tadmjones
-
Posts
2035 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by tadmjones
-
-
Socio-forming as opposed to terra-forming? Little human centric, besides what if the socioforming works and the climate doesn't change, then what are you going to be left with?
-
-
frank we may finally have something in commonAnother way of defining 'open' and 'closed' would be to assess the willingness to engage dissent and other philosophiies.
For example has anyone seriously considered an open debate with Marxism in which the opposition is given a level playing field?
Engagement would also entail open public forums in which all philosophies are fairly aired.
In other words, without an open polemic, all philosophies tend to fall into dogma. Active questiong --from ther outside--in the only way to keep a philosophy vibrant.
I for one would love to see the Marxist debaters drop the dialectical materialism and hash 'it' out, here here and bravo
-
I only make the distinction political/economic when I think people see them as separate. By politics I mean interpersonal relationships , the activities between men. I use terms like trade to denote a moral transaction , not necessarily a monetary(or monetized) transaction. So politics would in some sense 'enable' economics, but economic activity is not really separable from 'just plain' human activity, unless you focus on the monetary issues and mean to describe only that aspect. A is A tends to get lost in most discussion when speaking of politics. One example often seen is when people refer to society an entity and ascribe actions to it, or attributes of it, dropping the context that that concept refers to a way of viewing a group of individuals and that only the individuals so viewed can act and have describable attributes.I would say that political systems enable economic systems. In this particular, yes, any political system should encourage markets by protecting individuals' right to property.
OTH, it's fairly obvious that you can run a non-democratic dictatorshio with developed, capitalistic markets. in this sense, Hayek is wrong: capitalism is not necessarily consistent with any other freediom than that to capitalize.
-
I think the 'o'ist' solution to the 'world domination of capitalism' is to appeal to reason and show Russians and whomever else, that capitalism is the only political/economic system that recognizes and protects individual rights , rights belonging to all men by their nature.
-
I think you missed my point about A is A and poison. If the toxic level for me is 5mg , then well that's what it is , no matter what I think about that or even if I know it or not, 5mg will kill me. Yours may be 6mg, but the same applies.The level of toxicity is the level of toxicity. However, as you correctly noticed, the specific level needed to cause death to an individual varies. In other words, the effects of poison (or of any other cause) vary among individuals. Now, if you want all people to follow Objectivism, since you want to build capitalism for all, you need to have a philosophy that all people can accept. I realize that the premise of Objectivism is that, if the law of identity is the base of all Reason, all people should accept it, right? Not really. It's circular reasoning. The issue here is that some people have built upon the law of identity new laws. The problem with "mystics" is that they abandoned the law of identity in favor of these new laws. It's their major flaw, I agree. However, the "mystics" can change and reintegrate the law of identity back into their "mystic" thinking, just as the Objectivists should be able to do with the new laws. But Objectivists do not want to change! Your entire philosophy is against change. That's the major flaw of Objectivism, in my humble opinion. The one path of a noncontradictory evolution is such: two-valued logic (the law of identity -> Newtonian mechanics -> Objectivism -> digital computing) -> many-valued logic (quantum mechanics -> quantum computing -> Neo-Objectivism). This path has not been completed for all human living yet. The advantage and potential of Objectivism is that it's the first philosophy for human life with a goal to be complete and on the right track toward its completion. But, let's be realistic, it does not include everyone right now because the majority of people are going toward the many-valued logic side (even subconsciously). The many-valued logic side is not irrational, but it is open-minded, since it rationally allows more freedom of emotions (directed at new opportunities in life with the many-valued logic). The way to look at the many-valued logic and the potential life philosophy based on it (Neo-Objectivism) is the noncontradictory integration of rational and irrational within open-mindedness.
As to which "ism" or philosophy correctly describes reality( basically the goal of isms, yes?) only reality will answer.
-
In practical / general terms "A is A" as it relates to poison would mean, arsenic is a poison. At a certain level (each person's metabolism may vary, and it may even be that certain levels can be tolerated through some kind of built up immunity)but at the level of toxicity to an individual it will kill them. The properties of arsenic will not change, A is A, the specific level needed to cause death will not change, A is A. The level of toxicity can not be what it is, and at the same time 'be' what it is not.
-
DA
I agree with what you have stated about property rights and how they relate to material value. I also envision IP in LFC to recognize the pianos in the example as being owned by F and W respectively. But I believe creation and manipulation of reality are more fundamental to ownership than the resultant things owned.
-
Property rights facilitate trade in society by being an objective reference to settle ownership disputes. The concept of ownership, being fundamental to the principles of property rights and their applications, reflects the need for man to act in order to survive, reality does not provide the things of survival 'free', man has to manipulate reality through creation and productiion in order to survive and thrive.
-
LOL,I'm not sure if NYC represents the best example of society functioning on reasonable application of property rights visa vis LFC, ie transfats, big gulps, handguns , ecigs, horses ect.If I understand your questions right, my answer is: yes, absolutely. Franz has a unique relationship with that piano on account of its factual origin. "Property" or "ownership" is how we describe that relationship, and we thus describe objects like pianos as being property. This particular piano is Franz's property; he owns it. That relationship exists, whether Franz is on a deserted island or in the middle of NYC. We depend upon Wolfgang, and other members of society, to recognize that relationship and act accordingly. When they do not, we account that as injustice and an initiation of the use of force, inviting the use of force in reprisal.
Agan thank you for controlling the pace of the discussion and efforts to keep it on track and relatively tangent free.
We have I think arrived at the idea that ownership and property refer to relationships between entities. People own things, it is morally right to 'see' this relationship and societies can make laws to reflect and protect that relationship. Is it now where/when we discuss what the abstraction 'property' can/should or can not/should not apply to ? Is it only applicable to physicality? I ask because I think the anti/pro IP debate hinges on the implementation of law as it applies to objects and not intrusions on the principle of ownership per se.
By that I mean, the design of the widget I invent is my property and I want to protect that ownership, in the same way I want my ownership of my bicycle protected. But the protection of that ownership is obviously going to be dependent on the identity of the thing owned. Physically taking my bicycle is possible , but not permissible, adherence to principle by others is my first recourse to secure my rights and appealing to government for restitution my last.
-
Now that the fact of Franz's ownership has been demonstrated both legally and morally, we can assume that this relationship between Franz and the piano pertains not only to Wolfgang but to the society at large, yes? Wolfgang's and Franz's interactions as regards the piano are not separate from or operate under different legal or moral stictures than Franz's and anyone else in society, correct? Just trying to stay up to speed and not jump ahead.
-
If there are any intellectual components to sexual satisfaction , they are expressed in things like being desired by another and being responsible for another's pleasure, things a robot can not satisfy(if you know it's a robot).
-
skylabLOL, given how far afield some folks seem willing to go to have something to fight over, you may have a point.
However, as someone so old as to have actually had a face to face conversation with Ms. Rand, I can assure you she was one of the most sincere people I have ever met. So much so, it frustrated her no end that her attempts at marketing, (both herself and her work), were actually hampered by her devotion to truth. It seemed to her the general public was obtuse, because the LAST thing she wanted to respond to her effort was gullibility.
It's not my thesis, this poster posited that as a thesis on a different site.
-
#162 harley
"Part of this ethical refusal involves anecdotes of exception---my boils, my aunt's need of a transplant, etc...a bit more justifiable is indeed the question of moral hazzard as to how doctors might exploit government participation."
In reality the refusal is based on , to paraphrase Thatcher, free hospitals are great but hard to build when you run out of other peoples' bricks
"everyone else' in the world? is going on by pretending that socialism is practical(will work), so far America is still holding out on that , but I'm not holding my breath
-
Well you could start by describing what you mean by worldview, and perhaps your insights and opinions as to what you think mine is.Do you mean "why, just because the science points to us triggering a new 'hot age', different than what we've seen before, is anybody talking further about it?'
I read the study you linked to in post #20 and I am not sure what to make of it, or your reference to it.
-
Assuming the IPCC and its activities and research are amoral and nonideologic, if the maths describe accurately the results of natural processes, what then?
Other than a scientifically detailed understanding of the physics of the paleoclimate, whats all the hubub?
-
The only standard in a debate, that for it to be a rational debate, is that both sides recognize that the A cant' change based on either side's view. A stays the same, it is what it is independent of anything.Of course, you can say that it's within the wolves' nature to make a leadership decision based upon experience, therby passing their criterion down to future generations as 'wolf culture'.
Be this as it may, the abiove it distinct from saying alpha-ness is pre-programmed, or innate.
If saying something is 'axiomatic' reminds you that what is, is, then you've failed to establish a viable standard of internal criticism, or assessment of fault.
You've likewise failed to establish a viable standard of debate with those whose A's don't equal the same as yours.
-
Actually last count , using' my dna' as the identifing characteristic, there's like 7.161 billion racesOy, k'shmar! He's back.
Ilya, there is only one race: the human race. Any other illusion of multiple races is a concept in your head.
-
What I was implying was in answer to the morality of the signing and what that would say as to our nation's position on torture. The main implication being that human rights protection is a founding principle the Constitution adheres to and given the civilian control over the military ,signing a document that pledges to abstain from tortue would be little more than symbolic, no?The Bill of Rights was not intended as a recipe for tactics to be used or not used in war. Obviously. If it was, the US military would also be in violation of the Constitution whenever they enter a house without a warrant in Fallujah, whenever they disarm an enemy soldier, whenever they search someone at a roadblock in Baghdad, etc., etc.
The Bill of Rights refers strictly to the rights of persons within the US, and even then, only when the writ of habeas corpus isn't suspended by Congress and the President.
Besides, the word "punishment" has a pretty unambiguous meaning, and it's not what you're implying it is.
The Geneva Conventions protect POWs and non-combatants. The argument that members of terrorist groups which aim to murder civilians belong in a third category has its merits.
If the Geneva Conventions were intended to protect such people (or indeed all persons in the custody of a signatory state), they would've stated just that. Saying that "everybody is protected" would've taken a lot fewer words than the wording which was chosen.
Add to that the idea of argreeing to 'rules of war ' in the first place. Are you implying signing would obligate other nations to some standard of moral reciprocity where by they would not torture our POW's but only if we sign?
-
Not being familiar with the text of treaty , my first thought on the torture aspect is that the US has established civilian control over our military , and the Constitution prohibits cruel and unusual punishment, so signing an international treaty that agrees in that effect would be symbolic in nature.
What does restraining a state's warmaking powers mean or look like? And other than a threat of war how is it enforced ?
It would certainly be moral for the government of US to sign agreements with other sovereign nations that are founded on like principles of individual rights protection, but signing agreements for the sake of not being accused of not signing them isn't a principled stand worth a moral judgement.
-
2046 said #43
Tad: Conservative thinkers tend to emphasize tradition, conforming to cultural norms, bourgeois morality, and social hierarchy. Liberal thinkers tend to emphasize diversity and independence. Of course there is plenty of crossover, Rand has both left and right strains in her writings.
Ok, thanks for the clarification. I was confused because I use the terms right and left when describing a political spectrum to mean individualism on the 'right' and collectivism on the 'left'.
-
2046
What did you mean that individualism is a leftist value?
-
We could try and eradicate termites to buy some time ,too, no?
-
frank
This thread seems the perfect opportunity to discuss the thesis that Rand was making it all up as a marketing ploy, that her philosophic foundations were rooted in Russian rationalism and that her fiction and subsequent nonfiction was basically bs and she only published it in the hopes of it being sold to a gullible public.
Is the Electric Universe theory a better integrated cosmological view?
in Physics and Mathematics
Posted
I saw an interesting show about capturing photo evidence of a phenomenon called sprite lightning, it seemed scientists were interested to know why it reached so high "up" or I suppose why it seemed to interact with regions so high in the troposphere.