Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/21/22 in all areas

  1. >which is objectively evil Russian aggression As a response to objectively evil Ukrainian government aggression against other Ukrainians who are ethnically Russian. If you study some history of the subject instead of watching CNN and MSNBC you might learn something and arrive at a conclusion more consistent with the actual historical record. This is known as the "correspondence theory truth," in which "truth = correspondence to fact"; as opposed to slavishly following MSM, which is known as the "coherence theory of truth," in which "truth = beliefs and statements that are not only internally consistent but concur, and are consistent with, stories and viewpoints espoused by pundits on MSM." As an example of the latter, when Brian Stelter on CNN went to one of the areas that were rioting after the George Floyd killing, and with a straight face told the cameras that "this is mainly a peaceful demonstration" when viewers could plainly see buildings burning in the background and people rioting violently in the streets, there were many viewers who, to this day, deny that there was any violent rioting in the streets because Brian Stelter -- Johnny-on-the-Spot -- told them what to think, and told them how to interpret what they were seeing. That's called "controlling the narrative." It's like the scene in "The Wizard of Oz" where the little terrier Toto pulls back the curtain, revealing a harmless old man at a machine that amplifies his voice, making him sound menacing, and who then shouts (as a last-ditch attempt to "control the narrative" of Dorothy and her companions), "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!" >war crimes, and atrocities False flags. For example, the maternity hospital that was shelled several weeks ago, with reports of dead women and babies, and blamed on Russian forces by western mainstream media, had been evacuated several weeks earlier in February and was being used as a headquarters by Ukrainian military and the Azov battalion. That's why it was shelled by Russian forces. But women and babies were not among the casualties. The online newscast called "The Hill: Rising" hosted by Kim Iversen had a webcast at the end of February about some of the fake images and newscasts coming out of Ukraine and promoted by mainstream media, such as spectacular nighttime rocket attacks that were actually images from a video game; images of "brave" president Zelensky donning military gear, apparently "ready to appear on the front lines to support his troops" that were actually recycled pictures from a year ago of a training exercise; etc. See link. The more recent hysteria by MSM over Russian forces "about to attack a nuclear power plant" was a false flag, too. Ukrainian military took over the power plant and fired on Russian forces hoping to goad them into returning the fire (they didn't). Nevertheless, sleepwalkers in the west who swallow Blue Pills handed out to them by MSM got to shake their heads and virtual-signal to one another, "I just saw on The View that those nasty, nasty Russians were about to attack a nuclear power plant! That Putin guy sure is nuts!" Etc. Controlling the narrative. >that are clearly reminiscent of those of the 3rd Reich That's for sure! The members of the Azov Battalion are the scions of WWII-era Nazis (can't even call them "neo-Nazis; they're actual, old-style Nazis, and they even don some of the runic symbolism on their military gear). So when Putin declared that one of the aims of the incursion would be to "de-Nazify" Ukraine, he was being literal. The Objectivists on this board are simply uninformed. It's understandable, though. Ayn Rand hated Russia, so followers of Ayn Rand should also hate Russia. That seems to be about the extent of "research" most Objectivists here have done on the topic of Ukraine. As for Tucker Carlson: he's a good interviewer and very likable. Many haven't forgiven him, though, for the insulting way he treated attorney Sidney Powell after the fraud of the 2020 election started to become known (see Dinesh D'Souza's recent documentary on that, titled "2000 Mules" showing video evidence of massive ballot-stuffing by Democrats). The problem isn't Tucker; the problem is that Fox is really part of MSM now (it was been for a long time), whose function within that space is being seen by many (including me) as being "Controlled Opposition", i.e., a venue that is permitted to voice opposition to some of the prevailing narratives but only within certain limits. This applies to Newsmax, as well. Both Fox and Newsmax have taken large sums of money from Big Pharma so you won't hear a peep from them regarding the poisonous effects of the mass vaccination and mass boosting programs, and both news venues have demurred on the January 6th "insurrection" at the Capitol, and the 2020 election fraud. Regarding the vaccines: as Edward Dowd (former managing director at BlackRock) has said, there's been a 40% increase since the vax rollout in 2021 of "All Cause Mortality" in a demographic that shouldn't be having such an increase: working age adults between 18 and 64. This was first reported a few months ago by the CEO of OneAmerica, a large insurance company headquartered in Indiana. A 40% increase in All Cause Mortality is about 10 Standard Deviations on a Normal Distribution, indicating an event that one wouldn't expect to see even in 200 years. Other insurance carriers, both US and European, have noticed similar kinds of increases over the past year. There are probably several causes (the lockdowns, for sure) but the injurious effects of the mRNA technology on causing long-term damage to the immune system, as well as contributing to blood clots and myocarditis, has now been admitted even by Pfizer during its recent FOIA releases of its trial data. Dowd and others (MDs and PhDs) are expecting huge numbers in excess mortality -- in the many millions, possibly more -- to die in the next few years. Unfortunately, many of those will be children. Alternative viewpoints that aren't censored or controlled can only be had on alternative platforms such as Rumble, BitChute, Telegram, Gab, Gettr, Parler, Truth Social (Trump's platform), Frank Speech (Mike Lindell's platform), and maybe a few others. Under Elon Musk's helmsmanship, Twitter might rebound as an actual mainstream platform promoting free speech, hence, alternative narratives, but we'll have to wait to see how that all plays out in the next few months.
    3 points
  2. One thing I've noticed among the pro-Russian right wingers is that they spend a lot of effort telling you about all this stuff about the US/NATO expansion, leaked phone calls, Azov, etc. to keep focus on the US/NATO as the "bad guys" in their current programming. But very few of them (?) either (a.) continue to say that since the US/NATO did all this stuff that therefore Russia's invasion is justified and amounts to self defense on the part of the Russians, or (b.) continue to say that nonetheless Russia's invasion is not justified and in fact they are committing a grave injustice worthy of resistance on the part of the Ukrainians. Question: why is that? Possible answer: They're not interested in the typical philosophical questions surrounding the issue. Finding out what one ought to do about a given situation in accordance with some set of general principles. (I mean in a Socratic sense that "care for one's own soul" would lead one to make sure one wasn't supporting or condoning or excusing injustice.) The interest here isn't even philosophical or practical at all. There is no truth one is trying to get at. One's goal is something else, like promoting one's self being an exciting contrarian "maybe I can make myself look like a really cool transgressive thinker." It's kind of a role play in one's head. The use of one's faculties is not aimed at guiding action, but is rhetorical in nature, as if to say "don't look there!" To remind one "we're bad too!" is designed to shift the focus of the listener and leave the rest to implication. Counter proposal: Putin/the Russian government does not have a legitimate security interest in NATO not expanding eastward or in the Ukraine wanting to be part of Europe. The reason is very simple: Putin is not a legitimate ruler and the Russian government is not morally legitimate. Putin has no right to rule at all, not over Ukraine and not even over Moscow. Indeed I, 2046 have more of a right to rule over Russia because at least I haven't violated anyone's rights or liberties and would immediately resign. It may or may not be strategically prudent to not upset Putin, to include tactical deception about one's intentions to join NATO, but he has no moral claim to keep NATO from his doorstep.
    3 points
  3. *** Split from: Objectivists are working to save the world from tyranny--isn't that altruism? *** >Just today I saw a news report that a gov't official in Russia had said that domestic opponents to Russia's current war in Ukraine will be sent to concentration camps. What was the news source? Most of what mainstream media has presented to the public regarding Ukraine has been propaganda. Even many images have been shown to be hoaxes. Ethnic Russians who speak Russian but live in Ukraine don't want to live under a Ukraine government run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion) with a puppet president (Zelensky). The Ukraine government has been shelling the ethnic Russian regions of Ukraine since 2014 and thousands of those Ukrainians have been killed. Additionally, as Undersecretary of State, Victoria Nuland, has confirmed in a recent videotaped Senate hearing, Ukraine has a number of bioweapons laboratories (she called them "research facilities") that we now know through documents released by the Pentagon, were and are, financed by the U.S. Apparently, Mr. Putin doesn't like the idea of U.S.-backed bio-weapons labs on his doorstep, especially given what is now know via leaked emails, etc., from Fauci, Daszak, Baric, et al., regarding gain-of-function research on viruses that began in North Carolina (Chapel Hill, University of N. Carolina, Fort Dietrich) and continued in Wuhan, China at their Institute of Virology. Can't understand why anyone would uncritically believe the narrative spun by mainstream media.
    2 points
  4. One thing common to both the G.W. Bush and Putin aggressions was that they first amassed their armed forces obviously near the borders of the target country. In the Bush case, it surely seemed from here that there were two reasons: (i) to intimidate Sadaam into allowing nuclear inspectors in with full access to any site the outside inspectors requested and (ii) to suck Sadaam's forces into striking US forces first, thereby relieving Bush of being plainly the aggressor. Saddam caved on full inspections, but contrary his prior demand for that, Bush did not sieze the peaceful and nuclear-safety handle, but instead invaded, after failing to draw the Iraqi forces into attacking American forces first. His advisors had been aiming to topple Saddam all along, and one of the reasons was because of his percieved threat to Israel (and his being idolized by Palestinian youth.) Advisors to G.W.'s father in the Gulf War had advised leaving Saddam on the throne to bar a Persian sweep to the Mediterranean. To the mind of G.W.'s wife, the US invasion had won a humanitarian cause. She remarked in an interview (in sweet-voiced vicious sarcasm): "I can't imagine why they (25% of Americans from the start) oppose this war unless they support Saddam (who had gassed segments of his own population, etc.)" My picture of Putin's invasion and likely real motives (likely with overdetermination of reasons, of course, and likely some lies, of course) are more foggy. But I wouldn't be surprised but what amassing his army near the border also served to give a chance for Ukraine troops to strike first, but also, get some sort of concessions from Ukraine without having to carry out the conquest (Hitler succeeded like that in Austria). (This is distracting me from work too much. I'm going to leave off here. Best wishes, all.)
    2 points
  5. No Tad, you're completely wrong, and making the exact same mistakes in your evaluation that most of the world made before the invasion when they thought Putin was just being "clever" but was too "smart" to actually do it. I predicted with near certainty that he would for many many reasons and that it would only be his first stop. He has his sights set on at least the majority of Eastern Europe and WILL use ALL means at his disposal to achieve that goal or destroy the entire world trying to achieve it. Putin is Hitler with the largest nuclear arsenal in existence.
    2 points
  6. This one's from RT, definitely has to be "Putin's propaganda" ... (as opposed to overwhelming western, war mongering propaganda) https://www.rt.com/news/555356-hatred-russia-mcdonalds-us/
    2 points
  7. Not at all, Putin's propaganda. A prescient speech delivered in 2015.
    2 points
  8. I should also add -- for those who harp on the issue that "Putin is not the legitimate leader of the Russian Republic" -- that not only (as posted earlier) is Zelensky not the legitimate leader of Ukraine, but Joe Biden is not the legitimate leader of the U.S., so the lend-lease arrangement recently made between the U.S. and Ukraine has no "moral legitimacy" either. You really believe a guy who stayed in his basement during most of the campaign phase, and made a few public appearances in which a dozen or so people showed up, each one sitting compliantly with a face mask, and separated by one another by six feet, sitting in a chair with a circle drawn around it -- that he got 80 million votes? The most popular POTUS in history? Even more popular than Obama? When Trump would speak at rallies in various cities, each filled with capacity crowds, e.g., when he spoke in Butler, PA, there are almost 60,000 people who showed up. And yet Biden won in a "secure, fair, and honest election"? I don't think so. Watch "2000 Mules".
    2 points
  9. >it's only FOX News That's a mistake. FOX (as well as its conservative competitor, Newsmax) is controlled opposition: it's permitted by its sponsors to criticize certain things, but not to criticize -- or even mention -- other things. Examples: a year ago, Newt Gingrich was a guest being interviewed by commentator Harris Faulkner. When Newt started to mention the funding by George Soros of local Attorneys General who were radical lefties, Faulkner cut him off and told him that "we're not going to talk about Soros..." At first Newt laughed, thinking this was some sort of joke, but then he realized that FOX was simply censoring his statements: he was not permitted to mention the name "George Soros". More recently, Catherine Engelbrecht, a founding member of True-the-Vote (investigating the fraud of the 2020 presidential election) was on Tucker Carlson's show. She was told by Carlson before the show not to mention Dinesh D'Souza's recent documentary on the fraud, titled "2000 Mules", which used cell-phone tracking data to track thousands of ballot-harvesters ("mules") who went back and forth to ballot drop-boxes in many states, and then picked up more ballots (with names of dead people on them, or names of out-of-state people), to drop them into the ballot drop boxes. The documentary also tracks them going to various NGO headquarters where they picked up the ballots and were paid per ballot. FOX and Newsmax have stated publicly that they will not air the documentary or even mention it. As stated earlier, both FOX and Newsmax receive millions of dollars in sponsorship from Big Pharma (mainly Pfizer, it appears) and thus will not honestly criticize the so-called "vaccines." In that sense, FOX and Newsmax are no different from CNN and MSNBC. The only way to watch these venues "objectively" is to start from the assumption that they are presenting propaganda promoting someone's interests that are most likely not your interests. Wake up.
    2 points
  10. What point are you trying to make? Why are you spending time on stupid and uninformed people? I just find it curious when people opt for self-mutilation rather than something interesting and productive even in their own eyes.
    2 points
  11. You alleged that the Ukraine government “is run by a neo-Nazi gang”. I’ve asked you to prove it. I even suggested you a specific method: by naming the top government officials who are Nazis. Or you could list the specifically neo-Nazi policies of this government. You did neither of these. Neither have you done it in any other proper, i.e. rational, way. Evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems are NOT arguments. Therefore: do you intend to prove that allegation? And make only claims you can prove? Otherwise it will mean that you intend to continue to contaminate this forum with putinist propaganda.
    2 points
  12. EF, as a student of aesthetics, my research regularly leads me to thinkers like Schelling and Whitehead, which see nature as a living organism or super-subject, contra the so-called mechanistic or lifeless view. Since I'm using the base of Objectivism to ground my thinking about subjects such as art, beauty and personal freedom, I always find myself thinking about how those who hold the view of nature-as-living would react to arguments about the primacy of existence, the derivation of concepts from percepts, and so on. I can't pinpoint your overall worldview yet, but so far there seem to be some themes. You do seem to believe there is a world out there, albeit you claim that the sensations which reach you are integrated by an act of thinking, which was the fashionable view in Kantianism, but not much in line with the current science. In the Critique of Pure Reason, Kant claims that the manifold of mental contents must be seen as belonging to one single subject (my consciousness), that this necessitates distinguishing between what is subjective and what is objective in experience, and that this in turn depends on representing what is objective (from out there) according to rules which belong to the objects and not to your will: causality etc. You also mention the double-slit experiement, which allegedly shows that consciousness affects the world in some way, and in another thread on this forum you mention a disagreement with a purely 'undirected' emergence of life. This would be more in line with a consciousness-first view, such as the one in the OP. I am asking out of curiosity if you can describe your view in some essentials, especially: if the universe emerges out of a consciousness; or if a Nature-as-intelligence gives rise to all particles, chemistry, life and consciousness as it gropes (consciously or unconsciously) for some end goal, like self-consciousness. It could also be that, for you, nature is an objective absolute, but it simply can't be known through perception, and for instance, the double-slit experiment is merely true for how things apppear to your mind and not indicative of some fact about nature. In your opinion, does your view solve some inadequacies or 'evil' implications of materialism, biological evolution or Aristotelianism? If there are some books on your worldview (it could be that it's actually an original view of yours), they might be of interest to future readers of this thread. It is a monumentally important topic, since all forms of departing from the existence-as-absolute view depend on showing that some ideas are innate or created by the mind, independent of perception.
    2 points
  13. No, you never understood or answered my question. What are your grounds for saying the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" runs the government there? What are your grounds for saying President Zelensky is a puppet?
    2 points
  14. What are your grounds for this accusation?
    2 points
  15. LB, Rand's point is that whatever out-of-context desire, drive or motive the subconscious spits out, it will always get overwriten during the process of raising one's awareness of the situation at hand, and noticing that the 'drive' will prevent you from getting something you want. It's in this sense that mystic impulses and subconscious drives are basically the same principle. Rand was a pretty good psychologist, going by the testimony of close associates that were helped by her. 'The Romantic Manifesto' is chock full of examples of how one's childhood events, way of thinking and other factors influence one's psychology. Except, she thought that one can identify the source of one's mental disposition through meticulous introspection.
    2 points
  16. I mean if we're going by Rand's honesty, that isn't even what she says honesty is. The pivotal feature of Rand's egoistic honesty versus the conventional account is one's relationship to facts, not to the beliefs of others. Independence can be contrasted with dependency, but the moral 'pull' of independence comes from the responsibility one has to oneself. Justice, in common parlance we often speak of resiliency in terms of not being unfair to too harsh or unjust to oneself. Rationality is often a cooperative enterprise and is inherently connected with language use, productivity without others to trade with is impossible, and pride often deals with commitment to one's moral conduct in the face of criticism or disapproval from others, as well as giving and receiving honor from others. Integrity deals with congruence with one's words and behavior, which far from being a redundancy with "be virtuous" is a sharpening of the focus on something that comes up almost every day in life. There are a lot more aspects to the virtues from different angles than are accounted for here. It's not easy to just put ones "founded in ethics" over in this basket, or "requiring others" in that basket. If by ethics we mean anything pertaining to our character, then they are all for that. If living well requires others, then they are all for that as well. Rather it seems they all interpenetrate in both individualizing and social ways (as one would expect who knows what logikon and politikon point towards.) We are left asking again, "what was the need for this distinction?" "What problem is it solving?" We may as well divide the virtues into those with even amount of letters and those with odd, or those over six letters long and those under.
    2 points
  17. Given what I attend to, it is a spectacular claim that this person I never heard of is lording over me. // Stop watching television. There's a lovely and fertile world out here waiting for getting hands dirty and for clean accomplishments.
    1 point
  18. The majority of Eastern Europe. Wow. I got nukes, so do as I say. That's the kind of impossibly irrational stuff the MSM has been espousing and exploiting. Maybe just maybe Putin is concerned with no more than what is happening in his front yard? Considered that anyone? Has anyone identified and contrasted and evaluated what Putin wants, says he wants and actually is doing, before jumping to pie-in-the-sky conclusions, Identify first, guys. omigod, it's dour prophesies like this that will get everybody killed.
    1 point
  19. This year's, I didn't pay much attention to Russia or it's activities in 2014 because I thought they were to weak to worry about. But Putin has changed for many reasons over the last few years and that's changed the situation in ways that are important because of their nukes. I've been following all of this closely since about last September because of the likely WW3 threat.
    1 point
  20. No, I think they consider it a sunk cost that they ceded years ago now. I never read it but I've heard of it. "Expert" in Game theory may have been a over-characterization of my knowledge because I've only studied it in relation to poker, but I do use it daily to crush everyone online as a second job. My main job is with Amazon.
    1 point
  21. Stephen Thank you for the link , now it makes sense that Oliver Stone called Putin a ‘son of Russia’ . It also appears his(their) long term strategies tend to be centered on just that , the long term. So perhaps dastardly, but not so much blow up civilization and ruin future trade dastardly, or that would be a lot of planning for no benefit, and ruthless and dastardly as we know Russians to be , plain stupid they are not , yes?
    1 point
  22. Is Putin a dictator , is every aspect of Russia or the RF firmly under his personal control ? I do not honestly know the answer to that question , I do believe he is a leader in a system that tolerates or even encourages rather authoritarian leadership by western or US standards . But I do not know enough about the nation and culture of Russia to be certain that he can exercise the ‘same amount’ of power as one would ascribe to a leader in North Korea or akin to Hitler’s Third Reich. I would assume western propaganda plays a part in the cartoonish characterizations of Putin as Satan. I assume he has to be somewhat political domestically, even if it is to only placate the oligarchs that rose from the fall of the Politburo, but I am practically ignorant of the ‘real view on the ground’ of current Russian society. I further assume that the whole of ‘Russia’ ,all of its territories and its influence on the control of the Russian Federation , is a rather diverse society. Like a confederation of smaller and rather distinct ethnicities , cultures, religious groups ect , that ethnic Russians and Moscow/ Kremlin feel the ‘right’ and or obligation to be the seat of power. Again just my relatively non informed opinion and view. But if he is in fact Satan incarnate And has no compunction against nuclear exchange , threatening a preemptive decapitating nuclear strike doesn’t seem like a real good rational ‘play’. Actively prolonging the armed conflict doesn’t make sense , unless seen through some extra national jingoism. Russia or Putin , even if they denote the same thing , is using/did use military force to ensure their control of that region and its coastlines and pipelines and against would what ‘they’ plainly see and describe as NATO encroachment. In what specific ways does it benefit the USA which entity controls Crimea or the Black Sea ?
    1 point
  23. What's going on in with people defending the actions of the Russians on this site while saying basically things like Ukaine isn't/wasn't a morally perfect nation? No country in history up to this point has been morally perfect, that doesn't mean you get an open pass to resort to moral relativism in the face of blatant evil and atrocities. And just because a person "expects" atrocities to happen in a war doesn't make it moral or acceptable in any way... just the opposite.
    1 point
  24. You don't need to be at war with someone for them to be your enemy. I told you some of the reasons I think Russia is an enemy, but I didn't mention anything why I think those matter to US interests. I'm not sure if you think I'm saying that the US should get involved, I'm not. I'm saying that whenever the interests of Russia are harmed these days, that's a good thing. I don't really care enough about RT to say that it needs to be a banned, but it sounds like a potentially reasonable thing to do. It doesn't bother me.
    1 point
  25. Oh cool you can, thanks. I tried once before recently and didn't see the edit option had been added whenever. Years ago, I know for certain they explicitly didn't allow it, but happy I know it exists now.
    1 point
  26. Cohen must really have been linked into Putin's Q , spouting all that propaganda before Q made its first appearance.
    1 point
  27. Let’s see if my claim about your practicing evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems is true. Evasion: > I produced links to eye-witness testimony, which rational people consider to be a robust form of evidence. Here is what you "produced": > The proof of MY claims are based on the eye-witness accounts and testimony [...] that the Ukrainian army has been shelling their own cities and committing atrocities against their own people... In fact: a). you produced no links, only claims, and b). most importantly, these claims are about "atrocities", while the claim you had to justify was that Ukraine government is run by “a neo-Nazi gang”. You evaded the subject instead of proving your claim. Misrepresentation: You claimed that “the Ukraine government is run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion)”. I noted that this makes sense only IF “the Azov Battalion” is some kind of a political party which dominates the government. To this you comment that I (!!!) do believe that they're a political party ! This is a clear misrepresentation. Ad hominems: > you know nothing about Ukraine. If you've never heard of Kolomoisky, you know nothing about Ukraine. If you don't know who Victoria Nuland is […] > But then you'll be Red Pilled and awake and you probably won't like that. Please: swallow the Blue Pill, continue watching CNN, and go back to sleep > Clearly, you're afraid to get Red Pilled over the Ukrainian issue. So are most people. The subject under debate was not my person, but your claim that Ukraine is run by Nazis. Given the established fact that you - are unable to justify your claims (which coincide with Putin’s propaganda) - and that you are practicing evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems, I will ask the moderator(s) to consider the possibility of banning you from this forum. Indeed, there are thousands of sites hosting Putin’s propaganda, so that it is not necessary that the Objectivist Online Forum becomes one of them.
    1 point
  28. EF, tell me if I understand your position correctly: Apart from immaterial mind(s), there are only particles and maybe space. Some of these particles interact with your sense organs, leading to sensations. The immaterial mind (not made of particles) performs an act of thought through which sensations are integrated into percepts. Reason, integration, purpose etc. belong exclusively to the immaterial mind, and not to some body part. There are no rocks, trees, and butterflies, only particles. Rocks, trees and butterflies are mental constructs. The immaterial mind can directly interact with material particles in such a way that it directs the evolution of lifeforms. The faculty of reason has always existed. Induction is not a valid method of proof because you're inducing from your own integrations of sensations. If this is an accurate summary, could you clarify the following? 1. There seem to be two clashing premises: a) the existence of sense organs or lifeforms, and b) the notion that there are only particles out there, not rocks, trees and butterflies. Which one is it? Does the mind merely integrate sensations, or does it integrate actual, material particles into sense organs, trees and butterflies? 2. Does the immaterial mind have a physical origin? i.e. the nervous system leads to the immaterial mind, which has a nature of its own and can influence the material nervous system back. 3. If ideas construct percepts, why do you use scientific experiments to validate your positions? For all you know, the ideas that construct the experiment-percepts could be bogus and not related to reality in any way. Are you counting on a pre-established harmony between what is true and what your innate ideas say? 4. Whose mind directs evolution? Thanks.
    1 point
  29. >Instead of evidence you produced evasions, misrepresentations and ad hominems No, I produced links to eye-witness testimony, which rational people consider to be a robust form of evidence. Either these eye-witnesses are lying for some reason or you're not rational. I'll accept either explanation. I don't know what "misrepresentations" you have in mind. I simply restated the evidence as presented by the historical facts and the testimony of eye-witnesses. As for the "ad hominems", I think you mean "insults" (not quite the same thing as an ad hominem). I was merely stating the facts of the matter regarding your evident fear of doing your own research. Clearly, you're afraid to get Red Pilled over the Ukrainian issue. So are most people.
    1 point
  30. Within this website, Mister Swig asks where are the charismatic proponents of the Morality of Life to counter some of the more charismatic salesmen that peddle so many snake oil solutions. The best programs that have emerged lately are like Alex Epstein, a number of themed podcasts from ARCUK, Tal Tsfany's delving into happiness via a more scientific assessment. Still many of these are preaching to the choir, yes. Catch-22. Building individuals that think for themselves while pining for something more effective than Galt's Speech to "start spreading the news." Recently an article on Real Clear Media was crying that scientific research should be made freely available even by skirting pay-walls if need be. ARI, after I spent many dollars purchasing materials for my own edification, has made lots of information available. Information of this nature has yet to go viral. Viral capitalizes on the entertainment value. As entertaining as Atlas Shrugged may be, to unlock the door harboring the motor(s) is dependant on the mind choosing to discover what's behind the ray-screen for themselves. (/rant)
    1 point
  31. >and that one (Russia) was wrong for starting it, Actually Ukraine started it back in 2014 when it started shelling the Donbas region populated by Ukrainians who are ethnically and linguistically Russian. The Ukrainian military has killed at least 14,000 civilians there, possibly more. So Russia is simply responding to long-time Ukrainian aggression against ethnic Russians.
    1 point
  32. I think the person in this thread complaining about O'ists getting too much info on this subject from the MSM has been getting too much of his own info (nonsensical conservative propaganda) from Tucker (who I like in many ways even though he's a lunatic about this subject which is objectively evil Russian aggression, war crimes, and atrocities that are clearly reminiscent of those of the 3rd Reich). This is WW3's (let's call it by what it actually is) of the shit the actual Nazis did during WW2.
    1 point
  33. Maybe because this is a case of bad guys vs. bad guys, like two groups of gangsters in a gang war. Sure, one of them had to start it, and that one (Russia) was wrong for starting it, but that doesn't make the other group of gangsters "good guys." p.s. I do not know if my position here matches that of anybody else in this thread. I just saw that one statement and wanted to respond to it.
    1 point
  34. You wrote: > [the] Ukraine government [is] run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion) > [the] Ukrainian government is […] mainly RUN by a minority of Nazis known as the "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" 1. You provided no proof of this claim, you only evaded the request of providing proof by mentioning the government’s corruption, human trafficking, and money laundering. All these do NOT prove your claim. 2. By "Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" you seem to mean some kind of a political party, heavily represented in and dominating the Ukrainian government. Whatever the case may be: specifically, what members of the Ukrainian government do belong to this “Azov Regiment" or "Azov Battalion" ? And please don’t recommend me watching/reading someone else’s work to look myself for proof of YOUR claims! This trick doesn’t work with me. Be also aware that I am knowledgeable enough on the subject of Ukraine (and Russia and so on), so be careful about what you do claim on these subjects: I will ask for proof.
    1 point
  35. So how did that perusal work out? I used to post at another "Objectivist" posting site* at which the owner of the site (who shares your political and "narrative" interests and proclivities) kept saying for years he was going to read work of mine that had come up and had nothing to do with politics (but attracted readers). Turned out he never did. And when I and the other intellectuals left that site, sure enough, it became only political, which was his true flame. I hope you didn't come here primarily to talk "narrative" junk and politics. The owner of this site, btw, was born in Soviet Ukraine and probably is not in need of any revelations concerning what has gone on there and is "really" going on there.
    1 point
  36. The Invasion of Iraq by the US military under GW Bush was an agression and deserves condemnation, notwithstanding American-govrnment claims in the runup that Saddaam was producing bioweapons (seeing what one expects to see? psychological projection?). Same with Russian invasion of Ukraine under Putin. I rely on regular sources of information ("mainstream media") for report of the circumstance that no facilities for such weapons production were ever found and that Americans qualified to discern them were on the ground looking for them and for a very long time. I'll stay with regular sources that have the "narrative" that men really landed on the moon, that the 9/11 attacks occurred and were not instigated by US government agents, but the Bin Laden gang, over internet mining for sayings bolstering my political wishes and indicating my secret, unsung smarts. Iraq had not attacked the US. The latter was the aggressor. Ukraine had not attacked Russia. The latter was the aggessor.
    1 point
  37. Robert Zubrin, who recently appeared on Alex Epstein's Power Hour podcast (episode embedded below), is releasing a three-part series of short essays about nuclear power. I am really glad he is doing this since the first thing I remember thinking after listening to that podcast was something like, Boy! Wouldn't it be nice if this material was publicly available in readable form. As you can see from the below, Zubrin is a very clear writer, and nicely cuts through, with equal ease, both the conceptual fog of the scientific layman and the dishonest smoke of the anti-nuclear left. Here's an example, from his essay on nuclear safety, where he walks us through the ridiculous "Linear No Threshold" (LNT) methodology, which is used to frighten the public and hobble the industry in the name of "safety."According to the LNT methodology, a low dose of radiation carries a proportional fraction of the risk of a larger dose. So, according to LNT theory, since a 1000-rem dose represents a 100 percent risk of death, then a 100-mrem dose should carry a 0.01 percent risk. If this were true, then one person would die for every 10,000 people exposed to 100 mrem. Since there are 330 million Americans and they already receive an average of 270 mrem per year, this would work out to 90,000 Americans dying every year from background radiation, a result with no relationship to reality. Fundamentally, the fallacy of the LNT theory is the same as concluding that since drinking 100 glasses of wine in an hour would kill you, drinking one glass represents a one percent risk of death. It's quite absurd, and the regulators know it. But we are talking government regulators here, so, naturally, they use it anyway. That said, let's look at the data.The rest is just as good, and is worth a read for anyone with a serious interest in energy policy or -- considering what too much of that is these days -- simply keeping the lights on. -- CAVLink to Original
    1 point
  38. Zurbin's Defense of Nuclear Safety
    1 point
  39. Interesting. Long-winded but interesting. I'm fascinated by the amount of lively discussion it generated. In any case, I'll have to peruse it later today.
    1 point
  40. It's not the whole story.
    1 point
  41. "a Ukraine government run by a neo-Nazi gang (the Azov Battalion) with a puppet president (Zelensky)." What are your grounds for this accusation?
    1 point
  42. >What are your grounds for this accusation? You're serious? Statements by the Azov Battalion espousing Nazism. Many are saying that their members shouldn't even be called "Neo-Nazis"; they're simply good, old-fashioned Nazis, similar to the Ukrainians in WWII who sided with the 3rd Reich. There are also many statements by Ukrainians regarding atrocities against them by the Ukrainian army (not the Russian Federation army). Watch, also news from Europe, especially the French journalist living in Ukraine, Anne-Laure Bonnel. Ukraine (the government, not the majority of the people) is a hotbed of corruption, including bioweapons manufacturing (which they call "research", and which our State Department is now calling "Defensive"), human trafficking, and money laundering. That's why, before the military intervention, Putin asserted that he was "De-Nazifying Ukraine." Indeed. Just so.
    1 point
  43. LB, My suggestion is the opposite: self-impose a ban on all reading of this subject - no Rand, no evo psy, no Shakespeare, no statistical overviews of data organized according to the modern scientific method. For a period of time set by yourself, direct your mind out of books or articles and invest your time into doing something that you've always wanted to do (and monetize it if you can). Whatever is true of human nature, is in you, not in Aristotle or Freud's minds. One century of meticulous study will not replace a single week of closely introspecting yourself as you work to bring into existence something that you actually care about. At the end, you'll likely find something curious: your interest in other people's theories will diminish. Considerably. There's also a chance that you'll find most of what you've read to be absolutely useless in practice. No thinker can be judged without a point of reference, namely a set of principles one is already using - not when arguing, but in regular life choices. This turns ideas into tools and henchmen of a living breathing reality, and refining them becomes no more than that - a means to an end. Right now, your arguments read like more-or-less accurate overviews of western thinkers. But what you are casually doing is a monumental task - scholars spend many years struggling to accurately communicate the essence of just one thinker and his influences. There is also the danger of the truth being on the fringe, and not in the mainstream. But 'what ifs' are empty talk - only individual minds exist and only individual minds can recognize reality. The test of one's philosophy (and the accuracy of its view of human nature) is ultimately the quality of the practitioner's life, and his liberated status of being able to judge ideas without the aid of an external source.
    1 point
  44. The crucial reason history has worked out so badly so far is that people have had too little in the way of good ideas to guide them, and too much in the way of bad ideas. Ayn Rand has provided better ideas which, once they become widely enough known, will make better results possible. There is plenty of data about how people perform when the mysticism/altruism/collectivism axis of ideas dominates the culture. How much data is there about how people perform when the reason/egoism/individualism axis of ideas dominates the culture?
    1 point
  45. Considering the OP An important meditation of all Objectivists is "What does human flourishing consist of?" Now, consider the entire "Sense of life" surrounding non initiation of force, the trader principle, the dire admonition of systems turning individuals simultaneously into Robbers and Victims on some horrid ladder, the strong sense that no one is to be sacrificed, neither oneself to others nor others to oneself. And recall the comment Rand made about the leash having loops at both ends... And consider the virtues of rationality, justice, independence, and honesty. Even if one were to surmount the extreme adds against its success, becoming a tyrant relies on the vices of others, as well as the vice in oneself, depends on injustice, dependence, dishonesty, irrationality. It requires the repudiation of all that is admirable, and central to the ethics of Objectivism and its sense of life, which I mentioned above... it entails a direct dependence upon unreality, irrationality, and the worst in humanity... it embraces the essentials of what Rand would have identified as evil. Is this what human flourishing consists of? Show that, and perhaps you will sway some Objectivists to the merits of the predatory parasitism which tyranny is... but I suspect it will be a difficult row to hoe with most.
    1 point
  46. I can provide some earlier thought Ayn held on the nature of psychology from her first journal. All instincts are reason, essentially, or reason is instincts made conscious. The "unreasonable" instincts are diseased ones. This—for the study of psychology. For the base of the reconciliation of reason and emotions. As to psychology—learn whether the base of all psychology is really logic, and psychology as a science is really pathology, the science of how these psychological processes depart from reason. This departure is the disease. What caused it? Isn't it faulty thinking, thinking not based on logic, [but on] faith, religion? All consciousness is reason. All reason is logic. Everything that comes between consciousness and logic is a disease. Religion—the greatest disease of mankind. [bracketed] were added in a later edit by someone other than Rand. She had also revamped her notion of religion from "the greatest disease of mankind" to "a primitive form of philosophy" along her way. As to Rand's position on the subconscious being carte blanch dismissed as mysticism, that does not gel with the fact of her recognition of the phenomenon, and such a hasty conclusion on your behalf might not be warranted on the matter at this time. Given her track record, and the track record of those who interpret her, I lean toward trying to understand and integrate based on what is available from her and by her. She went on to hold instinct as an automatic form of knowledge, but another passage that has caught my attention more than once over the years wraps up this May 16, 1934 entree: Some day I'll find out whether I'm an unusual specimen of humanity in that my instincts and reason are so inseparably one, with the reason ruling the instincts. Am I unusual or merely normal and healthy? Am I trying to impose my own peculiarities as a philosophical system? Am I unusually intelligent or merely unusually honest? I think this last. Unless—honesty is also a form of superior intelligence. Things that could make one go "hmm?"
    1 point
  47. It is not altruism to care about others. It is altruism to sacrifice oneself for others. We should use reason alone to achieve knowledge and make decisions. But in our reasoning we must consider every relevant part of reality, including our own feelings where relevant. There are irrational people in the world. To the extent that they have power, it may be necessary to try to understand them for the purpose of judging what they are likely to do. This is fully consistent with understanding that they should not be irrational.
    1 point
  48. Peikoff's key point about Kelley is to class Kelley with those who "reject the concept of “objectivity” and the necessity of moral judgment" and "sunder fact and value, mind and body, concepts and percepts". I'm not convinced that Peikoff was right to class Kelley in this way. It seems to me that Peikoff and Kelley are using the phrase "closed system" in different senses. If we are to make an important issue of whether Objectivism is "open" or "closed", we need to carefully analyze what this should be taken to mean. If we are to evaluate Kelley on the basis of this issue, we must make sure we correctly understand what he meant.
    1 point
  49. Rand's contention with the libertarians at the time dealt with the superficial use of terms, i.e., freedom applied as a floating abstraction to justify a whim. If memory serves, it was this in conjunction with selective quoting of her writings in an attempt to ride on the coattails of the credibility she had established for herself that drew the bulk of her ire.
    1 point
  50. There seem to be a variety of definitions of "open" and "closed" Objectivism. I did not see the original debate, but it looks suspiciously to me as though the distinction was badly defined from the beginning. Given this and the point that the open/closed debate grew out of an argument about libertarianism, I thought I would throw out yet another possible definition for whatever it's worth for possible inclusion in the mix. The "closed" view holds that relatively concrete conclusions arrived at by applying Objectivist principles to what Ayn Rand and/or Leonard Peikoff and/or Peter Schwartz thought libertarianism was are part of the philosophy and/or a good litmus test of how consistently a person follows true Objectivism. The "open" view denies this and says that a person can disagree with what Ayn Rand and/or Leonard Peikoff and/or Peter Schwartz thought libertarianism was, and therefore come up with different conclusions applying Objectivist principles to it, and still be a good, consistent Objectivist.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...