Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Easy Truth

Regulars
  • Content Count

    537
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Easy Truth last won the day on December 15 2019

Easy Truth had the most liked content!

About Easy Truth

Recent Profile Visitors

1116 profile views
  1. Granted, there are differing context regarding free, but to understand free will, even indicated by "choosing to think or not", one must understand the "obstacle" that some encounter. In other words, some can't choose to think? Well, why and when? Now isn't that explaining will in a deterministic light? Also, a "a will to function involuntarily" may be the key phrase to analyse. Is functioning involuntarily in fact "willing" something? Is one's heart beat a function of "will"? What is automatic and is that a willed action?
  2. Free will by some perspectives seems redundant in that having a "will", implies a freedom to will things, i.e. to choose. So the implication is that a "will" can also be unfree. Again by some perspectives, an unfree will, is in fact no will at all. Free to choose, implies a free will. But free from "what"? The possible oppression or obstacle is what clarifies the nature of the "freedom". So when there is free will, one is free from what? Rand may not have mentioned mental illness and its relationship to free will but I believe Branden did. As far as I can remember he did say that some childhood trauma, in fact can remove free will from a person. In the case of severe addiction to something, at some points there is no free will. For an alcoholic, after the first drink, something else takes over (at least that is the experience). This oppressor, or obstacle to sanity, makes certain choices disappear. In this case, the oppressor is a metaphor, as if there is one. But the experience and the behavior are as if an oppressor exist.
  3. Youth or aging is too broad to determine appropriateness. There is the issue of what is the point of valuing, or wanting to be a 2 year old? Or a preconceptual baby, or a teenager fighting pimples. The goal is to exist. To enjoy any value, you must exist to do that. Whatever you want, from eating to ice cream to winning the Nobel prize, it all presupposes existence. To survive is to exist to experience ... whatever it is you want.
  4. Easy to understand is one thing. Easy to discern what you mean by socialism is still not the case. Not that I disagree, but isn't what we already have some sort of fascism? The phrase "participatory fascism" is gaining more traction. https://blog.independent.org/2012/10/30/once-more-with-feeling-our-system-is-not-socialism-but-participatory-fascism/ But ultimately, Socialism can be considered to be some form or subset of fascism. Bernie basically promotes "more" fascism. But then Trump also has some fascist tendencies too. The unfortunate thing is that fascism and socialism get power and support through democratic means and there is so much pride in that "we are a democracy" aka. mob rule.
  5. Sure enough, it means multiple things, some of them contradictory. That would be one explanation for why people don't understand it. But there is a common thread in most of the definitions. It is the opposite of respecting individual rights. Looking at Wikipedia under Socialism, there seems to be 5 or more types. Collectivization, Communism as a goal, Democratic socialism, Social democracy, Socialism with Chinese characteristics. https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socialism They include "social democracy" in the topic but they indicate that "social democracy" is capitalism. Then the definition of Democratic socialism (seemingly the Bernie type): Democratic socialism is a type of socialism achieved through democracy. The main method of democratic socialism is changing society through slow reform rather than a quick revolution. Democratic socialism usually wants to gradually reform capitalism, similarly to social democracy, but these reforms won't stop until there is no more capitalism. Democratic socialism also usually entails all businesses being operated as worker-owned cooperatives. This Bernie type Socialism, is the actual monster that we claim it is, there is no misunderstanding or misinformation causing that condemnation. Pure democracy is socialism in the sense that if you can vote yourself free food, a house, a car, why not vote for it. Any individual's rights can be voted away. Pure Democracy does not exonerate socialism, it is a main ingredient of the poison. Maybe some people think that they can allow Bernie to win and after many years, similar to Sweden when the Taxes go up to 130 percent, the system can be voted down. Bernie's popularity seems to be due to the crony capitalism that exists and which, as a nation, we don't seem to dislodge.
  6. Can you elaborate on that. What is your definition of Socialism and its difference with Communism.
  7. If we are talking narratives, would you agree that Bernie is working with a changed definition of Socialism? There has to be some respect for what words mean. The problem is that in twenty years, we will have "Jewish Nazi's". We ask them well, what is that? and we will hear "I a good kind of Nazi. Ones who don't believe in killing Jews, we believe in social security and a booming economy and cool black uniforms".
  8. In the case of "personal morality", distinguishing it from "social morality", the concept of "prudent" and "moral" seem to have a strong connection. In fact "imprudent" does not carry the baggage of "immorality" and the shame and guilt that is associated with it. This is in the context of "personal morality", as in good and evil where others are not involved at all. It would be imprudent to put your hand is scalding water as it would also be "immoral" to do so. But most would not think of immorality in that situation, just simply "wrong" or "imprudent". Another example would be: "I imprudently left my front door open, when there were warnings of a burglar in the area" vs. "I immorally left" of "I was immoral when I left my front door open, when there were warnings of a burglar in the area". To take it further "It was an evil thing for me to do, to leave the door open in those circumstances". But trying to incorporate "prudence" as part of "social morality", as in "a prudent social structure" becomes confusing and controversial for many reasons.
  9. Granted, humans have limitations. As you say, "values, culture, etc." have an influence. Doesn't that mean that competence at changing value culture etc. is very valuable, assuming you want a change for the better. You are pretty well written, seems like you have an advantage in that area already and it gives a clear direction and hope for success. But for some reason, there is this underlying assessment that the trends are too strong to change. If you and and all people that could change trends believed that, trends will rule us instead of us ruling them. So at this point it is a choice: "I can change things" or "I can't change things". One's consciousness completely changes based on which paradigm is chosen. They can't coexist, it is one or the other.
  10. Any example given can be reduced to There was benefit to self, directly or indirectly. There NO benefit to self, directly or indirectly. There is a problem that starts here: "When we do good, we do good for someone." The problem with that foundational statement ends up causing problems down the road. Once we think in terms of the beneficiary being only a SINGLE individual, you can easily argue against egoism. Good or evil. defined based on the beneficiary being an individual (one person), then "good or evil" would be clear cut and identifiable. The good would only have to go to one self, any one else benefits, the act is evil. The truth is that when we do good, we do good for "someone or some people". In other words, if we have done good, to say that it has always been only for one person would be false. You do good that effects one or more people. Since the core argument for egoism is that "the individual HAS TO BE the beneficiary", when you have an ethics of anti-egoism the justification shows up, meaning, if you should never get your paycheck, you will starve. Similarly, if you should NOT eat the results of the seeds you planted, you starve. But the absence of "self" in the transaction only identifies an evil transaction so it is helpful ONLY in that sense. It is reasonable to argue that while analyzing a human act, the fact that it is self interested or multi interested does not determine its good or evil. There are more factors to consider as in long range or short range, rational or childish. It is only those acts that absolutely and objectively have zero direct or indirect benefit that are evil. (in real life, it is hard to imagine any of us doing what we know to be completely useless, baseless, without a point or purpose, without ANY benefit at all). Therefore : Good cannot ALWAYS be identified solely on the basis of "selfish or selfless" because of more factors including the fact that some selfless actions can benefit indirectly.
  11. At what point, did egoism come into the picture as a basis for the good. Pleasure and pain imply the person feeling it, but similar to life, it could be mine, yours, theirs, or our life. I don't understand this statement. Isn't simply existing, being an end in itself? In that sense it is not unique. Can you please elaborate.
  12. What about human's insatiable lust for freedom and rationality? You don't see people desiring a worthwhile life and willing to pay a price to coexist with others? In fact, an appreciation for coexisting with others? If it were the way you describe, society only having irrationality and perhaps non-social members, no society can survive, no cohesion. But we have had continuous progress and casualties of war have decreased consistently. As far as I know, based on something Bill Gates said, even with the broken type of Crony Capitalism that we have in the world, poverty as we know it will be eradicated in something like 30 years.
×
×
  • Create New...