Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by dream_weaver

  1. Shadow Banking

    So there is "duration mismatch" and "duration risk". A "duration balance" would be where the borrower and the lender have a contractual agreement and the lender rides out the duration of the terms of the loan, where the lender's only risk is default, and the borrower is bound by the original agreement penalties. A "duration mismatch" is where the borrower and the lender have a contractual agreement, and the lender "sells" out the duration of the terms of the loan to a third party. In essence, the "duration risk" is sold to a third party for an agreed upon, or contractual agreement transferring the "default risk" of the lender to a third party. If this is being assessed correctly, shadow banking amounts to little more than peddling the "duration risk", a.k.a. "default risk", while potentially transferring the onus of responsibility for the repayment of the original loan (and consequences of default) from the original borrower to one of the intermediate "risk takers", In a slightly different scenario, an apartment is subleased. The original lease holder, is still responsible for any damages that may arise on the property. In subleasing the property, the "responsibility" of the rent and/or damage liability is passed on to the sub-leaser. If I am reading this cogently, In the case of an apartment, if damage is done by a sub-lessor of the property, the manager's recourse is limited to the original lessor. In the case of a loan, the default risk is passed on via any "agreed upon price" for the remainder of the loan. The original borrower is still bound the the terms of the original contract.
  2. True, False, Arbitrary

    The arbitrary, is most notably covered in Leonard Peikoff's Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand, but not specifically addressed by Miss Rand as a stand alone topic. Her usage of "the arbitrary" throughout her writings tend to support it though. The arbitrary is often put forth as a statement of fact without any corroborating evidence. The fact that a conclusion may be true glosses over corroborative absence. Objectivity is a process of acquiring knowledge, and recognizing that in order to be true, it can be reduced hierarchically to the evidence of the senses. Exploring the basis of a claim provides insight to the evidentiary procedure used to reach it. The lack of any evidentiary procedure is indicative where the discussion is wont to go. While the claim may be true, if the procedure used to arrive at it is flawed, then the arbitrary claim is just an arbitrary claim with no real purchase in the mind of the holder. To evaluate an arbitrary claim as true or false relies on the evaluators' understanding of the evidence involved, not the maker of the arbitrary assertion's grasp thereof.
  3. Standard of Value - Life, Posterity, Legacy

    Apply the law of identity. It is man's life, that is being identified. The identity for a class is the same across the board. "There is a morality of reason, a morality proper to man, and Man's Life is its standard of value."1 Morality is about what is proper to man to live. Any man in particular, all men in general, either of his own identification of the moral tenants, or via those who make life possible, even to those who may default on their responsibility. "All that which is proper to the life of a rational being is the good; all that which destroys it is the evil."1 Again, the good and evil are assessed as being proper to the life of any particular rational being, or all rational beings in general. "Man's life, as required by his nature, is not the life of a mindless brute, of a looting thug or a mooching mystic, but the life of a thinking being—not life by means of force or fraud, but life by means of achievement—not survival at any price, since there's only one price that pays for man's survival: reason."1 Reason is the one price that pays for man's survival, whether paid for by the particular man, or by some other man at large. "Man's life is the standard of morality, but your own life is its purpose."1 The standard of morality is identified by the nature or identity of the general type or class, while the purposes are chosen by the individual particulars. So if any particular individual has an allergy to seafood, just as any general individual may have such an allergy, in general, those individuals should avoid seafood as part of their particular diets. 1. Atlas Shrugged, pg. 932; For The New Intellectual, pg. 122; Philosophy" Who Needs It?, pg. 74.
  4. Why Objectivism is so unpopular

    In a sense, as popular/unpopular is being used here, yes. But unknown carries deeper implications, that make the application of popular/unpopular more difficult. There are yet discoveries that have not been made. Would it be proper to say the undiscovered is popular or unpopular, or would it just be the case that the undiscovered is simply just still unknown? Granted, Objectivism has been discovered, but are its "mysteries" known, or do they still lurk about in the unknown?
  5. Why Objectivism is so unpopular

    On a slightly different tact, some are drawn by Rand's combative style. In martial arts training, a good sensei stresses that the art is more than just learning how to fight. One also needs to become the best that one can become. Not just the best fighter, but to excel at any undertaking that is worth undertaking. Very Francisco-like. Whatever he did, he did superlatively well. Whatever he applied himself to, he did with the intention to succeed. If it is worth doing, it is worth doing as well as can be done withing the capacity of the doer. Rand puts forth, even if in a combative style at times, effective argumentation. Individuals who read one of her books and get the sense that she has something worthwhile. As human beings, the individual may evaluate others by the conclusions they have drawn about themselves. So if they read Atlas Shrugged and understand part of the essence of her novel, it can be bewildering why it is not as obvious to others as it was to themselves. "After all," they think, "I can understand this, I'm a human being, therefore other human beings should be able to understand this." (And others do, in varying degrees.) The fight, however, is not primarily with persuading others of the rightness of her ideas. The real struggle is coming to understand what is objectively right—for oneself—and once discovering it, not to relinquish it under any circumstances. A gauge I've used for years in the preparation of blueprints, is to evaluate the questions that came back regarding the blueprint itself. Was there an omission on my behalf, a missing section, a missing view, a missing dimension, etc.? If so, the section, view, or dimension is added, making the blueprint a clearer reference. Other times, a question raised indicated where the blueprint reader was deficient in that capacity, so the explanation is not about the particular blueprint in question as much as how to read a blueprint in general. In the light of the thread topic, I'm not convinced that Objectivism is unpopular, rather, like the politics it advocates, Capitalism, it is still an unknown ideal.
  6. White Supremacist Protest Violence

    This is too good to be buried in this thread. It has been moved to Books, Movies, Theatre, Lectures>Nonfiction
  7. Abstractions as such do not exist?

    Using the scholastic approach that I do within this subject (Objectivism, in general) here's what I found on "abstractions as such do not exist": From Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology Appendix—The Role of Words the fact that Aristotle is right and not Plato is very relevant here: abstractions, as such, do not exist. Only concretes exist. We could not deal with a sum of concrete objects constantly without losing our grasp of them. But what do we do conceptually? We substitute a concrete—a visual or auditory concrete—for the unlimited, open-ended number of concretes which that new concrete subsumes. Objectivism:The Philosophy of Ayn Rand Chapter 12—Art By converting abstractions into percepts, art performs another crucial (and inseparable) function. It not only integrates metaphysics, but also objectifies it. This means: it enables man to contemplate his view of the world in the form of an existential object—to contemplate it not as a content of his consciousness, but "out there," as an external fact. Since abstractions as such do not exist, there is no other way to make one's metaphysical abstractions fully real to oneself (or, therefore, fully operative as one's guide). "To acquire the full, persuasive, irresistible power of reality," Miss Rand writes, "man's metaphysical abstractions have to confront him in the form of concretes—i.e., in the form of art." The Objectivist Newsletter: Vol. 4 No. 4 April, 1965 Check Your Premises: The Psycho-Epistemology of Art By Ayn Rand and/or The Romanic Manifesto 1. The Psycho-Epistemology of Art The existential consequences, of course, will differ. Amidst the incalculable number and complexity of choices that confront a man in his day—by-day existence, with the frequently bewildering torrent of events, with the alternation of successes and failures, of joys that seem too rare and suffering that lasts too long-he is often in danger of losing his perspective and the reality of his own convictions. Remember that abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists-and that which exists is concrete. To acquire the full, persuasive, irresistible power of reality, man's metaphysical abstractions have to confront him in the form of concretes-i.e., in the form of art. The Objectivist—March 1966 Art And Sense Of Life By Ayn Rand "Abstractions as such do not exist: they are merely man's epistemological method of perceiving that which exists—and that which exists is concrete. To acquire the full, persuasive, irresistible power of reality, man's metaphysical abstractions have to confront him in the form of concretes—i.e., in the form of art." ("The Psycho-Epistemology of Art.") So when you ask, shouldn't the answer be: "As objectively as can be mustered."?
  8. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    Does existence depend on a specific course of action in order to continue to exist [i.e.: in order to remain in existence? The tangent is firmly in the province of the man-made. The existence of inanimate matter is unconditional, the existence of life is not; it depends on a specific course of action. Matter is indestructible, it changes its forms, but it cannot cease to exist. Or is this another way of saying existence cannot cease to act, i.e.; the law of causality cannot cease to be the law of identity applied to action? Or: an axiom (or one of it's corollaries) has to be invoked in order to try to deny said axiom (or one of it's corollaries)?
  9. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    I searched on a partial quote from the earlier omission, and they not come up in those sections on the CD. It is interesting to note that even after things have been edited, the historic sequence was able to be brought into light.
  10. This is a transcription of Miss Rand from her initial Columbia University radio broadcast from 11:00 to 16:35 minutes into the program. I am addressing myself to those who are genuinely interested in ideas, and who therefore, have an authentic desire to understand Objectivism. Those who are making an effort to fail to understand me are not a concern of mine. Please take the following as an official public notice: The only authentic sources of information about Objectivism are: my own works, the Objectivist Newsletter, a monthly journal dealing with the application of Objectivism to current cultural and political problems. The above public notice is necessitated by the fact that most of such comments on Objectivism that I have seen in print consist of outright misrepresentations and smears. Some of the misrepresentations may be unintentional, some people find it difficult to grasp new ideas, let alone to summarize them correctly. But most of the misrepresentations are deliberate, since an attempt to ascribe to a writer the exact opposite of her ideas can hardly be attributed to an innocent error. There are many such attempts. Those who created them, deserve them. If you do wish to understand Objectivism, the one helpful suggestion I can give you is this. Remember that the basic premises from which I speak are not the ones most people take uncritically for granted. It is precisely the basic premises of today’s culture that I challenge. Therefore, do not leap to conclusions and equate my viewpoint with somebody else’s, by assuming automatically that you have heard it before. You haven’t. For instance, do not equate my views with Nietzsche, or Herbert Spencer or Senator Goldwater. My views are not theirs and vice versa. So whether you choose to agree with me or disagree, do not set up a straw-woman. It is a futile procedure, which does not fool anyone except that man who attempts it. If you wish to disagree with me, you have to start by identifying my basic premises, and then refuting them—if you can. You have to take me up on the issues. None of my antagonists have done it so far, and, I venture to say, none ever will. I say it because the whole case of the mystic-altruist-collectivist axis rests on the evasion of basic issues, on never identifying their own base. Objectivism holds that: A.) Men must be guided exclusively by reason. B.) That man has a right to exist for his own sake. And C.) That no-one has the right to initiate the use of physical force against others. In order to refute this you would have to admit and maintain that: A.) Man ought to be irrational. B.) That man is a sacrificial animal. And C.) That you seek to impose your own ideas or wishes on others by means of physical force. This is what you would have to admit, and then attempt to prove that you have a right to. You see all three of these premises dominating our culture and being practiced all over the world today, but you do not hear anyone admitting it openly. Instead, you hear such things as: A.) Rationality consists of recognizing that reason is impotent, or, an intellectual is one who denies the existence of the intellect. B.) To enslave men is to act for their own good, or, to slaughter men by the millions is the proof of one’s love for humanity. And C.) Freedom consists of obedience to the edicts of the government, or, to compel men to obey by means of physical force and violence constitutes a defense of liberty and entitles one to be called a liberal. Ladies and gentlemen, I could almost rest the entire case for Objectivism on this kind of pronouncements by my antagonists. The fact that they find it necessary to evade in such manner is one of the clearest [and?] least attractive evidences of the fact that the truth is on the side of Objectivism.
  11. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    A fact. A fact that obtains (is gotten, is acquired, grasped, realized, procured, understood) "by necessity" is [a fact] that obtains (is gotten, is acquired, grasped, realized, procured, understood) "by identity."
  12. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    @Easy Truth Another paragraph from page 24 of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand A fact is "necessary" if its nonexistence would involve a contradiction. To put the point positively: a fact that obtains "by necessity" is one that obtains "by identity." Given the nature of existence, this is the status of every (metaphysically given) fact. Nothing more is required to ground necessity. Between StrictlyLogical's concrete example (delivered via abstractions [here]) and Grames raising the fact that abstractions are man-made [here], parsing the man-made linguistic expressions for their corresponding concrete counterparts, you might benefit from reviewing or familiarizing yourself with "The Metaphysical Versus The Man-Made" in Philosophy: Who Needs It? or The Ayn Rand Letter, Vol. II, No. 12 & 13, as an additional sidebar. Incidentally, I think the citation I provided essentially restates StrictlyLogical's point, only much more abstractly.
  13. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    Thanks for filling in the blanks. I heard the hard edits in the audio track and thought the resulting sentence looks malformed. That explains it well enough for me.
  14. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    I think there's an extraneous word in the first line, but that is stated more succinctly than how I've been struggling to articulate it.
  15. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    Some of the sentiment about how Rand possibly viewed the reception of her work may be inferred from this take out of For The New Intellectual: The best among the present intellectuals should consider the tremendous power which they are holding, but have never fully exercised or understood. If any man among them feels that he is the helpless, ineffectual stepson of a "materialistic'' culture that grants him neither wealth nor recognition, let him remember the meaning of his title: his power is his intellect not his feelings, emotions or intuitions. Easily implied from this is the recognition the she had these feelings, emotions or intuitions, but deferred them to the intellect.
  16. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    At which point you should be/are back to the basic expression: The law of causality is the law of identity applied to action. To quibble here is to isolate "only the glass can break the glass". I would leave it as "only the glass can break". Hopefully this helps clarify the question you began with. Otherwise you will be left with the question you began with.
  17. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    To stay true to form, if you read between the lines, that should be structured as: To confirm, there was no causal relationship between him and the glass breaking. Let's not quibble about the spaces between the letters.
  18. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    Yes. He was administered several stitches in his throwing arm, after the medical team removed a shard of the former window pane from the wound.
  19. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    The window pane shattered when the rock struck it. It could have been the hurricane winds that blew the window out, or a bullet from a gun, or the pressure of a ladder leaned against it when someone tried to climb the latter, or it shattered when the soprano reached and sustained a high C during her solo. Regardless of the process leading to the window breaking, the window pane shattered, broke, splintered, broke into shards. Arguably the window pane would not have shattered had the other processes been not been in play, but without the window pane to perform the actual shattering, the other processes would have simply resulted in the actions the other entities performed.
  20. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    From much of what I've gathered over the years, it has shaped a view of Rand as the consummate student of history. In addition to developing an understanding philosophy's role in shaping the courses of history, she had to readily recognize the time frames over which these influences developed. Her affinity for Thomas Aquinas (1225-1274), for instance, a catalyst for the industrial revolution (starting ~1760) or even The Enlightenment (starting ~1650) runs a span of 325-500 years. I can imagine her thinking "what if", but tempering with "it would be nice, but not likely." There is more merit in but she had the benefit of the reception of "The Fountainhead", which perhaps fueled her development of the "hatred of the good".
  21. Ayn Rand's official public notice

    I rather liked the straw-womanized attribution. To delve a bit deeper. Is it that being straw-manned effected her world-view, or is it an identification of another delimited aspect of her world view that she is using to affect this sort of inflection? Then I would have to wonder why I am thinking that for her to do so is not so much a bad idea as it is an attempt to divert or redirect the thinking toward what she had had to say at the time.
  22. Biologists Replicate Key Evolutionary Step

    Was the primordial soup a hearty pre-protein stew? The evolutionary path to first proteins may have been paved with relatively easy, small steps Date: September 5, 2017 Source: Georgia Institute of Technology Summary: How proteins evolved billions of years ago, when Earth was devoid of life, has stumped many a scientist. A little do-si-do between amino acids and their chemical lookalikes may have done the trick. Evolutionary chemists tried it and got results by the boatload. More developments referencing the RNA, this time with depsipeptides. The new study joins similar work about the formation of RNA precursors on prebiotic Earth, and about possible scenarios for the formation of the first genes. . . . To identify the more than 650 depsipeptides that formed, the researchers used mass spectrometry combined with ion mobility, which could be described as a wind tunnel for molecules. Along with mass, the additional mobility measurement gave the researchers data on the shape of the depsipeptides. Algorithms created by Georgia Tech researcher Anton Petrov processed the data to finally identify the molecules. To illustrate how potentially bountiful depsipeptides could have been on prebiotic Earth: The researchers had to limit the number of amino acids and hydroxy acids to three each. Had they taken 10 each instead, the number of theoretical depsipeptides could have climbed over 10,000,000,000,000.
  23. Yeast not only gives rise to bread, it gave rise to an answer to a question that has eluded evolutionary biologists. "To understand why the world is full of plants and animals, including humans, we need to know how one-celled organisms made the switch to living as a group, as multicelled organisms," said Sam Scheiner, program director in the National Science Foundation (NSF)'s Division of Environmental Biology. "This study is the first to experimentally observe that transition, providing a look at an event that took place hundreds of millions of years ago."
  24. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    I saw the term roots, and just thought it was etymological. And yes, it is page 70. Depending on which side of page 70 it appears, sometimes I need to subtract 1, as I erroneously did when I typed that.
  25. Causality For Someone who Doesn't Get it!

    An Introduction to Logic by Horace William Brindley Joseph. It is in the public domain and available freely via http://books.google.com/. While it is on my Kindle, it is what I've considered a dry, tough read. For an introduction to logic, I found Peikoff's Introduction to Logic helpful. While reading OPAR this afternoon, I noticed that a point correlating the concepts of validation and volition share an etymological root was mentioned. Page 69 of OPAR: The concept of "volition" is one of the roots of the concept of "validation" (and of its subdivisions, such as "proof"). A validation of ideas is necessary and possible only because man's consciousness is volitional. This applies to any idea, including the advocacy of free will: to ask for its proof is to presuppose the reality of free will. Causality in conscious beings differs from causality in inanimate objects, a distinction that is eloquently captured in Miss Rand's identification of the need to distinguish between the metaphysical and the man-made. Even in actions predicated by dogs and/or cats, adding the attribute of consciousness (not conceptual) adds a distinction between actions of conscious entities and inanimate entities. (How far down the animate/inanimate chain this goes is an investigation in, and of itself.)