Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5468
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    103

Eiuol last won the day on November 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

23596 profile views
  1. But the part I quoted earlier was saying that some entities are not commensurable. You didn't say that some characteristics are not commensurable. Yes, the characteristics are distinct, with each characteristic having a finite number of possible values. Then we have entities, which are constructed from a given number of characteristics. We end up with an entity of a specific kind. My question is, assuming that you are making constructions from reality (rather than seeing what would happen if constructions were made in such a world), can't we say that one of these characteristics we can label "constructible"? We can give it two possible values, 0 and 1. All entities would possess this characteristic; all entities would be constructed with the characteristic "constructible". Some entities are not fully commensurable, I understand that, which is fine. You can't make a concept from every single group of entities. Were you saying that some entities are not even partially commensurable? That's what I was objecting to. On the other hand, entities are by definition constructible. So we could then ask if instead, characteristics are constructed from entities, in which case you might not even consider "constructible" a characteristic since there is not a possible range of values. There is exactly one value it can hold, because otherwise you couldn't construct it as a characteristic. Would anything change much if you made it so characteristics are constructed from entities? It might actually make more sense, since at least under Objectivist epistemology, entities are fundamental, and we can't perceptually grasp characteristics until we grasp the entity they stem from.
  2. But that's not "radical socialism". If you don't have a problem with that, it means you don't have a problem with using phrases that don't mean anything. There isn't socialism and people who are radical socialists or not; there isn't a spectrum of socialism like we might have with capitalism. What would a non-radical socialist be? It should be clear that what we are dealing with in Trump is not an attempt at thinking rationally or carefully. Maybe you can wordsmith it all to be much more coherent and sensible, but that's not the meaning intended. AOC isn't particularly radical as a democratic socialist anyway. If anything, it's the least dangerous form of socialism of all, and the least radical as for its ultimate goal.
  3. Sure, that much I already understood. I was referring to the definition of commensurable, not characteristic.
  4. I think I sort of get the idea, but I'm not experienced enough in math to really say. Your introductory stuff seems good there, and the bits I could follow or a nice way to phrase things from another perspective, a more formal perspective. But I think it's more the way you wrote it that made it hard to follow, because you use abbreviations a lot. I guess it would make sense from a computer science perspective, but that's what made it difficult. Would this help advance anything in the field of math? Or computer science? Does it parallel or integrate with some other area within math or logic more broadly speaking? I don't think you really defined this well enough. My concern here is that all entities are commensurable by at least one characteristic, namely that, to use the terms of constructive mathematics, all entities are constructible. This doesn't strike me as a huge problem, it might even be minor, but it would help clarify the nature of the characteristics you are talking about.
  5. Radical socialism isn't a thing. It's made up. No one calls themselves a radical socialist. It's not a political category. It's not that the question is hard to answer, it's that the question is a loaded one. It manufactures two extremes. What is radical about the form of socialism we are talking about? Communism could be thought of as extreme socialism, but no one is advocating for that. Democratic Socialists are at best socialists that don't like Communism, so this wouldn't make sense. I'm asked if I like something imaginary that doesn't exist. In effect, this is a question directed at people who don't know any better. The people reading it are somehow pushed to believe that this imaginary radical socialism exists. Thriving capitalist country can also be misleading, because who doesn't want something thriving? If I picked anything else, somebody would ask me why I don't want a thriving country. This pushes the idea that anyone who isn't a full on capitalist must hate America, or that anyone who doesn't like the word capitalism must hate America. Yeah I want capitalism, but I don't go saying that anyone who disagrees with me hates America. A better question would be if I want thriving socialism or thriving capitalism. We aren't encouraged to think about what capitalism means. We are encouraged to simply have a knee-jerk and conditioned response to the word socialism, and a knee-jerk conditioned response to the work capitalism, without thinking about what either term means.
  6. It literally created confusion, what happened was is he didn't even notice the confusion that was induced in him. It says socialism in the first part, then radical socialism in the second. What are we supposed to think here? What's going on? It doesn't actually mean anything, except what you feel it means. Confusion is misidentification of reality. Identifying that the objective of the survey is some amount of confusion doesn't mean being immune to that confusion. I didn't notice it either. But that's the value of unpacking each phrase. The survey wasn't made to find clear information, or to get people to consider what their beliefs are. "You fell victim to it!" Is an argument that the survey really is doing what we say it is.
  7. I don't know about you, but socialism is easily as bad as emotionalism combined with nationalism. Not sure how you get from that idea to "dry criticism" of socialism just as bad economic theory.
  8. Who are you talking to? Nobody said socialism isn't bad.
  9. I don't really think that taxing personal property is required of Communism, or actually any kind of taxation for that matter. It would actually be consistent with Communism depending on the stage of capitalism and stages after that. It's not that they are capitalist at least to that degree - because such a thing doesn't indicate how someone is or is not an ally of capitalism. It's about why they do it. It's not as if Trump articulated a clear philosophy behind his tax cuts except pragmatic reasons. Or maybe granting that we could call that somewhat capitalistic, and this might be a radical idea, sometimes even allies of socialism can be closer allies to capitalism than pragmatists like Trump. Or at least comparable (I could see reasons for preferring Trump over Warren).
  10. I meant something along the lines of even a full-blown Communist could cut certain kinds of taxes (because it was oppressive to workers or some other reasoning).
  11. I agree with this line of reasoning, although I don't really think that that's the difficult problem to solve right now. Theoretically, we know how the information could be transferred. But how should we place that transmitted information into some packet of information? I don't necessarily see a problem with encoding information as photons of light. How would you translate brain information into a form different than electrical signals? In the brain as it is, information is encoded as the rate in which a neuron fires, neurotransmitters released, and the neurons it passes through by means of which pathways. Suppose you wanted to transfer the necessary neural encoding for your memory of the layout of your house. This is encoded likely as a given group of neurons in the order in which they fire within the hippocampus. Then we have to take into account the neural encoding of the associated emotions. A signal would need to be sent (possibly simultaneously) to different regions of the temporal lobe, and the amygdala. I don't know how to transfer this into another medium without losing information in the process. You would need to introduce another step for information to travel, a step which does not exist. You need some way for the information to "hang" as if it is buffering, before the information completes its journey. You probably know more about this than me. While I am aware of how information can get from point A to point B, I am not aware of how quantum physics currently is able to allow information transfer to completely pause, without letting it fizzle away. Our first person conscious experience doesn't fizzle away, but we are aware that it pauses. That's partly what dreaming does, although that is very speculative. Maybe teleportation that preserves the continuity of conscious experience would involve absolute zero temperatures, like a quantum computer.
  12. it was ad absurdum, it wasn't an accusation! I was saying that your position is un-formed that you could advocate for such a thing and still be consistent. "Speaking out" doesn't help much here, you need to be more specific. I only vaguely know what you mean. Taking it to the absolute extreme, the logical conclusion which you don't advocate for, we would end up supporting a capitalist-in-name-only South American dictatorship. I don't even think Trump advocates that. Yet there is such a degree of irrationality when it comes to anti-socialism that I hear, that as long as somebody stood against socialism, even violating the rights of socialists would be better than having socialism. The survey itself is evidence for just such a thing, the way the questions are phrased. Trump likes to feed off of knee-jerk reactions, even his own, rather than a carefully reasoned position. So when I saw this thread, my first thought was that you were falling into that trap. You didn't respond when I answered about those. Cutting taxes isn't a position. Repealing regulations isn't a position. All they represent is changing a law that exists. So then we started talking about more fundamental things like whether he supports Hong Kong. This would be both the position and a change to what exists. But then when we brought up that if the talks did not go well then he wouldn't support Hong Kong, you went on about how none of us know his private beliefs so we can't judge what his belief would be.
  13. It was intended for you to answer each one as a way to explain your position. If exterminating socialists is wrong, what do you mean by anti-socialist? If you care about other things than being against socialism, what are those things? If I'm wrong that you think his brand of capitalism is basically only anti-socialism, then what is it? I already told you how the clip you posted wasn't especially capitalistic (because he emphasized fair trade). It's a kind of anti-socialism. It could mean that, without other belief mixed in. I care more about someone being for individual rights, rather than degree of anti-socialism. I don't think Trump understands the value of individual rights, and some socialists even understand what they are better (although they call it something else).
  14. His moral arguments are mostly about sentimentality and regard for your fellow man. It's not the worst thing in the world, but it's basically neoliberalism, which is what you would get if you voted for any of the Democrats. It's more like asking about Trumps particular brand of neoliberalism. But as soon as we talk about different brands, we already grant that some of them could be just as bad or worse than socialism. The only brand I can pick out from what you're saying is anti-socialism. I mean, if that's all you care about, if he said he would exterminate all the socialists, you would still think he is closer to capitalism.
  15. It's a distinction you might not care about, but I think it matters. I don't care about lack of enforcement over welfare very much nor should you (to a degree, I think fraud is appropriate with welfare programs, but not as a rule), but I care a lot more about introducing laws about welfare. Without the distinction, you end up blaming them by nature of being illegal immigrants (and that they somehow must not care about America), rather than an act of fraud.
×
×
  • Create New...