Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Content Count

    5107
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    96

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. Without evidence, referring to women who get late-term abortions that you are judging as irrational or making bad decisions. I wasn't referring to discussing viability of the fetus.
  2. That's not what I'm pointing out. I'm pointing out that is perfectly possible to have a late term abortion for rational reasons. I don't see why it matters to say that a woman should have done it sooner. It doesn't make a difference. Of course it's usually better to get a medical procedure early rather than later, but that's it. By looking for a middle ground, finding moral rather than legal fault in women who have late-term abortions, you only ended up bringing in in sexism and judgments without evidence. Sexism, because you are making a claim specific to women, with standards and questions that aren't posed for other medical procedures of similar risk. If you agree that abortion should be legal, then there is no reason to treat it differently than another medical procedure. Waiting a while for a medical procedure sometimes is the most rational thing to do. As far as abortion, the only moral concern is why wasn't better contraception used initially. Argue as much as you want about late-term abortions, it makes sense to discuss. But it's not just or fair to discuss presumed irrationality of getting a late-term abortion without even one example. Consistency is not generally something people in society seek out. It's relatively uncommon. But anyway, that's beside the point.
  3. What are you talking about? It's pretty common knowledge that Latin was the language of ancient Rome. Not to mention that the Latin used during the Renaissance was very different than the kind used during the Roman Republic. The common Latin became what was known as the vulgar Latin, the Latin spoken by the average person. There isn't much to say that is special about Latin as a language. So no, you can't even infer that its characteristics reflected some sort of rationality. I find Mandarin relatively nice, and Cantonese more so. The apparent crispness of Latin compared to Mandarin is because Mandarin is a tonal language. People who speak non-tonal languages generally have a much more difficult time grasping the crispness of a tonal language - it requires a different kind of skill. I know a very basic amount of Cantonese, but once I learned that, Cantonese itself sounded a lot more beautiful to me. When it comes to linguistic flexibility, which I think is the most important aspect of language (both cognitively and aesthetically), we might be able to make fair judgments. Sort of like what Swig is saying. Latin partly became so widespread because it could adapt with many other cultures around it during Roman conquest. It could effectively adopt words from other languages, which also aided with artistic developments, and philosophical developments. But perhaps all languages could attain this? Or maybe languages become flexible when more cultures are taken into that language. Not to mention that it is so easy to come up with new words in English. Trying to create new words in Japanese is very difficult - and not surprisingly, instead of making a new Japanese word, the Japanese people just used the English word. I think it comes down to the way a language is used and for what end, not the features of the language. At least, when it comes to modern languages.
  4. Latin is a wonderful language for abstract expression, and still very good for all the concrete stuff. And it helps with abstract understanding. But this is more because so many languages stem from it, not because it has special characteristics. For the most part, most modern languages just have differences in the way you navigate words, as Stephen said. There is no best in that context, except your native language. There are some languages in the Amazon spoken by tribal communities, and some of those languages lack words for numbers beyond 2. This presents difficulties with dealing with counting, and ordering items (there is still some debate if this is due to the nature of the language, or due to the lack of education). If anything, this is how language was thousands of years ago; modern languages are much more advanced.
  5. It was the way you were talking about it, emphasizing irrationality rather than the possible rational reasons. If your skeptical position (and having some skepticism is good) is that granting a right of late-term abortion would lead to even more irrational abortions, and that you didn't take the time to mention any rational reasons to seek a late-term abortion, I don't think you're being fair (and for you, you usually err on the side that someone is being rational). I'm not going to get into it much more than that. If I'm misjudging you, let's at least start from the rational reasons someone would get a late-term abortion. I think is plenty to say that it is exceedingly rare to find any woman at all at any stage who feels completely okay about getting an abortion. It's also plenty to say that doctors really do give good medical advice, and rarely if ever do anything just because a patient asked. Any surgical procedure is like this. At no point do we need to talk about the motives of mother any differently than we talk about someone getting knee replacement surgery (before viability anyway). Swig's recent post is what I was trying to convey. I'm fine with discussing the moral difficulties of abortion (that is, how could one decide whether they should or shouldn't have an abortion?). The problem I find is looking for any reason to suppose that late-term abortions must be going on for only bad or irrational reasons.
  6. Someone who does something irrrationally doesn't need implicit acceptance. Generally, when something becomes a right (freedom of action), people tend towards more rational action than before. On top of that, you don't even know why the 1.3% of women got the late-term abortions. Perhaps 100% were from sound medical advice. The low numbers of support suggest even more that none of these decisions were made on a whim. Suggesting that most of these women must be irrational somehow (or that legally expanding this right would increase late-term abortions beyond what is reasonable) is very unfair, and sexist. I am against late-term abortions as far as doing it for reasons other than medical concern, but that's between the woman and her doctor. That's her right of privacy. I support that right completely, and I think it would actually encourage more rational action if late-term abortion is generally legal. Whether a particular late-term abortion qualifies as infanticide or not depends on viability outside the womb. A doctor could and should make that distinction (and if they can't, I think that would qualify as fraud if they then performed the abortion on the woman). Because they believe it's right. It's the simplest explanation. No, I don't like Democrats, but it's not a bad thing to do what's right even when most people think it's wrong.
  7. I think the thing really missing here is the specific discussion on concepts of consciousness. Swig seemed to imply that for such concepts to exist is Kantian and is some kind of attack on Oist epistemology - when in fact it is something that Rand spoke about very briefly. Actually, I'm not even satisfied with her answer about how we form concepts referring to our inner mental life. Should we reject internalism (that at least some non-perceptual information can count as evidence) completely, in favor of a purely externalized (external, is in outside our selves) account of concepts? I don't think so. Any rule of logic or logical operator itself can be formed as a concept through introspection alone, because they would refer to the ways that propositions and concepts can be manipulated. Propositions and concepts exist only as mental existents. Although we can trace this down to perception, the material we are working with is all mental content. We can stick to internal evidence; we don't perceive free will, we don't perceive emotions, yet these things count as valid evidence. The content of consciousness is not perception. But how do we take the step to then say that any concept of consciousness is connected to reality? Repeated observation of applying concepts of consciousness is just an empiricist error, because there's only statistical regularity (association). I wouldn't want to treat modus ponens as a consequence or result of continued reasoning from beginning with entities. Not to say that it must be detached from reality, I mean that these kinds of concepts are formed very differently and begin with introspection. This is the right kind of approach, and why I think even type theory in math is beneficial. I think philosophizing with specialized knowledge folded in is necessary to figure out answers. (Keep in mind the spiral theory of knowledge: even though any specialized knowledge is dependent on philosophy, we can bring in specialized knowledge formed later as ways to further understand something you already formed a concept about. )
  8. I'm reading your post, but all I'm hearing is "symbolic notation! I don't understand, therefore rationalism". It's a kind of animosity towards what is difficult to understand - after all, it looks like just playing with words and letters, so how could it possibly be meaningful? But if you slow down a little bit, it's like responding to any argument. Some are wrong, some are right, and some don't make sense. Some people actually like looking at symbols, others don't. Personally, I often prefer dealing with strictly words, but once in a while I actually enjoy dealing with symbolic notations. I especially like symbolic notations when I'm developing new ideas. It is an extremely intellectualized way of dealing with ideas, but it helps for simplification towards essential ideas. Not always so useful when talking about ethics, but very useful for epistemological topics like concept formation (which Rand considered to be very mathematical anyway). That means you've only dealt with extremely simplified ideas, or dealing with ideas passed down to you. This is even more like rationalism - dogmatic. How do we know modus ponens? It's complicated. But I know you've dealt with some advanced physics, so surely you can appreciate the complexities of what initially seems very simple.
  9. People who say this are usually people who didn't get past undergrad (or have animosity towards people who do get up to the PhD or graduate level). It's a kind of anti-intellectualism. Have you taken graduate courses in philosophy? Have you taken time to understand really complex philosophy, even if you didn't agree? I'm not trying to demean you here - I'm asking that you check your premises that you can and should badmouth people who dare to say something formally in philosophy as would be expected of people in universities who do philosophy of math or logic. What SK is saying isn't really so scary in all. Oist epistemology is not simple or easy. Sometimes people think it might be, but this is because Rand only wrote an introduction. Adding some formalism doesn't destroy anything. If Oist epistemology can't survive some formal treatment, then it would be a trash epistemology. But the cool thing is that it can. Type theory is probably the absolute best avenue to follow to improve or fairly criticize Oist epistemology from a formal perspective. If you don't like philosophy from a very formal perspective (which this thread is about), that's fine. If you want to participate with it though, you should take the time to understand before criticizing. Rand was generally informal about her philosophy. That doesn't mean it can't get a fair formal treatment.
  10. "Logically prior concepts" is an important epistemological point. It wasn't about specifically the progression of causality. We can form concepts about human behavior and patterns - no one operates randomly. Part of our evidence for such patterns is history. It's what I assumed he meant though. So I wanted to dive further into how he suggests "fascism is here". Comparisons to Wiemar make sense - but similar conditions can lead to the rise of Communism. There were a lot of communists in Wiemar, and all sorts of other powers. One thing we don't have though is the rampant anti-Semitism and using Jewish people as scapegoats for the decline of a country. And we don't have the completely useless and weak national military that Germany had at the time. We don't have the power vacuum that I think fascism requires. I don't doubt that there is a non-negligible risk of fascism developing though. Even still, by the very fact that we are in something reminiscent of Wiemar, then we can't also be in a condition of fascism (or pockets of fascism). I wanted to explore socially degenerate culture - whatever that means. It can mean many things.
  11. That makes more sense. Maybe it wasn't clear about the second part of my question though (we should probably split this thread). What do you think is degenerate about American popular culture? What comes to mind for me is drug use, especially opioids (which happened in Weimar), and some instances of music (Cardi B in particular), but I'm not coming up with much else.
  12. Some of them did, and fortunately they weren't the ones who did most of the work (and in fact comprised more of the antifederalists). Hamilton and Madison are the only ones that matter. I think Jefferson was extremely problematic by forcing the Bill of Rights. Remember, the Bill of Rights was only included to satisfy people like Jefferson. I think most federalists didn't think it was necessary, that the Constitution itself was sufficient. So 4, 5, and 6 were wrong, but they don't exist because the principles were confused. Blame the antifederalists (I don't think it's fair to call them founders) who were far more tolerant of evil. I don't think collecting taxes is necessarily wrong - collecting income tax (which I think is unequivocally immoral) was not permitted until the progressive era. 2 and 3 are the genuine errors I think, and they weren't so bad that they were essentially the denial of individual rights.
  13. The founding principles weren't that confused. Perhaps it was confused as far as slavery (and clearly a war started over that), and eminent domain, the principles were pretty clear. I'd still rather be in America than anywhere else, because of that. If anything, you're talking about everything since Woodrow Wilson, most of the progressive era starting with him. Can you expand on this? You seem to be saying this is an indication of fascism. That doesn't seem to work. Wiemar was certainly far less fascistic (and did not reflect fascist aesthetic) than the later Nazi Germany. The most I can see you saying is that this would be is a sign of cultural weakness, which leaves room for any kind of force to influence its development ("recovery"). I agree about the economic side of things, and the identity politics conflicts, in American society, but the aesthetic elements of fascism are completely absent as far as I see.
  14. I don't know what you mean by "actual statistics". All I see is you avoiding any discussion of social systems. As if they are completely random. I'm not disputing this as a realistic possibility. I'm disputing you calling the creation of such towns a solution.
  15. This is mainly why I was talking about probability. There are definite trends about human action. There are definite ways to encourage and discourage various actions. It sounds like you have no support for your idea that this is remotely a solution.
  16. I see. It was a little ambiguous.
  17. Racism is caused by a failure to understand what an individual even is. Because of that, it is not possible for them to have a complete concept of individual rights. Because there is a constant tension between rights and racism. Something has to give, eventually. Some portion of the people will give into rights, another portion will give into racism. I think you are ignoring the nature of the ways ideologies evolve. When I say ideology, I mean in the context of groups of people who share a particular set of ideas. It's "possible" that nothing will happen, but I think this is less likely than something dangerous happening. When you concentrate people, their ideas become concentrated. I think that's a reasonable possibility, but that's what I'm getting at: I think this will happen every time, so it's hardly a solution to encourage a town of racists. Unless you are suggesting that provoking the development of violence is an effective way to demonstrate the evils of racism. I could see that argument working. (Tangent: People like MLK supported nonviolence as a way to combat violent racists, because the violent racists would actively demonstrate their evil, and therefore emphasized to the good people exactly what the threat is. Gandhi did the same thing. So it is possible that a temporary increase of violence can in the long run lead to decreasing the racism which caused that violence.)
  18. I should have been more specific. They don't occur together as political movements. I already granted there might be individuals who hold that contradiction. The thing is, no political ideology remains static. When these people are interspersed throughout the entire US, it's a lot less likely to grow and evolve. But when you concentrate all these people, a rights-violating political ideology is a lot more likely to form. "But it's illegal!" Isn't a good reason to think that it won't grow and become more extreme over time. That's what my scenario was supposed to point out, and how it further grows from there. So I'm just wondering why you even think this would be a good idea.
  19. Because that's what makes a racist ideology (as opposed to "casual" racism we see with stereotypes). I mean, individuals might be racist and do nothing. I'm trying to argue that even if this town sprang up, this would be a potential threat that should be dealt with in the realm of ideas. If they got together, I wouldn't stand by and think "hey, this isn't a bad solution, now they are all isolated in their own town!" As I said before, I get the idea of trying to isolate the dangerous ideology. But I don't think it would work. Throughout history, concentration of racists who want political action (and are involved with it) become violent very quickly. Part of the reason for this is that racist ideologies completely lack any individualism, it's a wild contradiction to support individual rights and be a racist. They just don't occur together. Although rights help us identify how to deal with conflict, they don't offer guidance on how to change someone's mind. They don't identify how to create social change. I'm more interested in if you have more ideas. The best idea I have is to engage racism when I see it. But I'm not satisfied with how it has worked out in various places.
  20. I don't think you're really listening. Earlier, also as SL was saying, you couldn't get a true Bigot Town. So I'm saying the only way you could get such a thing is separatism or secession. And if you came up with other political constructs for such a town to exist. But this is a tangent that doesn't matter much. Did you read my scenario? I explained how it would manifest as violence, and all kinds of political problems created by racism, even if a portion of the people only want to be left alone. Of course the actions I'm talking about would be illegal, but their ideas remain a threat in the realm of ideas. You haven't offered a solution to deal with racist ideas.
  21. Wait, are you saying that Brenton Tarrant did nothing wrong?
  22. Let's try to stay on topic here. We are talking about people who are already part of the US government and our citizens. We aren't talking about immigrants, we aren't talking about who was here first. We aren't talking about stateless people living within US borders. Native American tribes all existed before the US government, so of course those would be handled differently. What you're trying to grapple with is something like secession, or separatism (claiming that your state or region ought to be a distinct nation instead of part of the existing country). I thought you were suggesting that these people had a legitimate moral claim. I see that you aren't. It's a tangent, no problem. But let's suppose that, by whatever mechanism, we ended up with a region of people who are all bigots, simply through freedom of association. And let's suppose that at least at the beginning they really do take on the philosophy that they simply want to be left alone. They're happy that brown people are no longer corrupting their country. Fine, that's their problem. The racism is contained. We have to keep in mind that these people would have a philosophy of racism. They believe that fundamentally, by nature, something is wrong with brown people that would make the world worse off. You might have one group of people that would rather fortify their borders, keep all the Mexicans out, and that's that. Purity in their eyes. They are happy with isolation. But then other people within the region, although they are happy with the purity, they want to disseminate their ideas beyond the borders. They want others to know the wonders and glories of a world where everyone is a race realist. This is a natural thing. So imagine that: you have a region with a racist philosophy, a true home base. Other people on the outside see this. They want to become part of it. They begin their own movements. What ends up happening is that the separate estate becomes a police state. Even the bigots are monitored for connecting to the outside world (or even for bringing the wrong ideas in). North Korea did that, Nazi Germany did that. Even the South during the Civil War began to do that, but it didn't really grow (you really need a big bureaucracy to maintain it). Or becomes a rogue region, sending out terrorists where possible, something like Palestine. Maybe it would stay exactly the same the entire time, but I think this is highly unlikely. The important thing I'm emphasizing here is that racism is more than erroneous belief. Any serious racist, one who pushes for racism in the political realm (race-based policies), would try to spread their beliefs. Almost every time, it manifests as violence. Although we allow racists to state their beliefs, we do not grant these racists autonomy. Of course, a group of racists might start a small town as you suggest, but if it did crop up, I think we would be best off viciously fighting their ideas. In other words, the town should be fought against with ideas before the violence manifests. I don't think encouraging the racists create their own town is a good solution at all.
  23. I didn't think I had to specify that there is no historic "white nation" within the United States (particularly since the idea of a white race only exists in modern times). But I don't think you are making any serious argument. It sounds like you're being ironic, because you are now trying to demonstrate the validity of a "white nation". I mean, it looks like trolling because you begin with an idea that is meant to appeal to people here (let the bigots be bigots, and property rights for everyone even them), exaggerating that to suggest tolerance of bigots (let them have their own town with their own rules!), and then finishing off by saying that these bigots have a legitimate claim to autonomy as a nation. You're talking about particular cultural identities though, not tribes. And if you made an effort to recognize white tribes with the purpose of isolating them, it would backfire. You would actually be creating racial problems. Do you really think racists only care about being left alone? If you honestly want to deal with racial problems and racists, you need a better idea.
  24. I don't think he's making an argument like that. I just don't know what his point is. But maybe the more important point overall is that the bigots don't just want a right to discriminate. They want far more than that. Bigot Town would either have no growth (and would die out), growth but all the bigots are outnumbered by the non-racists (so the name wouldn't work anymore), or growth but the number of bigots continues to grow (in which case they will begin to enact racist policies that violate rights). Giving a safe space to racists might isolate the disease. But if you do nothing else to fight the ideas, it might just crop up again, and the isolated racists would gain political support. What would your solution be to solve racial problems being created by people like race realists?
  25. You said it's an option... I mean, you didn't say that, but the only way we can get a tribe of white people, an actual legitimate tribe, is to grant them some right to form their own separate country or nation within our country. Since there is no historic "white nation", the only way you can get a tribe is through secession. Talking about secession is a completely separate discussion. And you know, that basically happened. That was the Civil War. The bigots lost. I think the important point in this discussion is that a Bigot Town doesn't make sense. If it were so bigoted that the local government passed laws like forced segregation (they certainly would believe that this is legitimate), it would be operating illegally.
×
×
  • Create New...