Easy Truth

My current understanding and distillation is: Truth is awareness that is logically filtered using one's limited knowledge and one has every right to be certain. The concept "contextual truth" can only be referring to epistemological truth. Contextual truth can be valid but sometimes not truly what happens (or is) (metaphysically). As in: Within the context of my knowledge, it is true. (or "as far as I know") Based on what I know, ignoring my fallibility or possible ignorance, my conclusions are "valid". Valid does not "necessarily" mean metaphysically true, valid means epistemologically true. Epistemological truth is mutable (due to new knowledge), while there is only one metaphysical truth. The epistemologically true, has an ethical/normative aspect, an in "what should be followed as true". Meaning logically validated truth "should" be employed as one's guide. Metaphysical truth is amoral (not normative), it just is. And metaphysical truth about specific concrete future occurrences can only be ascertained/confirmed in hindsight or in the present. Only certain general abstractions can be predicted with absolute accuracy about the future like "What will be will be" or "Something will be knowable" etc. The more specific the prediction the more the doubt. Meanwhile: One way or the other, the epistemological true future is worked out using probabilities, and one's appetite for risk determines what is true about the future. As in, 99 percent chance that it is safe to fly is not safe enough for some people. To them "it is not safe" is the epistemological truth. But when you landed, in hindsight, you know, it was safe (metaphysically and epistemologically).

Trying to understand that question. There seems to be two fundamental definitions of possibility, one that relates to the future and one that does not. Also found this article that I am looking at. https://therealistguide.com/blog/f/metaphysical-possibility-vs-logical-possibility#:~:text=To summarize%2C metaphysical possibility is,real existence outside the mind.

One about Nationalism is interesting to watch. Keep in mind, if there is an outcry about a PragerU video, he will simply say it was not one of my own videos (i.e. one of his rambling chats) ... and this link has comments by ARI https://newideal.aynrand.org/the-vice-of-nationalism/ Then there is rejection of a knowable objective morality (not that it's primarily religious): And And then there was one that ARI commented about regarding his explanation of the enlightenment. https://newideal.aynrand.org/pragerus-dishonest-explanation-of-the-enlightenment/ And the pièce de résistance (that was posted before in another thread) ... drum roll ... click on below https://www.prageru.com/video/what-does-separation-of-church-and-state-mean/ Keep in mind, these are not primarily religious, they're just ... mystical ... in a good way of course.

Then we are in safe hands.

Rand seems to imply "rational self interest" when she says "self interest". She is attacking a false dichotomy. The following link starts at where she talks about it:

Depends on the definition of "primarily".

Should one Object to a Nazi organization carrying that video? Or a Pedophilia advocacy group include Rand in their promotionals? Or even a "Leftist" Libertarian group. The same arguments for exposure exist there too. The fact is Rand is anti religion. It will be interesting to see how PragerU spins that in to their teachings. There is a difference in randomly picking out a book in a library vs. one that was suggested by someone with a philosophy known to you. Inevitably there will be some associations made with the person who suggested it. One could argue "at least you saw the book", and in that sense you are correct. It is good for exposure. If this is, in fact, a win win situation, there is no objection. Prager gets help with arguing for Capitalism and Objectivism gets known to more people. Hopefully the minds that are hungry for a philosophy that actually explains things in a way that are confirmable and don't contradict themselves, would be hooked on Objectivism like we were. But will Prager encourage or prevent people from delving into Objectivism? For those who are desperately trying to figure life out, and Prager looks good, they will only take the "Capitalism is good" and never look at the rest because Objectivism will be have to be shown to be poison. In that situation Rand will be a tainted figure and her ideas far more suspect than they should be. Time will tell how many embraced Objectivism vs. how many were prevented from embracing it.

I saw it now. I assume some Prager people will have to integrate the fact that they are supporting an atheist with the fact that "Even though atheists have a bad record". It was very politically correct, no mention of selfishness or knowledge without God. It's nice that it was published and some may be swayed. But I see a trojan horse in this project. I hope it belongs to Objectivism. But yes, provided by a generous donation from "The Objective Standard Institute". Who knows, the next ally of Objectivism may be the church of Scientology. They believe in Capitalism too and they may sway some people too.

In what way? I have not seen it yet but some Objectivists I know are passing the video around.

As in "belief in the arbitrary", just believing, takes you a long way. Well, sometimes belief in a dictator takes you a long way. Is that morally relevant? Dennis Prager says stuff like that too. The Bible does not show value based on our own judgement, our own interest is not at the heart of morality. There is no respect of the individual's self esteem. There is no respect for the individual, period. The Constitution is based on respect for our self and our own interest. The Bible existed for thousands of years of feudal life and a US type Constitution was never created anywhere. If it was the Bible that causes it, it should have sprung up a long time ago.

That does not amount to anything. Most altruists believe others come first ... before them self! Of course they will. The primary resistance to Caesar has frequently been religion. There is no reason to think that the bible, any bible, supports the American constitution. This is fabricated nonsense. Why not start talking about angels who know better. That's what this is sounding like. As if you are not doing that. Again, it does not indicate anything special. Fair enough. It's a choice in an emergency situation. Let's not throw Objectivist morality into the mix.

Okay, and ultimately a choice between the Religious Right vs. "Leftism" becomes a choice between one set of the arbitrary vs. another set of the arbitrary. The two philosophical directions do not determine how it will be implemented, this is faith, contradictions, randomness, the personality of the leaders, the state of the culture, availability of resources etc. play into the assessment of which is better. We have nations that have no separation of religion and state, some of them very authoritarian like Iran, Saudi Arabia and then Israel which seems pretty functional. The dogma does not determine if it will be interpreted and implemented in a way that works. The fundamental problem with most of your arguments is your inclination to predict simply based on dogma. But interpretation and application of dogma randomly changes. A good analysis should be the state of Israel. A religious state that was set up by communists. Not that communism works as it was abandoned in Israel, but it did not destroy the nation and it seemed to contribute the way it was implemented by simply holding it together until better systems became available. One could possibly make that same analysis for China or Vietnam in the last 20 years. Mao interpreted it one way and caused a disaster while the new guys did something different.

Then you have to attack the court system, as it is in fact part of the whole "election" system. They are the arbitrators. Did they in fact do something that is illegal? Otherwise, you'd be arguing against an advantage, a legal (vs. illegal) advantage that one group has over another. Many complain that one side spends more money. It does not make an election invalid or "stolen", although it may be unfair. The next time around one has to counter the advantage. Simply repeating "it was stolen" simply divides the Republicans and they will lose the sliver of votes they need.

Okay, let's go with what you got there: The the problem is that the court was corrupt or did not follow procedure? You describe a decention, as in the procedure was followed and they voted and there was a decention. You see at some point, you have to make the case that the system did not follow the rules established. And "the system" is going to have to be "the whole system". In this case you have to show that the court was corrupt in a sense. But again, regarding massive fraud, Wisconsin and (let's include) Pennsylvania could have gone to Trump and he still would have lost. It would have to be more massive than that.

What is the point of singing praises to Prager on this forum?? Making a case for conservatism because they explain "unearned guilt" is silly because you go from one hell into another hell of religious guilt. Kind of like, I now believe white people don't deserve the guilt piled on them. The price the "Judeo Christians" want me to pay is knowing that I was born a sinner and I need to believe in this supernatural fiction ... which I promote now. Why not sing the praises or Rand who taught about unearned guilt without asking for your sacrifice to God. She was the greatest champion of unearned guilt attacking nonsensical religious baggage ... including but not limited to altruism. Prager is not, I repeat, NOT a promoter of self esteem. With him you're going to learn and teach that "you're worthless" alone ... without God. In other words, the individual is worthless.

Not objectively correct. If there is a law that explicitly prohibits the activity, it would be objectively correct. Now, if there is no such law and should there be such a law is a different matter.

The problem with that is that having good manners can be mandated. The issue is where does voluntary behavior belong in this case. It's really about agreeing to the voluntarily agreed on rules that's the issue.

Unfortunately, even though you have a point that it ought not be used that way, you're not going to win the "term usage" battle, it's too ingrained. People say things like "don't censor me" in a simple discussion. Some also call it private censorship. It does confuse the element of governmental force. So the only way out seems to be to say specifically "governmental censorship", because they seem to define it as "to prevent or limit expression/communication" without regard to who is doing the preventing. It does not matter if it is your employer or the police (or even your decency that censors you). The other issue that muddies the water is that there seems to be some crony relationship between government and Google Facebook et. al. This relationship is used to imply that they are partially the arm of the government i.e. they are not exactly a private company. If that were true, then it would fall into the category of governmental censorship. But is it true?

An election can be stolen without "widespread and pervasive" fraud. Sometimes just a few thousand well-placed fraudulent votes can be enough to flip the outcome. Yes it is possible as in Gore vs. Bush. But this election would have required multiple states committing the fraud. No single county or state could have changed the result, Biden was too far ahead in electoral votes. And of course, the fraud had to be meticulous enough to give GOP and edge in congress but not for the presidency. All in all, the evidence is weak.

I had not wanted to comment on this one because I was afraid of my own biases, but I did pay for the ARI Campus coursework that's now free. I don't think it was called a university but I would not have minded if it was. A Prager University is like a school of magic compared to ARI Campus. That's why I would not call it a university, not just because it is unaccredited. The ideas being taught at PragerU are not valid knowledge per our standards.

Yes, if it had been collectivism versus individualism, there would not have been much of a disagreement on this forum.

Finally I was thinking of Jordan Peterson and Dave Rubin. My own radar did not go off around those guys (I didn't know much about Peterson). All videos of Rubin looked like he was a good fit with Objectivism. The only indication with Dave Rubin was his lukewarm embracing of Objectivism. It was a major surprise when Peterson later said that Rand was a mediocre mind. He says lots of good things about Rand too, so are they good allies for Objectivism?

"To deny that human beings are filled with anti-social passions defies reality and betrays a lack of self-awareness. One has to be taught nonsense for a great many formative years to believe it. If we weren’t born with anti-social passions — narcissism, envy, lust, meanness, greed, hunger for power, just to name the more obvious — why the need for so many laws, whether religious or secular, that govern behavior?" "most Americans (again, like all other human beings) do have anti-social passions, but the vast majority of us can do a fine job checking and controlling them without religion as it has been practiced throughout American history. These are views with which virtually every American who attends secular high school or university is explicitly and implicitly indoctrinated. Both are wrong. And not just wrong, but foolish — and lethal to the American experiment." https://www.nationalreview.com/2014/07/america-wont-be-good-without-god-dennis-prager/ Based on that, does he think that Objectivists are not basically evil? If our ideas are lethal to the American experiment, shouldn't some force be used against us? (i.e. authoritarianism)

One of the fundamental problems with the argument that people who are into religion are more likely to be moral than people who are not (Biddle seemed to agree), is that the average human is narcissistic and a hedonist. As if we don't have a conscience or most people don't look at the long term consequences of their actions. If that were the case, all the moral advances in the world has been due to religion. And we should see complete chaos throughout the world. Back to the original question: When is it proper to have a political ally that has some wacky ideas? Ultimately it means who will vote like I want. If it is voting against Elizabeth Warren, Prager is my ally. If it is the school board where they want to teach creationism, he is not my ally. If the vote was about banning abortions, he is not my ally. If it was about voting for the cross being at City hall etc., he is not my ally. If it the vote is about government spending on military, he is not my ally. If it is a vote on government spending on "entitlements" he is my ally. If it was a vote on tariffs he is not my ally. So, can he be an ally ... yes and no.

Does all of this prove God Created Man? Keep in mind, this is called a University. Would you call it a University? https://www.prageru.com/video/evolution-bacteria-to-beethoven/