Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

All Activity

This stream auto-updates     

  1. Today
  2. softwareNerd

    Need to discuss my idea about news impact assesment

    There already are market participants who monitor the news, and even Twitter and TV interviews of company executives, scan it using algorithms, and trade using a model. So, you'll to be better at it than they are.
  3. Yesterday
  4. ATTENTION! This is not my native language, so there can be mistakes. Hello. I'm in my last year of University and now it's time to think about the future. At University I was interested in the topic of time series analysis. I've made some research of problem how news impact on time series. And I've found that apart from the news curves in GARCH models, this problem is poorly investigated. But with this news curve, it's hard to predict how the time series will be affected by an event that hasn't happened yet, or just happened(or we can't predict it at all(I hope i am right, because i've studied GARCH models on my own)). So it looks like a good niche for business: to develop a software product that at least approximately assesses, for example, the risk to the stock price caused by the occurrence of particular event. So even if my current implementation, how to predict the behavior of the time series after the occurrence of a particular event, is still raw (I did it myself and no one helped me so sorry), but the fact that inventing a working algorithm will change the way of trading on the stock exchange is obvious. So, how my idea looks now? Now it only works for GARCH models. To predict influence of news on company A, we should: 1)Collect historical data of stock prices of company A, and news related to this company for the same period of time 2)Make a GARCH model for this period of time 3)Classify news 4)To teach the classifier to recognize the news 5)In GARCH models errors = news impact, so we we put in line errors and news by date 6)Calculate total error for class of news So now we have some kind of table news class|news impact, and the trained classifier. When new event will appear (or there will the possibility of a new event), we will know how approximately it will affect the share price. This is a very general description of the idea. And the idea itself is still raw. I've done the tests a couple of times, but unfortunately, they include data related to trade secrets. All I can say right now is that I have reason to believe that this is working idea. Logically, similar events affect the time series in almost the same way: how the disaster affected the previous time, so will the next. From the theory we have the assumption that the errors in GARCH models is the impact of the news. But why am I writing all this here? First, I need supporters. I am a bad programmer, I do not know the theory perfectly, and it is not very easy to do business in my country (so as not to lose it later). I've tried to find supporters among my entourage, but no one wants to take risks. After all, it is much easier to work on a regular job than to try to do something new. But, you know what, there's no risk. There is only question how long will it take to implement this idea. Yes I know that now, perhaps I in many ways am mistaken. But I also know that there is a niche for business and that this algorithm will work maybe in a very modified form. So if you want to create something new, to participate in the creation of history, i need you, join! (I've created a discord server for further discussion and work https://discord.gg/efz46Zj) But what will you receive? After the project will be finished, closed joint-stock company will be created with equal distribution of shares among the participants (maybe this is not a good option for people sitting on the site with the word objectivism in the title, but this is not final yet), and yyou will get the job you like (you wouldn't be involved if you didn't like it, yes.?). And why i am doing all it? For me it is the realization of dream and the opportunity to make history. For me the meaning of life to go down in history. And how can a person with a technical education go down in history if he does not do something new or make a discovery?
  5. Boydstun

    Beauty - Francis Kovach

    . Beauty – Francis Kovach Part III It remains to set out Kovach’s essence of esthetic experience itself and its consequences. Within those districts are esthetic intuition and esthetic judgment. Let us call the cognitive component of the essence of esthetic experience itself esthetic cognition. Clearly, esthetic cognition in literature is partly suprasensory. The meanings of words and sentences are conceptual. Esthetic cognition in literature is at least partly intellectual. “The full beauty of the poetic work is knowable only by the intellect in cooperation with some external and some internal senses” (PB 305). Similarly it goes for songs that have words and librettos of operas. Intellect is engaged in the discernment of this beauty. What of the beauty of nature, city skyline, or nonliterary art? Is suprasensory intellect, such as the conceptual faculty, required to discern their beauty? The senses can reveal the multitude or variety of parts composing the beautiful object, natural or artificial. In the view of Kovach, the directly perceivable colors, shapes, movements, and tones are principles and terms of relations between their multitudes and varieties, but they are not such relations themselves. In particular they are not the unity of proportionate components in the beautiful object arising from the relations all those directly perceivable elements have to each other and to the whole. Material beauty is a unity that is sensorily incognoscible; it requires an act of suprasensory intellect to be recognized. In further support of that conclusion, consider that not only literary arts, but nonliterary ones have a theme, an artistic idea “manifested, expressed, or symbolized by the artwork in such a way that the entire arrangement of all its parts is made according to the idea as the exemplary cause of the artistic order” (PB 306). This consideration lends some support to Kovach’s conclusion that the unity that is material beauty of art requires suprasensory intellect for its recognition. But I think the strength of this consideration’s support is only about half what my Prof. Kovach gauged for it. To bring this consideration to bear, he uses the following premise: “To recognize an order or arrangement without recognizing the principle of that order is certainly impossible” (306). I reject that premise. One can find a literary passage beautiful, state some of the reasons for that, yet realize there are some other reason(s) it is beautiful that one has yet to formulate. Similarly, one child may have become able to arrange sticks of varying length parallel each other in strict order of increasing lengths, made plain by aligning one end of each stick flush along a base line. A somewhat younger child not yet able to do that might come along and take pleasure in the final arrangement, I’m pretty sure. She could recognize the arrangement, she could respond to the order, yet not recognize the principle of the arrangement or order and not yet be able to make such an arrangement herself. Rand thought, and I concur, that we can perceive some similarities without yet understanding the bases of those similarities. Surely that is so for some beauty as well. Notice that “visual harmony is a sensory experience and is determined primarily by physiological causes” (Rand 1971, 1044). I shall grant Kovach that whenever beauty is discerned some principle of unity made of proportionate parts has been registered. Sometimes that registration cannot obtain without intellect, even if only imagistic and schematic intellect. It seems unlikely intellect is required in other cases, as in cognition of a beautiful tone. In the case of artistic beauty, I shall grant Kovach that some intellectual cognition has occurred if one has glimpsed something of the artist’s idea. I’ll take visual art minimally to be a craft of illusion (or perhaps a relative of such craft) having an idea or theme, composed of parts integral to that theme and contrived to occasion contemplation of the work as an end in itself. Beauty has been the main way of winning that aim, and if one has glimpsed something of an artwork’s idea, experience of the work’s beauty has likely engaged intellect even if only schematically and nondiscursively. Watch Gimbologna’s Mercury as you walk around him. Ignorant of who was Mercury, the meaning of the iconography in the statue, and the circumstances of the artist, what Mercury does before you and in you is lift off the earth (and your mind has been touched by a mind like yours across 400 years). This is only one idea for a sense of human body lifting off earth. Mercury’s forms and configuration had to be tuned to this idea to realize the idea, its parts proportionate in making this unity and joy. So I shall not go along with Kovach on the proposition that all material beauty is sensorily incognoscible. Some unities of proportionate parts of a beautiful scene or object might be recognized with automatic imagination and connection to prototypes, short of any schematic intellection. However, Kovach’s proposition can pass with me for all cases of artistic beauty, whether in literature, painting, sculpture, architecture, or music. Art in the intended sense is a making of embodied meaning that will require intellect to discern. The beholder may find some of the meaning beyond his ken, but should expect it right alongside his anticipation of beauty. Let Kovach now guide us further into the nature of the intellect’s portion of the esthetic experience itself. In beholding the beautiful object, the distinctive cognition is not the formation of the concept of beautiful object in general. It is not the cognition that is abstractive induction, and our cognition distinctive of the esthetic experience itself is not a coming to know how to define beauty. Rather, “by coming to know and enjoy the beauty of this object, . . . we recognize the object in its intelligibility, i.e., as a concrete unity in the concrete multitude or, simply, as a concrete” (PB 307). At the end of Part I, I contracted the Kovach view that unity or oneness of being is enough to constitute wholeness adequate for beautiful being (which for most of its occasions, we do not apprehend). The unity must be the sort constituted by proportionate parts, and there is no such thing as the proportionate in a world not faced by the organizations that are living beings. Kovach’s point that esthetic cognition is intellectual, though not abstractive, stands fine all the same. That is, it stands fine for those cases of esthetic experience that require intellect come into play, which is another contraction of Kovach’s scope, for I do not accede to the point that intellect must come into play in all cases of esthetic experience. The esthetic cognition enlisting intellect is not abstractive, neither does it consist in application of a concept to the singular case beheld. Such esthetic cognition does not consist in “this beauty.” That concept has its place in the later stage, in the judgment “This is beautiful,” a consequence of the esthetic cognition. Recognition of beauty in the esthetic experience by intellect is neither abstractive of concepts nor applicative of them. It is not conceptual, yet intellectual. Then too, the intellectual esthetic cognition is not a judgment (PB 307). In beholding the beautiful object, one is turned to contemplation of the object. In this contemplation, one’s mind “notices or discovers in its own light the integral parts with their relations to each other and the whole; and this contemplation . . . does nothing with the blissful vision of the beautiful object in a discursive manner” (PB 309). In this cognition, we know beauty. It is not speculative or scientific knowledge. It is not the esthetic knowledge of the art critic or the philosopher of beauty. It is not the technical knowledge of the artist. It is not knowing by faith or mystic reception. It is only our natural knowing of the beauty of the object, not our consequent knowing that the contemplated object is beautiful (309). The esthetic cognition enlisting intellect is “an immediate, yet full grasp by the intellect of the beauty of the contemplated object,” not a conclusion of logical inference (PB 309). That is to say, such esthetic cognition is intuitive and nondiscursive. Esthetic cognition of a graphic or plastic artwork may envelope across time as one is seeing more and more of the object. Literature and music require substantial duration of apprehension. All through such spans of apprehension, it remains that the dawn of beauty is coming immediately and not as conclusion of reasoning. One’s difficulty in giving complete reasons for the experienced beauty is not merely difficulty in verbalizing one’s reasoning. One had never adduced reasons to deliver the beauty. I hesitate to agree with Kovach on that point in the case of literature. Conceptual meanings are factors in the beauty of a poem. Here is the first verse of my poem Lifehold. No council, no say. All earth turn, night trail day. Unceasing sea tease land away to watery deep stage lay, dark, for none. It is not reasoning that delivers beauty from the meaning component. It is delivery of meaning that makes that beauty. I’ll stay with Kovach on nondiscursivity in the case of a poem and in the case of a novel as well. The beauty of fit between plot and theme or the beauty in the conclusion of a story, given what had gone before, are beauties of fitness in conceptual meaning, but it is not reasoning that has made that fitness into beauty. Hesitation ended. The intuitiveness of esthetic cognition enlisting intellect is like the intuitiveness in the grasp of first principles of being and of thought. The difference lies in the categories of object in the two kinds of intuition. Materially beautiful objects are concretes perceived or imagined. First principles are suprasensory objects of apprehension. “Sensory perception is an intuition with a sensory subject and object, . . . the grasp of self-evident principles is an intuition with suprasensory subject and object, [and] aesthetic cognition is an intuition sensory in its object and suprasensory in its subject” (PB 311). In that usage, intuition means only a natural, immediate, and non-discursive apprehension. Paul Crowther mentions that the content of art is experienced mainly in psychologically intuitive terms, without us being explicitly aware of the factors making the experience. “By ‘intuitive’ here, I do not mean anything strange or mysterious. Most of our perceptual knowledge has this character. . . . / Intuitions are explicable in principle, even though they may turn out to involve issues of great complexity which do not allow a definitive analysis” (Crowther 2007, 8). I would add that analysis without sufficient scientific information on the process is greatly impaired analysis. Esthetic knowing is per se delightful. It is delightful in itself, not on account of some further manifest end imputing the delight that is esthetic delight. The per se delightfulness of esthetic knowing is “delightful at the sensory level in terms of its object, the beautiful, but delightful at the suprasensory level in terms of its subject, the rational will as it rests in the mental possession of the intuited beauty” (PB 311). Among the cognitive consequences of the esthetic cognition and delight, is the esthetic judgment “This is beautiful.” Kovach rates this as a necessary consequence. I think it is not necessary during early childhood. For adults, it seems to be necessary at least in this way: the knowing of anything necessarily entails ability to know the correctness of the proposition “Such is so” or, in Rand’s words, “It is.” Kovach lists numerous contingent effects of esthetic experience, particularly experience of fine art, that have been claimed, combining lists of D. W. Gotshalk and Monroe Beardsley. It is among these contingent and more remote effects that one will find external purposes served by fine art, overarching purposes cognitive, appetitive, social, or moral (PB 316–17). As for the necessary appetitive effect of the esthetic experience, focally the experience of beautiful fine art, it is a desire flowing directly from the esthetic judgment and its keep in knowledge and flowing indirectly from the esthetic intuition and delight. For the moment the beholder intuits the beauty of an object, an esthetic love is born, one assuming the specific character of esthetic joy or delight possessed in that moment of beholding. The object of this desire is not only or firstly the enjoyment of the previously beheld beauty. Rather, it is the desire to face that particular beauty again (PB 315–16). So I long to again walk around Mercury in Firenze and to again stand gazing a long while into On the Terrace in Chicago. Face to face. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ References Aquinas, T. c. 1265–73. Basic Writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. A. C. Pegis, editor. 1997 [1945]. Hackett. Aristotle . c. 348–322 B.C. The Complete Works of Aristotle. J. Barnes, editor. 1984. Princeton. Binswanger, H. 1986. The Ayn Rand Lexicon. NAL. Boydstun, S. 2004. Universals and Measurement. The Journal of Ayn Rand Studies (JARS) 5(2):271–305. Crowther, P. 2007. Defining Art, Creating the Canon. Oxford. Di Dio, C., Macaluso, E., and G. Rizzolatti 2007. The Golden Beauty: Brain Response to Classical and Renaissance Sculptures. PLoS ONE 2(11):e1201. Enright, J. 2001. Art: What a Concept. JARS 2(2):341–59. Hospers, J. 2001. Rand’s Aesthetics: A Personal View. JARS 2(2):311–34. Kovach, F. J. 2012 (1974). Philosophy of Beauty. Oklahoma. Rand, A. 1943. The Fountainhead. Bobbs-Merrill. ——. 1957. Atlas Shrugged. Random House. ——. 1963. The Goal of My Writing I. The Objectivist Newsletter (ON) 2(10):37–40. ——. 1965. The Psycho-Epistemology of Art. ON 4(4):15–16, 18. ——. 1966. Art and Sense of Life. The Objectivist (O) 5(Mar):33–40. ——. 1966–67. Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. Expanded 2nd edition. 1990. Meridian. ——. 1971. Art and Cognition I. O 10(Apr):1009–17. Smith, A. M. 2001. Alhacen’s Theory of Vision. Two volumes. American Philosophical Society. Solso, R. L. 1994. Cognition and the Visual Arts. MIT. ——. 2003. The Psychology of Art and the Evolution of the Conscious Brain. MIT. Stein, B. E., and M. A. Meredith 1993. The Merging of the Senses. MIT. Torres, L., and M. M. Kamhi 1992. Ayn Rand’s Philosophy of Art V. Aristos 5(4):1–8.
  6. The internet has been competing with the feds for mail delivery since the 1990s, and most successfully.
  7. Last week
  8. Four Things 1. One day, on the way home from school, I was privy to the following exchange: Coming soon, to a piggy bank near you! (Image via Pixabay.)My Son (5): I'm going to put my money in a piggy bank so nobody can find it. My Daughter (7): Bandits can just pop open the top and find it, anyway. As it turns out, Pumpkin had decided that a wiser course was to use her bank for unspecified "school supplies," instead. 2. Also overheard: My daughter apparently thinks that there are "no boyfriends and no freckles in college." No. I haven't the foggiest what that means and I was too busy at the moment to ask. 3. On the way to their annual check-ups, my son, attempted to avert the potential calamity of (shudder) a shot by means of disinformation. "Daddy," he said from the back seat. "I've got to tell you something. The doctor is closed." "Really? Well, I heard they might be open. We'll find out who's right in a couple of minutes," I replied, after -- caught off-guard -- I burst out laughing. 4. About a year ago, I had a near-nightly bedtime ritual: My kids enjoyed me pretending at bedtime that one of them was a pillow and the other a blanket as I pretended to go to sleep. Then they'd start moving around and making noise, causing me to feign surprise at the discovery that they were not, in fact, the bedding items I'd hoped for. My wife has video of it somewhere. -- CAV Link to Original
  9. Eiuol

    Why are men's clothing so boring?

    You probably exaggerate what the average woman does, and you probably underexaggerate how long it takes you to shave and take care of your skin after shaving, and anything else to look good. A good and proper shave takes 15 minutes, sometimes even 30 minutes depending on what you're going for. And you mentioned a lot more than just shaving your face... And even then, it really doesn't take that long to do more. Maybe if the makeup was extravagant, but most makeup would only take about five minutes to put on at most? It wouldn't even be that weird for a guy to put on concealer. And if you skip makeup, it really doesn't take long at all. Clearly proper clothing choices and jewelry choices takes time. But this only takes women longer because there are more choices. Male clothing is so limited that it is rather boring and unexpressive. The only difference between genders (in America) is for whatever reason, guys on average don't care. They don't care about looking like slobs. They don't learn how to shave properly. If you only take 5 hours per month to meet grooming standards of men today, you're doing something wrong.
  10. Nicky

    Why are men's clothing so boring?

    Stopped reading, sorry. As fascinating as it would be to find out what I believe from a stranger who seems to be upset with me for some reason, I have a very important youtube video to watch. It has guinea pigs in it.
  11. Katherin Timpf of National Review reports that Donald Trump's first year of "deregulation" saved a total of $1.3 billion economy-wide over the last year. (That's a YUGE four bucks per person!) Her rather generous conclusion follows: Will that extra Big Mac burning a hole in your wallet lead to, say, competing postal carriers? I doubt it. (Image via Wikimedia Commons.)Really, the only bad thing about all of this is that it doesn't go even further. As the Wheaton Business Journal notes, it costs Americans a whopping $1.9 trillion to comply with federal regulations every year. President Trump's administration has already been eliminating those regulations in record numbers, but let's just hope that this trend continues so that we can give businesses -- and the Americans associated with them -- the best shot at financial prosperity. Amen! was my first thought, but then cold logic kicked in. I did the math, and remembered further a couple of problems with both the trimming-around-the-edges amount and the President's "a pen and a phone" method. Not only can this tiny amount of progress be undone by the next abuser of executive orders, both of the shortcomings are symptomatic of his -- and his party's -- unprincipled approach to the whole question of regulation. Consider the fact that nobody in power even questions the propriety of economic regulation. How much regulation is "too much" to such a person? And if such a person does not see that the government ought to be protecting our right to make our own decisions -- the exact opposite of dictating to us what we ought to do? Why would he adopt the agenda we clearly need, which is a systematic phasing out of regulation altogether, with standards bodies and watchdog groups (for example) taking over those legitimate activities that have been subsumed by government regulators -- and which gives the whole idea of regulation a false credibility it doesn't deserve? To be fair, I think both the rollbacks and the perception of a decreasing regulatory burden have helped the economy in other ways. But why stop there? Why not consider the question more deeply and adopt a principled, systematic approach that will truly protect American rights and foster prosperity? Until and unless Trump or a significant political faction adopts a principled, individual rights-based opposition to regulation, we can expect any such effort to bring about small, short-term gains, and ultimately fizzle. -- CAV Link to Original
  12. softwareNerd

    Institute for Justice

    While so many American fret worry about issues that are really only marginal to their lives. the Institute of Justice continues is slow and steady chipping away at violations of rights. They just won a case that will restrict civil forfeiture in Philadelphia There's a win on city code enforcement in Charleston and many other Each of these cases is very local. It is easy to despair that it is like fighting a giant with a tiny pin as a sword, inflicting minor cuts. On the other hand, the big-picture approach to philosophical change isn't easy, and with the cases that IJ wins, there is the satisfaction of having helped at least those people, in that one city or state win back some right. If a few women in one city can now make a career hair-braiding, and that let's them earn more money and have a better live: that's something, even if it's a small cut to the system at large. The list of cases continues to grow. Here's the list. In the long run, I think their wins could help other lawyers, in other states and cities, win similar cases. Maybe, one of two of these issues might even become a theme that can be tied together to ripple across the country. All the best to IJ
  13. bluecherry

    Why are men's clothing so boring?

    You, Nicky, have a hilarious misconception of time usage. You believe that females are not doing things like sports, instruments, work, etc because they are just TOO BUSY getting their hair and make up and clothes and such done. I'll put aside the fact that females definitely do these things. While it may be rather time consuming getting something done like hair and makeup for some fancy Hollywood party perhaps, the vast majority of occasions one does not spend much more time on getting dressed fairly nicely than boringly or sloppily, as was Nerian's point. Furthermore, you are very much mistaken if you believe that all this time spent getting dressed and doing one's hair and such could somehow be condensed into a big block of time where one could actually make meaningful progress on any of these things that you listed. The time spent on getting dressed is generally small, scattered bits that you can't move your whole schedule around to try to push together. Rather, this is the kind of time that likely otherwise would just end up getting spent maybe sleeping a few minutes longer or screwing around checking e-mail or something.
  14. Nicky

    Why are men's clothing so boring?

    In my experience (as an observer...I'm a man), a woman living up to the expectations of even just her middle class social circle, using cosmetics, beauty products, bathing products, various services she pays for, and clothing and jewelry she has to pick out and pay for, takes massive amounts of resources and know how, that is developed through painstaking practice (and learning from the time she is a young girl, from other women). And, on top of that, routine work...an average of 20-25 hours/month, easy, once you add it all up. And once it's upper class expectations, we're talking at least a couple of people drawing a salary from maintaining one rich woman's appearance. Meanwhile, I groom and dress to standards I'm expected to groom and dress to, and it takes maybe 5 hours/month. And it's basic stuff you can learn from a youtube video, like how to dye your hair (I'm prematurely graying), cut your beard, or shave your privates without slicing anything you (might) need off. So yes, it's a waste of resources that could be turned towards a far more useful hobby. While girls learn how to dress and make up, which is not a particularly useful skill in the workplace, boys practice leadership and team work through sports, learn musical instruments, work on buying and maintaining their first car, learn how to use and program computers, etc., etc., and, in my mind, this at least partially explains the pay gap between the genders.
  15. JASKN

    Why are men's clothing so boring?

    So what's stopping you? There are men out there, straight and gay, who dress in all sorts of weird/cool stuff.
  16. Nerian

    Why are men's clothing so boring?

    It's really a preference, isn't it? How can it be a waste of time if you enjoy being decorated? It doesn't take any longer to put on an interesting shirt than a boring shirt. It doesn't take that much time to put on a necklace or something. I'm not saying everyone ought to do it, but many women enjoy it, and if I was a woman, I'd love to do it, I'm jealous they can do it! I want to do it more as a man. It'd be time well invested.
  17. Image via Wikimedia.And that's not a good thing! In the process of looking at stories of panicky conservatives supporting Trump early in his term, I found quite the disappointing -- but informative -- piece among my bookmarks. Written by Henry Olsen, author of Ronald Reagan: New Deal Republican, it wasn't quite what I was looking for, but it is worth reading for other reasons. Its title? "Trump's Election Is the Last, Best Hope To Re-Reaganize the GOP." Anyone who favors government properly limited to the protection of individual rights should read through this, particularly if they have fond memories or conceptions of Reagan. I would also especially recommend the piece to anyone who imagines that Reagan or his conservative fans favor capitalism. Reagan, and (if Olsen is a gauge) many of his fans, clearly don't. The rest of us could use the clarity. Here's a good sample: This flawed common wisdom flows from a flawed understanding of Reagan's philosophy that accepts the myth that Reagan was an anti-government ideologue. But to paraphrase Reagan himself, it's not that the common wisdom is wrong, it's that so much of what it knows just isn't so. Reagan's conservatism was not a more attractive version of Barry Goldwater's anti-statist ideology. From the moment Reagan started speaking out as a conservative in the late 1950s, he endorsed an active role for government. He believed that government should care for those who could not care for themselves, build public housing for the poor and expand public universities. Where Goldwater attacked Republican President Dwight Eisenhower and Vice President Richard Nixon for supporting Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal, Reagan enthusiastically backed both men in their presidential campaigns. Reagan's conservatism even supported the idea of universal health coverage. He opposed Medicare only because he felt it unnecessary in light of another federal bill... [links omitted]To get one thing out of the way first: Not especially to defend Goldwater, but being in favor of properly limited government does not equal being anti-government. That said, I am glad Olsen mentions all these things. Reagan, on top of unleashing the religious right, was no capitalist, but a Democrat Lite. Olsen goes on to salivate at the prospect of Trump hastening the process of the Republican Party basically becoming a "permanent majority" party by essentially becoming a Democratic party that appeals more to lower-income, white, Midwesterners and rust-belters. We need much better than that. Since Trump's election, much has been made about the "civil war" within the Democratic Party. But if there isn't a civil war I don't know about within the Republican Party, the cause of freedom could certainly use one. Both Reagan's and Trump's terms have been short-term respites from the all-out assault against economic freedom by the Democrats, but that is all they are -- or will be if people like Olsen prevail. Neither man is a champion of individual rights, and we should keep that in mind. -- CAV Link to Original
  18. Oren Cass of the Manhattan Institute writes in City Journal about two competing proposals whose Democratic sponsors claim will improve the labor market. One proposal, by Representative Ro Khanna (D-CA), is to redistribute $1 trillion over the next decade via the Earned Income Tax Credit to people who earn less than some amount he deems too little. Cass, focusing on the fact that this plan appears to support such workers, labels this measure as the "Support" view of government policy regarding low-paying jobs. The other proposal is deemed the "Penalize" view by Cass for reasons that will soon become obvious. Bernie Sanders wants to "Stop BEZOS", i.e., Stop Bad Employers by Zeroing Out Subsidies. Sanders would redistribute money directly looted from corporations for every cent of government benefits any of its employees receive. Khanna supports both plans, but look at what Cass, a conservative, has to say about them: Tails, we lose, tails, we lose. (Image via Pixabay.)Khanna's two proposals -- providing a government benefit to low-wage workers and punishing employers whose workers receive government benefits -- represent contradictory poles in the national debate over how to strengthen a labor market whose lower end has seen stagnating wages for decades. In the first view, employers play a constructive and irreplaceable role by connecting less-skilled workers with productive work. Low-wage jobs are by no means ideal, but the low wage reflects the job's economic value, not a corporate plot to extract outsize profits. The jobs represent for some people their best opportunity to participate in the economy, and for many more the crucial first step onto an economic ladder that can lead higher. Either way, jobs are important to society, and we want them to be available. [bold added]Looting money from some Americans to give to others and ... looting money from some Americans to give to others are the two poles of a debate? If so, there is no real debate and we are merely squabbling over details. Unfortunately, Cass apparently mistakes this for a real debate and even chooses a "side": As the Right joins the Left in recognizing the need to address the labor market's shortcomings [!], the fight will evolve [sic] from whether to do something toward what to do. Expect this "Support vs. Penalize" battle to move from within Ro Khanna's head to the forefront of our national debate -- and pray that the coherent side wins.If you are a fellow student of Ayn Rand, you may find that the above reminds you of any number of the false dichotomies that run through the most of the philosophies that influence our culture -- and that Rand debunked. But here's a passage from Rand that Cass has helped me recall and that I find particularly troubling: For many decades, the leftists have been propagating the false dichotomy that the choice confronting the world is only: communism or fascism -- a dictatorship of the left or of an alleged right -- with the possibility of a free society, of capitalism, dismissed and obliterated, as if it had never existed. (The Objectivist, June 1968)This article has been written by a senior member of a highly respected think tank, and there is no mention of the real alternative, which is: for the government to stop looting the productive, indirectly ("support") or directly ("penalize"), because doing so is wrong, and ultimately harms everyone. The only difference between these varieties of poison is that the first comes sugar-coated. At least the second one, envious motivation fully on display, is the more honest. -- CAV Link to Original
  19. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    I agree that there is no significant difference between 'unknowable connection to reality' and 'no connection', but I disagree with your definition of idealism. To the contrary, look at Plato. The only true reality, according to him, is the reality of ideal forms only through which our mind can grasp physical and illusory reality outside, [which in itself is] not true reality. Hegel and Emerson were idealists in pretty much the same sense, in that mind is the connection between physical and true (or metaphysical) realities. Representationalism, on the other hand, is a very vague term, to which we can append Descartes, Locke, and Kant, philosophers of significant differences, in fact, differences so significant that we can fairly judge these men to belong to three different categories. The notions of constructs is essential to another vague term: constructivism, which is popular in academia, or at least it was popular at the end of the 20th century. What you describe sounds more like social constructivism, which attributes even to science as an institute such purely subjective and arbitrary constructs. And this is surely neither Kant's, not Korzybski's positions. Hence your arguments to equate Representationalism with Idealism don't work, except in the case with Descartes, but only because the main 'thing' for him that constructs everything, including the mind (or the brain), is God.
  20. Invictus2017

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    I suppose I should have said Representationalist (I think that's the term, it's been awhile). This differs from Idealism in that, supposedly, the objects of consciousness have some (unknowable) relationship to reality, whereas Idealism supposes that the objects of consciousness are, in essence, illusions or hallucinations, unconnected to reality. In my view, there is no real difference between "there is an unknowable connection to reality" and "there is no connection to reality", so Representationalism is a species of Idealism and I tend to use the latter to refer to both. The notion that the objects of perception are mere constructs of the brain is Representationalist, in that it does not allow one to know how these constructs derive from reality -- any such knowledge would be just one more construct. "Brain" is just a construct, and there is no reason for believing that there is "brain" or anything else. (Which illustrates that Representationalism really is Idealism.)
  21. Cal Newport, author of Deep Work, has a few choice words about the so-called "digital wellness" movement, which he correctly calls "infantilizing." Instead, Newport thinks lots of us are ready for a challenge: Shouldn't that read, "what else is happening?" (Image via Pixabay.)They don't want to depend on Apple to tweak their OS to be slightly less intrusive, or need to download an app that provides a fun reminder about disconnecting; they want instead to be so wrapped up in doing things that are hard and important and meaningful that they forgot where they left their phone in the first place.I think there's a great general point here that applies to any bad habit, and not just vacantly picking up a smart phone eighty times a day: A positive choice to pursue something that one cares about goes a lot further in changing that habit than just focusing on changing the habit. It does help to think through the problem, as Newport does for digital distractions in Deep Work, but without seeing how the bad habit interferes with achieving major values, such a focus doesn't get anyone anywhere. That last is, I think, a major strength of Deep Work. -- CAV Link to Original
  22. William O

    What villain would be most likely to change?

    I'd say the Wet Nurse, because he successfully improved his character to the point that Rearden respected and valued him, even though he started out as a "villain" character. He was also quite young, which made it easier for him. If you want to focus on the really bad villain characters, though, I'd say Toohey would be more likely to improve than James Taggart. The reason is that Toohey grasped the good and consciously rejected it, whereas James Taggart lived in a kind of mental fog fuelled by subconscious nihilism. I imagine it's easier to become good if you know what to do.
  23. Earlier
  24. In Ayn Brand's fiction who had the least amount of work to reach moral perfection? And why do you think that?
  25. Notable Commentary Image via Wikipedia."We won't find moral objectivity in ever-shifting claims about divine revelations." -- Ben Bayer, in "The Destructive Illusion of Moral Authority" at Quillette. "[T]he Founding Fathers framed the Constitution, not to implement democracy and sacrifice the individual through 'state and local officials,' but to defend the individual from the government." -- Bob Stubblefield, in "First Amendment Is Defensive Weapon" at The Aiken Standard. "I don't know if I would choose to be alive after [a civilizational] collapse." -- Keith Weiner, in "Why Am I Fighting for the Gold Standard?"" at SNB & CHF. "The solution is not to further demonize [illegal immigrants] as carriers of what are not-so-exotic infections, but instead enable them to seek health care if needed, free from the worry that they will be damned back to whatever place they fled because they just want to get a flu shot." -- Amesh Adalja, in "Undocumented Immigrants, Open Borders Are Not an Infectious Disease Risk" at The Pittsburgh Tribune-Review. "We continually have to remind our students, our parents, and most importantly, ourselves that what matters is an overall pattern of growth rather than an absolute standard of achievement in any particular area." -- Lisa VanDamme, in "A Trajectory of Growth" at Medium. -- CAV Link to Original
  26. Ilya Startsev

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Yes, that's Korzybski's non-aristotelianism, Ᾱ. But Rand also never discussed him.
  27. Doug Morris

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    Since Korzybski died in 1950, it's not that surprising that he didn't discuss Rand.
  28. Stephen Moore, a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation has, in all seriousness, suggested that Donald Trump deserves a Nobel Prize in economics. The article is even more laughable than the idea. Moore starts out well enough, citing economic good news: Image via Wikipedia.Voters sure were. It turns out Americans outside the beltway weren't so enthralled with the New World Order or the anemic Obama economic program that is being dismantled. And what is the result of all this "chaos" and "mayhem" in the White House that the media is in such a frenzy about? Well, as we learned last week, we now have the lowest number of American workers on unemployment insurance since Neil Armstrong walked on the moon, the biggest manufacturing boom in 14 years, the lowest black unemployment rate ever recorded, and an economy that is growing at 4.4 percent this quarter, on top of 4.2 percent growth last quarter. I'm on board with dismantling onerous regulations and "climate change"-inspired looting. But that's just one part of what the President has done. I say "what the President has done" rather than "the President's program" for a reason: His actions are not guided by any kind of uniform principle, such as the idea that the government exists solely to protect individual rights. Ironically, Moore -- ignorantly or cynically -- drops a big hint later on as to exactly why his idea is farcical: Yes, there is a bit of chaos and disorder at the White House. Yes, some of the characters that Trump has hired had no business being anywhere near 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. By contrast, Obama had an orderly and statesmanlike White House, and he hired a cadre of highly respected and well-intended people. Yet all of this still produced the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.Great. With Trump having not implemented his full agenda so far, the economy isn't quite so anemic any more. But if we're going to bring up the Great Depression, we might do to remember the role of tariffs in bringing it on. Trump does not know or care that trade barriers are simply another form of the government improperly regulating the economy. The "boom" we are seeing doesn't make Trump a genius: It's an indication that he should do more of the same, but that means dropping the contradictory part of his agenda. It is understandable that many Americans, seeing the economy less sick under Trump than under Obama might mistake the man for a doctor. They're dangerously half-right: Trump has stopped Obama's method of bloodletting. But he won't let the patient recover and he's readying his own set of leeches already. In the meantime, someone who should know better is pretending what he's about to do is a great idea based on improvement during a temporary reprieve. What Trump has done so far has helped for a reason. Sadly, it's a reason he clearly doesn't understand. Rather than using past results to mask future mistakes, Moore should look at why we have good results, and how that reason indicates we need Trump to change his mind about trade -- or some of us need to change our own minds about Trump. -- CAV Link to Original
  29. Doug Morris

    Korzybski vs. Rand

    A long time ago I read the science fiction mentioned by Invictus2017. I'm a little curious whether the following features in the science fiction came from Korzybski. The term "null-Aristotelianism". Abbreviating this term with a capital A with a bar over it, read "null-A". Emphasis on the need to integrate the cortex, seen as the seat or source of reason, and the thalamus, seen as the seat or source of emotion. Using "the cortico-thalamic pause" to achieve or maintain such integration. Referring to a particular reaction as "thalamically quick".
  1. Load more activity
×