Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Xall

Regulars
  • Posts

    75
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Xall reacted to 2046 in Direct Democracy as a Constitutional Employment   
    Yeah well as far as the argument agains the underlying moral principles of democracy (as opposed to democracy as a methodological device, i.e. "ballots over bullets") then the argument is the logical one against appeal to consensus. This would be a type of legal positivism, where the source of right is just some decreeing agency, down to its furthest roots is a primacy of consciousness metaphysics.

    As far as individual rights go, it should be clear that if a system entails the possibility of expropriation of individuals by redistribution to people who definitely did not produce the income in question, and did not have any contractual claims to it, but can decide for themselves on how far expropriation can go by their own majority say-so, then individual rights don't exist at all, and the group owns the person's life. From an economic standpoint, if it should be clear that if that is so, then the incentive to be an owner-producer is lowered and the incentive to be a "have-not" is raised leading to a lower production and standard of living.

    The argument should then go that expropriation by majority vote should be limited (ideally down to zero) and that introducing legal constraints against majority vote should be more beneficial and just.
  2. Like
    Xall reacted to Dante in Objectivism vs. Nominalism?   
    Metaphysically, if you choose any particular man and examine him, there is no characteristic that has some essence hidden away in it. He just is the way he is. Rationality is a better essential trait when forming a definition of man because it underlies and explains more characteristics of man than opposable thumbs. Thus, epistemologically, it is better suited to the task of defining man. However, metaphysically, for any particular man he has his rationality and his opposable thumbs and his hair and his eyes and they are all equally aspects of that man.
  3. Like
    Xall reacted to softwareNerd in Global Warming   
    Weather changes. Humans can change much faster than weather.
    I doubt your "facts" though. In my experience, people are always commenting on how much the weather has changed since they were young, and they're almost always exaggerating by orders of magnitude. A 1 degree change becomes a 10 degree change in their selective memory. Or, "the snow used to be really high when I was young" turns out to be "I was really small then, and it seemed much higher to me". So, I suspect you too are exaggerating because of the error of your approach of not checking the actual recorded data of the place you live, to find that though there has been change, it is far less than you might think from your own unreliable memory.

    Anyhow, if it is snowing now, go skiing, change the types of flowers you plant, change the time of year you start planting, make those windows more weather proof, and enjoy the diversity of climate change.
  4. Like
    Xall reacted to Prometheus98876 in Looking for a business partner in hi-tech   
    Game physics engine : C++, and happily so. If it was a game in which high performance was not an issue : C#.

    OS kernel : C or maybe C++. C# if I simply need a simplistic kernel for which performance is not vital.

    Database system : Not sure, probably C++.

    Given its poor design , about the only reason I can think of to use Objective-C is if you are making Apple products.

    C# is highly suitable for a MANY applications. It is a powerful language with many features and libraries ( the .NET ones number in the tens of thousands of really good ones). It is slower than C++ and a number of other languages , however for many , many applications this does not matter. For the vast majority of applications, it is plenty fast enough and anyway, unless it is a high performance application : The choice of programming language makes almost no difference these days.

    If you have a look, you will find many even slower languages are popular? Why ? Because programming language speed makes very little difference to anyone not making applications in which high speed is very crucial. Sometimes languages that seem slower can actually do some things FASTER. Python for instance is considered slow usually, however it has some highly optimized mathematical libaries that can be tweaked to run at speeds approaching C++.

    This does not sufficiently answer the questions I asked however.
  5. Downvote
    Xall reacted to Prometheus98876 in Looking for a business partner in hi-tech   
    This is the first I have ever heard of this "Pliant" programming language. The main site will not work for me right now, and the other sites I can find give me precious little information. What is so great about this language and why would anyone care so much? What about it justifies setting up a business around it? Historically, this sort of thing has been tried : But it has been proven time and time again that it generally doesnt work.

    Programming languages are themselves generally not what makes profit, what makes profit is the great software which can be profitably made with them. What is it about Pliant that lets you do this?

    " This is a little like Rearden Metal -- it is very versatile but its benefits will become clear once a business is setup with a real client." - if you mean it is superficially like Rearden Metal - then sure. Both are things which were claimed to have a lot of promise, even though not everyone sees why or buys into it. Except Rearden Metal clearly shows promise upon examination by a rational and informed person. I am not sure that this is the case here.
  6. Like
    Xall reacted to Dante in Argument for the existence of God   
    Because causal factors always operate through existents. Literal nonexistence, nothingness, has no causal efficacy. Take a Christian who holds that the universe as we know it today was created by a conscious God. God is the existent to which he appeals in order to explain the universe. Where did God come from? Well, he is eternal, uncaused. Or take a quantum mechanics researcher who posits that the universe as we know it popped out of a quantum fluctuation. In that case, the existent to which he is appealing is the quantum-mechanical nature and features of the 'wider universe', out of which popped this present universe. Where did that QM structure come from? Well, that's just the way it is. Maybe we can also explain that structure, but however we explain it, it will be through the causal processes of yet another existent. In any case, whatever it is that you appeal to to explain the creation of this universe, that thing is also part of existence as such.



    The relevant question re: supernatural is, are you proposing that the eternal existent has a definite nature, with definite capabilities, which works through definite causal processes to interact with and change (or in this case create) the world outside itself? If you are, then your deity is simply another existent with a definite nature. If not, if you're proposing literal magic, this deity can do things without any sort of causal process, then you're talking nonsense; hence, 'meaningless.'
  7. Downvote
    Xall reacted to Erik Christensen in Objectivism and homosexuality dont mix   
    If homosexuality is permissible then why not relations with animals?-or machines?-or plastic yard flamingos? Ayn Rand was against the moral anarchy of anything goes relationships. She understood that rational/moral happiness based upon objective criteria, and it's biological function (ie law of identity), were essential to rational happiness in an objectivist context. Sure, people can choose to live all sorts of lifestyles that they think can make them happy, but rational happiness must be defined within the context of reason or else you end up with hedonism and/or nihilism, which is prevelant in the libertarian/anarchist circles.
  8. Like
    Xall reacted to Marc K. in Objectivism: "Closed" system   
    No. As in, she misrepresented the ideas of Ayn Rand, so nothing she says about Ayn Rand can be trusted. Context indeed.



    No, you used the word "positions", which means "opinions". Please reread what you said.



    So you know, you just don't want to say. I suppose that would be a problem on this site too.



    Do you? I guess if you said what it means you'd be breaking another rule wouldn't you.




    Here is Ninth Doctor's signature: "Available, uncensored, on Objectivistliving.com"

    So the answer to my second question is: Yes, you are intentionally insulting the owner of this site.

    Do you even know what censorship is? It is something only the government has the power to do. I guess this means you don't believe in private property either. Or at least you don't think that a property owner has the right to establish the rules for the use of his property.

    Your explanation above says that you were warned once already about the same behavior you are displaying here, had a post deleted and instead of following the rules, you have decided to continue to break the rules.

    Moderators, come on, this anarcho-tolerationist is clearly violating the rules. In this thread alone he has insulted ARI, anyone who accepts the closed-system principle (which is ARI's position), and Harry Binswanger (member of the Board of ARI). He is doing it in a snide and underhanded way so as not to be too overt about it, but he is doing it nonetheless. In a previous thread he insulted Leonard Peikoff. And now with his signature he is insulting you and the owner of this site with every post he makes. He needs a banning bad.
  9. Like
    Xall reacted to Eiuol in Objectivism: "Closed" system   
    To me, that's a good comparison to use for explaining in what sense "closed" means. The "exhibit" that is Objectivism won't ever change, although to some extent, it can be applied in various ways, but what it consists of is always the same. That the journals of Ayn Rand were unfairly edited doesn't suggest anything about open or closed; after all, there is a reason it wasn't originally intended for publication. Journals may be useful for a side-exhibit, but not the Objectivism exhibit. As an individual, you can choose to visit the exhibit or not, and if the exhibit inspires you, fantastic. At the same time, it's important to remember that the exhibit isn't all that reality consists of.
  10. Like
    Xall reacted to Dante in Death   
    This is where I would disagree with you. Living is a process of working for and achieving values. That's part and parcel of what it means to sustain one's life. However, throughout our lives many of these values become an inherent part of our personal 'meaning of life.' Those values constitute our life, such that living without them would be inconceivable, intolerable for us. Our life is not some Platonic ideal value that we pursue in addition to our major values; living life consists of achieving and maintaining these values, and if you've done it right, they have massive personal, emotional importance to you. Risking or even sacrificing one's life to save or secure one of these values is consistent with, not contrary to, a morality with life as the central value, life properly understood as a process of achieving values and not just total time spent breathing.
  11. Like
    Xall reacted to 2046 in Does the particular nature of a particular volition determine that vol   
    I'm not sure what you're describing is incompatible with the axiomatic view of a volitional consciousness. Again, I don't really see how that "hand on the stove" example differs from my "not in my nature to murder someone" example. Perhaps you are, as oft are most objections to free will, taking as your understanding of volition as something conceived of before-hand, then comparing it to reality and seeing that it doesn't live up to this expectation.

    So we observe that we are not free to do literally "whatever we want," which free will is defined as, therefore there must be no free will. Why must every alternative be equivalent? Why is that the standard? But this definition is arbitrary and context-less. We mustn't start with a conception of volition or a standard of what volition should have to be, then observe what we can do. Rather, we just observe what we can do and see that we can make choices, that we can control and direct our focus, that we can select our attention to things, that we can move our body, that we can make evaluations, and choose between alternative courses, and so forth.

    The point is that free will isn't some thing that is magical or the limitless ability to "do whatever I want" or to "make any choice." Nothing is limitless, everything is bound by the law of identity, and is thus something very specific with specific limitations and boundaries. Keeping this context, it is improper to conceive of free will as something which is our power to defy our nature or the nature of entities in reality. This includes keeping in mind that previous choices and acts of will that condition our character and values, and thus influence the kind of choices we will make in the future.
  12. Like
    Xall reacted to 2046 in Stock Market   
    Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal logical fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning or sense (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).

    public ownership — n

    1. ownership by the state; nationalization

    2. A public company usually refers to a company that is permitted to offer its registered securities ( stock, bonds, etc.) for sale to the general public, typically through a stock exchange...

    Because you have a right to sell shares of ownership to the public (2), but you don't have a right to expropriate someone else's property (1).
  13. Like
    Xall reacted to 2046 in Stock Market   
    Of course you're not alone, but I don't think this view is compatible with Objectivist ethics. Let's look at the points raised against the stock market:

    "because a company should grow as far as it can by the individual" Why? Is there something wrong with social cooperation and the division of labor? If so, it would mean the death of the human race in short order. Social cooperation is a great value to mankind. I think this likely rests on a mistaken view of individualism as some kind of social atomism.

    "a group that makes money for doing nothing" I think you are mistaken in believing investors and shareholders do nothing. This rests on the communist view that capitalists are idle parasites that contribute nothing to the production process and extract value from the workers via exploitation. The short version of a big economic topic, and there are obviously pros and cons about issuing debt versus equity and incorporation that apply to the specifics of the situation at hand; but in general, the point is that it is not possible to produce without capital, which the saver-investor-capitalist-entrepreneur has the vital function of providing. CF. Mises Planning for Freedom, chapter 17 "Profit and Loss" or Murphy Lessons for the Young Economist, chapter 14 "The Stock Market" or Rothbard The Ethics of Liberty, chapter 7 "Interpersonal Relations: Voluntary Exchange" or Machlup The Stock Market, Credit, and Capital Formation.

    "allowing a company to grow only if they feel like it" Presumably this would apply to the above mentioned sole proprietorship run by a single individual that you recommend as the legal limit as well, so it is unclear why this is an issue at all. This is the case with every human endeavor, so why someone should be forced to grow a company if they didn't feel like it, or that this is even possible, or that they wouldn't just go out of business?

    "The group can also make the creator of the company leave if he doesn't bow down to their will" I can also kick the guy who built my house out of it if he doesn't bow down to my will. The reason being that I own it, as do the owners of a company. Unless we know who owns what, it isn't very helpful to complain about someone getting kicked out of something.
  14. Like
    Xall reacted to Vox Rationis in Various ways of knowing   
    One cannot engage in a rational argument with someone who will not agree to go by reason (and asserting non-rational methods of knowledge is certainly not going by reason). All one can do is state the three inescapable axioms of reality (existence, consciousness, and identity), point out that reasoning from the basis of sense perception is the only actual way that man can gain knowledge, demonstrate that all supposed non-sensory methods of consciousness are by nature impossible (for they imply perception by no specific means), show that all supposed "sixth sense" claims are arbitrary assertions unsupported by evidence, and hope that the man will see that reason really is the way to operate.

    If, at that point, the man says, "God said it, I believe it, and that settles it!" (or any secular equivalent, such as "I have a right to my opinion,") you're done. You cannot attempt to persuade him rationally. The only thing left is for him to observe the harmful effects of his irrationality, at which point you may point these out and possibly get him to reconsider.

    Also, on a related point, Leonard Peikoff gives a good analogy about so-called "sixth sense" claims in his Founders of Western Philosophy course, which I will paraphrase. The proponents of such claims always defend their viewpoint by stating that you can't judge them because you only have five senses. However, observe that there is no controversy among the blind that men with a "fifth sense" exist. Why? The reason there is no controversy is because the claims of sighted men support the sensory evidence that the blind receive through their four senses; there is never a contradiction between what the blind man perceives and what the sighted man perceives. Furthermore, the sighted man can make predictions which the blind man cannot, proving that he has special knowledge. For example, he can warn the blind man of a car approaching at 100 yards away, and the blind man will be able to feel and hear this car passing by at a certain time afterwards. Such predictions work every time.

    Contrast this with the claims of "sixth sense" advocates who claim to have received mystic revelations from God. Their claims do not support the evidence we receive from our five senses: they radically contradict them by saying that this world is only an illusion or shadow and that true reality is something else. Furthermore, these people cannot make any predictions that a normal person cannot. Therefore, we conclude that they are mentally disturbed or lying.
  15. Like
    Xall reacted to JeffS in If it comes down to Obama vs. Romney...   
    I agree with that logic, too. And I agree that it may be the straw that breaks the camel's back. (to mix metaphors) I think it would be a good thing to have it all come crashing down. People don't seem to get that communism doesn't work, socialism doesn't work, socialism-lite doesn't work, a mixed economy doesn't work, and crony capitalism doesn't work. They need to be slapped in the face with consequences of their choices. The faster it falls apart, the quicker we can get to rebuilding it.
  16. Like
    Xall reacted to 2046 in EMS and the Fire Department   
    An elementary lesson in logic would be that just because you can't see an alternative doesn't mean a conclusion necessarily follows. This would be a species of argument from ignorance.

    As far people dying if the can't pay a fee goes, there exists evidence to the contrary. Is your friend unaware that there are private volunteer and for-profit fire departments and EMS services all over the country. Is that what they do? Do they demand you pay fees in one lump sum up front or else they let you die and/or burn down?

    So long as the world is not transformed into the Garden of Eden, we all have to pay fees to live. If no one literally ever paid anyone anything, the entire human race would quickly die off. That is part of living under the division of labor. Production is required to sustain life, and the increased wealth to be had through association and cooperation compels men to trade and exchange.

    Universalizing this principle (that everyone be entitled to some amount to not die or burn) is impossible. How much of a fee should someone be entitled to just for being alive and/or on fire, and where would this come from? Who is to be forced to provide it, and what about his life? Nobody has a right to force someone else to provide him with a ride to the hospital or put out his fire. To do should would mean those doing the providing are condemned to slave labor, which is incompatible with Objectivist ethics. What would be compatible is recognizing the right of the people involved to freely associate with those willing to give ambulance services or firefighting services for whatever price they deemed to be in their self-interest, leading to the mutual ben­efit of both parties to the exchange.

    If free enterprise produces shirts, shoes, food, houses, cars, ambulance parts, hoses, tires, oil, electricity, etc. and is the most efficient way to ensure people get these vital goods, why not firefighting and EMS? If it is insufficient for firefighting and EMS, why not insufficient with those other things, or indeed every good and service?
  17. Like
    Xall reacted to softwareNerd in Does the Right to Life Trump Property Rights?   
    Jonathan, in an earlier post in this thread, you spoke of dogmatic pro-LP folk. Quite candidly, I see you using the exact same dogmatic methodoloy except that it is anti-LP. I see no fundamental difference in the "truth value" of your "arguments" full of straw-men, evasion and hyperbole, bundled into a structure of argumentation and similar ones that I see from pro-LP dogmatists.

    Also, I disagree that anyone who agrees with LP on the mosque issue is being dogmatic. To assume so sounds like the worst type of caricature of "Fact and Value". One does not judge people in that way. Once again, in doing so you share a methodology that the most dogmatic folk employ.

    Personally, I think dogmatists on both sides make cesspools of forums, with their dependent and other-oriented rants.
  18. Like
    Xall reacted to Nigel in Online dating sites   
    I find the questions asked on online dating sites so absurd, and the answers even worse. Taking them seriously seems impossible. When I look at these sites, I often think to myself, would I date anyone who bothers to to try to answer these questions.

    Questions and my answers:

    Q: If you could change one thing about yourself, what would it be?
    A: If I wanted to change something about myself, I would have changed it.

    Q: What sign are you?
    A: Umm, I don't speak sign language.

    Q: What languages do you speak?
    A: Last I checked, I speak English fairly fluently and since we live in America, I guess that is a good thing. If you want to speak in broken high school french or spanish, I am cool with that.

    Q: What is you ideal first date?
    A: I thought I was here to find a person, not a place. I can go to my favorite restaurant in little italy anytime, who cares about where, the bigger question is with who. As long as I am not an idiot and take you to Uncle Joe's Chicken Farm where you can slaughter your own bird and then pluck the feathers right there, what does it matter.

    Q: Who has been the most influential person in your life?
    A: I am pretty sure myself. You see, I work to buy myself the things that I want. I also by myself food and then eat it to keep myself alive. In addition, I make all my choices for myself and decide what I do. Finally, I also chose what to do with my free time to increase my happiness. You see, if it were not for me, I would be homeless, dead, unable to make choices, and much less happy. Therefore, I think I have been more influential in my life than grandma Easter who passed away when I was eight.

    Q: If you could meet any person (alive or dead) who would it be?
    A: I am sorry, I have been too busy living my life to sit down and think about this. Surely, I need to schedule time to consider impracticalities and unfulfillable desires.

    Q: How would your friends describe you?
    A: The same way that I described me, this is called integrity.

    Q: What is your occupation?
    A: I am confused, does it matter what one does as long as they value their work? Am I trying to date a person or a doctor? True story, when I was younger, I was probably in high school, I was told that it is just as easy to fall in love with a rich person as a poor person--this was a woman in her late 30s working as a waitress who told me this. Honestly, I am having enough trouble finding just one person to actually truly love.

    Q: How do you spend your leisure time?
    A: One of my favorite things to do on Friday nights is work, seriously. Its often quite quiet on Friday night and everything from the week is still fresh in my mind. I find that I get some of my best work accomplished on Friday nights. As a side note, I am yet to see any females jump at this response, but answered honestly.

    Q: What pets do you have?
    A: I have a dog, if you are cat person, please move along to the next profile. Hairballs gross me out, and both my dog and I detest cats. However, if you are a dog person, my dog is very cute and also single if your interested. I know that all good relationships are based on types of pets, I am very thankful that I paid $30 a month to answer this question.

    Q: Do you want kids? How many?
    A: Well, seeing as I am in my 20s and the economy ain't too great, having kids is a matter of economics. You see, if I have kids, I want them to have the best life possible, Frankly, I want to be able to afford that before considering having them. As to the second part of the question, three an a half is my favorite number. Does that work for you?

    Q: Do you have kids?
    A: I am still waiting to read the answer that says: "yes, I made a poor choice, but don't worry I collect an ample amount in child support." Lets be honest, if you have a kid and are working your way through school, you are not exactly responsible. You cannot provide the attention that a chid deserves if you are working full time and taking classes on the side. Yeah daycare may be great, but its not a substitute.

    Q: What type of relationship are you looking for?
    A: I thought this was a dating site? If not, I will take a prostitute for $50 an hour.



    My favorite aspect of dating sites is the ready made matches when they try to point you in the "right direction". A real example:

    Blank sparked your interest!

    Like you, she's a dog lover.
    You both enjoy watching a good sports game.
    Like you, she's never been married.

    Wow, this is dream girl. We both like dogs and watch sports (though I rarely actually watch sports for more than 5 minutes before becoming bored). And to put the icing on the cake, we have both never been married. Thank you website for coming up with such valuable similarities to make this evaluation. Surely with shared interests like these a marriage is looming.



    Sorry for my rant, but is it really that hard to include something meaningful on these sites?


    *I apologize for my sarcasm, but most of the time I am being serious.
  19. Downvote
    Xall reacted to mustang19 in Self-interest versus rights   
    Not sure of that; Wikipedia at least defines it as "a focus on the needs or desires of oneself" without mention of other people. But if I argue about dictionary definitions anymore I'm going to get banned.



    I guess the closest term you could come to that is Pareto efficiency, where at least one person is better off and no one else worse off. Don't know if it's in most dictionaries though.



    Well since you're still feeding the troll I would go with the Wikipedia definition of self interest, since, although it is from Wikipedia, I believe it is one of the more commonly understood definitions of the word and people will usually have a good idea of what I mean when I use it.
  20. Like
    Xall reacted to themadkat in Self-interest versus rights   
    Several people have already mentioned to me that there is no point in replying to you unless and until you actually read what Rand wrote, but I do want to make one more minor point here. Objectivism does NOT agree with the doctrine known as psychological egoism, whereby "acting in one's self-interest" becomes a tautology. Psychological egoism is basically like saying "Why did you do that? You chose this, therefore you wanted this, therefore people want whatever it is they end up choosing to do." Objectivists hold that not only is it POSSIBLE to act against your self-interest (in contrast to psychological egoism where it is not), people do it ALL THE TIME, to their ultimate detriment. Don't confuse psychological egoism with ETHICAL egoism (the Oist position). Because people are able to act against their interests, it is all the more important that they think carefully about the course of their whole lives and avoid doing so.

    Last time, Objectivism is NOT a pleasure-maximizing philosophy. We are not hedonists. We are not all about getting a feel-good on in the range of the moment. Is the pleasure-pain mechanism useful and good? Hell yeah it is. It tells you not to touch a hot stove or let anyone jam pointy objects in you. More seriously, your body does let you know when you are pushing yourself too hard or something is wrong, and if you are in serious emotional turmoil there's probably a good reason why, and you should look into that. But being in a state of pleasure or pain in any given moment, devoid of context, is likely to say NOTHING about the state of your life overall. That, specifically, is why I gave you the heroin example.

    I'll give you a personal example. I had surgery on a joint recently. Rehab exercises and deep tissue massage often hurt like hell. Would it be better for me to avoid this (admittedly pretty bad) pain, baby the joint, and ultimately keep it from recovering as well as it might? Damn, I suddenly made my body sound like the economy just then. Funny that...
  21. Downvote
    Xall reacted to mustang19 in Self-interest versus rights   
    Hm, so much for those ARI junkies then.

    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pleasure_and_pain.html



    Just going off of the sources it was suggested I look into...

    But I understand that when you say "the pleasure pain mechanism is the automatic guardian of man's life" you actually mean something else. It still makes Objectivism unnecessarily confusing though since psychological egoism is usually understood to include pleasure in the evaluation of self interest. There are probably more accurate and precise words to describe whatever Rand actually meant by "self interest".
  22. Like
    Xall reacted to softwareNerd in "European Muslimization"   
    The best thing one can do is to repeal many statist laws.

    Firstly, welfare laws should be repeal at least to the extent where almost nobody wants to be on welfare. This ought to apply to ethnic Germans just as much as it applies to ethnic Turks or Somalians. Even if only 0.5% of ethnic Germans mooch off the system while 10% of ethnic Somalians do, the law should deny both those sets the ability to mooch. In fact, a refugee is likely to be more deserving of charity for the first few months, as he looks for a job and so on (private charity, of course).

    However, many refugees may not be able to find jobs because of other laws. So, drastically cutting back on welfare would not be enough. One would have to roll back minimum-wage laws, to allow refugees to earn their living and not be priced-out of the economy due to lower skills. However, things won't end here, because they might find that they cannot afford housing because the law stipulates rules for what is considered livable housing. So, one would have to roll back housing and rental laws.

    As long as one has a huge welfare state, people will fear any class of poor. By definition, anyone who earns less than an average wage is likely the recipient of redistributed money. When a large percentage of people in some particular ethnic group -- Turk, or Somali, or Muslim, or black -- is poor, then people will see that group as a recipient of welfare funds, and the worst racist sentiments will be aroused.

    The primary cause of most immigration is economic: people want to move to a place where they will have a better life in material terms. It is important that the system has the right incentives to induce them to stand on their own feet as soon as possible. The welfare state works in the opposite direction, retarding the poor from becoming self-sufficient, and encouraging those who are irresponsible.
  23. Like
    Xall reacted to 2046 in wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist   
    And yet, empiricism is an open system which you can add to, whilst Objectivism is a closed system that, if you add to it, it becomes Rand's system + your additions = a different philosophy.

    No, closed/open systems in philosophy never mean "do you agree with person X, Y, or Z." It has nothing to do with agreement. But so, I don't get it, asking "do you agree with person X, Y, or Z" is a bad question or something? What exactly is the problem? Is this evidence of dogma? It seems you are very confused on what any of these things mean. What exactly is your point anyway, aside from hey look at my opinions on "the objectivist movement" and everyone is a dogmatist but me, even though I've never met these people and admittedly don't talk to them, and if you don't agree with me you're immoral (but that's not dogmatic)?
  24. Like
    Xall reacted to 2046 in wonder if you'd consider me an objectivist   
    Heresy? A bit melodramatic there, don't you think? Why do you consider any of your beliefs to be "credentials"? A credential is a qualification, an evidence of status or authority. Why should anyone care, least of all you? Why is this a dilemma for you?



    Why? A little short of evidence and proof there. What does your map/sign metaphor mean?



    Molyneux's position is nonsense. This seems like playing with words. Objectivism is philosophy? Okay, but this doesn't tell us much. Stoicism is philosophy, but Stoicism isn't Objectivism. Objectivism is a philosophy, but not all of philosophy that ever existed. To say otherwise would be to assert that Rand is the only philosopher to ever exist, and there was no philosophy before Rand, an insane proposition.

    This kind of confusion seems to stem from a kind of dogmatism of its own. Some people seem terribly afraid that there could ever be anything false or wrong in Objectivism, so Objectivism needs to be an "open system" that can change according to truth, or else it's a dogma. Objectivism, thus, needs to be "all truth in philosophy."

    But there are problems with this. First, dogma does not mean a philosopher's system of thought that doesn't reflect truth. A dogma is belief in something without proof. So if someone holds to any philosophy without proof, he is holding a dogma, regardless of that philosophy's truth-vale. So in this context, if someone refuses to accept Objectivism is false in defiance of the evidence, then he is holding a dogma, but this says nothing about why Objectivism itself would need to change.

    Second, since man is limited and fallible he can never know "everything that is ever true, ever" so the pursuit of an "open system" encompassing "all truth in philosophy" defeats the entire point of philosophy and philosophic systems in the first place.

    Lastly, this doesn't allow any differentiation between what is Rand's philosophy and what isn't. That's kind of the whole point of naming something, after all. If you wanted to call "Objectivism" all truth that ever exists, then you still need a word to call "that which constitutes the thought of philosopher X, Y, or Z." Objectivism means Randianism, basically, the thought of a specific philosopher. Since the thought of a specific philosopher is something specific, the law of identity does not permit it to change according to truth.

    The dogma comes from not changing your beliefs, not from refusing to pretend someone said something other than what they said. In fact, the "open system" people are dogmatists because they would like to pretend exactly that, and are essentially afraid "OMG what if Rand had it wrong on something?! What do we do then?! We can't call ourselves Objectivists then! Oh no!" No, then you have to choose between Objectivism and the truth, and hopefully you choose the truth and then move on with your life. This doesn't tell us why Objectivism would suddenly morph into something that it isn't, or why it should be expected to.



    But this doesn't make sense. If someone holds a belief or a preference or a personal opinion, then of course they would want other people to accept them as true, or else they would not hold them (they would hold something else.) Isn't your statement itself a personal opinion that you want other people to accept? Why then, if you don't like Rand's preference on something, does it bother you so much? Who cares? Why does it matter that Rand thought Dvořák and Rachmaninoff was better than Beethoven and Mozart? Why is this a problem for anyone? Isn't that a bit creepy to be so worked up about such a thing? Why does it matter that you "be an Objectivist" so much? That's what creeps me out about your posts on here more than anything.

    I'm going to have to agree with your last point on Ron Paul, though. Of course, one shouldn't interpret all disagreement with "hostility," and certainly there is plenty of unjustified hostility on the libertarian side. While it is a fact that some libertarians, maybe a lot of them, are just plain scum, no better than any commie or conservative, and I get there is need for some branding between ARI and LvMI. That being said, I don't get all the hostility towards Ron Paul. Amy Peikoff's critique of him was terrible, and Yaron's recent comments about him are bafflingly misinformed at the least, intentionally malicious at the worst. I don't get why ARI won't engage with the Mises people instead of treating anarcho-capitalism as persona non grata, so to speak. The Mises people, while the vast majority are anarchists, are willing to publish philosophic material, including on Objectivism, to sell Objectivist books, to discuss and publish papers on Objectivism. The level of scholarship, including sometimes on Objectivism, being put out by the Mises Institute is so vastly higher than ARI, it's quite disappointing.
  25. Downvote
    Xall reacted to Jacob86 in Refutation of existence of an all powerful being.   
    Yes. God.
    Have I ever seen Him? Do I have empirical proof that He exists and that He doesn't have a cause?
    No.
    Do I need it?
    No.

    Instead of asking insinuating questions with vague implications of your approximate (but unspoken) epistemological laws, why not just STATE them in the open and accuse me of violating them?
×
×
  • Create New...