Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum
  • °

    Objectivism Is The Everyman's Philosophy

    In the universe, what you see is what you get,

    figuring it out for yourself is the way to happiness,

    and each person's independence is respected by all

  • Rand's Philosophy in Her Own Words

    • "Metaphysics: Objective Reality"Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed/Wishing won’t make it so." "The universe exists independent of consciousness"
    • "Epistemology: Reason" "You can’t eat your cake and have it, too." "Thinking is man’s only basic virtue"
    • "Ethics: Self-interest" "Man is an end in himself." "Man must act for his own rational self-interest" "The purpose of morality is to teach you[...] to enjoy yourself and live"
    • "Politics: Capitalism" "Give me liberty or give me death." "If life on earth is [a man's] purpose, he has a right to live as a rational being"
  • Objectivism Online Chat

    True, False, Arbitrary

    Easy Truth
    By Easy Truth,
    We usually treat arbitrary as false. If someone told me there is a green man in your car in the garage, and I asked him why do you say that and he says "No reason, I just imagined it", I would assess that as being arbitrary. But I would treat it as false, not neither true or false. In other words, by ignoring it, I would be affirming that it is not true. There are no three states, true, false, or arbitrary. If on the other hand, I got an anonymous call saying there is a green man in my car, I may go an check. By default, I am treating that as true. The source of the information has a lot of bearing on if it has evidence or not. A credible source is evidence, isn't it? Although, in this case, credibility is indeterminable. "According to Objectivism, such a claim is not to be regarded as true or as false". "it is simply to be dismissed as though it hadn’t come up". I notice people will say "that is arbitrary" and engage in disproving the claim. Similar to how I behave (which I am questioning). But isn't the answer to the question of if something arbitrary exists "I have no way of knowing it right now?"  Unless ignoring it means ignore it in your own thought process. An arbitrary fact would be one obtained without any method of identification or classification according to the attributes which a consciousness observes in reality. Does that mean that to prove that something was arbitrary, one must prove a negative? That one must go through all possible methods of identification or classification and show that none were used? How else can it be proved?

    Shadow Banking

    NewbieOist
    By NewbieOist,
    Shadow banking is a topic I haven't heard discussed much, if at all, by Objectivists. Maybe I don't read enough Objectivist blogs or forums or listen to enough Objectivist podcasts. Anyway, I used the search function on this site and entered "shadow banking" but got no results. In a nutshell, there supposedly exists a vast "shadow banking system" that is mostly untouched by regulators. Investopedia defines it as follows: Then there's this from Investing Answers: And it goes on like this wherever you search on the subject. Every supposedly legitimate source treats this so-called "shadow banking system" that is allegedly shielded from regulations as a reality. Economist Paul McCulley is credited with coining the term in 2007, but supposedly this system has existed for decades without being threatened by lawmakers in any meaningful way. As the story goes, the shadow banking system played an important part in causing, or least exacerbating, the 2008 financial crisis. Wikipedia puts it thus: And: Variations on this narrative have been repeated by politicians, regulators and news analysts ever since the crisis, but it wasn't until a few years ago that the term "shadow banking" started to become mainstream (at least, that has been my observation). The term connotes a sinister conspiracy, and yet analysts and politicians in the know have apparently been well aware of these practices for a long time, going back to well before the subprime crisis. Leftist politicians like Bernie Sanders decry the SBS, but they don't actually do anything to regulate it in any meaningful way. Supposedly even Dodd-Frank did very little to address SBS practices. I have heard Objectivists argue that it's ridiculous to say the financial crisis was caused by lack of regulations, after all there were a ton of banking regulations in effect and basically it was the government's fault for creating a moral hazard after decades of repeated bank bailouts that only encouraged more risky lending. While these are reasonable arguments, they don't directly address the allegations that investment banks, at least prior to the meltdown, were not as heavily regulated as traditional depository banks, and so they were able to conceal their activities in the SBS until everything imploded (this is a deliberate oversimplification of the allegations, I am not heavily versed in lending jargon). Now, I'm sure that politicians and the media have exaggerated at least some facts about SBS practices, and probably have exaggerated the size and scope of the SBS, all in order to make the public scared of a rogue banking system that could easily run wild and cause a repeat of 2008. Nevertheless, I'm very interested to know just exactly how true their claims are. Is all of it B.S., or just some of it?

    Reblogged:Poise vs. Repression

    Gus Van Horn blog
    By Gus Van Horn blog,
    The excellent Captain Awkward, in reply to someone dumped when she thought an engagement might be in the offing, gives her advice on recovering and on how to maintain poise in the meantime. This comes with the following memorable passage on dealing with what I think of as "emotional lag":
    This is an excellent illustration of the nature of emotions, as identified by Ayn Rand:
    In abstract terms, the letter-writer, who was mistaken about the man she loved, valued him highly and had woven him into her life and hopes. This happened over time, and correcting the mistake will also take time. The resulting emotions will take time to catch up with the intellect, simply by the nature of how they work: Lots of subconscious associations are still there to be altered or supplanted by new ones.

    I note this not as some attempt to improve on Captain Awkward's advice to her writer. She said exactly the right thing, and in just the right way. Rather, I go to the level of the abstract because it can help show the advice to be more generally applicable. False hopes of marriage are hardly the only way to meet visceral, disorienting levels of emotional pain, and it can be comforting to know this. Why? Because the mechanism of recovery will be the same. One can do similar types of things to aid that recovery. And one can know that despite an unpredictable time course, there can be certainty of a recovery.

    -- CAV Link to Original

    Standard of Value - Life, Posterity, Legacy

    aarondodds
    By aarondodds,
    It is my understanding that one's own life is presented as the objective standard of value by Ayn Rand. Would it be Objective to also consider one's posterity and legacy as Objective Values? Perhaps, one would be willing to give up their own life in exchange for their genetic code passing on, or an immortalization of their work to live on for years beyond what their own life would have been? 

Portal by DevFuse · Based on IP.Board Portal by IPS
×