Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

SpookyKitty

Regulars
  • Content Count

    415
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Everything posted by SpookyKitty

  1. A Marxist would not say anything like this. Sure, on the surface, this seems vagule Marxist and uses Marxist terms, but it is utterly devoid of any actual Marxist ideas. The first thing a Marxist would do is ask where the users of the factory are getting the money to pay the fee. If they must sell their labor to a capitalist in order to get a wage and pay the fee, then, since this factory does not pay wages to anyone, an economic system based on this model cannot reproduce itself and is therefore unrealistic. It therefore cannot replace capitalism, and can only exist within a capitalist framework. It has no revolutionary potential and there is no reason to consider it further. Let me address Eiuols points in more detail. Technically, from a Marxist standpoint, in and of itself, this is not a form of capitalist exploitation. The product, in this case flour, is not being sold for a profit by the capitalist. Hence, what the worker produces, the worker gets. No more no less. But since an economic system based entirely on this model cannot exist anyway, and since it can only exist within capitalism, we have to analyze it taking this context into account. Within capitalism, the fee is really a rent. The factory owner must maximize rent rather than use-value. I could imagine that the owner would eventually figure out that the most lucarative use of the factory is selling all factory time to users who are extremely wealthy, and jacking up the fee. This factory would then deliver no benefit to the local community. In fact, since these wealthy users would most likely be flour producing capitalists anyway, (who would then sell the flour they produce to consumers) the capitalist system is using the automated aspect of the factory to eliminate labor costs, and squeeze the working class even more. Marxist do not ask for "justification" of property relations. It is a materialist philosophy where things like "justification" are merely the ideological glue that holds an exploitative economic system together. That is, bourgeois ideology is a consequence of capitalism and not the other way around. There is no question about his intentions, the only question is about the plausibility of such a scenario. The requirement to charge a rent is forced on him by capitalist property relations and is inescapable. If anything, this example shows that anything other than a revolution will ultimately fail in destroying capitalism. The contract may in fact be win-win, as it is essentially no different than a self-serve restaurant. And this is definitely not an "imperialist attempt to impose capitalist hegemony upon this village" since imperialism is an international phenomenon and capitalist hegemony has already been imposed upon this village. People definitely need flour. No, it has not commodified the village.
  2. I'm not sure. I know they certainly asked whether change was possible, and I think that it is, but I don't think that Aristotle reached the same conclusion as I did about the existence of properties which are both immutable and which also completely characterize an existent. What I want to know is whether my argument is correct and what these immutable and characteristic properties are.
  3. 1. The Skewer Premise1: An existent is itself. Premise2: An existent is completely characterized by a set of properties, a collection of statements which are true of the existent. Premise3: An existent cannot come from nothing, and an existent cannot become nothing. Premise4: An existent can change, and when an existent changes, at least one of its properties becomes negated (i.e. false if it used to be true, and true if it used to be false). Conclusion1: By Premise2 and Premise4, the existent A, after it changes, is no longer the same existent as before the change. After the change, we have a different existent, B, because A and B differ in at least one property. Conclusion2: By Premise3, A is B. This contradicts Premise1. 2. The Fork We are now forced to do at least one of the following: 1) Deny premise 1. I.e., an existent is not necessarily itself. That is, there is at least one existent which is not itself. I think this is a contradiction. 2) Deny premise 2. Existents are not completely characterized by a set of properties. 3) Deny premise 3. Either something can come from nothing, or something can become nothing, or possibly both. 3) Deny premise 4. Existents are incapable of change. 3. The Sacrifice Honestly, I think option 2 is our best bet. Let us consider carefully what it means. If an existent is not completely characterized by its properties, then either A), its properties undercharacterize the existent or B), they overcharacterize the existent. 4. The Checkmate If we go with option A), then there are other epistemological entities besides propositions which help to completely characterize the existent. These epistemological entities, however, could not be amenable to reason, since they cannot be propositions (i.e. they cannot be statements which are capable of being true/false, or, more bluntly, they are ideas whose validity cannot be determined by their correspondence or lack of correspondence to reality). Thus, there are aspects of the mind (or of epistemology) which are independent of reality and hidden from reason. If we interpret these entities metaphysically instead, then two existents could have all of the same properties and yet be different, implying the existence of hidden aspects of reality. If we go with option B), then there are some properties which could change about the existent but which would leave the existent essentially unchanged. Thus, existents must have both mutable and immutable properties. However, I cannot think of any properties of an existent which are both immutable and which completely characterize the existent.
  4. TEW is painfully obvious pseudoscience.
  5. Can someone explian this "relational" idea of space? I simply cannot conceive of space as being anything but an existent. So much so, that I am starting to think that philosophical disagreements are due to neurological differences.
  6. This is certainly not true. If the universe had existed forever, the stars should have long-since burned out.
  7. What is "temporal mass" and what the heck is "singulosynthesis"?
×
×
  • Create New...