Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by 2046

  1. Inherent Essence

    1. Rand is somewhat close to this. Rand does consider man, and indeed all things, to have a nature, that is, in order to be something, it is to be something specific. Humans have both generic features and specific ones. However this is different from an essence. Aristotle was a realist, that essences exist in entities, whereas Rand is more of a conceptualist, that essences are a kind of mental categorization of the aspects of entities. Rand often says that essences are epistemological, not metaphysical. 2. Yes, but again, only good or bad pertaining to some sort of standard of measurement as examined from a human perspective, it is not literally a part of the entity as Aristotle holds. 3. and 4. Yes, more or less. Rand and Aristotle would both consider what is the primary characteristic, the one most responsible for all others to be logikon (rationality.) 5. Yes, but virtue is more than just knowing what to do at the right place and time. One can accidentally do the right thing at the right time, but this isn't virtue for A or R. Virtue is the cultivation of ones character by repeated practice and decision making. 6. This is one major divergence between R and A. Rand did not hold to the doctrine of the Golden Mean, since she believed it to be groundless. Aristotle believed one found out virtue by observation of the wise men of the day. Rand believed in radical independent thought, that someone can't be virtuous for you unless you saw yourself "first hand" the reasons why, and in her novels it's often the supposed wise men of the day that are fools. 7. Yes, although it technically isn't our motivation, achieving eudaimonia or human flourishing is our ultimate end, but our motivation is the concrete values that fill our lives.
  2. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    Indeed, some folk could just be making it all up for attention or what have you. But Rand's comments reguarding psychologizing are appropriate here. You are not privy to someone's context, situation, history, medical information, nor are you an expert in this medical subject or its treatment. There is no way to know in any given case whether this is the fact or not. If someone says "I feel trapped. I don't know what to do. This is not a choice." we have nothing to do but take this at face value and let professionals who are experts in the field diagnose and treat them. There is nothing that we as objectivist are armed with special knowledge to say otherwise, and pontificating on what treatment or beliefs they all must have is the height of pretentiousness.
  3. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    Berenbaum and Bailey study conclude that gender identity seems to differ, albeit modestly, from control females. Very well. They found gender identity scores were intermediate compared with tomboys and sister controls, although this was not related to degree of genital virilisation. Some with milder cases lived successful lives as males and some with severe cases live as females. Meyer-Bahlburg found that those with the severest forms of CAH had significantly greater cross gender desire than controls. So did Hines and Matthews et al. Again, all very well. I'm not seeing the part where they all are delusional and need to just stop being nominalists and need heavy doses of anti-psychotics, and philosophically want to enslave us all. But carry on with all your assertions.
  4. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    Also, I interject this great Rand quote about what she called "psychologizing," that's is attempting to diagnose and make claims about people's psychology and internal mental states without having any proper training or evidentiary support in the matter. I think this quite appropriate whenever I see intrincisist pronouncements about transgenderism: Armed with a smattering, not of knowledge, but of undigested slogans, they rush, unsolicited, to diagnose the problems of their friends and acquaintances. Pretentiousness and presumptuousness are the psychologizer’s invariable characteristics: he not merely invades the privacy of his victims’ minds, he claims to understand their minds better than they do, to know more than they do about their own motives. With reckless irresponsibility, which an old-fashioned mystic oracle would hesitate to match, he ascribes to his victims any motivation that suits his purpose, ignoring their denials.
  5. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    That's the thing. I'm not implying anything medical. My point is hey, there are standards for making assertions. In argument, you are free to make claims, but they require argument. Discussion has no instrinsic value, and I'm not interested in exchange with sophists. I'm just going to keep relentlessly pointing out whenever someone makes unsubstantiated assertions, mainly with the end that third parties don't confuse instrincisist pronunciations about how drag queens must be violating the law of identity and the trannies want to enslave us all with objectivism. I am merely invoking the great Hitchens' Razor "that which may be asserted without evidence may be dismissed without evidence." Specific medical claims require specific medical research, in accordance with scholarly standards, such as blind testing and peer review. Is cogenital adrenal hyperplasia connected to gender dysphoria? These scientists think so: Cf. Berenbaum 1999, Berenbaum and Bailey 2003, Meyer-Bahlburg et al., 2006, Hines 2006, Nickmeyer et al., 2006, Matthews et al., 2009. I await your paper on the matter.
  6. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    I'm glad we have such great keyboard psychiatrists here to diagnose and prescribe people they've never met and give such solutions when they have no medical evidence or credentials to back up their ex cathedra pronouncements.
  7. Correcting the nonaggression "principle"

    This seems like a giant non sequitur. Loosely summed up, you argue for the basic necessity of government as organized defense against endemic violence. A rational person will choose to organize government and thus acting against the government is acting against the needs of a rational man. Okay, very well. But then you deduce that this includes "withholding information the government needs." Well, that just plain doesn't follow. You can say that your argument deduces that you shouldn't act against a government, but that would only apply to a government objectively prosecuting its protective function, not just any old thing the government does or claims to be doing. Which then leads us to ask is the government allowed to do any old thing, including coercing information out of people, in pursuit of this function? I would say no. You then insert the phrase "metaphysical necessasities of government," but this is an empty phrase, the meaning anyone could only fill in with whatever they wanted. Shoes are a metaphysical necessity of government, the government should produce shoes. Food is a metaphysical necessity of government, what quality of food and shoes, well ham sandwiches and nikes, etc etc. you get the picture. In other words, you can't just throw "metaphysical necessity!" onto the end of a non sequitur and make it not a non sequitur. If it's "endemic violence" were concerned about, the word "endemic" means regularly and systemically occurring, makes no sense to then enshrine endemic initiating of violence.
  8. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    Silly scientists! Doing all their research and examining actual people and brains and stuff. Don't they know Mr Swig has it all figured out? Just tell someone that was born with, say, congenital adrenal hyperplasia* to stop being a nominalist, you silly goose! There, confusion ended, duh! *cogenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) a condition where the genetic condition results in the fetus being exposed to unusually high testosterone levels, which, in girls results with them being born with male genital virilisation.
  9. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    There is no such thing as a "male brain" or "female brain," the amount of people pontificating on neuroscience and psychology without the most basic understanding of facts, making one unsupported assertion after another, strikes me as plainly anti-science. Your supposition about a five year old unaware about genitals is just odd, children are continuously influenced by cultural assumptions about gender, this is exactly the point, so the ability to "encounter genitalia" isn't relevant or helpful.
  10. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    1. The concept of gender dysphoria is a scientifically documented and researched phenomenon. It is not a concept to be investigated by armchair reasoning. Whether genetics might or might not influence it, whether pre or post natal hormone levels might influence it, whether environmental factors might influence it, whether brain structure might influence it or whether it might be formed entriely on a cognitive basis, or some mix of things, is a scientific question. Nobody, that is literally nobody in the scientific community says, "this is a feeling formed by genes and some other means than perception." This is just lazy straw manning. It is like Galileo's accusers refusing to look through his telescope because they have already proved a priori what they believe. 2. Man made concepts are arbitrary? That is quite a curious assertion, but I doubt this is plausible.
  11. The Law of Identity

    There is nothing in this statement that ties and necessitates these two propositions. Pure argument by assertion.
  12. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    I may suggest broadening your studies before positing assertions about what trans people must necessarily think.
  13. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    You must be mistaking Rand's theory of universals for realism, for objectivism does not post that universals exist as a concrete thing in entities. Furthermore, concepts involving societies, that is, groups of men acting in given patterns, such as "culture," "status," "role" are not any less a part of reality. That seems a quite implausible assertion.
  14. The Royal Family of Nominalism

    You have not demonstrated any necessary connection between these two things.
  15. The Speech Police in Canada

    Jeez could this guy get any more obnoxious? Say "problematic" one more time... At the end he goes ahead and demand she submit her lesson plans to him for review prior to class. Yes, make sure the censors approve of your work before you teach. This should serve as a great example to others, always record your interactions with the thought controllers to protect yourself.
  16. The Law of Identity

    Really?? The seed maker, nice one. There's a lot of nice poetic language in there, but nothing which seems to tell me that someone born with any given genitalia must necessarily act and be a certain way.
  17. The Law of Identity

    So things like common cultural value judgments are "imaginary," but now we apparently believe in biologically innate preferences. Interesting.
  18. The Law of Identity

    Social constructs are concepts just arise from two or more people acting. Concepts like "culture," is a social construct, as an example. This is entirely common sensical. Are we to believe you think "culture" is imaginary because you performed a google search and your thought process ended there? Interesting.
  19. The Law of Identity

    But social constructs are not imaginary things. There are tons of things that are social constructs. Culture, language, institutions, none of these things are imaginary or nonobjective. Race and gender identity are just part of those things. What you appear to think is "innately" a part of gender identity (genitals) and race (presumably color, body structure, hair type, etc.) aren't non existent, they're just not significant or essential to these psychological and social concepts as you seem to want them to be. Wheb someone says "I identify as" a man, woman, trans, black, white, whatever, they aren't saying the identify in those ways which are biological only. That would be subject to your criticism. But rather, they are saying they identify in those ways which are not regarding biological sex, or race or whatever, those ways to which they are perfectly entitled to claim, those ways in which gender roles are conventional practices or accepted cultural values and norms. And regarding things like acting appropriate for an objectivist... an argument from intimidation isn't becoming of an objectivist either, nor is knee jerk reactions against perceived heretical opinions. Let us avoid ignorant kneejerkism and dogmatic pronouncements on what an objectivist should act like.
  20. The Law of Identity

    Well certainly, there is the science of the issue, and then there is the free speech issue. From an objectivist viewpoint, the free speech rights of anyone to disagree with anything is unassailable. But let us not confuse opposing incursions on free speech with the facts of the issue. Of course it is incumbent upon scientists to make a case by presenting data. But once such data is presented, the naysayers have a responsibility to address it, and not prattle about as if it were self-evident that the law of identity means there are only two possible gender identity types that must needs coincide with genital referencing. Now certainly you can say something like "well I'm not talking about mixed genders, or personalites, or cultural ideas about gender, just genitals!" But precisely! This is defining yourself into victory. The XY system, (which has more than just two options anyway!) is but one dimension regarding gender identity. There is much more that has little to do with this one aspect. There is psychological states, that is, ones own experience of ones gender, that don't line up to just two options, and done necessarily align with ones genitals. And indeed, who aligns genitals with gender roles anyway, for genitals are just fleshy appendages? It is the social aspect too, that of cultural practices, rituals, widely accepted values, assignments of roles, duties, prescriptions, and institutions, rights, and choices, all that have no necessary intrinsic tie to fleshy appendages. We know some of these things are metaphysical, some are man made, and some are a combination. An example would be pre-and post natal hormone levels, we think, can influence ones psychological states. Other research shows that certain environmental factors can influence brain structure and cause a tendency to shift away from birth assigned gender to a preferred one, which may be more like a continuum of gender than a binary. Whats clear is that all of this is okay. Just like we don't fully know what makes one homosexual, we think it's a combination of nature and nurture, of biology and environment and psychology and various associations formed early in life. But it's okay to be gay, and it's okay to be trans. There's literally nothing in the world wrong with it. What is clear is that, just like the free speech issue, there's also the issue of trans folks being discrimated against, feared, or hated as being some kind of abberation, or outright laws passed to violate their individual rights. Just like we oppose cultural Marxist incursions against free speech, we also oppose transphobic conservative attempts at denying the humanity and rights of trans folks. We are individualists (yes it must be explained.)
  21. The Law of Identity

    That's just silly. These are all scientific questions. Without reference to specific data, these pronouncements are arbitrary. Biologisists are increasingly finding out more and more that gender has biological, psychological, and social components. Accordingly, emphasizing the strictly biological components is overly narrow. Moreover, assigning legal and civil rights and authority based merely on genitalia is wrong, as we objectivist should rightly agree with. Announcing that transgenderism must somehow be a violation of the law of identity is like Galileo's accusers making a priori pronouncements while refusing to look through the telescope. As far as your free speech goes, that's a false dichotomy isn't it? It's not as if your choices are limited to either recognizing the psychological phenomenon of gender diaspora or not having freedom of speech. The point being that regardless, it should pose no threat to you one way or the other what science definitively says.
  22. Just a minor note on Mises, he didn't think property rights were useless, he was a rule-utilitarian, and in so doing believed that property rights were useful rules for society to follow if you wanted peace, prosperity, social harmony, etc. But yes, this is predicated on his assumption that most people do, in fact, aim for peace and prosperity, not because there are any ultimate ends or natural rights.
  23. Of course, none of these things will matter because, when confronted with a right wing collectivist threat, they will just point out some left wing collectivist event or action, as if this cancels out the right wing one, or as if the existence of one negates the other. The possibility that we should oppose both leftwing postmodernism and social constructivism and alt right racial identity politics escapes them. They are not radical individualists of the enlightenment variety, they are essentially right wing deviationists that have sided with the right cop to defeat the left cop.
  24. Correcting the nonaggression "principle"

    Again I agree, but this language is obfuscatory. Suppose A kills B. A says, yes I murdered B. But B threatened me, so I initiated defensive murder on him. I'm innocent! Would kinda make sense but be a linguistic mess. Part of what informs our meaning of terms like murder, theft, rape as opposed to justified killing, trade, consensual sex, etc. is terms like initiation vs retaliatory, and what informs our understanding of rights accordingly.