Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

samr

Regulars
  • Posts

    82
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by samr

  1. Does objectivism have a concept similar to the concept of logical fallacies? (I ask because objectivism views cognition as being done by the mind, so I guess it should focus more on _metnal_ mistakes (evasion being one) and not "logical" ones).
  2. I meant - empirically falsifiable. Can you falsify that from observing people and how they act. Can you falsify principles at all.
  3. The question is, how is this "The principle indicates that living according to altruism does not lead to personal happiness" falsifiable?
  4. Right, but were I to investiage deeply tibetan society, and the dalai lama, and were to find them very happy, though altruistic - what _would_ that mean?
  5. It seems that "customer service" is an unfitting name. Do they implicitly promise the customers customer service, that is not given?
  6. I think here it is all explained http://dangerousidea.blogspot.com/2007/07/bertrand-russells-critique-of.html http://www.scandalon.co.uk/philosophy/cosmological_russell_copleston.htm
  7. I think your argument actually should look like A series without a beginning cannot exist. Therefore there is a first cause. But, you should give support for the first premise. And your argument should not be a tautology. If your concept of series presupposes that a serie is something that has a beginning, it's a tautology. If you mean that a serie has to be ennumerated and therefore it has a first member, ok. But then again - why not use the word sequence. Or choose another word. A sequence can have a first member and it can not have a first member. You should choose a word that is neutral to what you are arguing - not a one that assumes it. Perhaps - continuity? There is no contradiction in an infinite continuity. If you say that there in order to have a middle you need to have a beginning, you are right, but do you think we have a middle? This is not something you can assume. If you would prove that there is a middle, you would prove that there is a beginning, indeed. But that is what you have to prove, not what you have to rely upon. I don't think these are really arguments. They ignore that they need to prove their basic idea.
  8. If there are epistemologies that claim that there are different ways of knowing (for example, the rational one versus the emotional one), how can you evaluate if they are true or not? If you would evaluate them with reason, they would say that you are doing precisely that which they are telling you not to do. They would tell that since they tell you that there can be other ways of knowing than using your mind, you cannot use your mind to judge them. They would say that by judging them rationally you are just acting according to your biases - a camel is criticizing all animals for not having a hump, and they all criticize him for having one.
  9. What precisely are you talking about when you talk of the explanation why not joining up doesn't make me a free rider?
  10. Yes, but allegedly, in the case of Van Gogh, his ability to create, was precisely the reason for him being Not wealthy. (The same case of Henry Cameron, in The Fountainhead).
  11. No. I assumed that according to objectivism, rationality should be linked with financial success. Is it true?
  12. What about Van Gogh? Do you consider him rational? He has created art, and lived a brave life. Yet, he died in poverty. I bring this as an example of a man that has lived right; has produced value; but was not valued by his society. Boris Pasternak? Perhaps the irrational need the rational as a general principle, since they do not produce anything; but because they often have the money, power, and the means of productions themselves, the rational have to depend on them.
  13. What about a society that is irrational? Would adapting to the environment (which includes the society) and pursuing a career that has no objective value (but is valued by people and paid) be rational?
  14. The buddhist Mahayana seems to be altruistic. Though, it seems that according to the buddhist notion of altruism, there is no contradiction between altruism and egoism. The dalai lama seems a happy being; the dharmsala community is a an intellectualy vibrant community. Especially considering that they are refugees; as refugees they are hugely successful. And people that I rely on (in their evaluation), have reported to me their impression of dharmsala as having a very happy atmosphere.
  15. Working for yourself, earning your income is virtous according to objectivism. Being successful, and producing a product many want to buy also is. One could even argue that the more successful one is, and the more widespread is one's product the more virtous it shows him to be. According to the above, a porn star should be one of Objectivism's heroes, and the porn industry - a celebration of the spirit of objectivism. But there is nothing noble in being a porn star, and in the porn industry. So perhaps it shows something is wrong with the premises above?
  16. As far as I understand, objectivism says that living according to altruism would not lead to personal happiness. Do you think this can be countered by giving an example of a person that does believe in altrusim, but is happy? Or altruistic societies that are happy? Or - this is a matter of principles, and no altruist _can_ be happy?
  17. 2046, what do you mean by a rationalistic treatment? rdrdrdrd, you are right. More to say, my actual situation is more complex than the one I have described, and there are some factors I did not admit. However, perhaps you can treat this not as a personal question, but as a scenario. I hope to resolve my personal dilemma by resolving the conflict of values - my personal freedom vs. fairness and equality of all citizens.
  18. I think the question of my reasons to stay in Israel is secondary. Suppose I indeed stay in Israel because of cowardice, and lack of economic opportunity, and a lack of skills. Do you think it is relevant for the decision? The question is - in case I do stay, what is the right choice? On one hand, I think I deserve the freedom of not going to the army. On the other hand, I do not deserve the "freedom" of being a free rider, or of committing an unjust act. It seems to me a contradiction - what cannot exist according to objectivism.
  19. I do not value my fatherland much. However, it might be that I will be forced to live in it for economic reasons, or do not have the courage to immigrate to another one. What am I to do in such a case?
  20. I am in Israel; if I go to the army, I am not free. If I do not go, I am a free rider.
  21. 1. The populace that does not think it necessary to support the freedoms it enjoys through voluntary service does not deserve to enjoy the freedoms it has. 2. If you have to force people to support the state then the state does not deserve to exist. -- As to (1) - I have a problem with the army. It is fundamentally totalitarian. They try to use totalitarian structures to protect freedom. Then again, I do not want to kill people.
  22. The solution seems obvious - protecting individuals within muslim communities that deviate from the norm. And apostates. And protect the rights of the children to freedom of religion\lack of, and their freedom from censure of books. Don't give muslims as a group special rights, and the problem will be gone within a generation.
  23. So, you say that you have the social right to avoid the draft, even though it might be a good thing not to. What about the question "_Should_ an Israeli join the Israeli army?". (I accept your assesment of Israel as true for the sake of the argument; that it is a country worth fighting for, and that there is a strong danger of Islamic domination).
×
×
  • Create New...