Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Lemuel

Regulars
  • Posts

    327
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Lemuel

  1. I think it was a simplistic reaction on their part, one that ignored or wasn't aware of the implications. They saw the absurdity, but didn't see the meaning behind it. Revulsion or laughter is a response to one's own interpretation, and it's possible that on some level one could see the full philosophical meaning and laugh in contempt of the absurdity of it. However, context applies, and my own reaction of terror was placed fully within the context of the film. In any serious work of fiction I enjoy suspending disbelief and temporarily giving myself to the filmmaker, especially in this case. Nolan proved something very worthwhile with Batman Begins, and I saw The Dark Knight twice this weekend - I'm confident that my suspension of disbelief was justified, and that my reaction to the Joker was proper within that context. Further, it's true that in reality, the nihilist could follow the logic of his ideas and off himself as a demonstration. But I know of no one that ever accused nihilists of being logical.
  2. The only "flaw" I see is that this very much seems like the second of three films. The saga needs a third act, not to redeem TDK, but to finish the story. I feel the same way after TDK as I do when I get to the scene when Dagny crashes in Galt's Gulch in Atlas Shrugged. By facing the Joker, someone who pushed Batman into a moral corner, Wayne was shown the true personification of evil, someone who just wanted to "watch the world burn." This prepares him for what he must do in fighting crime in the future. To this end, I am sure that - properly done - a third film would complete the saga and firm up the philosophical underpinnings. Aside from that, TDK is a brilliant movie in my opinion. Ledger's Joker was absolutely terrifying. That the audience laughed at him at several points made me think they missed the point. But Joker's quest for chaos isn't a silly pass time - he's philosophically committed to the destruction of that which is valuable to everyone, just as committed as Wayne is to re-establishing justice and rebuilding Gotham.
  3. Since I have no one to say these words aloud to, this seems an appropriate place to repeat them ... "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." Happy Independence Day!
  4. There's nowhere to get lost, though - you're at an axiomatic dead-end. I agree with David Odden that you have to throw the question badk at them, but I don't think logical proofs are the method; remember, you're dealing with faith here, not reason. I'd try a little Columbo routine, assuming the conversation goes something like this: Him - "Prove that God doesn't exist." Me - "I can't, because it's an impossible task. The burden of proof is on you, since you claim *He does." Him - "You're claiming he doesn't; the burden of proof is on you." Me - "Well, I'm not sure how to do that. Perhaps you can help: can you prove to me that Santa Claus isn't real?" * I only use the capitalization to denote what I'm referencing. It is not intended as a sign of respect. Or, you could try changing the rules of the argument. He's got you at a philosophical dead-end, and you don't know how to respond because there is no way to respond. So, step out of the metaphysical issue of God's existence/nonexistence, and step into the epistemic realm of his belief in God. This puts him in a defensive position: Him - "Prove that God doesn't exist." Me - "I can't do that, but without any proof - something that cannot be explained by anything other than by God's alleged existence - I can't believe He exists. How do you know He does?" - - Don't worry about "winning" the argument or convincing the other person; that just isn't going to happen. For every answer, explanation, or analysis you offer, they're going to have their own answers. They won't be rational ones, but they'll be whatever the person needs to think in order to maintain his belief.
  5. Anarchy isn't freedom, and freedom isn't anarchy. Anarchy is the result of an absence of any moral standard within a group of people. It is a condition in which one man may harm another with no consequence, save for the retaliatory whim of his victim. No peace can be sustained in anarchy if one person acts against another in such a manner, and soon a system evolves where the one with the biggest stick makes the rules. Essentially, anarchy begets tyranny - it's probably the fastest means to tyranny, since there are no boundaries within which a power-seeker must cleverly navigate to achieve domination over others without being noticed. Freedom, on the other hand, is the condition in which men assert their rights, which means they may act in whatever manner they wish so long as they do not violate the rights of others. This necessitates an agency to establish standards and procedures of justice someone's rights have been violated, i.e. a proper government. A proper government defends individual rights, and does not violate them, lest it become the tyranny it is charged with preventing. The "limits" to freedom in a capitalist society aren't really limits, but a recognition of non-freedoms. You are not free to steal from someone; you are free to protect your property from a thief - stealing is not a right, protecting your privacy is. Thus, if you ever hear of anyone associate Ayn Rand or Objectivism with "anarcho-capitalism", they're exhibiting a strong misunderstanding of Rand, Objectivism, capitalism, and anarchy. It's a non-concept and a contradiction in terms, and as such cannot be made manifest in reality.
  6. Point of order: does the Pope even have authority off-world? Someone should consult the Queen Spider ... the Gelgameks might have a problem with that.
  7. Lemuel

    Maelstrom

    Perhaps I'm misunderstanding, but some of the things you said warrant responses, so here goes: There are no lists of concrete rules for dating, but to say dating does not involve ethics is a little troubling. Dating, like all actions, requires a person to establish a set of morals that will guide you to your goal. Considering that your goal is presumably establishing a long-term relationship with someone, you must demonstrate the best in yourself and discover ways in which your interest can do the same. It's easier when (presumably) she's is a friend or acquaintance first than if she's someone you barely know, and it's easier if all you want is a casual relationship than if you're goal is marriage. That's the context. The "rules" are of your choosing, but the general ethics must be based on a rational desire to be your best, be worthy of her admiration, and to admire the best within her. And, of course, your desire - and hers - must be selfish. ... which requires an ethical standard of your own to express. The particular actions can change, of course, but the underlying desire to - as you say - lift each other up is the ethical standard upon which all behaviors rest. As an example, early in a relationship I want to present myself in the best light possible, so I pay closer attention to my appearance and the appearance of my home. Once I've passed the point where these things seem trivial, a little clutter or skipping a day shaving is unimportant. I'm not a slob; cleanliness and orderliness are values of mine, but I can relax to a standard closer to my everyday "single" life and it won't count against me in any way. The ethical standard - cleanliness, organization - is there all the time, but the context - impressing a potential lover - determines the level to which I pay attention to these things. It's not out of a sense of insecurity, nor would I be attracted long to a woman who would refuse to be seen with me if I'm not always dressed to the nines; it's because I want, for my sake, to feel and appear attractive (which isn't a high priority when I'm not "wookin' pa nub").
  8. I don't think Iron Man was explicitly O-friendly, but it wasn't nearly O-hostile, either - since neither was the intent of the filmmakers, I think it's up to the individual to take what he can from it. I really like the character of Tony Stark, and loved reading Iron Man comics as a kid. I'm relieved that the movie adaptation did not address Stark's alcoholism, yet I'm a little disappointed that the demonstrated character traits weren't stressed more. I would like to have seen a more substantive transformation after his capture than was portrayed - more reckless playboy before, and more determined hero after - but I blame the script-writers for that, not Robert Downey, Jr. In fact, that's the only real problem I had with Iron Man: the script. Given what a long-shot it is for any movie to be intentionally Objectivist in nature, I don't expect that in films; but I do like anything that may relate to Objectivist aesthetics, and I think - with a little effort and perspective (it's just a movie) - Iron Man can be viewed as a great way to spend a couple of relaxing hours on a hot summer afternoon.
  9. The element of your failure to protect what you're doing ahead of time, such as a non-disclosure agreement, which exists to provide contractual incentive for your partner - regardless of how much you trust him on a handshake - from using the information against you, or spilling the beans to a competitor. The element of your ignoring the neighbor's car without any means of providing objective evidence that you'd never seen those designs before. Logically, you'd be making a claim of "no access", but there's no way to prove it. Of course, other factors come into play, such as the creative value of the product of intellectual property. Comics often complain about joke-stealing, but there are actually somewhat objective criteria for judging whether a joke is an off-the-cuff smart-ass comment that anyone would make, or whether it's a very original, imaginative 'bit' born of an established comic's style and content. The same goes for the difference between a simply-designed car decal and, say, an elaborate ad campaign design concept. No, it isn't. You can't own a fact any more than you can own a portion of sunlight. Intellectual property is intellectual in nature, meaning that there is a deliberate and active process of thought that establishes facts, integrates them into concepts, and applies those concepts in unique ways. You can "protect" your new idea by not speaking of it, or ever translating it into physical reality, but if it's not very complex, someone else is going to think of it eventually. If you do translate it into reality, though, you can protect it with a patent, which prevents others from profiting on what was first your product. Your intelligence, inventiveness, and morality as an inventor will determine if it's something as easily duplicated as a microwave bacon tree, or as radical as a motor that runs on atmospheric static electricity. The better you are, and the more complex your invention/song/design/etc., the easier it is to protect it.
  10. Powerful work ... I like "Stella Novella" as well, Aesthete.
  11. While steeped in quantum physics, I really like Stephen Baxter's books because he does rely on hard science. I'd love for Manifold: Space to be made into a movie. The story follows Reid Malenfant, who, after being washed out of NASA (irrationally), becomes an aerospace industrialist. When a strange anomaly is discovered on a nearby stable asteroid (Cruithne), he builds his own spacecraft out in the desert and launches to investigate. The government, once they figure out his plan, takes great measure to stop him. Unfazed, Malenfant pursues his goal with passion and dedication. I also like the works of Jack McDevitt - not the brainiest of sci-fi, but his are great stories with heroic characters. One would have to work in more plot when doing so, but adaptations of some Arthur Clarke novels would be nice, too, as would more robot stories from Asimov. Even though it's fantasy and not sci-fi, Terry Goodkind's books would be awesome in the hands of the right director; Paul Greengrass (The Bourne Identity, United 93) would be my first choice.
  12. Yes, and probably. I've claimed agnosticism in convenient circumstances, when the value of doing something else is more important than getting into an emotionally charged metaphysical debate. With those I know I can have a level conversation with, mainly those who know me well before we talk about religion, I don't mind discussing atheism, but to me it's really not worth talking about: a non-value won't "cancel" a value in the minds of the faithful. It's best (for me) to live Objectively, demonstrate rational principles in action, and when the opportunity arises with friends I'll usually approach non-belief in God with the same non-enthusiasm as I'd approach non-belief in Santa Claus, then go about my day. I haven't had much of a chance to spread Objectivism to others yet, but at least those that know me as an atheist knew me as much more than that ahead of time. Having been a Christian in my youth, I know how the Christian mind works when confronted with atheism: everything is colored by that knowledge, and no virtue an atheist displays can sway their minds (generally speaking, of course).
  13. Regarding the issue of AIs and emotions - and I've put a lot of speculation into this being the sci-fi fan that I am - the question that comes to mind at every turn is "What would an AI value?" Generally, we experience joy at the achievement of a value, sadness at the loss of a value, fear when those values are threatened, and frustration when someone prevents us from achieving them - whether that value is gaining a new love or buying a hot new gadget from Best Buy. To the degree that we value something in our individual hierarchies, the accompanying emotional reactions vary. But what could a robot value that would pretext emotional reactions to events which affect those values? Look at just the fundamental value, survival. 1. Can a robot value its "life" if the software that makes the robot what it is can be reinstalled on another machine? I doubt it - threatened, the robot might protect itself as a programmed reaction, but having a backup would take away its incentive to do so outside of its programming. This is displayed by the Cylons from the new Battlestar Galactica - when one is fatally injured, its "consciousness" simply downloads into a new body; it's only when such downloads are threatened by the lack of a replacement model that it fears for its life and fights harder to protect it. 2. Survival is made possible through sustenance, and for a robot this would mean energy. It must be motivated, beyond mere programming, to ensure that its source of energy is readily available. If that energy is something like solar energy, it knows it can operate continually. But, if its source of energy were something limited, it must judge the longevity of its operational capacity when physical distant from such a source. However it would not fear such distance if, like a cell phone, it can be plugged back in and recharged. Therefore its means of existence must be tied to longevity - as long as it's powered up, it's alive, but when the battery is drained, it is no more. 3. Lastly, survival has temporal value. People know they only have one life, and that their bodies weaken over time, so we exercise and diet to ensure our longevity as free of sickness and injury as possible. Would a robot value its safety and "health" if it could live an "unlimited" life through replacement parts? No, because such a value is provided externally; it may be programmed to construct and store replacement parts, but - as Rand said, paraphrasing - "not dying isn't the same as living". So, just in the realm of survival, for an AI to value its existence - and thus experience "negative" emotions such as fear or sadness - it must be certain that its existence can end permanently, that there is no "afterlife" in another body, that its means of survival is limited, and that its survival will be hampered through physical damage and breakdown. And that's just survival, the basic value. What does a robot need freedom for? What can a robot attain that will bring it joy? What will inspire impatience as external forces hamper its achievement? My assumption is that, if a self-aware AI is ever created, it will have at best the self-awareness of a household pet. It may be able to communicate, learn, and even be curious, but any action it commits in the service of self-preservation will be just as it is in an animal: a programmed "instinct" which overrides any other task to which it is implemented. This is why, fundamentally, the robots-rise-up-against-man story seems so silly to me. The only one that ever made sense to me was the backstory to the Matrix, where the energy produced by human action was harvested by machines that could get that power from no other source. Still, I'll watch Terminator and Galactica, because ... well, I'm a sucker for robot action. I know, I know - audiences don't take the time unless the robots are destroying things spectacularly, but I would like to see some more positive depictions of robots in sci-fi. Data, R2D2, C3P0, Andrew Martin, and Dr. Who's K-9 just aren't enough, and at times, they're just annoying.
  14. I have noticed what seems to be a mature attitude when it comes to writing for Cameron; I thought it may be coincidental at first - after all, they've only had 4-5 episodes - but the dancing scene hinted at an interesting depth of character. I hope they continue down that line with her. Also powerful was Derek Reese's reaction to her graceful movement - I saw it as a mix of curiosity, fear, and disgust. (Of course, kudos for Summer Glau; it was a very beautiful dance.) So far I've enjoyed SCC and hope that it takes on a life of it's own come Fall ... and Fox doesn't do to it what they did to Glau's other show - I'm still bitter about that one!
  15. There are plenty of documentaries I like, but for fiction/entertainment: Currently on TV ... Prison Break - For once, a proactive hero instead of a reactive one. Jericho - The harbinger of cancellation looms, but I've enjoyed watching as the town attempts to maintain order and survive after a terrorist strike destroys 23 American cities and the country crumbles into lawlessness. 24 - I've like the show so far ... but I fear the shark was well-jumped in season 6 Battlestar Galactica - flawed in may ways, I'm grateful to have mature, dramatic science fiction Nip/Tuck - completely absurd and outrageous, but quite entertaining nonetheless House MD - for all the good reasons in Mr. Jekyll and Dr. House The Tudors - a very entertaining dramatization of Henry VIII Penn & Teller's Bullshit! (Edit: Oh, yeah, I totally forgot about my new addiction, Lost. I never watched it until I got sick a few weeks ago and, on my sister's insistence, starting watching it from the beginning on ABC's website ... now I'm hooked!) Previously on TV, wish some still were ... Farscape - one of the best science fiction series ever Firefly - probably the best science fiction series ever, I miss it so much The West Wing - not for its politics, of course, but (when Sorkin was writing it) it had great vision, style, script Rome - very, very well-produced drama
  16. In also like the movies you liked, Moose - Casino, the Bourne movies - and another one I'd add to (the bottom of) that list is Spy Game. I abhor the moral goal of Robert Redford's protagonist - - but it's a fun watch. I particularly enjoyed the training sequences.
  17. Some of these aren't technically "science fiction", but they have sci-fi elements to them: Gattaca ... I really like the look of the film and the production value, but I particularly like the theme of success though intelligence and perseverance. The Astronaut Farmer ... Despite his friends' thinking he's crazy, a former colleague telling him to get real, and the pressure of a government afraid that he's building weapons of mass destruction, a man builds a rocket in his barn and launches it into space. Batman Begins ... In my opinion, the best adaptation of a comic book character ever made, and a tribute to heroism and justice in a benevolent universe. 5ive Days to Midnight (cable miniseries) ... A physicist must solve his own murder given the contents of a police report sent to him from the future. Barring the impossibility of time travel, I enjoy watching a movie where a determined hero saves the day using his intelligence. Serenity ... Because Firefly was such a good TV show. Contact ... Although it does give faith some lip service, the story explores the various objections and barriers to scientific exploration, yet the scientist triumphs despite them. The Incredibles ... A great morality play about being proud of one's abilities, and refusing to allow those who are envious to stop one from achieving greatness. Minority Report ... Philosophically flawed, but great production value, and has a motivated hero. Logan's Run ... I love dystopian films, stories about individuals who struggle against their society's irrationality, and this is one my favorite. Galaxy Quest ... Technically a comedy spoof rather than a sci-fi film, but, unlike many other comedies, the heroes reason their way through a very extraordinary situation and triumph. For no other reason than they're good sci-fi yarns, I like Star Wars (Episodes 4-6), 2001: A Space Odyssey, 2010: The Year We Make Contact, Blade Runner, I, Robot, the Terminator trilogy, the Alien series (1 & 2 more than 3 & 4), and a few of the Star Trek films (Wrath of Khan, The Undiscovered Country, First Contact, Nemesis)
  18. A coworker of mine says "everybody's an idea guy," and he's right - anyone can look at their piece of the puzzle, see how it relates to other pieces, and noodle a "better" way to do things. It takes real effort to do the legwork on it. You mentioned Google being a place that rewards abstract thinking ... I think it's a fair assumption that there's not a room where people sit around and say "wouldn't it be great if ..." then send the orders down. If you've got a good idea that could become a worthwhile product for Google, you've got to be able to write the code and massage it to Google's expectations. My career is in the music instrument business, and my job is sales & distribution - it's all about numbers. In the beginning, I made many suggestions that never made it to fruition because they were just 'ideas'. When I was able to show solid numbers, though, my proposals were given serious consideration. Then came the follow-through, doing the legwork to make the idea work, and being willing to admit I was wrong if it doesn't work out as expected. Doing that a few times gained me trust, and I'm not given nearly the same scrutiny I saw in the beginning. Another aspect of this is the fact that others have already done the work to set up a system where many specific tasks accomplish a large goal. It's worked for them long enough to know that only minor tweaks are necessary to maintain the desired productivity. When someone new comes in with a 'new' idea, a number of things can result: 1. The person who thought it up could feel threatened or insulted that his system is being criticized, even if that's not your intent. 2. They could be annoyed at the fact that they have to explain that they've already considered your idea, and rejected it. 3. If you haven't seen the "forest", just a small "thatch", the boss could interpret that as a lack of perception on your part. 4. Perceived flaws in the system could simply be flaws in the workers. No system can make up for for laziness, apathy, doing the bare minimum, fakery, shoddy workmanship, dishonesty, careless mistakes, under-qualification, under-training, or a myriad of other counterproductive qualities. 5. Your idea might be fine for the way you want to work, but you're on someone else's payroll, and they want it done a specific way, not your way. This is especially important for jobs that involve things like reports, statements, and any other hard data. 6. I hate business politics, but the following is true more often than not - your idea will be rejected, but if the boss thinks of it, it will happen. The trick is to find a way to get him to arrive at the same conclusion you have about a new product improvement, better process, etc. Yeah, it's pandering to weak egos - so you weigh the value of implementing a good idea versus not doing so because you want credit for it. 7. You might think your idea is brilliant, but what happens if it's not and it ends up costing the company a lot of money? So, to sum up, I don't think corporate managers are "anti-thinking". I think that they're more about doing what works for them, the way they want to see it done, and done by those who value the work they do enough to ensure it's done thoroughly. It's their comfort zone, and at the end of the week, they're the ones signing the paychecks ...
  19. I've recently gone through several Chinese movies of late - Curse of the Golden Flower, Fearless, Hero, etc. - and unless I hear of one with a HAPPY ending, I'm quite done with them. Every one of them has to have an element of tragedy - either the hero dies at the end, or the insurrection against the evil emporer fails, or the whole family is slaughtered ... every last one of them I've seen has a real downer, and none have a really clear hero. For me, it's been too steep a price to pay for well-choreographed fight sequences and beautiful scenery.
  20. Only if that boastfulness is meant to make you look better at someone else's expense, or to make someone else look worse, or is done out of a need for praise from others. The hard thing is interpreting others' reactions to you. One person might be pleased and inspired by your success, and another may be a self-pitying curmudgeon who thinks you're trying to make him look or feel bad. The former is what I'd call a friend; the latter would be someone I rarely speak to unless necessary. Ultimately, though, the line is one you draw yourself. Check your motivations, especially if you've habitually or unconsciously sought praise in the past. If you're honest and conscientious and you've accomplished something, be proud of it, and don't be afraid to let those who care about you know - and celebrate their accomplishments with them. If you need some inspiration or an example, read Ayn Rand's essay on Marilyn Monroe, Through Your Most Grievous Fault. An excerpt: While I'm not an actor or sex symbol (far from it!), I am truly inspired by a vision of flaunting natural, uncorrupted, self-made pride Rand saw in Monroe.
  21. I think the part about owning a pocket knife could create trouble. Imagine if junior takes it to school and one of the other kids finds it. Next thing you know, the principal is calling you in for a meeting with a policeman and a representative from child services to explain why the kid has a lethal weapon on school property. There's probably some kind of anti-terror statute that would apply to the situation!* Seriously, though, he makes a good point in the talk. Physically interacting with "dangerous" things is good for kids, given supervision. I imagine the cumulative effect of sheltering kids from scrapes & scratches, and the micro-managed world of local, state, and federal regulatory laws could have troublesome cultural and economic repercussions ... parents say "you can't", then you grow up to find that the state says "you can't" as well. I also imagine that the hyper-safety-conscious upbringing of children plays a large part in things like teen pregnancy, teen violence, etc.; if the notion that kids are naturally adventurous is correct, attempting to suppress those urges only motivates them to act out in destructive ways. (* It's not so hard to imagine. No lie, a couple of cousins of mine were threatened with anti-terror prosecution after accidentally hitting a cop car on a night of Halloween car egging.)
  22. The plot that I read about: Given how smart and plot-centered Christopher Nolan's other films have been - notably Batman Begins and The Prestige - I expect The Dark Knight won't fall short. But hey, even if it is just a shoot-em-up, the Knight trailer alone is better than every Batman film between the (first) Burton and Nolan films.
  23. I found the external pressuring of GM to drop the EV1 to be deplorable, but I still had a lot of questions at the end of the film. I can't remember them now as it's been several months since I've seen it, but I do remember thinking that the whole story wasn't told. If GM doesn't want to make an electric car, they shouldn't be forced into it by the state, even if there is a "public health" issue. It might be arguable if [A] the smog were created solely by GM automobiles and there was an irrefutable link between that smog and mass numbers of sick people, but that's not the case at all. The first thing I thought to myself after watching this doc, though, was this: Given obvious demand for more fuel-efficient automobiles, wouldn't it be great if someone - like Gates or Buffet - instead of flushing their billions away into altruistic charity, used their money to create viable electric cars as competition for internal combustion cars? The engineering exists, the engineers exist, and the demand is palpable. Think of the money that could be made if some company, independent of the infused state-corporate realm of automobiles, came out with something like the EV1? There is one that I can think of - Tesla Motors - but the base price for their Roadster is $98,000. Not that it's a bad thing, but something more like the EV1 would really be great. (Not that I care about 'environmental concerns', of course, but more that it's about saving money in the long run not having to buy gasoline all the time.)
×
×
  • Create New...