reject Platonism.
JohananRaatz 8 months ago
All communication is in metaphor, you foolish prat.
asmith4011 3 years ago
I disagree with Cropper on lots of issues, but I'm not sure what it would even mean to say that ALL language is metaphor.
Metaphors are false statements that have some kind of causal influence upon our thinking. Their value is found in pragmatics rather than semantics.
NathanZimmerman 3 years ago
Mr. Cropper! You lost your temper! *WEG* What took you so long?
eventide925 3 years ago
I'm sorry to say. But it really doesn't take much philosophical insight to realise how terrible objectivism is.
Samanmotlagh 3 years ago
"I'm sorry to say. But it really doesn't take much philosophical insight to realise how terrible objectivism is."
Spare me.
No, wait... tell me. Just a little. Please?
MrCropper 3 years ago
Well. The only axiom which is objectively true, is the axiom of existence. The law of identity might be very reasonable, yet not necesarrily objectively true. Logic cannot be justified by logic.
Rand begins a cartesian project without realising what descartes himself realised. So, objectivism builds a belief system of being objectively true, on premises which aren't. I can't even comprehend how dismissive objectivists are of skepticism.
Samanmotlagh 3 years ago 6
This sounds very wise and stuff... but what is it that you mean, CONCRETELY.
RuddODragonFear 2 years ago
@Samanmotlagh If the axiom of identity is not true than the argument against the axiom of identity can't be true either, so that means skepticism isn't a path to any kind of knowledge if it denies the validity of the axiom of identity.
dmeybohm 1 year ago
@Samanmotlagh IANA philosopher, but axioms are supposed to be self-evident facts that form an inescapable basis for any further philosophic discussion. So Objectivism's axioms of existence, identity, and consciousness must be utilized by any philosopher that tries to refute them, contradicting his attempt to do so.
r74quinn 6 months ago
I might disagree with further conclusions in objectivism. For instance the notion of the ability to realise what is actual happiness for humans thru logic. You might not, which is ok. Then we can discuss. Just don't claim you are objectively right.
Do you believe that objectivism has such a bad reputation because people are stupid? If what you say is the objective truth and so natural to realise, why do so few acknowledge this?
Samanmotlagh 3 years ago
Are you joking?You call fellow utubers equal with concentration camps and hitler and you accuse me of smearing?I don't think you're a fascist in the political sense;I was using the term more loosely in that your attitude exudes authority and intellectually repressive tendencies.The term can be used in more than just a political context.Concentration camps rose out of German nationalism,not utube videos.Your non sequitur is beyond any logic or reason.
courtabeth 3 years ago
The dog ribs here.Calling fellow youtubers Hitler is a faulty analogy,a hasty generalization,and naive.You don't know anything about the methods of those regimes or how they came to power.I'd suggest you go spend a decade at the library or traveling the world.You're attitude of shut up to an open dialogue is dictatorial.Fascism comes in many voices and forms,and your brand of one-dimensional thinking is where it starts.
TheDogRibs 3 years ago
"Fascism comes in many voices and forms,and your brand of one-dimensional thinking is where it starts."
In what way are my ideas fascistic? Or are you just smearing me?
MrCropper 3 years ago
Excellent point.Finally people are starting to expose this amateur.My biggest problem with cropper is that he stays on the same rail like a petulant kid putting a pot over his head and banging it with a wooden spoon.I'm sick of his peevish little stance.
courtabeth 3 years ago
It seems like in your mind everything is clear cut into absolute dichotomies, and everyone must ultimately fall into either realist or relativist camps. The reason you're frustrated as a realist is because you don't know how to even approach most of the criticisms but this is because realism is an overly simplistic view. I think realism and relativism are both naively simplistic. The impossibility of absolute knowledge does not lead to relativism or total skepticism (science proves this).
UnivAnom 3 years ago
"The impossibility of absolute knowledge does not lead to relativism or total skepticism (science proves this)."
The above statement is a claim to abolute knowledge.
Guncriminal 3 years ago 2
Semantics. To clarify. From a point of limited knowledge, it is not possible to demonstrate absolute knowledge. This is, as it were, an a priori necessity. Of course, in principle it is possible we can stumble upon a completely accurate understanding of the world and decide this is correct but we could never look 'outside' of our knowledge to compare it to the actual state-of-affairs.
UnivAnom 3 years ago
Semantics. To clarify. From a point of limited knowledge, it is not possible to demonstrate absolute knowledge. This is, as it were, an a priori necessity. Of course, in principle it is possible we can stumble upon a completely accurate understanding of the world and decide this is correct but we could never look 'outside' of our knowledge to compare it to the actual state-of-affairs.
UnivAnom 3 years ago
This holds little water unless the people attempting to gain knowledge were drunk or under the influence of drugs, which most definitely would distort their view of the "actual state of affairs".
Failure of the senses to percieve reality are the exception, not the rule.
Guncriminal 3 years ago
I respect questioning the direction of modern philosophy, but I have to say, attacking the use of metaphor is odd... If you can find a single influential philosophical tract bereft of metaphor, I'll curl up and die right then & there. Metaphor has been one of the primary tools of the philosopher since the pre-Socratics, as it will continue to be.
Besides, unless you wish to be absurdly nominalistic, defining each word to its death, you're never more than spitting distance from metaphor anyway.
iarine 3 years ago
you suck
racsonam 3 years ago
This guy is not serious is he? Ive never seen someones head sooo far up their own ass, totally amazing!
Tefer65i 3 years ago
Concentration camps in their back pocket? What a bad metaphor!
lensherr82 3 years ago 2
I liked what I read of Ayn Rand but I wouldn't even pretend she was right.
underdog3 3 years ago
He could have been more articulate, but he is basically right.
earlyphilosophy 3 years ago 2
Objectively if anything is more authoritarian today it'd be science, there is only one science, one biology, one chemistry, one math., one method, one concept: utility/repeatability.
Alternately religion is divided amongst hundreds of different authorities, bishoprics, parishes, pastors, all with varying beliefs over concrete matters (eg, Wright Vs Hagee) but sharing a very thin belief in something little extra can be said about ie, about God, nirvana, heaven, etc.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
Language comes to be, or grows, by re-applying one concept or word to a new area ie, metaphorically. Our language would be still at a very primitive level without it. Almost all the language science took up was borrowed from other areas, they all began life as metaphors. So your desperate search for literalness is a fools errant, or a childish nostalgia for some primitive "Da Da" language that is long gone, if it ever could have been described as language in the first place.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
It is quite obvious that you have never immersed yourself in even a modicum of scientific inquiry let alone discussion.
marneedear 3 years ago
Whatever my experience, it's not as obvious as your general ignorance! Do try and write intelligible messages here, and try also to throw less of this ignorant litter around, you're only one step away from Tourette's.
plenipotentiarius 3 years ago
Give me a break. You know and I know that Nazi comparisons are so tired, worn-out, and banal that they have completely lost any effect. Do me a favor and think of an original argument.
PianoIsTheRemedy 3 years ago
If the earth wasn't round, you'd have just fallen off the edge. Luckily science is here to tell us it's not. Do you think, Cropper, that scientific descriptions would be possible without metaphor? What could Darwin have meant by "natural selection" if not a metaphor? What could Crick have meant when he said DNA "makes" protein? What does it mean to say that an organism is a "mechanism"?
0ThouArtThat0 3 years ago
Would it be inapropriate to call you out for using vague metaphors when critizing people that use methaphors? Or you are trying to silence people ("shut up") while claiming they have concentration-camps in their pockets?
Sir, I don't want to be rude but your double standards and inconcistencies in this video where either quite entertaining or shocking.
bwhahrhr 3 years ago
Mr. Cropper, you're saying "they" are laying the groundwork for concentration camps and dictatorships. Then how do you end your vid? By telling them to "Shut up!"
You showed us all where your Objectivist philosophy really leads.
StevenErnest 3 years ago
Also, Mr. Cropper, surely you can't completely disregard metaphor. Ayn Rand's most popular works are metaphors, The Fountainhead, and Atlas Shrugged.
So are there "good" and "bad" metaphors?
StevenErnest 3 years ago
so tedious in your arguements - I see little rationality in them
GrowthSpiral 3 years ago 2
"dospook doesn't even know he's bringing concentration camps" is that concrete non-metaphorical literal objectivitynesses?
gratex 3 years ago
Your beetle thingy was a simile not a metaphor.
oldiousnei 3 years ago
It is logical, "if...then" is logic. Experience is as it is but you can't use axioms to provide evidence for it as logic is subordinate to experience. But there is no logical architecture which can be built on this in an absolute sense because it's a circular argument to begin with and even if we ignore that the premises are illogical. The only way to move past this is by incorporating the imagination.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
yo this shit rules, yo
utah2 3 years ago
Each of you have ridiculous, convoluted "points" and are so confused that it's comical. Youtube philosophers including Mr. Cropper are under-educated wannabes. Objectivism is a form of mental retardation and consequent frustration. Most postmodernists are no better, but some of them are clever. Objectivists are members of a cult but are not dangerous because they're so damned uninteresting that they will never be significant. Kant bitch slaps them-they're losers.
mr1mao 3 years ago
Are you drunk? Your slurred speech makes me wonder.
msa1985 3 years ago
yep. often non-concrete and flawed false metaphor. yep also dangerous. they don't comprehend how this enables evil, if they haven't already bought the BS about evil not existing.
cosabio 3 years ago
Very clever. The fact that you made less sense than you normally do results in you making more sense than you normally do, as you were speaking on post-modernism. Brilliant, really.
petrsakharov 3 years ago
I appreciate your transparent bid for a return to relevance. How long has it been since you received a collective, or even concerted, response? I suggest an increased focus on comedy, as I suspect that beneath your frustrated pundit exterior beats the heart of a n equally frustrated, but more effective, comedian. You did get me with the "something bizarre... like an idea" line. Pure gold.
TheCarruths 3 years ago 5
Sokal FTW!
Mjhavok 3 years ago
Your vids are great Crooper, but I had to laugh 5min onwards. It looks like the post modernist are giving you brain damage lol.
Kurturmis 3 years ago
This is why even religious thought is superior to post-modern thought.
Rational thought is best of course, but both rational and religious thought are at least in the form of truth post-modern thought can't even be propositionalized thought. To put it another; way they're not even wrong.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
How do we come across concretes Brandon?
secretsociety123 3 years ago
so it seems you are still drinking while making videos, just off camera...bravo
gabrielevery 3 years ago
Haha, I love your videos.
SuperFinGuy 3 years ago
hahahaha
great closing line
Louarns 3 years ago
You remain a scary man, Brandon. Good luck with that.
zorio 3 years ago
In the opening 30 seconds of your video "Public Schools - the Modern Witch Doctor" - you talk about Ayn Rand´s metaphores... So I guess you have now decided that Ayn Rand is a Post-modernist and that she should shut up? - Well this is new:)
ScientificDiscussion 3 years ago
SciDisc: he's not saying "metaphors are bad" -- he's saying that these people are *using* metaphors to slip their way out of saying anything concrete. Either you were not paying any attention at all or you knew better and were just looking for a cheap shot.
You're just reinforcing everything he's been saying about the intellectual vacuousness of his critics.
nine9s 3 years ago
"he's saying that these people are *using* metaphors to slip their way out of saying anything concrete." But this is such a unreflected critique. It doesnt provide any definition of the misuse of metaphors, niether quantitative or qualitative; it´s completely arbitrary. I might just as easily say that Rand used her metaphors because she was unable to say anything concrete and I would be just as right as Cropper. cont.
ScientificDiscussion 3 years ago
But the real issue here is where does Cropper get his definition from (refering to our previous discussion on academic discourse) - I cant belive he defines postmodernism in regards to the use of metaphors - it´s begging for a references to a study on postmodernism. Crop. uses metaphors all the time; now is this because he cant communicate "concretely"? BTW; every use of language is metaphorical - How uneducated does one have to be in order to state that language could ever be concrete?
ScientificDiscussion 3 years ago
"to state that language could ever be concrete? " - I of course mean the USE of language
ScientificDiscussion 3 years ago
"But this is such a unreflected critique. It doesnt provide any definition of the misuse of metaphors" He says, point blank, that when he tries to pin a concrete meaning on what postmodernists say, they'll respond with a metaphor that's too nebulous to convey any real meaning that can be critiqued.
nine9s 3 years ago
This is right there in the video for all to see. And yet you're folding your arms saying "You haven't given a definition of the proper use of metaphors." Bullshit. You're acting as though you're confused over whether obfuscation may or may not be an improper use of metaphores, and that you need Brandon to explain that for you.
nine9s 3 years ago
Where do these concretes come from in objectivism? If from the being in time, they vanish like the quicksand they came from and if we bypass that with reason there is no rational grounds for a specific unique experience in time.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
Where do concretes "come from"? They are the given. We differentiate concretes via their specific traits, and we define them by assigning words to them.
According to your premises, the existence of time means there are no concretes. Yet... look around!
It seems you're getting tied up in floating abstractions. A proper abstraction is derived from perceptual and conceptual concretes. You're trying to reverse the process, and the inevitable result is a bundle of contradictions.
nine9s 3 years ago
Make that "perceptual concretes." Concepts are already abstractions. My bad. :)
nine9s 3 years ago
Don't you ever question why you are who you are as a unique person? How is your personal unique experience in the world logical? Not from logic inward, but from your experience outward. You look around. I'm not tied up in floating abstractions, this is like the pot calling the kettle black.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
"Don't you ever question why you are who you are as a unique person?"
A question that's as nebulous as that is going to have just as nebulous an answer. What makes me unique are the choices I make, my DNA (which is unique), and my upbringing (which is also unique).
But that's probably not the answer you're looking for. You're looking for an answer that makes the question look like it's philosophically meaningful. But it isn't.
nine9s 3 years ago
The pretend game of turning specificity into homogeneity is only played for useful pursuits, it's not meant to be elevated to a religious practice. You need to be aware of your roots. You don't have to worship them but burying them is a serious mistake.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
Secretsociety, I have no idea what you're talking about. Abstractions "chip away at the concrete?" Balderdash.
nine9s 3 years ago
I think I understand the problem in communication here. I am defining a concrete as a unique experience in time with the pinnacle being sensation. You jumped to the conclusion that I was talking about the objective world when I said abstractions chip away at concretes, I was talking about how abstractions chip away at concretes in thought! I wasn't talking about the objective world.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
"How is your personal unique experience in the world logical?"
This question doesn't even make sense. An experience is a single concrete; only abstractions put together to form conclusions can form a rational *process.* A thing can't be *logical*, it just is.
nine9s 3 years ago
You basically summed up my point. In order for logic to be useful you must abstract concretes. To do this you chip away at the concrete. But you just bury those pieces and forget about them. Post modernists consider these pieces because they are foundational and they always simmer under the surface, as much we try to ignore them.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
uh, huh? Your basically assuming that once an Objectivist creates an abstraction, they just forget the concretes... what the hell? I don't even think thats possible without alot of work.
The whole point of an abstraction anyways is to put more information in one's consciousness at one time. You can't remember all types of chairs all at once. Depending on the context, you might have to abstract with just: chair.
horvay 3 years ago
Man, you even suggest that Objectivist "try to ignore" them. Be a man, and use reason, not context dropping low blows.
Also, when I say chair, I'm not saying forget all the concretes. "Chair" is actually meant to be a pointer, or identifier, for all those concrete things in reality know as chairs. You seem to be thinking that when I say "chair", I'm meaning, concretes don't exists anymore, just the abstraction chair.
Bulldockey poo.
horvay 3 years ago
You are probably also thinking of "abstraction" as being isolated to language, unaware that regardless of language the abstractions are occurring in thought and so also apply to experience, period. We think in abstractions but we experience concrete reality. We can only scribble the objective like a little kid with crayons. I only do one argument at a time. When I'm done with this girl, I'll get to you.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
"When I'm done with this girl, I'll get to you."
That sounds nasty. But it probably fits your personality.
And you keep making assumptions about her and I that are false. We do think in abstractions. Its how our mind works. But as long as those abstractions are based on the concretes, we are fine.
When I say, "dog", I am actually referring to all the concrete examples of dogs in my life.
horvay 3 years ago
If you are an objectivist who feels the concrete, as the pinnacle of sensation, before the abstraction, what is your justification in putting the abstraction, as what arises out of a certain relationship in conjunction with the concrete, before the concrete? It seems like a confused position to take for someone claiming to be so "reasonable". Is it just a "we are fine", because of the element of predictability? Cut the ad hominem stuff btw.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
You are right I am an Objectivist. So I'm scribbling like a little kid with crayons? Oh, and aren't you calling a woman a girl? I'd say one's personality has to do with their creditability--but back to the main topic.
And I said that an abstraction is a pointer the concretes. Are you asking the point of making abstractions? Its because I can't think of every type of dog in my head at once. A person's consciousness is limited to thinking about 3-7 things at one time.
horvay 3 years ago
If one cannot think of the concretes of an abstraction he is talking about, then they don't really understand the abstraction. This is called a "floating abstraction" and is a bad thing. Its not putting the abstraction first, its sticking to essentials.
horvay 3 years ago
"Its not putting the abstraction first, its sticking to essentials."
This is a separate thought, and I meant to have it with the first comment, not the second.
horvay 3 years ago
Your ad hominem approach is pretty weak. Your whole philosophy is a floating abstraction, what you consider to be concrete is only a watered down Frankenstein representation of a concrete. How can you think up a geniune sensation? Objectivism cuts itself off from the concrete, right at the bud, to ensure a grey death. Your philosophy has no blood pumping through it and so strangely appropriates it from existentialism like a stumbling drunk.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
Wow, lots of useless metaphors. How about an example?
horvay 3 years ago
Wow, what a useless conversation.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
Your Claim "your whole philosophy is a floating abstraction"
Your non-Answer "what you consider to be concrete is only a watered down Frankenstein representation of a concrete"
Your Claim: "Objectivism cuts itself off from the concrete"
Your non-Answer: "right at the bud, to ensure a grey death. Your philosophy has no blood pumping through it and so strangely appropriates it from existentialism like a stumbling drunk."
Your speaking isn't working. Its like a banana watered down by soy sauce.
horvay 3 years ago
At best, those metaphors are just repeating your claim. At worse, they don't really have a meaning. And even the best, in this case, is meaningless sense its just repetition.
horvay 3 years ago
I don't even care to ask what the hell it is that you are talking about. It's just a stupid ass ad hominem. And so, back to the content of the argument...How does your "concrete" (moment), if it is the pinnacle of sensation, extend beyond the sensation? If by "integration", integration of what? What specifically are we integrating? Are we juggling balls of light in our minds? Are we moving objects around like Yoda? Am I being too metaphorical?
secretsociety123 3 years ago
No, this is much better.
Humans have memories. Abstractions, like "dog" basically point to all these concretes. So when I say "dog", I am actually referring to those concretes I remember.
If one can not take an abstraction, and match it back in their memory to some concrete moment or example, then that is a floating abstraction to them.
So when I see lots of different examples of chairs, it is an act of integration to take their similar characteristics and make an abstraction called "chair".
horvay 3 years ago
Your reference material is not concrete regardless of its deliverance. And what is the "you" that is referring to the memory in the first place Horvay? What is the process of "matching back to a concrete" through memory in a regular abstraction? How do we match back to a concrete? (Concrete as in a concrete block falling on your foot)
secretsociety123 3 years ago
"Your reference material is not concrete regardless of its deliverance."
Concrete is merely that which exists. If its in reality, then its concrete. Abstractions on the other hand do not exists apart from human consciousness. They are a human's means to dealing with massive amounts of concretes.
Again, the very purpose of an abstraction is so we can reference an entire category of concretes (in which the concretes have something in common) at once since the consciousness is limited.
horvay 3 years ago
One should build abstractions by matching similar things in concretes that they perceive. Then, with the knowledge to create an abstraction, one should have the knowledge in memory to reference back to the concretes for which the abstraction was built from.
I'm not sure I really understand exactly what you are asking however; did I answer it?
horvay 3 years ago
You didn't answer my questions. Concretes, at least in the sense you are using them, as what exists out there (as in a concrete block dropping on your foot) are discovered through the senses, not by thought alone. One might think you were cropper's impression of a Kantian by how you are talking.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
You said: "are discovered through the senses"
I said: "One should build abstractions by matching similar things in concretes that they perceive"
Perception is the next step after sensations. But I didn't mean to leave sensations out. I agree that one senses something, then perceives it, then conceptualizes (creates abstractions) it.
So you actually agree with all this?
horvay 3 years ago
Our identity in time stands in complete logical disagreement with our concrete sensations as sensations both occur and do not occur in relation to a being, relative to ones position in space and time. But logically the existent can't exist without accepting certain contradictions in experience. How do you solve that Horvay? You aren't really responding to the points I am raising. You sound like a Kantian.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
"Our identity ... space and time." Okay, so not everyone experiences everything at once.
"But logically the existent can't exist without accepting certain contradictions in experience." There are no contradictions in sensations... only in conceptualizations--and only by someone making an error of some sort.
There is nothing to solve here. I don't disintegrate cognition from evaluation like you are trying to do.
horvay 3 years ago
There are contradictions in conceptualization, as I have pointed out in explaining how our logical notion of time (as without a subject in it) contradicts with our experience of it (which includes a subject). Being that our logical notion of time is entirely grounded in our experience of it; the former is entirely reliant on the latter without question. Sensations are sufficiently causal in character but not absolutely.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
Dude, I'm not getting what your saying at all.
Can you give an example?
horvay 3 years ago
1. The "experience" of time, witnessed in oneself, passes without our control; the conceptualization of time is representational and moves within our control. The ability for us to control the passage of time is not an aspect of time, but of the imagination. 2. The idea of time passing without the restrictions of a subject can only be conceived in the imagination. 3. This is one of those "contradictions in conceptualization" you mentioned.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
So someone could conceptualize something in a way that would be a contradiction, I understand this.
But I don't think that conceptualization is, by its very nature, a contradiction.
If one accepts that existence exists, and that consciousness does not cause existence (existentialism), then by no means is conceptualizations contradictory by nature.
I agree that we can't know time without experiencing it. To "know" anything presupposes a subject that knows it.
horvay 3 years ago
"You aren't really responding to the points I am raising." Actually I am, when you raise them. Searching for some evaluation of reality apart from _someone_ evaluating it is pointless, and Platonic in nature.
"You sound like a Kantian." Only when you put words in my mouth that sound like Kant. How about you keep those nasty assumptions about me to yourself. I merely say we sense things, and conceptualize from our senses.. and you assumed that I was searching for some Platonic "pure knowledge".
horvay 3 years ago
If you attempt to use logic to prove that "there are no contradictions in sensations" it should be obvious that you are putting the carriage in front of the horse. What makes you think I am trying to disintegrate cognition?
secretsociety123 3 years ago
"Our identity in time stands in complete logical disagreement with our concrete sensations as sensations both occur and do not occur in relation to a being, relative to ones position in space and time. But logically the existent can't exist without accepting certain contradictions in experience."
I took this as saying that people can't know everything that everyone else knows at once--which is searching for a platonic truth. Maybe I misunderstood, could you supply an example if so?
horvay 3 years ago
All contradictions are conceptual, first of all. If I said "contradictions in experience", I meant contradictions in the conceptualization of experience. Example: At the age of 10 you are 10 immediately and concretely, at the age of 20 you are 20 immediately and concretely. So, this means you are 10 and 20 years old immediately and concretely, a contradiction in conceptualization.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
The only way that that would be true is if you drop the context of time. To say that, "at some point I was concretely 10, and at some point I was concretely 20" would not be a contradiction.
I agree contradictions don't exists, in anything other than our conceptualizations.
horvay 3 years ago
I can only say existence exists in the preontological sense because I experience existence and it is self evident as it is. Any logical argument to prove this however is totally circular. Besides, existentialism is a theory that the existent exists in spite of logic, not because of it.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
You are right. One doesn't prove it, they just accept it. Its pointless and self defeating not to. Even if you did try to deny it, you'd be accepting it in the process.
Are you sure about existentialism? I thought existence only exists (to them) when someone thinks. And then it only exists to the thinker.
horvay 3 years ago
The problem I am having is that you need to add "even if you did try to deny it, you'd be accepting it in the process", which points to logical contradiction as the foundation of your conclusions which justify being as the seeds of existence. Existence exists simply because we experience it. It has nothing to do with logical proofs existing entirely subordinate to our experiences. In fact, the only thing proofs like this do is further damage the credibility of logic.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
I'm not trying to prove it; it is unprovable. I'm merely saying that its pointless to deny it, because everything one does (including trying to deny it) accepts it as true implicitly.
horvay 3 years ago
Your argument is still grounded in logic. The words you are using, everything one does affirms it, is a logical structure such as if D (one does) then E (existence). Logic does not affirm being, which is why it can't be an axiom. We can say being exists plain and simple but not in a logical sense. Existence comes before logic, whereas logical existence is completely cut away.
secretsociety123 3 years ago
An axiom is not something that can be proven through logic. I'm not saying existence only exists if one does something either.
I think we are in agreement about existence anyways. It can only be validated, but not proven through any formal logic.
horvay 3 years ago
Can you suggest a book on Soviet Russia or Russian history in general?
HorrorClaus 3 years ago
Is that a concentration camp in your pocket, or are you just happy to see me?
D4Shawn 3 years ago 5
I get such a violent emotional response to these people's response videos to you that I won't even watch them anymore. Life's too short to walk around pissed off all the time.
nine9s 3 years ago
I'd recommend Sciabarra's series on intellectual history/political philosophy. They provide a good example of ruthlessly critical and unbiased thinking among even the most distant philosophers, ie Marx/Hayek, Rand and the postmodernists, or even you and dospook.
wiseguy142 3 years ago
As for postmodernity and the legitimacy of metaphors as argument, I'm undecided. It seems in most continental philosophy, in order to be correct, you have to be part of the finite set of priviliged, elite philosophers to be taken seriously. Still, the same thing goes for Objectivism to a point. So maybe we should take a step back.
wiseguy142 3 years ago
I think your quote in the beginning of this video characterizes most of dospook's thought as well as my own experience when watching his videos. I'll start giving him credit for about 14 seconds when I think he's making an argument then it just comes out as nothing at all.
wiseguy142 3 years ago
Are you serious? are you really arguing against postmodernism with the Hitler analogy?
So many things can be brought against postmodernism, please try something else! I expect better from you.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago 3
Saying that postmodernism is wrong because it leads to concentration camps (which is possible indeed) is an appeal to consequences.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago 2
And metaphors are not there for purposively being ineffable, the intent is actually the oppostite: With the realisation that language is limited, the postmodernist attempts to communicate by means of metaphors and poetry.
Is it efficient? I'd say no, but it is an attempt at para-linguistic communication and is worth trying. The goal is to make communication complete, which it isn't.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago 3
lol I get thumbs down for pointing out fallacies! I so love you objectivists: every thing is objective as long as you agree, religions are like that too.
maksiiiskam2 3 years ago 2
Cropper - I don't intend this question to be rude or insulting: Are you slightly drunk or on some sort of medication in this video? Your mannerisms seem a little wobbled... Good video, though.
qtronman 3 years ago 2
Dude! No joke: I've been thinking the same thing lately. I didn't want to say anything because I didn't want him to offense, but... I think he's F'd up (not that I care or think that's a bad thing). I'm all for inebriated vlogging! Go Cropper!
D4Shawn 3 years ago
"Are you slightly drunk or on some sort of medication in this video?"
I still drink on camera, but I edit it out. :)
MrCropper 3 years ago
I'm on your side with this one, Mr.Cropper.
mikecampochiaro 3 years ago
I love metaphores like a fat boy loves lard. ^__^ But yea I still don't get the whole post modernist things. Sounds a lot like Christians, or at least there way of argueing. "But the carbon dating? How can the earth be only 6,000 years old?" "God's testing us, HA try and disprove that!" And sometimes ur videos are a bit boring, I mean the angry hand gestures are nice but to keep people interested maybe you should show a little more skin ;-) Or at least take that god damn ritzy jacket off.
FoxHatesMe 3 years ago
"You reinforce a hierarchal moral order by claiming that Az shouldn't be taken seriously because he doesn't have a 'degree' from an 'accredited university.' Then you turn around with a 'poem' and and actually denounce universities. Hypocrite"
You misunderstand that bit. I have a long history of denouncing universities. A degree is almost never to a person's credit.
MrCropper 3 years ago
"You misunderstand that bit. I have a long history of denouncing universities. A degree is almost never to a person's credit."
That is especially true when the university the person got the degree from teaches against a hierarchal moral order.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
"hierarchal moral order."
Please explain this.
Mjhavok 3 years ago
'Concentration camps in their back pockets.' Wow! Out of all the people in this exchange, I'm sorry, but you seem to be the most authoritative! If you're such a 'man of logic,' why do you commit so many 'logical fallacies?'
You reinforce a hierarchal moral order by claiming that Az shouldn't be taken seriously because he doesn't have a 'degree' from an 'accredited university.' Then you turn around with a 'poem' and and actually denounce universities. Hypocrite!
eyemran 3 years ago 4
Yup
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago 2
What he's arguing is that post-modernism can lead to anything --hence concentration camps.
Not that they will necessarily but that there is absolutely no defense against concentration camps once you remove an absolute basis for those defenses.
JohananRaatz 3 years ago
"What he's arguing is that post-modernism can lead to anything --hence concentration camps."
No he's not. Postmodernism can't "lead to anything"--it's not going to lead to great scientific achievements and prosperous societies. The extent of postmodernism is the extent of estrangement from reality.
The chain of reasoning from pomo to concentration camps is: *Denial of objective good and evil-->*Cowardice in the face of evil-->*Triumph of evil.
nine9s 3 years ago
Exactly nine9s! And to me, this is a reinforcement of the 'status quo' by way of fear. I like Kafka!
eyemran 3 years ago
...I am missing a big context I think, so I don't know if you are 100% right, but you probably are. Entertaining video.
shovelcharge 3 years ago
I thought you liked logic Cropper. Why use so many fallacies if you like logic? The loaded language in this video is noticeably hypocritical :( .
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
Indeed, this video is filled with appeals to ridicule, appeals to fear, appeals to motive, ad hominem abuse, straw men, bare assertions and faulty generalizations. The concluding remark is particularly startling.
RowanFortuneWood 3 years ago
Too many for me to bother listing lol.
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago
I won't shed any tears for post-modernists confronted with devious debators. :)
Moragauth 3 years ago
stepping into the realm of cognitive science, it can be demonstrated somewhat convincingly--although with wiggle room--that our sensation and perception is colored, illusory, and transient. i need not resort to metaphor (though, most of our language takes care of that already) in showing that, for instance, our capabilities of proprioception is neither hardwired, nor an "accurate" representation of the without.
kaksonen 3 years ago
hey man! where have you been! good to see you still posting!
bubonicnate 3 years ago
loooooong story... but yea, i'm back online. new apartment, new computer, time to make videos :)
kaksonen 3 years ago
can't wait!
bubonicnate 3 years ago
Ummm Azienoch is giving away his new book for free? Theres gotta be catch there. I know what it is, he's trying to get peeps hooked, then he'll start charging big time.
Signofthedollar 3 years ago
hooked on philosophy worked for me!
psst.
over here.
check it out, I have some camus for ya, this shit'll get you high.
kaksonen 3 years ago 6
lol
PursuitOfReality 3 years ago 3
Challenge: Go find a time when I say, "Everyone agrees that..." You'll be hard pressed to find any examples. When you do find an instance, and I'm sure they exist, tell me that you disagree and why.
azrienoch 3 years ago 3
By the way, my book is out. The PDF is free. Just go to my latest video and follow the links. I'm DYING to hear what you think of the book.
azrienoch 3 years ago 5
Notice that when philosophers use metaphors to argue that you can't be certain of sensory evidence, they make the Fallacy of the Stolen Concept? Why take Plato's "cave metaphor" seriously when he employs the metaphor to argue that caves & shadows might not exist? As EpistemicDuty pointed out on YouTube, the metaphor is valid only as far as concretes are real. If I metaphorically refer to Osama as a "pig," the metaphor only makes sense as far as *literal* pigs exist.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
If someone says lots of stupid things on YouTube, I wouldn't tell him to shut up, because I don't have to subject myself to any of his irrational verbiage; I can ignore it. And if other people choose to believe in quacks, that's their problem, not mine.
Well, it wouldn't be my problem except we live in a dem(agog)ocracy. When people swallow Ralph Nader's demagoguery, that leads them to clamor for more laws to take away my freedom.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
True, Objectivists can't debate irrationalists' arbitrary (and self-disproving) pronouncements like "You can't prove that you can actually hear or see real existents," as you can't convince a close-minded person of something against his consent.
All the same, whenever you speak out about these things in a rational manner, you give us rational people a viable alternative in the marketplace of ideas.
legendre007 3 years ago 2
So the best way to fight against the irrationalists is not to point out to the irrationalists themselves how wrong they are (they're too close-minded to be swayed by any rational appeals you make).
The best way is to carry on with providing the rational alternative, as you have been doing. YouTube would be benefiting from your rationality even if anti-induction philosophers like Hume and Kant never existed.
legendre007 3 years ago 4