Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on October 19

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Partner
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
  • Experience with Objectivism
    Rand related: All major works. (Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology, Virtue of Selfishness, Atlas Shrugged, etc)

    Peikoff related: OPAR and three lecture series (Objectivism Through Induction, Understanding Objectivism, Unity in Ethics and Epistemology)

    Tara Smith related: Most things, including Viable Values and Ayn Rand's Normative Ethics.

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

Recent Profile Visitors

23449 profile views
  1. I think they are both wrong. Do you mind if I respond by speaking from the view of a third character?
  2. This is kind of ridiculous. Rand in particular talked about defining your terms. If you are presenting an argument to someone, you need to define the terms of the argument. Eric admitted he didn't quite understand what Rand means by life and standard of value. Not to mention your argument was confusing and provided no context. It would make more sense to ask: "would you first explain what you already understand? What do you think Rand means by life and standard of value?" Thanks, I appreciate that. The only reason I'm not getting into the nitty-gritty here is because I've talked about this topic many times over the years. I'm not as interested anymore. But I'm always glad to point people in the right direction for doing philosophy when reading a philosopher like Rand. It's easy to pass her off as a weak thinker because her essays aren't necessarily self-sufficient. When we think about life, and the standards in which we choose our values, and what may or may not be more important than life, there's a lot to consider. She doesn't write a 30 page essay because she thinks that's all that could be said, but because she is providing an outline. If you need to fill in the blank, don't be afraid to do so, and don't be worried about getting it wrong. Sometimes more analytical philosophers are nice to read because they are exhaustive and leave little room for interpretation. Rand lays out the concepts for you, and arranges them for you, but all the counter arguments are left as an exercise for you. If the concept life is a pre-requirement of forming the concept value, what would this have to mean? Take a charitable stance, assume that Rand has an actual point to make. I think when you reflect on it, is pretty straightforward, and if you read her other work, I'm sure you understand it fine. Now, if you have objections, bring them up. Just because Rand didn't preempt your objection in writing doesn't mean there is no response, or that her writing was incoherent.
  3. Related, but not the same. I can read a philosopher then see a line that inspires thoughts that help me find out what's true, without necessarily sorting through with a fine comb every detail. I also can read a philosopher to figure out what they are trying to convey, in which case the details matter a lot, even the individual words of a sentence sometimes - sorting out their thoughts so you can fully understand them as a philosopher. I agree. But none of us are Rand scholars here, so I don't see the point of constructing an argument for something you already read. It sounds like you're saying that Rand isn't as precise as you would like, not that you don't actually understand. If you want an in-depth discussion, take a look at the recommendations from 2046. Since this is a forum though, I don't see why you wouldn't just construct the argument yourself, then ask if any of us think you got it right. It can be difficult because her writing style often assumes you've read her other stuff, but I don't think sloppy is the right adjective. People who don't like Nietzsche usually think of him as sloppy, because his style is so literary and deliberately poetic. That style makes them hard to interpret. Heidegger made up words a lot, and wrote a lot of that stuff about those words, and that can come across a sloppy because he doesn't convey information plainly. I'm using those phosphors as examples because they are closer to how Rand wrote than someone like Leibniz. On some level, you just have to do the work yourself, and consider the totality of a given essay, and better yet, the totality of all the work of hers that you know. If something is weird or confusing, it requires thinking about what the philosopher is getting at, rather than deconstructing a sentence to find the exact logical breakdown of each proposition. Works great for Kant or analytic philosophy, but you'll be much more limited if you try to analyze Rand's own words that way. You could imagine anything you want. The quote is about the soundness of the concept value, not the validity of connecting one concept to another. It's more like the concept value is empty of meaning unless and until you have something about life conceptually speaking to build on. Is it correct to say that the concept life must come first? That part is left open, and would require some interpretation. Why is there a developmental order to concepts? Why isn't it good enough to the concept death instead for the logical relationship? Does Rand really have an argument in mind, or is she just saying what sounds true to her? If you want to ask questions like that, I can tell you how I would think about it and where in her work I would look for some insights. You need to be more specific though, what exactly don't you understand, and is that you don't understand, or just didn't like her style?
  4. This is making things more confusing because you are talking about premises that Rand doesn't have. He's asking about Rand's view, not yours. I know you and I have talked about before, so my point isn't that you are wrong, but that you're answering the wrong question. Man qua man is a level of abstraction it's supposed to be on.
  5. You've read the relevant literature, so I'm not sure what you're asking. If it is just a way to frame the discussion, so we can make sure we have precise quotes or passages, then you should construct the argument yourself from your reading of Rand. You have the knowledge and background to do it yourself. What about my first post isn't quite enough? I distilled it in a simple way, enough so at least that I pointed you towards the parts of the reasoning that matters most. If you're looking for an absolutely precise argument, of the sort Leibniz would do, you're not going to find that in Rand. She wasn't a continental philosopher per se (and yes, I know continental philosopher is a pretty imprecise term), but she wrote like continental philosophers. She's more precise than someone like Nietzsche, but not precise on the level of Heidegger. It seems like you're asking about textual analysis of Rand, rather than the truth of certain ethical facts. It's fine to analyze the text if you want to understand the thinker. It's just a different goal. As I said though, you've read the relevant literature, so I don't see what that exercise of reproducing the argument matters.
  6. Yes, because using a standard requires deliberation. It doesn't even make sense to have a standard to cause deliberation if you need deliberation to use standards. Just because a moth takes actions to live doesn't mean it's operating by the standard of (moth) life. Man qua man, not you qua man.
  7. Right, I said that... I can explain the nuance little bit. No, I don't think they understood the connection completely. But I do think they understood something about the connection. The rest is just repeating myself. I can't have a conversation if you're not paying attention.
  8. This is true. You can't decide on life from a set of standards by using life as the standard to select it. We can reaffirm life as a standard, but simply reaffirming that choice does not justify it being a standard. That's why Rand spoke so much about the requirements of survival, and man's nature, as the way to determine standards of value. If you "opt in", you need a moral code (that is, you need a method to live by your nature as a rational animal). But if you opt out, it doesn't even matter - if you use other standards to determine your choices, there's no reason to call it morality.
  9. I mean, if you don't have a hypothesis to start with, it's just an arbitrary division. You can find statistical anomalies by doing this that aren't meaningful. "It looks like there are more" isn't a good hypothesis. "FDR broke the tradition of term limits" is a little better, but that still isn't enough to say why other people would vote for him those extra times. Does anyone really care if he broke tradition? You need something special about him that you hypothesize might result in the pattern changing. I'm not sure that this distinction matters. Just use months served. It might sound nitpicky, but I think when you put it all together, your results will be much more clear.
  10. I meant the actual data set you compiled. If not I'm thinking of making one in Excel. Yeah, that is a big difference, but the sample size is twice as big pre-FDR. I need to do a Chi squared test on it (or something like it) to see if the difference is even significant. Part of the problem is, why did you select FDR as the dividing point? I would use the Reagan era. I might even use Wilson. Like anything in stats, you need to justify your divisions. I don't see why you should. Or at least, what's the difference between a Pres. who served most of the rest of the term, and a president who served less than half of the rest of the term? Another way to look at it to answer the question: what hypothesis do you want to investigate? You could ask something about the causes of why people vote for a person twice (in which case you should only look at who was elected twice in a row), or you could ask how likely it is for someone to be elected into another term based on how long they serve. If you do it the second way, you would look at how many months somebody served.
  11. Did you forget that you're the one who started talking about causal links and intention? I even quoted you. It's like you read your post and thought it was me.
  12. Could you post or link the data you used? I was thinking about more nuanced things like frequency of being reelected when the House is by majority the opposite party. I suspect inclination towards perpetual war starting with LBJ and increasing power of the executive branch starting with Wilson. It could also be greater population and urbanization.
  13. The female alter ego of Elliott Alderson? But welcome. If you haven't seen Mr. Robot, you really should.
  14. No, I'm saying you are having a hard time understanding the causal link that is in the headline whether or not they intended it. I don't think they intended people to make that link, and I'm not sure they realize the connection. But I don't think you see it either. The value of objective headlines is that even the connections you don't intend are not hidden. It only seems to grab the attention of people who are reading into it.
  15. You resurrected an 11-year-old thread to make a tangential comment about Donald Trump?
  • Create New...