Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Dániel Boros

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Dániel Boros

  1. Ayn Rand was an philosopher, not a politician. Philosophers have readers/students/people who agree with them, not members or allies. Any Libertarian is free to read/be a student of/agree with Objectivism. They don't need my consent or support.

    It's not just that Libertarians disagree with fundamental Objectivist principles, it's that they usually have no interest in secular philosophy whatsoever. And, on the rare occasion they develop an interest, their irrationality (beyond that of even conservatives and liberals) is quickly revealed.

    Feel free to contradict me: Name one aspect of Objectivism (metaphysics, epistemology, ethics, politics, aesthetics) just one prominent Libertarian agrees with consistently, on principle and in a provable way (ie. he wrote or spoke about it extensively enough, and his actions are fully consistent with his words).

    Whether they need our support or not is not the question. The question is do we need theirs and whether we want to wait another 50 years before we decide to do something.

    Look at Ron Paul. He originally run as a libertarian candidate. When that didn't work out he ran republican and he achieved tremendous success, and he did it without giving up an inch from his ideas.

    Why would be wrong for us to do the same thing? Yes libertarians don't have much interest in philosophy, but so what? People don't have to be interested. Rand never said that everyone should be a philosopher. She always envisioned change through the opinion moulders of society.

    Libertarians are for limited government and pro human rights and pro capitalism and that is the most important thing in politics and not wars and whatever else you can think of what libertarians should not support.

    1. Metaphysics: Objective Reality
    2. Epistemology: Reason
    3. Ethics: Self-interest
    4. Politics: Capitalism

  2. I did not say to ally with libertarianism. I said ally with libertarians whom we share a common goal with. There has been a group called christian objectivists, but that doesn't mean objectivism or objectivists in general agree with any religion or that objectivism has a double standard. Yes there are lots of different libertarians out there, and we should not befriend all of them the same way not all libertarians befriend each other. There is for example a libertarian party out there that has little to do with the things you described here.

    They aren't anti war any more than objectivists are. Objectivists don't seem to support the war on Iraq, on Afghanistan, on Lybia and the war on drugs essentially all ward that libertarians are against. Ron Paul who is a libertarian supported the act against the perpetrators of 911, and repeatedly stated that most of them were Saudis. Yes Ron doesn't want a war against Iran and Saud Arabia, because the U.S. is broke and a economic collapse would be far worse than a war you don't start. Anti federal perhaps, but there are lots of things that should not be assessed on the federal level that currently are. Anti-american... no not really, at least not any more than Rand was.

  3. I have been reeding the history of the objectivist movement on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia....tivist_movement , and that started me to think about the relationship between objectivism and similar ideologies. It seems that history was not kind to the movement and as far as I can tell the problems came from the inside and not the outside. It seems there was a general hostility by hardcore objectivists towards libertarianism and towards the Academy. That is a little puzzling since both of them seem to be -at least at first glance- to be the natural allies of objectivism. (I doubt Ayn would have ranked a church higher than the Academy.) I myself reached Ayn Rand by first getting interested in Ron Paul and than moved on to Milton Friedman and than finally ended my journey here.

    I find that neglecting or working against the relationship of like minded thinkers is both irrational and unproductive. In a democratic society change can only come through numbers -that is reality- and discouraging cooperation of the people with common goals but with different ideas won't yield any results, and in fact will stop the possibility of change through legal means. If the system is broken, and if there are other people like us who want it fixed and know how to do it, how can it be wrong to refuse the helping hand they offer?

    Ayn Rand stated that there can be no compromise in morality, and I agree. I however don't see any compromise in the idea of cooperating with someone as long as our goals are the same and our methods moral. Even if that person is a Christian like Ron Paul or a Utilitarian like Milton Friedman. It's like a business deal. Even if the shopkeeper is a communist I can still cooperate with him or her as long as we both benefit from it. Not cooperating on the other hand would be altruism.

    There has been a lot of potential in the objectivist movement in the past, and most of it was wasted in the end. I hope the new one will do better and as far as I can tell it actually does.


  4. Just wanted to drop off my recent thoughts on infinity:

    Infinity is a number that is greater than any number. (according to wikipedia)

    (You can't say that infinity is a concept, because only concepts that are also numbers can be greater than other numbers)

    so infinity is a number therefore...

    infinity is greater than infinity which means that...

    infinity does not equal infinity and that...

    infinity is not infinity and so ...

    infinity would break the law of identity

    infinity is a bound to boundless concepts, which alone is a contradiction in terms.

    Infinity is a useful term, but it seems to me that it has been used the wrong way.

    Like in the multiverse theory or in Religion...

  5. In grade school I was always told that "the one who hits back is just as bad as the one who hits first".

    Don't children have a right for self defence? I mean it's not like they will carry guns so obviously kicks and punches are what's left.

    Running isn't always an option and it's not even a good option if you know you will meet the same bullies tomorrow again. You can't run away from school...

    Aren't teachers making potential victims out of innocent children by telling them to not fight back, so that they the teachers will have to deal with less?

    It seems to me that teachers are willing to defend bullies just not their victims. I have asked a few people and I have never heard of anyone getting kicked out from school for bullying, even though there were plenty of bullying from where they come...

    If there are no consequences for bullying and you can't even fight back, what can you do?

    School is like a heaven for sadists, although most bullies aren't violent outside of school. I wonder why...


  6. The description of MN does smuggle supernaturalism into its position by assuming it as a possible alternative to "nature". You are right that this problem starts with ones theory of definition.(and ones position on the arbitrary) I am currently very interested in this type of assertion by some that "scientism" is religious and dogmatic because it assumes there is nothing science can't explain, such as the "human" elements of existence etc.

    There have been many scientists who claimed that only scientifically proven theories can be true, and that philosophy is simply a relic of the past. See Brief History of Time for example.

    The problem is that if only scientifically verified facts can be true than what could possibly verify the scientific method? Science? That's a circular argument at best.

  7. From Wikipedia:

    Methodological naturalism is concerned not with claims about what exists but with methods of learning what is nature. It is strictly the idea that all scientific endeavours—all hypotheses and events—are to be explained and tested by reference to natural causes and events. The genesis of nature, e.g., by an act of God, is not addressed. This second sense of naturalism seeks only to provide a framework within which to conduct the scientific study of the laws of nature. Methodological naturalism is a way of acquiring knowledge. It is a distinct system of thought concerned with a cognitive approach to reality, and is thus a philosophy of knowledge.

    According to objectivism Nature is

    What is nature? Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. It is usually called “nature” when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So “nature” really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities.

    And I must say I totally agree since one has to define Nature before one can provide a objective scientific method to test it.

    The Supernatural

    What is meant by “the supernatural”? Supposedly, a realm that transcends nature. What is nature? Nature is existence—the sum of that which is. It is usually called “nature” when we think of it as a system of interconnected, interacting entities governed by law. So “nature” really means the universe of entities acting and interacting in accordance with their identities. What, then, is “super-nature”? Something beyond the universe, beyond entities, beyond identity. It would have to be: a form of existence beyond existence—a kind of entity beyond anything man knows about entities—a something which contradicts everything man knows about the identity of that which is. In short, a contradiction of every metaphysical essential.

    So Methodological Naturalism states that scientists must look for causes that exist for events that happened and that they should not look for causes that don't exist for events that happened or that they should not look for causes of events that did not happen even though causes that don't exist and events that did not happen may exist.

    Doe that make sense? I think that's simple nonsense. Methodological naturalism gives credibility to supernatural arguments by asserting that the supernatural exists despite it not being part of scientific research. It is not simply stating the obvious since it does in fact imply the existence of non-existence, which is a contradiction in terms.

    Am I right?

  8. And the most important argument-these security companies already exist, they provide very good protection and they don't shoot each other. The weird Ayn Rand scenario in which she describes such a warfare pertains to the situation in which different competing governments operate on the same territory and use arbitrary non-objective laws. This is real anarchy and gang war could be the only outcome. These agencies don't act for profit but power for the power's sake. I describe a situation in which all agencies operate for profit and that is possible only if they operate under united objective code of rules provided by the process of legislation. That what we need government for.

    Agreed, however there will be always a need to counterbalance the force of arms created by the private sector.

    Private defense companies would operate differently if there was no police to oppose them when they abuse their power.

  9. Not all mystics and faithful belive in God so I'm not sure that is a neccesary requirement. Also I can't imagine anything that could be accepted as evidence for God, even if it was. The word should be defined first so that it could actually have a meaning.

    By the way Voltaire also said:

    "What is faith? Is it to believe that which is evident? No. It is perfectly evident to my mind that there exists a necessary, eternal, supreme, and intelligent being. This is no matter of faith, but of reason."

    Now these tests seem very interesting, but the only thing I can't find is: "how much?".

    How many more belivers had better results than non-believers?

    How do they act in their daily lives? Which group is more violent? Which group has more jobs?

    Which group has a higher living standard?

    I also think this involves a lot more psichology than philosophy.

    I mean yeah sure you might be more positive about your surgery, if you were religious, but same is true if I drugged you with cocaine.

    Religious people may not fear death as much as most people do since they have low self esteem and don't really have much to loose.

    They might think even if they die Jesus will save them and open the gates of heaven for them "so there's nothing to fear".

    "The fact that a believer is happier than a skeptic is no more to the point than the fact that a drunken man is happier than a sober one."

    George Bernard Shaw

  10. I think that the difference between the bad guys in Ayn Rand's books and in reality is that Rand's bad guys are consistent.

    Unlike many businessman of today who play capitalism while hating it.

    Well maybe Peter Keating could be an exception since he started thinking at the end. Gail Wynand was a good guy, who started bad and ended worse, but for the most part he was a good guy, but he wasn't consistent.

    If you think about Hank Rearden a good guy, he was not consistent at the beginning since he applied different morals in his private life and at his job. Or Dominique who had a habit of rational self torture.

    Of course Roark and Galt were quite consistent all the way.

  11. Yes but what will it take for government to respect rights?

    Good government is a result not a cause.

    If you say that people have no right to innitiate force legally or illegally it naturally follows that members of the govt. must be chosen.

    Computers cannot fill the role of the government and since people can't use force they have to choose a group that will have that right.

    The method of chosing will determine the effectiveness of government, that is why dictatorships tend to do worse than democracy in upholding rigths.

    I can move from my country. I am physically capable to choose my own government, and that is a good thing.

    But when I say I want to choose the police service I like, that is suddenly a bad thing.

    If all you need is competing initiators of force not killing each other, than all the government has to do is keep the peace by force.

    Why must I deal with government idiocy on a personal level?

  12. Ironically, the example of anorexia you use is the one Peikoff used to highlight the metaphysically given as against the man-made.

    The fact that man's life requires food is metaphysically given; the fact that some men, such as ascetics or anorectics, prefer to starve is man-made.

    That makes sense.

    Even though I might feel like not doing something that doesn't mean that action isn't good objectively and vica versa.

    Lets say I have a fetish for killing green people on sundays. That is something that I shouldn't do even if I would like to do it.

    Lets say I am genetically predisposed to love my children and so I am happy when I am taking care of them. That is certainly not a bad thing, but I can't really say that it's a good thing since its just a different "fetish". Is it simply good because it is not bad?

  • Create New...