Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Content Count

    1169
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    22

Easy Truth last won the day on April 14

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

About Easy Truth

  • Rank
    Senior Member

Recent Profile Visitors

2161 profile views
  1. It may be metaphorical but an example would be a plant growing toward the sun. It is an alternative that is life enhancing for the plant, it is a movement too.
  2. But how do you identify volitional movement as apposed to non-volitional movement? Can't volitional movement be "mimicked" by deterministic systems? The question was discussed in the thread regarding "external indicator".
  3. Then let's start with the first question (a repetition in some ways): Are these objects an illusion? (starting with a yes or a no will be helpful) Are you saying that classifying things as secret has no purpose, it's just a knee jerk reaction? Everything that is weird is classified? So ladies and gentlemen, go back to what you were doing, there is nothing to worry about. What is the purpose of the classification? Is it "don't ask, it's for your own good"? If you want to say "there is no purpose, they just do it", it would be an authoritarian government's typical exc
  4. The more I have thought about this statement, the more I am convinced that this is an arbitrary assertion. The potential to harm is not an identifying component of the unknown. In fact, nothing is identifiable about the unknown. If you are truly speaking of the unknown, you would not know what potential it has. To make any assertion about it would be arbitrary. So it is a certain definition or category of unknown you are speaking of. You seem to know "something" about this unknown.
  5. The typical question is as Swig put it: Are they real? And Lev started out with not knowing what the question meant. Typical with most incidents. Which has been at the core of the issue. Some thinking they are real and some thinking they are not. Real does not mean are they biological robots. "Real or not" means, are they optical illusions or not. Up until now the story has been that they are like optical illusions. Why has the government consistently tried to keep it quiet for at least 80 years? One of the concerning questions is: who is trying to keep it "undiscussed
  6. Higher prenatal exposure to testosterone and higher circulating levels of this hormone were associated with lower risk aversion. The organizational effects of testosterone on risk aversion appeared to be weaker than the activational effects, perhaps because prenatal hormone exposure was assessed with indirect measures Copied from: Gender differences in financial risk aversion and career choices are affected by testosterone | PNAS - <https://www.pnas.org/content/106/36/15268> Not asking but indicating that (biological) risk aversion will color one's assessment of the environmen
  7. I have a question: Do you see “unknown, unforeseen factors” as necessarily being harmful? If you do, then not being harmed by these infinite unknowns would indicate an ever present shield against this eternal malevolence. And therefore, underneath that thought process is a belief that the universe is in fact malevolent. But the vast majority of unknowns are benign, irrelevant, imatterial, harmless. I know know how many red cars are in New York. I don't know how many hairs are on Donald Trump's head. I don't know if you are wearing shoes. I don't know if Louie wears glasses. etc.
  8. Well, if that's the case, I can't participate in this thread.
  9. But what if he is advocating a boycott, as in going on strike?
  10. It's unlikely that governmental control of the money supply will be relinquished. Governmental controls are good for cronies. It's also good for the administrators that work in Government. Until the money runs out and the side show has to stop. As far as the crashing goes, another currency would become the currency of choice. It could be sudden. Ultimately this country could break up similar to other empires that came and went. But as long as there is mostly law and order and a slow incremental downfall, it can be repaired if the institution of free speech is respected. Swe
  11. Anything political is going to be in a social context so it seems redundant to say it that way unless you mean something else. Again, I suspect you mean a transformed society because "absence of society" implies killing everyone off. As in: Is it ever justified to kill everyone off?
  12. It's both. I don't know what you're getting at. Love, or the attachment/attraction/focus toward something is not always both. It can be considered caused by something else, (the object of love) not by choice. Love is a reaction, a response that can induce focus. In a sense, that kind of focus is not necessarily indicative of a conscious choice. The point is that if something is "in focus", as distinguishable, identifiable, this state could have been created by a conscious act or by an automatic response to something else (other than self), or even it simply happened to be in foc
  13. For one thing, that would imply the identification has already taken place. The "it" is attracting you. You know what "it" is. Let us say you are focused on what is attractive. Are you in a sense pushing toward it, or is it pulling you? The first person experience could be "I am being pulled", or "it is pulling me" or "I can't take my eyes off of it". Taking ones focus off of something "in spite of" attraction, would definitively indicate choice. Unless, focus is simply to "bring into focus" as in acting toward making everything identifiable. In this case the attractio
  14. Is love, or it's manifestation: attraction, always a choice?
  15. Unfortunately this line of reasoning is used to silence conservatives on Facebook and Twitter. And how has that worked out? Rightful freedom, in fact, means tolerating those who are not a threat. There is a difference between a person who will use force to achieve their goals vs. a person that talks about it. If they have a criminal background, a background of use of force, we are perfectly justified in inconveniencing them. There is no denying that we have a right to self defense. The question is what are the boundaries? Why stop at the border if we want to defend our selves, w
×
×
  • Create New...