Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

MisterSwig

Regulars
  • Content count

    1354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    23

MisterSwig last won the day on December 20 2017

MisterSwig had the most liked content!

3 Followers

About MisterSwig

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Los Angeles
  • Interests
    Politics

Previous Fields

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

Recent Profile Visitors

3096 profile views
  1. Let's not forget the other targets of 9/11: the Pentagon and the White House.
  2. Circumstantial evidence points to an orchestrated effort to remove Debbie Wasserman Schultz and her friends in the DNC. People try to link the DNC email theft to an attack on Hillary, but it was aimed at the DNC leadership, and resulted in the resignations of several top DNC officials. The stolen emails were dated up to May 25, 2016, which happened to be during the very vocal campaign to undermine DWS's position as DNC chair. Consider this CNN article, DNC Chair On Thin Ice, which was published (coincidentally?) on May 25, and near the end cites three anonymous "Democrats with ties to the party's power centers." Two months later DWS was gone, indeed, after a very "messy" ordeal during the national convention. And her departure was very much seen as a sacrifice to Bernie's altar. Hillary was then immediately allowed to hire DWS for her campaign, and Bernie supported Hillary. On the surface the Party was one big, happy family again. So, I guess the Democrats should be thanking the Russian hackers for intervening and helping get rid of unwanted Party leaders who might have cost Hillary even more Berniebot votes in November.
  3. MisterSwig

    Universals

    How do you get from "we act based on mental entities" to "mental entities have causal power over decisions"? If I act based on what my girlfriend tells me, does that mean she has causal power over my decisions? Or does it mean she has influence over me? If I were willing to accept the consequences, I could simply ignore my girlfriend. Likewise, I could ignore my mental entities. I don't have to do everything that pops into my head. Or even everything I want to do. Right now I want to go have a meal, but I could starve myself for a couple days before hunger pain would finally compel me to find some food. So, aren't mental entities more influential than causal when it comes to volitional action?
  4. MisterSwig

    Universals

    You present an example (the abyss) where the subject's life depends on the choice, and he knows the life-saving option (don't take a step forward). But what if he doesn't know the correct choice? What if he's stuck on an island and manages to build a makeshift rowboat. However, he doesn't know which direction is the mainland. So does he head toward the rising sun, the setting sun, or something in between? And what if his life does not depend on the choice? Let's say he's sitting at a table preparing to eat at a restaurant. On his plate are a steak, mashed potatoes, and asparagus. They all look very good. Which item does he taste first?
  5. MisterSwig

    Dealing with the Hostile Reader

    Actually I am Invictus' one and only example of an alleged "hostile reader." So, yeah, I think this thread is all about me. And thus my perspective is singularly relevant to this topic. If you want to provide a different example, I'll gladly discuss that person.
  6. MisterSwig

    Dealing with the Hostile Reader

    There are anti-Objectivists in this community. Some very openly hostile to Rand. We will remain impotent as long as we morally tolerate them. I don't think it's necessary to ban them, but we should give them an earful when they violate the rules of the community.
  7. MisterSwig

    Dealing with the Hostile Reader

    At first I wrote substantial responses in which I acknowledged that you were referring to me, something you should have done from the beginning. Then a moderator removed my replies, leaving me with no recourse but to challenge your unjust use of my quotes. Meanwhile, admin reinstated my responses, so I now have nothing else to add on the matter, unless you continue to make false accusations of me.
  8. MisterSwig

    A Complex Standard of Value

    I understand caring about the continuation of loved ones after you die, but not all of human kind. There are some pretty bad, disgusting human beings in the world. Some countries are full of them. I would be happy if they fell over dead tomorrow. Concern for loved ones in particular, however, is different than concern for humanity in general. Loved ones represents specific individuals that you have evaluated as worthy of your love. Humanity represents a mix of people that you love, people that you hate, and people that you've never met. It's the difference between treating life individually, as it actually exists, or treating life collectively, as it exists only in your mind. Here I think life is being treated as intrinsically good: more life equals more good. But what if your society is full of people who want to throw your family into ghettos and gas chambers? Does more of their life equal more good for you? Life must be evaluated on an individual basis. Some people are good, and some people are evil. If society in general is evil, like in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, or in Rand's novella Anthem, it might be preferable to run away into self-exile or flee to a better society. But society qua society is not good or bad. A society is good or bad because it contains generally good or bad individuals.
  9. MisterSwig

    Universals

    It seems like you're saying that a particular piece of string, for example, has both an exact color and length and an inexact color and length. The string has both a specific and non-specific shade of blue, and both a precise and imprecise measurement of length. How does that not violate the law of identity?
  10. MisterSwig

    Universals

    It's not my intention to misrepresent your position. Are you agreeing, then, that "concrete" can refer to a non-physical thing? I was working on a response to those who say that a concrete must be physical in nature. But if nobody is taking that position, I must then rethink my next post and reply to something else.
  11. MisterSwig

    Dealing with the Hostile Reader

    It's inept because I don't think ignoring me is really his goal. He clearly wants to stop me from replying to his posts. That's the objective here. Hence this call to remove me from the forum. And this call to ostracize me. And what is my crime? 1. I'm irrational. 2. I put meaning into his words which he did not mean. 3. I had no intention of advancing the discussion. Even if that were all true, which it's not, how is that cause for banishment or ostracism? This philosophy discussion board entertains all sorts of irrational arguments, straw man attacks, and counter-productive ramblings. That's actually one thing I like about it, because I can come here to hone my ability to recognize such things. Also, while I'm here, I don't enjoy seeing people falsely denigrate my philosophical heroes, and I'll exert a little effort to correct the record, even though that's not my primary purpose here. My main goal is to present my theories and consider the replies. In return I offer comments on other people's posts. I hope that is evident from my general activity. For anyone who thinks Invictus has a valid point, I'd ask you to take a hard look at his causes for calling for my banishment. How easily could they be applied to you? What if he thinks your argument is irrational? What if you believe he's using concepts incorrectly or employing a fallacy? What if he thinks your post doesn't advance the conversation? Is he then going to ignore you while indirectly calling for your banishment?
  12. MisterSwig

    Universals

    To summarize this a bit, I see three basic positions by Objectivists, and the one being articulated by Intrinsicist, whom I'm guessing does not consider himself an Objectivist, since he seems to reject substantial parts of Rand's metaphysics and epistemology. Eiuol argues for metaphysical concretes, and I admit to not really grasping his view. It is unclear to me whether by "metaphysical" he means "existing" or "physically existing." If the former, then he and I have common ground. If the latter, then I would put him with Dream Weaver, who uses the term to refer to physical or material things, in which case we have only half-common ground. For I say a concrete is simply a particular thing of which you are aware. It can be physical or mental in nature, or exist in any kind of form possible in nature. A thing can be real without us knowing about it, but we can't identify it as a concrete until we are aware of it as a particular thing. If you are aware of something, then you are aware of a concrete. A concrete is a particular thing of awareness. It is like an object, but it doesn't necessarily refer to the entire object. It could refer to particular aspects (or parts) of the object which we identify as particular aspects (or parts) of the object. And since humans can imagine fantastic things, not all concretes exist apart from the minds that imagine them. To form an abstraction, one must engage in a process of abstraction, which happens at the conceptual level. Likewise, to form a concrete, one must engage in a process of concretization, which happens automatically at the sensory-perceptual level. For example, we see something on the ground. That something is a concrete, distinguished from the ground. Our automatic perception presents it as a distinct thing upon which to focus. Only then can we begin a process of identifying it. Now we focus our perception on the thing, and we are presented with its various aspects, its shape, color, size, texture, smell, taste, sound, relationship, etc. These are all distinct things about the thing on the ground. And we must first be aware of them before we can recognize similarities and abstract from those similarities to form concepts like "roundness," "redness," "smallness," "smoothness," "sweetness," and "foodness," which ultimately help us form an advanced concept of "apple." At first our concept of "apple" might be "a thing to eat that tastes good." But as we gain more knowledge we identify more of its aspects, and therefore the concept develops more sophistication. But the critical point here is that every particular thing we identify about that apple is first and foremost a concrete.
  13. MisterSwig

    A Complex Standard of Value

    I believe joy is the emotional reward for achieving or maintaining a certain moral standard, and pleasure is the bodily sensation experienced through certain physical actions like eating, drinking, stretching, washing, grooming, hugging and copulating. So, I'm not sure what you mean by the "spiritual" aspect. Spiritual, for me, basically means the same thing as the Mental aspect, since I'm not religious. Other than that I think we agree on much of the rest, though I would categorize corporeal health with the Biological aspect. Biological relates to our nature as a living organism, whereas Physical relates to our nature as a material organism. As a thing of matter, I must satisfy the needs of my body. I must make sure I gain values that help my body exist in a proper state. Nature helps me by making it pleasurable to gain certain things I need to avoid a state of intolerable pain. Regarding the Biological, as a living thing, I must satisfy the needs of my life process. The distinction between body and life is essentially the distinction between identity applied to physical things and identity applied to the actions of physical things. In order to act, I must gain values that keep me strong enough to act physically. Without health, I will be too weak to sustain the activity necessary for my life to continue. So my physical nature has two basic aspects: the fact that I am made of matter (the Physical), and the fact that I am made of matter that moves itself (the Biological). Both aspects must have a standard, but those standards should be unified in their ultimate purpose. Pleasure should be healthy, and health should be pleasurable, which leads to an integrated healthy, pleasurable life. Of course there is also the Mental aspect, which needs to be integrated, but I think we basically agree on that one, so I won't go into it now.
  14. MisterSwig

    A Complex Standard of Value

    How would you incorporate reproduction into the biological standard for an individual human being? My life does not require children of my own. Human society requires reproduction, but that would be a collective standard, right?
  15. MisterSwig

    Dealing with the Hostile Reader

    You repeatedly accuse Rand of errors and omissions that she never made. I'd say that's an example of hostile reading. Going to a public forum and ignoring the opposition seems like another example of hostile reading. At least I treat you like an actual human being who takes the time to post in this community. You're upset now because I accused you of employing a fallacy? Nope. I understood your intended meaning. That's precisely why I was arguing against your word choice. Am I not allowed to challenge your use of concepts now? I don't think "conforming to recognized principles" means "morally proper." Even so, I never insisted that you were using my definition. I'm claiming that you were not using my definition, which I believe to be the valid one in that social-political context. Why would I argue that point if we agreed on the definition? I'm happy to take on other people's meanings for the sake of discussion. I've done it frequently on other threads. But your meaning was too problematic for that context. You're rather fond of playing the victim of false assumptions, yet you are quick to assume my private motivation for posting here, as if it were anything other than engaging in intellectual discussions and improving my knowledge of these topics. Apparently I come here to bully people into linguistic submission, like some government censor. If you don't like my use of words, just say so, like any normal person. So basically a "troll" is like any other human being with emotional needs. Am I a "troll" because I seek emotional gratification or because I enjoy controlling other people's use of words? So I should sacrifice my terms to your terms, is that it? And by "understanding," do you mean "accepting your use of language"? Because Objectivists are kind of known for challenging the common uses of particular words.
×