Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 05/18/21 in all areas

  1. In July 1986, I was with my first life-partner Jerry (d. 1990) sitting in the bleachers that had been set up in Manhattan along the Hudson. We were watching the Tall Ships sailing by. In the evening, the President would throw a switch, sending a laser beam across the river to activate the illumination of Liberty, which was reopening after a long refurbishment. The night sky would be filling with glorious fireworks on and on as if an umbrella over Manhattan. That afternoon was sunny, as the ships sailed by. There were smiles and friendliness all around. Behind us a woman wore a classy T-sh
    2 points
  2. "Fictional problem", in the sense that a "paradox" must involve some disconnect with reality. Reality has no problems, the problems are thus fictional. No hypothetical shape, event, situation, process, system, etc. which is obvious and behaves exactly as "expected" or "intuited" was ever called a "paradox". Neither was anything which was judged too new or too complex to understand. Differential geometry is not a paradox to a musician, it's just something he/she does not have training in and does not understand, but he has no reason to suspect "paradox". A paradox requires an experien
    2 points
  3. Thank you Boydstun & StrictlyLogical for clarifying this. Here is my summarized understanding after having read both your replies. The assumed context here is that man survives by a particular method of thought and action.You cannot evaluate an object when it is obtained by irrational action because it is moral principle that sets the context (a commensurable standard) for evaluating that object in relation to your other values. You can evaluate the method as good or bad, i.e., this is for my life or against my life, but not the object. Similarly, in epistemology, a proposition a
    2 points
  4. Additionally, given my later, more considered examination, I should take back my earlier, imprecise statement: “Galt’s Speech confined itself to what a person needs for an integrated full framework for living in the modern world.” Rather, that confinement is what remains of GS when one sets aside “psychologies and motives of religionists and of materialists (e.g. Marxists, Behaviorists) / psychologies of savages and of dictators.” I said also earlier in the reflections in this thread that the doctrines in Galt’s Speech “suffice to cover all the essentials of the philosophy. (Amplification
    1 point
  5. Peikoff’s book on the philosophy of Ayn Rand covers all of the basics of the philosophy. Is every point the book includes as part of the philosophy essential to that philosophy? I should say No. As I mentioned earlier, Rand’s measurement-omission theory of concepts (which I have championed and developed further in my 2004) as well as her theory of esthetics are not essentials of the philosophy. Those things were not in Galt’s Speech, whose doctrines suffice to cover all the essentials of the philosophy. (Amplifications of those essentials Rand subsequently published could also be taken as
    1 point
  6. The thoughts in OPAR move smoothly. It is as easy to read as GS. The two have the same range of readers to whom they are significantly understandable. Peikoff begins OPAR with remarks on the nature and function of philosophy (1–4). Rand had taken on that issue in her 1974 address at West Point, and Peikoff excerpts from that speech for his springboard into what is philosophy, in Rand’s conception of it, and how he will proceed to present the areas of philosophy hierarchically in his book. He then proceeds in his first chapter to point out that philosophies build on starting points, and th
    1 point
  7. There are reviews of OPAR by Henry B. Veatch and by David Ramsay Steele (along with their critiques of the philosophy) in the January 1992 issue of Liberty, pp. 60–68, available here. Detailed critique of a particular point in epistemology in OPAR and beyond is given by Robert Campbell in the fall 2008 issue of JARS here. David Kelley’s 1992 review of OPAR is here. By the way, in summer of 1992, I attended an Objectivist conference in which Peikoff was delivering a series of lectures. I recall conversing with a middle-aged woman there, who surprised me when I asked what books of
    1 point
  8. Eiuol, The translations in The Complete Works of Aristotle (Barnes 1984) are evidently the most well-known by modern readers. It has by now made its way into a lot of personal libraries. In reading the parts of ORGANON of interest to you, sooner or later one can also have the companions in Blackwell’s A Companion to Aristotle (2009) in: Chapter 3 - Deductive Logic Chapter 4 - Aristotle’s Theory of Demonstration Chapter 5 - Empiricism and the First Principles of Aristotelian Science Chapter 6 - Aristotle on Signification and Truth (Sometimes there are line-by-
    1 point
  9. Soon I will be reading the entirety of the Organon, or more generally all the books within this one about reasoning and demonstration. I say reading group because my intent is to focus on Aristotle's writing without bringing much outside interpretation. I have enough background on Aristotle and Oism to guide reading discussions in a productive way. Not simply to understand what Aristotle said, but to integrate it all with furthering my study of other fields which for me are mostly psychology and neuroscience. If you have a different academic interest, like history or economics, that's even bet
    1 point
  10. You missed the most important part: because this is preposterous and absurd, we should resolve the apparent contradiction. The theory it is based on must be fixed or a new theory must be proposed. Spoiler alert, they resolve the contradiction in the end. No one in the documentary claimed that the law of identity is invalid. Did you stop watching after 15 minutes?
    1 point
  11. That is actually a bit abnormal. If I remember correctly (and I'm speaking purely off-the-cuff here on a cigarette break, so I may not be) I believe most people think primarily in auditory fashion, as a sort of "inner monologue". I know that's the way I do (although I almost always have an inner soundtrack playing as well). So congratulations - you're slightly abnormal! Maybe that's why you don't seem to be recognizing the secret passphrase ...
    1 point
  12. That would be nice, but more like I'm exposing something that I say, and I think it's bad. I guess we could say that you weren't expecting some sort of... Spanish Inquisition. It is still a method of asserting authoritarianism or dictatorship. Julius Caesar did the same sort of thing, where he used his own army to assert authority over the Senate to create the Roman empire. And as I recall, Machiavelli would argue that overt military action is less effective than making sure people love you and rally behind you rather than strictly using fear. Having the charisma alone to convi
    1 point
  13. Nope. Just waiting to confirm or deny your status as a closet Q-drop addict.
    1 point
  14. Political Philosophy Political philosophy, capitalism, rights, law For current topics, post in Current Events ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ It looks like this thread may have been more properly "Current Events" than here, as I see little to no political philosophy in the thread, all through it. Be that as it may, DA, here's my two cents worth on your post two before last. (Sorry I couldn't get back to you sooner; my hands were simply out getting dirty pulling weeds.) No. Do not suppose Atlas in its producers-going-on-strike is the world you live in or ever h
    1 point
  15. Some time ago, in another Objectivist Forum, a poster noted that I appeared to assemble information in the form of images as, I guess a kind of transformation of written content. I do tend to think in terms of images, but as that is natural and unremarkable to me, I haven't any idea how different this may be generally. On reflection, my hope is that it is unique. I'd like to be really good at something no one else does!
    1 point
  16. Here's a thread I posted different sources I found on the QAnon whilst it ran its course (been pretty quiet now, 'cept for those still nursing a few disparate memories.) The Bobulinski angle on Binden Incidentally, @Eiuol, I thought your initial response in this thread contained a reference to QAnon in it, but I see it was edited later. You were courteous enough to reintroduce the innuendo to no avail thus far, as to elicit an emotive response on @Devil's Advocate's part. After this story I ran across this reference to Ron Watkins, QAnon as a regular headline in mainstre
    1 point
  17. You stated it as a fact. The to be restored president. If you meant he might be reelected, you would say that. If you meant that some Republican leadership are trying to get Trump into the presidency because they believe the election was stolen, you would say that. In fact, you would have said that right away when I asked you to clarify. What you did instead was provide a cryptic answer. You wanted me to divine your answer based on you stating that January 6 was an insurrection. That really has nothing to do with any of the above. Unless you are one of those nut jobs. You know, the peopl
    1 point
  18. Certainly. If I remove myself from society, the rest of the world will continue turning just fine without me - only I won't have to deal with them. That's the point. This is so weird. To recap, DA mentioned the possibility of Trump being "reinstated" either through the courts or reelection. Alright; one can argue about whether or not the courts are going to do anything about this last election (and if one was feeling particularly uncharitable one might even characterize such an idea as a bit unhinged) but it's neither advocating violence nor conspiracy theories.
    1 point
  19. Well, not "to shrug". Although I like this telling paraphrase regarding the (con)temporary state of America (as I and many others view it). (I had said pre-US elections that coming off a higher base than anywhere in a greying, long-compromised Western world, it would be the ~relative~ drop of liberty/freedom - by her own standard - that would hurt America. There would not be a complete collapse, like in AS. You would never fall to Venezuelan and Zimbabwean levels, as some misleading, alarmist, examples given, but the moral damage would be greater). Not to shrug then. But to see this
    1 point
  20. Well, if that's the case, I can't participate in this thread.
    1 point
  21. The blindfold was a 16th century addition to the Greek's Themis. The Roman's Libertas is metaphorically her sister in spirit.
    1 point
  22. Until what passes for republicans today can win elections without The Donald, nutty is as nutty does.
    1 point
  23. That she shouldn't have blindfolded her sister?
    1 point
  24. For the sake of the children, If you saw Lady Liberty, the giant who holds the free world on her shoulders, if you saw that she stood, blood running down her chest, her knees buckling, her arms trembling but still trying to hold her torch aloft with the last of her strength, and the greater her effort the heavier the looters and their children bore down upon her shoulders demanding freedom from want - What would you tell her? (Ayn Rand's Francisco d'Anconia, paraphrased)
    1 point
  25. I believe that January 6th was an insurrection promoted by republican party seditionists, to state it bluntly. You may judge me by that. My question (restated) is, "Should the Statue of Liberty shrug off securing the 'Blessings of Liberty' in order to drive home the need to secure it?"
    1 point
  26. So, in one corner, Rep. Greene of the Christian White Supremacist Right, and in the other corner, Rep. Ocasio-Cortez of the Urban Neo-socialist Left. A prime example of why I despise politics. Neither of these representatives has a political philosophy rooted in reason, in my opinion. Modern politics is that way- amoral, collectivist, with a blatant disregard for individual rights. Neither of these should be the voice of the future of American politics.
    1 point
  27. Instinct And Learning
    1 point
  28. HD, Thanks for coming back. As for the wager, forget about it.
    1 point
  29. Space Debris Has Hit And Damaged The International Space Station As the size increases, the quantity probably decreases in general, until getting to tracked size of 23,000 softball sized or larger. Roughly 2.22 x 1010 sq. kilometers of area, excluding a "thickness", at just under geosynchronous orbit (radius of 42,000 km.)
    1 point
  30. Stephen, much on board with this, that one can hold both the enjoyment of illusions together with their objective explanations. (The song: "Both Sides Now"?) Here are usual (psychological, Ponzo illusion) explanations given for the perception of a larger sun and moon at the horizon. I favor the magnifying, refractive atmosphere theory (not given). https://magazine.scienceconnected.org/2021/03/sunsets-are-illusions-2/
    1 point
  31. A counter-intuitive oddity, a brain-teaser rather than a paradox, imo. Quite something that Plato was then onto "tangential velocity" (the 'rotating' speed of various radii) clear above. "tangential velocity is directly proportional to the radius. It increases because tangential velocity is inversely proportional to the radius". Wiki In the Paradox as presented, the suggestive, visual red herring is an *inner* wheel 'track' or line, exactly equalling the length of the outer - except - the wheels are different diameter/circumferences! Of course, the larger one's circumference s
    1 point
  32. Here is a diagram inverting the illustration to begin with the points on the "wheel" pointing downward. The "spoke" is provided at 10° intervals, which were then used to create the cyan and magenta splines emulating the path of the points as the "wheel" rolled horizontally.
    1 point
  33. Yesterday, while pursuing my current series "Prime Movers, Immovable Movers, Self-Movers", I came across the following in Plato's Laws. In rotary motion of a disk there are "points near and far from the center describ[ing] circles of different radii in the same time; their motion varies according to these radii and is proportionately quick or slow. This motion gives rise to all sorts of wonderful phenomena, because these points simultaneously traverse circles of large and small circumference at proportionately high or low speeds---an effect one might have expected to be impossible." Ther
    1 point
  34. That makes sense. Maybe not designed for a student then, but more like those kind of problems where you know intuitively that there is a reasonable solution, but can't solve it yet because you need to be a little more creative.
    1 point
  35. What I find fascinating about this wheel issue, is that a full enough description of the actual motion of the wheel and its parts relative to the ground and its frame of reference is, arguably (theoretically), all that is required to dispell the apparition of paradox from the mind of one capable and willing to understand fully, for when the confusion at issue is removed and reality laid bare... what else needs to be said? There are different descriptions of that reality with different focii and different levels of completeness, which nonetheless will be sufficient to dispell the misgiving
    1 point
  36. Fictional problem? Even Zeno's paradoxes were not fictional in the context of what was known at the time. Maybe my attempts of understanding how involute curves of two meshing gears interact with one another contributed to my rather quick dismissal of the dilemma from the OP. Or the cut of a thread expressed in terms of 1000's of degrees, where 360° is one full revolution of the workpiece on a lathe as the cutter moves in a linear progression relative to the speed of the rotation for analyzing the production of a helix of a thread.
    1 point
  37. I agree completely. It would be strange if I didn't, since I wrote the Analysis and Solutions section of the Wikipedia article. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only person who has ever resolved the paradox based on cycloids. Mathematical Fallacies and Paradoxes deals with the paradox and mentions cycloids, but says the solution is that the smaller circle slips. "Skids" is better than "slips", but even "skids" is based on a flawed analogy. The behavior of the smaller circle is partly similar to that of a real-world wheel skidding, such as caused by the driver of a car braking har
    1 point
  38. The author of Mechanics, or Mechanical Problems, does not regard #24, which is the problem discussed in this thread, as unresolvable, only wondrous, and he offers a solution. I gather his solution fails; he's just spinning his wheels. The author is not Aristotle, all agree. A good argument has been made that the author was the famed Archytas, who was a contemporary of Plato.
    1 point
  39. The difference is in the attempt to apply a linear dimension to both circumferences and equate them with the distance traveled. Only the outer diameter rotates where the relationship between the angular progression and the circumferential engagement are 1:1. The inner diameter goes along at 1:1 with regard to the angular progression. There may be some quibble with the terminology, but it appears that a paradox is contrived by trying to combine unlike terms.
    1 point
  40. The idea that the coronavirus behind the pandemic may have escaped from a Chinese lab has resurfaced and is being discussed seriously. Past news coverage of this possibility vs. current news coverage eerily reminds me of a couple of conversations I had some months ago, and it is worth observing the difficulties I had in light of the fact that the earlier coverage seemed utterly dismissive of the possibility while later coverage doesn't. But before I go on, again observe my title: Labs study viruses that haven't been genetically engineered all the time, and I agree that this virus was almost
    1 point
  41. Boydstun

    Analytic-Synthetic

    Thanks, Greg. “Let no one unversed in geometry enter here” is said to have been inscribed over the entryway of Plato’s Academy. Excepting the value-philosophy areas, I think that Euclidean geometry should be a requirement, along with elementary logic, for any beginning philosophy student. I mean anyone beginning to study epistemology and metaphysics. Otherwise, one is missing necessary acquaintance with subject matter and tools of theoretical philosophy. The synthetic and the analytic of the synthetic-analytic distinction in philosophy, from Leibniz, Hume, Kant, logical positivists,
    1 point
  42. Greene is far worse; anyone who supports treasonous activity directly is about as bad as you can get.
    1 point
  43. That is the question. The objection is that being in the courtroom, or being an actual juror, was some kind of advantage to discovering the truth in this case. I, however, think it was a disadvantage. This is similar to the point Mr. Nelson made about perspective. The jurors were limited to their in-the-moment perspective, particularly regarding witness and expert testimony. The human mind can only take in and retain so much information, which limits its ability to integrate and evaluate a large body of evidence. I, however, was not limited to an in-the-moment perspective. When I became o
    1 point
  44. "[Reality] is something that humans actively participate in producing when their minds interact with their environments." That's 11 minutes in just about. It wouldn't be so insane if he meant something like "the society people live in is shaped by the way minds interact with the environment". That would be true, but obviously that doesn't mean each society is literally a different reality... It's like he forgot that when people say "ancient people lived in a different world" they don't literally mean a whole separate reality. My conclusion: Never go full subjectivist. http
    1 point
  45. Do you have some evidence for that claim? Has Trump or the FBI director blamed the Obama administration for delaying capture of the Chinese agents?
    1 point
  46. I'm also aware of the worldwide impact Christianity and Islam have had.
    1 point
  47. The official DOJ page for the Fox Hunt press conference is here. It's clearly an interesting and unique case. They claim it's the first of its kind. I don't see how it's related to Biden, though. So bringing it up in the other thread was suspicious. And using the FBI announcement as some kind of validation of Q was doubly suspicious. I agree that Bobulinski is obviously connected to Biden, but trying to connect him to Q seems far-fetched. So again, suspicious. Personally I think Biden is corrupt and possibly even a traitor. That's an interesting question. But why bring Q into it? Jus
    1 point
  48. Actually, the equations were developed by Lorenz, and formed a part of the Lorentz Ether Theory. This is why the transformation is called the Lorentz transformation. The Special Theory of Relativity is really a mixture of the Lorentz Ether Theory and bad philosophy.
    1 point
  49. EC

    alien life

    I don't know if that's actually true. We have plenty of evidence that life exists here on Earth. It is actually a fact that each one of us knows first hand. If life developed here on this planet is it at all a non-sequitor to assume it developed on other planets in an "infinite" universe? I don't think that it is, but of course you should not draw any other inferences off this one, such as intellgient life is visiting us and so forth. But it is NOT arbitrary to claim life exists elsewhere using the firsthand evidence we have from Earth.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...