Skylab72
-
Posts
138 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
4
Posts posted by Skylab72
-
-
Off-topic, but Is it really necessary to question his behavior or intent at this point? He hasn't acted particularly out of turn, so much as pursued a counter line of thinking. If anything, it is an interesting question that gave rise to discussion.
As I pointed out in my reply, the core of the issue is what you just supplied from OPAR: the context for rights had not arisen as yet, because the questioner hypothetically lived alone on this island. Now that it -has- arisen, rights come into play, and there's a specific line of reasoning that explains why. Humans survive by means of reason, and in order to live in the context of other human beings, rights are a necessity in order to facilitate the use of reason in order to achieve our values and the affirmation of our lives.
If the questioner does not wish to live in a society, and does not wish to respect rights, than he has ceded his own rights - if he kills the man who intrudes upon his island, he no longer has his own rights, and is just as liable to be killed by a rights-respecting human being as the man whom he himself killed.
The issue of morality and ethics arises only in the context that a human being chooses to affirm his own life, achieve his own values, by the human being means of accomplishing such: reason, and in the context of ethically-charged interactions with other human beings [as all interactions with human beings are a matter of ethics in their handling].
Actually IMO he has acted out of turn. This thread is a reposting of one of his previous OPs with insignificant changes. I do not see in his posts a good faith effort to discuss issues pertinent to this forum. I see an immature intellect playing games. Please show me "a counter line of thinking" that has some, any coherence, I'm not even asking for merit. The previous material is 13 (or more if someone adds to it after this post) pages, and endlessly circular.
If I am out of turn someone say so, and I will keep quiet.
-
Answer: NO.
Source:
Objectivism: the Philosophy of Ayn Rand, by Leonard Peikoff
Chapter 10: Government
Individual Rights as Absolutes
Fourth Paragraph"
"If a man lived on a desert island, there would be no question of defining his proper relationship to others. Even if men interacted on some island but did so at random, without establishing a social system, the issue of rights would be premature. There would not yet be any context for the concept or, therefore, any means of implementing it; there would be no agency to interpret, apply, enforce it. When men do decide to form (or reform) an organized society, however, when they decide to pursue systematically the advantages of living together, then they need the guidance of principle. That is the context in which the principle of rights arises."[Emphasis Added]
Why DO you persist in this? Your behaviour tends to suggest malintent.
-
By referring to "social context" are you proposing humans and animals "should" form a "society" together and, in that context, recognize the rights arising in that context?
Actually I would assert that "social context" does not refer to a "proposal" but rather to a long history of human-animal interaction SL has referred to as "domestication".
-
This seems to me such a muddled thread. HC (symbol for OP poster hernan) you seem genuinely confused. I hope I do not add to it. Read in small chunks…
From OP:
>Why do good things happen to bad people?
SL- meaningless question, good things happen to bad people, good things happen to good people, bad things happen to bad people people, and though idealists may wish otherwise, bad things happen to good people. All four statements are true because, causality rarely aligns with any given definition of "good". It is a complex world. Moreover, your particular form of this question is an inversion of the form posed by skeptics and doubters to hapless priests and other 'holy men' of various brands, "Why does your all powerful, all knowing, just and loving god, allow, 'bad things to happen to good people'"? The answer the priests could not give is the truth. God, even if you can stretch your mind far enough to define one, does not intervene in the inner workings of any of 'His' creations beyond the reality-rules (laws of physics) that apply to them. I think someone gave the short version of this answer, "$#!7 happens.".
>Is slavery profitable?
Only when the salve master acts in accordance with an ethical framework that under normal circumstances would preclude ownership of slaves. VERY rarely, and never for a long time. short answ_ NO.
>How does a looting elite maintain itself?
SL- Expanding the victim base. Which leads to the dystopian nature of AS. Eventually, they always run out of victims. Has little to do with 'sanction of the victim', that is only one mechanism or response-class at work in the dynamic.
>You quoted AR "You have always considered money-making as such an important virtue," Jim [Taggert] said to [Dagney] with an odd half-smile. "Well, it seems to me that I'm better at it than you are.”
>Then said "Ayn Rand struggled with this question. Her answer is generally described as the sanction of the victim."
I object. AR did not struggle with such a question, there is no question in your quote. This MAY be where you had you some difficulty with separating Art from Philosophy. The quote is Art, a very ironic turn of phrase put in the mouth of of a villain. Jim is trying to usurp a key component of Dagney's value system and completely failing to understand where he is getting it wrong. (Assuming your quote is letter accurate) She even reversed the phrase 'make money' for him to say money-making with a clear implication that hyphenated 'Jim-speak' included government enabled looting. Bottom line: Ms Rand never struggled with her conviction that 'make money' and 'make value' should be synonymous.
A subsequent topic of the discussion, the IRS, seemed mostly red-herring to me. But for the record, the the IRS does in fact claim, that the US Tax Code is the worlds only voluntary taxation system, and they are a service organization tasked with assisting citizens in fulfilling their civic duty to pay taxes. Yes, I am aware of the logical chain that leads to various Law Enforcement Agencies becoming involved, and the possible repercussions that, that may entail… BUT the original law that FDR finagled through congress did specify that 'filing' your taxes was voluntary, and various bureaucratic rules, procedures and precedent not withstanding, a US citizen can, each April 15, request a six month deferral of filing, which will automatically be approved (unless you botched a very simple form). Then each September, if the citizen can find the correct form, they could request to again defer filing with the 'promise' to include the previous years data (filing) with the subsequent return. I personally knew a fellow who followed this drill for five years, rendering no taxes nor returns. Early in the sixth year, his year one return tripped the 'always audit prior to statutory limitations' flag for (no big surprise) 'lack of taxpayer data'. Later that same year, he informally changed is name, and established a new identity in another state, presumably to start the process all over again. I naturally have no first hand knowledge after that, but I am given to believe, that he successfully pulled off that drill one more time, before having to, in the words of the bringer of news, "go off the grid". Rumor has it, he is somewhere in the backwoods of Montana or Idaho now. He successfully chose not to be a victim.
Personal applicability? The IRS has testified their 'best' collection rates, rarely include outliers beyond two standard deviations, or about 95.4% [by implication, one would assume are usually worse]. In a One Trillion dollar economy that would indicate a minimum underground economy of 1.5 to 2 Billion in what my favorite IRS agent calls 'hard evasion'. 'Soft evasion' BTW, he defines as deliberate or accidental mis-reporting of facts on returns, and claims it varies over a surprisingly large range, with a strong relationship to the IRS audit budget (no surprise). In short, the 'minimum', total US underground economy (the part that never shows on Govt numbers) estimates range from six to twelve Billion dollars in, addition to, a nominal GNP of one Trillion. That could be lot of small Galt's Gulches.
BUT, all that begs the only real question I found in the whole discussion,
Does the IRS have the sanction of their 'victims'?
Answ- Yes, validated statistical surveys run by numerous organizations ranging through, but not limited to, James Baxter out West, to Nielsen back East, by way of Washington's own OMB, all conclude that something in excess of 92% of US taxes are paid voluntarily, margin of error +-2%. AND by the way, with collection rates that are the envy of tax collectors world wide.
In essence I am agreeing with jaskn, I would only slightly modify his sentence, "If those victims decided that it was wrong to do it, the IRS would soon cease to exist.", into, "If _enough of_ those victims decided it was wrong to do it, the IRS could no longer be effective, and would therefore not last long."
Next HC, you quote a WSJ Tocqueville quote, which is an observation of human behavior, in America, when Andy Jackson was POTUS. I find no surprise, nor is it remarkable, Alexis perceived an apparent paradox in human behavior. Certainly no need to 'resolve' it. However, I heartily disagree that "democratic institutions strongly tend to promote the feeling of envy." Perceiving another's possession of something coveted, is the source of envy. It is the freedom to see, not some external institution that enables it. But then, Alexis was writing in French, and his words were translated, granted I know not by whom, and he certainly never read Rand, but maybe, just maybe, he meant what I said. However, none of that, has any bearing I can see, on the question HC follows up with "How can the weak lower the powerful?" !Maleton!, have you read no history? It is a long story of weak and strong dancing around each other, with an endless variety of methods.
Perhaps here to, is confusion between Art and Philosophy. These 'discussions' of weak, and powerful, and institutions of state etc. seem to refer to Ms. Rands Art, specifically AS. While I find too much of HC's postings abstruse enough to bother attempting a point by point reply, I suspect Ms. Rands pedantic, very Russian, approach to her use of the English language, may have contributed to some of the 'confusion' (meaning misunderstanding between me and HC). For example HC keeps coming back to the phrase "sanction of the victim", seeming to either question it, or be confused by it.
That I wish to address. IMO that phrase, is key to understanding the fundamental dynamics of the historical relationship between individuals who actually produce goods and services, and the various 'authorities' that have, over the years, defined the 'rules' by which these producers were 'allowed' to engage in economic intercourse. Any time a significant fraction of a population denies sanction to any person or persons assuming that sanction, change will happen. It may or may not become violent, but change will ensue. HC even stated he found no mystery in a person to person analog of this principle. To me it seems obviously scaleable.
The U.S.A was born in revolution. A significant fraction of colonists felt victimized economically, they removed their sanction of the authority, and met his continued demands with demonstration, attempted diplomacy, and violence. In a very real sense ALL revolutions begin with the removal of the sanction of victims. "The tree of liberty must from time to time, be nourished with the blood of patriots and tyrants." (TJ) Why is this mystifying?
-
The problem I have with Rand's man qua man is that what she means by that term is an idealized man, not a natural man. Man has the capacity for reason, which differentiates man from other animals, and she idealized this aspect of humanity.
Now I have two issues with her man qua man. The first is that there are plenty of good aspects of humanity that are not oriented around reason, e.g. sex and good food. But more importantly, my second issue is that focusing on the ideal leads one to be blind to the reality, to dealiing with the situation where man fall short of that ideal, for whatever reason.
Nobody here will come out and say that it's wrong to fight force with force and, yet, there is great hesitance to actually explore that line of thought. Always the discussion is taken in various tangents away from it either returning to the ideal or rejecting extremes that were never on the table in the first place.
I'm still trying to figure out why.
Say what!? Sir you have an odd and sometimes provocative turn of phrase. Oh, and just to be explicit, what you are still trying to figure out, is that your question is internally contradictory. "Nobody here will come out and say that it's wrong to fight force with force" BECAUSE on this forum one should not expect support for such an idea. I would suggest the proper response to force, is superior force. It is simple physics. As for rejecting extremes, I embrace them, "Convince me you intent to kill me and you are a dead man." is a moral statement.
Moreover, I disagree with the statement, "that focusing on the ideal leads one to be blind to the reality". Quite the reverse, it gives unambiguous points of reference when the day to day becomes confusing. For example: the ideal "De Oppresso Liber" has been of significant help to me in sorting out these "use of force" questions.
-
Absolutely true.
The underlying question is: what is the rational choice under such circumstances? Resorting to black markets seems like a good example.
So what can we conclude from this narrow example? That regulation determines whether the market is open or black, not whether commerce occurs, even under the most opppressive circumstances.
Dare we generalize from that?
Yes we do. That Free markets are the natural state. Whether the interference is from the state (govt) of from a monopolist (corp), it does not matter which group-of-people is up to no good, interfering with a free market is counter to individuals best interest.
-
I was responding specifically to SkyLab. I know for a fact (from the "Should we nuke Tehran?" thread), that one of the scenarios he's referring to is a US attack on Iran aimed at preventing them from gaining nukes.
That is why I responded the way I did. Because suggesting that the US doesn't have the moral justification to attack a murderous regime, and using Objectivist Ethics to base that claim on, defies logic.
Let's define "pre-emptive" as an unprovoked strike against any murderous dictatorship, terrorist group or gang, aimed at stopping them from committing further atrocities. Makes no difference who the victims were, or who the likely victims will be. Could be us, could be our friends, could be total strangers who will probably never even thank us. That's a nice, wide definition, hard to misunderstand.
As per the principle stated by Ayn Rand (no man may initiate force against another), such people are categorized as evil, and anyone has the moral authority to wipe them off the face of the Earth, simply because of what they are. No further justification of any kind is necessary. The fact that they violated that cardinal rule (no man may initiate force) on a large scale, is enough.
The notion that they would have to be a threat to me specifically before I should act, is the negation of the idea of principled thought itself. No use having a principled view of good and evil, if I'm only gonna act on it when immediately threatened. Even a mindless animal can act when immediately threatened, it doesn't need moral principles for that. What we need the concepts of good and evil for is to know how to build a whole world in which the good dominates over evil.
Obviously, none of this means the US government, by itself, should take on every dictator on the planet. But it does mean it has the moral authority to do so as it sees fit.
I seem to have expressed the idea weakly. The KEY idea I intend to convey is,
"Any sequence of behaviors that convince me as a skeptical observer that you are both able and intend to cause me mortal harm, is adequate initiation of force for me to retaliate." Nicky, I apologise if it was not clear that includes all the capable despots on our planet.
-
I'm afraid that your posts must be treated as if nothing is said, as without a 'greater semantic set' your outlook can not be treated as a proposition, and being inherently mathematical, it it can't be treated as anything else.
Wow that stings, but very well said. At some point I would like to revisit the topic, but do everyone the favor of using the 'greater semantic set' provided by the definitions provided on this site. Sincere apologies for wasting your time...
-
"At its most general, pantheism may be understood positively as the view that God is identical with the cosmos, the view that there exists nothing which is outside of God, or else negatively as the rejection of any view that considers God as distinct from the universe."
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pantheism/
The above link from the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (a favorite goto source for me) provides alot of good information about this particular form of theism, and is worth a look. I'm probably more inclined to consider myself a pantheist, if I had to be identified with a particular faith.
Thanks for the ref. You can see how long I spent browsing. I can be comfortable with the pantheist label.
-
Pantheism, perhaps??
Googled Pantheism. Got a lot of Wiki-type info. Plus a "World Pantheism website". Went to said website and did not find a lot to disagree with, they published 'basic concepts' as:
The basic concepts comprise:
- Reverence for Nature and the wider Universe.
- Active respect and care for the rights of all humans and other living beings.
- Celebration or our lives in our bodies on this beautiful earth as a joy and a privilege.
- Strong naturalism, without belief in supernatural realms, afterlives, beings or forces.
- Respect for reason, evidence and the scientific method as our best ways of understanding nature and the Universe.
- Promotion of religious tolerance, freedom of religion and complete separation of state and religion.
Would seem far easier to reconcile with Objectivism than Catholicism. Does however seem more 'new age' than most of the Objectivists I know personally, would care to gracefully tolerate for very long.
-
I agree that a supernatural "anything" is dated. Yet religious believers still hold to that claim.
I think the founders had it right when identifying "nature" as the relevant concept with regards to the source of rights (notwithstanding the politically correct nod to God and/or "Nature's God").
If we're talking about a "God" that is not supernatural, not omnipotent, we are talking about a yet to be defined concept (which many attribute the label of God). We could select any one of those concepts and study whether or not there is evidence of existence. However, none of those things proven to exist in nature are (or will ever be) what a person of faith is "believing" in.
Gravity was part of God until we had a name for that too. Anything one doesn't know can always arbitrarily be called the work of God... Until we know.
Until we know, that is the crux. Right now If someone says, God took the complement of an empty set and got a big bang, I have to smile and nod, and agree that sounds pretty omnipotent. But I can still assert that there seem to be symmetries 'He' never seems to break, again until we know. Being finite is actually fun.
-
Universe is simply "limited" to "all that exists". I don't think a a non-contradictory conceptualization of Omniverse is possible. It would be a "thing" and that thing would refer to "all that exists".
The Objectivist definition of universe is what I was suggesting.
Well I was just going on the structure of the word. The root meaning of Uni is one and the term came into common usage when the popular cosmology was a collection of galaxies. I am given to understand that implied the need for an 'omniverse' when multi-dimensional envelopes of collections of galaxies were discussed. If one chooses to make Uni mean THE one all encompassing cosmological concept, then fine I have no objection. I just have not used it that way. I do not want to quibble over words.
-
Pantheism, perhaps??
I've been accused of that, it does seem descriptive.
-
Ha! went back to the first opening post and reread what Steve asked, "I've noticed men of faith on this site and I'd like to confirm who you are and also, if you consider yourself an Objectivist, give you a chance to explain how faith and Objectivism are compatible."
Perhaps I am not one of the "men of faith" you have noticed. However I still consider myself one. I have faith in Reality, in the scientific method, in a huge canon of mathematics much of which I struggle to understand, and a similarly huge canon of physics and cosmology. If you constrain faith to mysticism, I am not your man. Like Rand I have no truck with folks who prefer to deny their own nature by refusing to think.
-
That term would be "universe."
Edit: (Or you may also prefer "existence.")
I would object to Universe, to limited. Omniverse maybe, existence is good, or even reality.
-
Dearest Devil's Ad,
I'm glad you noted that AR said it's a logical fallicy to prove a negative.
I can say, "A giant invisible peeping tom exists and He likes me to ask for favors via telepathy. And nobody has ever proven He doesn't exist."
I can't be proven wrong, because it's irreducible (untied) to reality. I have given an air of validity to the arbitrary, by the fact it can't be disproven, thereby smuggling it into the realm of concepts.
Dearest SLab,
Your "I cannot prove not P" is therefore not a way to validate the arbitrary assertion that a supreme consciousness exists.
New concepts should be deduced from Man's knowledge of reality, which makes them reducible to the axioms.
The arbitrary isn't. So faith is required.
Faith is irreconcilable and incompatible with Objectivism.
I am not trying to assert that a supreme consciousness exists. I have stated several times I cannot prove either assertion. Neither God exists, nor God does not exist, can be proven from concepts deduced from man's knowledge of reality and reduced to axioms. I do assert that concepts deduced from man's knowledge of reality and reduced to axioms, exhibit relationships and patterns that allow us to hypothesize further patterns, concepts and when validated against reality more knowledge. That process never ends, no faith is required. Willingness to explore outside your comfort zone however is.
-
Yet God, by definition, is supernatural. Outside AND inside of existence at the same time. It is a contradiction to start with.
It cannot be DEfined.
And shown above, the Devil would have to be APART from the set that is God. (another contradiction-- I'm not aware of any religion that says God and the Devil are the same)
Similar to Rand's statement that, "a consciousness with nothing to be conscious of is a contradiction in terms."
I like how Rand calls religion (paraphrasing) an early form of philosophy. It clearly is. I tend to think that God is a reduction (or inflation) of the concept of good. Devil is the same for evil. And probably, Allah is the concept of "all" (in a round-about way).
Prior to epistemology, apparently, humans just put arbitrary faces and meanings on these fundamental concepts.
Well, I do not accept that there is a 'supernatural'. So you assert that the term 'God' is useless to me? I do not buy into the whole good vs evil mythology. The devil is an artificial construct. A boogy man to frighten. Just as the gods of mythology are characterized to inspire. But I am still looking for a term to mean "That real system which is infinite, consistent, and complete."
-
Among other things, AR said [extremely paraphrasing]: Faith causes epistemological problems because it introduces the arbitrary into the realm of ideas. Don't debate arbitrary assertions. Treat the logical fallicy as if nothing was said because, in effect, nothing was.
The arbitrary (an assertion not deduced from reality), creates a breach with reality. "God exists" is an arbitrary assertion, not deduced from nature, but attributed to something of a super nature, that can't be disproven because it isn't encumbered by those pesky rules that govern reality.
The effects on the mind, caused by such a breach with reality, can get worse. Similar to how the breach caused by lying can ripple out of control.
I debate the arbitrary assertion of "God exists" only as an excersize in logic.
I think it more useful to argue that neither the arbitrary assertion that "God exists" nor the arbitrary assertion that "God does not exist" can be defended, only as an exercise in logic.
-
A is a proper superset of B if A contains all of B and other things.
So, if God is a proper superset of reality, then reality must be a set and God must contain things not in reality.
"an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset is called a nested hierarchy"; If God contains everything, then this is trivial. And what order is it in? Is God not a set after all, but a list?
The set of everything does not not contain anything.
This set (JavaScript) does not not contain anything:
God: { contains: function(x) { return true; } }
This set is the set of everything, because there is only one way to never reject input.
You could also say:
God: { contains: function(x) { peanoNumber(x) || !peanoNumber(x) } }
"no set can subsume it"; every set can be placed in a set. Including { God }.
This is all great sport, but we are going nowhere. I already agreed that using a weaker semantic set to discuss a greater one was 'my bad' in the beginning. I therefore must object to attempting to shoehorn the discussion into an even weaker semantic set as we go on. Predicate logic was bad enough, computer code/pseudo-code will get us no where. Do you even care to discuss any of this, or is this the way you chose to stop participating?
-
sl72> Fair enough, I am not trying to propose that propositional logic describes all outlooks. I am trying to use oppositional logic to express an idea. Saying An ill-defined idea (such as God) is not suited to formalization, simply tells me I have yet to succeed in conveying the idea. I am trying to avoid sounding like the speaking in riddles crowd and the lost in paradoxes crowd. My sincerest apologies for apparently adding another flavor of mud.
But to the question of god vs God. From several responses it seems to me, that many folks seem to have an intuitive notion that the size of a set should change when you remove members from it, and that notion does not extend to infinite sets. I will try to clarify more in coming responses
Caught error in previous post, sorry :{ NOT(I am trying to use oppositional logic to express an idea.) meant (I am trying to use propositional logic to express an idea.) I should never post during the morning hustle. Sorry.
-
Honorable rowsdower,
">>O.K. why not? [is every idea a logical proposition]"
The burden of proof should be on you, because I don't know how you came to the conclusion that propositional logic describes all outlooks.
An ill-defined idea (such as God) is not suited to formalization. And propositional logic itself could hardly be called a proposition.
sl72> Fair enough, I am not trying to propose that propositional logic describes all outlooks. I am trying to use oppositional logic to express an idea. Saying An ill-defined idea (such as God) is not suited to formalization, simply tells me I have yet to succeed in conveying the idea. I am trying to avoid sounding like the speaking in riddles crowd and the lost in paradoxes crowd. My sincerest apologies for apparently adding another flavor of mud.
But to the question of god vs God. From several responses it seems to me, that many folks seem to have an intuitive notion that the size of a set should change when you remove members from it, and that notion does not extend to infinite sets. I will try to clarify more in coming responses
">No, this is frustrating, I do say God is Reality. That sentence was still trying to get across this concept of an ultimate superset of all Reality."
I would disagree that reality is a set at all, but if so, is God a strict superset of all reality? If so, God is not reality.
sl72> I would be eager to hear why you think the phrase 'the set of all that is' is semantic null, but thank you for granting a supposition. I do however have trouble understanding 'strict superset'. Do you mean 'proper superset'? If so then yes. You can call it what you want, but an ordered set such that each subset is contained within its superset is called a nested hierarchy, and I am trying to express the idea that at the "top" of the hierarchy there has to be a final infinite superset or you are faced with the "turtles all the way down" thing just turned over. Infinite sets are not intuitive.
"So, the union of any set with its complement is God.
>>No, I never said ANY set, reductionist logic."The union of any set with its complement is the set of everything, AKA God.
A set of everything is simply a set that always says "yes, I contain this." Or formally, { x | ⊤ }. It is the complement of the nil set (Satan?).
O.K. here is where I concede the limitations of the paradigm I chose for attempting to express this thought. I would assert, the statement 'The union of any set with its complement is the set of everything', is more accurately stated as 'The union of any set with its complement is an infinite set of the same domain as the original set'. Even there 'domain' may be a bad choice of words, perhaps 'system' is better. I am trying to say not all sets are created equal. The set of all possible Zermelo-Fränkel expressions for example is an infinite set. The set of all of Peano's numbers is likewise an infinite set, yet Peano's numbers are a proper sub-set of Zermelo-Fränkel expressions. When you say reality is real, that thing you are talking about is the whole enchilada, no turtles all the way down, no evading the issue, Reality, capital R, infinite complete, consistent, all of it, no set can subsume it, contains the null set, complements the empty set, you insist it is real why do you shy away from someone using the it as a basis for defining a meaningful concept to replace mythological gods?
">> My last reading of latest and greatest in the study of physics sure looks like nature is pretty mathematical to me."
The ability to use math does not mean that things are made out of math.
sl72> I agree
Just like the ability to describe ideas using propositional logic does not mean ideas are propositional logic, or that reality is nothing more than a set of propositions.
sl72>Yup, got that also.
Just like the ability to talk about things does not mean that they are made out of words.
sl72> Precisely, the Meta cannot subsume the subject. If I left the impression I was trying to do that, I apologize. There were several places in this thread I seem to have left an inverse image. The Meta however is subsumed in the whole.
Objectivists try to be rational, but not rationalist.
Zap! My apologies. Right you are. I will be more careful in the future. sl72
-
Dearest Devil's Ad,
I'm glad you noted that AR said it's a logical fallicy to prove a negative.
I can say, "A giant invisible peeping tom exists and He likes me to ask for favors via telepathy. And nobody has ever proven He doesn't exist."
I can't be proven wrong, because it's irreducible (untied) to reality. I have given an air of validity to the arbitrary, by the fact it can't be disproven, thereby smuggling it into the realm of concepts.
Dearest SLab,
Your "I cannot prove not P" is therefore not a way to validate the arbitrary assertion that a supreme consciousness exists.
New concepts should be deduced from Man's knowledge of reality, which makes them reducible to the axioms.
The arbitrary isn't. So faith is required.
Faith is irreconcilable and incompatible with Objectivism.
Right you are. I assert both, I cannot prove P and I cannot prove not P. I just came to the conclusion that an All Inclusive Superset of Reality as a definition of God makes more sense than clinging to NotP, when that looks like it would logically reduce to NotReality, which I refuse to accept. I suspect this logic to be a form of "faith". Your mileage may vary.
-
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
This just makes no sense.
So, God by your definition would have to be conscious, and is the infinite set.
So, the union of any set with its complement is God.
def GodContains(x:Any) = true
This Scala code for the infinite set certainly isn't conscious.
Later on you act as if God exists in a much different sense than mathematical constructs exist.
Nature is not.
You can't talk about your outlook and claim to be outside of it. That would certainly be inconsistent of you.
Hardly. It is about math.
There must be some reason you don't say, "God is reality;" is God above reality?
You claim to be Objectivist, but your idea of "is" is awfully strange. Now we distinguish between God, reality, and nature, where God is über reality, but God exists (most things exist in reality, not above it); God is nature, but nature is not God.
...the hell?
No, it's not.
No, it's not.
I think the rationalists would be cool with everything you've said.
An outlook is a logical proposition? ✔
Über reality? ✔
God is an infinite set? ✔
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proves God? ✔
God is a mathematical concept? ✔
"Your mind is too small"? ✔
EDIT: I may not know whether P = NP, but I'm sure not going to ask God.
Admirable command of the multi-quite man...
But you force me to respond in a fashion a bit more old-school.
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:
Objectivism is a logical proposition.
No, it's not.
>>O.K. why not?
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:
Existence of a deity is a proposition.
No, it's not.
>>O.K. Why Not? It sure is not proven fact.
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:
My observable outlook is a finite logical system (be it logical or illogical)
This just makes no sense.
>>I wish you would say, "This just makes no sense to me.", when you fail to comprehend. The entire content of your mind is a finite logical system, how would you have me reference the set of things I am discussing?
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:
IMO: god in most cases, I have found to imply not conscious. God however, by my definition and convention (the capital letter) which I in no way am attempting to sell, as the infinite set/meta-set would have to.
So, God by your definition would have to be conscious, and is the infinite set.
>>No "the infinite set" can be integers or any other collection with no bounds, I am trying to express the set of ALL THAT IS. That Reality in which we live and breath.
So, the union of any set with its complement is God.
>>No, I never said ANY set, reductionist logic.
def GodContains(x:Any) = true
This Scala code for the infinite set certainly isn't conscious.
>> You are correct sir, that code is way to simple to be conscious.
Later on you act as if God exists in a much different sense than mathematical constructs exist.
>> Here again, I apologize for not being clear about the concept. I in no way claim or assert Gödel's work proves God or any other such construct. All I am saying is that His work made me rethink the proposition Not(God) and allowed me to come to the conclusion True(God) is more consistent with the my conviction that Reality is Real, than Not(God).
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:
My God, however is a mathematical concept
Nature is not.
>> My last reading of latest and greatest in the study of physics sure looks like nature is pretty mathematical to me.
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:
I MUST be able to talk about P outside my finite system in order to remain consistent.
You can't talk about your outlook and claim to be outside of it. That would certainly be inconsistent of you.
>>You have it backwards, it makes me incomplete. I am striving diligently for consistency.
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:
which is a paraphrase of the conclusion of Gödel's completeness theorem.
Hardly. It is about math.
>>Non-sequiter, the idea I was referring to with the word IT, was about math as well.
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 1:45 PM, said:
God exists as kind of an über Reality
There must be some reason you don't say, "God is reality;" is God above reality?
>>No, this is frustrating, I do say God is Reality. That sentence was still trying to get across this concept of an ultimate superset of all Reality.
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:12 PM, said:
God is nature not the other way around
You claim to be Objectivist, but your idea of "is" is awfully strange. Now we distinguish between God, reality, and nature, where God is über reality, but God exists (most things exist in reality, not above it); God is nature, but nature is not God.
>>No, No, No, Please I am not distinguishing between God and anything. I assert that cannot be done because God is Everything. The One And Only Superset.
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:12 PM, said:
That "formal recognition as "The Only God," which thou shalt recognize no other?" was, IMO, finally made formal by Gödel's proof...
...the hell?
>> feel free to ignore anything containing IMO…
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:28 PM, said:
what is supposed to be a rationalist forum.
No, it's not.
>> if objectivists are not rational what are they?
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:28 PM, said:
your mind is too small
No, it's not.
>> Maybe not, show me, I said IF.
Skylab72, on 15 Jan 2014 - 3:28 PM, said:
The rationalists may object
I think the rationalists would be cool with everything you've said.
An outlook is a logical proposition? ✔
>> Any set of assertions, however absurd, can be referred to as a proposition.
Über reality? ✔
>>Out of context, reductionist.
God is an infinite set? ✔
>> Not just any infinite set, the infinite superset of all sets, all that is Real.
Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem proves God? ✔
>> No, it implies, for me, a superset definition for God is more consistent than insisting on a nonexistent God. That would leave the existence of reality indeterminate. Which I refuse to accept.
God is a mathematical concept? ✔
>>Mine is, you can speak for yourself. Much of my reality is described well, only with math.
"Your mind is too small"? ✔
>>Again, NO IF you mind is too small, certain behaviors should be avoided.
EDIT: I may not know whether P = NP, but I'm sure not going to ask God.
>> Neither would I, I already know the identity property, and that statement is false. It puzzles me why you included nonsense at the end...
Best Regards...
-
Not sure why you're upset when I'm agreeing with everything you say, while disagreeing. Do you demand logic selectively?
I am upset by the Ad Hominem attack. I demand logic exclusively. Implying that opinions I express less preferred than those of a class whose irrationality is documentable, and responsible for the fracturing of their own religion (True Blue Catholics) is offensive. The logic you say you are striving for, IS mathematics, think it through man.
Simple questions of right and wrong
in Ethics
Posted
Line by line, I am truly sorry folks, feel free to skip this post.
TJF said>>>Thank you for your answer. It is very interesting but I would like some more information to make it clear.
You state in post #300: "I find that when the thinking ones and I share a goal like staying alive, and cooperate, the goal is more readily achieved."
In regards to the original post, my goal of staying alive is already being achieved before the man washes up on the beach, and my life does not end because I killed the man. So why is it immoral to kill the man who washes up on the beach when my goal of staying alive is being achieved?
>SL72> False premise. Survival is never "achieved" it is a process. By killing the newcomer you have reduced the probability you will survive. Stupid as well as immoral.<
What does "readily achieved" mean in this context? My goal of staying alive was being achieved on the island. Are you suggesting that that the goal was not being "readily" achieved therefore it was immoral to kill the man who washed up on the beach? Who decides, and by what standard is it decided, whether or not something is being "readily achieved"?
>SL72> RED HERRING see above<
What does "cooperate" mean in this context?
>SL72> look it up, it is in the dictionary. <
Cooperate how?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium <
Since the man who washed up on the beach was unconscious and did not do anything, he did not cooperate with me in achieving my goal.
>SL72> Moot you never gave him the chance.<
Does this mean that it was not immoral to kill him?
>SL72> No, it means you are being argumentative with no apparent motive. <
What would it mean if the man woke up and did not cooperate with me?
>SL72> It would mean you would have to use your brain to deal with the situation as it arose. <
Would it be moral to kill the man if that was the case?
>SL72> Not unless he initiated the use of force, and the force he used was potentially a threat to your life. <
You then state, "I value life, all life, my own is simply the instance of it most valuable to me. If you disagree expect mortal animus."
Please clarify.
>SL72> Why? It is a simple statement.
When you state that your own life is the instance of life that is most valuable to you, does this mean that you do not value all instances of life equally?
>SL72> Duh! Geez your tedious. (preempt, yes, that was ad hominem) Yes, of course. I have been known to step on ants and swat flies. reducto ad absurdium <
If you do not deem all instances of life equally valuable, is that how you justify destroying some instances of life in order to further your own, like when you eat something?
>SL72> Sustainability, replacible, contribution to the ecosystem, contribution to the economy, cuteness, any concomitant values involved. Do you have trouble understanding the difference between ants and people or are you being deliberately obtuse? <
How do you determine the value that you assign to a particular instance of life?
>SL72> That is both complex and subtle, from the preponderance of your previous posts I chose not to address it, not because I have not thought it through, I have, but because I am a combat veteran and am offended you treat such a serious subject with such a flippant attitude. <
How do you then know that the value that you have assigned to a particular instance of life is the correct value?
>SL72>see previous answer<
What if there is disagreement between you and another instance of life as to the value that should be assigned to a particular instance of life?
>SL72> Good example of your flip attitude, too many variables to formulate a meaningful answer, other than, 'depends'. <
How does this get resolved?
>SL72> see above answer. <
In regards to the original post, my life is the instance of life that is the most valuable to me, therefore the instance of life that is the man who washed up on the beach is less valuable than my life. Since I destroy instances of life that are not as valuable as my life all of the time, every time I eat for example, why is destroying another instance of life that is less valuable than my life immoral?
>SL72>reducto ad absurdium Have you ever considered becoming a vegetarian?<
You go on to state, "I find consistency promotes my value. I find awareness promotes my values. I therefore value the trustworthy and knowledgeable among the sentients. If you disagree you gain potential threat points."
Please clarify: "Consistency" with what?
>SL72> Internal consistency of epistemology, philosophy, ethics. <
and "Awareness" of what? <
>SL72> Reality. <
Please define "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable" as used in this context.
>SL72> Context here, does not modify the meaning. See Dictionary<
Do you judge whether or not someone is trustworthy and/or knowledgeable?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium <
If so, by what standard do you make that judgment and how do you know that your judgment is correct?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium in an absolute sense one never knows. But I trust the confidence levels I live within. <
Once you have made your judgement, if you do so, is everyone required to agree with your judgement?
>SL72> No, why should they? The caveat of course being, some disagreements signal issues fundamental enough to have real world consequences. <
Does your statement mean that if someone does not meet your definition of trustworthy and/or knowledgeable you do not value that person or you value that person less?
>SL72> Their life, no, their opinion absolutely, my willingness to interact with them or seek common goals, for sure. <
Would it then become moral to kill someone who you judge not to be trustworthy and/or knowledgeable?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium Same question again, same answer, NO. <
If I judged the man who washed up on the beach to not be trustworthy or knowledgeable would it then be moral to kill him?
>SL72> absurdium How many times are you going to ask this same question, which has already had multiple cogent responses, all agreeing in a resounding "NO". <
Who or what decided that "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable" are the traits to value?
>SL72> I did, you got any better ideas? <
Are there any other traits to value or are we limited to "trustworthy" and "knowledgeable"?
>SL72>reducto ad absurdium Of course there are others, why do YOU not list a few? <
Why is this correct?
>SL72> Why is what correct?<
---What are "threat points"? How do "threat points" work? What are the consequences of gaining "threat points"? Who decides what the consequences, if any, are and who carries out those consequences? Is it moral or immoral to inflict the consequences, if any, of gaining threat points on someone? Why? In regard to the original post, how do "threat points" work on the island?---
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium If it is not self evident, this is a case where it can be safely ignored.<
You then state, "In order to promote these values and my life to the maximum I can, I logically must consistently behave in a manner supportive of their logic."
Please define "maximum."
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium It is in the dictionary.<
Does your definition of "maximum" apply only to you or does it apply to everyone?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium <
What if my definition of "maximum" is different than your definition?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium again, I refer you to the dictionary. <
Who is right?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium The people who use the word enough to get it included in the dictionary. <
In regard to the original post, if I define what it means to promote my life to the maximum I can, and my definition includes killing anyone and everyone who washes up on the beach and I carry this out consistently, does this mean that it is not immoral, in fact it is moral, to kill the man who washed up on the beach?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium Same question, same answer. Boring<
You then state, "Your desert island is simply an attempt to resurrect the brain-a-vat argument, and it consistently breaks down as much more difficult to support logically than admitting that reality exists."
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium The reality is: other people do exist, being isolated on an island does not change that fact, nor the morality of murder. <
Please show me where in the original post, or any other place, that I do not admit, or that I deny that, reality exists? To my knowledge, I have never denied that reality exists.
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium Every subsequent time you have asked the same question. <
You then state, "Believing that it is O.K. to kill anyone without a very good reason to kill them, is to me, adequate reason enough to kill you."
What constitutes a "very good reason" to kill someone?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium When they pose, in an O'ist best judgement, a mortal threat. <
Who decides if a reason to kill someone is "very good" or "good" or "somewhat good" or any other description? How do they make that decision, how do they know that it is correct, and why do they get to make the decision?
>SL72> red herring + reducto ad absurdium The individual under threat. <
Does this statement mean that you believe that it is moral to kill someone because of his or her beliefs?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium Only when those beliefs are stated, and when they support a viable mortal threat hypothesis.<
I have not stated that it is my belief that it is O.K. to kill anyone. Nor have I actually killed anyone. But even if I did believe that it was O.K. to kill someone without a "very good reason" and did not actually kill anyone, do you believe that it is moral to kill me?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium No, not unless you convince the killer you intend to act on the belief. You have however, asked repeatedly why it is NOT O.K. to kill anyone. <
If a person has different beliefs than you is that a "very good reason" for killing him or her?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium Previously answered, NO. Nixon and his cronies did try to convince me that was true once. <
Additionally, if you believe that someone's belief that it is it is O.K. to kill someone without a very good reason is an "adequate reason" to kill that person, then is it then O.K. to kill you because it is your belief that it is O.K. to kill someone with only an "adequate reason" and not a "very good reason"?
>SL72> reducto ad absurdium seriously <
On a side note and purely to help me better understand human behavior, what was the purpose of the statement, "Pardon me son, but I'm gonna cut you off at the pass"?
Why did you use the word "son"? I am not your son, so you were not making a statement of fact. It appears that your use of the word "son" is some kind of attempt to belittle me or cast me in an unfavorable light or to imply that I am a child therefore anything that I write should be taken as childish. Is this, or something like it, what you intended to do? If so why? If not, then why did you use the phrase, "Pardon me son..."?
It was meant as levity, an old John Wayne quote. Clearly I failed as a comedian. Sorry.