Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


MisterSwig last won the day on September 18

MisterSwig had the most liked content!


About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Radical Animal

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Chat Nick
  • Copyright
    Must Attribute
  • Experience with Objectivism

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests

Recent Profile Visitors

4260 profile views
  1. I think the title for this thread represents the dichotomy you've set here. I don't see a clear attempt to integrate anything. Frankly, I find your replies to be unfocused, evasive, and poorly written. I've made a real effort to contribute something, because you're investigating a very tough and fundamental question. But it doesn't seem like you're actually interested in criticism ("gripes"?!). It sounds like you want to rant. So I'll leave you to it.
  2. Maybe the dispute stems from this issue of failing to discriminate the abstraction from the concrete. Do you accept that there are universal standards of value and particular standards of value? Consider what Rand said about ultimate values. On one hand, she talks about "man's life" being "the standard of value." And, on the other hand, she says that "an organism's life is its standard of value." You seem to think that the latter, particular formulation pertains only to plants or unconscious organisms. But that isn't what Rand meant. Because man is a living organism, his own life is his ultimate value, his particular standard of value. But he's also a conceptual organism, and so he's capable of also having an abstract standard of value, which takes into account his knowledge of man in general. He can therefore use both to evaluate his goals and actions. If he does something which makes him sick, he can evaluate that as bad based on his particular life, his sensation of pain. And if he's considering two possible goals or choices for action, he can evaluate them based on his abstract moral standards. Both standards are necessary and reinforcing, but without his particular life he would have no abstract standard. His own life is his primary standard, but it's not the universal standard, since universals are abstractions.
  3. No, I called your argument rationalistic. No, without Rand's evidence and reasoning, I probably couldn't have worked out the principle. But I definitely couldn't have worked it out without my personal experiences and observations which allow me to recognize the validity of her argument. Again, you have it backwards. Values and virtues are not derived from an ethical principle. Your values precede any standard of values. You can't have a standard of something if that something doesn't first exist.
  4. Isn't this a straw man? Nobody is saying that each individual must try out everything for himself. We learn from what other people have done before us and during our lifetime. Just because mommy tells you "don't lie," that doesn't mean lying is always bad for your specific life. If a criminal wants to find your children, should you do "the right thing" and tell him their actual location? No, because the good is not determined by its relationship to an abstract principle. It's determined by its effect on your life. In this case, lying to the criminal would most likely be the good. As humans with memory, imagination, and reason, we collect data about what people have done in particular situations, and what they might have done, and we apply reason to figure out the proper choice in that situation, based on what actually happened and what might have happened. Then we come up with an abstract principle. In this example, we might conclude that lying to oneself is very bad, but lying to others depends on whether you're dealing with a friend or foe. Regarding man's life as the standard of value, how does one arrive at that principle? Did mommy tell you to believe it? Or have you done the data collection and intellectual work to inductively grasp it for yourself? Why shouldn't god's will be the standard? Or the survival of your children or nation? The environment? Of what value is man's life if he disobeys his god, abandons his children, betrays his nation, or destroys his environment in pursuit of his own life?
  5. This strikes me as rationalistic. A chosen action is not good because it measures up to a chosen standard. It is quite the opposite way around. An abstract standard is good because it identifies actions which universally produce good results for individuals who act. Your specific life is not the standard, but it's a life from which the standard is abstracted. You therefore have to figure out what is actually, objectively good for your life, no matter how you interpret some abstract standard. The standard is only a guide, and it might be wrong, or you might be misunderstanding it.
  6. I saw the movie over the weekend. I'm not sure if it is a masterpiece, but it might be. There are certainly very artistic aspects to the film, in addition to the riveting performance of Phoenix. I believe it employs a kind of unreliable, psychotic narrator. Not that there is any crazy voiceover, but that the scenes and dialogue are often composed to reflect a mind that struggles with separating reality from fantasy, like Arthur's. Yet enough clues are provided so that an attentive viewer can probably figure it out. There is also the correlation between Arthur's mental struggle and Gotham's social struggle. A whole book could probably be written about the symbolism in this movie. But at the core it's about why Arthur turns into the Joker and does the things he does. The answer appears to be that his transition is a result of many factors and choices. There's his childhood trauma, his adult beliefs, his psychological condition, his treatment by others, his lack of medicine, his desire to make people happy in a world that wants to kill the rich. It might be that the movie purposely fogs up the Joker's motivations, because who can really say why a crazy person does a crazy thing. In the end, it was just the thing they felt like doing in the moment.
  7. I never said that the invisible sign was tangible. You did. I said it was undetectable without the special glasses. Is tangibility also part of your standard for violating property rights? If the sign were intangible, then it wouldn't violate my property rights? Why does tangibility matter? Let's say I never touch the sign. Must I prove its tangibility before a court could find the socialist guilty of violating my rights?
  8. How so? He hasn't met your criteria for trespassing. And nobody will trip over the "invisible sign," because it's just a metaphor for VHF signals. And the "special glasses" are a TV. Why is the invisible sign considered trespassing, but the invisible signals are not?
  9. Okay, now imagine a hypothetical where this socialist invents an invisible, floating sign with his same message. He floats it one inch above my lawn. It's undetectable unless you wear the special glasses that let you see invisible signs. I ask the socialist to remove the sign. He refuses. It's not touching my lawn, but it's in my air space. Has the socialist violated my property rights?
  10. How do you define "harm"? And at what point does harm constitute a violation of property rights? If a socialist stands on my lawn with a sign that says "Make Socialism Great Again," and then refuses to leave when I ask, has he violated my property rights, even though he hasn't physically harmed me or my property? All he's doing is standing there with a sign.
  11. It sounds like you're saying that harm is caused by force and force is caused by harm, which is circular reasoning. I assume you mean undetectable without special equipment. If that is your standard for trespass, why should one broadcaster be stopped from using the same frequency as another in the same area? He can't be trespassing on the other's property, since the properties involved are undetectable.
  12. Are you saying that EM radiation is not an objective, physical force? Or perhaps that its force doesn't rise to the level of physical harm? I mean, I could lightly poke you in the belly nonstop 24/7, and I wouldn't be physically harming you. But it's still an objective, physical force.
  13. Here's the difference. She's claiming personal injury, and so it really has nothing to do with the EM waves passing through her property. If the waves make her sick, the broadcaster is responsible no matter where the woman exists. She could be a bum living on the streets and make the same claim of personal injury. My argument is about the right to the use of property. If the same spaces are being used by the broadcaster and the homeowners, then some agreement must be made between the two. This agreement has historically come in the form of government regulation of the broadcaster, I think in recognition that the homeowners have primary rights to their spaces. Unfortunately, we've let socialists misuse the concept of public property to claim ownership over the broadcaster's product, rather than limit regulation to the use of that product on other people's property.
  14. What exactly do you understand the claim to be? Because I'm not entirely sure I grasp it. What, for example, is meant by "physical harm"? And is that being offered as the standard for violating property rights? How does one "physically harm" someone's space? I don't think it matters whether the owner, himself, is physically damaged. What matters is that his space is being invaded. If someone has a right to send harmless EM waves into your space, why doesn't he also have the right to walk around your land when you're not home? He's not physically harming you, and you would need fancy electronic gizmos (surveillance equipment) to even know he was doing it while you're away.
  15. In this fourth episode we talk about Buddhism and meditation. We ask if there is value to be had from studying Buddhism and practicing meditation. I tell a couple stories about Buddha and Pindola, and Eiuol discusses the epistemological aspects to Buddhist thought and a meditative practice called Satipatthana that focuses on mindfulness.
  • Create New...