Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Eiuol last won the day on January 15

Eiuol had the most liked content!

About Eiuol

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  • Location

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.

Recent Profile Visitors

21369 profile views
  1. Veganism under Objectivism

    The reason VO gave is that as omnivores we don't need to eat meat, but lions as carnivores need to.
  2. Veganism under Objectivism

    To add one last thing. Babies are human and have a capacity to use reason that will fully develop. Animals can't and don't fully develop it at any point or ever.
  3. Veganism under Objectivism

    The quote says they have some abstract thinking ability. This does not mean that they have a conceptual ability. Having knowledge is not the same as having concepts. Animals are still far below the complexity of conceptual thought, in such a way that no one has observed conceptual thought in them (except for a few animals). Abstraction in the sense of a dog understanding that it can be sneaky if the owner isn't looking is real, and perhaps some associating of memories. But inducing language, or that there is purpose for them to understand, or think ahead a year... All sorts definite indications of reason are missing. All of it can be tested, too. I'm not arguing about sentience. Most animals are sentient. The point is that animals don't reason, therefore rights don't apply. Sentience is a broader category. Ravens are perhaps the smartest birds of all, perhaps you could make a case to not eat them. No one really eats them anyway. Chickens and turkeys though, there is no sign of them using reason. Same goes for dogs, or fish.
  4. Use the report function. Rudeness per se isn't a violation, and it's not clear cut when posts are merely "not nice". But reporting helps. The most egregious ones are removed quickly, though.
  5. Veganism under Objectivism

    But you don't need to speak their language to persuade them. For a python though, there is nothing to do our gesture or anything else to a python for it to understand you. The wider disagreement I think is that you are using the word differently than most of us here. You seem to say reason is any means of thinking. So of course any sentient being would be a reasoning being by this standard, and meat would be murder. You also mentioned knowledge, that having knowledge is an indication of possessing reason. But when we say knowledge in the concetual sense, this is different than knowledge in a basic sense of noticing and awareness. So you've combined these both to say any kind of knowledge is an indication of reason. Objectivism understands reason to be the ability to form knowledge in the rich conceptual sense, to form concepts, to consider one's life in the long-term, and all these rich ways of thinking. The essential factor is conceptual thought. Elephants and dolphins might be at this level, but that's it besides humans. Not cows, not dogs, not Koko. Sure, these animals are quite intelligent and people are surprised all the time at their abilities. Yet there is no scientist I am aware of that says any animal can think with full-fledged concepts. Koko was not able to learn in this sense, nor was her learning going on in a way that showed any full comprehension of words. Apes like Koko are great at learning to communicate even with humans, but doesn't mean they need -reason- to survive and exist.
  6. Donald Trump

    It seems to me that Musk was pointing out that Trump hasn't shown any reflection on US-China trade relations. It's obvious that China is far from a free market yet Trump is wishy-washy about foreign policy. It makes me think that a tariff may make sense for Chinese products - but not to other countries. As far as I see, Trump is far from a force of change in foreign policy. He is seen is weak and laughable (and hardly threatening), he has no ideas to leverage other than hope China will provide a better deal. It's not like it'd be hard to release a list of key points of China as a poor trade partner or some other sign that there is a plan. Intuition is not enough. I know that Trump wouldn't respond to the tweet (and that Musk can't even become president legally, if you took me literally), but I expect more from him. It seems though you missed all the past work Trump has done pre-presidency to show that he isn't a wheeler-dealer, as in the deals he gets in real estate are due to shady manipulations. It's questionable that he can attain any deals that are all around good. He hasn't done so in foreign policy yet, despite all the reasons to get going on it.
  7. Questions about Free Will and Morality

    Sure, 2046 wasn't as precise as he should've been. That's why I first posted and stated my position. But as the OP suggests as well, there is a seeming conflict between Objectivism's strong and rigid causal nature of reality that is determinate (i.e. there is no simultaneous A and ~A in any context) and comprehendable, and its strong sense of free will that we are in control over our thoughts and behaviors. The solution here is that volition in some sense is self-evident, that we don't need to hem and haw over if it is an illusion or not. We can take for granted that we are volitional beings in a determinate universe. Even more, we aren't reducible to mere neurons. This approach is how Rand deals with volition. There isn't anything else to say on this theory - the only thing "left" to do is look into the scientific details of how it is volition operates. This neither is determinism nor non-determinism per se. As usual, Objectivism does not neatly fit into any category except a very general term as Aristotelian. In this case, Objectivism is more compatibilist than not. Right, and furthermore, I find that your explanation does not at show what weak determinism is besides compatibilism. If that is all you mean, then I'd say Rand's form of compatibilism doesn't don't entail -that- notion of determinism. But as I said before, its simpler to throw out the word "determinism". We should go to pre-modern (as in the ancients) ways of doing philosophy about free will.
  8. Donald Trump

    What's your point? My estimation is that Musk would be a better president. Musk 2020.
  9. Questions about Free Will and Morality

    There's nothing to evade. You might not see it, but you aren't the clearest writer. If people aren't "getting it", or people don't see the issue you want to point out, it might not be them. Oftentimes, it's your own writing that doesn't make sense. That goes for anyone. I'm not sure what it is you disagree with. Because the way you ask is irritating, so he didn't really want to answer. Seriously, it's annoying if you ask a trivial question like "do you agree with Rand's definition?" On a forum like this, people agree on those basics. His silence goes to show how you aren't contributing anything new. Not to mention he already went over a lot and answered your other questions before. I'm only posting so you'd hopefully stop blaming us, and perhaps note that your approach here is poor for a discussion. You might find that you don't disagree about much. This is a difficult topic. DWs post adds to the discussion, sure, but on the other hand, it doesn't get into the nuances that people talk about nowadays.
  10. Questions about Free Will and Morality

    Why are you treating this as if we're enemies? This is just a discussion. No one here disagrees that free will is real. If you don't want to engage the deeper distinctions among positions on free will, why are you even here? Kaladin's post is a good example of expanding on the discussion.
  11. Questions about Free Will and Morality

    No need to get frustrated, you might just need to explain it in a different way. My position, probably similar to 2046, is that the word determinism is pretty loaded. I would rather throw out the term entirely then try to qualify if Objectivism accepts or denies determinism. Certainly, it would reject "hard" determinism that you mentioned. Past that, the determinist/non-determinist dichotomy doesn't really work. Rand essentially argues that the world has a definite causal structure which we can understand in its entirety. Volition, too, follows a definite causal structure (i.e. it has a nature), but by virtue of not being reductionist, Objectivism is fine with discussing mental states and mental control.
  12. Questions about Free Will and Morality

    You said that such a definition of free will could exist in a mechanistic universe. If they could, then this would mean they are mechanistic and you are looking for a non-mechanistic part of free will. But 2046 provided just that in point 3 at the least. Point 3 could not exist in a mechanistic universe. Actually, you would be saying what I suggested above: you would be looking for aspects of walking that are non-mechanistic such as intention, proprioception, goal seeking, and so on. That takes us straight back to the same issue in the OP.
  13. Questions about Free Will and Morality

    Why are they mechanistic? I don't understand what else volition could even consist of. 3 on its own is already non-mechanical as far as I see.
  14. Donald Trump

    A third option is that it's not about power but a reaction to irrelevancy. The only point I want to add in here is treating Trump as "not the left" when the issue was what a collectivists do, like fighting for the things that the group has been denied. When to collectivist groups clash, reactions go haywire.
  15. Donald Trump

    whynot, What do you mean Trump didn't satisfy people like a politician is adept at? His "noises" aren't perhaps "soothing" to you or me, but those were in fact soothing to many people. Don't pass on this "he's not a politician" mythology. He might not be a standard politician in America, but his career grew from the skills politicans are known for - persuasion, sometimes manipulation. Yes, many liberals (i.e. Democrats and neoliberals) treat his supporters as universally bigots or fascist, which is wrong. But by and large they are the so-called deplorables. Based on the people Trump tried hardest to appeal to. My problem with your claims is that you are justifying his immoral acts as some pragmatic "necessity" or just for fun. Take the bad for what it is, don't explain it away. The rest of your post looks like hoping for the best. But I don't see much reason to trust your hope.