Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. Doug Morris

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Azrael Rand, I looked up the three things you recommended. Jonathan Haidt recognizes that morality underlies politics, which is good, but his view of morality emphasizes how we treat others and does not address Objectivist metaethics. Wikipedia listed scholars whose work is cited or critiqued in the book. They did not include Ayn Rand, Nathaniel Branden, Leonard Peikoff, or anyone else I recognized as Objectivist or Objectivist influenced. Ryan Enos's main point seems to be that people practice collectivism based on geography as well as other considerations, and that this can reinforce other kinds of collectivism. Undoubtedly true, but that does not mean they have to or should. Two quotes from him in an interview, with my comments: "Geography has always factored heavily into politics and human behavior more generally. Part of this comes from the nature of politics, that it is a contest over who gets what. The what is often tied to location and becomes a contest over who controls where." I have encountered the definition of politics as being over "who gets what" in at least two other places. It describes how politics works in a mixed economy, but takes for granted a mistaken view of government. "If we cannot cooperate politically, we cannot do the things necessary to have a functioning modern society, such as building infrastructure and caring for the needy." Again, this takes for granted a mistaken view of government. The Wikipedia article on the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study reveals complications that prevent it from proving that there is a genetic component to statistical differences between the races in IQ. Two quotes from Wikipedia: "As Scarr & Weinberg (1976) note, transracial adoption studies only control for family environment, not social environment. For example, children who are socially identified as black may still be subject to racial discrimination despite being raised by white parents." "It is essential to note, however, that the groups also differed significantly (p < .05) in their placement histories and natural mother's education. Children with two black parents were significantly older at adoption, had been in the adoptive home a shorter time, and had experienced a greater number of preadoption placements." Also, the sample was a convenience sample, not a random sample. We have already argued over whether there is a racial component to intelligence. You have not proven this. One reason so many blacks vote Democrat is that the Democrats have been the main ones to push civil rights legislation.
  3. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    That's exactly why I'm confused why you even *want* to claim very much of Objectivism, let alone use the word to describe yourself. You're not even trying to be an individualist. There would be some variation still because of genetics. This still doesn't mean that race was a causal factor; race is not an effective way to divide up genetics. But either way, roughly speaking, race per say is not what would matter. So if children are raised with similar values, their potential is roughly the same. Not that their IQ would be roughly the same, it would vary depending on personality factors and the interests they pursue. I'm a graduate student in psychology, so that's my credential for understanding the psychology here. I'm not speaking just as a layperson with an interest in psychology.
  4. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Was intended as the latter (figure of speech). If I'm reading this correctly, what you're saying is that if whites, Asians, and blacks all had equally good upbringing, environment, nutrition, lack of Marxist brainwashing, etc their IQs would be roughly the same; is that correct? The premise of Objectivism is objective reality as it exists not as we would like it to exist. If you believe that the first is true but are open to facts, I highly recommend reading The Righteous Mind by Jonathan Haidt and The Space between Us by Ryan Enos. If objective reality confirms an innate tribal component to human nature that's an objective fact; the same would of course apply if reality confirms that collectivism is a social construct. It's objective reality that decides what is objectively true, not you, me, or Ayn Rand. If you have a study to share that proves this, I'm more than willing to read it. Believe it or not I started out as a fully individualist Objectivists. If anything I want to believe what you believe. I do very much appreciate you keeping an open mind. I'm not going to claim that it can be proven with a 100.00% accuracy, however when you look at a number of different data sets it creates what I would describe a preponderance of evidence; proof beyond a reasonable doubt. A good starting point would be to look up the Minnesota Transracial Adoption Study. I would respectfully disagree with that assessment. People that are less intelligent are easier to scam; Marxism is a scam on a societal stage. It only took a few decades for Marxists to win over the black community (they vote roughly 90% Democrat). Marxists have tried to win over whites too, and although they have made significant inroads, over the last century they still haven't converted as many whites percentage wise as blacks. As far as the genetics of tribalism I'd refer you back to the two books I references above; your local library should have them in stock. Collectivism is either a social construct, genetic, or a combination of both. It's desirable to believe that embracing collectivism is a choice 100% subject to free will because it allows us to morally condemn these people, but if objective reality doesn't support this to be true then we have to re-asses our previous assumptions and conclusions. Do you contest the existence of consistency bias or just my application in this specific context. As humans we are driven by incentives. The incentive to make life easier on oneself by creating a universal framework would be a good example imo. I did get a kick out of watching the video you posted. Totally reminds me of Mark Collett, a British Alt-Right activist and Youtube personality. You may also be interested in an earlier article I wrote addressing the Alt-Right: https://www.minds.com/AzraelRand/blog/an-open-letter-to-the-alt-right-exploring-an-alternative-sol-887488448523096064 It's not that I don't support individual liberties and the NAP, I do, but I don't see how they can be preserved in a society with average IQ of 75-85. That's where the West is heading. I do plan to write more about influence in the future, so stay tuned. It basically boils down to utilizing an objective understanding of human nature as a baseline to one's persuasion efforts. As for the second piece it would most likely be an ethnically and culturally homogeneous society that would permit minorities based on their value set, ability to contribute positively to society, while not throwing off the ethnic composition of the nation. As far as my favorite Alt-Right figure, that would be PhilosophiCat; highly recommend checking her out on Youtube. Do I believe that there's an organized conspiracy among a majority of Jews to destroy white people and the West? No I do not. Do I believe that there are a number of influential and wealthy Jews, and non-Jews, whose efforts are directly contributing the the decline of the West? Yes I do, they're called leftists. I used to believe that these people were solely driven by hatred and wanted to destroy us but I no longer believe that. What is most likely true is that the majority of them think they're doing the right thing based on their perception of reality. If you believe that tribalism is innately evil and is what will undo all of mankind it makes sense to organize and pool resources in a way to mix all existing races into a single unified and peaceful human race. Are there a few Jews that hold a grudge against whites for historical misgivings? Sure, but I don' think that's a plurality of the Jews involved. Also from a persuasive perspective, the worst thing you can do is to subscribe to a highly controversial and far-fetched conspiracy theory. You're directly undermining your persuasive effort and are severely retarding your ability to reach people's hearts and minds. Its was and is both. There was a movement with Ayn Rand at the head and it was plagued with petty and emotional quarrels. That's an objective fact. Agree that Libertarianism is inferior to Objectivism. In my opinion their defining characteristic is a desire to be left alone by others to embrace their irrational selfishness, borrowing just enough from Objectivism to keep it afloat.
  5. Yesterday
  6. *woosh* You missed the joke! Also that it's subtly making the point that it sounds absurd to just say "concepts aren't in the brain" as if a simple concept like "guys" wouldn't even be real because it's not "in the brain" and therefore arbitrary.
  7. Eiuol

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    1. You and I disagree a lot about what counts as deontological or teleological. Often, I think what people mean by duty varies. But also that many people mean emphasis on the concept being an imperative such that "no matter what" you owe something to another person. So if you agree with the way I explained what duty can and should be, then the only disagreement here is about word choice. My emphasis is on the older way of thinking about these things, pre-Kant and pre-Scholastic. 2. Yes, it is a calculation, but the calculation is in determining if in fact the sense of duty even applies. It's not that the calculation itself determines what you owe to somebody, but you need to calculate in order to figure out if that person qualifies as deserving some value in return. No value exists with your family until they offer some value, so that's why your obligation to family shouldn't be "pre-existing". 3. Sorry, it's something I thought of. 4. Well, that's referring to social interactions. This would be the sense of duty I oppose.
  8. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    It was hard to tell, so thanks for elaborating. What you explained was my first thought. So, I removed what I wrote in my edit to reflect that.
  9. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Objectivism is a philosophy, not a movement. There is no reason for Objectivism to be a movement. It's perfectly fine the way it is, with people knowing exactly what it is, and free to subscribe to the philosophy, in whole or in part, and free to choose whether to work together for some common goal, or not. If it ever becomes a single, "open" movement, that movement will end up with leaders, and the leaders will want to add their own ideas to the tenets of the movement, and, since Ayn Rand was a genius, them and their ideas will end up not living up to her intellect...and then that will be that, because no one will care about another self-contradicting Libertarian political movement that can be thoroughly demolished by anyone with half a brain. That's what an "open Objectivist movement" is, btw. : Libertarianism. They took a few really good ideas (mostly Ayn Rand's, and a few Economists'), formed a movement and opened it up to whatever ideas anyone willing to participate could come up with. Now their movement has religious fanatics, pacifists, anarchists, anarcho-socialists, protectionists, isolationists, nationalists, wackos and weirdos and dingbats and dodos... everything except for intellectually consistent defenders of individual rights.
  10. intrinsicist

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    @Eiuol I'm not endorsing the anti-semitic view, I'm implying that this view is held by @Azrael Rand given his statements in this thread. I'm curious if he will be honest about his feelings towards Jews, I think it will be enlightening. @Azrael Rand where do you stand on the Jewish Question? The connection to the video is this astounding (to me) anti-universalism. I've never seen anything quite like it: He decries "an individualistic desire to create a universal standard for the sake of logical consistency", which is apparently something called a "consistency bias". I've never seen the disintegrating mindset expressed so explicitly. This is exactly what I've pointed out previously on threads about the alt-right: These are people who began with something like Objectivism, disintegrated the idea of a rights-respecting limited government and voluntary citizenship leading to a position of anarcho-capitalism ("Stefan eliminated compulsory taxation and the state with UPB to make Objectivism logically and morally consistent"), and then have further disintegrated human nature and gotten rid of the idea of universal individual rights and the non-aggression principle entirely. I'm also curious if he will be honest about what "outcomes" he is looking for once people have "embraced influence", and the principle of leading by emotion instead of reason, and have overcome "the shortcomings of not correctly account for our tribal nature, biological differences between racial groups", and reached out to the "many young, talented, and passionate figures on the Alt-Right".
  11. intrinsicist

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    @Eiuol I'm not sure where you are getting your ideas. That all sounds very mixed up. 1. "duty could be about pre-existing commitments to human nature, which we all ought to be committed to regardless of our preferences and desires. This commitment doesn't need to be justified more than the fact that you are human." This is what is meant by duty in general, this is the deontological justification for ethics. 2. "we could then talk about duty to family in the sense that moral obligations will follow directly from the good they give you (or fail to give you)." This is not what is meant by "duty", but rather it's opposite, this is a value calculation. 3. "the rule itself defines human nature rather than human nature defining the rule" What is this referencing? I've never heard of such a thing. 4. "Your obligations wouldn't fall from value offered to you, but what exists before any value is offered." ... like human nature, as in point #1?
  12. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Why did you post that video? I mean, that character is a neo-Nazi, so to me it looks like ironically pointing out that one side wants to push a narrative that something is a threat ("omg they all want to squelch dissent and I can't express my thoughts!"), when in fact that threat doesn't give a damn about being in control or even trying to ("open? Whatever, I don't really care, do what you want, but you're free to disagree about whatever you want and that's fine, we can debate it") EDIT: Retracted what I wrote here.
  13. Eiuol

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    It is worth noting that there isn't just one sense of the word duty. We can talk about it in a teleological sense, or we can talk about it in a deontological sense. As was mentioned earlier about Cicero, duty could be about pre-existing commitments to human nature, which we all ought to be committed to regardless of our preferences and desires. This commitment doesn't need to be justified more than the fact that you are human. And we could then talk about duty to family in the sense that moral obligations will follow directly from the good they give you (or fail to give you). A deontological sense of the word is different, where the rule itself defines human nature rather than human nature defining the rule. Your obligations wouldn't fall from value offered to you, but what exists before any value is offered.
  14. intrinsicist

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    @Azrael Rand IRL
  15. dream_weaver

    Isaac Newton: The Last Sorcerer, by Michael White

    What Everyone Gets Wrong About Newton's Apple An interesting adjunct included with the postscript by this article's author: —Stephen Skolnick P.S. I can never talk about Newton without bringing up my favorite fact about his life. The story of the apple tree is set in 1666, when 23-year-old Isaac Newton unexpectedly found himself with the time to sit in his family's garden and stare at a tree because Cambridge University—where he was a student at the time—was closed for the year due to a minor outbreak of bubonic plague. We can thank this little touch of plague for virtually all of Newton's scientific legacy: in that single impromptu gap year, he had his epiphany about gravity, discovered that white light is made up of all the colors in the spectrum, and basically invented calculus. Having a year off from studying and doing homework to actually think—to sit and sip tea and look sideways at a tree, to squint through glass panes at funny angles to study the rainbows they make, to ponder without pressure and generally explore his own ideas rather than furiously studying those of his professors and predecessors—was undoubtedly an important ingredient in producing what became known as Newton's annus mirabilis: the miracle year.
  16. intrinsicist

    The family cannot survive without duty.

    That's right.Human nature is the standard from which we define self-interest, because "is" implies "ought". Rand identifies life as the most defining characteristic of human nature, and so life is the ultimate standard of value. I've argued here that sex is also a deeply defining characteristic of human nature, and so is also a major standard of value.Whether my arguments are "compatible with Objectivism" or not is up for debate. I think that the logic I've just given follows the basic Objectivist meta-ethics, and is in that sense compatible. And yet Objectivist meta-ethics is a hairy subject, there is quite a lot of literature dancing around trying to avoid any categorical commitments while hanging on to the basic logic of "is implies ought". I think these arguments fail. (ask 10 Objectivists and you will get 10 different answers - see Moen's paper, https://reasonpapers.com/pdf/342/rp_342_9.pdf and David Kelley's response for some of the disparate approaches to Objectivist meta-ethics).That being said, the metaphysical and ethical arguments I've made here are not found in Objectivist literature, and indeed you will almost universally find arguments against duty (with some minor exceptions).Objectivism is very light on metaphysics. Almost none of the central issues of that foundational branch of philosophy are really dealt with at all. And as mentioned, and I think as a consequence of the gaping holes in metaphysics, Objectivist ethics and meta-ethics is a mess.Objectivism as a philosophy is incomplete, and in places, inconsistent, and we need to start from the foundational roots of metaphysics in order to fix the problems with the philosophy.
  17. dream_weaver

    Concept formation and neuroscience.

    One (or more) of those nerve impulses must have taken an Epicurean swerve in this thread.
  18. Invictus2017

    Concept formation and neuroscience.

    (putting on grammar nerd hat) As relevant here: "Guys", plural, is synonymous with "people" and has no gender implication, as contrasted with "guy", singular, which is synonymous with "male person". So his "Hi guys!" was no more than a friendly greeting to whoever might read his post.
  19. Doug Morris

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Eiuol's last post before this one did a good job of answering Azrael Rand on fundamentals. I will address a couple of additional points. It is somewhat plausible that genetic effects might contribute to statistical differences between races in intelligence or hardworkingness, although there is no evidence that this is actually the case and individual variation would still be more important. It is much less plausible that there would be a genetic tendency toward specific ideas such as collectivism and Marxism. Even if there is, we would still have to react to people according to their individual choices of ideas, not according to the statistics of a collective. It is grossly collectivist to say that blacks "as a group" made a choice to embrace the left. A substantial majority of blacks may have made this choice individually, and tribalism may have been part of the reason. But a lot of whites have made the same choice, and some blacks have made other choices. The tribalism is misguided, and there is no evidence that anyone is genetically predisposed to it.
  20. softwareNerd

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I'll add this... all too often people pushing for "Open Objectivism" have some very specific ideas they want to sell to self-identifying Objectivists. And, instead of just trying to sell those ideas on the merits, they try to tag it to the brand name. "Ayn Rand" is such a powerful brand name that even her detractors love to use it. I don't mean "Open Objectivism" advocates here. I'm talking about people who write articles that criticize Rand, and who clearly ate her. They do realize that doing so, with a headline that has Rand's name, is great click bait. That's almost the definition of a powerful brand these days. Similarly, there are people who want to advocate for income taxes, or for abortion-bans, or for environmentalist ideas, or for racist theories of behavior... and they figure that calling these things "Objectivism" and showing that Ayn Rand ought to have thought like them, might find them a ready audience. Quite odd really... rather niche marketing!
  21. Eiuol

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Because intelligence is significantly more complex than height. The heritability is variable depending on your age, where if you are young, there isn't a great deal involved with genetics, but when you are an adult, much of the variability is accounted for by genetics. But this isn't to say that when you're an adult, your intelligence was caused by your genetics. Rather, it means the older you are, the less you can do to impact your intelligence intelligence. In other words, developmentally, who you are solidifies over time. But since you can do less about it over time, genetics explains more of intelligence statistically speaking in adults. A correlational relationship, so it makes sense. If you can't do anything about it, the only thing left to talk about is genetics. But specifically, that's IQ, a very narrow definition of intelligence. It's a specific way of conceptualizing intelligence. So, a way to think of this is that cultural and philosophical values of a society is what counts. If that interpretation is too narrow, you can also say that we should focus on development, not where we end up as adults. Saying that East Asian people are smarter than white people is grossly simplified. You completely overlook the developmental differences between cultures. This is a loaded assumption. It's as if you're conflating "people are tribal (because they've adopted this way of thinking and many people do it)" with "people are tribal (it's wired into their brain)". If people are tribal in the first sense, then no, disregarding it wouldn't work anyway. You need to teach people to think independently. If people are tribal in the second sense, then you've already rejected Objectivism completely and I don't know why you want to argue for "open". Forget Objectivist, it isn't even individualist. I don't care if you take the open position, what bothers me more is that you want to take a collectivist position specifically.
  22. softwareNerd

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    It's been years since I thought this might matter in some way. Maybe that's the crux of the issue. I suggest you should not think of ARI or Atlas are thought leaders in philosophy as such. More importantly, I suggest you don't think of yourself as "rank and file", except as a casual not-really-meant-as-suc figure of speech. They're about 90% primarily advocacy organizations. Advocacy is a legit role, but it ain't "thought leadership".
  23. Last week
  24. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Sorry about the link, when I did the original post I received an error when trying to use embedded links. Here's the piece I did about Stefan's UPB in quotations:
  25. Azrael Rand

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    I agree with this sentiment in that it reflects the need for each individual Objectivists to do what has to get done and not dwell on the past. On the other hand the issue still lingers as ARI and the Atlas Society to this day aren't on talking terms with one another, which indicates to me that our thought leaders still are holding on to emotional resentment and as a result don't have a clear view of what really matters. They'll talk to Dave Rubin but not David Kelley... Not very objective in my opinion. What message does it send to the rank and file when the leadership can't even get it right. So if one group was genetically predisposed towards collectivism and Marxism and the other was not, would you still feel the same way? Of course if humans weren't tribal we could just disregard race and organize purely around ideology; that would solve the problem outright. This isn't how human nature works though. Blacks as a group made a choice to embrace the left in America (and everywhere else). Were there mitigating circumstances? Sure. There were also mitigating circumstances for the Germans that elected Adolf Hitler. Should we hold both groups to the same standard? It matters not if many, few, or any people are taking about genetic differences between whites and Asians. All that matters is whether there are or aren't genetic differences. Majority opinion is not a guarantee for truth. If I asked 100 people on the street what the most potent greenhouse gas was, chances are most people would say its CO2 and they would be wrong. As a white person I have no problems admitting that Asians on average are smarter than whites. We have a different average height, skin color, facial features, etc why would it be impossible for there the be differences regarding average IQ? If blacks on average are quite a lot taller than Asians, why isn't it possible that Asians are quite a lot smarter than blacks on average and that this difference in intelligence influences the way that their respective societies are organized and the amount of wealth (social / cultural and material) they are able to create.
  26. softwareNerd

    Concept formation and neuroscience.

    What do you mean by "guys"?
  27. intrinsicist

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    link doesn't seem to be working
  28. William O

    Concept formation and neuroscience.

    @Satsanga, your objection is based on the stolen concept fallacy. It is necessary to validate the faculty of concept formation before neuroscience or any other science is possible.
  1. Load more activity
×