softwareNerd
-
Posts
13320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
232
Posts posted by softwareNerd
-
-
On 11/23/2019 at 5:15 PM, Jose said:
But once we introduce fillings (an subjective criteria) the decision is trivial. What is the Objectivists way to see this scenario?
Is it likely that these feelings are totally arbitrary? How is that even possible? Can you think of any real-life situation that is somewhat close to your exampl? Then give us some insight ... ... in that real-life example: why did you feel that way?
-
On 11/17/2019 at 10:26 PM, Ali Shannon said:
I don't think that there is something wrong with liking or disliking anything. That is up to you to value what your independent mind deems valuable. I would only object to taking pride of what your country or your culture has achieved. The only thing I would be proud of is my own achievements in my life, not the achievement of others.
Yes, it's quite routine for people to take pride in stuff they played no role in, and would even have actively worked against. They do this because they identify closely with the target of their pride, and they think something along the lines of "someone enacting values like mine" did something good.
Too often, this becomes "people like me did...", or "people who live near me did..." of even "people who live nearby 200 years ago did...". As an *emotion* this is just natural consequence of the core question: who am I? If you think of yourself as a American, mid-western, Christian... the emotion of pride is natural when another mid-westerner, American or Christian does something good.
Of course, just because one feels an emotion does not mean the core assumptions are right. That's what one needs to question: who am I? -
On 11/15/2019 at 10:27 PM, StrictlyLogical said:
SoftwareNerd
...
If any of you would like to have a 1on 1 or 4 way discussion on this topic, please PM me.
To be honest, I do not understand the question/hypothesis/proposition... that's why I figured I could not post anything else that would be coherent.
-
14 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:
This apple orange tree is unique. It’s code must be Objective and abstract, but it is literally impossible for it to apply universally to any other existing tree. In the abstract sense it does apply to any tree of its kind including all possible futures for it, and any other apple orange tree if ever created.
Your morality is not quite the same existent as what a philosopher, building a system, refers to as morality because yours only applies to you, whereas the philosopher tries to offer up something for all mankind.
The basic you make about what one must think about is valid. One must think about that one tree. However, that's not really a "moral code" for that tree. At least not the general use of the concept "moral code".
My point here is not about morality or even philosophy, as such. It's equally about (say) biology. One can take the word "biology" and use it to talk about the particular biology of a tree. However, that's just to use the same term fro two different concepts. There would still be a science of biology that studies trees, and can talk about trees that do not even exist today. -
7 hours ago, StrictlyLogical said:
I’m surprised and a little disappointed no one has rushed in with a clear, complete, and logically iron clad exposition proving that the position the Objectivist friend is correct.
While I completely understand the value of presenting the OP in a narrative style, I am actually not clear enough about the proposition to offer an opinion one way or the other. Or maybe I understand, but the narrative approach makes me wonder if they're the propositions you actually intend.
So, let me summarize the proposition on the table, and you tell me if I got it right, or if I'm misreading this completely.:
- There's an individual tree for which we want to devise a moral code
- That moral code should not be for all trees in general, but for that specific tree
Is this what's on the table?
The reason I'm unsure is that seems obvious that a moral code that intends to make an individual tree flourish can only do so if it is geared toward that individual tree. Yet, it leaves open a couple of questions about what we mean by moral code... how abstract it is...and so on. -
On 11/10/2019 at 4:08 PM, StrictlyLogical said:
No your Objectivist friend has said something much more radical and/or less straightforward... he says your approach IS deficient...
Maybe he can has studied the local environment, and the potential changes, and is thus able to reasonably predict the future scenarios that this particular tree is going to encounter?
-
50 minutes ago, StrictlyLogical said:
NOW, WHAT HE SAID WAS....
Hmm... I'm waiting to see what this guy comes up with.
-
2 hours ago, Wayne said:
Rand appreciated and understood America and the American people. Some people, in my estimation, do not really understand the American people.
How would you summarize "American people"?
-
Hello.
Thank you for sharing your story.
Chances are that the Islamic world will secularize, the way the Christian world did, perhaps looking back at people like Ibn Sina for inspiration, the way secular Christians adopted people like Aristotle. But, so glad you're out of that part of the world, and able to pursue a life where you have so many more choices available.
All the best to you
-
Alongside Victor Hugo, Rand classified Dostoyevsky as a Romantic Realist. Most authors want to portray heroes, not just evil characters. So, it is easy to mistake this usually-present aspect for the essential characteristic. But, the essential characteristic of Romanticism (i.e. Rand's concept of it) is: volitional thought and action.
-
4 hours ago, whYNOT said:
In the final analysis, romantic art depicts man as he could be/should be.
Nope. Not by Rand's definition. The book can be about extremely evil people, and nothing else, and it would still be Romantic Realism.
-
22 hours ago, whYNOT said:
..., there are certainly some characters in Rand's fiction who were initially "flawed" but realized 'the error of their ways
Yeah, that's why I mentioned Rearden, Mallory and Dominique.
22 hours ago, whYNOT said:That free will concept is the essence of Romantic Realism in art, as you know, and it must mean that 'Naturalist' acts have to be minimized and human flaws to not be the defining feature of men .
This might be Rand's major aesthetic shortcoming: to think that depicting the final outcome in a character is better than depicting the process. To depict the "perfect hero" as being in a state where he has already gone through the volitional internal mental processes and struggles, before the reader encounters him... I think that's an aesthetic error, and the main non-Romantic Realist aspect of her fiction.
22 hours ago, whYNOT said:The one "perfect" man in her writing is John Galt.
I don't see him as being more aesthetically perfect even compared to Francisco -- who is portrayed as pretty damned flawless.
-
On 10/17/2019 at 1:32 AM, cachi said:
Having read Atlas Shrugged, I think one common critique is that the characters are caricatures --...
There's a sense in which they are. Rand wanted her heroes to be perfect. So, it would not be enough to give Howard Roark his single-minded passion and rationality; she also had to have him be right in his choices.
Rationality can lead to the "right" conclusion in the sense that it is the conclusion that all the available evidence, known to the decider at that point in time. points to that conclusion. Unfortunately, this is not how reality works: rationality does not lead to coming to the "retrospectively-right" conclusion 100% of the time. Rational people have to re-evaluate, correct mistake, an change path all the time. This is something that Rand's writing misses.Further, humans are not rational in every moment. We are rational animals... not just rational "beings". Our rationality allows us to be alert about our "animal" impulses and our irrational biases, and allows us to correct conclusions and actions that arise from them. So, once again, the process is not smooth.
If you look at some of Rand's positive characters: Rearden is often used as an example, but you have Dominque and Steve Mallory and so on... then Rand does give them some flaws and idiosyncrasies. But, she seems to have had this idea that the hero should be flawless.
So, if you want to look for a Howard Roark in the real world, ask yourself if the real world has got people who have a single-minded vision, and pursued it against contemporary advice, and had to fight all sort of battles, but came out vindicated and successful in the end. Turn on the NPR "How I Built This" podcast, and you should find a few examples. -
19th century:
- Alexander Dumas (e.g. Count of Monte Cristo)
- Mark Twain
- Harry Beecher Stowe (Uncle Tom's Cabin)
- Nathaniel Hawthorn
-
On 8/15/2019 at 5:20 PM, StrictlyLogical said:
Just curious.
As someone familiar with Objective concepts, from the myriad of choices, why do you call your visual art works "Paintings"?
Could you clarify...what would you call them? What choices are you thinking of here?
-
If Ethics brought you to Objectivism, the "Virtue of Selfishness" (VoS) would seem like a good place to go next.
However, I would echo Reidy and suggest you read fiction first, at least The Fountainhead. My sense is that reading Fountainhead before Virtue of Selfishness allows the book to function a bit more like fiction is supposed to, whereas reading VoS right before The Fountainhead can remove some of the mystery and discovery that a reader feels as the plot unfolds. -
-
8 hours ago, MisterSwig said:
The ecological part is his basic, metaphysical view (overpopulation depletes resources and ruins the environment); ...
I don't get that from reading his manifesto.
-
Opening paragraph from the murderer's manifesto:
"In general, I support the Christchurch shooter and his manifesto. This attack is a response to the Hispanic invasion of Texas. They are the instigators, not me. I am simply defending my country from cultural and ethnic replacement brought on by an invasion. Some people will think this statement is hypocritical because of the nearly complete ethnic and cultural destruction brought to the Native Americans by our European ancestors, but this just reinforces my point. The natives didn’t take the invasion of Europeans seriously, and now what’s left is just a shadow of what was. My motives for this attack are not at all personal. Actually the Hispanic community was not my target before I read The Great Replacement. This manifesto will cover the political and economic reasons behind the attack, my gear, my expectations of what response this will generate and my personal motivations and thoughts." -
8 hours ago, whYNOT said:
I would be keen to read an Objectivist analysis of Popper's theory. Falsification looks quite trivial to me, but I probably don't understand it.
There are some older topics on the forum:
-
1 hour ago, SharrySteve1 said:
Not even a bot, let alone sophisticated :☺️
Here's a list of virtues, according to Rand. it starts with the shortest summary, from Rand's short essay on Objectivist Ethics, published in "The Virtue of Selfishness":"The three cardinal values of the Objectivist ethics ... are: Reason, Purpose, Self-esteem, with their three corresponding virtues: Rationality, Productiveness, Pride."
-
Why are you linking to Islamic Dua page?
Are you a sophisticated advertising bot? -
On 7/7/2019 at 5:54 PM, Jose said:
I love when people are as insightful in their comments. If there is something that you do not understand I am more than happy to explain, but if you base your comments in insults they are not helpful to say the least.
I've got my popcorn ready to see what crap you come up with.
-
1 hour ago, Jose said:
It is even easier to prove And wrong ... in just three steps:
1 Made them agree that a system do not support having contradictions
2 Point to any contradiction in science. Like the one about entitlement and information traveling faster than light
3 Grab popcorn and enjoy watching them strogle
0. Appear coherent
Can’t find a way to take a decision using just objective criteria)))
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
As stated, this has already moved toward being completely arbitrary, to being a potentially objective. "Objective" here means that one considers the the facts about the restaurant and about yourself. For instance, maybe the chairs are average size, but you're a big person and the other restaurant has oversized chairs.
And, that's not to say you will always know your reasons... perhaps the chairs are upholstered in yellow, and you just hate the look. Yes, one can spend the time introspecting where your tastes come from, and whether they make sense...but, given that you have those taste, the decision to avoid the yellow chairs is still objective. Objective does not mean right/correct... because one could be using incorrect facts about either the object or the subject... It just means considering both those aspects.