Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Posts

    1672
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Everything posted by Easy Truth

  1. Why is the term emergent property used here? The reason I ask is why not use "cause and effect"? Of course cause and effect would create a contradiction in the sense that consciousness is determined by this "emergence". Implying that consciousness has a cause, a determinant. I could go on and on, as in that usage, could: emergence be a justification for the big bang theory? That the universe emerged due to xyz? Not caused by, but emerged. It seems to me that emergence is a substitute for cause and effect when wanting to avoid certain contradictions. Once one talks about consciousness evolving from evolution, there's no way to avoid determinism.
  2. There is the perspective of "value" as being that which is good for you. But I would argue that is a "moral value" rather than just a value. There are things we like that we regret, or that we know are bad for us. I love bacon. It is the worst food for me. Value has to mean simply what you consider valuable and it can be an immediate experience, as in the entity "delicious pizza". They emphasize that a delicious pizza is not just a pizza, but a "delicious pizza". To find it valuable, you don't go through a thought process of how it will nourish you. It is an immediate judgment of its identity. So at the core of their thinking is that the entity is "delicious pizza" or "valuable pizza" rather than "pizza". So, they argue that any concrete depends on you (or us). Without you, that particular table is not the (complete concrete entity) "beautiful table". That makes everything subjective. The beautiful table, the ugly cat, etc. Again, this is without any regard to its utility. It is purely an immediate, perhaps aesthetic experience. Maybe one could modify what they said as being a conflation of "aesthetic" with the "objective". As in, It's the emotional aesthetic judgment, which is subjectively fluid, is part of "what it is" i.e. it's identity. In some ways, it is a reasonable assertion if you see a beautiful cat as a single concrete (rather than the way we see it: abstract (beauty) + concrete (cat)). Ironically, they object that when I call it the table, I am abstracting, not looking at it concretely. That I can abstract "cat" out of the full concrete experience of "beautiful cat". I need to make the case that "cat" is complete, real, and stable. That "beautiful" is not a necessary part of its identity. The way they think of reality, an amalgamation of emotion+aesthetic+sensory, provides an eternally and completely "unstable" (wobbly) reality that means there is no reality, i.e. nothing is real. They conclude it's all in "your" mind and emotions ... and changing all the time. Especially since the experience of that kind of value, even without anyone else present, can change. Food is valuable when hungry but valueless after a full meal. Sleep is valuable when tired but not after you are done sleeping. In this way, value is not stable (but fluid), and if immediate value is a necessary part of the identity of all entities, "everything" has an element of instability. To them, this means that nothing is stable, or absolute. Valuableness changes, so everything is subject to change. Finally, they conclude, that stability of what is real simply is an "assumption" something to the effect of "Reality is an assumption, after all, you have to start with something".
  3. For years, I have heard the same people attacking objective reality. First I thought they were arguing in bad faith. That they were lying. But last week in a discussion a problem became visible. What was brought up was that the table in front of us was a table, but the value of the table was in the eyes of the valuer. And as far as they were concerned, the value of the table is part of its identity. If so, part of its identity is based on the observer, as in subjective. Without the subject, the value does not exist, and therefore nothing is independent of the valuer, the particular consciousness that gives value. Giving rise to the argument for the primacy of consciousness. They conclude that everything has this element of subjectivity. There is also the issue of objective value and subjective value which confuses. In a market, the value or price is determined by buyers and sellers. The deals they make determine the latest price. But that is not an objective value and yet the value of something is not "inherent", independent of consciousnesses making the deals. I was about to delve into it but was wondering about the reaction of others to: Is price in this analogy equivalent to the value of something? My understanding is that the process of identification is the identification of its objective identity, rather than its subjective identity. With all this in mind, how does one make the case for "objective reality", an existence, not dependent on the subject, when they consider (an entity's)value as part of its identity?
  4. I would argue that killing Hamas operatives without killing civilians is highly unlikely. It was possible before the war started, even before Hamas was brought into power. Now it's practically impossible and therefore unintended killings will occur. That is the accepted policy, justified in ethnic cleansing terms. Hamas will probably say the Thai citizens that were killed were unintended too. That Jews are evil for a reason de jour. The basic point I'm making is that it's too late to prevent indiscriminate killings. They are happening, they will happen ... intended or not, this is predictable and expected. Granted, Hamas led the killings. But it was also negligent behavior on the part of Israel that created this mess. They had the maneuvering power to prevent it. They manipulated in bad faith since the Oslo agreement. Preventing the pressure cooker was an option, a choice that was not taken. I can't condone what Hamas did, but Israel is also responsible for what happened to its citizens. Most likely its voters will hold their government to account. But as a third party, we cannot simply take the side of Israel basically because they are "more like us". Israel has far more leverage and power and it cannot be supported to dictate rules. The IDF is not suited to carry out surgical strikes. It can't be a dependable deal-maker to cause Hamas to lose its grip on power. Our interest is the cliche "a lasting peace" which requires behavior that convincingly discriminates between innocent vs. not innocent.
  5. OK, let's see the arguments. What is indiscriminate killing? How would per capita body count prove indiscriminate killing? OK, let's see the arguments. Cannot discriminate 100%. The arguments will ultimately rest on the issue of "Is Hamas a legitimate entity to negotiate with or not" regardless of the issue of indiscriminate killing. Because the world sees both sides as indiscriminate killers since Israel decided not to keep its hands clean. It inevitably has to negotiate with Hamas. By definition, not being able to discriminate between an innocent vs. non-innocent and therefore killing one single innocent is an indiscriminate killing. Both sides can make a case that it was justified. In the case of what Hamas did, it was indiscriminate. For example, they intended to kill Jews but they killed the citizens of Thailand in one Kibbutz. Even killing one person is an indiscriminate killing. Certainly, 15,000 civilians in Gaza is an obvious example. Of course, the Israeli invasion was done very carefully and with all the good intentions possible, but the fact remains, that the Israeli operation is not killing only Hamas operatives or even Palestinian criminals. It is not discriminating because the intention and the situation does not allow for discrimination. You make the case yourself with "cannot discriminate 100%". That is the proof right there that indiscriminate killing is happening and you resist seeing that killing "some" indiscriminately is indiscriminate killing. The only way to avoid it was in hindsight, in the past by not creating and getting into this mess. You could argue that Israel currently has no better choice but to indiscriminately kill "some" but you are arguing that they do not commit indiscriminate killing which is false. 15000 civilians aren't easily ignored. What would change your mind? If Israel in its pursuit of Hamas, kills 500000 civilians, would that change your mind or would they still have the right to do that? What if they killed 2 million people? Perhaps no number will change your mind. Then perhaps the only solution is 2.5 million people. That would seem to get rid of Hamas. Is that the ideal solution and how is it justified?
  6. Both sides have engaged in indiscriminate killing. War will create some indiscriminate killing. Successful killing in war is to have more firepower than the other side. Hamas engaged in that in Israel and now Israel is engaging in that in Gaza. If we want to go based on per capita body count, then Israel is killing more right now. If we go by openly heinousness, then maybe Hamas wins that game. But to claim that Israel is not engaging in indiscriminate killing is easily disproven. Or that Palestinians don't have any reason to be resentful is easily disproven. Currently, Israel cannot discriminate between their people, the hostages, and the enemy. The debate is now about the percentage of people killed as if the percentages determine if it is a killing, a murder, or a genocide. Both sides don't understand that it's the indiscriminate hate that is the problem, it won't stop. One side will always find a weak point and attack it and this will go on forever. In other words, the hate cannot guide toward the ideal and the ideal is not the annihilation of the other side.
  7. Go to war with Iran, while financing the war in Ukraine. Of course, we should also eradicate North Korea while we are at it. Get rid of all of the evil in the world. As if all of this is free and without any regretful consequence. The potential for World War Three is being ignored. 1400 innocent Israelis have been killed, but part of it is due to Israeli negligence which one could argue: is still going on. The future animosity being created is not to the advantage of Israel. Relations with Israel and Arab countries were being normalized. Not anymore with the kind of massive killing that is going on in Gaza. We have fought the Taliban, trying to eradicate them with a giant coalition, Afghanistan is a far more backward country than Iran and now, after 20 years of fighting them and 2 trillion dollars spent, we are supporting the Taliban government's existence. Has the experience in Vietnam been already forgotten? That's an example of what the "eradication mindset" gets you. Hamas is staying in some form or another because they are the only Palestinian voice that Israel has heard and reacted to. It may or may not be dominant moving forward but it won't go away as long as they need to have a resistance movement. With all the revenge policy at work, the only solution is to better the lives of the Palestinians. It is a very bitter medicine but it is the only one that will work. Subjugation or ethnic cleansing won't work in this day and age. Getting rid of Iran is not as simple as you seem to think or it would have been done by now. Iran has 80 million people and most of the population can read and write because it is compulsory. Recall how they caused oil prices to spike with one cruise missile into Saudi Arabian oil fields. Their drone technology is advanced enough that they supply Russia with its war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, do you think that Russia and China will just watch their financial interests in Iran disappear without putting up some resistance?
  8. Nevertheless, the implication is that with the laws of physics, laws that "predict" the behavior of matter and energy, one cannot determine/predict what choice is going to be made by a human who consists of matter and energy. Either physics can't predict, or humans are not physical, or maybe physics can't predict "sometimes".
  9. What is the point of helping a nation that does not require any help? Based on what you have said there is no reason for the US to help Israel. You've made a strong case for that. Are you also going to make the case that Israel does not have a strong lobby in the US?
  10. Isn't the key element of human consciousness free will? If so, can a deterministic machine that mutates, in a sense be guided toward "free will" by its environment? Similar to human evolution.
  11. There is the question of how should Dogland or Catland behave, but there is also the question of how your nation "observing" react. It would be an interesting question regarding how an "Objectivist" leader of an "Objectivist" nation reacts. This could also be asked regarding a philosophy or religion (ideology). For instance, was 9/11 done by a group of terrorists that was not nation-sponsored? Did it justify attacks on Afghanistan where it did originate, and on Iraq where it did not? These are tiring questions that require stamina to discover their answer. But with all the previous irrationality that has gone on between the Israelis and the Palestinians, ultimately it would rest with the issue of who initiated and who was negligent in preventing. One has to find who was responsible and how can it be prevented in the future. Was the nation with the lone terrorist negligent in preventing such an attack, or was there a pervasive philosophy that encouraged such an attack where a nation represents that philosophy? There is a battle between the zionist philosophy and the Islamic Philosophy in the case of Hamas (Palestinians are not all Islamic)) As a reaction, the nation attacked, like a human being will simply react violently. It seems that some on this thread are arguing that anything goes. If anything goes, the road to annihilation is wide open. So "anything" can't go. That does not mean choosing altruism/self-sacrifice, only that "limits" are to one's benefit.
  12. Keep in mind the PLO wanted the destruction of Israel too, but the PLO was negotiated with. They were awful terrorists too. They changed. And of course, Israel was also created through terrorism against the British. Assuming Hamas were a pathological organization that would attack civilians at random without any provocation, then it would be a simple choice. It has to be destroyed. But if the process to destroy them will create a permanent state of war, negotiation ought to happen. If the choice was as simple as "destroy Hamas or don't" it would be simple but the action by Israel right now will not destroy Hamas. Hamas has to be destroyed internally by the Palestinians themselves. Hamas, as a resistance organization, is allowing for Palasteninans to be "heard" the only way possible, it is getting a reaction. If in the future, Palestinians are consistently ignored, this organization will live on as an option for Palestinians. In other words, the enemy has to be heard and a non-violent dialog created, otherwise, war is their only way of communicating. Is the invasion of Gaza a temper tantrum of the Israeli community or a well-thought-out plan ahead? Is there a method to the madness? Will this invasion of Gaza destroy Hamas? Will this massive destruction and loss of life be remembered by Palestineans as a lesson to not be heinous again, or as a focal point of hate ingrained in their history? If one can make the case that the current invasion will create harmonious communication, then the validity of the "eternal war" may have some legs. But Hamas is being Martyred, with many giving their lives for their people, so they will have more staying power. Israel in a sense has fallen into their trap. The choices are not simply to destroy Hamas or take no action.
  13. If all Palestinians are criminals, then they should lose their rights based on being human. This assumes that the "initiator of force" is clear ... and that all Palestinians are criminals. We know that Hamas operatives did their heinous deeds. What Hamas did was horrible. Meanwhile, what Israel is doing is horrible too with a much higher body count. The heinousness of an act does not necessarily determine your "rights". If it was a retaliation then the horror would have some justification. If it was not, it was a meaningless savage attack. First and foremost, the individual has to protect their rights. After that, it's the agency that they create, relinquishing that responsibility and giving it to the monopoly on force. This means that the way HAMAS was created is relevant. Israel was complicit in creating this so-called government (HAMAS) to weaken the political power that the PLO provided. It also contributed to the living conditions, with 2.5 million people blockaded on 3 sides. It was a chess move Israel made that contributed to this catastrophe. Did the Palestinian people have a "right" to an un interfered with Political process? Did they have the right to the PLO representing them? Mind you, the PLO is corrupt, but it does accept Israel's right to exist. Successive Israeli governments and settlers have harmed Palestinians too. This is assuming that Palestinians have rights. If Palestinians are human, then they have rights. After the Oslo Agreement (with the PLO), Palestinian claims have been ignored or sidelined. Assuming that one side does not have rights simply based on their civilization would allow conclusions that all individuals in communist systems, feudal countries, countries with kings or Queens, or Socialist or Fascist systems don't deserve natural rights. After all, their "system" is not civilized i.e. they are not civilized. Individuals are not programmed by their DNA to want to kill members of certain groups. We have free will. Each wants to flourish like any human. Palestinians will need to be considered human with associated rights to enable a mutually agreeable solution. One side being subhuman is succumbing to emotion.
  14. I have trouble with it because the physicalness of the brain implies "deterministic" i.e. the brain of Siri determines what Siri will do.
  15. What is the difference between knowledge vs. information? Is information the symbolic representation of knowledge? Is information being used to mean "valid information"?
  16. Does that not include those who can read and write??? The demonization of more than 5 million people (Palestinians) is akin to how the Jews were seen as sewer rats. That is nonsense. It's a contradiction. Following a philosophy without knowing the reason for it is valuing faith-based ethics. If that's what you're selling then you're definitely posting in the wrong forum.
  17. The unjustified hate usually comes from their success as a community. This was true of Armenians, Chinese, and Indians in Africa. They stick together, do business together, and help each other more than outsiders. Another other issue with Christians is that their messiah was not supported by the Jews. Finally, one would suspect any religious group that thinks they are the chosen one of the creator will get animosity from other "believers". If we are into outcomes, then the oil-rich countries, have great outcomes. Some have high levels of socialism like Norway, and some are feudal states with great healthcare and education for their "people" The question is not about Jewish people, it is regarding the behavior of the government of Israel which ultimately is run by a philosophy that is Zionism which will push it toward a faith-based ethnic bias toward "its" people. It was part of this blindness that allowed them to prop up Hamas to weaken the PLO. PLO had already accepted Israel's existence.
  18. However, some would argue that the current conflict is a minimal conflict, as only 1400 Israelis were murdered out of a country of 8 million. Or 1400 in the last ten years etc. Assuming the minimum is based on Body count. Then hasn't the strategy worked in keeping it at a minimum? Why is there such an overreaction? To make it minimal Israel could get rid of all Palestinians. As in Kill them all. Why is that not a solution openly advocated? A holocaust for different people. As long as we don't suffer a holocaust, it's okay for others to suffer one. They deserve it, we don't. But if Palestinians have hatred of Jews in their DNA, determined, guaranteed, then that is the proper ... final solution. I would assume that you would see that as immoral on some grounds. I would argue because there are good and bad amongst them. There are innocents involved. A strategy of getting children killed as collateral damage creates a world that Israelis don't want. Seething anger all around them ... forever ... toward all Jewish people. This whole thing has to be turned around and IT IS POSSIBLE.
  19. It's an untenable premise to say that China, Iran et. al. want to "destroy civilization". They can't because they would be destroyed themselves. (you might as well start out by saying they are all suicidal) They want to destroy the balance of power, they want more power. We currently have a mixture of statist/collectivist/altruistic ideologies (not originated by the axis of evil). "The enemy is here" in some sense within ourselves. But regarding this conflict, as far as statism goes, both sides in this conflict are fighting for a state that benefits them over the rights of others. Both believe their collective is in the right, both assert ownership as a collective. One single state that supports individual rights would suffice for both. Some in this thread are painting Palestinians as "permanent savages" that consider Jews as less than. The idea is that they can never change, the hate will never go away, etc. It may be true that some Palestinians are criminals but not all of them because such a society does NOT survive. Meanwhile, part of their belief system includes the first testament of the Jews. They believe in the same god, the god of Adam and Eve. They believe the same things all the way to Abraham. Now, are we to emphasize that they're both irrational or that they have something in common? Both sides are human before they are religious. As humans, there is a conflict of interest, a conflict about collective ownership. As humans, they both have a rational capability and this problem is solvable. Not simple, but solvable. We know the solution, "one state or multiple states ... that respect individual rights" where ownership and "rights" are not collectively dolled out based on your DNA or religious affiliation and where no one may initiate force. There will come a time when the war will stop. Some on both sides will still want revenge. But those people will have to make peace within themselves as the world moves on.
  20. Hamas, the organization, the bureaucracy is the evil segment of the Palestinian population. It is a segment. And it is in control. The settlers that kill Palestinians are Israeli citizens. A segment. They don't represent all of Israel. The right-wing government of Sharon onward etc. has been a segment in control. Voted in like Hamas. Now there is no moral equivalency at one particular time or another. Each committed something horrible, ultimately bombing babies versus chopping their heads off. Right now babies are being pulled out of the rubble in Gaza as one can watch the video. No one chopped their heads, they were crushed under the rubble. There is no moral equivalency there? Maybe not exactly equal but there is quite a bit. Each offense did not elicit an immediate reaction from the other side at that time. But in aggregate, you have two segments that are "representing" the whole and punishing innocents of the other side and using retaliation as justification. If we look at the whole picture as collectives, Israel looks better. A more Western culture, modern, productive, etc. But the conflict is about ownership. Who does the land belong to? Does it belong to some ethno-religious people who claim their religion as their ownership right? Just because some countries, the leaders claim their territory as being a particular religion, India saying Hindu, Saudi Arabia saying, Sunni Islam, Malaysian Bhudists, or northern Irish Protestants claiming the land for their people is not a support for individual rights. At its core Zionism has this fault. This irrational foundation has and will cause wars and will cause people to dislike the Jewish people forever.
  21. I assume you don't really mean this. At least in the long run. In the short run, I could see an argument like "We will fight to achieve a lasting peace". War as a means to it. Because the way it's worded it implies that you are for perpetual war and I suspect you are not for perpetual war. We used to be in fear of nuclear war, potentially with a very totalitarian regime (the Soviet Union). We coexist with North Korea et al. We have survived successfully "considering" those totalitarian regimes. And closer to this conflict, there has been lasting peace with Egypt and to some extent with the PLO. The issue is: Can you get a lasting agreement where there will be no physical violence (for the most part and from the majority in each group)? This has to be the goal. You can't lose sight of it. Otherwise, you're suggesting what Hamas wants in reverse. Israel cannot convert Muslims, I'll grant you that. But we live with people all around us who have internal conflicts. It is to our benefit to not infuriate them when they will live separate lives. Now in the case of a criminal, we should use force. You are correct that individual Hamas members, especially those who perpetrated the attack should be killed. I would not disagree. It's the issue of the long term that HAS to be dealt with. If we are effective in planning the long term, "peace" has to be part of the conversation. The fundamental disagreement that we are having seems to be centered around our understanding of the nature of each of the combatants. That one side is permanently and perpetually warlike and the other is peaceful. I would argue that both sides have been on a war stance since the start. Both claiming defense. Both claim retaliation. Now those claims will not change. And here is where the aggression starts. With this assertion. With this belief. If you had said for the most part it is not proven to be totalitarian, you might have had a point, but to say that there is NOTHING totalitarian about it, a government based on religion? I mean, it's obvious. Of course, there's going to be some totalitarianism. At its core it is faith-based. Now if Israel was not a Jewish state, supporting individual rights, then there would be nothing totalitarian about Zionism. But then, that's not Zionism.
  22. The way you look at the situation is based on two collectives in conflict with each other. Not that it is entirely invalid, but the nuances will not be seen and the solution will not be available. PLO also was dedicated to wiping out Israel. And by default, Israel progressively has ended up "wiping out" the "many" of the other side. At a minimum, Palestinians are a second-class citizen in their own land. The right-wing governments ever since Sharon have not used the carrot as much as the previous ones. They became more and more hardline when they saw they could get away with it. That is primarily what the world is reacting to. Palestinians did not reject the 2 state solution, they did not agree to the deal put in front of them. Otherwise, they would not even have come to the negotiating table. The "Foul" that the world cries is because the Palestinians have no voice anymore and have been treated that way by Israel (collectively through these series of governments). The strong have won militarily and subjugated the "other". The US did not do that in Japan or Germany after so many of its (American) citizens were killed. Your knee-jerk reaction to destroy Gaza will end up being a long-term problem. At least acknowledge that it is a hard problem to solve.
  23. If my neighbor without any provocation, initiated force for no reason, then I would retaliate the only way that I can. But if I have provoked them, or I have in fact enraged them, then I'm being stupid or insensitive or at worst pathological. The history of this war has both sides, as a whole, enraging the other. Zionism at that beginning was an initiation of force. This land is ours because "of our religion" does not make sense. But now that we have a more advanced country that has similar values to the West, you would be better off supporting Israel. This is the current logic used apparently that won't solve the problem. Once both sides have a majority that deals with the fact that the cycle of violence is not in their best interest, they will come up with something that works. Both sides are vulnerable. Both sides can kill many innocents of the other side. There have been problems created by Israelis too, for instance: "Between January and November 2008, 515 criminal suits were opened by Israel against settlers for violence against Arabs or Israeli security forces; 502 of these involved "right wing radicals" while 13 involved "left wing anarchists".[7][8] In 2008, the senior Israeli commander in the West Bank said that a hard core of a few hundred activists were involved in violence against the Palestinians and Israeli soldiers.[9]" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israeli_settler_violence But even before that, you had the Irgun, the terrorist organization that would empty out the country of Palestinians who had lived there for centuries. Now having said that, it does not justify what Hamas has done. It only illuminates the problem itself which is collective punishment used by both sides. Ultimately the Palestinians will purge the "violent ones" if they see it will benefit them. The way it is right now, the peaceful Palestinian leadership did not benefit them, as the PLO has little authority anymore. Most Israelis will live side by side and most Palestinians would too. But the inability to bridge the gap, which is emotional, will not allow it. You have a right to be angry, something horrific has happened. The problem is that your line of argument, your proposals, and your solution will not work in the long run.
  24. But are you going to get rid of them by enraging those who could in fact make peace with you? Most Palestinians are going to be like anyone else, they don't want war and will compromise. To paint them all as being evil is implying they are not human. This is also the case with all those other countries that you mention. Once you see them as collectively evil, there is NO solution except mutual annihilation in this case. Like Israel is good and Plastenians and their 1 billion supporters are all evil. World War three is around the corner.
  25. You sound like you see an obvious solution. What is it? Since killing 100 Palestinians is required to get each Hamas leader, I would assume there are around 1000 Hamas leaders in Gaza. That would mean killing 100,000 non-combatants to get those 1000 people. This is a low estimate, the implication being that Israel will simply perpetuate the animosity which will grow with enemies that will gather strength in disparate parts of the world. In this sense, Israel lost this public relations war against these Kamakazi forces before it started. It became far too confident about the chess game it was playing. If there is a realistic long-term solution, it has to be created on the negotiating table. Multiple Muslim countries normalized relations with Israel when it was thought to be impossible. Israel currently gets half of its oil from a Muslim country (Azerbaijan). People will bring up the fact that Hamas's charter says Israel should not exist. But they forgot that the PLO's charter said the same thing yet negotiations were successful and their charter changed. I don't deny that the attack by Hamas was heinous and uncalled for, unjustified, savage, horrific, and evil. But it did not grow for years into this kind of sophisticated savagery without any provocation.
×
×
  • Create New...