Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content count

    4789
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    88

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. Eiuol

    Heirs to dictatorships

    Sure, you don't need to correct every injustice, nor is it even reasonable to assume they always can be fixed, or to assume that every injustice is your concern. I'm discussing here the times when there are injustices that you care about; I'm not trying to say that you should save the world. Still, there are things that happen in your world, so to the extent that they are in your world, it is in your own interest to have those injustices fixed. I was speaking generally on purpose. As in injustice is not a desirable thing. If you want to discuss which injustices you want to care more about, that's a fine discussion. It's worth asking yourself if there are injustices you should fix. In the context of political science, we might want to ask if there are any observable effects of those past injustices. I think I might be overly abstract here. I think a good example of "past injustices" without immediately getting into really complex social questions is the one Doug Morris posed. In this case, you would recognize that someone took an action that caused property damage. If the buried "chemical bomb" blew up immediately after someone bought the house, that person who caused that damage should pay for. (I'm assuming that it would be the justice system you are a part of, not just something going on on the other side of the world under a government that you can't actually worry about right now. I don't want you to get the impression that I'm advocating fixing every environmental injustice done to others in the world. If you exist in a society that protects rights, it would be in your interest that people's rights are actually protected.) What difference would it make if the damage was 30 years later? The next step would be to ask if anything can be done about it. As I mentioned before, maybe the guy got away with. Maybe no one will ever know who did it. Some people might say "well, the government should intervene, we should all give this person money to fix the damage, even though we will never catch the person who did it!". That would be wrong. Fortunately, in a capitalist system, we don't suddenly intervene and say that "we can't catch the guy, so we gotta do something through the power of the government!". In fact, the best solution really is for the victim to persuade others that a little help is needed because their house blew up due to the fault of another person who was criminally negligent. They could say "I moved here to get a PhD in physics, but now I have nowhere to live and can't afford it, so I like you guys to help me out. I think I deserve it, and it really sucks that the guy got away with it."
  2. Eiuol

    Heirs to dictatorships

    I find it shortsighted to leave it at "the past is in the past, so it doesn't really matter now". It's fine as a TL;DR, but I think Easy Truth would rather know *why* this is a fine answer. The thing we need to consider is that injustice occurred, so generally speaking, we should ask in what way we can assure that injustice is fixed. For example, if someone burns down your house, one solution is to have the government force that person to pay for damages. Of course, not all injustices need to be fixed in that way. If someone was really mean to you, the solution might be for them to buy you chocolate to apologize. Since right now we care about force being initiated (or someone threatening to initiate force), the kind of injustice that directly prevents another person from acting or using their mind, we can leave aside other types of injustice. We should remember that grave injustices have occurred throughout history. Oftentimes, the effects of those injustices extend quite far out. Imagine if it were the Holocaust, your family was murdered, your money destroyed, and everything you did is gone. This could have effects for several generations, in the sense that you can no longer as easily choose to support or promote various ideas or technology even. Clearly, if the Nazi government were still around, it would be straightforward to just force them to repay the damage in some way. Slavery isn't too different than that, and even after the Civil War, people who were once slaves were barely compensated. This was partly the fault of President Johnson, who more or less let the South get off easy. So in this case, the injustice might be even worse in the sense barely anything was done about it originally. There is a degree of injustice committed upon the descendents of slaves, in the sense that they may have been in a better condition today if justice was served. The world is not how it should be - it is up to us to fix any wrongs or place the world in a better condition (after all, someone made it worse). One answer is compensation with reparations. But this doesn't seem much better, because the people paying for it didn't actually do anything wrong. It might not be as unjust as slavery, except it's still an injustice. Another answer might be to establish a nation to send these descendents. The issue here is that you need to ask where you get the land from. Israel was created as justice for the Holocaust, but this is extremely problematic still because it was created from land by the very same people who unjustly acquired that land. (I'm not talking about the current state of affairs, I mean way back when Israel was first established.) Another answer is to forget about these grand solutions that require state intervention, not think about justice as a matter of collective or racial history. Around here, we even ignore who has started with "unfair" circumstances. Instead, the best answer is to continue to offer opportunities to people who demonstrate themselves, on an individual level. You may seek to develop an area that's very run down after a long history of racism and slavery. The answer certainly isn't to double down on collective or racial identity, because that is in injustice (even if it is not as unjust as reparations). In a capitalist system, justice is well served when you focus on what individuals are doing now and plan to do in the future. There is no quick solution to years of injustice. It will depend upon how long it has lasted, and of people continue to commit those injustices. Yeah, the past sucked, but it happened. It's over. The people in the past got away with it. Still, there are things you can do to fix some of the damage. That might be establishing a university in the area, or improving the living conditions of the area. In the context of slavery, removing Confederate statues from public display is a good idea where possible (put them in museums). "Quick solutions" like reparations do more harm than good, not to mention you are using collective guilt.
  3. I would still technically consider medication that passed phase 1 as unapproved, that is, medications that have not completed the regulation process. I'm actually not aware of how to acquire medications that have only passed phase 1, which mechanism do you mean?
  4. Turns out it did pass. http://thehill.com/video/administration/389856-watch-live-president-trump-signs-right-to-try-act
  5. I don't think he does, not in the philosophical sense. We're talking here about using history to recognize principles, of which at least Obama understood some of. But that's really besides the point, the important point is that understanding history is necessary. This looks like anti-intellectualism. As if having an intellectual understanding invalidates someone's ideas, and that the lack of intellectual-ness in Trump is somehow a virtue. What do you think? When do you think America was at its best?
  6. This reminds me. I lean towards saying that bisexuality is more natural and ideal while heterosexuality (and homosexuality for that matter) are further away from human nature. Very little research was done on sexuality before the late 60s, and even that seem to be predicated on ideas from Freud and other psychologists. A number of ideas on sexuality stem from poorly crafted science. It may appear philosophical to relate homosexuality to specific aesthetic views, and entirely reasonable, but the concept homosexuality isn't based on any careful analysis or long existing concept throughout history. Bisexuality (or more specifically, a lack of any definitive line based on gender for sexual interest) seems to be the more normal approach as far as I've seen, and any preference one way or the other is more like a statistical regularity (and probably influenced by cultural values).
  7. He doesn't, but to be president he does. A president, to be half decent, needs to be read on history, be engaged in intellectual history, to read books, and all sorts of things that require intellectual engagement. So when he says "make America great again", he is not referring to any intellectual appeal. It is an appeal to emotion. Trump is a powerhouse of rhetoric and communication, but it does not follow that he necessarily esteems things he talks about. Specifically to the question in the OP, I would say the Gilded Age from 1880 to 1900. I picked this because it was an extremely capitalistic era in American history, slavery was abolished, the west was developing, railroads made mass communication possible. The biggest issue in this era of course was the treatment of blacks in the South. There was extreme racism and violence, and apparently the federal government did little to intervene.
  8. Eiuol

    Depression

    A good psychologist wouldn't take on the role of some spiritual advisor. Meditation is very important to do for dealing with depression symptoms, but some people then take that step to do a full dive into Buddhism and discover egoless-ness. A good psychologist will give you strategies on how to deal with emotions. It's like hiring a personal trainer for working out. Sometimes you'll get good advice, but other times you might not learn anything new.
  9. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    You asked a one line (ish) question, didn't elaborate your position, and didn't mention anything about what you already know. All signs pointed to you knowing very little. The quality of your question affects the quality of the answers you receive.
  10. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    This is completely changing the topic... You didn't ask about how to deal with irrational people. You asked why one should be rational. My first two posts, for two. You responded to one part, but it was more a misunderstanding of what I meant (which is now transformed into a strange literal reading that "Rand didn't care that most people are rational" had to do with contexts besides "why be rational"). You made some strong claims that Rand is a hedonist in metaethical terms, but you still do follow-up to my questions and reasoning as to why she isn't being hedonistic. I have nothing else to add other than this discussion has become pedantic rather than interesting. Your last post or any real effort was to say that the nature of man is to be rational where it suits him. That is, his nature is not to be rational - for if it were his nature, he would be consistently rational. But this is a surface level misunderstanding of Rand. She repeatedly spoke about reason is the means of survival, and that's what she means by the nature of man. If you're getting frustrated with people, it sounds like you are very unsatisfied by an explanation of why reason is the means of survival, but I haven't yet seen in arguments from you to show that Rand failed to justify reason as the means of survival. Instead, I've seen you latching onto how you want people to address that most people don't try to be rational, and no one is trying to answer that. If you think that question is important, you need to prove it, because most people here would think of it as a degree of moral failure rather than evidence against man as the "rational animal". The (attainable) ideal is to be rational, and it is critical to flourishing.
  11. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    I don't know why you interpreted what I wrote as she didn't care about being choosing to be consistently rational. I said she didn't care if the majority of other people are consistently rational. (I don't need to keep saying consistently, because to be a certain trait is to be that trait consistently.) She cared about being rational, she didn't care how many other people are rational, because it doesn't change the nature of man. Maybe you misinterpreted what I wrote, thinking that I meant Rand didn't care about being consistently rational in her moral theory. For one, I elaborated specifically that being rational is the standard to judge right or wrong. But I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I attribute it to you thinking that when I said "people", you thought I was referring to what all people ought to do. But that's not what I mean. I was referring to the idea that observing how many people are rational doesn't matter. Rand would probably say it doesn't matter if -most- people are rational for determining the means of survival; what matters is the characteristics -all- people have, namely, the capacity of reason. To say man is the rational animal is not to say that all people will always be rational, only that as a general category, man's proper nature is to be rational. It's an ideal and end you must work towards.
  12. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    The discussion is why be rational, so I was saying that there is no "why" or "should" because the answer to that question is just that it's in man's nature, as in its necessary for his flourishing. I have no idea what nukes have to do with that.
  13. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    What does that have to do with choosing to be rational, or man's nature?
  14. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Right, being (consistently) rational is the aim for those who seek to follow their nature. If 1% or 99% of people are (consistently) rational, that doesn't alter man's nature - 100% of people have the capacity to be (consistently) rational. What the majority do is beside the point.
  15. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Sorry I misread it? But still, I don't know what point you're trying to make. Rand didn't care if most people were consistently rational or not. The quote doesn't say otherwise. EDIT: to clarify, I was responding to how you were talking about if people in general are rational, not individuals
  16. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Why did you add the word only? What point are you trying to make? All that follows from reason being the means of survival.
  17. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Sorry, I was using speech to text software so it didn't come out right. It was supposed to say: "I don't have reason to think that Rand ever cared in her position whether people are consistently rational." She was only concerned if man's means of surviving, of existing, is reason.
  18. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    Then address that, because the whole discussion is about what Rand wrote. You brought up a quote of Rand quoting, which isn't too helpful, because it's not her own words. If you have an argument as to why she is a subjectivist ultimately, then presented. All you really sad is that her liking a quote that "sounds" hedonistic suggests that she is giving moral license to all types of behavior. But maybe you should draw out your argument then. Are you trying to say that morality is a metaphysical characteristic of reality, so it is hedonistic to suggest otherwise? Are you trying to say that evaluating the effects or the nature of the entity acting is invalid because morality is just embedded in the fabric of reality? I'm thinking the real issue is that you think a teleological argument is invalid. In that case, it's not that Rand is inconsistent in your eyes, but that you don't think a teleological argument can be consistent. If we think of morality as a characteristic of actions that man takes in relation to his life, then there isn't much to discuss other than how we "pay" for our actions, whether they undermine our ability to flourish. I don't have a reason to think that Rand ever cared in her position whether people are consistently rational. By rational animal, she only means that reason is the means of survival - so we all have a capacity of rationality. If you have an argument as to alternative means of survival, then make that argument. For Rand, there is no other feature to take into account, reason is the only relevant standard for Rand to judge whether an action is right or wrong. Being rational is an attainable ideal, and the "payment"is flourishing and life. Being irrational is possible too, and the "payment" for that is (at best) slowly moving away from flourishing in life. But importantly, she isn't saying that we should be rational because of the consequences. Rationality is the moral standard because it's in our nature, it is our means of survival, and benefits come along with it. EDIT: typos
  19. Eiuol

    Why follow reason?

    You are reading way too deeply into a single quote that is quoting a quote. It is only saying there are consequences to all your actions. Given that it is a religious quote, I see no reason to interpret it as consequentialist or suggesting all is permissible as long as you are willing to pay for it. If you don't like the original quote, fine, maybe she's misreading what it means (she wouldn't be the first philosopher to misunderstand what somebody else said). The only thing relevant to your post is David's response, the quote won't really mean anything until and unless you know pretty well what it is she is summarizing. Generally, there is no -reason- to be rational, to the extent that rationality is the only way to judge what is right or wrong. She makes a teleological argument that man's nature is to be rational and it contributes to his flourishing/life, so right or wrong can only be judged insofar as you act rationally. I don't think this is morally agnostic, just that an important moral principle is to recognize there are moral implications to your life or any action you take.
  20. Eiuol

    A theory of "theory"

    The first thing I thought of is how some cognitive development researchers, in terms of conceptual development, think of concepts as theories about the world. In order to have that theory of development, they need a theory about theories. Their aim isn't so much to say what the correct concepts are, but how children attain their conceptual understanding. The good researchers in this area deal with philosophy a lot, and sometimes it's hard to distinguish them from philosophers. What you write here is in general pretty consistent with that project. The set of highly probable propositions for a subject is the main idea for them I think. Of course, some of them are nativists, but I still think they're on the right track. Your example of why warm-bloodedness as a nonessential property is a point I hadn't considered before. I always thought of nonessentials in terms of simply not explaining the most about the entity, just the opposite of how Rand thought of essentials. So when you say warm-bloodedbess this is basically essential to a supercategory (or subcategory) of the entity we want to understand, this sounds much easier to comprehend. The only thing I'm unsure about is whether you actually distinguish theory from hypothesis. Would you explain that some more?
  21. Eiuol

    Questions about Free Will and Morality

    I think this is one of the reasons I like Rand so much. She doesn't always give a lot of detail, which really pushes you to understand for yourself what she means. Some philosophers see this as lazy and not grappling with the issues. I see it as forcing people to engage with words that have long been assumed to be "how things are". When I'm actually in an academic philosophy settings (I have taken at least three graduate-level philosophy courses) I barely bring up Rand because her form of arguments were not built for that setting. I make Objectivist arguments, in terms of the essence of the ideas, but I always find myself needing to "translate" some of it to academia. Consequently, I don't claim that my "translations" are the same as her ideas, although I credit her as an influence. Somewhat related, Nietzsche. Talking about his ideas in academic philosophy is very difficult, especially from his writing style and nonstandard use of terms. It would be wrong to consider him a subjectivist, or against free will. When it comes to the core of her ideas, all we need to say about Rand is that we are free to lead our own lives - and that we aren't "doomed" to the absolute freedom of Sartre where there is no objectively true answer to what we should choose. The debate after that is interesting, but I don't think there is any fan of Rand that denies her observations on free will. The only question to me is how much people want to engage in those finer details.
  22. Eiuol

    Questions about Free Will and Morality

    We went over this, sometimes the reason people don't interact is that maybe they don't like interacting with you. There was no question left for 2046 to respond to except yours. It isn't a personal attack to say that some people don't like talking to you. I have offered arguments, but without arguing against them, the response was that "I still didn't get it". So that was the end of the discussion. I wrote a personal criticism, not an attack.
  23. Eiuol

    Questions about Free Will and Morality

    IEP and SEP are nice sources. But unless any of us have a PhD in philosophy, or a Masters degree, we can't treat these as the be all and all source. I don't think it would make sense to present an argument about Rand's position based on the meanings implied and agreed upon in modern philosophy, that's not where her thinking stems from. We can point to Nietzsche, and Russian philosophers when she was in college, and Aristotle for her influences, and how she then formed a philosophy. What is implied and discussed in the free will debate isn't really about the things she said were important. So, I think you're trying to fit Rand into a modern philosophy category when basically anything she did was against the grain and controversial. This is part of why I said determinism is a distinction we should abandon. Because I think Rand is correct and not building on modern philosophy, the traditional definitions within this debate just don't cut it. I think that Rand is closer to compatibilism than not, but she still isn't. If this is confusing, it's only because there is no view like hers. When we introduce terms like determinism or compatibilism or the libertarian notion of free will, then we would only mislead people more. I don't think so either, I was introducing a distinction to help the discussion. I was trying to frame things with terminology you prefer. Otherwise, we'd be talking past each other. I'm making the more controversial claim here, the onus is on me to clarify my thoughts. If you want, cite a specific philosopher that you think Rand is most like with regard to free will and is active within academic philosophy. I'm open to being wrong, but that's really the only kind of evidence that would change my mind much right now. I want something more than SEP or IEP. Or as I said, people don't like to interact with you. I mean, I think it is clear that we want to get the view right, and we have no qualms about saying when we do in fact disagree with Rand. There's no need to argue about who "really" understands. You have some peculiar ideas about free will that I don't think make any sense (not what you're saying here, things you said about indeterminism actually), but I don't see this as any sign of evasion.
  24. Eiuol

    Race Realism

    it's not that there is disregard, but that the alleged differences are either based on bad science, or the differences aren't substantial enough to result in behavioral differences that are relevant to modern society. Of course there is variation among individuals, but it's not egalitarian to say those differences aren't as substantial as you think. Egalitarianism would be calling for the equalization of everyone in that we can literally be anything we want to be. That's wrong not the correct view. Some people are better at what they do than others, and that's okay. That doesn't justify using questionable science to come up with explanations for individual differences. IQ has issues, mostly because intelligence is so complicated that no single measure really works.
  25. Eiuol

    Race Realism

    Alexander the Great, Genghis Khan, and many more have traversed most of Asia. IQ is not a measure of rationality, it is a measure of a factor of intelligence in the context of fluid intelligence. As far as rationality is concerned, we would still want to measure grit, creativity, spatial intelligence, memory capacity, crystallized intelligence, and many other things that contribute to cognitive ability. I should also mention that there are issues even measuring in the first place for people not raised in Western countries. Not because those who brought up in non-Western countries are inherently stupider, but the tasks aren't really developed for those contexts. in other words, without the support of Western-style education, those in Africa might not do well on IQ tests.
×