abott1776
-
Posts
63 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by abott1776
-
-
Yes, I know what it takes to win a war, but you're evading the issue. The issue is this - You kill innocents in order to survive. If that's moral, but killing someone to cure a disease is not moral, then what is the fundamental difference? And why isn't this sacrificing others to yourself?
When a country defends itself against an aggressor, innocent people will surely die. Let's make this more fundamental. When you assert that one kills innocent people,you are implying that we are depriving them of their right to life, etc. When a country goes to war against you they lose all rights until the threat is ended. In the context (key word here, look into Ayn Rand's placement of importance in context) of international aggression similarly when it comes to some thug trying to kill you, the actions necessary in order to survive require you to forget distinguishing between innocent and guilty. Any other way is sacrifice in the other direction.
The key difference between the disease and war is force. That is why it would be sacrifice in the disease case, and not in the other.
-
"One other point about the comparison between this disease and war. Yes, a disease like cancer is most likely through no fault of their own (obviously except for things like smoking and lung cancer) but war is not a natural phenomenon, it is started by conscious beings aware of what they are doing. The war is through someone's fault and certainly not the fault of the defenders. "
But it's not the fault of the innocent people in that country either, which is why I made a parallell to a disease. If you look away from the initiators of force and just focus on the defenders and the innocents in the other country. Those innocents are being sacrificed in order for the others to live.
"When people live under tyrants - and do not actively try and overthrow them - then they lose the right to protection in times of war. This is harsh, but true. A just nation might try and spare their lives, but those nations are not obligated to do."
But it's very very hard to topple a regime, almost impossible in many situations, so I don't see how you can logically defend this.
I have to separate war as such and war in the middle east right now.
War in general: Let's look at the truly "innocent" people in an aggressive nation. The children perhaps, the people who abhor their regime, who want to see it fall. First off they would want to see it fall, if the defenders we're not involved this would require tremendous amount of casualties on their side anyways. Second, do you fully understand the nature of war, what it takes? You have to demoralize the enemy. You have to take the war to them and their whole existence. You have to basically make them see that their motive is futile and that when they attack us we will utterly destroy them. If you don't do this and try to practice a "humanitarian" war, say something similar or even more consistent to the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, you both do not accomplish the defeat of the enemy and you don't spare the lives of the civilians. You don't defeat the enemy, as well as sacrifice the lives of American soldiers, precisely because you try to spare the "innocent" in mosques, homes, etc. Just like you can't practice altruism fully (you would commit suicide) you can't practice such a war fully. People not directly involved in fighting you are going to get hurt. To practice such a war fully, you would sit back and let the aggressors destroy your country.
Next time try to address the realities of war. You don't seem to understand what it takes.
I will try to address the middle east including its history later.
-
Let's say that you and your girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse got a disease that is going to kill you. You made no moral mistakes in order to get this disease, you were just very unlucky.
Now, let's say that there's a young girl you know who has superstrong kidneys, and with just one of those kidneys, you could "flush out" the disease. I don't know if this is realistic biologically, but just focus on the principles here.
Let's say that you have the chance to kill this girl and take one kidney for each of you, and that there is no way you are gonna get caught. (Because you're really smart, and noone knows about your disease, she doesn't even have a social security number, etc)
You also have to remove the kidneys while she's alive or else it won't work, so not only will you have to kill her, but agonizingly.
Is this rationally selfish to do? I guess we would all answer no, since this would make you feel like a monster. Right?
Okay, so why is it moral to kill innocents in a war, in order to defeat the enemy? "It's the enemy's responsibility" doesn't seem like a fullfilling answer to me. The innocents are still innocent, and have given them no sanction. Why doesn't this make you feel like a monster? Because if you don't defend yourself, a lot more people are going to die later?
But isn't that utilitarianism, which is supposed to be irrelevant in objectivist ethics? Or is it in your self-interest because the sum of the value you put on people in your country is very big? But in that case, aren't you actually sacrificing others to yourselves, which you're supposed not to do? Would it be moral to kill 1 innocent person to cure a disease that affected the whole population? If their blood had the antidote and you would need a lot of it. I see no moral difference between that and killing innocents in a war, in order for you and your loved ones and neighbours and business-partners etc to survive.
Your first example boils down to "should I sacrifice another life for my own?" No you should never do that, as a rational egoist you would be trying to simultaneously hold the principle of the right to life and its opposite. This assumes a civil society though.
Ayn Rand talked about emergency situations and how one cannot talk about ethics in those situations. From my understanding war like self defense can be thought of in terms of an emergency situation. Once a nation tasks itself with its own defense it has to end the threat as soon as possible, obviously with as little deaths on its side as reasonably** possible. This requires very brutal tactics, think of World War II, instilling fear in Germany's and Japan's populaces. That is where I think you are getting Peikoff's and Brook's deliberate targeting of civilians in their analysis of WWII. Today I don't think you would have to do that, we're not fighting mighty industrialized nations but pretty weak backwards states and terrorist cells. War might not be considered a total emergency situation though because there can be a lot of planning especially for an advanced country liked the U.S.. Ultimately one is responsible for the government one finds themselves under. The non-combatants of these countries have to reap what they sow. If their government attacks our citizens the blame for their citizens deaths as a result of retaliation rests on the aggressors.
One other point about the comparison between this disease and war. Yes, a disease like cancer is most likely through no fault of their own (obviously except for things like smoking and lung cancer) but war is not a natural phenomenon, it is started by conscious beings aware of what they are doing. The war is through someone's fault and certainly not the fault of the defenders.
**I do have lingering questions about how does a military strategist make the decision of what types of weapons and strategy to use. There could conceivably be a way to kill everyone in an aggressive country and risk zero lives as well as totally fuck up the war and risk everyone's lives (for the sake of protecting the enemies). How does one decide how much risk should be placed on our soldiers lives?
-
Interesting topic. From what I know about history in general, not a detailed analysis of each nations economic history, the British Empire changed from a mercantile system to a more free-market, free-trade economy (not systematically but generally). The mercantile policies before and during the American Revolution (or as I like to call it The Second English Civil War) was what driven the American Revolutionaries to rebel. They saw it, and rightly so, as hindering their prosperity. Mercantile policies viewed wealth as basically static, if one nation gained, another lost as opposed to the free-market idea of you know "let's grow the pie, not bicker over what slice everybody gets". The Americans intuitively saw what Adam Smith later made an official theory. After the American Revolution the Liberals gained power for most of the nineteenth century, changing the way the Empire viewed trade and economics. The revolution was figuratively a slap in the face to wake them up, that their policies weren't working, they just pissed a whole lot of people off. Even in England, smuggling was viewed by a lot of people as a just robinhoodesque action, read Edward Cline's Sparrowhawk series, it will give you a very good representation of the opposing views of economics in the Anglo-American sphere at that time. In America after the revolution, there were two opposing sides, the Federalists and the Republican. The Fed's wanted that American System, big national banks, monetarily support industry (two examples that come to mind, steamboats and railroads were subsidized disastrously), the Rep wanted to basically leave everyone alone, but they gave us that distrust for national banks, and they sought to restrict by closing banks from interstate finance.
Overall after the war the Anglo-American sphere as a whole grew increasingly more free culminating in the late nineteenth century, with America I think having an edge over the British in terms of culture (individualism, entrepreneurship, drive to strive better). There were specific delimited things the American government(s) did such as subsidizing this or that business, nothing like the all-encompassing attitude today that business is inherently corrupt, that it needs to be constantly regulated, that people needed to be guided in what they do, massive government redistribution programs.
-
People today have developed an anti-war mindset precisely because of the horrors of the two world wars.
Otherwise, I believe that your suggestion that the US is somehow whimping out is far off base. To this end, perhaps you might explain DIM to the un-initiated, such as I
Lastly in two specific cases that you mentioned:
* I believe that 'bullshit' and 'tension' are poor words to describe the Ukranian situation. You have the overthrow of an unpopular, pro-russian government whose support was located in the Crimea, and Don Bass. Now it's evident that a regional majority want to become part of Russia. Fighting it out is lose-lose.
** Re Israel-Palestine, yes, we're forcing both sides to negotiate because all-out war would de-stabilize the entire region, from which we derive oil.
1) The U.S. is "whimping out". It has failed to identify its enemies, today primarily islamic states and organizations that support (financially and intellectually) and carry out attacks against our country. It has failed to properly eliminate those enemies precisely because of what it fears will happen to the region if we did carry out massive assaults on countries like Saudi Arabia and Iran (both of which have attacked us in the past). We fear stepping on toes, hurting peoples feelings, and yes killing "innocent" people, probably many of them. Stabilizing the region would mean keeping the status quo, all of these enemies intact. We have to demolish our enemies, not get bogged down in dressed up peace-corps missions (Iraq and Afghanistan). The situation in Iraq today is easily explained, nobody takes us seriously, a country that we have recently subdued and replaced with a more "participative" government has been seen as weak.
2) I will grant you that many people do look at such wars in disgust. Perhaps that can apply to the rest of the world but it shouldn't apply to the U.S.. We're a superpower and could crush our enemies if we wanted to, no world war necessary, even against Russia or China, unless Obama dismantles more of our nuclear arsenal. The thing with Russia-Ukraine, like I said "which nation should we choose, or none at all?" would be a proper response. We should either have a national-interest in Ukraine, stand by our guns, Crimea is a green light for war or no concern what so ever. The reason we have all of these small conflicts, this bullshit as I call it, is that we like to have our cake and eat it too. We don't want Ukraine violated but we don't really want to get our hands dirty. Russia knows we won't go to war even if they took eastern Ukraine all together, and thus we get all of these negotiations and military tests. Same thing with Israel-Palestine, negotiation after negotiation intermixed by each side testing the other.
3) The DIM hypothesis by Peikoff illuminates his idea that there are three ways of thinking, Disintegration (there is no hierarchical concepts, theories, man cannot form principles about reality), Integration (this is basically the metaphysics and epistemology of Objectivism), and Misintegration (forming principles based on anything but reality, religion, etc.) Right now Peikoff would describe the world as living in a D mentality, thus as I would like to point out endless pragmatic adhoc decisions made by countries toward each other instead of principled polices.
-
One of the most annoying sights when watching the news lately has to be the endless international bullshitting going on between nations, for example the "tension" between the Ukraine and Russia. To me it is a huge sign of the shift in global culture. Objectivists tend to talk about changes in the American culture, rightly so because it can be argued to be the best we have right now. But the global culture probably says a bit more about man's fundamental beliefs, especially since the world is more interconnected, people can know within minutes what has happened on the opposite side of the world. In an international setting where there is no easily identified global culture people tend to search for a commonality when thinking about world events. Pre-WW1 I would assume when word reached about a nation invading another nation, people would choose sides, "who is right?", "which nation should we support?", "should we even care?", etc. People we're generally more self-interested or at least asserted an opinion if it was not self-interested. WW1 and after everything shifted to what is in the best interests of the world, how do we keep the peace, etc. Today, it has degraded even further to just avoiding war outright, force is not even considered to try to keep the peace (an already bad idea, but at least it was some sort of goal). When nations have issues with each other the last thing on their minds is war, armed forces if used are used to posture, everything has to be brought to the negotiation tables. The best example of this is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, endless forced "negotiations" at the behest of the U.S. on Israel, and more than half a century of continual petty violence.
All of this is the D mentality on a grand scale, using Peikoff's DIM idea. I think it is a really bad sign, because either it is going to continue like this for awhile, our balls castrated metaphorically, or someone will grab power out of the chaos.
-
-
Sometimes I obsessively think about wasted time or money. I repeatedly regret not making a decision sooner, coming up with an interest or idea sooner, and with money I will obsessive about how it could have been spent more efficiently. The how it is spent takes over to some respect the enjoyment of it.
It will usually go away after neglecting to think about it, but when I do think about it I find myself being annoyed about it. This sounds like I have no control of my mind now that I think about it, but I guess it is just that thinking back upon my thought processes it is something that I find peculiar because it seems to me that many other people do not think like this.
For example when I go out to a restaurant my friends will be thinking about just enjoying the food, whereas I will be thinking about how the fact that the amount of money for what you get does not necessarily match, that it was a "rip-off". They will just chalk it up to it being an "experience", while I think about how I should have found out about it before going and avoiding it. A friend of mine that considers himself an Objectivist (so do I), does not think in the terms I think.
Another example, that I am going through right now, is that I think about wasted time not deciding to look into learning how to sail a few months ago instead of looking into it this last week. I could have optimized the amount of time practicing in May and June, but I now have to wait till July.
I try to tell myself that I am not omniscient, but I often have a lingering resentment. I wanted to share this with this forum, because something that I think I have picked up from Objectivism is the idea of planning values, of purposefully thinking about what you value and going after it, which I admit I can either not do enough of, accept prejudices about how to achieve certain values, or procrastinate.
When I see waste of time or waste of money, it really annoys me. I will get mad at family members for example when they use excessive amounts of soap when washing their hands, or when they do not coast to red lights. Is this irrational behavior?
-
It's just silly and humorous. The B-52s are great! Is there something specific about it that makes you unsure?
It just reminds me of that character in the Fountainhead, a writer that just writes her peculiar crap, just to make it peculiar, odd, "challenging conventions". This reminds me of it, it is fun to listen to every so often, I'll admit. But that still does not preclude aesthetics judgement, I would think, or even moral judgement on the part of the creators of it. Would you not do something similar to a drug addict, wasting their life, this music is just a waste of talent to some extent.
-
The universe cannot conceivably have an "edge".
It's been suggested that it may be spherical in higher dimensions [like Pac-Man; flying off of one side causes you to emerge on the other] or that it may be intuitively infinite; both are plausible to me. However. . .
The concept of "length" is formed by comparing multiple entities, observing and identifying the differences in their sizes/shapes.
The concept of "distance" is formed by comparing multiple relationships between entities, observing and identifying the differences of their arrangements.
And while there is usually air inbetween any given pair of entities, that's derivative knowledge; a two-year-old forms the concept of "distance" specifically by considering them as separated by empty space.
So while the universe may be a metaphysical plenum (idk) that doesn't invalidate the concept of "space", which is relational between entities. And I don't see how asserting that a hypothetical volume could truly be "empty" is an assertion of nonexistence; it's only asserting that there are 'no existents here' (which is just as valid as 'no jedi here').
What would be asserting the existence of a nothing is the concept of the universe's "edge" if it would be in any way discernable from the rest of the universe- because an edge divides one thing from another.
So if I were to declare that at some spot in space there is an "edge" of space, that would be a reification of the zero. Specifically because it turns "space" from a relationship into its own entity.
"And I don't see how asserting that a hypothetical volume could truly be "empty" is an assertion of nonexistence; it's only asserting that there are 'no existents here"
That is what I contend when talking about "empty space", but LP argues that is asserting the existence of non-existence. The universe to him has to be filled to the brim with entities, what we consider "empty" no electrons, protons, etc. is just space filled with some undiscovered entities.
"So if I were to declare that at some spot in space there is an "edge" of space, that would be a reification of the zero. Specifically because it turns "space" from a relationship into its own entity."
I would think so exactly, there is this universe of existence according to LP (listen to the links above) and then there is this edge, because obviously the universe is finite. An edge would presume contact with something else, this something else would have to be the exact opposite of existence, non-existence, why else an edge then. This to me would make non-existence a real thing.
To me this is how I picture the universe, as a bunch of existents patterned into galaxies, clusters, etc., who knows what other structures, enveloped in empty space, empty merely because the universe is finite and there is no edge to anything. Empty merely meaning an absence of entities.
-
Ok so you are using "void" in a manner that was not specified in the dictionaries I've checked.
That's fine since we acknowledge that we are talking about a concept distinct from those defined in the dictionary.
I would say that if you remove all entities between two other entities, you end up with only the relationships between those two entities.
The totality of all that exists has no regions of non-existence. One could say there is a "plenum" of existence, if one acknowledge the departure from the use of "plenum" in physics and chemistry.
When googling "void" I get on the top of the page: "a completely empty space"
I don't see how that is essentially different from the way I was using it, "space stripped of entities, existents".
I don't know what you mean by the third sentence.
I don't really care for the moment how chemistry or physics uses the term plenum if it is different from LP's. Existents = Entities = protons, neutrons, electrons, etc. all the known things to exist
Plenum, by LP, and this is all I care about for the moment, defines as to be existence filled to the brim with entities, there is no space between entities that does not also contain entities.
That is what I don't get to be necessary, philosophically.
-
Did you know that attributes are existents? Did you know that relationships are existents?
Not all existents are entities.
"To exist is to be something, as distinguished from the nothing of nonexistence, it is to be an entity of a specific nature made of specific attributes." Ayn Rand Lexicon
So the existents between my hands, could be something other than entities (electrons, protons, neutrons, etc.), like floating attributes?
I think you have made a fault.
-
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2VCCiY17hKw
How would you explain this phenomenon? It's funny, yet sad if you think about what sort of mind would think to make it.
Sort of good background sound, for something, I don't know yet, maybe studying.
-
I was, yes, for the purpose of illustrating something. When I say to imagine nothingness not being, it should be read as an obvious contradiction. While it doesn't make sense, it does (for me) make it very clear that I cannot have an "edge of," or the "outside of," the universe. That is also a contradiction.
The plenum argument, as I think you're representing it, would take into account your hands (ie. the entities that allow you to identify the measurement of "the" space) and therefore would account for the existents you mention.
But I was most definitely not affirming that non-existence exists. The opposite is true. Existence existes.
But just to be clear: When you say, "I don't understand, however, why the universe has to be a plenum", can you point to exactly where you got that from (if I missed it above). I'd like to read it in full context.
He says that in his history of philosophy course when talking about Heraclitus and his idea, in which LP agrees, that the universe has to be a plenum because "there can't be nothing", nothing cannot exist.
LP goes over some questions on the Universe in these links:
http://www.peikoff.com/page/6/?s=universe#list
http://www.peikoff.com/page/5/?s=universe#list
In the first link, in an answer, he makes the claim that there is existence, a plenum by his accounts, filled to the brim with existents, whether that be protons, neutrons, electrons, and presumably some unknown other stuff we haven't discovered yet, and then there is a boundary to it and non-existence. He claims that if you were to try to travel to that boundary, and "through" it, you physically couldn't.
To me, as soon as you put forth this claim to a "boundary", the next thing I think of is a boundary between what and what. That other what beings something that exists, not some "non-existence", it seems ludicrous to me.
When you say my hands are the existents in the plenum argument, no, not according to LP, there would have to be some other existents in between them. He would not accept any absence of entities in between them.
-
When I see "void" used by philosophers, I usually think of the one that's supposed to contain nothing. But you know that there is no nothing. You're talking about the absence of entities. That doesn't match any definition of "void" I've seen.
OTOH, I don't know any word that names the absence of entities. I have to use the phrase "absent of entities". But there is no nature to a logical absence beyond the relationship of absence.
So what are you talking about?
A void is a volume of space (space meaning say a distance between two protons, or two hands or two galaxies, space as a relational concept) that contains no thing, no entities. An "absence of entities" is a void.
Maybe from what you were reading in wacky philosophers they tried to make a void, a thing. All I am saying a void conceptually is is an absence of entities in a volume as compared to a volume filled with entities. If there was a volume of oxygen filled to the brim, then all the oxygen molecules were extracted out, you would have a void, an absence of all those molecules.
Is that clear enough?
If LP would say that is impossible, because the universe is a plenum, would he be correct?
-
How would you know whether there was a void between two particular entities? What if future scientists discovered smaller entities than we currently know?
The manner in which this "void" is defined seems to demand omniscience.
By those first two questions, you seem to be putting the question of a plenum, in the realm of science. According to LP, it is in the realm of metaphysics, which is it?
Omniscience, so does a plenum.
-
Your concept of "apart" would not have been possible without isolating and distinguishing spatial relationships from every other kind of existent you know. Relationships don't exist apart from entities.
First you learn about entities. Then you learn about spatial relationships among entities, such as "above". Then you take some entities as references for defining a coordinate system. Then you can talk about "2-space" or "3-space".
"Space" has no existence apart from relationships.
The referent of "space" is not some framework within which entities move. It is simply the extent defined by entities, moving or not.
That extent is not some non-existence.
I answered those numbered questions of yours in the beginning. I know you can't have the concept of space without the precondition of concepts of entities. I know it is a relational concept.
I think it is important to make the distinction between space and a void. Space is a relational concept between existents. A void is the concept that given (in a simplified example) two entities, that do not touch, there are no other entities in between those two entities. I am not referencing space as being a non-existent. Space in that sentence merely relates the two entities, not the nature of what is between the two entites. That nature is the concept, void.
-
I think of it by imagining myself floating in outer space and holding my hands about a foot apart from each other. Looking at the "space" in-between my hands, I try to imagine what it would mean for that space not to exist (or not to be possible, if you prefer).
As you mentioned, the "empty space" does not exist as an entity. Its identity is a relational measurement. So, for as many events that are known, you have a definite (not infinite) size of the universe.
So, perhaps the answer to you would be that the "infinite amount of events" you mentioned is simply a contradiction in terms because an "amount" is, by definition, finite.
You could also flip it and go the other way (kinda like your example of scaling the universe down). Take a grain of sand and you can measure distances smaller and smaller across that grain for as long as you have decimal points. In that case you're measuring an actual entity the whole time... and you can still measure forever.
*Disclaimer on above: I think. :-)
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but there was a lot of discussion around this subject in this thread: The Potential Infinity Contradiction
You are treating space as an existent, in that second sentence. All that space is is a relationship concept between existents. The space between your two hands is a distance. The plenum argument says that there must be other existents in that space (distance). I am saying that is not necessary. When I say space is a relational concept, how is that affirming that non-existence exists?
This is how I would think about the subject of eternity
Eternity is a kin to saying the universe is infinite in size.It seems to me that there is a problem with both the universe having a beginning or it being eternal. To say something is eternal is to say it has gone through an infinite amount of states. Would that not be an actual infinity?
This is how I have usually challenged that thinking:
Another way to think about the eternity of every existent in the universe, is that there is no time apart from change, in relation to some other change. When we say 4 billion years ago the earth was created, we don't mean some metaphysical universal time, we are saying 4 billion rotations of the earth around the sun (a change) the earth evolved from this collection of debris to what it is today (another change). When I've been really eager to be pensive and abstract I have often tried to think of the universe as being without time but with change. To talk about the time of the universe would be to talk about the change of the universe compared to some other change. But like LP said what other change? All you have are all the changes within the universe.
The next question, I can think of is how can there be an infinite changes, as the eternity suggests, no beginning change, no ending change. It is that classic, infinite regress, used against proponents of a god.
-
I think of it by imagining myself floating in outer space and holding my hands about a foot apart from each other. Looking at the "space" in-between my hands, I try to imagine what it would mean for that space not to exist (or not to be possible, if you prefer).
As you mentioned, the "empty space" does not exist as an entity. Its identity is a relational measurement. So, for as many events that are known, you have a definite (not infinite) size of the universe.
So, perhaps the answer to you would be that the "infinite amount of events" you mentioned is simply a contradiction in terms because an "amount" is, by definition, finite.
You could also flip it and go the other way (kinda like your example of scaling the universe down). Take a grain of sand and you can measure distances smaller and smaller across that grain for as long as you have decimal points. In that case you're measuring an actual entity the whole time... and you can still measure forever.
*Disclaimer on above: I think. :-)
Not sure if this is what you're looking for, but there was a lot of discussion around this subject in this thread: The Potential Infinity Contradiction
You are treating space as an existent, in that second sentence. All that space is is a relationship concept between existents. The space between your two hands is a distance. The plenum argument says that there must be other existents in that space (distance). I am saying that is not necessary. When I say space is a relational concept, how is that affirming that non-existence exists?
This is how I would think about the subject of eternity
Eternity is a kin to saying the universe is infinite in size.It seems to me that there is a problem with both the universe having a beginning or it being eternal. To say something is eternal is to say it has gone through an infinite amount of states. Would that not be an actual infinity?
This is how I have usually challenged that thinking:
Another way to think about the eternity of every existent in the universe, is that there is no time apart from change, in relation to some other change. When we say 4 billion years ago the earth was created, we don't mean some metaphysical universal time, we are saying 4 billion rotations of the earth around the sun (a change) the earth evolved from this collection of debris to what it is today (another change). When I've been really eager to be pensive and abstract I have often tried to think of the universe as being without time but with change. To talk about the time of the universe would be to talk about the change of the universe compared to some other change. But like LP said what other change? All you have are all the changes within the universe.
The next question, I can think of is how can there be an infinite changes, as the eternity suggests, no beginning change, no ending change. It is that classic, infinite regress, used against proponents of a god.
-
The concept of a "plenum" depends on a concept of space. Since children do not begin their lives knowing about points defined by coordinate systems, we should not take the concept of space as an unquestioned primary. The standard of objectivity demands that we take some time to understand how a concept as abstract as space derives in a logical fashion from perceptual observation. Towards that end, I pose four questions to you:
1. What facts in reality give rise to the concept of space?
2. What concepts did you need to form before you could form a concept of space? And before those concepts?
3. What did you need to know in order to form a concept of space?
4. How did you form the concept of space? What similarities and differences were you concerned with?
After thinking about this I don't see where you are going with this. Was my usage of the concept space wrong? Explain any errors in my original post about plenum, space, etc.
-
The concept of a "plenum" depends on a concept of space. Since children do not begin their lives knowing about points defined by coordinate systems, we should not take the concept of space as an unquestioned primary. The standard of objectivity demands that we take some time to understand how a concept as abstract as space derives in a logical fashion from perceptual observation. Towards that end, I pose four questions to you:
1. What facts in reality give rise to the concept of space?
2. What concepts did you need to form before you could form a concept of space? And before those concepts?
3. What did you need to know in order to form a concept of space?
4. How did you form the concept of space? What similarities and differences were you concerned with?
1. The basic facts are existents in reality (a floor, a computer monitor), and they can be positioned in any manner in relation to another.
2. You needed the concepts of actual existents, and relational concepts such as apart (they are 3 feet apart).
3. I think that is the same as 1 and 2.
4. That would take a longer time to explain.
-
I understand that their are no actual infinities. The infinite in mathematics is just a potentiality. I understand that the universe has to be eternal, meaning outside of time or always existing, because the opposite, that it was "created" is nonsense and violates A is A, etc. Same thing with its finiteness, there can't exist an actual infinite amount of things.
I don't understand, however, why the universe has to be a plenum, that every nook and cranny has to be "filled" with existents. I just don't see why that is necessary, from how I believe LP explained it, that to say their is "empty space" is to say that nothing exists. I don't see it that way, when saying no thing (i.e. nothing) occupies a volume you are not saying that a unit(s) of nothingness exist in that volume, you are just saying that at that given point in time, no actual existents are occupying it, and that can change, some thing can move into it.
The universe being a plenum, to me brings up a very complicated problem, namely that question that is always brought up, what is outside of it. What happens when you approach the "edge", because the universe is finite. Then LP will of course reply with, well you can't ask that, that question is invalid, etc. I think he or some Objectivist said the universe will have a way to make it so you can't reach the edge, which I thought was a bit outside the purview of metaphysics, describing how the universe works physically.
A finite and non-plenum universe would have no edge, it would be just a bunch a finite matter interacting within a void. And that void would stretch out infinitely in all directions, infinite because the infinite can be applied to a non-entity, really just a concept used in relationships of existents, "space".
That was my tirade on a plenum.
Now back to eternality, and finiteness, from the beginning.
But when picturing this it seems somewhat odd, or you can't really wrap your head around it. Wouldn't an eternal universe have an infinite amount of events, happening within it. Doesn't that violate A is A?
I guess there isn't really anything wrong with the finite part, it would seem a bit odd though when thinking about it in both a non-plenum or plenum universe. The non-plenum being the fact that if you "left" the universe, there being no edge, just leaving the vicinity of all those other existents, and kept looking back at it the scale of the universe would look pretty small a ways out there. And I think I explained earlier the weirdness of the plenum finiteness, there being an edge, what is outside, and so forth.
If anyone can share their thoughts on the subject that would be great.
-
God how I loved studying American Revolutionary War history! It's been some years, but the entire magnificent picture comes together in my mind. (OK, sometimes I have use Google to refresh my facts.)
I remember taking a date to see this film back in 1992. (She liked Daniel Day-Lewis; I got the benefits.) Originally, I was drawn to the extreme details to authenticity, especially applied to the muzzle-loading rifles, hand-to-hand combat, costuming, and other things related to recreating the period. And yet I was taken completely by surprise with the staging of certain scenes, certain shots that resembled canvases from the Romantic Era. Look for them. This an exceptional piece of cinema; I've had it in my collection for years on tape. Perhaps it's time I got it on disc as well.
Abott1776 selected a scene from the film that depicts the political and cultural distinctions of the British from the American colonists. One has to consider that Americans were as interested in expanding into the wilderness as the British were determined to building a global empire. The British cultural norm, that American colonists were merely subjects of the King, was taken for granted. Americans had a cultural norm that the King, while being their sovereign, he was a distant and disinterested sovereign, and had little to control over them. The Colonists had powerful designs on the western frontiers, and the King, (and Parliament) often thwarted colonial ambitions with limits to the Colonists' encroachments. All of this was designed to uphold treaties with the French, or in certain cases Native-Americans. To be sure, the Colonists had long disregarded restrictions, just as they disregarded paying duties on imports under British regulations. As shown in the film clip, the Colonists thoroughly resented being regarded as pawns in the global game of empire, yet their empire of new settlements depended on British support. What is not shown is that the Colonists did create conflict on the frontiers with there unrestricted expansion of new settlements. This is not to say that the Colonists didn't pay for the land. Often they had to pay twice, first in trade, and then through combat against their Native-American real estate brokers.
A Virginian of several generations of accumulated wealth, George Washington, enlisted his services to the King, no doubt in hopes of securing his own piece of new empire with the King's approval. But his aspirations of greater fortune were sunk, in 1755, as he lead a party of British General Braddock's troops through Indian territory. Washington pleaded with Braddock not to use that route, but Braddock saw no threat from mere savages. The Battle of Monongahela proved Braddock not only was very much mistaken, but resulted in his death. If only Americans realized what a swashbuckler young George was; he could have been depicted as an action hero, leading the troops through chaos to safety. For his reward, Washington received a reprimand, and perhaps a damn good reason to resent British arrogance, just as our heroes in the film.
In any case, anyone interested in an outstanding period-piece would enjoy Last of the Mohicans, and I hope you do.
On the subject of modern Americans, we've become a society of consumers. We seem to have lost any idealism about achievement, substituting it for acquisition of things. While this may not apply to all, and it is not the most terrible development, it concerns me that the pioneer spirit, the rugged individualism of an earlier time is reduced to such a minute few. The vast majority simply buy things, and when something new comes along, like zombies seeking fresh brains, they go on another spending rampage. That insatiable consumer mentality, so prevalent in our times, crushes the minds of many young people with distractions of buying things, or even racking up college credits, thus racking up credit debt, and in the end, the only ambition they have left is spending the remainder of their lives trying to improve their credit ratings.
Yep, the issue of taxation was not the only rift between the colonials and the motherland, but what to do about the natives, and settling westward.
I love Daniel Day-Lewis in most of his films, and despite what some may say about There Will Be Blood, it is one of my favorite movies as well.
Yeah, I think consumerism has morphed from a healthy American obsession with the new, and with material wealth in general. Comparing culture then and now, I am more disheartened with the lack of longterm thinking, and of principles, by just ordinary people (not talking about idealistic hippie college students, who think in terms of whatever ideas they are fed). Like that presumably farmer/rancher in the movie, the guy that is in charge of the militia, he thinks in principles, and about the longterm. And he acts on them. Today, people can barely think past 5 years, and only about a narrow topic like career, family, etc. But they lose the big picture of their relationship with society, ethics, etc. In essence back then people could at least appreciate new thinking in philosophy and science, if not do some of that thinking themselves.
-
I very never seen the movie, but based on your review I feel like I may now.
I really enjoyed Ed Cline's Sparrowhawk Series , the characters and their motivations were wonderfully presented and not very subtly at that
I read the Sparrowhawk series, like a crack addict, it was really engrossing, and I would resent reading his books too fast because I didn't want them to end. Him as well as Terry Goodkind, rereading his books right now. I am also reading Ed Cline's detective novels too!
Yeah, watch the movie, you won't regret it. Besides the historicity of it, it is a good story itself. Very romantic aesthetically, grand vistas, brave men and women, people taking action according to their judgement.
Articles in the news, referencing Ayn Rand
in Miscellaneous Topics
Posted
I saw this on Listverse:
http://listverse.com/2015/06/28/10-potential-alternatives-to-the-conventional-capitalist-system/
Objectivism is number 2. It is one of the fairer characterizations of Objectivism I've seen mentioned on this site.
I guess this isn't exactly news, but I thought it was worth sharing.