Added: Dec 5, 2008
From: brainpolice2
Duration: 3:43
I actually think that both sides of this debate make some good points at various points, although I ultimately side with the realist (despite the virtual uselessness of statements such as "A is A" and "Reality is real"). Make up your own mind.
Channel: People
Tags: anti-realism circular contradictions language performative realism reasoning self-referential semantics statements
Rating: 4.42 (53 ratings) Views: 840' favoriteCount='14 Comments: 25
Kierketaard Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - Let us take the property of "selling over a million records" since it is quantifiable and verifiable. Then "Dion is an artist who sold over a million records" may be true, but it is Not inherently identifiable with Dion. Dion happens to be one of any number of artists who have sold or will sell over a million records. In this case A=A is not the relation under consideration.
ZullGostnu Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - Good work. Language attempts to describe reality, yet fails miserably. Language by its very definition is circular... A is A... So much of reality is unexplored, because we are blinded by our language. This will never work, that is impossible...it is illogical....and I still find the holes in their reality to explore. Then they just call my discoveries, circus tricks. Logic...Language... Reason??? Go experience life, without the restriction of language.
D4Shawn Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - I can agree with that. "Having sold over a million records" is a secondary characteristic of Celine Dion (not an aspect of what she IS most fundamentally). However, all that does is further the argument that "suckyness" is an attribute of subjective perception rather than objective Dionness. I'm am relating back to EverettsVLOG's attempt to conflate perception with reality. They are two separate issues (though easily confused I suppose).
Kierketaard Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - And you (or someone, herself or someone else)knows what she Is, most fundamentally?
D4Shawn Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - We're working on it.
thatguyublocked Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - Well, Cheers...(*clink*)
opinionhead444 Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - One of my last videos uses the self-referential aspect of language. It even uses the idea of substitution to switch contexts without changing the actual word. A = A => 1 = 1 => A+1 = A+1 => A = AAd Nauseam. Great video.
koenichfuerst Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - Great vid! Favourited!Oh, and: You are evading the self-evident, damn Kantian!! ;)
profwito Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - A is A because "A is A" is an analytic a priori statement.
kpunkt Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - I'm not sure if I understood this one ;-)A is A means "a thing or a thought (or whatever you like to view) is just what it is" That's an universal truth. It's valid for everything. Or as the Beatles said "Let it B"
samuelmichaud Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - good vid...eo
MrCropper Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - This isn't funny on any level.Lame.
brainpolice2 Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - It wasn't meant to be "funny" per se. Perhaps you need to remove the stick from your rectum? Or did you take yourself to be the butt of a joke?
SuperFinGuy Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - "A is A" because it exists and it is observed in reality as such. Tell to your kantian ego to please look up the "stolen concept" fallacy. For example, arguing that something doesn't exist, when the existence of it is clearly required for you to be making that argument.
KafkaCrow Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - This is good stuff. Ayn Rand sucked the most at epistemology. I mean the rest of her stuff sucks, but this really, really sucks.
KafkaCrow Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - The squeaky voice is a KANTIAN!!!11
brainpolice2 Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - This video didn't take a position, it's a mock debate between two positions, so I'm not sure why you're argueing against me. I haven't told you my position.
leorana2 Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - You're missing the point. "A is A" is not meant to define A or give us raw data of A's charecaristics. What that sentence comes to point out is that things have an identity. Maybe we have the tools / knowledge / understanding to figure out more about A at present, maybe we don't. But A has an identity, and more specifically an objective identity.
brainpolice2 Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - I'm not making an argument, the video is a representation of an argument between two people. So I don't see how I can be missing any point. Apparently the nature of the video went over your head.
SuperFinGuy Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - I'm not necessarily arguing against you, just saying that your real voice could've done much better if you pointed out a few more simple things.
TransfiguredNight Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - The reason Objectivists don't understand this video is the same reason you don't see any Objectivists who have made it through formal logic classes, or practice hard science, or submit papers to peer-reviewed journals, or have constructive debates in graduate studies--or even make it to graduate studies--or basically do anything that might involve exposing their Infallible Version of Reality to anything resembling the real world of human knowledge and intellectual life.
SuperFinGuy Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - TransfiguredNight, your comment is self evidently wrong lol
jparagons Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - For what it's worth, I (an Objectivist) made it through formal logic classes, and did quite well for that matter.
BrianTheMusicMan Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - This is a great practice in Socratic dialectic - awesome job.
D4Shawn Says:
Dec 5, 2008 - "Suckyness" is not a well defined, objective quality. It is something that as individuals we perceive according to our own subjective tastes. If we defined "not sucking" as "selling millions of records", then we could agree that Dion does not suck. However, phrases like, "Dion sucks donky cock" are usually meant as a purely subjective evaluations (perceptions). If we discuss a well defined quality, such as gender, then we could say something about Dion's inherent properties (reality).