tadmjones
-
Posts
2047 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
49
Posts posted by tadmjones
-
-
i think its orgasm, but i am not aware of the o'ist stance on masterbation
-
secondhander said #66
So how does that apply to sex? Just like any other action in your life, and any other relationship in your life, sex must not be "cut off from your code of values." Since you value life, you should be aware of STIs and practice safe sex. It would be unwise to have sex with some person with low value, like a moocher, or thief, or violent person, or mentally unstable person. Just like you might refrain from forming close friendships with those sorts of people, even more so should you refrain from sexual relationships from those sorts of people, because they may very well bring death to you, even if by matter of degree.
You should apply rationality to your relationships, sexual or otherwise. In the same way that you should practice safe sex, and utilize your rationality to know which methods of safe sex are best, you should also manage pregnancy (using the technology available) so that you do not become or get someone pregnant without meaning to. You may also decide not to have sex with someone who is anti-abortion, if you are in favor of abortion, just in case an accidental pregnancy happens.
These are not strict rules. But the principles should be heeded: Seek good life for yourself, and use your brain.
I understand why thought should be given to action with recognition of the possibilities of outcomes, but my question is why(or how) does the inclusion of term 'sex' change the dynamic of the process? What is there about 'sex' that makes it a separate category from all other forms of human interactions?
-
Given you think it may be less controversial, how would you define a logical mechanism?
(Without implying innate knowledge and or dismissing the tabla rosa stance)
-
Most of the principles on which the above statements rest, would work well for purchasing an automobile. Yes/No ?
-
Neuroscientific experiments have shown that all infants are born with some logical mechanism already hardwired into their brains.
Or rather neuroscientific experimenters have attributed their results to suggest logical mechanisms that are hardwired, how do they define 'logical mechanisms'? Are they like synaptic golgi apparati(sp?)?
-
According to O'ism , what is 'sex'? Is there an explicit definition of what is considered 'sex'? Is this thing that is important anything other the experience of orgasm? Is it the relationship between individuals that includes actions that lead to each experiencing orgasm, what exactly is the conceptual/emotional/ value response that takes place that must be recognized and evaluated before engaging in such a relationship? Casual intercourse between adults is immoral or amoral?
-
I will wait with bated breath to read the ultimate thread on the 'true' basis of morally acceptible sexual desire, especially when espoused by those who consider themselves individualists.
-
This was an amazing story I heard on the radio today. Unfortunately(reminiscent of the Objectivist Horror files), the editors of the story felt it necessary to mention that only after permission was granted by the FDA was the procedure used, thank goodness the doctors didn't have to rely solely on their own judgement and expertise and that we were all reminded that they acted with government permission.
-
Just as timely side note, on the Kim Komando show she highlighted a device her in her gadget section, it was a pet exerciser using a laser pointer and some kind of integrated webcam
, go figger -
heh ambiviolent first a left and then a right both of course indescriminate
-
To clarify my post, in all honesty I was probably unfairly bringing in(perhaps) misremembered arguments from other threads re polylegal , market based legal systems. I think differences of opinion is that area tend toward whether or not those types of systems can ever be objective in implimentation, which is probably beyond the scope of this thread.I've been trying to make sense of this for a little while now, and I don't think I'm there yet. So what I have to say might not be a direct response (and I invite you to clarify your point, if necessary), but just to riff off of it...
No individual has any right more than any other. No group (government included) has any rights that are more, or apart from, the individual rights of the individuals comprising that group. Whatever President Obama (properly) does, for instance, is made possible by his own individual rights, and the rights of those on whose behalf he acts.
And yes, it is true, in the capacity of government -- when acting as President -- Obama actually has "fewer rights" than any of the individuals of the United States, whether acting alone or in concert, for he is strictly limited to those rights granted to him by the citizens. Again, not as an individual (where he retains his full scope of individual rights), but acting in the capacity of "President," or governance more generally. Ideally this is the function that the Constitution provides, in detailing the specific and highly limited grant of power from the citizens to the government... but in practice, as I hardly need to remind you, the Constitution has not been a perfect check against tyranny (and was flawed in its very design).
Anyways, when you say that under my system (whatever you think it is, though I'm not yet convinced you understand what I actually advocate, or why) that the individual (or groups of individuals) would "enjoy the rights I deny to government," you are absolutely right! That is as it should be. For after all, the individual is sovereign, and everything flows from there, including governmental power, which is by nature delimited and of smaller scope (qua rights):
This includes the right to form government. Change government. Dissolve government. These are among the rights of the individual, and they do not get stripped away on your say-so, or the say-so of any other man. That is what it means to be "inalienable."
And when acting in the role of government -- an individual taking on the power to act on the behalf of others -- he is limited in that capacity by the rights granted to him, on the consent of those so governed.
As to the above , I would say I agree with your position re rights, with maybe a few diagreements with either connotation of terms or just semantics. Inalienable does mean( or I understand as) not having the ability to be 'stripped away', but even one step further, not only can they not stripped away from any indivdual by another's say-so , but they can not by their nature be forfeited either. I also do not believe rights can be granted, so even office holders in a constitutional system acting in that capacity do not 'have' rights, other than those they have by their human nature. The office would have certain powers granted by the governed, but ideally those powers would be precisely defined and highly constrained.
-
I would say that a lion can not 'murder' a trainer. The lion may not not kill the trainer, but I do not think the lion makes a conscious 'decision' not to kill, apart from reacting to its training. Coersion is the act of consciously taking actions to 'force' other agents to act in a certain way, there has to be conscious recognition of the possibilities , I do not see the type of consciousness that 'lower' animals possess as being able to operate at that level.As conscious beings, most animals (above a certain level of biological complexity) do act with intention, so I would say yes. I am not an expert on the subject, but animals can choose to engage in predatory action; think of a trained lion which doesn't murder and eat his master.
-
DA
I'm confused , are you saying anti-productive would be more apt than non-productive?
Value qua concept 'means' those things which agents act to gain and or keep, I do not recognize a strictly normative connotation within the concept, though contextually it is hard to avoid it, perhaps I am being too literal.
-
Maybe!! Or...I hear she was particularly sad after her husband died, about 3 years before she did. Maybe Objectivism ain't all it's cracked up to be!
-
As long as we approach the ultimate understanding in a way that keeps in mind, we are descrbing that which is, and constantly checking and keeping in mind they we are looking at and describing reality and not trying to 'understand' reality based on what the 'maths' say it is or can't be. IT IS, regardless.
-
And I am fine with your choosing to see that polylegalism would necessarily concede the premise that groups of individuls would in fact(perhaps de facto as opposed de jure)enjoy the rights you deny to 'government'.
-
DonAthos in #98 said
By asserting that, when one man "owns an idea," then another man does not have the right to use that same idea without permission. So: if I own the piano, or a particular style of piano, or however we're framing my "intellectual property" over pianos for the purpose of this example, you are not within your rights to build one.
No you misinterpret my position. I say anyone can manufacture a piano(Franz's piano) but if Franz has had his design duly recognized as being his design then no one else can expect to offer Franz's idea inhe marketplace for profit. It is Franz's right to enforce the protection of his rights in property in the marketplace as it concerns his duly recognized and protected right to own his design. I do not think this means that Franz has any right to stop Joseph from making a physical copy that embodies his(Franz's) idea, just that if Joseph then tries to profit from Franz's design, that Franz would have the ability to restrict that action on Joseph's part either by being compensated for the profit, or even that Franz may decide to not seek restitution, I am only here concerned with protecting Franz's objective moral right to his property joseph's actions have to be judged as after effects of the origination of Franz's ideas being expressed. I am way pro franz and ambiviolent to Joseph the usurpar.
-
Dormin111 said #31
By theoretically successful coercion, I mean the typical Objectivist standard of flourishing qua man. In the case of predatory animals, they do flourish with their maximum potential through coercion because that is in there nature
Coercion implies intent is this equatible on the animal/predatory level?
-
Sure, we could sensibly talk about the US Government as consisting of the Constitution, or the three branches, the electoral college, or etc. (We can also talk about such abstract terms as "society" or "culture.") But everything ultimately comes down to actual, real individual human beings and their decisions: the Constitution was written by individuals, ratified by individuals, is interpreted by individuals, and enforced (or not) by individuals.
I believe that this was an important point to make (as in, to this thread) because we were looking to source governmental power -- and there is only one place it can ultimately come from: individual rights. If the Constitution has any authority at all, it is only due to the individuals who act within their rights in creating and enforcing such a document.
Groups, as such, whether or not they call themselves "the government" have no rights apart from the individual rights of those who comprise that government.
And that is what I meant.
I agree that there is no such thing as group rights, the concept of rights is only applicable to individuals.
Given LFC , government is instituted to protect rights held by individuals. But I see government as a principled statement of appropriate interactions between individuals, a way to conduct relations governed by principles expressed in laws. Government in this sense is more the ideas , the actual people that facilitate the practical applications of carrying out the functions of various offices are not a recognized 'group' as having powers above and beyond any other citizen. .
-
If "value" serves a purpose by grouping all the things one should seek, wouldn't "anti-value" similarly group things to avoid?
I think 'value' groups those things which one acts to gain and or keep, should implies something other than that which is saught , what purpose would be served by a concept that groups those things which are not saught? Plants 'value' co2 , but not a whole host of other things, what would you refer to by forming the concept of all the things plants do not seek , I do not think there could be a 'group' such as all the things plants do not value(act to gain or keep) that would be available to perception to integrate into a concept, its more like a confusing form of semantics and playin' with epistemologic terms eg the example of anti-warm
-
Again assuming a Gulch-like society, how could IP be anything other than marketplace restrictions? I see no other context outside of a rational division of labor society where IP has any relevance. Franz's ability to restrict Joseph's actions as it concerns Franz's duly recognized and protected idea is I think easily understandable. Rand gave capitalism its moral justification, what is immoral within the context of a rational society about protecting commercial property, eg ideas that are duly recognized as original and unique(not discoveries and/or explanations of natural phenomenon)? I can see how attention would need to be focused on how these procedures were implimented, but not why the principles on which they are based are on face .. what immoral, unnecessary, invalid?
Just as Franz's right to be free of harm caused intentionally by another can only be recognized and protected when that freedom can be violated (living in a society), so too can his right to gain from his ideas(property) only be protected when faced with possible violation. Freedom from intentionally caused physical violence and IP infringement are only possible in a societal context. On a desert island Franz may be said to 'have' those same rights, but it is only when it is possible to have his rights violated that a need for their 'protection' is relevant.
Oh and not sure if it will muddy or clarify my stance but I see Franz as an originator, Joseph as a copycat(whether from not filing timely, or intent) and Sergei as a commie( I don't like commies)
-
I like non better than anti, anti is too specific. Rand said value implies to whom, for what.
Would cold be anti-hot, or visa versa? Could there be antiwarm? Or rather what purpose would the concept serve?
-
DonAthos said # 36
Governments only exist as particular, actual groups of individuals.
What do you mean by this? The US constitution is a particular actual group of individuals? Or do you mean the functions of government are carried out by particular actualr individuals , and that they may or may not adhere to the principles of a 'governemnt'? Is it not possible to have a 'government', a principled moral foundation for the conduct of human interaction, adhered to be individuals?
Earlier in the same post you stated that 'government' should be seen as a collection of individuals in the same why 'society' refers to individuals. I think this a non sequitor, in that society as a concept has no referent other than the relation of individuals to individuals( those who live in geographic proximity and follow similar cultures and customs), but government refers to (at least in LFC) to a set of principles that conduct interactions between individuals. The fact in reality individuals will have to function within the dictates of government to facilitate its role , does not mean the individuals have the legitimate right to change or alter those dictates, the fact that individuals may at times abuse or ignore those strictures does not mean they do not exist , or that government does not have a referent other than that which 'society' has akin to individuals.
-
Assuming an LFC society, under consideration of IP ( and derivatives copyrights, brands, trademarks ect) why would Franz own Joseph's piano? I would say he has the recognized right to enforce his registration of his idea ( an implied 'ubercontract' ) in the marketplace. Franz should not be able to claim as his property any piano Joseph builds, whether Joseph created the design independently or reversed engineered Franz's idea. But since Franz has his piano idea duly recognized as the first instance of an original idea, Franz should then have the ability to restrict Joseph from using this same piano idea for profit.
Did Ayn Rand live by her own philosophy?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
you?