Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Posts

    1671
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    36

Easy Truth last won the day on December 17 2023

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

3845 profile views

Easy Truth's Achievements

Senior Member

Senior Member (6/7)

169

Reputation

  1. There is the perspective of "value" as being that which is good for you. But I would argue that is a "moral value" rather than just a value. There are things we like that we regret, or that we know are bad for us. I love bacon. It is the worst food for me. Value has to mean simply what you consider valuable and it can be an immediate experience, as in the entity "delicious pizza". They emphasize that a delicious pizza is not just a pizza, but a "delicious pizza". To find it valuable, you don't go through a thought process of how it will nourish you. It is an immediate judgment of its identity. So at the core of their thinking is that the entity is "delicious pizza" or "valuable pizza" rather than "pizza". So, they argue that any concrete depends on you (or us). Without you, that particular table is not the (complete concrete entity) "beautiful table". That makes everything subjective. The beautiful table, the ugly cat, etc. Again, this is without any regard to its utility. It is purely an immediate, perhaps aesthetic experience. Maybe one could modify what they said as being a conflation of "aesthetic" with the "objective". As in, It's the emotional aesthetic judgment, which is subjectively fluid, is part of "what it is" i.e. it's identity. In some ways, it is a reasonable assertion if you see a beautiful cat as a single concrete (rather than the way we see it: abstract (beauty) + concrete (cat)). Ironically, they object that when I call it the table, I am abstracting, not looking at it concretely. That I can abstract "cat" out of the full concrete experience of "beautiful cat". I need to make the case that "cat" is complete, real, and stable. That "beautiful" is not a necessary part of its identity. The way they think of reality, an amalgamation of emotion+aesthetic+sensory, provides an eternally and completely "unstable" (wobbly) reality that means there is no reality, i.e. nothing is real. They conclude it's all in "your" mind and emotions ... and changing all the time. Especially since the experience of that kind of value, even without anyone else present, can change. Food is valuable when hungry but valueless after a full meal. Sleep is valuable when tired but not after you are done sleeping. In this way, value is not stable (but fluid), and if immediate value is a necessary part of the identity of all entities, "everything" has an element of instability. To them, this means that nothing is stable, or absolute. Valuableness changes, so everything is subject to change. Finally, they conclude, that stability of what is real simply is an "assumption" something to the effect of "Reality is an assumption, after all, you have to start with something".
  2. For years, I have heard the same people attacking objective reality. First I thought they were arguing in bad faith. That they were lying. But last week in a discussion a problem became visible. What was brought up was that the table in front of us was a table, but the value of the table was in the eyes of the valuer. And as far as they were concerned, the value of the table is part of its identity. If so, part of its identity is based on the observer, as in subjective. Without the subject, the value does not exist, and therefore nothing is independent of the valuer, the particular consciousness that gives value. Giving rise to the argument for the primacy of consciousness. They conclude that everything has this element of subjectivity. There is also the issue of objective value and subjective value which confuses. In a market, the value or price is determined by buyers and sellers. The deals they make determine the latest price. But that is not an objective value and yet the value of something is not "inherent", independent of consciousnesses making the deals. I was about to delve into it but was wondering about the reaction of others to: Is price in this analogy equivalent to the value of something? My understanding is that the process of identification is the identification of its objective identity, rather than its subjective identity. With all this in mind, how does one make the case for "objective reality", an existence, not dependent on the subject, when they consider (an entity's)value as part of its identity?
  3. I would argue that killing Hamas operatives without killing civilians is highly unlikely. It was possible before the war started, even before Hamas was brought into power. Now it's practically impossible and therefore unintended killings will occur. That is the accepted policy, justified in ethnic cleansing terms. Hamas will probably say the Thai citizens that were killed were unintended too. That Jews are evil for a reason de jour. The basic point I'm making is that it's too late to prevent indiscriminate killings. They are happening, they will happen ... intended or not, this is predictable and expected. Granted, Hamas led the killings. But it was also negligent behavior on the part of Israel that created this mess. They had the maneuvering power to prevent it. They manipulated in bad faith since the Oslo agreement. Preventing the pressure cooker was an option, a choice that was not taken. I can't condone what Hamas did, but Israel is also responsible for what happened to its citizens. Most likely its voters will hold their government to account. But as a third party, we cannot simply take the side of Israel basically because they are "more like us". Israel has far more leverage and power and it cannot be supported to dictate rules. The IDF is not suited to carry out surgical strikes. It can't be a dependable deal-maker to cause Hamas to lose its grip on power. Our interest is the cliche "a lasting peace" which requires behavior that convincingly discriminates between innocent vs. not innocent.
  4. OK, let's see the arguments. What is indiscriminate killing? How would per capita body count prove indiscriminate killing? OK, let's see the arguments. Cannot discriminate 100%. The arguments will ultimately rest on the issue of "Is Hamas a legitimate entity to negotiate with or not" regardless of the issue of indiscriminate killing. Because the world sees both sides as indiscriminate killers since Israel decided not to keep its hands clean. It inevitably has to negotiate with Hamas. By definition, not being able to discriminate between an innocent vs. non-innocent and therefore killing one single innocent is an indiscriminate killing. Both sides can make a case that it was justified. In the case of what Hamas did, it was indiscriminate. For example, they intended to kill Jews but they killed the citizens of Thailand in one Kibbutz. Even killing one person is an indiscriminate killing. Certainly, 15,000 civilians in Gaza is an obvious example. Of course, the Israeli invasion was done very carefully and with all the good intentions possible, but the fact remains, that the Israeli operation is not killing only Hamas operatives or even Palestinian criminals. It is not discriminating because the intention and the situation does not allow for discrimination. You make the case yourself with "cannot discriminate 100%". That is the proof right there that indiscriminate killing is happening and you resist seeing that killing "some" indiscriminately is indiscriminate killing. The only way to avoid it was in hindsight, in the past by not creating and getting into this mess. You could argue that Israel currently has no better choice but to indiscriminately kill "some" but you are arguing that they do not commit indiscriminate killing which is false. 15000 civilians aren't easily ignored. What would change your mind? If Israel in its pursuit of Hamas, kills 500000 civilians, would that change your mind or would they still have the right to do that? What if they killed 2 million people? Perhaps no number will change your mind. Then perhaps the only solution is 2.5 million people. That would seem to get rid of Hamas. Is that the ideal solution and how is it justified?
  5. Both sides have engaged in indiscriminate killing. War will create some indiscriminate killing. Successful killing in war is to have more firepower than the other side. Hamas engaged in that in Israel and now Israel is engaging in that in Gaza. If we want to go based on per capita body count, then Israel is killing more right now. If we go by openly heinousness, then maybe Hamas wins that game. But to claim that Israel is not engaging in indiscriminate killing is easily disproven. Or that Palestinians don't have any reason to be resentful is easily disproven. Currently, Israel cannot discriminate between their people, the hostages, and the enemy. The debate is now about the percentage of people killed as if the percentages determine if it is a killing, a murder, or a genocide. Both sides don't understand that it's the indiscriminate hate that is the problem, it won't stop. One side will always find a weak point and attack it and this will go on forever. In other words, the hate cannot guide toward the ideal and the ideal is not the annihilation of the other side.
  6. Go to war with Iran, while financing the war in Ukraine. Of course, we should also eradicate North Korea while we are at it. Get rid of all of the evil in the world. As if all of this is free and without any regretful consequence. The potential for World War Three is being ignored. 1400 innocent Israelis have been killed, but part of it is due to Israeli negligence which one could argue: is still going on. The future animosity being created is not to the advantage of Israel. Relations with Israel and Arab countries were being normalized. Not anymore with the kind of massive killing that is going on in Gaza. We have fought the Taliban, trying to eradicate them with a giant coalition, Afghanistan is a far more backward country than Iran and now, after 20 years of fighting them and 2 trillion dollars spent, we are supporting the Taliban government's existence. Has the experience in Vietnam been already forgotten? That's an example of what the "eradication mindset" gets you. Hamas is staying in some form or another because they are the only Palestinian voice that Israel has heard and reacted to. It may or may not be dominant moving forward but it won't go away as long as they need to have a resistance movement. With all the revenge policy at work, the only solution is to better the lives of the Palestinians. It is a very bitter medicine but it is the only one that will work. Subjugation or ethnic cleansing won't work in this day and age. Getting rid of Iran is not as simple as you seem to think or it would have been done by now. Iran has 80 million people and most of the population can read and write because it is compulsory. Recall how they caused oil prices to spike with one cruise missile into Saudi Arabian oil fields. Their drone technology is advanced enough that they supply Russia with its war in Ukraine. Meanwhile, do you think that Russia and China will just watch their financial interests in Iran disappear without putting up some resistance?
  7. Nevertheless, the implication is that with the laws of physics, laws that "predict" the behavior of matter and energy, one cannot determine/predict what choice is going to be made by a human who consists of matter and energy. Either physics can't predict, or humans are not physical, or maybe physics can't predict "sometimes".
  8. What is the point of helping a nation that does not require any help? Based on what you have said there is no reason for the US to help Israel. You've made a strong case for that. Are you also going to make the case that Israel does not have a strong lobby in the US?
  9. Isn't the key element of human consciousness free will? If so, can a deterministic machine that mutates, in a sense be guided toward "free will" by its environment? Similar to human evolution.
  10. There is the question of how should Dogland or Catland behave, but there is also the question of how your nation "observing" react. It would be an interesting question regarding how an "Objectivist" leader of an "Objectivist" nation reacts. This could also be asked regarding a philosophy or religion (ideology). For instance, was 9/11 done by a group of terrorists that was not nation-sponsored? Did it justify attacks on Afghanistan where it did originate, and on Iraq where it did not? These are tiring questions that require stamina to discover their answer. But with all the previous irrationality that has gone on between the Israelis and the Palestinians, ultimately it would rest with the issue of who initiated and who was negligent in preventing. One has to find who was responsible and how can it be prevented in the future. Was the nation with the lone terrorist negligent in preventing such an attack, or was there a pervasive philosophy that encouraged such an attack where a nation represents that philosophy? There is a battle between the zionist philosophy and the Islamic Philosophy in the case of Hamas (Palestinians are not all Islamic)) As a reaction, the nation attacked, like a human being will simply react violently. It seems that some on this thread are arguing that anything goes. If anything goes, the road to annihilation is wide open. So "anything" can't go. That does not mean choosing altruism/self-sacrifice, only that "limits" are to one's benefit.
  11. Keep in mind the PLO wanted the destruction of Israel too, but the PLO was negotiated with. They were awful terrorists too. They changed. And of course, Israel was also created through terrorism against the British. Assuming Hamas were a pathological organization that would attack civilians at random without any provocation, then it would be a simple choice. It has to be destroyed. But if the process to destroy them will create a permanent state of war, negotiation ought to happen. If the choice was as simple as "destroy Hamas or don't" it would be simple but the action by Israel right now will not destroy Hamas. Hamas has to be destroyed internally by the Palestinians themselves. Hamas, as a resistance organization, is allowing for Palasteninans to be "heard" the only way possible, it is getting a reaction. If in the future, Palestinians are consistently ignored, this organization will live on as an option for Palestinians. In other words, the enemy has to be heard and a non-violent dialog created, otherwise, war is their only way of communicating. Is the invasion of Gaza a temper tantrum of the Israeli community or a well-thought-out plan ahead? Is there a method to the madness? Will this invasion of Gaza destroy Hamas? Will this massive destruction and loss of life be remembered by Palestineans as a lesson to not be heinous again, or as a focal point of hate ingrained in their history? If one can make the case that the current invasion will create harmonious communication, then the validity of the "eternal war" may have some legs. But Hamas is being Martyred, with many giving their lives for their people, so they will have more staying power. Israel in a sense has fallen into their trap. The choices are not simply to destroy Hamas or take no action.
  12. If all Palestinians are criminals, then they should lose their rights based on being human. This assumes that the "initiator of force" is clear ... and that all Palestinians are criminals. We know that Hamas operatives did their heinous deeds. What Hamas did was horrible. Meanwhile, what Israel is doing is horrible too with a much higher body count. The heinousness of an act does not necessarily determine your "rights". If it was a retaliation then the horror would have some justification. If it was not, it was a meaningless savage attack. First and foremost, the individual has to protect their rights. After that, it's the agency that they create, relinquishing that responsibility and giving it to the monopoly on force. This means that the way HAMAS was created is relevant. Israel was complicit in creating this so-called government (HAMAS) to weaken the political power that the PLO provided. It also contributed to the living conditions, with 2.5 million people blockaded on 3 sides. It was a chess move Israel made that contributed to this catastrophe. Did the Palestinian people have a "right" to an un interfered with Political process? Did they have the right to the PLO representing them? Mind you, the PLO is corrupt, but it does accept Israel's right to exist. Successive Israeli governments and settlers have harmed Palestinians too. This is assuming that Palestinians have rights. If Palestinians are human, then they have rights. After the Oslo Agreement (with the PLO), Palestinian claims have been ignored or sidelined. Assuming that one side does not have rights simply based on their civilization would allow conclusions that all individuals in communist systems, feudal countries, countries with kings or Queens, or Socialist or Fascist systems don't deserve natural rights. After all, their "system" is not civilized i.e. they are not civilized. Individuals are not programmed by their DNA to want to kill members of certain groups. We have free will. Each wants to flourish like any human. Palestinians will need to be considered human with associated rights to enable a mutually agreeable solution. One side being subhuman is succumbing to emotion.
  13. I have trouble with it because the physicalness of the brain implies "deterministic" i.e. the brain of Siri determines what Siri will do.
  14. What is the difference between knowledge vs. information? Is information the symbolic representation of knowledge? Is information being used to mean "valid information"?
  15. Does that not include those who can read and write??? The demonization of more than 5 million people (Palestinians) is akin to how the Jews were seen as sewer rats. That is nonsense. It's a contradiction. Following a philosophy without knowing the reason for it is valuing faith-based ethics. If that's what you're selling then you're definitely posting in the wrong forum.
×
×
  • Create New...