Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Eiuol

Moderators
  • Posts

    7059
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    159

Everything posted by Eiuol

  1. Evolution has no overt purpose. Reproduction isn't even a purpose. More or less, evolution is just an explanation of how it is that certain traits and even species of animal manage to develop over time. Genetic fitness is also part of that. Better traits usually lead to survival, and the relevant evolutionary factors. Reproduction then carries on these traits. However, this does not necessarily say anything about behavior or even volition - behavior is only deterministic from evolution for behaviorists. Behaviors don't have to follow a goal of reproduction. By the way, not even Darwin believed there was a "final purpose" to evolution. Possibly useful link: http://www.victorianweb.org/science/darwin/diniejko.html Hmm, do you have any questions to ask about regarding what you quoted?
  2. When it comes to answering questions about anything in uncertainty, statistics are needed. Indeed, certainty is possible with enough time, but when it comes to violence and rights violations, there isn't time to figure out to absolute certainty. Furthermore, testing out actions (laws in this context) are necessary to see if they work. Not that there should not be careful analysis beforehand, but not all consequences can be known beforehand. Statistics, if used properly, are highly informative for what actions to take when actions should be taken. When any person(s) make a decision, statistics are part of the process. That means the government should also use statistics in the cases where it should take action. Principles are important to use of course, but it's just a tool of reasoning applied to a context -- statistics are part of a context. Yeah, statistics need to be "battled", but that's what reasoning is. The process of discovery is endless, and new information must be integrated or rejected all the time. In my estimation, Binswanger is presenting the topic of gun control in a deontological way, i.e. focus on the "rule" of absolute individual rights to property without regard to context. I agree with these words, but how does one figure out that brandishing a gun is actually an objective threat? I can't predict with 100% accuracy that the brandisher will ever fire a shot. There is no reliable way to predict such behavior; there is no reliable way to *predict* rationality and irrationality. To some extent, statistics are used to conclude that this is a threat. Brandishing a weapon per se isn't wrong, but as far as I know, the intention is usually to threaten someone. Key word: usually. That's statistics. Keep in mind, though, I'm saying all this under the assumption that weapons are a thing that in some circumstances can be controlled (nukes, chemical weapons, etc). I'm saying that if it's proper to have some regulation of weapons, then the government should use the same considerations as any individual would. Perhaps not evidence for *banning* weapons entirely, but it's certainly evidence for *regulation*. Notice that Binswanger says psychotic killer. I find that he is implying that the shooter's mental problems had a significant impact on leading to the shooting. Should such a person be allowed to have a gun? Probably not, that specific person is a threat, because of the gun; without the gun, the person is probably not a threat. Let me pose this in another way: Suppose a shooting occurs, with one of several possible primary factors. These are random possibilities. Severe mental dysfunction on the level of psychosis Self-defense Pre-meditated murder Other None of these are wild possibilities, and often there will be more. Say 10% of shootings of occur primarily due to psychosis, 50% self-defense, 5% pre-meditated murder, and 35% for other. Now, because of the amount of self-defense in this circumstance, or other reasons, banning guns would probably be bad. 10% due to severe mental dysfunction as I specified probably would justify saying that at the least, any gun owner needs mental competence enough to be a responsible gun user. A license may suffice. With pre-meditated murder, I don't think there is a regulatory procedure that can be reasonably implemented. But if at least one case of a rights violation can be stopped, it should be. Remember that the context is the use of force! Featherfall, you may have missed my previous post in this thread (#58). I addressed something you said in another threat, and I'm curious about what you'd say.
  3. You're mistaken. I am not giving Rand any special consideration. I am not defending a viewpoint. I'm asking questions because I don't know. This is how my reasoning goes for any person: understanding my context before I make a judgment (and even then, my objective here isn't primarily in order to make a judgment). Hence my ponderings and questions. I meant that the government may unjustly prosecute *any* public figure that has extra-marital relationships. Yes, I do think the government may have enforced laws against "adultery". Indeed, Rand agreed to a marriage, but I don't think that should mean there is a legal declaration of exclusivity, respect for the institution of marriage. Now, if this were the case, that laws of marriage are unfair, I think it would be more consistent to avoid marriage altogether and make some statement about injustice. However, I don't know if marriage is something that allowed Rand to stay in the US. If it is, that would probably be justified to do. It sounds like you're trying to prove to me that Rand acted improperly, but at no point did I say Rand acted wholly properly. My plausible explanations don't mean justified actions. I said actions. I don't care if a journal entry has apparent self-deceptions or double standards, but then again, I haven't seen the entries. Perhaps they'd be informative. But in this context, I'm curious about specific actions. Basically, I'm asking about biographical details, because I'm curious. I'm not trying to build a moral case for or against Rand, but on my own time, I'll make a judgment. Sorry, I don't. Can you be more specific what the double standard is you are identifying?
  4. Some guy who is cranky about intellectual property. Maintaining databases requires more money than people would intuitively believe. Usually it sounds like students who don't work in scientific fields are complaining about the lack of free access to scientific papers, but those who actually use the papers probably have access already through the schools they work for. That's what universities are good for: they help pay for the progress of knowledge, and many do that. Swartz was complaining about things not being free, but he had access through MIT? I suppose he'd claim it's a great injustice, so he's just dealing with a corrupt system in his eyes, but there is no injustice going on, because it costs *money* to maintain databases so that they'll be useful.
  5. This is the only reason you came up with. I came up with another one. I don't think either is more plausible. A failure of imagination on your or my part is no reason to say that these are the only reasonable explanations. Your tone is accusational here as though I'm trying to defend Rand no matter what. I am only saying that all I see is a relationship that went wrong as relationships sometimes do. I figure that it is reasonable for me to say that she could get into trouble *because* she had two romantic relationships while married as a public figure. That would have legal implications. But, I might be wrong. So, that's why I asked about what Rand and Branden did, in order to toss aside speculation and psychologizing (i.e. why, of course the only reason Rand would do this is because she was being second-handed!). Okay, you mentioned self-deception. Because I really am curious, what did Rand and Branden do in order to self-deceive or hold double standards?
  6. What are the specific actions Rand and/or Branden took in order to keep it secret? Secrecy implies an effort to hide information by means of deception (which I agree is wrong), not merely neglecting to mention some information that other people probably have no need to know. I don't know enough of the context to condemn Branden or Rand. Generally people are observant of relationships and may on occasion ask if someone is in a relationship with another. Upon finding out about one, many people would assume multiple relationships would be not even plausible, so wouldn't even bother to ask or wonder beyond the relationship known about. I can understand actually holding back a public announcement, she might have gotten some nasty flak from the government by accusing her of adultery regardless if there was consent. Remember, the time period, it was before the civil rights movement even. Avoiding mistreatment from the government is reasonable. Why Rand didn't mention to her closest friends, I have no idea. That would apply to Branden as well. I read your other post, I just don't have comments on it. I was unaware of this, PM me about it if you want.
  7. I don't know, but that type of behavior is quite questionable, if Branden was such a high value, I don't know why she didn't mention the relationship at least eventually. Still, the judgment of that should be on the actions taken and any dishonesty that may have gone on, which you seem to be addressing. I don't know why it would be deleted if anyone did.
  8. In some sense, you are right to the extent that the earliest philosophers basically were scientists. Socrates was into astronomy, I don't know about Plato, and Aristotle had a lot to say about biology. Indeed, philosophy and science study aspects of existence. There is a close connection. You seem to be equivocating, though. In terms of abstraction, there is a notable difference between natural sciences like biology, and the field of philosophy. With biology, scientific study is about narrowing understanding of particulars, which may include figuring out cell division, and narrowing down more so with study. Philosophy on the other hand really focuses on abstractions, going broader. Some ideas can be fine tuned, but they're still abstracting for philosophy. So, that's why there is philosophy of science, philosophy of mind, philosophy of physics, and so on. Those sciences need wider abstractions, and not just the narrowing of concepts. Math is closely related as a process of abstraction, and I don't quite call it a science by nature of being so abstract. I suppose it goes into its own unique categorization. I would classify economics as a science, and not a philosophy, and it actually doesn't have anything to say about what one should produce or consume. Economics won't say to not smoke, nor could it say in general one should pursue their life. As a matter of production, economics certainly relates to ethics, but I really would not consider it about philosophy. I believe this point has been disputed on this forum. * That's a really long posting and I'm having a hard time reading it all. Communism is wrong, but "philosophy is not a science" isn't as bad as you think it is. It's just stating that the narrowing aspects are probably more important than philosophy, while also probably standing true to the scientific method. There is a contradiction, to be sure, but I don't see it as any kind of postmodernist agenda. Postmodernism doesn't even get that far. Communism at least has some basis, flawed though it may be, while postmodernism explicitly has no basis whatsoever. I don't see postmodern communism being a tenable term. Who is a postmodern communist? Paul Krugman? I don't have much of a referent to go off. By the way, this is worth a read. http://www.stephenhi...-postmodernism/ You can read the first edition for free. I am linking this because you seem interested in the topic of postmodernism, and this is a book by an Objectivist philosopher. I read it before, it's quite interesting.
  9. Perfection under Objectivist ethics is just a matter of leading a virtuous life, not a life without any mistakes. Admitting mistakes would still qualify as virtue, but those mistakes don't necessarily have to be admitted to unconcerned parties. I don't care much about the whole Rand/Branden thing beyond some biographical interest. But that's supposing she did something particularly wrong in the first place. From what I've read, Branden was generally dishonest about his emotions towards Rand, but I don't know the extent in which he lied. There isn't anything wrong with romantic relationships with multiple people; at the time, she clearly thought they were okay as long as all the parties in question consent and are honest. So, I don't like characterizing the relationship as a "consensual affair" because that comes with a negative undertone. It was just a relationship gone bad, although I don't know of any particular reason to judge Rand as acting immorally in the first place. If there is a reason for negative judgment, it shouldn't have anything to do with Rand merely engaging in a relationship with Branden and her husband at the same time (the same goes for Branden).
  10. My response to you and FeatherFall here: http://forum.objectivismonline.com/index.php?showtopic=24598&st=50#entry303457
  11. Sorry I took a while to get to this. I'm responding to like two threads at once. I think this distinction is where the disagreement comes from. You are treating the concepts as subconcepts of force. I am treating defensive force (as distinguished from passive defense like a bulletproof vest) as a subset of retaliation, and in that sense I think the government may regulate use of weapons of any type. If I am using a gun in self-defense, well, I am retaliating against the initiation of force in a short-term context. Self-defense should certainly be permissible, but it's still retaliation, and would even require a criminal investigation. There are other kinds of retaliation than defense, to be sure, as you mentioned. Defensive weapons as such don't exist, but if a weapon is primarily used as defensive rather than offensive (is there a such thing as a weapon that is used primarily as offensive?), that would only indicate a need for a different kind of regulation than primarily offensive weapons. We'd be in agreement at least to the extent that if a weapon has no reasonable defensive use, the access to that weapon ought to be regulated. I don't think that rules out that weapons that *do* have a reasonable defensive use ought not be regulated. Defensive weapons can be used irresponsibly; an irresponsible person possessing a weapon is threatening by nature of both the weapon *and* the individual. No one is omniscient, so in this specific case of gun use, a legal measure that doesn't hinder the responsible gun user ought to be implemented. If there is no concrete reason to think that someone might be a danger when possessing, then there is no reason to restrict a gun sale, because the person not being a danger means there is no threat. Whether or not good reasons ought to be provided first depends on the weapon and the consequences of potential irresponsibility. For a handgun, no, because a limited number of people could be harmed. So, I think those only require proof that there is no specific reason to deny a purchase. For a nuke, yes, because thousands of people could be harmed. (possible use: planning to do asteroid mining). So, a purchase should only be permitted if there is a specific reason to allow a purchase. Careful with this line of reasoning, because it's getting away from analyzing the nature of force and government, the main idea relevant to gun control. Indeed as far as we know, there aren't any governments that haven't initiated force at some point, based on what we think of rights now. But, the rights violations are certainly less severe, and violence happens less than it did even 300 years ago. Government in general over the course of history has shown to be steadily improving as a rights protector in many places. Why would anyone delegate? Because government works. Understanding of rights has improved over time as well, so it's reasonable to say many governments in the past took mistaken action on mistaken premises. That's what happens with fallibility.
  12. Dennis is saying Hugo lacked an appreciation of the role of reason, not that he was unaware of or rejected his use of reason. A mystic can easily say reason is useful sometimes without saying reason is fundamental to human existence. If the Bishop's deeds were more selfless than selfish, that actually does make them wrong. Still, I think the Bishop's deeds were more selfish! Giving someone a place to sleep isn't really much of a cost, but more importantly he saw good in Valjean, for various reasons perhaps, including standing by values through desperate time and not giving up on life the whole time. The initial stealing I don't even think was wrong, given the context of France at the time regarding poor people. Stealing was in support of values, when there were rights abuses. (I wonder if Valjean stealing bread is what Rand bases the time Kira from We The Living steals some potatoes?) Personally, I would totally give Valjean a place to sleep, he deserved the kindness. Offering food and a bed for a night is a reasonable way to help him out. I don't like the blog entry because I have no reason to suggest that Valjean was ever a freeloader, considering I see all the places he applied for work and the distance he walked. Evaluating Valjeans theft, that's where things can be questioned. After being helped out by the Bishop, he decides to steal from the very person who was leading him towards life. When he stole the bread, he did that in pursuit of survival. Here? He seems to be bitter about the world, and taking that anger out on people specifically making his life better. Valjean commits an injustice. So, why would the Bishop offer forgiveness? Why would Valjean *still* deserve any help? Perhaps the one event was not enough to warrant just outright rejecting him, so the Bishop didn't let the police take him. The Bishop may have honestly believed that Valjean acted poorly in a moment of weakness, but did not see that as an aspect of Valjean's character. Everything about Valjean up to that point was good, and only at this time did he act immorally. In other words, the Bishop saw his actions as a mistake, not as a fundamental evil. Then, in order to help him onto his feet, the Bishop let him keep the silver. Over time, in the next part of the movie, we see that the Bishop's judgment was correct, and Valjean became a virtuous citizen. Whether or not the Bishop was selfless or selfish depends on his motivation, which is impossible to determine here. But, given what I see, he could have been acting selfishly.
  13. You overlooked this. Objectivism is distinguished from objectivism, including moral objectivism. So, it still conforms with the Chicago manual of style even. There is a lot to distinguish from objectivism as a belief in objectivity, and Rand's philosophy of Objectivism. I see no issue with just using capitalization all the time, for the sake of clarity. That's the purpose of style manuals, specifically so that there is consistency of usage. In this case, it is justified.
  14. One sense of statistic is something like "10,000 people are murdered with guns each year", and that would be a fact. Another sense of statistic is "you have a 1% chance to get murdered by a person with a gun". Such a number would be based on something like (# of people murdered with guns) / (US population), resulting in a percentage. Statistics is actually a field with split based upon two fundamentally different interpretations. The flawed end is actually what you're speaking of, Spiral, which is about potentials. That viewpoint is the frequentist view of statistics (more or less a metaphysical generalization). Simply put, frequentism is how often an event occurs among a set of events. So, the slot machine with 8% chance of winning, that only means to a frequentist that out of taking a sample of 100 trials, 8 of those trials were a win. Even if you knew everything about the world, this chance would always be 8%, unless you change the context. Indeed, that is a potential in any case, since causality is often more useful. Unfortunately, context always changes. For example, if there is a 25% chance of rain tomorrow, what does that mean? That a sample of 100 tomorrows were taken, and it rained 25 times? That would be nonsense! Frequentism might work in games of chance like blackjack, but that's about it. Pretty useless if you ask me. This is also the kind Mark Twain made fun of. The other interpretation for statistics that makes a whole lot more sense is the Bayesian interpretation. This means that statistics are just a measure of certainty, which is epistemological. People can't be 100% certain at all moments about *everything*. For instance, say you ordered a pizza with pepperoni. People are fallible, and you know that once in a while, an order is wrong, even the best pizza maker. You don't know the pizza maker today, so all things being equal, you don't know how reliable he is, but it's a good pizza place. You can reasonably say you're 98% sure that the order is correct without opening the box to your pizza, given that it's a simple order. Keep in mind no measure of frequency is here, nor are we talking about potential. We're just talking about how sure you are. You go home, without opening the box. You open the box finally at the dinner table, and the order is wrong! Thinking back on the situation, despite 2% uncertainty, opening the box at the pizza place is a simple thing to do. Also, you might alter your certainty to 90% for future orders. For a frequentist, the measure is 100% chance of a wrong order (1 wrong / 1 total orders). As you can see, there is a huge difference between the two views. Both imply different actions one should take in the face of uncertainty. To bring this to gun control, or government policy, most actions will take place in some degree of uncertainty. Most of the time, government shouldn't and can't estimate accurately, and part of human fallibility is that individuals are usually better at such estimations (e.g. choosing for themselves what food to eat). Now, when violence enters in the picture - justified or not - there is a problem here. For a healthy society, there has to be a ban on retaliatory force (I'll try to address this part more specifically later, as I think it is important. The distinction between defensive and retaliatory). This is also a point where, if government is to do its jobs, policy decisions regarding violence must be made, and decisions must be made in the face of uncertainty. Statistics must be used in these circumstances, and not the frequentist version. Only Bayesian stats have any implication what to do today and in the future, while frequentist stats are about the past.
  15. Addressed at post #15: I understand what you're saying, but who are the people you are referring to? My professor was a typical liberal, nothing really communistic. All he really managed to do is make art into nonsense, and spoke of power like Focault would. Postmodernism is so subjective that its advocates wouldn't even speak of equal distribution, just some notion of personal subjectivity being denied by those in power. As far as I know, a postmodernist goes on about the politicization of knowledge and belief or some such nonsense, and probably would say that communism too is an example of being denied subjectivity. Your syllogism is fine, but, what do you base your premises on? Philosophy does include studying existence, but Descartes would probably say philosophy is fundamentally the study of consciousness. Certainly we can say his definition is senseless (hehehe). Still, Descartes wouldn't be precluded from philosophy for being wrong, because he still studied existence. So far, you'd still be fine to use a typical definition from a dictionary. Okay, science is the study of aspects of the universe. This is extremely broad. Doesn't studying existence *mean* studying the aspects of the universe? There is no need to throw in the word science yet, because philosophy already covers what you mean by science. Also, in this context, isn't "existence" a better word to use than "universe"? They look interchangeable. In other words, it seems you repeated yourself. Philosophy studies existence. Philosophy is the study of the aspects of existence. Existence is existence. This would be fine to say actually, just that "philosophy is science" isn't really making sense to me, even by your own definition.
  16. I am wondering, who are the "postmodern communists" you speak of? Can you mention specific people? I'd argue that Marx's philosophy isn't postmodernism at all, as postmodernism goes as far as to say *everything* about existence is subjective. It's totally absurd. Postmodernism is influenced by Marx, I am sure, just like most of the Hegelian philosophers, but I don't see why you throw in "communists". But still, I don't know the type of person you're talking about. I've had one teacher that's a postmodernist, and he had no particular special position. How do you know this is the case? You stated it like an axiom. Why should I buy into your specific definition?
  17. There is always a context for possession, so "possession alone" is actually impossible. Certain people possess. Some people may be mentally unfit to use a gun responsibly, and *their* possession is a threat. Are they only a threat when they begin shooting or directly threatening? As for how can anyone can even get a nuke, it's not hyperbole, given that a weapon exists and some people are rich enough to acquire one. I mean, people can afford private space travel already, rockets, research, and all. I should read the whole Binswanger article before saying more. Beyond that, DonAthos is representing my position accurately. And when I post next, I'll also try to address some things FeatherFall said in the previous thread (it'll take some time)
  18. There is no reason to pass a law if it's military policy to disarm anything no longer being used. De facto means in practice. De jure means by law. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_facto Anyone who does statistics defines their terms to make sure the categorizations are done properly and accurately. You can't always just open up a dictionary for statistics, because if we want accuracy, even things like unemployment require specific definitions. Indeed, you described a rifle. The FBI may use a more precise definition.
  19. Well, the forum doesn't read paragraphs you typed in, unless you perhaps enable HTML and put in <p>...</p> for each paragraph. Or put a blank line between each paragraph. It would look fine if you do that (since you can't edit your post now, I'll fix it for you).
  20. Err, I could say the same thing. You're wrong, because of the law of identity. If anything, you conceded that *depending* upon an individual, sometimes possession is a threat. Is that true?
  21. Please don't be so pedantic. Terms *are* defined by a government when writing statistics. I'm sure Crow intuitively knows what a rifle is, but there are specifics of classification in order to write up statistics precisely.
  22. More on this: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/crime-in-the-u.s/2011/crime-in-the-u.s.-2011/tables/expanded-homicide-data-table-8 Best to go to the source. That Fox News article was quite misleading, plus it's the 2011 statistics, not 2012 as the article seems to suggest to unwary readers. If anything, it just means rifles are less popular, while handguns are a lot more popular. Also, blunt objects are really easy to acquire. I mean, lots of people have a hammer or a baseball bat even. The only useful point is that people shouldn't think rifles are inherently a great cause of violence, whatever rifles are considered. On the other hand, are weapons classified as rifles regulated more than handguns? I'm really asking - I don't know.
  23. I saw the movie, I liked it, although I didn't feel the acting or music was strong enough. Hugh Jackman did well, but other than that, I wasn't thrilled with the actors. I liked the plot, though. I did not get a sense of justice in the service of the morality of sacrifice. Which sacrifices are you talking about?
×
×
  • Create New...