Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Marc K.

Regulars
  • Posts

    1131
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    7

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Easy Truth in The Golden Rule as a basis for rights   
    CriticalThinker:
     
    Your last several posts on this subject (innocents in war) are in complete accord with Objectivist principles and doctrine. I am in complete agreement with your answers, characterizations and examples. However, I think you do your argument a disservice by introducing the concept of the "emergency situation", to wit:
     

    From the Lexicon:

    Certainly war creates conditions under which human survival is impossible. However, it isn't unchosen (by the aggressor) and thus not unexpected, nor is it limited in time. 
     
    The point is that one has a choice about whether to be aggressive or not. And the fact that an aggressor is objectively wrong is what gives your moral argument all of its weight.
     
    The lifeboat is an amoral situation, meaning, there is no right answer, no right or wrong, any action you take might be appropriate. You have the right to defend yourself, but so do the others in the boat.

    In war, as you have been properly arguing, there is a right answer, a universal principle: DO NOT INITIATE FORCE. If someone has initiated force against you, you have the right to defend yourself, to use force in retaliation against those who initiated it. The guys who initiated the use of force have no right to defend themselves, they have forfeited their rights. Their only option is to stop initiating force and surrender immediately.

    Anyway, continue on, you are doing a great job, just leave out emergencies, you don't need them.
  2. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Easy Truth in Broken units, broken men   
    I'm glad you noticed. Yes, it is an absolute statement -- I use them whenever I can as I find that they make communication and principled discussion much easier. Rights are absolute. I'm not sure why you would call it "out of context" though. I'm sure you know the context for a discussion of rights but in case someone forgot I named the context: moral and legal. As you have acknowledged Rights are a bridge between morality and politics.

    Rights pertain only to action (another absolute). Rights sanction the moral actions one must take to survive and thrive and they also delimit the actions others may take with respect to you; they may not initiate force against you. As long as someone acknowledges Rights (implicitly or explicitly) and acts accordingly, then they possess and retain their Rights. When someone decides not to live by these principles and initiates force against you, then they have repudiated the concept and must be considered as outside the boundaries of Rights. They have forfeited their Rights and so they have none that I must respect. This reading conforms much better to the quotes you provided by both Ayn Rand and Tara Smith:

    "If they demand the violation of the rights of others, they negate and forfeit their own." -- AR from Racism

    "An individual's rights are always held on the condition that the rightholder respect other's rights, thus throughout, I am leaving aside person who forfeit their rights by violating the rights of others. As long as a person truly possesses rights, however, he is entitled to have them respected..." -- Tara Smith (cited previously)

    In both you see that persons can "forfeit their rights". And as Tara Smith notes, if a person "possesses rights [then ...] he is entitled to have them respected". So I really can't see how you think these quotes support your position. Also, I find it a little disingenuous that you disagree with what Tara Smith has to say on the subject and then try to use her quotes to support your position. You should just say you disagree and leave it at that instead of trying to manipulate what she says, as you acknowledge doing here:

    "Little practical difference" is still a difference -- the difference is obvious and is not what she meant, and I think you know that.


    Rights are moral principles which means they are absolutes within a moral context. So Rights are conditional upon your respect for them, as you acknowledge here in your response to me:

    But then you contradict yourself not two paragraphs later:


    I don't have this problem. I say that Rights are absolute (read inalienable) and contextual (read conditional). I say you should never violate anyone's Rights and the criminal is not a problem for me to deal with under this principle. Since he has already violated the principle I know that he has explicitly repudiated it and therefore I won't be violating his Rights when I treat him like the animal that he confesses to be. I take him at his word (or actions) and treat him according to the principles he holds.

    You, on the other hand, say that rights are inalienable (absolute) and unconditional (non-contextual). So actually I think it is you who are dealing in out of context absolutes. When the slave and the slave-master come to you and ask which one of us is right, you are forced to say "well you both have rights and you do not forfeit them no matter what you do".
  3. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from AlexL in Who should we be supporting Israel or the Palestinians   
    What makes your friends civilized and why should that matter to you?



    You are not sure about Israel's philosophy as compared to their neighbors?
  4. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from secondhander in Owning Land?   
    Really??? You mean the only thing we've been debating for 3 pages is the word "the"??? Well, OK, this should be easy then.

    So you would agree then that men have the right to own THE land that they improve and that no one can remove them from that land if they don't want to go, no matter how much more productive those others might be? And that the land owner can charge whatever rent he decides, while, of course, he can force no one to pay such rent? And, of course, since he owns the land, no one can force him to accept a rent lower than what he has decided to charge.
     
    Problem solved.
  5. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from CriticalThinker2000 in Owning Land?   
    There are many things to say, all of which point to Georgism and Objectivism being completely incompatible, to "economic rent" being some sort of anti-concept, to you confusing government force with voluntary free trade and to your continued belief in some sort of intrinsic value to "land". I may take the time to answer more fully but first I would like an answer to the following two questions.


    First is the one you promised me a reply to earlier:
     

    Second is an explanation for your blatant self-contradiction:
     
  6. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Owning Land?   
    Since you have linked to this page I decided to have a look. I had suspected that there was a deeper issue associated with your want to deny property rights in land and I think I have found it. From the henrygeorge website cited above:
     
     
    Can we call you a Georgist? If so, then our perspectives and philosophies are quite at odds. You believe that we have an "obligation to society" and that forcible taxation is moral and should be legal.
     
    Objectivists are individualists. We believe that every individual is an end in themselves and that they have a moral right to the fruits of their labor, and that no one, most particularly the government, has a right to use force against us. 
     
    We also don't believe in intrinsic value. "Land" has no value until someone designates it a purpose and performs work on it. Apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, Georgists want to collect on the value created by someone else for the "good" of society. This is wrong, in the view of Objectivists.
     
    Not that you have any obligation to answer, and not that the answer should prevent anyone from having a discussion with you, I am just curious: what is your purpose here? My purpose is discuss the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Will you always be arguing against Ayn Rand from a Georgist perspective? If so, can you identify other fundamental views of hers with which you disagree? Property rights are quite fundamental in a political context but there are other principles of ethics, epistemology and metaphysics which are even more fundamental -- I have mentioned a few above.

    I will go ahead and answer your other post but I'm afraid we will be constantly at loggerheads with regard to this issue if there are even more fundamental disagreements. 

     
    But we were talking about the "ultimate" source of property and wealth. Man's basic means of survival is reason. Labor, capital, production, and most certainly creation do not exist without reason. Labor is a necessary condition for production but not a sufficient one. Thinking is labor also, in fact it is the most important part of labor, not one's muscles.

     
    This is strictly not true. One can labor and create capital morally without owning land. Without reason -- land, labor and capital are impotent.

     
    Shall I call this the argument from nature? I thought I had disposed of it with my first post but let me be more explicit. Your original post contained what I thought looked like a syllogistic argument:
     
    to wit:
    - All property and all wealth is man-made.
    - Land is not man-made.
    - Therefore Land cannot be property
     
    Which I believe contains an equivocation between "land" and "real estate" and to illustrate the point I countered with aluminum atoms are not man-made and yet they can be owned. Thus the argument from nature (or the not man-made) is defeated.
     
    Furthermore, "opportunities" do not exist in nature apart from man's mind. Though I suppose if you don't like this formulation, then we could say that a specific opportunity does not exist apart from the mind that thought of it.

     
    There are many answers to this question depending on context or the level of fundamentality you seek.

    Metaphysically, all life is sustained by action, though I suppose this isn't very satisfying since it doesn't deal with man specifically.

    Epistemologically, "rights" are one concept and all rights pertain only to action.

    Ethically, if man wants to live, he must take certain actions in order to sustain his life.

    Politically, rights are moral sanctions to take those actions, and a proper government is created in order to protect those actions from the interference of others. In regard to property, those actions are the right to keep, use and dispose of your property as you see fit.

    If someone had a right to a thing and wasn't willing to put in the work needed to gain it, then someone else would have to provide it for them.

    What would Georgists say? That everyone has a right to "land" (a thing)? Or is it just that everyone has a right to demand "rent" (a thing, money or tax) from those that are putting land to productive use?
     
  7. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from CriticalThinker2000 in Owning Land?   
    Since you have linked to this page I decided to have a look. I had suspected that there was a deeper issue associated with your want to deny property rights in land and I think I have found it. From the henrygeorge website cited above:
     
     
    Can we call you a Georgist? If so, then our perspectives and philosophies are quite at odds. You believe that we have an "obligation to society" and that forcible taxation is moral and should be legal.
     
    Objectivists are individualists. We believe that every individual is an end in themselves and that they have a moral right to the fruits of their labor, and that no one, most particularly the government, has a right to use force against us. 
     
    We also don't believe in intrinsic value. "Land" has no value until someone designates it a purpose and performs work on it. Apparently, and correct me if I'm wrong, Georgists want to collect on the value created by someone else for the "good" of society. This is wrong, in the view of Objectivists.
     
    Not that you have any obligation to answer, and not that the answer should prevent anyone from having a discussion with you, I am just curious: what is your purpose here? My purpose is discuss the philosophy of Ayn Rand. Will you always be arguing against Ayn Rand from a Georgist perspective? If so, can you identify other fundamental views of hers with which you disagree? Property rights are quite fundamental in a political context but there are other principles of ethics, epistemology and metaphysics which are even more fundamental -- I have mentioned a few above.

    I will go ahead and answer your other post but I'm afraid we will be constantly at loggerheads with regard to this issue if there are even more fundamental disagreements. 

     
    But we were talking about the "ultimate" source of property and wealth. Man's basic means of survival is reason. Labor, capital, production, and most certainly creation do not exist without reason. Labor is a necessary condition for production but not a sufficient one. Thinking is labor also, in fact it is the most important part of labor, not one's muscles.

     
    This is strictly not true. One can labor and create capital morally without owning land. Without reason -- land, labor and capital are impotent.

     
    Shall I call this the argument from nature? I thought I had disposed of it with my first post but let me be more explicit. Your original post contained what I thought looked like a syllogistic argument:
     
    to wit:
    - All property and all wealth is man-made.
    - Land is not man-made.
    - Therefore Land cannot be property
     
    Which I believe contains an equivocation between "land" and "real estate" and to illustrate the point I countered with aluminum atoms are not man-made and yet they can be owned. Thus the argument from nature (or the not man-made) is defeated.
     
    Furthermore, "opportunities" do not exist in nature apart from man's mind. Though I suppose if you don't like this formulation, then we could say that a specific opportunity does not exist apart from the mind that thought of it.

     
    There are many answers to this question depending on context or the level of fundamentality you seek.

    Metaphysically, all life is sustained by action, though I suppose this isn't very satisfying since it doesn't deal with man specifically.

    Epistemologically, "rights" are one concept and all rights pertain only to action.

    Ethically, if man wants to live, he must take certain actions in order to sustain his life.

    Politically, rights are moral sanctions to take those actions, and a proper government is created in order to protect those actions from the interference of others. In regard to property, those actions are the right to keep, use and dispose of your property as you see fit.

    If someone had a right to a thing and wasn't willing to put in the work needed to gain it, then someone else would have to provide it for them.

    What would Georgists say? That everyone has a right to "land" (a thing)? Or is it just that everyone has a right to demand "rent" (a thing, money or tax) from those that are putting land to productive use?
     
  8. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in Owning Land?   
    The aluminum atoms that comprise the body of an iphone were not man-made.
     
    What is the origin of an aluminum ownership claim?
  9. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from softwareNerd in Art-Deco (Objectivist) paint scheme for a trailer home   
    I like art deco but I don't think there is such a thing as "Objectivist style" or an "Objectivist paint scheme".
     
    While color is always important, to me, art deco is more about textures, patterns and designs. I would concentrate on assembling some details or accents of art deco style that you like, and then match the final paint scheme to the details. In addition, I would try to gather inspiration from other things art deco, like: buildings (the Chrysler Building), bridges (the Golden Gate), diners, posters, trains, campers (the airstream I think it is called), lamps, ceramic tiles, ceiling tiles, stained glass ... Do a google search on all of these terms and "art deco" and you will see thousands of images and websites.
     
    Some art deco details I like: 
    - Check out these beautiful ceramic tiles
    - I absolutely love tin ceilings, check these ceiling tiles out
    - Here are some images of house numbers
    - There are art deco light fixtures
    - There are art deco planters on ebay
     
    To be more specific, when I think of art deco and a building of your scale, I think of a sleek, stainless steel diner. Now, obviously, you don't want your home to look like a diner, but you can take some cues from that design esthetic. I would do something with the ceiling tiles from above (they come in many different finishes, if you click on one and scroll down you'll find them like on this page). I thought of putting them on the bottom of your trailer, and that probably could be done if you found a pattern in the right scale, but I suspect it would be too busy. So then I thought of just plain stainless steel sheets; maybe 1' x 2' laid out like bricks in a running bond pattern; maybe even with pvc moulding in between to simulate "grout". If that is too expensive then perhaps you can find a salvage yard in your closest city with salvaged stainless siding from an old diner. I do think the ceiling tiles would go really well on the upper part "roofline" of your trailer. 
     
    I might put a 3 or 4 inch black framing around your windows and doors (you should either match doors or get rid of the second door). Then, perhaps, I would pick a nice ceramic tile from above (or again salvage) and apply them to the corners of the framing. Or maybe you just save it to go around the door. Some nice wrought iron step from the salvage yard would look nice. Then choose an art deco color like a muted green or blue for the main body. 
     
    Your yard should be immaculate with shaped plantings and nice planters.
     
    There is much more to say.
     
    Have fun.
  10. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Nicky in The Golden Rule as a basis for rights   
    CriticalThinker:
     
    Your last several posts on this subject (innocents in war) are in complete accord with Objectivist principles and doctrine. I am in complete agreement with your answers, characterizations and examples. However, I think you do your argument a disservice by introducing the concept of the "emergency situation", to wit:
     

    From the Lexicon:

    Certainly war creates conditions under which human survival is impossible. However, it isn't unchosen (by the aggressor) and thus not unexpected, nor is it limited in time. 
     
    The point is that one has a choice about whether to be aggressive or not. And the fact that an aggressor is objectively wrong is what gives your moral argument all of its weight.
     
    The lifeboat is an amoral situation, meaning, there is no right answer, no right or wrong, any action you take might be appropriate. You have the right to defend yourself, but so do the others in the boat.

    In war, as you have been properly arguing, there is a right answer, a universal principle: DO NOT INITIATE FORCE. If someone has initiated force against you, you have the right to defend yourself, to use force in retaliation against those who initiated it. The guys who initiated the use of force have no right to defend themselves, they have forfeited their rights. Their only option is to stop initiating force and surrender immediately.

    Anyway, continue on, you are doing a great job, just leave out emergencies, you don't need them.
  11. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Nicky in Paul Krugman on Detroit   
    You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. This paragraph: Pure. Irrationalism.

    Krugman absolutely DOES believe that these problems can be solved by multiplying the government money thrown at it. You know what his prescription is for the stagnant economy? The government didn't throw enough money at the problem. TARP should have been at least doubled, probably more!!!!

    "Market Forces"???? This is your diagnosis???? Completely absurd. I guess you don't realize that it is "market forces" that provide jobs and create wealth. Market forces don't destroy cities. The solution for Detroit is to reinstate "market forces", not more government intervention.

    Science and observation??? This is the same kind of observation that says that the rooster crowing causes the sun to come up. You have named effects not causes. Complete logical abdication. Not one of those things you mentioned has anything to do with the destruction of Detroit. They are all liberal talking points.
     
    It is ALL political editorial and that is what makes Krugman not just sad but evil: he is a liar. He is smart enough to know that less freedom and government confiscation of wealth are what will destroy this country and yet that is what he advocates. Most politicians are ignorant, Krugman is evil, he seeks destruction. Why you would defend anything he says is beyond me, maybe you actually believe what you wrote in this paragraph: are you just stupid or are you evil?
  12. Like
    Marc K. reacted to softwareNerd in A fair warning and four questions   
    Thank you. It gets better with ice-cream through a looking-glass. When one tries that, then the clarity it affords is absolutely muddy. Try it: I've never seen anything so clear that one cannot see it at all. The argument that concerns the pope is not that the tail is hitched, but that it is.
  13. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from chuff in "In Our Name"?   
    This construction obviously doesn’t work, it’s self contradictory!!! And it is indicative of what’s wrong with this thread. You are conflating a philosophical principle with military strategy. Your first sentence is correct -- a legitimate government must take whatever steps necessary to defeat an aggressor nation. Period. End of philosophy lesson.

    In the next sentence you switch gears to military strategy and contradict your philosophical statement. So I must ask the obvious question: If you were Commander in Chief and the military came to you and said “the only way to prevent further loss of American lives is to drop an atomic bomb on Hiroshima” -- would you have?

    When we dropped the bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, killing whatever percentage of so called “innocent” civilians you may wish to define, do you think we saved American lives? Wasn’t this a thoroughly moral act on the part of the American government?

    Who is responsible for the deaths of every person in wartime: the aggressor or the aggrieved?



    Are you suggesting though that it is the responsibility of a threatened nation to sacrifice its citizens to defeat an aggressor?



    This is a difficult issue. Ayn Rand’s essay “Man’s Rights”, which can be found in both CUI and VoS, helped me figure it out:

    Rights are moral sanctions to positive action and require nothing of anyone else except that they leave you alone. So your right to life not only gives you the moral sanction to do whatever you must to live, it requires that you take action in order to live.

    By the same logic, the right of all men to liberty not only allows them the “freedom to act on [their] own judgment”, it requires that they take action in order to secure their liberty. (Of course implicit in this line of reasoning is that the only people you will have to act against in order to secure your liberty are those who wish to take it, and the only way it can be taken is by force.)

    Thus we arrive at Ayn Rand's position that every government is the representative of its people. Anyone who does not flee or actively oppose an aggressor government gives their implied sanction to its actions. Whether they are truly “innocent” matters not. “Whenever any form of government becomes destructive of [the individual rights of its citizens, it is not only their right] to alter or to abolish it” it is their responsibility.

    And while some may prefer to “suffer, while evils are sufferable” their abdication of their rights to an aggressive government confers no requirement on a free people to live in a similar state; taking no action against the aggressor for fear of killing people who are unwilling to right themselves.
  14. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from chuff in The frustration that is the U.S. Foreign Policy   
    This question of when to nuke is not a philosophical question, it is a military strategy question which should be left to the military sciences. 
     
    The philosophical principle is that a nation defending itself must do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemy. "Whatever is necessary" means different things in different contexts. In the context of Grenada 1980 (?) it means you send in one squad of marines. In the context of Japan 1945 you nuke them until they relent.
     
    There are several good threads discussing these questions in which I have participated in the past. This one entitled "Pre-emptive War: Should we nuke Tehran?" is quite long but good. The very last post is by me and addresses the question of whether we could just assassinate the leaders of an aggressive country.
     
    This one is entitled "In Our Name"? and is very good and short, only two pages. It addresses the issue of the differing contexts of semi-free countries versus aggressive ones.
  15. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from FeatherFall in The frustration that is the U.S. Foreign Policy   
    This question of when to nuke is not a philosophical question, it is a military strategy question which should be left to the military sciences. 
     
    The philosophical principle is that a nation defending itself must do whatever is necessary to defeat the enemy. "Whatever is necessary" means different things in different contexts. In the context of Grenada 1980 (?) it means you send in one squad of marines. In the context of Japan 1945 you nuke them until they relent.
     
    There are several good threads discussing these questions in which I have participated in the past. This one entitled "Pre-emptive War: Should we nuke Tehran?" is quite long but good. The very last post is by me and addresses the question of whether we could just assassinate the leaders of an aggressive country.
     
    This one is entitled "In Our Name"? and is very good and short, only two pages. It addresses the issue of the differing contexts of semi-free countries versus aggressive ones.
  16. Like
    Marc K. reacted to Nicky in Is Reproduction the ultimate value? Or Life?   
    You're asking the wrong question. Your question assumes that there is a reason why we have reproductive organs. There isn't.

    There is a cause, but the correct way to ask for the cause of something is "How did it come to be?", not "Why did it come to be?".

    The answer to How? is pretty simple: all the lifeforms without reproductive organs died without passing on their genetic material. It stands to reason that, therefor, such lifeforms exist very rarely, compared to lifeforms with reproductive organs.
  17. Like
    Marc K. reacted to Grames in Should abortion be legal until the moment of birth?   
    Regardless of your intention to not argue about boundaries per se, it remains an argument against boundaries and is refuted by argument establishing the inevitability of boundaries. Furthermore, your explanation of why you claim there is a contradiction, "(for it is a child in both cases)", is petitio principii because establishing when personhood begins and rights apply is the question to be answered. I will not concede that the object of our attention is a child in both cases.

    I find the epistemological method you seem to employing here is intrinsicism. Intrinsicism in general is the assertion that the 'thing in itself' is a value, and in this particular case that 'human flesh has rights', with no thought of justification or considering of value to whom and for what purpose, or of what causes rights.



    All through our lives we take action with respect to things which do not exist. That is called planning ahead. Yet the existence of the plan and even the carrying of it into action is not the same as the ultimate object of the plan and action. Taking action right now for the benefit of the child you expect to have does not imply the child exists right now, anymore than my saving for retirement right now implies that I am retired right now.


    A faculty of rationality is an attribute of some consciousnesses, and consciousness itself is not an entity but the action of awareness, a type of relationship between subject and object, knower and known. Reifying 'faculty of rationality' as though it were an independent entity or attribute not premised on awareness is another instance of thinking like an intrinsicist.


    I'll concede that the sensory input in the womb is greater than zero, but the sensory input to an adult in a sensory deprivation chamber is also greater than zero. Being rational, indeed remaining sane, requires sensory input above some threshold level which is itself not zero. See http://en.wikipedia....ory_deprivation . Since an adult cannot keep his consciousness from disintegrating under conditions of sensory deprivation, I cannot give credence to the notion that a fetus can gain consciousness, the human style consciousness that underlies rights, in similar conditions and especially not with the additional factor that a fetus has never known any other condition.


    This is could be said to be true for for all mammalian infants. Not all mammalian infants have rights, so all of this is nonessential to thinking about rights.
  18. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from milked in Pre-emptive War: e.g. Should we nuke Tehran?   
    If this was true it would be an easy matter to overthrow oppressive states.


    This won't work because you have reversed cause and effect.

    Philosophy is what drives history. It is the fundamental ideas a society holds that determines its course. Leonard Peikoff has written an excellent book entitled The Ominous Parallels that describes this phenomenon in the case of Nazi Germany. The fundamental ideas driving the leaders of a society are the same fundamental ideas held by the populace. In this sense a country gets the leaders it deserves as a function of the ideas it holds.

    The politicians and leaders of a country do not set the direction of a country, they follow the direction set by the culture. Because of the ideas they held the Weimar Republic got Hitler, in fact they voted for him. The extent to which the people of the US believe that we should be our brother's keeper is the extent to which we have welfare statism. Most of the Middle East is a cesspool of bad ideas, they don't understand, accept or respect individual rights, they get the leaders they deserve. If you assassinate or remove their leaders there will be plenty of people to replace them who hold the same ideas. Look at Egypt, do you think their new government will be more or less aggressive than their former government?

    This is not to say that a culture can't change, it can. People have free will and can choose to accept different ideas but this takes a revolution, a revolution based on different ideas. But people don't typically change their ideas unless they are shown how destructive those ideas are to their lives. War is only necessary when a country's ideas and culture are aggressive. Once a culture becomes aggressive force is usually the only way it can change. The destruction their culture is inflicting on others must be brought home to them.

    Iran is the embodiment of the most destructive ideas that exist in the Middle East. It has not only initiated force against its own citizens but also against the US and there is no reason we must stand by and suffer for their bad ideas. The Iranian people will not change their ideas until they are shown in drastic terms what those ideas lead to: death, their death.
  19. Like
    Marc K. reacted to IchorFigure in Isn't all subjective morality actually intrinsic morality?   
    The trichotomy of those 3 also serve to pose as useful contrasts to the uniqueness of Objectivism.

    Subjectivism is focused on the subject. Intrincisism is focused on the object. Objectivism is focused on the relationship between the subject and the object.

    So looking at it this way you can see the essential differences in classyifying them like this, is to break them down to what their target of the philosophy is aimed at. On the subject, on the object, or on the relationship between them.

    Like Grames said, this is not to say that in real-world practice that intrincisism doesn't become subjective.
  20. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from JASKN in Why is it immoral to limit an individuals freedom?   
    You are right, I should have said: There is no other rational way to read what you wrote.

    This is a complete non-response to what I wrote. I guess I should not be surprised that the irrationality of belief in a god has infected your thinking. Since belief in a god requires no evidence nor do your arguments. The rules of logic and argumentation are nullified in a reality ruled by "the irrational".

    Nice comic relief though: dogma denounced by a religionist!?!? (You can't make this stuff up).



    You have no idea how Kim Jong Il died. What evidence do you have that he died peacefully? The words of a lying totalitarian regime? Oh, I forgot, you need no evidence. You have as much evidence about Kim's death as you have for the existence of a god, which is none.

    He may have been killed by his son and brother to grab power, which wouldn't be unusual. You don't have to be a mind reader: He had his food tasted for poison; He starved millions of people; He murdered many others; He thought himself a god. These are not the actions of a peaceful mind and if somehow he wasn't bothered by any of this, then he was delusional, which also isn't a peaceful state of mind. Actions and words have implications, oh, I forgot, you don't consider implications.




    I haven't presented my "theory", I have only shot down yours.

    My position is the same as Ayn Rand's: contradictions do not exist in reality. I know this is not your position, no surprise then that a logically consistent, rational argument is not forthcoming from you.

    It is clear to me that when Ayn Rand says "nature forbids him the irrational" she is talking about nature as apart from man. This is confirmed by the other quote I provided about what "the irrational" is: "The irrational is the impossible; it is that which contradicts the facts of reality; facts cannot be altered by a wish, but they can destroy the wisher." -- Ayn Rand, The Objectivist Ethics

    "The irrational" is the impossible so clearly it does not refer to the machinations of an irrational mind, to which everything is possible, even possibilities that contradict the nature of reality. Use yourself as evidence of the truth of that statement.



    Which is it? You weren't responding to the OP or you don't recall? I doubt you "seriously doubt that you changed any meaning". If you thought you hadn't changed the meaning, then you would have said "I didn't change the meaning". As it is, this is an admission that you did change the words and you just don't know whether you changed the meaning or not. Maybe you should find out.

    You "don't recall" to whom or what you were responding? If you don't remember what you wrote, you can always go back and read it. It doesn't matter whether you "recall", in your first post you quote someone using the words "the irrational" and you then go on to argue against "irrationality".

    You are putting a lot of energy into defending irrationality. You had to change contexts from nature apart from man where "the irrational" doesn't exist, to a volitional mind where contradictions can exist. You argue in favor of the latter in order to preserve the former -- could that have something to do with your irrational beliefs?
  21. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Nicky in Peikoff on date rape   
    What a joke this thread is and now it has turned farcical!!! Now we are talking about civility!?!?

    And the person who recognizes when another has “crossed the line into incivility” is the person whose signature is "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo" - Gaius Valerius Catullus, which translates to “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!!

    If the irony wasn’t so sad, disgusting and irrational it might be funny.

    Imagine getting a letter from someone whose signature wasn’t “Sincerely” or “Cordially” or even “Honestly” or “Angrily” but instead they signed “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!! Would you ever speak to them again? And what would it say about you if you did?

    Of course this person cowers and hides behind a dead language, which further demonstrates his character.

    And if you think that maybe he is just being cute or literarily astute and doesn’t actually comport himself that way, you are wrong. This is how he converses with those whom he disagrees. He has used the same invective in this thread:

    Can you read how personal and insulting his attacks are? Yes, he is an authority and if it is only in word and not deed, that is bad enough.

    This is the person who finds LP’s words “horrifying”??? I doubt this person could be horrified by anything.

    Maybe he was just having a bad day?:

    Maybe not.


    This person doesn’t like Leonard Peikoff, is dedicated to his persecution and, as far as I can tell, his only contribution to this site is just that. He admits that this is his motive and has vowed to continue attacking him:


    The gall of a person who attacks Peikoff’s character and intellect using the words of a known liar and pretender, whom Ayn Rand herself disavowed, is almost immeasurable. The only people who “perpetuate the public image of a Randroid loony cult” are the ones this person sanctions: the Brandens and David Kelley.

    If you think he reserves himself to only an intellectual attack you are wrong:


    He has compared LP to Hitler:


    He has alluded to LP as a King:


    He admits to comparing LP to a psychotic:



    To think that you can have a rational conversation with this person about LP is like thinking you can have a rational conversation with the Pope about ethics …

    And now the crème de la crème. He and another pontiff want those who defended Peikoff originally to recant. Presumably this would show some level of integrity. Where is their integrity when they were both sneering and prognosticating about how Peikoff would defend his statements? When Peikoff does what neither said he would, when he completely reverses himself, they supposedly still find room to denounce him. They can’t admit they were wrong but they somehow find fault in other’s comparable action? Integrity indeed.


    But maybe he has an intellectually honest point. Maybe, somehow, his character hasn’t polluted his intellect. Not true, here are his questions about what Peikoff said the second time:




    He is saying that Peikoff’s “position is not clear,” but he has mischaracterized and misrepresented what Peikoff’s position is.

    Here is what Peikoff actually said:

    “The woman has a right to say no, a moral right”.

    Even in the middle of sex, if, for instance (among other things) “something in his desires sexually, in the style of sex he wanted, which turned her off completely”

    “They all have the right to refuse, and when they do the man has no right to assert himself forcibly”

    Peikoff’s position is perfectly clear.


    … But this person hasn’t come here for rational discussion. How can you expect to have a rational discussion with someone who answers you by saying “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”. He disrespects you just by having a conversation with you. If he disagrees with you but maybe you make some good points, he greets your argument by saying “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”. If he agrees with you, he still doesn’t respect you. Like a child he says from his hiding place “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”.


    Please don’t sanction his behavior any further.
  22. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Trebor in Peikoff on date rape   
    What a joke this thread is and now it has turned farcical!!! Now we are talking about civility!?!?

    And the person who recognizes when another has “crossed the line into incivility” is the person whose signature is "Pedicabo ego vos et irrumabo" - Gaius Valerius Catullus, which translates to “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!!

    If the irony wasn’t so sad, disgusting and irrational it might be funny.

    Imagine getting a letter from someone whose signature wasn’t “Sincerely” or “Cordially” or even “Honestly” or “Angrily” but instead they signed “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”!!! Would you ever speak to them again? And what would it say about you if you did?

    Of course this person cowers and hides behind a dead language, which further demonstrates his character.

    And if you think that maybe he is just being cute or literarily astute and doesn’t actually comport himself that way, you are wrong. This is how he converses with those whom he disagrees. He has used the same invective in this thread:

    Can you read how personal and insulting his attacks are? Yes, he is an authority and if it is only in word and not deed, that is bad enough.

    This is the person who finds LP’s words “horrifying”??? I doubt this person could be horrified by anything.

    Maybe he was just having a bad day?:

    Maybe not.


    This person doesn’t like Leonard Peikoff, is dedicated to his persecution and, as far as I can tell, his only contribution to this site is just that. He admits that this is his motive and has vowed to continue attacking him:


    The gall of a person who attacks Peikoff’s character and intellect using the words of a known liar and pretender, whom Ayn Rand herself disavowed, is almost immeasurable. The only people who “perpetuate the public image of a Randroid loony cult” are the ones this person sanctions: the Brandens and David Kelley.

    If you think he reserves himself to only an intellectual attack you are wrong:


    He has compared LP to Hitler:


    He has alluded to LP as a King:


    He admits to comparing LP to a psychotic:



    To think that you can have a rational conversation with this person about LP is like thinking you can have a rational conversation with the Pope about ethics …

    And now the crème de la crème. He and another pontiff want those who defended Peikoff originally to recant. Presumably this would show some level of integrity. Where is their integrity when they were both sneering and prognosticating about how Peikoff would defend his statements? When Peikoff does what neither said he would, when he completely reverses himself, they supposedly still find room to denounce him. They can’t admit they were wrong but they somehow find fault in other’s comparable action? Integrity indeed.


    But maybe he has an intellectually honest point. Maybe, somehow, his character hasn’t polluted his intellect. Not true, here are his questions about what Peikoff said the second time:




    He is saying that Peikoff’s “position is not clear,” but he has mischaracterized and misrepresented what Peikoff’s position is.

    Here is what Peikoff actually said:

    “The woman has a right to say no, a moral right”.

    Even in the middle of sex, if, for instance (among other things) “something in his desires sexually, in the style of sex he wanted, which turned her off completely”

    “They all have the right to refuse, and when they do the man has no right to assert himself forcibly”

    Peikoff’s position is perfectly clear.


    … But this person hasn’t come here for rational discussion. How can you expect to have a rational discussion with someone who answers you by saying “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”. He disrespects you just by having a conversation with you. If he disagrees with you but maybe you make some good points, he greets your argument by saying “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”. If he agrees with you, he still doesn’t respect you. Like a child he says from his hiding place “I will sodomize you and face-fuck you”.


    Please don’t sanction his behavior any further.
  23. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Nicky in Blacks and whites in ethics   
    Since there is so much to say I guess it depends on whether you think this person is worth trying to convince. It sounds to me like he has given this issue some thought and is an avowed skeptic. So I would point out to him that ALL knowledge is contextual with a simple rejoinder like:

    "It is absolutely true that water is essential to life, and yet I wouldn't give a glass of water to a drowning man."


    The "blinding white" he is asking for when he concludes:


    is some sort of non-contextual absolute, which, like god, doesn't exist.

    Bluecherry is correct, ALL knowledge is contextual, and this includes not just moral knowledge but scientific knowledge as well. When we say "water boils at 212 degrees" it is absolutely true, within a context. If we include that context in the sentence it might rather read "water boils at 212 degrees Fahrenheit, at sea level, on earth, under normal atmospheric conditions".

    Value depends on a valuer. Valuers are individuals so when we use the terms "good" and "evil" we mean that something is good or bad for some individual. It is absolutely true that peanuts, in moderation, are good for me while they may kill someone who is allergic to them. The fact that ALL knowledge is contextual doesn't mean that it can't also be absolute. It is absolute within a context. See chapters 4 and 5 in OPAR.
  24. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from SapereAude in No minimum wage: helpful or harmful   
    Yes, let employees take care of themselves. If taking a job below some minimum wage is to their interest, then let them take it. If it is not to their interest, then they shouldn't take the job.

    And, just as an aside: until one has a job they are not employees, they are the unemployed and should thank anyone willing to hire them.
  25. Like
    Marc K. got a reaction from Dairdo in Government Police on Privately-Owned Roads   
    JeffS is under the impression that one can set any terms in a contract and that the police must enforce those terms, he expresses that here:

    This is clearly not true and my rejoinder to his assertion was this:


    Contracts, like the law in general, are meant to protect rational actors. So the mafia's "contract" to kill someone is legally unenforceable. Even less absurdly, most courts will not enforce an outrageous interest rate on a loan, it must be considered "reasonable".

    I wanted to raise this issue also with an eye toward Ayn Rand's proposed "contract fees" as a way of voluntarily funding a proper government as this issue has been raised before on the Forum. The reason why contract fees would be legitimate and not an infringement of one's right to contract is because you can't pass on the cost of fulfilling the terms of your contract to everyone else in society. One has the right to contract but one doesn't have the right to have everyone else pay for any dispute that arises because one made a poor contract.

    This applies to roads also. If you own a highway and set the speed limit at 50 mph and say that you are going to pull over anyone going 52 mph and up and fine them $200 each, you have no right to force the rest of us to pay for the thousands of police and hours in court it is going to take to enforce your contract. You can hire your own security force and pay for it yourself and see how long you stay in business.
×
×
  • Create New...