Five Notes on Randian Objectivist Metaphysics and Epistemology

“The Axioms of Objectivism.” Objectivism for Intellectuals. Objectivism for Intellectuals, Jun. 4, 2012. Web. Apr. 7, 2016. <>.

“A Critique of Kant on the Noumenal World / Phenomenal World Distinction (“Thing-in-Itself” vs “Appearance”).” Objectivism for Intellectuals. Objectivism for Intellectuals, Jul. 11, 2014. Web. Apr. 7, 2016. <>.

“The Meaning of “Necessary” Versus “Contingent” Truth.” Objectivism for Intellectuals. Objectivism for Intellectuals, May 21, 2015. Web. Apr. 7, 2016. <>.

“The Formal Refutation of Determinism and The Validation of Free Will (Libertarian Volition).” Objectivism for Intellectuals. Objectivism for Intellectuals, Aug. 3, 2013. Web. Apr. 7, 2016. <>.

“Ontology and The Problem of Universals: An Objectivist Comments.” Objectivism for Intellectuals. Objectivism for Intellectuals, May 4, 2014. Web. Apr. 7, 2016. <>.

Henry Harpending, RIP

Frost, Peter. “Farewell to Henry.” The Unz Review. Apr. 4, 2016. Web. Apr. 7, 2016. <>.

Sailer, Steve. “The Scientist vs. the SPLC.” Taki’s Magazine. Apr. 6, 2016. Web. Apr. 7, 2016. <>.

Richard Lynn American Renaissance Interview

“Interview with a Pioneer.” Interview. American Renaissance. American Renaissance staff, 19 Feb. 2016. Web. 5 Mar. 2016. <>.

Reference and God

A Referent, or Semantic Object, is a Set Necessitated by the Inextricably Linked Axioms of Existence and Identity

The concept of a referent, or something that can be referred to, is an entailment of the metaphysical axiom of identity, itself inextricably linked to the axiom of existence. Existence exists; such is the axiom of existence, the irreducible primary of metaphysics. The universe is the set of all that exists. A set is a grouping of zero, one, or several members or elements which, when they themselves are encompassed by the set as opposed to being outside of it, meet or satisfy the criteria of the set, which is for each respective member or element to have certain distinguishing criteria: in short, some particular identity vis a vis the dialectic of potentiality/actuality; this may be called its nature, which everything necessarily has, since for something to exist is for it to be delimited, whether this is recognized or not. In thought-independent existence everything in particular is respectively delimited. Nonsense is when the contents of that which is being regarded as nonsense cannot be sussed out, or delimited. The negation of nonsense is what is sensical. Sensical thought is in accordance with the axiom of identity at least in respect to the contents of sensical thought necessarily being some type of delimited mental representations about some semantic object. Indeed, we may regard the phrase ‘semantic object’ to be synonymous with ‘referent,’ since for something to be referred to is for the object of reference (with reference being a part of semantics, the study of meaning-making) to be itself an implicit or explicit set. Why is this the case? Because when something is being referred to, it is necessarily so that there exists (when it is delimited as such) something which alone is not that which is being referred to. Even when one refers to ‘the constitutive elements of everything’ alone, one is not referring to ‘some particular constitutive element of everything’ alone. And when one is referring to bananas alone, one is not referring to music alone. As such, with any semantic set A, there is another set, namely that of not-semantic set A, consting of all sets of all semantic sets not identical to semantic set A. In accordance with the axiom of identity then, when the contents of the following variable is properly delimited, A is A and as such, A is not not-A. Notice that I earlier said there can be sets with zero elements. If one has never engaged in a certain activity, then the set of instances in which one has engaged in said certain activity that they have not engaged in would be an empty set. There can also be sets of non-existent things, or things that do not (yet?) have thought-indepdent existence, such as Thor’s Hammer, supposing that Thor’s Hammer has never had thought-independent existence. All conceivable sets can each be referred to if one exercises the mental effort to do so. Indeed, even the mental representation of something is a form of reference, though communication is the particular type of reference in which one’s thoughts are made known to others by some semantic medium. It being known that what can be referred to can necessarily be the part of a set, and it being known that what can be referred to can either be a modal conveyant (particular form of reference, communication, etc.), existent (something that exists, be it an attribute, action, material thing, etc.), or state of affairs, and these being either real or hypothetical/mental/not-thought independent, the formulation of a set does not entail the thought-independent existence of the content(s) of the set.

Against a “Set theory proof for the existence of God”

I am totally against the project of a set theory proof for the existence of God, especially one of the following line of reasoning:

Proposition: If a set is unique, then it exists.

Proof: If a set is unique, i.e. is properly specified so that a set having the properties is equal to the set, then even if the set has no members, it exists as the empty set.

Example x^2 + 1 = 0. Let A be the integer solutions. This set A is unique, but it is empty.

God is unique.
God contains other things and thus is a set.
Thus God is a unique set.
Therefore God exists.

The above alone demonstrates there being a thought-dependent modal conveyant of God, not the thought-independent existence of God. Just because I can refer to something doesn’t mean it exists; I would apply the same standard to that absurd Platonic school of thought called mathematical realism. I would go so far as to say that any supposedly coherent conception of God exchanges the primacy of existence for the primacy of consciousness, and violates the axiom of identity and law of causality, but that thread of thought will have to be pursued in writing another time.

Roosh, Rape, and Risk

In “How to Stop Rape,” an article written for his namesake neomasculinity-centered website, author and pickup artist Roosh V (full name: Daryush Valizadeh, owner of the Return of Kings website) did not genuinely advocate a real-world policy of the legalization of coercive sexual interaction, or rape. I will demonstrate this by abstracting the essentials of the views he expressed in said article, which hereinafter I will refer to as HTSR.

The question Roosh addresses in HTSR is the following: can someone reduce their risk of being raped? This can be treated in a formal way or a non-formal way. I will attempt to translate the essentials of Roosh’s views into a formalization. But why did Roosh not do this himself in HTSR? There is a trade-off between the formalization of an item of content and the extent to which it is likely to garner attention. This is especially true for items of content meant for mass distribution, or for public consumption so to speak.


On February 3, Roosh posted the following on his Twitter account: “I’ll state once again: the ‘How To Stop Rape’ article was satire. Neither me or my supporters want rape to be legalized. The media is lying.” Satire can be defined as social folly being analyzed in an informal medium by way of exaggeration. HTSR integrates satire into an outrageous but nonetheless idea-provoking thought-experiment.

My formalized abstraction of HTSR’s question at hand will treat the views expressed in HTSR in a manner consistent with the principle of charity, and perhaps even reveal their core merits:

  1. One cannot rape oneself.
  2. The arithmetical mean risk of rape occurring, or what we may call the average potential incidence of rape, is necessarily above-zero in every context/situation involving more than one person.
  3. But the statistical incidence of rape is not equally distributed among every context/situation involving more than one person.
  4. Thus, contexts/situations exist in which one is more likely to be raped by another person(s) as opposed to other contexts/situations.
  5. Conversely, contexts/situations exist in which one is less likely to be raped by another person(s) as opposed to other contexts/situations.
  6. The average potential incidence of rape clusters non-trivially in certain contexts/situations as opposed to other contexts/situations.
  7. If the information of what contexts/situations (their constitutive elements being certain factors, some being controllable) influence (increase or decrease) the average potential incidence of rape were made known to the public, it is hypothetically possible for a potential victim (AKA any person in any context/situation involving more than one person) to have the data they can incorporate into their evaluations of risk exposure, and thus decrease the chance of them getting raped, though by no means making it zero.
  8. If rape were not-illegal in non-public areas, ceteris paribus rape would prima facie be more likely to occur in non-public areas.
  9. (8) would be knowledge that an individual can incorporate into their evaluation of risk exposure.
  10. Women are disproportionately more likely to be raped than men.
  11. Women disproportionately would take account of (8-10) to decrease their risk of being raped.
  12. Thus, women, if they wanted to decrease their risk of being raped, would change certain factors in how they approached non-public areas.
  13. As for the implication of this line of thought: we can suppose that even without such a hypothetical scenario as (8), there exists information that can be used in adjusting one’s risk of being raped.
  14. (11-13) does not entail victim blaming, but rather an acknowledgement of the structure of risk exposure itself.
  15. The above is a line of thought worth taking seriously.

The production of a thought experiment, especially when renounced as not reflecting a thinker’s actual desires, does not warrant inextricably linking said thinker with said thought experiment as has been done to Roosh, with many organizations and publications labeling him a “legal rape advocate.” This is not meant to be apologetics on behalf of Roosh, but rather a recognition of what Roosh did and did not intend to communicate.