Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5086
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

Eiuol last won the day on January 16

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

  • Rank
    Senior Partner
  • Birthday 05/01/1989

Previous Fields

  • Country
    United States
  • State (US/Canadian)
    NewJersey
  • Relationship status
    No Answer
  • Sexual orientation
    No Answer
  • Copyright
    Copyrighted
  • 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
    NJ

Recent Profile Visitors

22610 profile views
  1. Let's try to stay on topic here. We are talking about people who are already part of the US government and our citizens. We aren't talking about immigrants, we aren't talking about who was here first. We aren't talking about stateless people living within US borders. Native American tribes all existed before the US government, so of course those would be handled differently. What you're trying to grapple with is something like secession, or separatism (claiming that your state or region ought to be a distinct nation instead of part of the existing country). I thought you were suggesting that these people had a legitimate moral claim. I see that you aren't. It's a tangent, no problem. But let's suppose that, by whatever mechanism, we ended up with a region of people who are all bigots, simply through freedom of association. And let's suppose that at least at the beginning they really do take on the philosophy that they simply want to be left alone. They're happy that brown people are no longer corrupting their country. Fine, that's their problem. The racism is contained. We have to keep in mind that these people would have a philosophy of racism. They believe that fundamentally, by nature, something is wrong with brown people that would make the world worse off. You might have one group of people that would rather fortify their borders, keep all the Mexicans out, and that's that. Purity in their eyes. They are happy with isolation. But then other people within the region, although they are happy with the purity, they want to disseminate their ideas beyond the borders. They want others to know the wonders and glories of a world where everyone is a race realist. This is a natural thing. So imagine that: you have a region with a racist philosophy, a true home base. Other people on the outside see this. They want to become part of it. They begin their own movements. What ends up happening is that the separate estate becomes a police state. Even the bigots are monitored for connecting to the outside world (or even for bringing the wrong ideas in). North Korea did that, Nazi Germany did that. Even the South during the Civil War began to do that, but it didn't really grow (you really need a big bureaucracy to maintain it). Or becomes a rogue region, sending out terrorists where possible, something like Palestine. Maybe it would stay exactly the same the entire time, but I think this is highly unlikely. The important thing I'm emphasizing here is that racism is more than erroneous belief. Any serious racist, one who pushes for racism in the political realm (race-based policies), would try to spread their beliefs. Almost every time, it manifests as violence. Although we allow racists to state their beliefs, we do not grant these racists autonomy. Of course, a group of racists might start a small town as you suggest, but if it did crop up, I think we would be best off viciously fighting their ideas. In other words, the town should be fought against with ideas before the violence manifests. I don't think encouraging the racists create their own town is a good solution at all.
  2. I didn't think I had to specify that there is no historic "white nation" within the United States (particularly since the idea of a white race only exists in modern times). But I don't think you are making any serious argument. It sounds like you're being ironic, because you are now trying to demonstrate the validity of a "white nation". I mean, it looks like trolling because you begin with an idea that is meant to appeal to people here (let the bigots be bigots, and property rights for everyone even them), exaggerating that to suggest tolerance of bigots (let them have their own town with their own rules!), and then finishing off by saying that these bigots have a legitimate claim to autonomy as a nation. You're talking about particular cultural identities though, not tribes. And if you made an effort to recognize white tribes with the purpose of isolating them, it would backfire. You would actually be creating racial problems. Do you really think racists only care about being left alone? If you honestly want to deal with racial problems and racists, you need a better idea.
  3. I don't think he's making an argument like that. I just don't know what his point is. But maybe the more important point overall is that the bigots don't just want a right to discriminate. They want far more than that. Bigot Town would either have no growth (and would die out), growth but all the bigots are outnumbered by the non-racists (so the name wouldn't work anymore), or growth but the number of bigots continues to grow (in which case they will begin to enact racist policies that violate rights). Giving a safe space to racists might isolate the disease. But if you do nothing else to fight the ideas, it might just crop up again, and the isolated racists would gain political support. What would your solution be to solve racial problems being created by people like race realists?
  4. You said it's an option... I mean, you didn't say that, but the only way we can get a tribe of white people, an actual legitimate tribe, is to grant them some right to form their own separate country or nation within our country. Since there is no historic "white nation", the only way you can get a tribe is through secession. Talking about secession is a completely separate discussion. And you know, that basically happened. That was the Civil War. The bigots lost. I think the important point in this discussion is that a Bigot Town doesn't make sense. If it were so bigoted that the local government passed laws like forced segregation (they certainly would believe that this is legitimate), it would be operating illegally.
  5. Comments like this make it sound like you are trolling. First you were talking about a town of bigots. Sure, you can talk about what that would mean theoretically. But then out of nowhere you talk about tribes? It makes no sense. Are you talking about a group of people trying to secede?
  6. It is difficult for me to say if it was a lie. But it's not transparent, when transparency is important to any kind of relationship. Friends or otherwise. On the other hand, being transparent doesn't have to mean telling everything immediately. When it comes to a huge conflict that would shake up your life, you might hesitate telling someone else so you can take the time to figure out what to say. Not to say that the girl in this case acted entirely well. I'm saying that these are redeemable moral errors. Sometimes people come along where your prior commitments should be given up. Unfortunately, this is where people go wrong. It's difficult to navigate. You might fear that she could "easily" do it again. But sometimes when a person does something wrong, they are less likely to repeat it. That is, if they acknowledge what they did wrong. The key factor I think is, how much room will you give people for mistakes? The girl wanting to kiss Ben, or developing a crush him, was not the mistake; the mistake was simply not telling her current boyfriend (for some people, kissing is a very ambiguous line). Our information is limited, maybe the brief period of time is a sign of impulsivity. But it also might be a willingness to make the hard decisions, even if the method of following through the decision wasn't the best. But I agree that boundaries are important. Expectations starting now, and making them clear, without changing them later. This sounds like a good way to find the type of person they want to be, and can succeed at being. That's how you can prevent cases where someone turns out to be a liar, an abuser, a drug addict, a lazy bum, or goes back on their promises. It's how you can maintain relationships with people who have made mistakes, without worrying that every single instance of a moral error is increasing probability that they will do the wrong thing. When it comes to people I've known a few weeks, I give them some leeway, even more so if I'm extra fond of them and in a short time learned a lot about them.
  7. I've always thought that Rand made wayyyyyy too strong of a claim here. I agree that it was a violation of property rights, but I think the overall violation of property rights against black people especially was reduced. The worst breach? Hardly. Besides, I don't think similar laws have become more oppressive. Perhaps more petty, but not more oppressive. And anyway, I don't think it reflects an erosion of property rights. Rather, even though it doesn't reflect an improvement of property rights, I think it pushes people to think about property rights more. But it doesn't change the dynamics of anything. It's a confused notion of property rights (that the public should have a say with any property that interacts with the rest of the public), but it's nothing like actual erosion of property rights. I don't know what you mean that white racists have been victimized the most. The most I guess because they are the only ones being racist? I don't know what you mean that antidiscrimination laws have disproportionately affected white people. With affirmative action, sure, but that's not what you're talking about. Part of my thinking is that this is a symptom of fear that laws will necessarily get worse. Fear that the laws will get worse because of foreigners distorting the national culture. Except, it's not property rights they are reacting to. They are reacting to an implementation of public property rights that they don't like, but they would approve laws that violate the property rights of others. After all, people like this are anti-capitalists. Property rights aren't even on their mind. In a way, actions like this, murdering people, is a far greater erosion of property rights. I think property rights have gradually improved since the Civil Rights Act. So I don't think the erosion of property rights explanation works here. I think it's more about identity politics, which is the primary thing that will erode property rights. You would be right though as far as laws that are created because of identity politics. But not all antidiscrimination laws are created for that reason.
  8. I think he was half right. I mean, I'm looking at this years after the fact. From what I gathered here, too much emphasis was placed on the girl not telling every single little fact. Of course you judge actions, but what we think the actions mean is not always correct. Did her actions mean she was a liar? I don't think so. But anyway, the books you mention. How does the author suggest how to figure out what to do to take into account the people can change and acknowledge mistakes? Or how does he distinguish judging the actions of people you've only known for a week, compared to the people you've known for years?
  9. The particularly funny thing is that any honest form of Buddhism wouldn't have anything like propaganda. I would say the thing you linked is more of a Western corruption of Buddhism that tries to portray itself as enlightened rationality, but ends up as a philosophical mess.
  10. I guess I'll leave the post up, but if questioning your ideas on Jung 's bullshit, then I have no idea why you posted in my own thread originally.
  11. Well, your claims about psychology and Jung are the same way. Ilya has provided more cited sources, not to say he is correct, but (I claim) he is wrong for the exact same philosophical reasons as you. I don't know how you'll react to that, but I'd at least like to talk about it
  12. This is basically my point. You are making points that emotions come from the heart, or that people like Jung are mystics in the sense that they have a belief in emotions that don't stem from the brain per se, but from other parts of the body. This is still confusing the cause that gets the ball rolling, and the source that completes the manifestation of an emotion. It's perfectly fine to say that the heart or other organs send signals to the brain that may involve emotional processing. When you say the signal itself is the emotion, you end up dropping the entire meaning of a signal, then equivocating anything internal as some kind of mental content (which is conscious or unconscious according to you). If information is sent by the heart, through the circulatory system, counts as an emotion, then certainly the signal sent by your toe count as an emotion; if the heart counts as a source of emotions, your count can as well. All that you said about the heart is well and good. But would you offer a similar explanation as to why you don't think Jungian archetypes, for example, are not mystical?
  13. One sense of subconscious is information that can be consciously accessed with normal effort, but not necessarily always in conscious attention. Mostly, this would be what your memory refers to. My main criticism about Jung and other psychoanalysts is that very often there will be interesting initial ideas like the heart to emotion connection, yet they will take the thought as if it is definitely a viable scientific idea worth empirical investigation. I very much appreciate radical ideas, strange ones even. But when they aren't really grounded in either science or philosophy, it really ends up as arbitrary. Or people end up taking metaphors as literal. And don't forget scientific investigation requires careful conceptual distinction. There already are distinctions for electric signals sent by different parts of the body, emotions, and cognition. If you stub your toe, does that mean your toe generates an emotion? There is a signal, an emotion will probably occur, but is the toe forming an emotion? It's causal confusion. You might end up offering a scientific explanation of heart as the source of emotions. In the process, you would end up destroying any sense there is of making any distinction of brain processes or any other systems in the body.
  14. Collective unconscious. There's a difference. It might be a translation thing, because I don't know what the original German would be. It's unfortunate though that Nicky never was interested in the discussion that he brought up in the first place. But I find it interesting enough anyway. What you mention about the heart is fine enough as it is. That your heart beats can be treated as a signal with information is really quite reasonable, to the extent that electricity propagates through neurons. There are plenty of signals sent from your muscles, or your spinal cord, or many other things. Although the brain deals with the most amount of information (anything from voluntary movement to language to drawing), many other body regions will process information in some way. Experiments have been done with cats where the spinal cord is severed in a specific way, but the cat can still walk without any connection between his legs and its brain. Yet that doesn't mean any of this information has thinking involved, can be felt, or has any mental content. And if there is no mental content, there is no emotional content. There are different ways to conceive of emotions. Some people distinguish between the cognitive aspects of emotions and the sensations of emotions. There might very well be "pre" emotions, whatever signals are involved in early production of emotions. After all, anxiety can manifest when your heart rate goes up. But as soon as we talk about the origin of emotions, it's problematic. It doesn't make sense to say the heart, if by emotion we mean that rich emotional mental activity that goes on. We wouldn't say that a paramecium shrinking away from the light is having an emotion. But this is why mysticism isn't just a mistake. It's a framework of thinking. Jung didn't simply have radical ideas that questioned the paradigm around him. That would be fine. How the heart relates to emotional processing could end up with some pretty groundbreaking ideas if pursued far enough. Yet this would change entirely if we are trying to say that an emotion itself, like what we say when we mean sadness or excitement, manifests in the heart. That would require additional premises, particularly ones about an unconscious. And then we wouldn't be grounded in empirical science anymore.
  15. For one, you're the one who brought up using existing standards. Second, I was referring to the Constitution, specifically the First Amendment, as a reference to describe an existing standard of how to implement individual rights, in the unfortunate context of public property. I didn't say it's right because it's what the Constitution says. I'm saying the Constitution is right about speech, so it would be proper to use any legal standards and precedents from that. I think I said this already. And to fix my previous post, it should say "there is screening for actions and activities that may involve things that are not legal in the US". It shouldn't say screening for beliefs in that sentence.
×
×
  • Create New...