Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

DavidV

Admin
  • Posts

    2935
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

Everything posted by DavidV

  1. Why not study it the thematic way it is initially done at OAC? That way students will get all the important issues without having to study history, which would take too much time in high school. I don't think it can or should be presented as a course on Objectivism OPAR-style becuase that method assumes a familiarity with the issues at hand and does not stress what the important conflicts are. A systematic OPAR-like presentation would work best for someone who is already familiar and motivated about the issues at hand.
  2. Welcome to the board, Anthony!
  3. Daniel, Your position is absurd. I think RadCap summed it up fairly accurately. You start with correct philosophical points but go completely rationalist with them. Since consensus does not count for much when validating an argument around here, I’m going to try to add to his essentially correct replies. How the heck do you plan to teach 100% conceptual knowledge 100% of the time? What inductive base is all this conceptual knowledge going to be based on? Even if these kids spent all their time reading fiction, there’s no substitute for real-life experience to introduce them to the real world. This isn’t pragmatism but the simple fact that kids can’t form any conceptual knowledge without a wide array of firsthand experience to make their conclusions from. Besides, while the purpose of a primary education may be some variation of the three R’s, the function of a school is not by any means limited to providing just that knowledge. Because kids spent a significant time at school, they should also provide a child with the social, physical, and yes, vocational skills. For the consequences of your kind of education, I suggest you look up the upbringing of John Stuart Mill and see how he turned out. I heard less than half of Peikoff’s Philosophy of Education, yet I doubt very much that he prescribes what a primary education should consist of or be limited to. A core curriculum – yes, but that kids should not draw, play, or learn about vocations? I don’t think so. There’s also the issue of when one should take classes for his future job. As I’ve believed long before I heard Peikoff say it on the tape, the great majority of people do not need a primary education beyond high school, and should receive vocational classes during their last three or four years to complement their conceptual education. I find it completely ridiculous that anyone aspiring to a primarily non-conceptual vocation should need a college education given a proper educational system.
  4. John, A comment: You don't need to ask for permission to link any domain name. There are some courtesy rules about linking content within a website, but none about linking a website itself. There is no rule about reciprocating links either, although when it comes to blogs, the best way to show that you appreciate or enjoy content within a website is to link to it. There is actually a number of exchanges that track the value that an additional link will bestow on the target blog.
  5. I think it's evasion that comes from a powerful, overwhelming fear to use one's mind. I see it in many people, and I can only attribute it to a blind fear of the unknown. I know it because I had the same feeling as a child, when I closed my eyes in fear of the unknown monsters lurking in the dark and pretended that they didn’t exist as long as I was snuggled up under the covers. At some point during growing up, I dismissed all those monsters and gained confidence in my own mind. However most people do not -- many years later, when my mother refused to walk in the dark because she had just seen a TV special on alien abductions, I saw that same fear of the unknown in her that every mystic and subjectivist hides deep within himself.
  6. DavidV

    Abortion

    I don't think there's any "magical" difference between the mind of a fetus about to be born, and an infant that was just born. I suspect that it takes quite some time before an infant learns to operate on a conceptual level. (Don’t they have to learn some language first?) Regardless, there is an obvious difference between a clump of cells and a living, breathing, eating human being. The main difference is not in the fact that a fetus is not conceptual (adults are not operating on a conceptual level when they are asleep or passed out) but that it cannot live independently of the mother. In order to exist, the fetus must drain the resources of the mother – it is literally a parasite until it is born. Of course, an infant only slightly less helpless after it is born, but it is not metaphysically tied to the mother because it does not impose a burden on her by its mere existence. “Pro-lifers” love to come up with all sorts of “fuzzy” cases and sci-fi scenarios, but the fact is that the difference between a month-old embryo (when most abortions occur) and an infant are undeniable.
  7. Ash, Your login is [email protected] Try an alternate webmail login at http://216.66.18.91:2082/frontend/default/...bmaillogin.html I attached an Outlook Express auto-configure registry script. Delete your current mail account, click and say "yes". (All this script does is create a new mail account using mail.objectivismonline.net and ashryan at objectivismonline dot net) I have an online live chat program at http://ObjectivismOnline.com/chat/ If you are unable to use instant messaging, it may be a good idea to try the chat..
  8. Sure, why don't you write out what you think the post numbers, pips, and rank names should be.
  9. Ash, Can you message me on an instant messaging program? That would make troubleshooting a lot easier. The fact that you are on a LAN doesn't matter. Yes, the password is correct. Do you have outlook express? I can send you a file that will auto-configure it to work. Note that the login and password should be lower case.
  10. The page should work. It allows you to check your email via the web using your choice of 3 webmail clients. It's like hotmail or yahoo mail -- only it's faster, better, and without the ads.
  11. lowercase for the username and password the mail address is solely for your email client
  12. Email for all it is. Message me with your desired name and password, and I will get back to you with confirmation and all the instructions. I will give out free email to everyone that asks until further notice. If it begins to be a drain on the server, I will ask for a minor contribution (around $10) to subsidize the costs. Of course donations for the site are always welcome :-) (I'll put general new account info for reference) Webmail login: http://ObjectivismOnline.com:2095/ (You get a choice of 3 webmail clients, so just pick your favorite.) Mail server for POP/IMAP: mail.objectivismonline.net For login info, type [email protected] and your password (lower case) The email comes with SpamAssasing filtering enabled. Set your mail client to filter messages with the word "SPAM" in the header to go to a separate folder if you don't want to see it. Msg GreedyCapitalist on AIM if you need help.
  13. Salsman denied the role of the Fed in inflating the currency or creating any sort of "inflationary boom" because the country was on the gold standard until 1933. According to him, because the dollar was free convertible into gold, the Fed was powerless to inflate or contract the currency. Furthermore, the economic “boom” during the 1920’s was not “artificial” in any way, but caused by legitimate economic growth, with rapid rise in stock prices being caused by rational expectations of higher profits. The depression was initiated by the Smoot-Hawley Tariff that Hoover 1930, and worsened by each successive attempt to "fix" the economy by taxing/regulating it into socialism, especially the banking regulations against bank branching that made them extremely vulnerable to runs. The key point he made is that the Keynseans, Monetarists, and Austrians all misunderstand the relation between inflation and interest rates. In his opinion, the boom/bust view all three groups support is a Marxist invention. According to Salsman, interest rates reflect the cultures aggregate time preference. (So that lower I = higher premium for the future, and higher I = shorter range perspective) There was a sharp drop in interest rates in the 20’s, validating the economic boom that followed. Salsman rejected the “Austrian” view that inflation is the increase in the money supply (I don’t know where he got this) or the Monetarist view that inflation is the increase of money in excess of output. I never did get what his view of inflation was, though I presume he would say that it’s measured by the rising price of gold. Anyway, I agree with him on all the causes he attributed to the great depression, but I think he overestimates the effect of the 1930 tariff because he proportionally underestimates the power of the Fed to inflate credit, even on a gold standard. Using tools like reserve requirements, government securities, Fed interest rates, treasury-held currency, and foreign currency and loans, the Fed could significantly influence the money supply to create the artificial boom that Salsman rejects. Interestingly, he also claimed that the late 90’s boom was also “real” rather than created in large part by the Fed. I’m not too familiar with the numbers, but it seems obvious to me that the large drop and subsequent rise in Fed rates was indication of the Fed artificial inflating the money supply by manipulating credit. (What I known about the Great Depression comes mostly from Rothbard, and I suspect I would agree with his book on it.)
  14. PS: http://ObjectivismOnline.com/Reviews
  15. Hypothetical situation: Suppose some Christian or Muslim fundamentalists decided that when they got married, the wife should be "owned" by her husband. If she agreed to "sell" herself to her husband (in slavery, servitude, whatever) -- would that be a valid contract? How far would that go? (Note that in many parts of the world this happens already, although the wife doesn't always "agree" to the deal even if she says so.)
  16. A "slave" by definition is someone who was forced into working for his master without his consent. If you "sell yourself" into doing anything for anyone, then you are selling yourself into a contract, not slavery. You could of course sell your labor to be done in any way your emloyer chooses, without pay even, for any number of years. When immigrants came over to America in the 1700's, this was properly called "indentured servitude", not slavery.
  17. I'm giving away [email protected] emails to help promote the site. Anyone interested? You get a full-featured account with webmail, lots of space, IMAP/POP, SPAM filtering, and all the trimmings. Anyone interested? Is this a good promotional idea? As before, if you have an Objectivist club, you can get a yourclub.objectivismonline.net hosted here at no charge. Update: ObjectivismOnline offers free blogs and email accounts for rational individuals as well as websites for campus clubs. You can host your blog or mail account at one of three domains: objectivismonline.net, rationalmind.net, and heroicdesigns.com. We are also provide free websites and web design help to campus clubs. To get your account, contact David with your desired subdomain, username, and password. For questions or technical support, please post on the forum.
  18. Matt, etc: I'm tempted to give in, provided I'm convinced that the average person can learn a sufficient amount of philosophy during their formal education to guide their own intellectual development during their rest of their life. Perhaps because I see stupid and incompetent individuals everywhere, I assume that it has to be that way, and that it’s simply not possible to have a whole nation of truly enlightened individuals. In any case, I’m sure that there will be many more debating societies, speaking forums, and various other institution that bring abstract ideas to the public, rather than the isolated think tanks we have today. On a personal note, maybe I’m not so hesitant to use the word “church” because I never had the experience of growing up in a christian or religious family. I discovered that I was Jewish only when I was 11, and for various reasons having more to do with the quality of local public schools than the quality of the synagogue I went to, I actually enjoyed the experience. It was in a temple class that I first became of philosophy via Spinoza and began making my own conclusions about religion. P.S. - Good luck with the new blog. You should consider adding it to the new blog section under links: http://ObjectivismOnline.com/Links
  19. Matt, I agree than the most specialized fields have the greatest need and a should have a focus on philosophy. I also agree that philosophy should be explicitly discussed at all levels of society. When I say that most people won't get a liberal arts education, I mean that 12 years of primary education should be sufficient for most people. Now remember that this is a rational society where you can get an education in primary school that far exceeds anything you can get in college now. I went to a public school myself, and I took several years of biology, chemistry, physics, calculus etc. I think the stuff I was learning in high school can easily be introduced in middle school so that high school can more like what a four-year university degree today. So am NOT saying that people would not or should not have a systematic study of science during their life. I do however think that non-intellectuals simply won’t have the time to study it at a depth that exceeds something like say, OPAR. But that's not my main point. I think the more important thing is that certain aspects of organized religion today does serve some important and beneficial functions in people's lives. As I said, ideally it would "re-affirm their values and concretize abstract principles into practical guidance for their lives.” Sure, in a rational society you are going to find affirmation of your values in the culture/media/peers, but I think institutions would arise that will resemble today's churches in a number of ways. My best understanding of what a rational society could be like comes from Alexis De Tocqueville's Democracy in America. In that time, the average American had a much deeper understanding of the issues of his days and openly debated them with his peers in public forums. Traveling intellectuals presented in-depth topics that openly challenger long-standing dogmas (often the religious kind) and invited debate and discussion. Various societies were dedicated to presenting and debating important issues of the day. I think the institution I have in mind will have that kind of atmosphere, except that it will incorporate important issues with a social framework. You could describe it as an intellectual country club, but I think it will have a greater similarity to how today's religious organizations operate, with a strong social focus in addition to intellectual development. My point here is not to make arbitrary predictions about the future, but to point out a human need to take part in a social group that is not related to his work or family, but composed of people who share his values and engage in intellectual and social interaction that allow abstract intellectual development to continue after one's primary education is over. You could argue that one's friends or some particular interest group can serve this purpose, and to a degree they can, but I think that today's churches have evolved into an institution that would in many ways resemble what I have in mind.
  20. Added shortcuts via mod_rewrite to various URL's, such as http://ObjectivismOnline.com/Gallery and http://ObjectivismOnline.com/Reviews
  21. Let me first make a distinction about the nature of studying philosophy to explain my view. There are two ways to study philosophy, which I will call “philosophy qua philosophy” and “philosophy qua life”. A student of philosophy qua philosophy has two goals: to study philosophy as it applies to his own life, and to gain an in depth understanding of philosophy that has no direct application to his own life, but nevertheless offers some potential benefit down the line. A student of philosophy qua life on the other hand, is a non-intellectual who only seeks to study philosophy as it applies to his own life and provides him with known tangible benefits. Note that I am not saying that philosophers study questions that do are not related to man’s life, but that they do not always study questions that have a direct and known impact on their life. The difference is like that of a farmer and a biologist – both need to know the basics, but the job of the farmer is to apply biology to make a living, while the biologist does far-reaching research that may not have any immediate benefit to his life. Now, the main point I am making is that most of the population is never going to be a biologist, nor should they try to be one – it is better for them to learn just enough biology to be a good farmer, and focus their efforts on their primary vocation. So in answer to your second point, I see education for most people as “technical” because they are only going to learn enough biology to be good farmers, not to study biology for a living. They still have to learn the basics – “Virtue of Selfishness” but not the stuff that would require them to get a PhD in the topic – “Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology.” Now regarding your first point, I am NOT saying that people should be indoctrinated with Objectivism dogma as it is done in religion. Everyone will get the primary education by reading classics written by Rand, Hugo, Bernstein, Ash, me (heh), etc. They won’t grow up to be good little rationalists. As I just realized they probably won’t go to Sunday school either, since there’s virtually nothing of abstract philosophy that can be taught at that age while respecting their hierarchy of knowledge. When they start learning philosophy, it will be later in their primary education, when they already have the proper social, historical, political, etc context to tie it into reality. However most students are not going to have more than a few years of formal study of philosophy in high school. It’s simply not possible to provide that much abstract knowledge at that early of an age. Since they won’t be getting a liberal arts education in college, they will need to continue their philosophic education elsewhere. One could do this with books of course, but there is no replacement for the social interaction with one’s peers, especially to connect abstract concepts to current events, one’s chosen field, and to test the knowledge by being challenged in debate. I say that this interaction won’t be like OCON because 300 million people won’t have the time to go to a two week conference every year, and even if they could, it would not be nearly sufficient or frequent enough for continual study. It would have to be a regular interaction on a local level (granted, technology may stretch the meaning of “local”) and it probably include professionals in the area (perhaps that will become one of the functions of philosophers.) It would not just be a dry reading of OPAR, 50th anniversary edition. Philosophy, especially in these groups, will be emphasized as it applies to one’s life, and will thus be a spiritual as well as (rather than versus) intellectual experience not unlike the emotion I felt at OCON when I made big old inductive leaps, and connected the abstract ideas being presented to my life. Predicting what form these “churches” will take is pure arbitrary speculation, but here is a possibility:
  22. Daniel, I don't mean something like the Objectivist Conference -- I do in fact mean something much closer to today's churches. (Actually I've only been to a church a few times in my life, being Jewish by ancestry, but that's besides the point.) We all agree that everyone needs an highly abstract philosophy for his life, as in "my life is valuable" vs just "killing is wrong." Everyone needs to learn this, but I disagree that everyone can or should pick this up in school. In a rational society it's unlikely that most people would go to college, and even if they did, most people would probably have a strong technical focus. Everyone would study philosophy implicitly on some level at any level of education, but formal study of philosophy as such would be limited to intellectuals. The rest of the population might read books like "Loving Life" but not "Viable Values." The're not philosophers, and the're not interested in studying philosophy other than its direct application to their life. You can't expect them to study it formally on their own or even at conferences like OCON. The question then is -- where DO they get their philosophy? I think an institution much like today's churches would fit the bill. It would meet on a regular basis, involve people at all ages, and provide purely social as well as intellectual interaction. I see no reason why it couldn't also function as a community of peers - hence marriages and such. Obviously, I don't mean that there will be weekly Sunday sermons, if by "sermon" you mean intrinsic religious dogma. But the emotional response to the speakers as such will be the same (if not stronger) and for the same reasons -- a regular reaffirmation of your life should be an intense emotional experience -- in the same category as those provided by great art and sex. An individual growing up in a rational society should get the right foundation for his own philosophy whether he ever attends "church" or not, but I think he could still benefit -- greatly - from regular guidance and inspiration along the right path.
×
×
  • Create New...