Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation on 03/20/21 in Posts

  1. MisterSwig

    The Pluriverse

    Greg Anderson is a history professor at Ohio State University. He recently gave a TED talk on the pluriverse. He rejects objective reality, arguing that there are many realities which he calls the pluriverse. Essentially each culture (or group of people) has their own reality which they create themselves. (He uses the ancient Athenians as an example.) These realities are equally real and important, except perhaps for modern Westerners who believe in objective reality and a universe. Thus we need to take notes from all the indigenous peoples who believe in primitive gods and live sustainable lives. I suppose the "multiverse" concept is not subjectivist enough for the hardcore leftist academic. Multiverse comes mostly in the form of a physics theory subject to scientific scrutiny. But the "pluriverse" idea is sustained by pure imagination, by the various popular myths of different societies throughout time. The problem, however, is that an egalitarian metaphysics has an inherent enemy in anyone who claims a superior metaphysics, and so it must be implied, if not clearly explicated, that pluriverse is the one, true view of reality.
    1 point
  2. People were complaining about suppression in a way that seemed vague to me, so I asked a reasonable question about proportions. Some people think this obligates me to do tests; I disagree. In any case, isn't it premature to do tests without a clear identification of what we are testing?
    1 point
  3. Has anyone come up with a more precise characterization of who or what is or is not being suppressed than "rightist" or "leftist"?
    1 point
  4. How are you defining "leftist" and "rightist"? Where are you hearing about this? How many Objectivist pov's have you heard of being silenced?
    1 point
  5. Okay, Joker. If you mean also Republicans who wanted to "stop the steal" as well, sure, everyone got what they deserved in the end (I think all of Congress is pretty responsible for the overall distrust throughout America). But to correct anything in the future, this is bad. "There are goblins on Mars that study Hegel's dialectics" is metaphysically possible, but without any kind of evidence to say that this claim is true, it is arbitrary. You need something in reality, something observable, not just possible stories you came up with. This is not a valid way of thinking. You need to make a connection with the past event in a causal way, not just merely correlations. I don't care what you provide, you just need to provide something. Then hop to it, make the connections with reality that you can observe. Partial evidence is fine. If I doubted that she had evidence, I would say that her claim was arbitrary. If it was a conversation, I would do the same as with you: I would ask for some more evidence. And she would provide it. She would never mention the word hunch. Problem solved. All you have to do is the same thing, but give me some verifiable concrete evidence. Some observation to work with about this event. I can understand if you don't want to explain all this in the first post you made. But now I am asking. This is completely subjective. This is not evidence. I don't have trouble believing this, so it proves nothing. This is not evidence either. Even if something is stupid, it is nothing to do with if it's important. Give me something somebody said or did in this case.
    1 point
  6. Arbitrary. You need some kind of evidence here. The best you have is that "one time, there was an attempted kidnapping, it turned out they were antifa type people". That's not evidence for your claim. What you said amounts to "it's possible!" Because of that, anything else you say is storytelling. I have some wild and fantastical ideas as well that would really expand on what we saw today. I'm not going to pretend they are anything other than flights of fancy. They aren't hunches, they are fantasies. You are definitely one of the more rational minded I've interacted with here, so I'm especially confused as to why you are trying to present an arbitrary theory as to why the events happened today. You are forcing facts into a theory, rather than creating a theory based on the facts and events. At least with your post about the election results, you cited evidence and facts. Here you cited a hunch...? What are you trying to accomplish? Give the evidence, don't say "they had every reason" without giving one reason. Here's a reason they wouldn't: Biden won the election fairly (or at least as fairly as any other election the past 20 years), they didn't need to encourage or manipulate anything. Not enough people were going to call into question the electors. Here is a reason that Trump would: he claims that he won the election in a landslide, and when the protest started in full force by breaking into the building, he didn't Tweet a single thing to condemn what happened. You know, condemned the way he has other things like antifa. He has never been shy before, he would not be shy now. Here's an unambiguous statement that he could have given: the people who broke into the capitol are guilty of treason.
    1 point
×
×
  • Create New...