Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Nicky

Regulars
  • Content Count

    3819
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    189

Everything posted by Nicky

  1. Jung went through a period of severe mental illness, in his late 30s. He kept a journal through that period. He never published that journal. In fact, his heir refused to publish it too, for 37 years. The journal was only made available to the public in 2008, 37 years after his death. Describing that state of affairs as "he derived his ideas from a psychotic break" is willfully dishonest. P.S. The reason why Jung did not want those journals published is fairly easily explained by one of his most famous quotes: "beware of unearned wisdom". None of his ideas came to him through "mystic" experiences, psychotic breaks or LSD trips. He just happened to have a psychotic break, midway through a hugely productive, rational life, and he documented it in his private journal. That's all.
  2. Are you asking "what is the purpose of symbolism?"?
  3. There's no confusion. That's the definition you, I and Jung are all working with. (minus the heart part, that's an odd metaphor to use for that which is outside of reason). As per that definition, Jung was not a mystic. Only action he ever ascribed to his heart is pumping blood. Everything else he did with his rational brain. He may have been liberal with his logical leaps, but he wasn't attempting to turn off his brain at any point, or take any knowledge from people who he believe did so. Of course, many so-called mystics use reason more than you'd think, it's just that they speak in metaphors to express it. So someone being classified a mystic doesn't mean rational people should disregard the wisdom they might produce. Jung called himself an empiricist (which is neither a mystic nor a rationalist). Empiricists have major flaws, but mysticism is not one of them. Also, Jung transcended a lot of those flaws, he just didn't have a better word than empiricist for describing himself. That inference (mysticism is outside of reason, therefor it's the consequence of emotions) could only be valid if you first accepted that emotions are necessarily divorced from reason. Jung didn't believe that. Not many people believe that. Certainly not on this board, but not in general either. Emotions are only divorced from reason in totally irrational people (which is a theoretical concept, because such people couldn't survive). You correctly identified that mysticism is outside of reason. But that also means that it's outside of most emotion. Mysticism is based in arbitrary propositions, and the emotions resulting from such propositions. It has nothing to do with most emotions (which result from rational thought, and possibly intrinsic archetypes, if Jung is to be believed).
  4. None of that is mysticism. The first two for obvious reasons (dreams are obviously a real thing, and it's beyond clear that they're related to reality, and alchemy is the precursor to science, practiced widely enough and for a long enough time that it very plausibly produced knowledge science is yet to reproduce...especially in the field of Psychology, which is far behind other natural science), as for the collective unconscious, if that's mysticism, then so is tabula rasa...because neither is empirically proven fact. And yes, I'm familiar with Jung at all, thank you for your concern. I know for instance that he never claimed "unus mundus" as his position. Not even close. He had about as much to do with unus mundus as Rand did with the question of gay deviancy. Jung wasn't a physicist.
  5. I hope the next words out of your mouth are "I was wrong". Because that's the only thing this obviously shows.
  6. Sorry to post in an old thread, but this jumped out to me as I was searching for something unrelated, and I just can't help myself: "Everyone who says that I am a Mystic is just and idiot. He just doesn't understand the first word of Psychology." ~Carl Jung
  7. Nicky

    National Borders

    I submit to you that navigating the dangerous journey from South America or even Mexico to the US in hopes of a better life is an astonishing act of courage, and that, as far as you can possibly say that a handout or an entitlement is "earned", these people have "earned" it infinitely more than anyone who never actually did anything remarkable to improve their life, and is the beneficiary of it simply by "virtue" of being born in the right country. There's a stalemate over immigration policy in the US, and, if anything, the gap is widening between the sides (because of Trump's populist, disgraceful electoral platform that gave no choice to the opposition but to polarize in the other direction). So there's no "eliminating quotas", or any other change in immigration laws. That's not realistic. In fact, quotas are being tightened through executive discretion. The only realistic pathway for most economic migrants into the US is the illegal way. There's also no "effective border crossing controls". The US-Mexico border is massively long, it couldn't be locked down even if Congress, by some miracle, gave Trump all the money his putrid heart desires. So I suggest you forget about the "effective controls coupled with lifting quotas" pipe dream, because neither side of that equation is happening. Make a realistic choice, between: 1. turning a blind eye to the majority of "illegal" economic migrants who are peaceful and here to work for employers who hire them in voluntary employer/employee arrangements (I don't just mean illegal border crossers; a lot of "illegals" come in the Ayn Rand way: legally, but then overstay their visa)... but, at the same time, trying to police the minority who are criminals, and the employers who use force and threats to attempt to enslave "illegals" (best the authorities can do that; it's not gonna be perfect, or anywhere close to perfect, because immigration, especially when it's illegal, but even when it's legal, will result in higher crime rates). 2. attempting to stop all of them (in an unrealistic scheme that involves building a $10B+ wall that will only stop some of them...in all likelihood, the most peaceful, non-criminal portion, while driving everyone into the arms of the cartels and the exploitative black market). P.S. Point number 1 can be coupled with a "macro" approach, that looks at what kind of people are coming into the country (intelligence agencies can be tasked with this, they're quite adept at snooping on foreigners, and it's mostly legal for them to do so), and, if there's an ACTUAL danger (as opposed to the manufactured one Trump fed to his mouth-breather base), action can be taken. The executive branch has a lot of power in deciding who to let in and who not to let in/deport if they sneak in, so the legislative stalemate doesn't prevent the White House from keeping the country safe from any threat to the American way of life...including purely ideological/political (initially non-violent) threats like Marxism. Even the notion of blocking entire countries (who refuse to cooperate with US efforts to investigate would be migrants) is justifiable, as long as it's, you know: JUSTIFIED. With evidence instead of demagogy and populism.
  8. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    There are many kinds of physical jobs, including relatively high skilled ones, that require very low computational abilities. I think a lot of low IQ individuals have to the potential to do impressive things. There are likely some highly successful athletes, for instance, with IQ under 80, including some in team sports where the selection process is extremely unforgiving, and you need both physical and social skills to advance through the many levels of selection standing between a talented kid and a professional career. Those athletes could just as easily be productive (significantly productive, well above minimum wage) doing all sorts of regular jobs that require physical agility, endurance, and the ability to work with others in a stressful atmosphere...as long as someone believed that it was worth it to prepare them for such a career. What's keeping low IQ individuals out of these jobs isn't that they lack the capacity for doing the job, it's the bias created by the Psychologists that built IQ up into the be all end all measure of a person's worth on the job market. And the fact that the education system is built on that premise. Jordan Peterson makes the argument that even the US military, which desperately needs personnel, turns away low IQ individuals. But he forgets that the military needed personnel far more than they need it now, at times in the past, and yet they happily turned away blacks when there was a societal, pseudo-scientific stigma attached to their skin color. And they turned away 50% of the population (women) from combat roles until this decade. So that doesn't mean anything. In general, the correlation between IQ and financial success doesn't prove anything. The cause can be the low IQ, or the general bias against low IQ. We would only know which if we actually gave these people a chance to prove themselves (that would involve changing the education system, where the bulk of the damage is done to the self esteem of people with low IQ...because school curricula and IQ tests are developed on the same premise that this narrow set of abilities are the only ones that matter).
  9. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    If IQ is an objective measure of intellect, then we have problem. But, like I said: Jordan is jumping to conclusions in a field outside his expertise. IQ is not a good measure of intellect, I don't care what the US military says (in this case...I actually do rely on US military studies on language learning, but this makes no sense whatsoever: the language learning stuff relies on studies, this does not). He's basically just saying "the US military says so, for unspecified reasons, so get on board...which is not a good enough reason to get on board. And, again: this is a pretty throwaway point he makes when people obsessed with the issue probe him on it. It's not his field of expertise. (check out his take on Islam, on youtube...that should illuminate his capacity for refraining from definitive statements on things he's not an expert on). He doesn't believe personality (which IS his field of expertise) is set in stone/genetics, so why would you ever take his word on the notion that intellect (especially once freed from the arbitrary bind to IQ) is set in stone/genetics?
  10. Nicky

    The Case for Open Objectivism

    Jordan Peterson (who I think is a brilliant thinker and public speaker) makes a very interesting point about social statistics: the real issue isn't the 60/40 split between the masses. The real issue is between the outliers: when there's a 60/40 split between two large groups of people, the spit between the extremes (the people who out-perform the group, meaning the over-performers) is far greater (95/5 to 99/1). For instance, in NYC (or NYS, I'm citing this out of memory, so I'm not entirely sure which), an overwhelming majority of genius level IQ tested high-school students are ethnic Ashkenazi Jews. A crazy amount, something like 49 out of 50 "genius" IQ students in NY are Jewish. That's a natural consequence of Ashkenazi Jews being, on average, about ten points above the average population, in IQ. Which is not that much. But small statistical differences result in overwhelming differences when it comes to outliers (in this case, geniuses). Another good example of this, often cited by Jordan Peterson, is the radical split in prison population, by sex...pretty sure it is above 9 to 1 in "favor" of men...despite the fact that, on average, personality traits that favor criminality, between men and women, tend to be around 60/40 percent...which, on the surface, doesn't seem that significant until you look at the results in outliers. And, of course, outliers determine the future of a society. It's hard to argue with that. Albert Enstein (a person who can be objectively judged to have had superior intellect, without an IQ test) was more important than 5 billion people, all added together, who lived since. Clearly. If high IQ really does equal superior intellect, then no one else really matters in the NYC school system on a societal level, except Ashkenazi Jews. And no one really matters on the African continent, period. So, if you buy into IQ (like Jordan unfortunately does...but with a caveat: he does not claim any kind of omniscience, he is open to counter-arguments, and I think he would be blown away by someone challenging his definitions, I don't think he ever met someone able to do that), you can't really dispute these types of conclusions. The only possible avenue of attack against that position is attacking IQ (and social sciences in general, because Jordan is correct: IQ is one of the better parts of social sciences). Jordan, as far as I know, only makes one decent argument for IQ: there's a strong corelleration between IQ and financial success in the West. Which is somewhat of a non-sequitur.
  11. According to happiness, she was attracted by his initial rejection (which she interpreted as independence, even though it wasn't), and dumped him because he got too clingy (which is psychological dependence). So how did you get from there to the exact opposite?
  12. The 7 Habits of Highly Effective People. It's a "back to basics" type book, focused on fundamental principles instead of the artificial self esteem building advice in the modern self help industry.
  13. My advice is blunt. If you don't want to hear it, don't click on the spoiler tags:
  14. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    And I consider this an excellent example of why your understanding of Ayn Rand's philosophy is simplistic. No, it's not. If it was, I would've used the word simple instead of simplistic.
  15. Nicky

    Abortion Rights and Parental Obligations

    I think you're right that a pregnant woman has a moral responsibility to abort her unwanted pregnancy as early as possible. But that has nothing to do with politics. Huh? This scenario has nothing to do with "implicitly adopting responsibility", and everything to do with a correct interpretation of rights. If Mary was on the boat uninvited, ordering her off it in the middle of the ocean would be murder for the same exact reason it is in your scenario: your property rights don't include the right to kill someone for trespassing. The earliest you can get an unwanted person off your property is when it's safe for them to leave. There's no such thing as "implicitly adopting responsibility", in Oist politics. The concept of individual rights is perfectly sufficient to build a fully functional political system on. One of the more obvious consequences of that concept is that you in fact CANNOT impose obligations on people who have not EXPLICITLY AND FREELY adopted them. That would be a violation of their rights.
  16. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    I'm not one of those people. I used it because I found your post simplistic. I also find your next post (all we have is tyrants) simplistic. The world isn't divided into good people and evil people. The vast majority of people are somewhere in between. And the only realistic path to a better world is through convincing as many of them as possible to believe in it. This statement sounds very similar to the communist and fascist approach to politics. They too thought their systems were so modern and advanced compared to those bumbling ancient civilizations (well, supposedly not civilizations) , that it fully justified substituting them for individual judgement. So if what's your getting at is the technological elites (Objectivists or otherwise, it's entirely irrelevant) using robotics and AI to impose their politics on the masses, that's the polar opposite of everything Objectivism stands for. The whole basis for Objectivist politics is the human capacity for reason. That's why Ayn Rand was opposed to the use of physical force. Substituting technology for individual judgement would be just as much a denial of man's basic nature as the communists' and fascists' forceful imposition of their supposedly modern, superior social orders.
  17. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    You know Americans fought a war over not being represented in their government, right? By the way, when you go around making simplistic statements like this, you're misrepresenting Objectivism too, not just American ideals. Just because there are a set of fundamental principles that should supersede popular will doesn't mean that democratic mechanisms should play no role in deciding how those principles are implemented. Through history, democratically elected governments have been by far the most successful in protecting individual rights, and Ayn Rand never disputed that fact. Even monarchies only last if there are mechanisms for popular input built into the government. When a monarch tries to rule alone, the system becomes highly unstable withing a generation or two, at most.
  18. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    Only way I could possibly answer that is with a list of books to read. Let me know it you're interested.
  19. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    It's not.
  20. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    The notion that you should keep a large chunk of the population from influencing the government contradicts American values. And the notion that you can...well that's just naive.
  21. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    I already explained that it's not a criminal conspiracy to believe in Nazi ideology, under US law. As for Eiuol's execution, I'm not saying that he would be executed in a year because anyone is planning his execution, as they are entering the country. In fact, I assure you, no such plan exists at the time the migration is taking place. In fact, no one has ANY specific plans to kill anyone. They only have a general, abstract belief that everyone who opposes the cause deserves death. Which is protected speech under the US Constitution. There are people in the US right now, saying stuff like that. Not just Nazis, extremists both on the Right and Left (about cops, capitalists, Jews, etc.). And it's their right. So stop putting words in my mouth. What I am stating is the obvious: Eiuol's arrest and execution for crimes against the state would be a natural consequence of the majority of his compatriots being Nazis. That's all. There's no conspiracy, at the time all these Nazis are entering the country. In fact, most of them don't even know each other, they're just coming because the news is spreading that this is the place to be.
  22. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    The reason why there are no historical examples is because no society in the history of mankind has ever done something as foolish as what you are in favor of: opening the borders to a throng of people fundamentally opposed to their political values. That's the "fantastical" part in this: the notion that any country would ever do what you're suggesting: fail to stop a mass migration of totalitarian thugs, in the name of "freedom". But the two components of my scenario happened many times, separately: there have been many large scale migrations, and there have been many instances of a totalitarian ideology supported by a large minority taking over. So it should be very clear to anyone not willfully obtuse that, if a society were dumb enough to allow it, those two things could happen in the same place, at the same time. There's nothing preventing that besides national borders. The notion that New Zealand authorities could deal with five million Nazis once they're in the country is childish. And the scenario does happen in the absence of a government...most recently, this is exactly what happened in Syria/Iraq. Islamists from across the world flooded in, took over large chunks of both countries, and proceeded to terrorize the population with horrific efficacy. Only difference here is that you're proposing the same thing should be allowed when the prospective victims actually DO have a strong government, that possesses the means to stop it...before they come in, of course. Once they're in, it's too late.
  23. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    I said nothing about any activities. I am talking about beliefs, not activities. If any of the Nazis commit an illegal act, then they should of course be arrested. That was not my question. And I already proved, in this very thread, that people DO HAVE A LEGAL RIGHT TO ANY BELIEFS, in the US. And there isn't any prospect of that changing, because the First Amendment isn't getting abolished anytime soon. So that's not the question either. You might as well be answering every question with "well, first of all, my answer assumes that the Moon is made of cheese". No, it's not made of cheese, and no, you can't legally stop Americans from being Nazis. Those are two basic facts. My question is about what should be done given THE FACTS. So, first accept the facts, then answer the question. If you can do that. Please don't explain, because it's entirely irrelevant to the conversation. I linked to the US Supreme Court decision on what constitutes a threat that overrides the First Amendment. That's what's relevant, not your opinion, because your opinion will not affect the precedents that have been established by 250 years of American history. If you wish to answer my question, you first need to recognize the FACT that US law allows for every single belief attributable to Nazi ideology, and the free expression of all those beliefs. If you can't do that, then the conversation is pointless. My question is about current policy, given the facts of reality.
  24. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    1. No, it's not, that would imply that you can also keep people from leaving using the same exact mechanism. Which is absurd. 2. Easement is a well established common law right, and there is nothing in Objectivism that would allow you to dispute that. All prominent Objectivists are 100% in favor of easements. Besides, airplanes were invented a while back, so the notion that a fence could stop someone from entering a country is ridiculous. 3. My question involves New Zealand, a typical western country with a mixed political and economic system. So there's no reason to even bring up a perfect capitalist society. I already know the Oist position on what immigration policy should be in a perfect capitalist society.
  25. Nicky

    Immigration restrictions

    Not in my scenario. And it's a perfectly realistic scenario, history is full of far, far larger scale migrations than the one I'm suggesting. They weren't supported by any government, people are perfectly capable of mimicking patterns of behavior off of each other, without any central organizing force.
×