Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Szalapski

Regulars
  • Posts

    67
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Szalapski got a reaction from gio in Line of reasoning from "A is A" and basic observations to the role of government   
    OK, so let me boil this down to an informal line of reasoning that I can ponder and scrutinize:
     - Things exist. A=A.
     - Living things exist and act in order to live.
     - People exist and act on the basis of thoughts.
     - A person's values is the object of his actions--what a person acts to gain or keep.
     - Values would be meaningless without life, but life gives values meaning.
     - Values are moral if they are in line with life.
     - Since people are only individuals, this judgment applies to individuals.
     - The individual's own life is his own ultimate value.
     - Achieving one's values is the way to happiness.
     - Humans must use volitional and abstract thinking to survive.
     - Observation is required, gaining knowledge.
     - We must integrate our observation into concepts, generalizations, and principles that correspond to reality so that we can act.
     - Only physical force (including fraud) from others can prevent such action and cause us to act otherwise, to act in bondage.  A human life is a life guided by the judgment of one's mind.
    - Government should exist to prevent such force and not to initiate such force itself.
    Did I miss anything?  Where are the logical leaps in the above?  I shall ponder it further.
  2. Like
    Szalapski got a reaction from softwareNerd in Too many subforums?   
    Just start merging several forums as an experiment, and see how you like it.  I think it will be better to have fewer to keep track of.  The only reason to have separate subforums is when they get too active to keep track of, so that visitors can focus on the subforums they care about the most.  However, having a subforum for aesthetics and a subforum for literature and arts.  I understand the differences between the two, but niether one is popular enough to stand on its own.
    See also: https://blog.codinghorror.com/dont-make-me-think-second-edition/
    We want to make the users think about Objectivism, not about the forum nuances.
  3. Like
    Szalapski reacted to hunterrose in Ought from Is   
    I get you somewhat on the is-ought question: if you can determine what your value is (and has to be,) you know can then figure out what ought to be done to attain the value.

    I question whether life has to be that ultimate end, though. What exactly do you mean child's welfare as the "ultimate value" inevitably leads to the alternative of life or death?
  4. Like
    Szalapski reacted to Eamon Arasbard in Existence exists.   
    Alright. I think my questions have been answered. I was under the mistaken impression that Rand considered her metaphysical axioms alone sufficient to establish that the reality we percieve exists independent of the mind.
  5. Like
    Szalapski reacted to Eiuol in I have made "Objections to Objectivism", a podcast that examines problems with Objectivism, as a way myself to learn it. Would love feedback.   
    Some people do better when they present arguments against the very thing they are learning about. Perhaps the objection is trite to the more learned person, or oversimplified, or confused, but this is how learning works. When a kid learns astronomy, there may be weird objections that are bizarre, asking about how aliens built the solar system. Clearly, Szal's objections are more sophisticated than that. But by presenting the objection, often that suggests wanting to learn more. Szal probably has some good questions, and also errors in reading Rand as people do with any philosopher.
    A good way to find contradictions in oneself is to use one's ideas "above" their knowledge level. To do well in that setting, you need to say what you understand and your issue with it, even before a strong foundation. When you get something totally wrong, errors become clearer. If you learn to cook, say, sometimes deliberately ignoring an ingredient or technique, objecting to fantastic advice from pros, helps you learn why those techniques are used.
     
  6. Like
    Szalapski reacted to New Buddha in I have made "Objections to Objectivism", a podcast that examines problems with Objectivism, as a way myself to learn it. Would love feedback.   
    Szalapski,
    If it's true that you have not read ITOE yet, then you really need to.  It's central to understanding Objectivism.
  7. Like
    Szalapski reacted to Eiuol in I have made "Objections to Objectivism", a podcast that examines problems with Objectivism, as a way myself to learn it. Would love feedback.   
    Pyramid of ability you get a bit wrong - it's just to say that greater intellectual effort has an incalculable value.
    http://aynrandlexicon.com/lexicon/pyramid_of_ability.html
    The other thing is lifeboat scenarios so to speak. It's not really agreed upon in Objectivist thought. There are a few threads, and I've made arguments as to how that there is context to moral principles, yet moral principles are binding. Others would say the context is being alive at all. Either way, rational self-interest is the point, which is difficult to figure out. It at least involves figuring out one's identity as a whole which includes psychology, not just a desirable material outcome.
    Lastly, Rand didn't arrive at her ideas deduced from the law of identity. That's just the logical structure. She arrived at her ideas by slowly studying history and philosophy, and more. Robert Nozick wrote one paper on Rand, but took her as -deducing- ethics, which is an error.
    Good idea on the podcast - thinking out loud is a good way for some to learn.
     
  8. Like
    Szalapski reacted to StrictlyLogical in Reblogged:March for Science: Wrong Direction and Speed   
    It would be an error to assume taking a position on science (pro or anti) logically entails a particular position on government funding.
    It's an unfortunate culture that causes the myriad errors which encourage us to assume we have to choose to be "for" or "against" any peaceful voluntary human exercise of anyone else, whether it is baking pies, writing music, or doing science.  I value (and pay for) books, documentaries, education, and gadgets, which require in part the work of scientists ... if others also value the things I value.. great... if others don't they don't.  Who am I to force them?
    Conflation and error abounds.
×
×
  • Create New...