Re: Introductory Notes

[RJMooreII]

My name is R.J. Moore II.  I'm a 23 year old male living in the United States.

My primary intellectual interests are metaphysics (or ontology), logic, epistemology, meta-ethics and ethics, economics and revisionist history.  I also have some interest in evolution (especially psychology), physics, political philosophy, political science, religion and (presuming they are not simply a 'lump' of the previous categories) anthropology and sociology.  Obviously, interdisciplinary work is also neat.

Some of my less academic interests are firearms, superhero comic books, speculative fiction, first-person shooters and grand strategy video games.

To the extent that such brevity in the subjects can mean anything, my views are roughly of materialist/logical interdependence (akin to Aristotle) and strong determinism.  I am a philosophical (or existential) egoist, which is to say I believe that valuation is intrinsic to a specific agent.  This implies, among other things, that all 'moral' or 'ethical' concepts of imperative, duty or intrinsic value are literally false, or nonsensical.

Although I do not consider atheism to be of major import in my philosophical outlook - I reject supernaturalism altogether - I have been an atheist for as long as I've had any opinion on religion.

Some major influences upon me have been (in no particular order): Friedrich Nietzsche, Ragnar Redbeard, Aristotle, Max Stirner, Richard Dawkins, Isaac Asimov.  I have disagreements (some very serious) with many of these philosophers, and in addition I have been influenced by a great number of others through books, articles, etc.

[Recusant]

Greetings and welcome, RJMooreII.  Ragnar Redbeard, eh?  I would imagine that espousing doctrines of his here will result in some lively discussions.     Thank you for your comprehensive and intriguing 'Introductory Notes.'

[DIY 1138]

Deleted by poster

[McQ]

Welcome to the forum. Could you translate your excellent introduction into "stupid" for me?  

My head is spinning just from thinking about all that!

[Hitsumei]

Welcome to the fold.

DIY 1138, you've probably confused determinism with fatalism, which is quite common. Determinism is merely that the future will be casually related to the past, and subject to natural law -- quite simply. It is often confused with the notion that the future is fated, and can only turn out a predestined way, which is fatalism, not determinism.

[curiosityandthecat]

Dude, Redbeard was a huge influence on me, too. I wanted to be a pirate for the loooongest time.



Welcome.

[RJMooreII]

as well as saying that the exI would imagine that espousing doctrines of his here will result in some lively discussions.

Hah.  'Death to the weakling, wealth to the strong!"  I like Ragnar a lot, though I think he is a bit moralistic at times.  Sidney Parker wrote a pretty good review of Might is Right, showing that it had both good coherent amoralistic elements as well as pseudo-Nietzschean 'supermanism'.

I wonder if you would indulge me and tell me a little about the determinist viewpoint.

The Universe consists of certain properties (its existence being defined by the possession of these certain properties) which can not contradict.  Anything which happens happens necessarily.  This is different from causation - it's not entirely clear to me what 'causation' means.  In a strong determinism it is actually time invariant - everything which will ever happens is necessarily implied by everything which has happened, likewise everything that has happened can be 'determined' by everything that ever will happen.  This sort of time invariance shows up in physics quite a bit.  I am neutral on the question of 'local' determinism (ala Relativity) and holistic determinism (more akin to post-quantum mechanics).  I think this is mainly an empirical matter.  But as for the necessity of 'the case' in the natural world at any given point, I can't see any logical method to escape this conclusion.

Welcome to the forum. Could you translate your excellent introduction into "stupid" for me?

I'll see if I can reduce it to more 'lay' terms.  Basically, I am interested in the implications between logic and material existence, and how we gain knowledge about the material world.  I'm also interested in the field of goals, values and decision-making; how these occur and to what extent we are able to say they are 'justified' (whether me rationally or normatively).

[Hitsumei]

The Universe consists of certain properties (its existence being defined by the possession of these certain properties) which can not contradict.  Anything which happens happens necessarily.  This is different from causation - it's not entirely clear to me what 'causation' means.  In a strong determinism it is actually time invariant - everything which will ever happens is necessarily implied by everything which has happened, likewise everything that has happened can be 'determined' by everything that ever will happen.  This sort of time invariance shows up in physics quite a bit.  I am neutral on the question of 'local' determinism (ala Relativity) and holistic determinism (more akin to post-quantum mechanics).  I think this is mainly an empirical matter.  But as for the necessity of 'the case' in the natural world at any given point, I can't see any logical method to escape this conclusion.

This is an incoherent formulation of determinism. It cannot be time invariant if you have formulated it using a chronological lineage of events, i.e. "has happened", "will happen". These terms are not time invariant, they're time dependent.

[Whitney]

Hi RJ, welcome to the forum.

[RJMooreII]

This is an incoherent formulation of determinism. It cannot be time invariant if you have formulated it using a chronological lineage of events, i.e. "has happened", "will happen".

While this is a problem with causation, it is not a problem with (certain formulations) of determinism.  For, you see, any aspect of reality must be in strict relational conformity with all other aspects of reality.  Although it's perfectly normal for humans to speak this way (our memories being forward-linear as they are), there seems to be no necessity when discussing it on a metaphysical level.  To take the terms of Relativistic physics, time is a dimension equivalent to the spatial dimensions.  Things can thus be different at different points in time (as the are at different points in space), but the differences are dependent entirely upon the entity's position and velocity in any area of space/time.  A compatible view, which I do not necessarily say is the correct one, would be the 'block' theory of existence - that there is no ultimate 'seperation' of space or time, only an extension.  There really is no such thing that exists as 'past' or 'future' but only various points from which one observes space/time.

These terms are not time invariant, they're time dependent.

They are relatively time descriptive.  The principles themselves are time invariant, as such that if case p occurs in the future that case q must have preceeded it.  To talk about this causation travelling 'forward' is both somewhat confusing, not to mention parochial.

[Hitsumei]

For, you see, any aspect of reality must be in strict relational conformity with all other aspects of reality.

Why? Don't you mean "the universe"? If reality consists of several closed systems, then they very well could have no direct relationship to one and other.

They are relatively time descriptive.  The principles themselves are time invariant, as such that if case p occurs in the future that case q must have preceeded it.  To talk about this causation travelling 'forward' is both somewhat confusing, not to mention parochial.

"has happend" and "will happen" are not time dependent concepts? This is what you're asserting?

Causation doesn't do anything of course, it is a description of a chronological relationship between events. but this description very much is time dependent. It doesn't make sense to talk about casual relations outside of a framework of events preceding other events in time.

You cannot coherently refer to your concept of determinism as being time-invariant while using time dependent concepts to describe it. Have you personally formulated this conception of determinism, or have you attempted to extrapolate it from something you've read? If the latter, could you link that material, or perhaps name the source?

Thanks.

[McQ]

Ok, just a reminder that this is the introduction section. Take the philosophical debate to the proper thread please. Thank you!