frank harley
-
Posts
212 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Posts posted by frank harley
-
-
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....
Just when I thought Eva had learned not to flash her knowledge of languages she doesn't know...
The dictionary entry is "principium", not "principia", which is its plural.
She still overuses "rather", and her whitebread Anglo pseudonyms are still a giveaway. On the other hand, her spelling has improved.
sufficient.
-
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...
-
Unlike the caring Romans, Normans, Vandals, Huns, Mongols and Spartans?
cute reply!
-
There have been plenty of debates, get out there and look for them. Here's one:
Is there any reason to say this wasn't a level playing field? The "socialists" (may as well call them Marxists) had equal time.
There was once a debate between Christopher Hitchens, back in his Marxist days (I'm talking early 90's), and Objectivists. Some people have it on tape but I don't know where it might be available.
Where Objectivists (particularly those associated with Peikoff) have been bad is in being willing to debate with people who are closer to them philosophically. Libertarians, mainly. Here's an example of what that might look like:
Smith isn't technically an Objectivist, but the case he makes here is basically the same as I'd expect any well spoken one to make. Obviously Friedman is a different animal, though also in the Libertarian tent.
Thanks for the youtubes, which I'll watch with interest. I was referring, however, more to a lack of on-line polemics.
-
What's the big deal? Just say what you think about technologies. Aren't they robotizing humankind? Or humankind wants to be robotized?
No. 'Robotizing' is a value-judgment. Tech also makes life easier.
-
Technological goodness by itself is bad. Just as anything by itself is bad. (I am arguing the same about Objectivism.) Technological progress must be coupled with spiritual evolution, viz., the evolution of consciousness.
A pertinent quote from Beyond Good and Evil, 88: "Pharisaism is not a degeneration in a good man: a good deal of it is rather the condition of all being good." Such Pharisaism can be either technological or spiritual. Either one is the right of stagnation.
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?
-
This is a pertinent issue. I quote from The Divine Right of Stagnation by Nathaniel Branden (Rand, Ayn, Nathaniel Branden. The Virtue of Selfishness. 1964: 117f, original italics):
Capitalism's tempo (likened to the hectic Nietzsche's tempo, for me) is greater than that of Socialism. Some people just want to be lazy and invincibly ignorant. Others want to evolve.
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.
-
There appears to be a slight vitriol here toward Capitalism, and more directly toward Objectivism.
Historically, the Luddites became known for attacking what they did not understand. When the labor-saving device made their debut on the scene, naturally these machines where built to perform the tasked being performed of the day, only more efficiently than what was being performed tediously and less efficiently.
Did the Luddites embrace this new advance in the application of reason to the problem of production? Quite contraire. The proud new owners of these fine pieces of machinery enabling higher productivity than previously possible often found themselves the victims of vandals.
The mechanical weaving loom embodied the new knowledge of the time. It was attacked by those who desired things to remain the same. In this sense, the Luddites resisted change. The Luddites did not want to change. Their response was to try to destroy the physical symbol of this change, in their feeble effort to stop the change. Now while they were successful at destroying others private property, new machines were being produced and innovations implemented along the way to improve their efficiency. Unfortunately, sometimes the owners of these machines were attacked instead of, or in addition to.
What has any of this to do with Capitalism or Objectivism? The analogy is apt. Keep in mind, the mechanical loom was the embodiment of the new idea. The owners were savvy enough to recognize the benefit it would bring them. Before the idea could be embodied into a machine, or another mind recognize the potential it offered, it first had to be discovered. This is key.
Capitalism has never been given a full political test run, but still continues to operate to this day, The black-market, which runs when arbitrary decrees seek to throttle various aspects of it, arise under nearly every political regime, where a full embracement of Capitalism is verboten.
So what do the modern day 'Luddites' have to fear? It is simple. The moral underpinnings that will support Capitalism in the future, the same moral underpinnings that ground Objectivism as a philosophy proper to man. To paraphrase Ayn Rand speaking through John Galt, morality needs to be discovered. Well, Miss Rand has discovered the foundations for morality. The opponents of this morality may obfuscate, misrepresent, and even muddy the waters - but the waters will settle, the misrepresentations will be exposed, and the feeble evasions exposed as attempts being unclear and confusing at best. This does not wayside the fact that such a morality has been discovered. While Aristotle's Law's of Logic were relegated to relative obscurity for nearly a millennia, it is hard to fathom Miss Rand's discovery being relegated to the same fate.
A misapplication of "A is A" along the way is, quite simply, a misapplication of "A is A" along the way.
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...
-
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.
-
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 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.
-
"Fails... as it's primarily about only one particular issue."
This is laughable on its face for anyone who's read the book, but two questions:
1. It "tries"? *Rand* didn't try to do that -- she's said publicly she tried to show her ideal man.
2. What would this one particular issue be? The role of reason in individuals, and the consequences both of adhering to and ignoring that? That's... not epic?
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'.
-
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...
-
Agree with Nyronus to the very last word.
I thoroughly recommend reading Hannah Arendt's three main books. I started with EIJ, The Banality of Evil which is literally moving, then, can't recall the exact name but "History of the Jews and Zionism and other Essays" in which, as in EIJ, shows immense intellectual honesty while portraying the non-holy, condition of both Herzl and the European Jewry of the late XIXc breaking many taboos that need to be broken.
Finally in Origins of Totalitarianism I learnt the distinction between the too usual Dictatorship and true Totalitarianism.
Sayin that an Objectivist shouldn't read Hannah Arendt because she was a Kantian semi-theist is akin to saying one shouldn't read Thomas Aquinas because he was a Catholic
As Ayn Rand herself admitted, she got inspiration in some individuals works (like Frank L Wright) but none in their person.
It was in her fiction works that we can find heroes of such integrity (hence, they are heroes).
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.
-
I haven't read any of those, but in The Human Condition Arendt says,
"I fail to see on what grounds...liberal economists can justify their optimism that the private appropriation of wealth will suffice to guard individual liberties-that is, will fulfill the same role of private property. In a jobholding society [individual] liberties...are constantly threatened, no by the state, but by society, which distributes jobs and determines the share of individual appropriation."
Arendt seems to think that a job is an individual right that can be taken away by society, and we know that employment is not a right. But her view on private property is even clearer with this,
"Consideration of private ownership should be overruled in favor of the ever-increasing process of social wealth."
Attack away.
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.
-
"Rights" has become, in modern English, a noun and grammatically an attribute. But all it means is a value judgment: it is right. Expressing value judgments may be a waste of time if you are alone, since there is no one to listen to them, but making value judgments is never a waste of time. Saying "I have a right to..." just means "It is right that I ...."
There are those who will claim that "rights" are only a sensible idea in a social context. But that confuses judging what is right with saying what is right.
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.
-
This is an interesting thread. Having never read most of the thinkers mentioned, I feel pretty stupid here. Would you help me integrate the Oist statement existence exists into my system of thinking? In my logical model, there is everything and nothing. To keep this short, starting with subatomic particles and ending with Omniverse is everything. Would it be valid for me to equate my term everything to existence? If so, it would become: everything exists. Our relations to everything are built through perceptually identifying some things. Hence our body is our body and our environment is our environment. Something that exists is a part of everything that exists. Are there any fallacies in my thinking? Does existence have to be material or can it also include what is caused by matter (e.g., consciousness)? If a metaphysical concept can be identified with a spatiotemporal dimension, it can be included somewhere between particles and Omniverse. Does such existence have to be perceived deductively or inductively? Either way it's perceived, though, I deem it fits my model.
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...
-
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...
-
This may sound strange to those of you who are familiar with my arguments about Marxism, but here is what I have learned from Atlas Shrugged: socialism can never work in America. Having this premise as the base for later discussion, we can argue on how to make an individualistic system of economy that everyone (Democrats, Republicans, etc.) can agree to support.
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.
-
Notice how Frank's politics start with the capacity for "do-ing" things, instead of which things to do. That's an attempt to circumvent the hard questions altogether and, if accepted as a proper basis, will never allow him to answer the easy ones.
---
I have nothing to say, Frank, about your post's legitimacy as such. This is simply an explanation as to why.
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.
-
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.
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.
-
What are those things? There are precious few things we cannot do on our own. If those things are maintaining courts to adjudicate disputes, a defensive military, and police who pick up the pieces after violent crime, then I agree with you. Otherwise, I divorce you, I divorce you, I divorce you.
To live for the state is to sacrifice for others. This is the basis of all those failed value systems that litter history. They divide value from virtue and hence lead to bastard moralities that leave disappointment, frustration and horror in their wakes.
The industrial innovations in the last decade alone show that we don't need NASA, the post office, etc. I want to pay for all services that I receive so that no dishonest strings remain attached. To the extent that I am forced into government health care, you can be sure that government doctors will have to treat every boil on my *ss. I demand the best and most abundant treatment your dollars can buy.
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.
-
Yes. Here are also two definitions from dictionary.com that I accept: race is "a group of persons related by common descent or heredity." culture is "the total of the inherited ideas, beliefs, values, and knowledge, which constitute the shared bases of social action" among others.
Some examples are: the American-Indian culture, the Slavic culture (or Slavic-Aryan), the Chinese culture, etc. Pretty much every country has a culture. However, countries such as the U.S.S.R. and the U.S. created their cultures relatively recently and thus could still be considered artificial and unnaturalized. Yes, if you wish to argue for the American culture (of the founding fathers, westerns, country music, thanksgiving and independence day holidays, the american flag, etc.) I will not disagree, but will even promote such identity as being considered race/culture.
1) Nature is the surface of the planet shared by people socially. World is a sphere that includes all events through time and that are inseparable from human societies (the artificial factors) as well as nature (natural factors, such as reproduction, and being in harmony with nature in general).
2) I differentiate between world and nature, just as I differentiate between society and race. Social identity can be undifferentiated and faceless, whereas racial identity always has a face (i.e., specific and unique culture). What you see as separating people is actually differentiating people in order to later unite all in the world. Cultural assimilation should only occur when one identifies with some culture, not when one is forced into it. Type "races" or "races peace" into google and you will hopefully understand what I mean. The unity of races, not just nations.
frank harley:
Thank you for joining the discussion! It's nice to meet new people!
The society debate may still be a part of what I am writing here, but I would prefer to concentrate more on race instead.
The model that I was referring to is my own. It is quite extensive and the piece that I posted here is only a small part of it. The thread that has the whole model is Integrating Objectivism and Marxism and specifically post #182.
Another important point is that some of the expressed ideas in the beginning of that thread (except for the model) are obsolete and in lieu of which there are new upcoming developments (i.e., the Neo-Objectivist philosophy that I am still working on).
The one idea that I do not promote anymore is democracy. Instead, it is going to be a republican government (specifically, aristocratic one). When I have finished reading some Objectivist books and have finalized the new theory, I will post it in the economic forum.
Most people are living in that belief. I agree with pretty much everything you mentioned, though. There needs to be an integrative way of living one's life. It is not about living for the government or specific individuals. It is about living for one's own sake that is not in conflict with others.
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?
-
aleph_1, I agree with you. Now that we are done with historical mistakes and downfalls, what can we learn from them? One answer is: we need Democracy. That is why socialists/communists/marxists today believe in Democratic Socialism (Democratic Socialists of America, Communist Party of the Russian Federation). Why are they clinging to the semblance of the previous model? Because there is something good in that model. It is naive to believe that intelligent people can be so stupid. They are not, well, at least not all of them, are stupid. There are some very good individuals out there who want to live in a society that they would like to build. I want to live in such a society. Because society is a goal. This is what we are attempting to build. It is not just to have a family for the sake of a family (which usually does not work out, e.g. "Breaking Bad"), but it is to have a family as a society we can all share and build together. Outside of this, individuals simply die with a legacy they bequeath to their offspring, so that those can build a better society.
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.
-
Frank said:
How is it un'natural' ? Unless you mean "not in the wolves nature"... But the difference here seems to be the same already being bandied with. There is no such thing as "unnatural" in the sense that all there is, is nature. But particular things have a specific nature that is not identical to other existents. The latter is the only sense that would make sense in an attempt to repudiate anthropomorphism of a non human species.
The axioms remind us that everything is what it is. But the knowledge of a particulars qualites-attributes is to be identified conceptually via experience. Axioms are timeless, knowledge of particulars is contextual.
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.
What are the implications of existence regarding plasma?
in Physics and Mathematics
Posted · Edited by dream_weaver
* * * 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.