Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Easy Truth

  1. How near are we to socialized medicine?

    If you go further, why would it end at New Zealand? Eventually, they will choose it too, if they haven't already. Unless it becomes so bad that it is clearly and obviously not working well, it will likely spread all over the world. Already I hear "if advanced Europen countries have it, it is good".The problem with it is not obvious, it is not impartially measured. Only people who are in major trouble medically speaking, see the differences in quality of medical care. We can't evade the truth that most Canadians or UK citizens are not rebelling against it. Most Canadians that I meet are satisfied with it. It is only the ones that have very serious conditions needing innovative solutions that don't like the Canadian System. The pre-Obamacare failure of the US system was due to regulations that have caused prices to rise and prevention of competition, which made Obamacare attractive. If Obamacare is repealed you still end up with the underlying problem. There are licensing and anti-competitive issues that are supported by groups using scare tactics. The licensing and regulations regarding educating doctors and approving treatments have artificially driven prices up. For instance, nurses could do many things a doctor does which could bring the price down but legally are prevented. A doctor from another country is prevented from practicing if there are willing clients etc. etc.
  2. We usually treat arbitrary as false. If someone told me there is a green man in your car in the garage, and I asked him why do you say that and he says "No reason, I just imagined it", I would assess that as being arbitrary. But I would treat it as false, not neither true or false. In other words, by ignoring it, I would be affirming that it is not true. There are no three states, true, false, or arbitrary. If on the other hand, I got an anonymous call saying there is a green man in my car, I may go an check. By default, I am treating that as true. The source of the information has a lot of bearing on if it has evidence or not. A credible source is evidence, isn't it? Although, in this case, credibility is indeterminable. "According to Objectivism, such a claim is not to be regarded as true or as false". "it is simply to be dismissed as though it hadn’t come up". I notice people will say "that is arbitrary" and engage in disproving the claim. Similar to how I behave (which I am questioning). But isn't the answer to the question of if something arbitrary exists "I have no way of knowing it right now?" Unless ignoring it means ignore it in your own thought process. An arbitrary fact would be one obtained without any method of identification or classification according to the attributes which a consciousness observes in reality. Does that mean that to prove that something was arbitrary, one must prove a negative? That one must go through all possible methods of identification or classification and show that none were used? How else can it be proved?
  3. Truth

    That definition can work but any valid definition of truth will be rejected by someone who is irrational. In other words, the OP would be correct to say that "it is impossible to define accurately" to someone who is irrational. Truth is the recognition of reality; reason, man’s only means of knowledge, is his only standard of truth.
  4. You should choose to live

    I was expecting someone to ask "What about a life that is in fact not worth living?" I believe I saw a lecture by Journo from ARI where he seemed to emphasize that well-being was the focus and not just life. It is simpler to apply the idea that "my well-being" is the goal, rather than simply "my existing". One has a more motivational effect than the other. But from a broad view, the fundamental choice is to exist or not to. Non-existence is a concept that can't be experienced. It is only a concept. A person who wants to commit suicide is after "relief", from pain, looking for a sleep that has no dreaming involved. I doubt if anyone would choose a purposeless absence of pleasure. Wouldn't that be immoral?
  5. False concept

    I understand it for many of the cases I see but not for the word "nothing" or "nothingness". I don't think one can eventually reduce that to a concrete. I was also wondering about artistic concepts. LIke "John Galt" for instance. That is a concept that we are familiar and use all the time. I suppose we can make the case the abstraction is regarding a man, and man has concrete examples. I was in a discussion group where I was told that the "perfect triangle" does not exist. But because the concrete "triangle" exists, I can see that this abstraction can be an abstraction of another abstraction.
  6. False concept

    I have a question about certain types of concepts that must have a category but I don't see it. I have seen "floating concept", "false concept", "anti-concept" but there is a type of concept that is useful yet does not exist, not real, like infinity, omniscience, infallibility, omnipotence, nothing, zero, an imaginary number. Where do concepts like these belong? They are valid in a sense yet there is no concrete that corresponds to them. I was going to add selfless but it does not fit. selfless (this is in a different category as it is a contradiction but useful to some people)
  7. You don't mean this. I would expect someone who believes in altruism to say that. It sounds like "everyone's life is important, don't think yours is".
  8. What Is Subjectivism?

    I would appreciate more examples. I thought an example of subjectivism is a someone who says, you have your reality and I have mine. That we can disagree because there is no one reality. And therefore that there are many truths, not just one.
  9. With objectivity, we give our self the best chance of knowing the absolute truth. One cannot delve deep into every area of reality. Some things are and will be accepted at face value by each one of us. Even if we are committed to being objective, we have to stop delving and confirming at some point. When one is committing to being objective and open to examining every area, it is finite, within reason. Many things are accepted uncritically. We can't know everything to the point of infallibility. We won't put much effort in certain areas but walk away with superficial facts. It is, in fact, the best choice. You can't read every book in the library. You have to live with some of your cursory assumptions in certain areas. With objectivity, we only give our self the best chance of obtaining the truth. But the knowledge we have is limited, fallible. Which means it is different from absolute reality. Which means it is different from each other.
  10. In the introduction to "The Romantic Manifesto" Rand does say: “Anyone who fights for the future, lives in it today.” But what if you can live Posterity now?
  11. I am trying to understand ... The idea of asteroids acting like billiard balls under collisions is the "efficient cause" conception of causation, and Objectivism has a better approach. It seems the approach is the answer to the question "why" in a restricted way. The ball is rolling. Let us say Billard Ball A was moving and collided with Ball B. A change in some of the balls' attributes, its position and particular changes in its appearance as it is changing its location. Are the two billiard balls considered an entity? Is the system, the who billiards table the entity? Is an action colliding? Is an action being hit? I am trying to find out how to explain, using Objectivist terminology, why did ball B move when it was hit by ball A? Was ball A, the cause of the motion of ball B? Is the connection seen between ball A's motion and ball B's motion purely inductive? That ball A's motion did not cause ball B's motion? Another example ... My car is not running, the mechanic might say that the wearing out of a part caused it to die. Here is a an action causing an action "wearing out" and "dying". Most people would understand that explanation. We can object and say what was the entity that wore out and he will say the alternator. And we can correct him by saying that we have to change the attributes in the alternator to fix the car. Is that correct? He will say we will cause the car to run by fixing it. So fixing it will be the cause of the car running. Two actions "fixing" and "running". I am just trying to learn, how would you show causality in the objectivist way?
  12. Why Objectivism is so unpopular

    Yes it is an unknown ideal, the proof is in the pudding: Obamacare Isn't an unknown ideal, not that popular?
  13. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    I agree with what you said but I don't know what your last sentence means exactly.
  14. Why Objectivism is so unpopular

    Why do you think that Eiuol, isn't the self-improvement market huge? The problem starts from Rand's combative style. I saw a video where Tibor Machan justified her abrasiveness because of what people had put her through. Nevertheless, she was abrasive. But things have changed it seems, nowadays, I notice both Yaron Brook, (who successfully gave his presentations in a Muslim nation, at Baku) is spreading the information and is now being inclusive of Libertarians. And the Atlas Society is deliberately opening their doors to Christians if I am not wrong. I think the CEO is close friends with Laura Ingram who is religious and maybe that had an impact. When I try to introduce people to objectivism, the last thing I want to show them is that video. Many of my objectivist circle were disappointed with his delivery and I never saw him do a public TV appearance after that. Just the way he starts with "I am absolutely not concerned with innocents ... etc" is going to freak people out. I assume he had no PR person watching out for him. But as Nathaniel said after her death, history will prove her right.
  15. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    An abstraction exists, in a way. It is an aspect of reality. Yes, I can agree to that. I am stuck on "in a way". I wish there was a word or phrase that corresponds with "that way", "that sense", from "that perspective". I know in what way it is not existing. An abstraction isn't a substance. But I agree that it is inseparable from the identity of something. Does every concrete have an abstraction referring to it?
  16. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    All of man exists in reality? or All of "a" man exists in reality?
  17. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Can you elaborate on this or help me find more information on the two relations you refer to. For now, I assume that the nature of something is not the definition. Sort of like the words used to define something is not the same as the thing itself. Not sure if I got this right. As far as A being identical to B does not mean that A causes B, I get that.
  18. Yes, I just experienced a similar paradox in another thread. So part of, or an aspect of identity (the identity of something) is the abstractions referring to it? But it is not an attribute like redness or hotness. Another question, is "existence is" a concrete as opposed to "existence"?
  19. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Then you will have to clarify "in what way?" Doesn't it hinge on the question of "does the content of consciousness metaphysically exist?" My understanding is that it is not out there but inside you.
  20. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    I see that using the logic of the sentence above, one could come up with that conclusion. I assume there is a more elegant counter to this than I will make. Nevertheless, I will try. We have to define our terms. What does "man exists" mean? Does that mean "the abstraction man" exists? Or does it mean "there are any instances of what this abstraction refers to that exist". If it means "the abstraction man" exists, then the conclusion you propose would be right. But it does not mean that. To prove that men exist, one would have to show some men, somewhere or at some time in the universe. If they never ever existed, no consciousness could have generated that abstraction. The abstraction man can't exist if it is not referring to anything. The second part of the sentence, "man is an abstraction" is not complete. It implies that man is ONLY an abstraction. That is one of many contexts and perspectives. That aspect of man that is abstract, does not exist metaphysically speaking. The aspect of anything that is abstract, does not exist in the metaphysical world. I will go with this for now.
  21. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    No, I was interested in why you concluded what you did? And sure, what is your reasoning that abstractions exist.
  22. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    You are right. "The concept Man still refers to all humans regardless of whether or not this or that person has realized it or not". My bad. They would not. That would be a contradiction if they did.
  23. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    No, for instance, someone who has never met another human would not generate that abstraction. You have to see more than one to generate the abstraction. Things exist, even if there are no abstractions that refer to them.