Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

frank harley

  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by frank harley

  1. * * * Split from: Is the Electric Universe theory a better integrated cosmological view? Tangential point. * * * 'Existence' implies atoms with nucleon in tact and electrons within orbitals. OTH, plasma means a condition so hot that electrons and nucleons fly apart. Big difference.
  2. The issue of reasoning from 'first principle' was first raised by Descartes. As we know that Bimini lies due east of Miami, we can reasonably derive a compass orientaion in the appropriate direction. As second principle reasoning will be the tweaks needed due to wine and currant, it's obvious that principles are necessary, yet insufficient.... sufficient.
  3. How about saying that a principle is a mental construct that guides action and behavior? We tend assume that the Latin 'principia' indicates qualitative priority rather than simple time, but this is incorrect. Rather it means, first, to think, then to act...
  4. Thanks for the youtubes, which I'll watch with interest. I was referring, however, more to a lack of on-line polemics.
  5. No. 'Robotizing' is a value-judgment. Tech also makes life easier.
  6. I think you'll have far more success in ridding yourself of spiritual mumbo-jumbo and getting down to the basic question: a particular technology for whom?
  7. It's not a laziness vs evolution issue. Rather, the advance of techology serves and hurts whom? If Luddites qua metaphor stand for 'any tech innovation is bad', then it's equally wrong to assume any tech's goodness.
  8. If the owners of new mechanical looms are said to be savvy enough to recognize the benefits it would bring to 'them', then it would follow that the Luddirtes were savvy enough to see the misery it wouold bring to themselves, too. Mechanical looms tossed people out of jobs. as does much or automation. That automation can serve as a benefit to all (and not just the 'them-people orf invention) is an issue that must be discussed in a collective, cost-benefit sort of way...
  9. Another 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.
  10. 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.
  11. What's laughable is that you seem not to know much of literature. 'Epic' refers to the taking apart and examining of the entirety of a society, from top to bottom. Think of Les miserablesd, fif not tolstoy, as given. Atlas is about the rise of Galt and his justification for capitalism. Agreeing does not make for 'epic'.
  12. The standard novel-length is said to be 350-400 pages--based upon average reading skills and attention sopan over days. Moreover, in the past, longer novels came out as serials, later to be pasted together as a singularity. the best two examples are War and Peace and Anna karenia. Atlas want to be an epic, but fails in scope, as it's primarily about only one particular issue, as important as it might be. For example, no one can ever imagine giving a speechas long as Galt's...
  13. Althoght i love Arendt, I believe she was absolutely wrong in her assessment of Eichman. At least the evil of his own doing was hardly 'banal'. At his trial, Eichman did try to present himself as an obedient functionary who was just doing his job--and Arendt swallowed the story hook line and sinker. Rather, the biographical truth revealed that he was a hysterical Nazi anti-semite.
  14. Yes, Arendt was arguing against Hayek. Her economic point of reference was Karl Polanyi. Since the natural tendency of capitalism is to destroy itself by the rich getting richer, it thereby acts as a barrier to the formation of democratic institutions. Moreover, markets--which she was for--can only be maintained by strong state intervention.
  15. No, there are no 'rights' that exist outside of the social context that give them meaning. This is evinced by the origins of our term, both in Latin and middle French: 'ius' and 'droit'. Locke talked of 'natural rights within the context of divine right, which gave the monarch entitlement over all property. Locke saw ,'natural' as meaning 'everywhere', or universally true. In this sense, his argument was that those who worked the land were entitled to its benefits--hence, 'ownerhip/property' as a legal rebus.. In passing, Lincoln used natural property rights to justify the blocking of slave labor into the terratories, as do, of course, socialists.
  16. The best i can do is say that the statements 'existence exists' and 'A=A' are Aristotelian referrentials that O-ism takes as true on face value. OTH, the basis of 'modern' philosophy-- beginning with Hume-- calls these two statements into question as a matter of philosophical practice. Hence Rand's hatred for Kant as 'evil', etc...
  17. Rand fails to contextualize her arguments for individualism within the context of a given social reality. In other words, since we're all for individualism, the real philosophical problem is one of becomming, in terms of whays and hows. This is not accomplished by a priori fiat that 'the individual exists'. Rather, such satements are anti-philosophical because they seem to kill the question. Next, freedom must be contextualized as to what controls and restraints are either becessary or beneficial. In this respect, what needs to be considered are the effects we have on others that are un-intended, yet clearly real. Ethically, to say we act 'selfishly' belabors the point. Rather, to what extent is altruism benefical, and how does it play against self-interest? Calling Kant 'evil' is silly. She doesn't really seem to have understood him. Inspired by Quine, Kripke developed a causal theory of language-reference which seems to harken back to Aristotle. Certain Rand-philos (ie Machan) have mentioned that this is somewhat close to Rand's notions. It needs to be developed...
  18. Socialism as purely defined can work no where. This is because in many cases, ownership of the means of production are always best left to individuals--agriculture being the best example. Otherwise, SNCF (French government ownership) trains rarely crash in tunnels, as written in Atlas. As for your past argument about Marx, of course i'm not 'familiar' . Kindly re-post.
  19. I don't know what a 'legitimate' post would like: perhaps Harrison might elaborate? Saying that governing bodies ('states') exist to serve needs that are best accomplished collectively says nothing as to what these needs might be. Moreover, it's the democratic process itself which decides not only what is best collectvely accomplished, but also the moral virtue in their accomplishment. Think of it as a bicycle with a front and back wheel, or even the intellectual ability to walk and chew gum at the same time. Both means and ends related questions are indeed hard.
  20. I Agree. to have a debate both sides must be in agreement as to what the A's really are. But this condition is what nullifies the claim of any particualr debater that A is only what he/she claims it to be at the moment spoken.
  21. Aleph, For the sake of argument, technology alters the necessities that collective enterprises can do better. But my point to Illya is that this, precisely is how the question of the state should be framed: the efficacity of a collective do-ing versus what an individual can do on his/her own. There is also the ethical issue as to what we want a state to do, the best example her being warfare. Do we find it morally justifiable, for example, to go to war with , say Mexico to steal their oil reserves? I mentioned medicine because here the numbers cl;easrly justify tax pooling into a nation health system on the model of ...everyone else. That America refuses for moral reasons indicates the balanced cost-benefits between the practical and the ethical. 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.
  22. Ilya, Dictionary daffy-nitions often give ambivalent ,meanings becauswe they're task is to offer all current uses. To this end, it's indeed regrettable that certain of the less-educated refer to a national group as a 'race'. By far the more currently acceptable use means 'physical phenotype'-- without reference to culture. Althought i disagree with many parts of Objectivism, I enjoy following Rand's thought as it's played out because,at least, she asked the right question: what does it mean tio be an individual?
  23. First of all, I'm really not sure what model you're referring to. Western Europe developed welfare states in the second half of the 19th century. OTH, Russia's attempt thru 'zemstevo' failed miserably. Moreover, while it might be said that social welfare was introduced because of pressure from (non-Marxist) socialists, the welfare reforms were in greater part carried out by conservatives. Russians cling to Stalinsim not because they're stupid as human beings, but rather because in terms of developing viable democratic and economic institutions, they're still barefoot and pregnant. Lastly, the purpose of a state is to do things as a collective that individuals cannot do on their own. This also includes deriving cost-benefit from collective spending and accepting collective liability on forseeable events that will eventually effect all members. For example, comprehensivehealth care, in which the Americans are either hopelessly barefoot and pregnant in terms of the numbers and/or bogged down in a pseudo-individualist cult of refusal. This, too, is utter nonsense. But we don't justify one's nonsense by citing others, do we? Therefore, to speak of living for the state is utter nonsense. It's nothing but the rhetorical flip-side of the juvenile division of people into holding either 'collectivist' or 'individuaslist' beliefs. For one, people can possess the moral insight and responsibility of passing down weath and progress to future generations without embracing any state ideology. Millions died in the Great Patriotic War because killing Germans was simply the right thing to do. They didn't sacrifice themselves for the glory of Stalin, or that Mamayev Kurgan might be turned into an amusemant park. It must also be remarked that the communists intentionally hid the true human cost of the war by at least ten million. The regime that you nostalgically remember as having some good could not even give proper recognition to its own dead. Ryzov...Yelna...the entire Stalingrad campaign...this is shameful.
  24. 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.
  • Create New...