Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Posts posted by tadmjones

  1. But the qualification is that it's a radical departure from normal Objectivism insofar as it is about acting against socialism and not arguing and persuading socialists to change their mind.

    My targets are 'pre-socialists" or socialists willing to change their minds. The principle of retaliation of force against the initiation of force should always apply.

  2. Lions certainly envy another's harem.

    Isn't this an example of anthropomorphising? A lion knows it must only mate with members of its own species? Lions understand biology, in order to perpetuate my species I must disseminate my semen( and then only to females)?
  3. To answer you in nearly every response, it seems to be understood, I need to reiterate my understanding of epistemology. You have stated that in some sense you are familiar with O'ist epistemology. I think either you are mistaken as to your understanding of the subject or you refute it, which is it?

    Obviously a mistaken apprehension would go unnoticed, so is it you refute Rand's epistemology?

  4. There is also the connotation of the oft quoted phrase of Darwin,survival of the fittest. This tends to lead to the view that evolution is somehow a mechanism that fosters change toward improvement. That would imply that mechanism is in a sense 'aware of' the need for a change and favor the normative of improvement.

  5. At what magic point in the history of evolution do you think man ceased being motivated like the lion?

    To answer this question would I not first have to agree to the idea that there was such a point?

    I assume you are using this line of reasoning to reveal or justify the notion of innate ideas or motivations or somesuch.

  6. What, then, is the lion motivated by if not his ideas? And what would lead you to think that a human could not be similarly motivated given what we know about human evolution and biology? At what magic point in the history of evolution do you think man ceased being motivated like the lion?

    literally, you actually mean to ask this specific question?

  7. Б ви сказати, що Лев є мотивовані до дії своїх ідей?У слові немає.

    Would you say that a lion is motivated to action by its ideas? In a word no.

    hmmph well apparently babelfish(free version) is not as robust as I had hoped, it don't do cantonese(and for the record the first response is in Ukranian, but you get the idea, yes? :)

  8. I would prefer a world in which argument and persuasion are the only means of changing others' position.

    The fact is , that is the world you live in. Man is motivated to action by his ideas.(period)

    It is his nature,one must first have the idea and then act on it. "socialism" is a name given to school of thought or ideas, that can not be acted on in any way that would lead to it becoming existential, its actual referent is a contradiction.

    Force exists, the taking of the unearned through violence or the threat thereof has happened in the past, is happening now and will likely happen in the future. The actual, literal taking is done by actual indviduals, sometimes by groups of individuals. The 'thing' that causes them to use or threaten force are their ideas or motivations. Even a taker of the unearned has to have the thought 'I am going to walk across this room,' before he walks across the room.

    It does not matter to the victims , the producers whose values were stolen, why the theft occured ie why the takers thought what they thought. Or less even what becomes of the values they lost. The fact those values were forcibly removed from them is the result. The result of the loss is not characterised or colored in any different light if the values were then distributed equally to the rest of community, or burned in sacrifice to a giant bunny god.

    The issue then is what is most fundamental. So if such a book were to be written with the intention of showing people how to resist having their values stolen , it would have to point out the root cause of the theft , the use of force. Which particular ideology precipitates the aggressors is not essential to the defense of force.

    One of your critisisms of Oism, or rather alot of them, seems to stem from idea that Rand only 'projected' man as the ideal, she did in her fiction create heroes who had the ideal characteristics in spades, but they were intentionally fictional. Her philosophy in nonfiction deals with reality.

    I think a better book would be a history of civilisation based on the premise that any degree of advancement is proven to be the result of reason. Force the masses to learn by induction;)

  9. Are you european? I can't say for sure, because you have used different colliquial terms for people who work in law enforcement, is that pretension or a reflection of directing your comments to a specific audience? I ask , because I think some opinions held can come from what is understood to be the 'norm'.

    My experience is that europeans seem to think their view is more heterogenous(read more informed) simply from the fact they feel they are more familiar with differing worldviews. Based on the idea that given their proximity to other countries, states, or cultures they have been exposed to so many differing points of view that they are then able to pontificate from a position of authority.

    While I think others may lump all such perceived cultural differences as mild variants on one homogenous theme.

    The other side of the pond, as it were

  10. In isolation force has no referent other than perhaps nature, which is not force in the strict sense because it is not consciously guided. The battle that needs to be waged is between reason and force, which do you prefer? If the former then you must admit you too prefer persuasion.

    Ideas are man's guiding force. The true ideas will prevail.. Articulate them, edify others with proper ideas that is the only way to direct the zeitgist(human nature the way you use it).

  11. A con artist has a firm grasp on human nature than an idealist. The more difficult question is why people allow themselves to be conned but the fact is, they do and often they become very angry as those who expose the con.

    The notion of human nature is rather ambiguous in this context. Do you mean the nature of man qua man , or the sociologically derived sense of the term, which actually describes the emotional estimation of a population taken as an aggregate? Which by the way I find specious unless you come to it from a hegelian perspective. Meaning the hegelian perspective is specious. You know cause speciousness is blind to its nature.

  12. Mia culpa, vanity seems to always win. I am no expert, but damn it if I don't feel at times I am.

    Hernan you do not pocess a full understanding of Oism. As proof , consider all of my posts concerning yours.

    What is it you are arugeing for? The winner of an application of force? You state over and over again that 'socialism'(here I include your notion of taking from thy neighbor), is a dominant force unto itself. I countered by showing that it is parasitic in nature, weirdly you agreed. So if established , but not dependent on that establishment, we agree socialism is parasitic , how is it that good is not antecedent of the evil that is parasitic?

    From the perspective of individual existence, your arguements would favor joining the socialist/collectivist paradigm to gain benefits. Most of the world's population seems to think your position is correct, yes? the prevalence of socialism is the appeal to envy and somesuch? If by force you wish to benefit your existence, how could it be that an advocate of force to sustain one's life be so stupid as to not recoginize the strategic advantage of seeking to join and or rule the 'most' forceful branch of the harbingers of things to come?

    What is your reason for not becoming Mussolini?

    My overall point being, that the 'force' that drives mankind is ideas. Socialists/collectivists/capitalists as humans can only plan actions based on ideas. If their ideas(their reasoning) are false then reality being what it is ,will bring justice to them. Therefore it is best to start from a reasoning that best describes what reality is. In conjucntion with mans' association with what that is. Objectivism is currently the best explanantion.

  • Create New...