Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. I don't know if that's really the idea. Wouldn't character traits be principles of action, as long as we say character traits can be cultivated? Some might describe these as immutable traits, sure. Virtue is still about the individual -being- good and as part of one's thinking. Objectivism just derives what virtue is differently than say, Aristotle, but the purpose to ethics for either one is guiding and habituating -being- good.
  2. Why Objectivism is so unpopular

    Mostly it's feel good emptiness. Nothing like a philosophical serious approach.
  3. Not the same way, but similar. It's just the broadest action of all; in a way, it's the abstraction "identity". It's not odd to see the manner of its being as how all its concreteness behaves. As I said before, action can't and doesn't exist before things, and things can't and don't exist before actions. Your next line doesn't make sense. "is" is the verb "to be", that's still an action. "Brown" is the adjective, not more than information of the cookies attributes that adds to its identity.
  4. Hmm? It's a verb... Yeah. This whole tangent was about if "exist" is an action, and I say yes.
  5. Existence, i.e., all that is, is a different concept than "to exist". Existence exists isn't one concept repeated - it is two separate concepts. This is relevant to the OP as far as that existing and identity are bound together, neither one precedes the other. Action doesn't depend on a thing existing, nor does a thing existing depend on action. That's how "existence is identity" makes any sense.As long as we know that anything exists is necessarily acting, it's not hard to say each thing that exists in relation to another thing is a cause.
  6. That's an error in my phrasing then, it doesn't capture what I was thinking well. I shouldn't say "aspect of". I mean to say there are things doing existing, that to exist also means to act. When something doesn't exist, it also means nothing is doing existing. Not that there is no thing to act, but there is no thing AND no action as action and existing are inseperable.
  7. Right, which then leads to what I said. Existing as an action as implied by the fact that to be is to do and to do is to be. Existing is an aspect of a thing's identity, as in it exists by virtue of acting. I see how you are saying an action is not itself a thing - but neither is existing. Existing is as tangible as action, as in not at all tangible. Or if you are saying existing is a different phenomena than action and untangible, you would be giving it some unique status. For sure, there are conceptual distinctions to make. My only quibble is that your reasoning suggests that, metaphysically speaking, existing, acting, and identity are not simultaneous. If you still disagree, what is existing then?
  8. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    Lol, ignore that. Wrong Spencer. ^^
  9. If I follow you correctly, this is still a problem. You are saying that there are first things that exist that don't necessarily act. However, by virtue of existing, they will inevitably act. In this way, actions are attributes that "hang onto" entities and those actions are only there as a consequence (or "by accident"). It's the reverse of platonic action you described: a platonic form of existence, from which numerous actions will spring. I know somewhere in ITOE Rand commented on that idea, namely to say it's wrong. I'll find it for you. The point was along the lines of what Grames said above. I see this as existence and identity are the same thing essentially, and inseparable. If something exists, that means it is acting, always. Simultaneously.
  10. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    I doubt it did much to her outlook. People get strawmanned all the time anyway, in all ways. Spencer is a caustic person and essentially a reactionary racist collectivist, but it doesn't warrant treating evil as something it's not. Or Goldwater is essentially good, it's just easier for people to say he had to be racist for opposing the Civil Rights Act. One way to stand against strawmans is to name your ideas and delimit them. Or for Nietzsche, he just said it would happen and that was that. The more radical a person's ideas (whether the ideas are right or wrong), the more the person is misunderstood..
  11. You are making it more complicated than it is. Start off with the idea that all actions are embodied by some entity. Sometimes, two or more entities interact which leads to all of them producing an action as a group. So BOTH the bubbles act, they BOTH do something. However, their relationship to one another is not identical. The important point is that there is not -only- a one way relationship, and that there is no such thing as a "pure" action.
  12. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Actually, I was saying that a mental disorder is one reason why Sally acted so oddly. But that is secondary. The important idea is that there are multiple reasons why this can happen. I brought it up at all because some posts have said that this isn't plausible, but it really is plausible. For Chris, all that matters is he ought to ask what's wrong when clearly something is wrong - failure to ask makes him legally at fault for her resulting psychological trauma. If you disagree on the legal consequence, fine, but I still see no reason to doubt he's acting immorally. Regarding kissing, it isn't sexual activity, even if arousing. It is a prelude to sex, but it isn't sexual until and if he went "below the waist" (and if THAT is what happened, the whole scenario would be different). I don't see this as being active during sex. Given that Chris went to surprise penetration, that's when sex started. That's when she was no longer active. By the way, I don't mean "sex is only penetration". If there was sexual foreplay (oral sex, sex toys, things like that), this would be different. By active, I mean a bare minimum of activity. Doing something. As presented, Sally did nothing. So, all I mean is Chris at least on a moral level is to ask "Hey Sally, what's wrong?" and stop. Of course it's possible she changed her mind, but I see no mention of things that show she did. As I said above, I don't consider kissing an indication of consent or changing her mind. I'm not saying they need to do something as absurd as a contract. When someone only a few hours before said no, then it is better to just ask like "well, are you sure? This is more fun than I thought it'd be". If there was nothing only a few hours before, this would be different.
  13. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    Sure, but she had said no, presumably a few hours before, and didn't give any particular reason to say she did change her mind. And then she acted in a concerning. At least as told, she wasn't making any gestures for sex - just kissing at most, which she already said was cool earlier. I'm taking this story as stated. I'm not imagining things that make the story more normal ("but are omitted from this story"). I don't think consent needs to be verbal always, as long as everyone is active. The reason I say Chris acted immorally is that he still knew her stated wishes. Having sex with someone who seems hesitant about it isn't any warm and emotional bond that makes for an enriching experience. "Surprise sex" isn't a way to ease someone into sex at all. Chris knew she was new to all of it, so an honest and prideful way to pursue sex in this case is to talk about it more. Chris can get Sally more interested, find out what she also is eager to try. Going for a surprise is not helpful, not if he wants to be a caring guy or ever wants to have sex with her ever again.
  14. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    A make-out session doesn't have to do with consenting to sex except to see if she was interested. But he didn't need to ask because he already knew she wasn't interested. After that, there is no sign she did consent. If a person is apparently not reacting or dissociating or possibly unconscious, or anything else not normal, that's a sign a person is not in a state to consent to sex. Consent is active, as in responsive even if unenthused. Sally wasn't even unenthused. She was apparently dissociating - or Chris has damn good reason to stop and ask what's wrong. She had no actual power to say no at that point,. Do you at least agree that Chris acted immorally?
  15. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    My bad, DonAthos, not SL said this.
  16. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    It doesn't -matter- why she said no, the point is that it is a realistic scenario mostly. She did say no beforehand, no one yet has explained why her prior no was cancelled other than to say "she didn't resist, so she means yes now". But failing to resist is not a good indication that she changed her mind. It's just not. SL mentioned that earlier, no one responded to that. Suppose I'm right - is there any other reason to say it's not rape?
  17. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    It's an unknown factor, it is possible she did. My point was to explain to people that that her reaction is exactly the sort of thing that may happen when people are raped. The example of Sally is an unusual case. Besides, the point is she said no... There is no mystery for Chris.
  18. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    You misread. I said he can show how I'm wrong that I think they are less bad.
  19. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    Alt-left isn't a thing. It's merely a term used to invent a unified "other" identity based on fear that the radical left is as unified as the radical right. The radical right chose to unify as alt-right. There is no alt-left unity. The assault on us all through Marxists at universities is an imagined conspiracy. Their threat is exaggerated. Sure there are some - but no one is being indoctrinated. Let's use reasonable arguments here. I agree white supremacy is exaggerated as a threat. But white nationalism is real and a threat, and has real unity. An ideological threat, not a threat of force yet. The best thing to do is fight that philosophy with arguments. If you think I'm wrong about the threat of radical leftists being less bad, please make your case. I agree with your post for the most part. I think you gave a good counterfactual example of what I'd say is an ideological and political threat. Antifa and other radical leftists are far from that in reality, hence my position.
  20. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    I don't think the issue is punching Nazis per se for existing, but when a Nazi actually crosses into an objective threat. To those as radical as antifa, any pro-Nazi statement is a threat to their life or others. Other reasoning I've seen is that Hitler said that Nazi growth was allowed to grow and fester. On it's face, combat is a reasonable strategy when the enemy is known to turn violent once it gains a national following. Yet, as with combat, immediately resorting to violence is not always wiser. If some guy goes around spewing about a Jewish conspiracy, fine, but there is no threat. To an antifa, not assaulting that guy is to compromise with the enemy - they must be stopped! The thing about allowing a Nazi a place to speak is we ARE able to identify some rhetoric to arouse cheers, as opposed to whose rhetoric will arouse violence. The FBI can and should be able to investigate if that person has terrorist intentions. Free speech isn't what counts in principle - what matters is if what people say will warrant investigation. Antifa is anti-police, so this isn't persuasive to them. I don't want to engage in conspiracy here, that the "Left" is doing something to squelch us all, or that Soros is an ex-Nazi collaborator, or that the "Globalist Left" is dangerous. These aren't arguments, but fantasies and scapegoats. Neonazis and their white nationalist apologists have specific leaders, specific claims, and all this is out in the air in front of us. If all there is to show antifa as a major threat is hooligan behavior, it's not that horrifying. They aren't unified, and historically, they don't even try to unify.
  21. Is this rape? Consent? Something else?

    I want to add that dissociation is part of PTSD. A lot of people are skeptical that any person really freezes up. Most people don't freeze up in the face of danger or stress. But that's why PTSD is a disorder. The body opts to shut down psychological response because it ends up safer. That happens during trauma, even before developing PTSD. Perhaps Chris thought that it wasn't that bad to "slip in" - but it isn't up to Chris to decide that it isn't a "real" violation. Sally set her limits. She responded as she expected - badly. The sooner we get rid of the idea that people don't freeze up, the more reasonable and easier it is to talk about rape candidly. I know SL mostly agrees with you and me here, but I see conceding this point as an error. If people don't know much about PTSD and trauma, that's why I'm posting about it. Rape is traumatic - it makes people react in unhealthy and abnormal ways.
  22. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    This part is fine: This part is not: Cultural Marxism is not an actual belief. There is no cultural left either - or at least not any philosophical belief system (loose or unified) to point at. There are some general ideas that relate to each other, but nothing at all like your claim that they are in control. There is a leftward bias, sure. Domination though? There is none. The only "domination" is that the US is a mixed economy that sways to mass desires. Ex-Nazi collaborationist?! But no, it's not that interesting. Maybe a little, but money isn't the area we need to be worried about. It's the violence itself, and that white nationalism *is* more unified and actually able to attain dominance you are worried about.
  23. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    You had me until you wrote this. The "cultural left" isn't a thing. If you mean "cultural Marxism", that isn't a thing. There is no monolithic left, or right for that matter. It is true that academia is biased towards liberalism and left-leaning beliefs. But there is no control of academia or much agreement past just being anti-Republican or that Trump is a bad president. There is no control of the media, because there is such huge variety of left people and a whole lot of right people as well. No is manipulated into their news except by their own laziness at being critical thinkers. There is no special control of government, other than by and large being an expansion of neocon policies - Obama and Bush weren't hugely different. You are trying to demonstrate that antifa is a threat based on the false idea that there is a cultural left controlling all of our lives. Leftists disagree. Chomsky isn't a fan of antifa, and he's the prime example of a leftist academic. I've seen hardline Communists hate on the very liberals that are in media. We know that historically, Communists go after each other - Stalin had Lenin killed. I'm fine arguing if antifa is more a threat than I thought it was, but the "cultural left" myth is not a basis for any argument. You already insinuated that Soros is an ex-Nazi, we don't need more myths going around.
  24. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    I see what you mean. The word authoritarian might not be so clear when we distinguish between types of violent political philosophies. Violent as in that's the means to enact political change as primary. Antifa and Neo-nazis have this in common. Then that splits into centralized violence as opposed to non-centralized. "Authoritarian" is a non-essential point if all we mean is the centralized government throwing individual rights away. Centralization is a big distinction though since it affects how someone would implement force. I think that emphasizes even more what I'm saying about antifa vs. Neo-nazis. Centralizing that violence is a lot worse than anarchist gangs, and a deeper level of disrespect for individuals.
  25. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    And clearly I think collectivism isn't a valid philosophy. I'm surprised that you think I suggested that collectivism is somehow based on anything reasonable. My categories before were to distinguish political philosophies that people hold. Authoritarianism is a style of government. Anarcho-communism is against government, so it can't be authoritarian. Nothing more than that. Given that philosophies are chosen, I can say that authoritarianism being more destructive means that it is less "moral" - it harms me as an individual more. A marauding gang that organizes along Communist and anti-capitalist principles is bad, but if that gang is a government with an entire army and police force, you are even less able to protect yourself. Antifa and white nationalists are those marauding gangs. Antifa won't grow. It's ineffective. White nationalism aims for itself to be active in government and has potential to become worse than antifa. We agree on the roots of collectivism, but same roots don't mean same moral blame.