Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5401
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    102

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. I still see it, dunno why you don't.
  2. I think they are both wrong. Do you mind if I respond by speaking from the view of a third character?
  3. 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.
  4. 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?
  5. 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.
  6. 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.
  7. 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.
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.
  11. 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.
  12. 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.
  13. 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.
  14. The female alter ego of Elliott Alderson? But welcome. If you haven't seen Mr. Robot, you really should.
  15. 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.
  16. You resurrected an 11-year-old thread to make a tangential comment about Donald Trump?
  17. I really have no idea where you are getting a positive connotation from. Absolutely. It's a good description, leaves out moral judgment, and includes a key feature of who he was. That's why this headline also said "head of ISIS". Since he was an austere religious scholar, and the head of ISIS, you would then conclude that something about his austerity caused his motivation to be a terrorist. It's as clear as day to me. You are having difficulty making that connection. I had an easy time making that connection. It's like when a nonscientist reading the abstract of a paper. It might look convoluted, but scientists have no trouble understanding. Actually, I don't really trust much media in the US to provide objective reporting when it comes to national news. But once in a while they do something right.
  18. No it doesn't correspond, because austere isn't a value judgment (albeit with a negative connotation because of the type of people it describes), and you would leave out the obvious parallel of "leader of Nazi Germany ". Please read and respond to EC's question before saying anything about this part again. No, because I think that following Islam at a level of austerity is closer to the "real" Islam and is violent and dangerous. The more interesting thing to me is that a left-leaning newspaper finally acknowledged that fully and completely following Islam leads to violence.
  19. Stop repeating this. It makes you sound stupid. I addressed this two other times at least. You keep repeating the same thing. If you want to sound like you're even paying attention, you need to explain why "austere religious scholar and head of ISIS" is not essential. EC''s first post highlights the value of a phrase like "austere religious scholar". "Visionary" is a moral judgment. It isn't implied, it is explicit. This doesn't even parallel the headline we are talking about. There wasn't a positive adjective.
  20. Moral judgments are second-order judgments, as in they first depend upon judging what is true or false. In order to convey facts as best as possible especially due to limited space, moral judgments should be left out of headlines. As a separate claim, if you focus on an emotional expression at the first stage, the moral judgment will be distorted. So, I'm not claiming that moral judgments require emotional expression. I see now how my wording wasn't precise enough for what I wanted. As far as this headline, I don't think the lack of moral judgment indicates anything important.
  21. If the distance away from proof was far enough, it would be gossip. If there is reason to be confident, even if I can't prove with certainty, there can easily be enough information to judge moral failing. Or I can use other moral failings to infer how confident I should be about allegations on them. I'm not saying they didn't seek money from him, I'm saying they probably sought money from him because he manipulated them. Nothing complicated. I don't trust that source, and when I looked at it, nothing was super concerning to me. I honestly don't care about ARI, it's just interesting to me to think sometimes what the Oists in that type of world are like. I don't think I would like them very much anyway.
  22. I fail to see why I should care about him. He was a Scientologist. Who cares. I don't see why that is more likely. It isn't a parsimonious theory, it requires many variables being just right, especially variables we don't know anything about and can't know anything about. Going off the information available, Minns manipulates people. I could easily make him sound like a Roarkian hero hated for his virtue. And I think fans of Rand often have bias a to think that whatever thinking method that they use is rational in all fields of thought. Pretty good marks if you ask me. I'm referring to the nature of telling a good narrative (it's a common phenomena where people will ignore moral failings even in the story that the person tells, because the story sounds so damn cool). "Slippery" as a way to describe a person who deliberately skirts moral norms of all sorts, and knows enough about psychology and rhetoric that destabilize your notion of what is a fact and what is an exaggeration. "No one can seem to prove" is not a valid objection, because that can easily be due to a failure creativity. For example, people and organize crime manage to avoid prosecution, that is, until people get creative in how they acquire information.. I mentioned Donald Trump specifically because Dupin likes Trump, and he wouldn't see the irony of hating on Minns. I think it had the effect I wanted. Must we always remain skeptical of the character of a person because of unproven claims? Minns passes a threshold of bad character for me because of a number of associations and connections. Especially the hired hitmen. He fled the country, he was arrested for fraud.
  23. Right, why do you think I said nevermind? At first I thought they were different people because nothing I saw mentioned his sculpting. The initial seemed to differentiate them. But once I looked up that court stuff, the same initial was used. So, yeah. It's kind of like a Roman Polanski situation, or OJ. He fled the country. The ruling on the case I linked isn't my point, because I don't think it says anything about guilt in the matter. I appreciate your skepticism, but it isn't some super secret thing. https://www.latimes.com/archives/la-xpm-1994-07-21-me-18211-story.html Doesn't have much to do with Barney's character though, or ARI, that would be speculation. I wouldn't be surprised though if Minns just knows how to scam fans of Rand really easily. Something like Donald Trump - a slippery liar who can commit and hide crimes or major moral transgressions and simultaneously claim to be a victim.
  24. That's sculptor Richard L. Minns in the photo, not Richard Minns. EDIT: Nevermind. https://law.justia.com/cases/texas/tenth-court-of-appeals/1995/667.html
  25. One of my first posts was explaining how it was in fact accurate. If they included words like "vicious", those words are value judgments. The more you explain, the more I realize that the problem is that you are having difficulty interpreting what "head of ISIS" means. If that's playing it down, it just means you don't know how to read or write headlines or titles objectively with value-neutral words. That's not an insult, it takes skill and practice. Either the points don't mean anything, or they are trivial enough that they don't argue for or against me. You might not intend certain points to be your main point, but after I see them, what I think are essentials of your ideas appear minor to yourself.
×
×
  • Create New...