Jump to content

Western Civilization’s Last Stand

The Art of The Argument

Available Now | artoftheargument.com

Freedomain Radio Amazon Affiliate Links: United States - Canada - United Kingdom

Sign up for the Freedomain Mailing List: fdrurl.com/newsletter

Premysl Bosak

Member
  • Content count

    14
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Premysl Bosak last won the day on April 14 2015

Premysl Bosak had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

6 Neutral

About Premysl Bosak

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Czech Republic
  • Interests
    Economics
  1. Translation into Czech language is done and ready!

    Ke stažení zdarma zatím pouze zde : http://www.mises.cz/literatura/univerzalne-preferovane-jednani-72.aspx Snad během zítřka přibude ePub a Mobi verze. Tisk mohu poslat na dobírku, ale snad el. verze bude stačit BTW zítra 15/4 v Praze křest v Paralelní polis.
  2. Books finally arrived at home.
  3. Hi Nicholas, thanks. Actually typesetting will have to be done by a native Czech as the grammar rules are important for such work. But the design of the cover can be done be anybody. I would like to get a cover design in an appropriate digital format usable for printing. I guess it should be in some vector format such as SVG.
  4. Hello community, I've recently finished translation of UPB into Czech language. At the moment I'm having proofreading done, but I'm not able to do the cover and typesetting. Is there anybody willing to help with those? Thank you.
  5. I think that you turned to be unnecessary sarcastic and find it unpleasant and that I presented my point clear enough. My argument was neither to invalidate nor to disprove existence of concept "Government" as you can read above. My goal was how to better present/understand concepts. What concerns my term "abstract instance", what is then an instance of the crowd, forest? Such instances are not concrete so I can say they are abstract. I don't agree with your point with "All instances of concepts are abstract" since tree has a concrete instance with particular aspects shared with other trees. I agree that invalid concepts like "square circles" or "government" have no instances, but they still can "exist" in our mind so they should be at first invalidated through logic. Because you cannot know up front that they do not have any instances.
  6. I totally understand and agree that all concepts resides only in our heads. But when you say "government" it can be "an instance of a concept" or "a concept" the same we can say for "tree". There can be an "abstract concept tree" or a "concrete perceptual instance of tree". That is the reason why I think that that justification was not appropriate and should have been specifally related to "instance" rather than to "concept". Otherwise it did not imply. I think that you are interchanging validity and existence. Math is valid (because logical, empirically verified) but exists only in our minds. Existence in reality is matter and energy and its effects which math has neither. Math has instances but only abstract ones. e.g. Podcast#743 Do numbers exists? I think that validity of concept government is another lets say "layer". We first acknowledge that it exist only in our head and then we can examine the validity. I think that Stefan argued that it is invalid because no instances of concept can have the opposite characteristics, but since in government are people that have opposite characteristics (like "it is moral for soldier to murder") that other people which it consists of, then it is invalid.
  7. Thanks for reply. I think proposed division could help because it was misleading when Stefan used that example of instance of perceptual concrete concept (tree) and abstract concept (forest) and then said that all concepts do not exist in reality. I think that when Stefan said "government does not exist" and justified this statement by saying that no concepts exist in reality then this justification is not appropriate. I think that when we want to justify nonexistence of government we should say: "there are no concrete perceptual instances of concept government". And although it is true that no concepts exist in reality their instances can and it depends on which type of concept we are talking about.
  8. In this video (28’28’’) “What is Existence?” Stefan used an example of a tree as a concrete object and a forest as an abstract concept, which exists only in our head not in reality. I’m quite bewildered with this explanation because e.g. in podcast #95 Stefan uses an example of rock as a concept and states: “concepts are mental organization of discrete sensual information based on common structure of atoms and matter”. Moreover, even in this video (35’30’’) he states that concept is “when you take an attribute and extrapolate it to include all like instances” which I’m both happy with, but in that sense the tree is also a concept – “e.g. wooden plant with roots and treetop” but it exists in reality. I understand that all concepts exist only in mind not in reality but there are concepts, which have its instances existing in reality like trees and those, which do not like forest or government. So I would suggest dividing concepts into two groups those with concrete instances in reality (e.g. tree, rock) and those which have abstract instances (crowd, forest). Any thoughts on that?
×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.