Steve D'Ippolito

Fixed it for you.

I mostly agree with this.

On the other hand, Obamacare will happen and I believe it will have significant negative effects on health care in this country; it's designed to break the private insurance market and get people to "realize" they need single payer. It's a sort of "delayed blast" bomb that has already been set to go off.

Sarchasm. n. the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn't get it.

"Sarchasm" was an entry in a "change one letter to create a new word" contest some newspaper held a while back.

Sarchasm. n. the gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the recipient who doesn't get it.

"Sarchasm" was an entry in a "change one letter to create a new word" contest some newspaper held a while back.

The arrogance of this is infuriating. Did it not occur to the "reporter" that perhaps his narrative--his view of the world--is perhaps incorrect if he has to make stuff up to bolster it?

Could it be that what evolutionary psychology is actually discovering (assuming for the moment it isn't complete garbage) is what people will tend to do when they don't, as you put it "bother using their minds"? In other words, is there a "default" behavior people engage in when they don't think, and is it determined by evolutionary selection pressures? When one considers that the rational faculty is a relatively recent development that made some sort of mere animal into a human being, is it possible that that last non-rational ancestor of ours was fully describable by evo-psych? Or to put it yet another way, the sorts of phenomena evo-psych claims to be discovering operate at a certain level, but for us it's a lower level, lower than our rational faculties, and thus we humans have the capacity to override it. But other animals do not have that level so they cannot. [i note as an aside that many more highly intelligent animals--including us--can "learn" or be trained even at a non-conceptual level, and that level may or may not also be higher than this hypothetical evo-psych-programmed layer.]

If this notion is correct, I would expect evo-psychological methods to explain (other) animals' behavior with high correlation. But it would not explain ours all that well; the correlations should be very weak because of the number of times we overrride our evo-psych "programming." As such, studying (other) animals instead of humans could be a way to control for a rational faculty "interfering" with whatever evo-psych claims to be studying.

I'd certainly condemn as silly any claim an evo-psych worker (or anyone else) makes that we do not have a rational faculty and that our behavior is perfectly explained by their discipline. They would be making the same mistake that Skinner made when applying insights on training animals to people.

The difficulty begins where one party thinks the error (or perceived error) is so egregious or fundamental the other party is not, in fact, an Objectivist. Then you have people proclaiming themselves to be authorities on what is or is not Objectivism, and they may or may not be holding to a very strict notion. (It can be just as much of an error to be overly inclusive as it is to be overly exclusive.) In the end, though _all_ of this is fighting over taxonomy, not over whether or not the person is actually right or wrong.

I am becoming more and more reluctant to use the word "Objectivism" on myself not because I think I have fundamental disagreements over it, but because I am sick of the wrangling over what the term means, and tired of watching people spend time over the issue of whether so-and-so is an Objectivist, rather than whether they are correct. As soon as I apply the label to myself I expose myself to the potential of some back-biting clown attacking me for using the term improperly. It is fortunate, in a sense, that Objectivism's influence in the culture is limited or I'd also risk guilt by association in the eyes of non-Objectivists (oh, yeah you are one of _those_ guys who snipe at each other over trivia).

That having all been said: Leonard Peikoff corrected himself, as I thought he might. I don't think the correction goes far enough. I also don't know whether he considered his wording any more carefully than he did the last time, though. So what am I to do? I guess, I can safely say that if his last statement actually matches what LP thinks, re. withdrawal of consent during intercourse... LP is wrong, and badly so.

I realize it might be hard for some extraverts to believe this, but better no friends at all than bad "friends"

Well, then, you should have said something like "clearly Dr. Peikoff mis-spoke" rather than try to maintain that there was nothing wrong with what he said because the words didn't mean what they meant simply because Dr. Peikoff spoke them.

In point of fact you are continuing to deny what the stated words actually mean. I am not expecting you to agree that LP endorsed rape, but refusing to agree that his statement _sounds_ like such an endorsement, however incredible you may have found it coming from the source it did, is just willful blindness.

Here's an analogy: Someone asks a noted astronomer how far away the Andromeda Galaxy is. He responds, "Two million miles." This answer gets published in a podcast. People point out the error, saying that the correct answer is two million light years and the astronomer is mistaken. Maybe a bunch of creationists even gloat--"See! even a noted scientist has admitted the universe isn't that old; Andromeda is only light seconds away!" A defender of the astronomer says "Well, he knows it's two million light years, so his statement that it was two million miles clearly really is a statement that it is two million light years." And when people point out, "Well, he actually did say it was two million miles" you ram your fingers in your ears and insist the people are wrong, because of what you are sure the astronomer meant to say.

That's precisely what I meant by a reflexive defender of Leonard Peikoff. He made a mistake here. It's likely that he will admit such and correct it, trivializing the matter in so doing. But you have insisted he never made any mistake. (That is different from asserting that Dr. Peikoff is not in fact immoral, a statement which I could be persuaded to agree with, especially after I see the retraction.) You are also looking forward to the effect the correction (of the non-existent mistake?) will have on people who, you claim, want it to stand as proof that Dr. Peikoff is immoral. Oceania is at war with Eurasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

I am ambivalent to a lot of things Dr. Peikoff has said (and never retracted) over the past few years.

I am utterly appalled at people who will go over logical cliffs defending statements that LP will ultimately retract when their actual and inadvertent semantic content is pointed out to him. In the end this whole incident is going to end up saying very little about Dr. Peikoff, but it is very instructive about the sorts of people, like you, who will defend everything he says no matter what the statement actually is.

edit: Included quote from the individual I am responding to, and adjusted some capitalization and punctuation, altered last sentence.

This is what god made options for.

People who want to build roads can take out options on the property they want to buy--they pay the owner a small amount of money, well in advance, for the option to buy the land at a set price. If they do this over a wide enough area, chances are good they will have a continuous route. If not, they haven't spent nearly the money the would have spent if they chose to do it the silly way you seem to imagine they'd choose to use. But if so, they then exercise the options that they want simultaneously. No holdouts because people agreed to the sale long before.

Well, then, you should have said something like "clearly Dr. Peikoff mis-spoke" rather than try to maintain that there was nothing wrong with what he said because the words didn't mean what they meant simply because Dr. Peikoff spoke them.

In point of fact you are continuing to deny what the stated words actually mean. I am not expecting you to agree that LP endorsed rape, but refusing to agree that his statement _sounds_ like such an endorsement, however incredible you may have found it coming from the source it did, is just willful blindness.

Here's an analogy: Someone asks a noted astronomer how far away the Andromeda Galaxy is. He responds, "Two million miles." This answer gets published in a podcast. People point out the error, saying that the correct answer is two million light years and the astronomer is mistaken. Maybe a bunch of creationists even gloat--"See! even a noted scientist has admitted the universe isn't that old; Andromeda is only light seconds away!" A defender of the astronomer says "Well, he knows it's two million light years, so his statement that it was two million miles clearly really is a statement that it is two million light years." And when people point out, "Well, he actually did say it was two million miles" you ram your fingers in your ears and insist the people are wrong, because of what you are sure the astronomer meant to say.

That's precisely what I meant by a reflexive defender of Leonard Peikoff. He made a mistake here. It's likely that he will admit such and correct it, trivializing the matter in so doing. But you have insisted he never made any mistake. (That is different from asserting that Dr. Peikoff is not in fact immoral, a statement which I could be persuaded to agree with, especially after I see the retraction.) You are also looking forward to the effect the correction (of the non-existent mistake?) will have on people who, you claim, want it to stand as proof that Dr. Peikoff is immoral. Oceania is at war with Eurasia, Oceania has always been at war with Eurasia.

I am ambivalent to a lot of things Dr. Peikoff has said (and never retracted) over the past few years.

I am utterly appalled at people who will go over logical cliffs defending statements that LP will ultimately retract when their actual and inadvertent semantic content is pointed out to him. In the end this whole incident is going to end up saying very little about Dr. Peikoff, but it is very instructive about the sorts of people, like you, who will defend everything he says no matter what the statement actually is.

edit: Included quote from the individual I am responding to, and adjusted some capitalization and punctuation, altered last sentence.

Not too shabby! I don't think anyone could take too much exception to it except maybe the second sentence, but that sentence happens to be a correct statement so they can lump it.

I'd be interested... somewhat... to know how recent Branden's comments are, and whether he'd still stand by them if they are old ones. Of course he's not really an Objectivist any more so depending on the timing, the answer might not be germane.

Also, just because Leonard Peikoff says something, that doesn't make it Objectivism.

The only person whose pronouncements can plausibly be taken as authoritative would be Ayn Rand, and even there, there is a Garbage In, Garbage Out effect at work.

Objectivism is among many other things a method to be applied in order to answer specific questions, but you have to have proper inputs (knowledge) to base your conclusions on. Back in AR's day homosexuality was considered, by the "experts" to be a mental illness and no doubt she was taking that erroneous information into account when she spoke.

It is not a principle of Objectivism that homosexuality is immoral even if some Objectivists might conclude as much (and never mind the occasional individual who calls himself an Objectivist and rationalizes in a way to confirm his prejudices).

You seem to be bending over backwards to conclude Objectivists don't want you around; that's why some people have asked if you are trolling.

I first started hearing the words "homophobe" and "homophobia" in the early 80s (which, I believe, is when they were invented), and they never made much sense. They _should_ have meant "people who fear homosexuals/homosexuality" but clearly they were used to mean people "who hate homosexuals to the point of going around 'fag bashing'" As if the word they really wanted was 'mis-homoist' or something like that.

Of course the word makes some sense if one believes in the pop psychology trope that people who are hostile towards someone invariably are so out of hidden fear, and I am fairly confident that those who coined the word did believe this. Though it's possible the confusion was deliberate, to score propaganda points by belittling the opponents (calling them cowards, implicitly). Besides "homophobe" rolls off the tongue more easily than "mishomoist."

You have not demonstrated that she advocated government ownership of anything. Thus you haven't shown that she herself is not a capitalist by this definition of capitalism.

What we have today is what one might call "crony capitalism" where large companies jockey for government favors to get money, lucrative contracts, or directly smack down their competitors (including smaller innovative companies) via regulation--they can afford to comply but the smaller companies cannot. Smaller companies in turn join forces with anti "big" demagogues to pass other regulations. Even companies that _want_ to compete and do business without government "help" have to spend their time in defensive lobbying (please DON'T pass that rule, government!) and may even end up seeking favors because failing to do so puts them at a huge disadvantage.

To put it in bumper sticker form,

Both Objectivists and Occupiers see problems with this arrangement, but their diagnosis differs. Objectivists want to remove the "crony" from "crony capitalism" while the Occupiers want to remove the "capitalism".

No, it means that biologists now take evolution to be the underlying explanation of everything they have ever discovered, including things discovered before Darwin formulated the theory.

A similar statement is now made regarding geology and plate tectonics. That particular paradigm shift occurred in the 1960s and there are plenty of geologists alive today who remember those days; it's quite exciting to hear them talk about how suddenly a lot of things they simply had no clue how to explain (such as why volcanoes were located where they were and not just anywhere) were now readily explainable.

Its because your OP sounds like a liberal/leftist spew.

If we want that we can go to the mainstream media.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/31/opinion/the-new-resentment-of-the-poor.html?_r=1&hp

Leave it to the Republicans, including the head of the moronic Tea Party Caucus to not support taxation of the rich but to be fine with taking some money from the poor. Because taking the last pennies people have will do a lot, but taxing the rich more would never help the country!

This is just reverse class warfare.

[First of all : I would like to point out that I am not interested if you disagree with my conception of space. I am absolutely convinced that I am correct and I am not interested in debating this issue in this thread. If you do not agree, that is fine, I do not want to hear about it. Second of all : I do not care if anyone wishes to link/share this around, as long as I am attributed as the author).

Space is a concept which is very rarely correctly understand by anybody, including modern physicists. However, the purpose of this essay is not to discuss the confusions of others in relation to this concept, my purpose is to introduce a valid concept of space, clearly educed to its referents in reality. It is also meant as an answer to those that damn any and all concepts of empty space as invalid.

Whether or not there is any "absolute" vacuum ( even in "outer space" ) is according to modern physics debatable and there are many theories as to whether or not any such areas in space exist or not. However it is not really impossible from a metaphysical point of view ( when I say "metaphysically possible" - I mean that from a metaphysical perspective, such is not impossible ).

When one considers a "region of space", they are referring to it in relation to separation between a number of entities. This is what space is : It is a conceptual relationship and the "space" itself has no physical existence as such.

However, the separation, the geometrical relationship does in fact exist. The relationship can also be said to include the presence of absence of intervening objects ( or at least the presence or absence of such objects worthy of consideration in a given context). "Empty" refers to the fact that there are no such objects within that region. This is the so-called "void" of space and in some contexts the "void" may refer to a region of space which is alleged to be literally empty of anything at all. It is not metaphysically impossible for this to be so, it is not impossible for this relationship to exist ( again, whether or not any such regions exist is besides the point of this essay and is a question for physics to answer, not metaphysics).

Let us analyze "space " a bit more and put this another way : Space is a separation between objects. It is a relationship of positions between objects. We say space "contains" one or more objects when there are other objects which exist within the geometrical "boundary" which the bounding objects delimit.

Empty space means that there are no other objects which exist in a position which relates to the objects which are defined as bounding objects in a certain way. By which I mean that there are no other objects which exist according to the relationship of being 'between" objects bound by these objects which we are using to delimit this "space".

This is why it is metaphysically possible to have a "void" in at least one sense and why it is valid to speak of a void in at such a sense: The sense that a void is said to refer to "empty " space, to the fact that no relationships of a certain type exist in relation to the objects bound a space. It is an identification of the fact that a certain relationship does not apply in a given case/context

The void does not "exist qua void” ,it has no physical existence, however it is nonetheless a valid concept and it is appropriate to use it.

Let me make this still more clear : Does the fact which I allege "empty space" refers to itself refer to anything in reality? Yes it does. The fact that "there are no objects within this boundary" means that there are some objects in certain locations. The objects and their positions and other objects we wish and their locations are the ultimate referents we are dealing with here.

Now we relate the position of these "boundary" objects in such a way that we form the concept of a "space" between them. Then we consider any other object and we recognize the fact that these objects have location as well, however that location is not within the "space" bound by the boundary objects. We then call that space" empty space" ( or we just say its "empty") to refer to this fact.

However, some people continue to deny the validity of this concept of space and insist on arguing that “reality is a full plenum, it is filled to the brim with something “ or some such argument. However one does need to invent an aether to do away with the concept of "empty space". It is entirely unjustified and rationally impossible to defend on such grounds.

In fact it is to commit a gross error of its own. It is to assume that “empty space” reifies nothingness, that it is equivalent to claiming that the absence of something is something and that it can be said to be a concept with referents ( a valid concept). However this is false. It is the identification of a relationship, as explained above. It is not the same as saying that the void exists qua concrete entity, it is simply the statement that certain entities exist with a given relationship to each other. It is not the same as giving nothing metaphysical primacy or stature and it is most certainly not a contradiction.

In fact it is to be guilty of yet another error. It is to take the relationship "empty space" , which is an abstraction which refers to objects and their positions and replacing it with some entity which one then refers to as "the aether" However this is in fact a logically unnecessary and ridiculous thing to do and what is more it is to reify the abstract relationship of space, which is the very error aether theory advocates tend to accuse those that believe in “empty space” of!

So in short : It is metaphysically possible that regions of "outer space” ( if “outer space” is to be a valid term, it must refer generically to any region of “space” which we wish ton consider outside of the bounds of the atmosphere of Earth or whichever celestial object one may speak of “outer space” in relation to ) are empty or that they are a void. Provided one recognize that space is relational concept

One need not invent an aether for this purpose. One need not treat it as something subject to curvature ( which is just another way of reifing space and a failure to recognize it as nothing more than a relational concept).

There is no space in philosophy or physics to treat space as anything but what it is. It is time more people ( especially physicists) started doing so.

If homosexuality is permissible then why not relations with animals?-or machines?-or plastic yard flamingos? Ayn Rand was against the moral anarchy of anything goes relationships. She understood that rational/moral happiness based upon objective criteria, and it's biological function (ie law of identity), were essential to rational happiness in an objectivist context. Sure, people can choose to live all sorts of lifestyles that they think can make them happy, but rational happiness must be defined within the context of reason or else you end up with hedonism and/or nihilism, which is prevelant in the libertarian/anarchist circles.

Pretty much. The issue is that anyone can get away with attacking anyone that they like , on any terms ( at least as far as I know) they like : as long as that person is not in the chat at that time/a member of the forum. But if someone in the chat wishes to condemn someone in the chat and to speak to them in a way which can be viewed as insulting , then that person is in the wrong. Regardless of whether or not that person objectively deserves to be treated in such a way and regardless of how doing so may be a just(ified) action. Though there has been at least one exception to this that I know of. The excuse is partially something to do with the fact that treating people in such a fashion drives some of them away and reduces traffic ( I think ), but it is nonetheless a policy which is going to drive away a lot of people with strong opinions and those that refuse to refrain from treating certain sorts of people as they deserve to be treated. So in as far as it does that, it is partially self-defeating.




That is a pretty absurd generalization. Sure, some people will be bound to treat it that way. However it does have valid purposes : Such as bringing certain posts to the attention of others and serving to try to indicate that certain members are considered to post better or worse posts, which may be worth considering in some instances.

It can say that but that doesn't make it true.

It's quite a huge step to go from the act of observing something causing it to change(because the observer and his equipment interact with the system) to it necessarily being _consciousnesses_ as such that causes the change. (The conscious entity has to physically interact with the system in question, and plenty of non-conscious interaction happens too.) Consciousness as such cannot change the physical world. That's a leap that a lot of people who abuse quantum mechanics and the uncertainty principle routinely make without justifying it in any way whatsoever.

Awesome.




Why do you assume that an Objectivist "expert" knows more about any subject than anyone else, and that anyone who disagrees with the "expert" must be mistaken? We haven't even brought up any specific issues, yet you're position is that the only proper action of anyone who disagrees with an Objectivist "expert" is try to understand his own mistake? And daring to suggest that an "expert" might be wrong is an "insult"?

In other words, you're saying that the Objectivist "experts" are infallible -- that they are always right, and those who disagree with them are always wrong (and therefore need to "try to understand their mistake"). So, what I'm wondering is how does one get promoted to Objectivist "expert" status and therefore achieve infallibility? Does one somehow demonstrate one's infallibility? If so, I'd be eager to learn how, since, as I've said in an earlier post, the overwhelming majority of Objectivist "experts" have not faced peer review or rigorous scholarly criticism of their work or their beliefs.




I think Peikoff deserves criticism. And I think Rand would agree if she were alive. I think she'd be outraged at some of the things he's said and done in the name of Objectivism.




I think that your mindset about Objectivist "experts" and their infallibility is what's insulting to Objectivism.

J

Oh hey. Johnathan13's post that I downvoted got voted back up to 0, and my post got downvoted to -3. Someone who insults expert Objectivists has his comment upvoted, while my post is downvoted by three separate individuals. A person cannot vote on their own posts, so someone besides Johnathan13 thought his post was good, and a minimum of two people besides him thought my post was bad enough to vote down.

Which proves the point I was making when I made my post. Why should a major Objectivist subject himself to coming here when a culture like this has taken root? When a user on this site disagrees with an expert on how to apply Objectivism, they don't try to understand their mistake. They just insult the expert, who knows more than them, for calling them out on it. Peikoff-bashing has become a semi-common pastime in the chat now, because heaven forbid Objectivism have identity and an expert dare tell someone that their conclusions contradict Objectivism.

The chatroom (not the forum) of this site was the last bastion of reason (that I know of) for online Objectivist social sites. Why? Because we were allowed to pass harsh judgment on people who insulted the experts we look to for guidance. When it was shown that you can get into trouble with the administration for passing harsh, deserved judgment on people like that, it set a precedent. The more consistent of an Objectivist you are, the more you have to keep your judgments to yourself in the face of people like that, and the more common they become on this site.

The rule on this site about not coming here to insult Objectivism is what preserved this site for so long. Insulting Objectivism's experts is basically a loophole to that rule. If you're going to allow people to insult the experts, at least allow the better, more consistent Objectivists on this site to stand up for them.

Why don't any Major Objectivists participate in online forums? Observe the cultural state of this and the other online forums for a potential answer.