Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Leaderboard

Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/02/22 in Posts

  1. There are no long term studies on mRNA covid vaccines, none. You are no different than people who place blind faith in institutions. Fear is a mind killer , you are fully boosted , right ?
    2 points
  2. Stephen Boydstun provided the following as an example of the government's attack on the gold standard. “Genuine free banking, as we have noted, exists where entry into the banking business is totally free, where banks are neither subsidized nor controlled, and where at the first sign of failure to redeem in specie, the bank is forced to declare insolvency and close its doors.” Doug, it looks like Murray Rothbard's book The Mystery of Banking is a good resource on this controversy, including the historical record. The book is available online. Pages 197-234 of the book (220-257 in the PDF pagination) look to be exactly the pertinent material, though it is challenging and probably requires some portions earlier in the book to understand it well. (i would suggest starting one page earlier.)
    2 points
  3. In each of the following your friends may have additional questions, so try to be prepared to answer such. "Ayn Rand’s raped-girl-decides-she-likes-it novel, “The Fountainhead.”" "Rand’s hero Roark, in fact, “raged” so much in her novel that he blew up a public housing project with dynamite." It can help in both these cases to provide context from the novel. Also, make the point that the encounter between Roark and Dominique is an unusual encounter between unusual people, not a guide to ordinary relationships. "Only billionaires should rule the world, Trump has suggested. And he tried to put it into place, installing a billionaire advocate of destroying public schools in charge of public schools, a coal lobbyist representing billionaires in charge of the EPA, an billionaire-funded oil lobbyist in charge of our public lands, and a billionaire described by Forbes as a “grifter” in charge of the Commerce Department. Trump’s chief of staff said that putting children in cages and billionaire-owned privatized concentration camps (where seven so far have died) would actually be a public good." No one should rule the world. Such positions should be eliminated, not just filled by someone from a different faction. "Trump’s chief of staff said that putting children in cages and billionaire-owned privatized concentration camps (where seven so far have died) would actually be a public good." Neither "illegal" immigrants nor anyone else should be put in cages or concentration camps. Imprisonment should only be for people convicted of serious crimes, which does not include "illegal" immigration, and should be done in a properly thought-out manner, especially if children are involved. Rand's personal life is not relevant to evaluating her philosophy. If anyone insists on digging into her personal life, we need to sort out actual imperfections from smears. " Rand believed that a government working to help out working-class “looters,” instead of solely looking out for rich capitalist “producers,” " The working class are producers, not looters. The looters are politicians who seize people's wealth. Government should not "help" anyone at anyone else's expense. Its sole proper function is to keep physical coercion out of it, leaving everyone free to produce and trade and to enjoy the fruits thereof. Of course Ayn Rand disagrees with the traditional Judaeo-Christian ethic of self-sacrifice, for reasons which she has explained. It might be helpful to explain about metaethics here, for those people that are willing to listen. "Ironically, when she was finally beginning to be taken seriously, Ayn Rand became ill with lung cancer and went on Social Security and Medicare to make it through her last days. She died a “looter” in 1982," Government takes a lot more from us in direct and indirect taxes and reduced economic efficiency than it ever gives back. Anyone who leads a basically productive life and does not vote or advocate for government handouts is entitled to take whatever government is willing to give back to them. Ayn Rand first explained this in "The Question of Scholarships", written long before she got cancer. "over a million dead Americans from Covid" I don't think Ayn Rand would be a vaccine denier or a vaccine skeptic. Lockdowns kill people too. "an epidemic of homelessness, and the collapse of this nation’s working class." This is the result of mixed-economy statism, certainly not of laissez-faire capitalism, which we haven't even approximated for a long time. (Here you may have to persuade people that this is a well-thought=out position, even if they still don't agree.) "the Republican Great Depression" (If people want to argue with the following, you may have to research it.) The gold standard provided a natural discipline which prevented monetary and financial matters from getting too far out of balance. The government sabotaged the gold standard and moved further and further away from it, giving more and more control to the Federal Reserve. In the buildup to the Great Depression, the Federal Reserve loosened money and banking up too much, creating a speculative bubble which had to burst sooner or later, creating a massive dislocation. The specific trigger that burst it was a combination of crop failure and financial panic. Then Herbert Hoover intervened in ways that may have been well-intentioned, but made things worse. He propped up wages and prices, pricing people, goods, and services out of the market. He signed the Smoot-Hawley tariff act, which restricted trade when it needed to be opened up, and provoked retaliatory restrictions from other countries. If Hoover had been a do-nothing President as some people say, the Depression would not have lasted as long or been as bad. "pitting Americans against each other, and literally killing people every day." It is mixed-economy statism that does this, not laissez-faire capitalism. Mixed-economy statism pits people against each other in pressure-group warfare and impairs the functioning of the economy. "get billionaires and their money out of politics" The way to do this is to get away from mixed-economy statism and the resulting pressure-group warfare, and establish laissez-faire capitalism. (Sorry, I can't get rid of the bolding here.)
    2 points
  4. Here is another to complement the Barber: Korngold Violin Concerto
    2 points
  5. Moving the goal post - you didn't say long term. It's not "blind faith", but then again, I don't think capitalism is out to get me. Indeed, I'm not afraid of either covid or the vaccines, but I'm not interested in trying to argue against the idea that capitalism is why the world is so terrible. It's worse than arguing with a leftist, because at least a leftist knows that they don't like capitalism. It could be stupidity, or could be that you are a victim of propaganda, or both. I can accept that you reach your ideas by lack of reason, it doesn't have to be propaganda. You insist that the only way I could come to a different conclusion is propaganda.
    1 point
  6. How did they find the time between kidnapping governors, tracking down grandmas and Epstein’s clients , the IRS should take notice , do more with less!
    1 point
  7. The manner in which you are discussing the raid and the Biden Crime Family, is propaganda. lol
    1 point
  8. FBI raided Trump , the same FBI that protected the provably corrupt Biden.
    1 point
  9. The most important response to something like this is to explain, as fully as necessary, what Ayn Rand's philosophy really is. It would take a long time to refute every error in this rant, and I'm not sure how worthwhile such an effort would be.
    1 point
  10. The manner in which the crimes and corruption of the Biden Crime Family is discussed, is propaganda. Now that's the funniest thing I have seen this year! Thank you for that.
    1 point
  11. As if your examples you used couldn't be propaganda? Anyway, distorted information is a major issue from RT. Also, the Objectivist theory of history is basically that ideas and philosophy shape what the public at large believes. Stopping at modern history being shaped by propaganda is more like a Leftist analysis of history where the powers of capitalism manipulate the average person through false consciousness brought about by large media corporations. You are blaming capitalism centrally (which of course makes the US take the most criticism), including big Pharma ("they want us to think that vaccines are safe!"), political dynamics manufactured by the media, and to top it off, that the West is completely up to no good for just about any conflict or disagreement. All you do that is really different is that you avoid using the word capitalism.
    1 point
  12. "Orderly election process" is the funniest thing I have seen this year. Thank you.
    1 point
  13. I used five examples to show that 'western' , 'main stream media' or 'corporate media' uses propaganda to persuade the public at large to believe their narratives and that the proof is the ridiculous situations that are manifest in the real world. These situations could only come about if enough of the 'public at large' was fed only so much biased distorted information. Biden sold his influence while in office to agents of foreign governments , if not the governments themselves. The 'proof' is in Hunter Biden's personal data that became public. The Biden's have not disputed the authenticity of the data it is prima facie evidence of corruption , it literally could not be more blatant. That information was 'publicly' available prior to November 2019. And yet Biden was elected by the highest popular vote total ever, I think. How did a provably corrupt official garner such popular support? Is Biden a successful demagogue , his soaring rhetoric and personal appeal won over the majority of the voting public ? His political and legislative career was so laudable and impressive that his 'track record' made him the obvious choice even in the face of the proof of his corruption?
    1 point
  14. (click on photo) That is a poem I wrote last autumn. I think it is true. All people live under this shadow, which at some level they know. Long ago I came to think one way of looking at people is as walking philosophies. So in getting to know someone it is sensible to ask to oneself What philosophy is here being walked? I don't mean What philosophical heritage is here being walked? but what particular set of philosophical theses are here in this person, especially in their practices. Now I add for myself of each one How are they dealing with the fact of absolute mortality?
    1 point
  15. I would agree these are fair criticisms of western media ‘news coverage’. It’s effective too. How else do you explain that Biden is provably the most corrupt official ‘elected’ to the President , the general expectation that the untested mRNA vaccine platform would be safe and effective , the need for maternity flight suits in the military, immediate curtailment of fossil fuels will halt climate change , rampant systemic racism necessitates violence ,ect.
    1 point
  16. 1 point
  17. In the Greenhouse * Wagner Song – he used this melody also in Parsifal
    1 point
  18. EC

    Theory of Mind

    @dream_weaver Thankfully reality is the final arbiter of truth and not other Objectivists who keep their mind stuck in only one version of Schrödinger's cat box. Even the one's I highly respect 😉
    1 point
  19. Great, you saw that. A shrewd piece of conflation, a package deal, to debunk the trivial charge, while not attempting to disprove a thing of the main charge. Politifact seems to understand the "power of leaving out", as any propagandist.
    1 point
  20. 1 point
  21. Sakkijarvin Polka a cappella (The Swingle Singers) https://youtu.be/q98Y86jfXaY
    1 point
  22. tadmjones

    Follow-Up on 9/11/01

    On a balcony in Kabul visiting his family. It looks like suicide by drone.
    1 point
  23. Boydstun

    Theory of Mind

    KyaryPamyu, You added “+ things it comes in contact with actually exist.” That is on the correct line, meaning line to truth, I say. From our science we know that lines, their orientations, and object shapes are actually in the distal stimulus that results in the proximate stimulus—the photo-receptors at the retina, whose stimulations get processed at LGN and visual cortex with all their interconnections. No concepts are needed for the integral shape of a baseball in one's hand to be discerned by hand and by vision. No economization by unit-economies or set-memberships are in necessary play at that perception of shape. In Kan’t mine/not-mine view of sensory perception, he had the matter or content of the sensation be the matter or the content of the “sensible intuition,” be the not-mine component, and the spatial form such as line, configuration, and shape be the mine component, even though in experience, we do not have a sense of it as mine, but as not mine. His arguments that spatial forms are really mine rather than not-mine are really aimed at explaining how Euclidean geometry, true of the empirical world as we experience it, is possible, given the methods we actually use in Euclid and the universality and necessity we arrive at in truths of geometry. His explanation of how it is possible—that space and its Euclidean relations are form contributed by the faculty of sensible intuition—is false and fantastical. But Rand and her intellectual comrades failed at refuting or displacing Kant’s explanation, wrong and (to modern heads) laughable as that explanation might be. Talking about perceptual form in a sophisticated modern, realist theory of perception, and talking about theory of concepts in which set- and unit-ways of looking at things subsumed under concepts do nothing to explain how the method used in geometry (synthetic geometry, not analytic geometry) is successful in attaining truths with the character of necessity and generality they possess come about, indeed how they are possible. Rand should have opposed Kant’s tenet that all formality is necessarily the product of the subject in episodes of perception. There is elementary form—such as the betweenness-relations (my right index finger is between my right thumb and right middle finger), a right-hand glove is an inversion of a left-hand glove, and so forth—belonging to concrete particulars and belonging to them as particulars and independently of our perception or any overt cognitive process concerning them. Kant’s notion that formalities in our perceptions and understanding do and must bar our discernment of mind-independent reality then dissolves. The betweenness-relations among my fingers may require some conceptualization to fully firm in mind, but like some similarities and magnitude-relations, which Rand did notice (ITOE App. 217, 199–200, 278–79), those betweenness-relations are physical relations lying in the physical, extra-mental world. Hilbert lifted betweenness-relations to the honor of primitive relations useful for a rigorous Euclidean geometry. Their residence, I notice, is not only as elements of an abstract geometry but in given physical reality. Rand understood that some similarities and comparative degrees of similarity found in perception lead the formation of concepts tuned to the world given by perception. However, Rand’s theory is an account suitable to only concepts of kinds of things and their contrasts and their taxonomic hierarchies. It is not an account aiming to account for our conceptual knowledge of spatial relationships or adequate to account for conceptual geometric knowledge. How from sensory experience do we learn that two points determine a line? Randian empirical abstraction from sensory experience to the concept line (straight line) together with the concept points will not yield the certain truth that any two points determine a unique straight line containing them (cf. A25 B39–40). And we do not come to know definitively such a thing by empirical testing such as eventually we came to know the existence of atoms. Kant innovated a theory of how we have such conceptual geometric knowledge (B40–41), a horribly mistaken one, needing outright detailed replacement, which is not to be found in Rand (directly).
    1 point
  24. There's no contradiction and it's not hubris, nor a need to "punish" Putin for his international terrorism and/or war crimes that were carried out on his own orders (implicit or explicit), even though he certainly deserves to die for all of that. It's about the right of the (relatively) free nations of the world to protect the rights and lives of their citizens from the death and destruction from an evil tyrant. An aggressive defense is not just for the current threat but also a warning to near (and far) future threats from other tyrannies such as N. Korea and China that the lives of the relatively free loving people of the world aren't open to being sacrificed at the whims of their evil ambitions. Would I love to see non-war solution to this problem that doesn't reward evil rights violating aggression? Sure, who wouldn't? But it's NOT possible. Therein lies the actual contradiction: you and others believing that such a solution exists and/or is possible. Sometimes, as was the case during the Second World War, evil has to be defeated to be stopped, it can't be negotiated with in the exact same way and for the exact same reasons one doesn't negotiate with terrorists or a criminal with a gun to one's head. Who wins and who loses long term in such a "negotiation", and does the "negotiated" result end the threat or encourage more terror-for-loot in the future?
    1 point
  25. Samuel Barber's violin concerto, first movement
    1 point
  26. Boydstun

    Atlas Shrugged

    I’ve followed up on the last paragraph of the preceding post. My American Heritage dictionary defines volition as: An act of willing, choosing, or deciding. A conscious choice; decision. The power or capability of choosing; the will. On their surface, one might slide into thinking those definitions come to free will. The debates over free will/determinism/compatibilism, however, are about whether and what sorts of freedom are behind willings, choices, and decisions. So in common usage volition is not equivalent to free will in a full-bodied sense. That is, volition does not mean free volition, but leaves open the controversy of whether and which volitions are free. When one looks in the index of The Virtue of Selfishness or of Objectivism: The Philosophy of Ayn Rand for free will, one is simply directed to see volition. Peikoff speaks of free will in OPAR (55), but clearly volition (meaning free volition) is his preferred term of art in expressing Rand’s theory. He remarks at the end of his discussion (55–72) that Rand’s layout of (free) volition, joining it inalienably to the conceptual power, fits this fundamental sort of freedom smoothly into the natural world and removes it from its modern refuge in constructs supernatural. Because of its common residence in distinctly religious frameworks, one might think it better to shift its name from free will to (free) volition in shifting the thing itself from its religious sanctuary into the light of plain day. Rand and subsequent Objectivists have used the term volition idiosyncratically in taking it to mean always free volition. Some of us, when young, first learned the term volition from writings of Rand and Branden and were not awakened to its meaning in the wider educated culture until we opened the dictionary on the term. This disparity is no great problem, I’d say. Blackwell’s A Companion to Ayn Rand (2016) indexes free will, and under volition the Index simply directs one to free will and to the subsidiary volitional under the entry reason. In his Chapter “A Being of Self-Made Soul,” Onkar Ghate has a subsection titled “Free Will” (107–12) with an endnote 9 in which he states: “Rand uses the terms ‘free will’ and ‘volition’ interchangeably, and I will follow suit.” (I see that incorrect conjugation of the verb to be, first person, simple future, in many scholarly books from some high class presses these days. Still, if you would like to avoid irritating some of the elderly, please use I shall and we shall for simple future tense when writing formally.) Ghate’s presentation is good (107–12), and he relies on and quotes from the Rand and Branden compositions that are included among the Objectivist references on free will that he lists in that endnote 9. Among those references, Rand, Peikoff, and Binswanger, had stuck with volition in preference to free will. Branden had traded expressly in free will all along. The Rand references are to Galt’s Speech and “The Objectivist Ethics,” and the Peikoff is OPAR. The Branden references are four articles in The Objectivist Newsletter and The Objectivist journal. The Binswanger reference is to a 1991 monograph in which he redrafted those Branden contributions and made some additions and cast all in a nicely biocentric way. Branden’s compositions were incorporated into his The Psychology of Self-Esteem – A New Concept of Man’s Psychological Nature (1969). That book indexes volition, and has for free will: see volition. Binswanger’s monograph treatment is incorporated into the “Free Will” chapter of his How We Know – Epistemology on an Objectivist Foundation (2014). That book simply indexes free will/volition. (Binswanger’s monograph and book and Peikoff’s OPAR never write the name Branden, but with the Blackwell book, that dark public stamp of personal animosities in major Objectivist scholarly work has been dispelled with honest light.)
    1 point
  27. This idea ignores the fact that the intellectual property is not the physical object (although that is the concretization of the idea) but the idea itself. The belief you mention is the result of a concrete-bound mentality that cannot handle abstractions.
    1 point
  28. I only have a copy of The Ayn Rand Lexicon but I believe the essay is in CUI. Thinking of it another way: a copyright or a patent or a trademark (intellectual property) is the result of a contract between you and the government in which you say, "I've created this <something that constitutes intellectual property> and I would dearly love to publish it, however, I need some sort of guarantee that I will be ABLE to profit on it before I will do so." The government says, "That's great, and we recognize that intellectual property rights are absolutely necessary for the furtherance of a society, so we will recognize your right to this <something> for <this duration>." No government on earth (or anywhere else) could guarantee those rights FOREVER. It can't be done. And what, precisely, is the nature of a contract where one party claims they will do something that is, in fact, physically impossible? I'd call that fraud. As for the converse, if the government doesn't respect your intellectual property for a duration that you consider tenable: don't engage in the contract. No one FORCES anyone to file a patent, copyright, or trademark. This is one circumstance where the government is acting simply as the guarantor of a contract. However, unless your invention (and I'm going to dismiss copyrights and trademarks because those are so easy to copy it's not even funny) is so revolutionary that you could not reasonably expect someone to figure out how to reproduce it even through reverse engineering you'd quickly discover why the government MUST act as the guarantor in these situations.
    1 point
  29. EC

    Theory of Mind

    There is no contradiction if the our "universe" is actually a holographic diorama of the entire Universe which is a multiverse of multiverses such that E^\[Pi]I +\[CurlyPhi] [HBar] = G\[Mu]\[Nu]
    0 points
×
×
  • Create New...