Welcome to Objectivism Online Forum

Welcome to Objectivism Online, a forum for discussing the philosophy of Ayn Rand. For full access, register via Facebook or email.


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. I agree, but thinking isn't separate from the body. (Rand would agree with me, here are some examples) http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/soul-body_dichotomy.html She didn't, I checked. You misremembered. I'm trying to be helpful. Sure, so I'm telling you what's different and why you are mistaken at least on Rand's thoughts. What she did say was based on a poetic phrase, and her elaborations in other interviews shows she was always careful to say that religious type quotes she mentions are meant in metaphorical way. You may interpret the words how you want or find different value in the words she said, but it's not what she meant.
  2. That you can create does not mean that there is a creator of the universe, or even just a creator of man. Creating an idea totally different than consciously making reality itself, or establishing existence. You seem to be a little unsure about Rand thinks about knowledge, and about a spirit or soul. She speaks of a spirit metaphorically. She focuses on how you live your life. There's no soul, in her view, that goes past your body or lives on. So if/when she says "I do not die, my body does" she'd mean that she'd have no way to know she died; she would not be conscious, as if she simply went to sleep. But I don't think she said the words you remember. I checked the Mike Wallace and Donahue interviews. The actual quote you are looking for is in the video posted earlier.
  3. That's great, and I enjoy that attitude. My main point was that it's important to get an argument right. Also it is far from unique for Objectivists to get an opposing side's argument wrong. I think you exhibit this too, that you studied a lot so you think that you got the argument right. I don't doubt you understand a lot, but you seem to miss the main arguments about the basis to ethics, by using distinctions that aren't present. If you think survival and happiness are not unified, therefore Rand's ethics are untenable - that's a plausible argument. But it's wrong to say that Rand sees one as a means to the other, or that they are distinct phenomena. A common error is to dismiss all of an argument because you see the conclusion is false. People have trouble with counter-factuals. Even Objectivists. It takes practice.
  4. That's good, but we probably have a couple thousand hours.
  5. In some sense this is complex, but in -general- a joyous outlook goes with a flourishing survival. Mere survival is slowly dying (you would be tending towards death on average) and happiness with nothing concrete to show for it is a chore. But to "do" life, to flourish, is both. Neither is a means to the other, but the process to live. In other words, the process is the reward, as doing it right brings its rewards of happiness as a state of being. (This isn't a full answer - but it's a start to my really long answer!) That's too bad. =\ For example, I think Nietzsche is an awesome philosopher. Rand lambasted him, but I think she was guilty of the same error I spoke about. She seemed to think her own study was enough to say she understood him, when she seems to only have read some quotes. (I'd argue that they have many good similarities) Rand is great when she makes her own viewpoint, and perhaps narrow aspects of philosophers' positions. She isn't so great with philosophers as a whole, criticizing them. I don't think this is unique to Objectivism - it's a common issue for anyone to get caught up in criticism.
  6. Not if the supposedly different things are essentially the same thing. Circularity would be if A justifies B because B justifies A. If A and B are part of the same thing, it's just two parts of how C works. So happiness AND survival are two aspects of life, where survival and happiness are one in the same as far as -doing- life. This is where flourishing comes in, as that's the measure of surviving and happiness. To talk about survival leading to happiness because happiness allows survival would be circular. That's not the Objectivist position though. Rand doesn't split the two except as concepts. This brings in some points for the OP presuming that's still your main interest. One is that no matter the viewpoint, you only get it as far as you study. You might find something wrong so then you spend time on other ideas that make more sense. But it's still possible to say your judgment of an idea being wrong was based on an error or mistake with interpretation. It's all too common that people refuse to go beyond the initial understanding. If you want to argue against someone, you better get their argument right. That's hard to do unless you're an expert or studied that topic a lot. Making a positive case is better. There isn't always a use to lambast anyone unless they are intent on making issues. An Objectivist will be better to -make- a case for their view. KP made great points, but I'll add some ideas. "I want the cake, but I don't want to be fat, so I don't eat it. A behaviour without a pre-rational drive is in essence a causeless behaviour. I find that logically incomprehensible. Perhaps you have a solution?" These aren't really drives in a precise way. All you said is that drives are wants. Okay, of course. Innate drives in this sense exist: there are pre-rational wants. Rand treats choosing life as pre-rational based on pleasure seeking. What still counts is that behavior still isn't about which desire is stronger. If that was it, animal behavior would be all solved. But it's not. Rand would say that's the whole point: principles are functionally useful to get through life with less problems. The principles also apply to all people, so it's not only about utility. For an organized thread, it might be best for you to make a thread if you want to argue out your positions. Kind of off topic by now.
  7. Both together at once. In general, not even with Objectivist positions alone, people are resistant to arguments where one person says two things are simultaneous so they work in unity, and their own position is that one thing must be prior to the other. So with happiness and survival here, it's not that one causes the other, but happiness only happens when one survives, i.e. follows one's nature. Same with free will. It's not that a third person mechanism CAUSES the first person operation of free will, but that they really are the same thing (we can argue if they're parts of the same thing, but it's not two separate things). That's why it looks circular. Opposing sides, if their reasoning isn't top notch, easily fall into false dichotomy. By the way, innate drives are still not as obvious as you say, as it does not address how that then translates into a behavior. People still study animals exactly because such drives are not a full story. Inclinations are no issue. She was wrong about instincts and her reasoning from that, but throwing that out doesn't undo Rand. The wider idea here is that criticizing is easy to do, but it's hard to get a total picture of other sides. I often see people get REALLY riled up by one side, then fail to think about it. The harder thing is to offer a new idea. How well -your- ideas stand is the most important part.
  8. Privatizing a government agency isn't an answer, as I think it'd create worse problems by nature of a mandated relationship of state and government. The transition would itself be decided by the government, with government assets, to some favored company of the state. I would rather a system where there is private control at all levels. Even if a person cannot afford care, in principle, non-profit organizations can help. I know, charitable giving is not itself a solution to all ills, but if there is no other way to get care, you ought to show that you're worth helping. The main idea is that voluntary action is the best means for health care to work. An economist knows the details. Since it is part of our nature to make our own decisions, and to reason out what we do, a system using that as a standard will be the best type of society. In general, this is true, better quality of life and even medicine. Medical treatments get cheaper, as people find it necessary to demonstrate and share an incredible value. Yes, profit is in there, but even on an investor level, getting a return at all requires others getting that value. If a company purposely raises the price so only rich people afford it, so fewer units need to be sold, that may easily create motvation to create alternatives. Part of the issue isn't care per se. It will be things like questionable IP practices and laws, the FDA (or other regulators), and insurance companies that are resistant to providing long-term care so their service sucks. We'd need a model or method to make something like MRI scans cheaper. Too bad most people only answer that with a public system.
  9. An additional way to look at it is to actually combine them! The free will thing is hard to get, in particular if you use the typical definition of free will. A combination can lead you to see that first- and third- person can be -of- the same process. I think this relates to the OP since if "lambast" another side you also need to grasp the foundation of ideas and errors, not just being right or wrong. Similarly, some people are caught up in a definition of free will without looking at the possibility of other foundations, -then- judging that side or what value is present in that side.
  10. It's the only moral way that might work. I would probably know pretty fast when a person is totally unwilling to talk. At least as far as I see, even the most combative people tend to be open to people who are willing to understand them as people and their interests. It really depends on the specific person, though. It also depends on my skills as a good listener.
  11. There are two parts: 1) ideologies based on emotional commitments can only be engaged through emotions (e.g. art, asking about feelings, asking about their intellectual journey) 2) after emotions start to shift, a person is more amenable to rational persuasion and argument I don't imagine this is controversial. 1 is essentially what a psychotherapist does for patients with personality disorders (you don't persuade them to change their behavior directly, you get them to introspect on emotions), 2 is what a psychotherapist may do as a patient begins to respond and become inclined to a full change. We're not therapists, the point is that in principle, this is the only way to reach a person with deep emotional commitments of all kinds. Can a Marxist, after becoming a committed Communist, really be persuaded? As long as people have free will, of course. Laika might be such a person. So the only issue is your time. It's hard to say when it's worth it, but it is possible to change the minds of several people at once, or affect a community. It's the same as persuasion for anything. Whether your time is wasted depends on a person's virtues while considering their vices (Marxism is a vice most of the time, so that's a big hurdle for value to outweigh disvalue).
  12. Maybe moralizing is an issue, but these aren't issues of Objectivism per se. Nothing in Objectivism makes Nietzsche, Kant, or Hume inherently wrong. That is, evaluating whether they are right or wrong is a matter of studying them. I guess (I'd say there aren't a ton), but whatever the case, don't be pragmatic with what's useful! Ask what is true or really does evaluate the world. Dustin seemed to be saying Objectivist type people are simply unwilling to understand any alternative views. I agree that other philosophers have great and valuable ideas - only you can ultimately judge their words.
  13. Agreed, it is at least some information. As you were asking, here is what I'd alter: Familiarity with past leaders needs to have people of similar historical stature, and time period. How does Mao compare to Nixon? To Khrushev? To Jimmy Stewart, to have non-political examples of the 60s? It's a survey, so sticking to leaders between 1940 and 1990 is probably best. Some big names. The questions about Stalin causing death is hard to measure. Do we mean people he sent to the gulag and executed? Do some people count soldiers being sent to war as a death -caused- by a leader? Millions of people died from starvation and other issues during Stalin's regime, but it's not the same as Stalin killing them or the regime killing them indirectly at best. So the survey results about which regime killed the most is not so helpful. It is better to phrase it like "Do you think Communism led to most of the deaths in the USSR during Stalin's leadership?" This captures more about how people -attribute- the deaths, not just "how many died". The questions on how the American economic system is too mixed to be useful. As far as economics, I'd say the system works against me on average. The survey takes this as vaguely anti-capitalist. A better question would be if a person thinks Communism would be superior. And is Communism a problem? I find it low on my list of political problems. That question is not helpful. Problem compared to what? It's not really a pressing issue. White nationalism is the problem that I see. Rather, I'd ask some question about the future of Communism. Do people see it as dying out? Or do respondents mean to say Communism is not a problem because it's good? Anecdotally, there is an uptick in Communism as far as I've seen, but this survey only seems to confirm an uptick vaguely speaking.
  14. Whoever made the report misrepresented the data for sure. But the survey question itself seems fine. The survey question was if familiar a particular person. Some were Communists, some weren't. Actually, looking through it, the whole thing was rather poorly done.
  15. I was speaking of the same thing. I'd say let's add some specifics. Suppose Hitler had an heir and Nazis won WW2 (this would be similar to the show Man in the High Castle). His son was a good Nazi, really adopting the mindset. Gaining the trust of high ranking Nazis. But, having been so "deep" into it all, he honestly changes his mind on a lot, yet doesn't show his change of heart. Then Hitler dies, then people are excited for the new Fuhrer. (This sets the context of a massive empire, or world-wide regime.) Using that... In this case, I disagree. If I were this heir, starting war would revolve around provoking in-fighting such that rebel groups would be able to take advantage. We'd want destabilization to the degree great empires only fall apart if the empire loses stability. Then it would fragment as Rome did. A war would help that process, at least to create a quagmire that hinders the empire. (Similar to Cold War tactics by both Soviets and Americans). For smaller nations, let's say Argentina in the 70s, I would not advise this tactic. Good point. I need to think more on this point.
  16. I should've said to his own citizens and all sorts of practices of violence. But it's not a huge line away from invasion and conquest. Anyway, going more on topic, I don't think being an heir is not something you'll get unless you already lip service to the regime/family. Heirs (if it's by blood or by "merit") are also uniquely able to alter the political situation. So, that veil of deception is critical if the country is worth saving - at which point Machiavelli has a lot to say. I think it actually might be best to focus on the high-end people, the real threats. How would you get them out of the government? My thinking is that the best course of action is to be there long enough to institute an unsustainable law to destabilize the government on purpose. Something easy and acute, then get the hell out of there - join a rebel group perhaps. How long it's worth staying in the dictator position depends on the size of the nation, the spread of corruption, and how long the nation has been that way.
  17. It's about the same thing as The Prince. You brought it up by talking about Machiavellian politics. It's meant to help deal with exactly these situations. Oh, I was thinking of dictators as those who take absolute individual control as an absolute authority. Those who use violent means of asserting authority, so Napolean wouldn't be one. But I agree if you mean any cult of personality in political regimes, I agree. As long as the heir believes in the same ideas.
  18. I read The Prince a few months ago, and I'd say it shows how one would navigate when and if they become a prince. It doesn't exactly propose how a prince -should- behave, it's more so how a prince can maintain his existence within a republic and not get pushed around by people around you. There's a degree of irony in the book, but it still has a lot to say about staying in control as opposed to anyone else. In this dictator-as-heir scenario, we can presume having some position of respect, or else no one would allow it (most dictatorships don't seem to have heirs). We'd also recognize that leaving when you have some sway over others, would lead to a worse situation for yourself even. Given how bad people would be all around, the only real option is to use Machiavellian tactics. The only issue I see is how long it'd be worth hiding your true intentions of taking a country to liberty. It's harder still when some citizens would truly prefer a dictator.
  19. This question seems good at first, but it is actually simple and straightforward to answer. If a person wants to reason through the world, and even uses logic well, it may seem that a good argument would persuade them. But this only works with like-minded thinkers. A Marxist simply does not reason the way you are I do, thanks to their materialist foundation. Furthermore, it isn't surprising if a Marxist grew into it on emotional grounds, so their whole foundation may rest on how they felt about capitalism. To alter that foundation, you need to engage their emotions enough so that they question their core beliefs. This is non-rational persuasion, not far from how psychology counselors work. A Marxist has a false sense of self-esteem is the point. You can offer a little respect to such a mindset depending on their personal contradictions and their interest to resolve contradictions. All you know is that a dedicated Marxist probably wants real self-esteem. Like a religious person, their dedication is a hole they want to fill. It's not a big deal as far as persuasion is concerned, the big deal is what the Marxist plans to do or their personal issues. If you want to persuade someone, you want them on your side. If you want them on your side, helping them out of their personal suffering is probably the most important step. A lot of the time, yes. This is a misreading of Laika making it clear how Marxism can tear you apart between self and Marxism. Basically, a lot of Laika's quotation marks are ironic uses of words.
  20. This sounds like a visualization or a recollection, where it's actually a thought. The word "feeling" is confusing here, also before you didn't use it clearly. Emotions are feelings, feelings are emotions. Imagining memories is something else. I get what Damasio is doing, and I think it is incorrect to use his distinctions on philosophical grounds. If we really focus on Gio's question, all we need to ask is if the infant is responding as a physiological response, or as an evaluation. I would say though that it probably is an emotion, because it does indicate a desire or need for something. Same with any animal with infant vocalizations in species that raise their young.
  21. Origin would be misleading. I'm saying that they necessarily co-occur, so that the physiological third person description is the same as the first person experience. They are the same thing, from a different angle of analysis. Consciousness can likewise be analyzed from both angles, yet we don't split it into two concepts. For the sake of clarity, the word emotion is best. To split "feeling" and "emotion" is a subtle mind-body dichotomy. I don't see why Damasio even needs to rework the word "feeling", because he seems to agree otherwise. If you only mean the "distance" from stimuli, and I over-interpreted, proximal and distal makes a lot more sense. When people say feelings, no one I've seen used it differently than the word emotion.
  22. This is an emotion precisely because it is an evaluation and an affect. The way you use emotion there is a thought out explanation of the emotion, not an emotion. The anxiety is the emotion, the physiological response is also the emotion of anxiety.
  23. Most people who say this I think don't know the history of the war for independence, or somehow think the conflict was just about taxes, or it was white slave owners wanted more control. Many of the founders thought at least the best course of action was to let slavery die out naturally as seemed likely. Plenty also didn't own slaves and were not hypocrites, like Hamilton. There was a greater spirit of anti-slavery anyway I'd say than in Britain. But then came the cotton gin and increasing demand for cotton, leading to all sorts of rationalizations to support slavery that had not existed. As far as the Constitution and the war, there was a legitimate fight that aimed at personal freedom. Problems came in later, like racist policies of Andrew Jackson, or as late as FDR's internment camps, and appeasement to slaveholders in the Antebellum period. There's a lot more to mention. I attribute these to people abusing the Constitution and perhaps weaknesses in the Constitution - hence amendments. I see the Fourth as celebrating the ideals and striving for them. It doesn't mean justifying the evil aspects of US History.
  24. If you think you will probably fail, then you will fail. If capitalism is generally hopeless, a pipe dream, then it is doomed to collapse no matter what. Much of the OP helps to think about what projects are hopeful and would probably succeed.
  25. What is ridiculous about that premise? What did Laika say that isn't true? (Explain please, not just quotes that aren't arguments or description of errors) Would you list some non-rational means of persuasion? I'm hoping that might help you make a more persuasive explanation of your ideas. For what it's worth, I like Laika's posts for showing the psychology of a self-professed Marxist. That's different than any of us who have studied Marxism, yet didn't dive into the way a Marxist feels about the world.