Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

GWDS

Regulars
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by GWDS

  1. An interesting tactic, I doubt it will be successfull though. Even if it does pass the complications resulting from it will make it obsolete in short order.
  2. That's correct, the Red Army would have been a fierce opponant in Europe and its true Europe would have been pounded back to the Dark Ages, but we would not have had to deal with the stanglehold Communism had over half the planet for five full decades. A net gain.
  3. Trtosky said in his history of the Revolution the Russian landscape favored an agrarian, non-industrial society. The infinite bounty of Mother Russia discouraged industrialisation whereas the finite and harsher environments of Egnland, France, and Germany demanded it. For Marxism to have existed at all it needed to be done in the West, not in Russia so saying it failed there, or the other preindustrial societies it started in is nonsense.
  4. I think the point behind the Soviet comment was given thier Atheism the Soviets were not likely to accaept total nuclear annilhilation. The radical muslims, according to this article, would stomach it as a way to kill dhimmi and unbelievers while at the same time making it into heaven. As for the rest of the post the ARI position is Iran was basically bhind 9/11 and therefore did attack the US and they hate us not because of our meddling but for "hating the good because it is good" and such.
  5. You guys may find this of some interest, from the article - "In a provocative experiment with patients suffering from an unusual form of epilepsy, researchers at the UC-San Diego brain and perception laboratory determined that the parts of the brain's temporal lobe -- which the scientists quickly dubbed the "God module" -- may affect how intensely a person responds to religious beliefs. People suffering from this type of seizure have long reported intense mystical and religious experiences as part of their attacks but also are unusually preoccupied with mystical thoughts between seizures."
  6. -----> That kind of unpravoked personal attack is exactly what I am talking about. I note and thankyou all for your opinions and ideas pertaining to Ayn Rand and Objectism. Good luck to each of you in all constructive endeavours you undertake in the future.
  7. Okay, I'm getting sick of this. With a few notable exceptions, learning anything about Objectivism from this board has been like trying to get water from a rock. If you don't like me you can choose to ignore my posts or get a moderater to ban me. Either way, stop the cheap shots. edit for clarification
  8. thanks for the replies, I have a good idea as to where Objectism stands.
  9. 1984 - very bad questions to ask around here Very bad
  10. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    What I needed was a word for a productive activities - a scientist doing math, a worker making a pot, a novelist writing a book etc. It was this that is first seen lacking in our playboy character but not in the characters I think Rand likes - Rearden, Dagny, the composer, the engineers who do their job correctly etc
  11. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    Richard - I went to dictionary.com, turns out 'labour' is not as broad as what I needed. Production however is defined as follows - The creation of value or wealth by producing goods and services. I'll be more carefull in the future
  12. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    The following is in response to Steve Carlson's post - 1. Let he who is without MP3's cast the first stone. Also, frankly, her work is not available where I am - I got Atlas Shrugged and that was luck. If my choices are either obeying a copy right law no one else does and learning a brand new philosophy, guess which I pick? 2. Her veiw is simplistic to say the least; poorly thought out to say the worst. In her defence however, she is talking about ethics, not animal psychology. As for animal learning, I agree with you. The problem is not one of intellegence per se, but of collective memory. A chimp can be smart enough to make a crude intrument but has no way of passing that knowledge down for improvement. It's almost like watching a culture whose members die at age four. Again, the hypothetical brute survives in the same way a parasite survives. But, I get what you're saying, and it is a rather irrlevant point I brought up anyway. I wasn't really trying to say Rand was dead wrong, but that she overstressed the relation between reason and will. Sure, when it comes to our higher order decisions, we must choose to reason over emotion/impulse/whatever But in her wording she seems to say that Every use of reason must be an act of will, that I was challenging. Most aspects of thought require no will whatsoever. Do you really have to convice yourself that turning a switch turns the light on? No, you just do it and think if something goes wrong. When balancing on a bike do you rationally think out your actions or just 'balance yourself' without thinking - despite the calculations involved? If I showed you seven red sheets of paper and then through down a yellow one you would blink, why? because you had subconciously concluded they would all be red, you would not conciously form the rule. That was what I meant. If you want you can show me how the half dozen arguements I laid out about how Objectivism and Marxism start with many similar bases is flawed. Although saying 'redeemed marxism' may have really thrown you guys off. Yah, that was sloppy wording on my part. As far as my reading the book, I am still early in and have been told by others some major relationships in the plot will change drasitcally (although I wonder what can change the horrible people Rearden lives with). Again, in the style of her writing Rand seems to say the playboy is flawed not because of his riches but because he is squandering them Dagny and Rearden are wealthy aswell, (the fact that there is a difference in the wealth doesn't really change this) but since they are productive Rand paints them in a positive light. It is this emphasis - not on wealth but on labour - that makes me think she has another thing in common with Marx aswell. I apologise for not being clear on this point, but I was not talking 'class' but 'labour'. Thanks for replying. Edited for spelling and all that other jazz.
  13. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    Daniel Shrugged - 1. On the bilological purpose of life - Most of this is definitions. Take a 'virus' for example, its the 'lowest' form of life I suppose, but it has no other ability outside reproduction. It then continues up the ladder, from a mouse to whale, the vast majority of biologists beleive that reproduction is the ultimate 'goal'. Its the engine of evolution, either a species passses on its genes or it dies out. Now, its not a really black and white issue either i suppose. We have instances of rats choosing a stimulated pleasure center over food, humans can choose not to reproduce etc. But I beleive reproductive success is the general rule. Aswell, and this has to be said, who is 'Harry Binswanger'? Is he a biologist, by any stretch? If not, how can he comment with any authority? As I recall, Rand was arguing that a brute simply can not survive, that it needs reason. From this she argued that since you need reason to survive it is the highest human trait. I have just argued otherwise, whether these societies were tribal or feudal or statest or whatever is a side note. The fact is, when you are at the top, you don't need reason as the primary trait, what you need is force. The people below you might need reason, but that is doubtfull aswell. We survived for thousands of years on an animalistic level - hunter gatherers - not qualitativly to far from wolves or baboons. Then, from this she talks about what you need in a more advanced type of nation, but again the problem remains. Was Hitler rational? Stalin? Paris Hilton? Reason can help survival, but it seems maniacs and hedonists can survive aswell. I should point out I'm not criticizing 'man qua man' but her arguement that brutes do not survive from which the rest of the arguement grows. NC - are you going to argue the point or just talk about how burning MP3's is an evil. You know, I've only seen this kind of opposition to free information once - www. answersingenises.org Also, drop the 'hmm's and say whatever it was youwere implying.
  14. The article can be found here- http://www.jeffcomp.com/faq/wrong.html#dishonest A relevant qoute from said article - " Concerning the question of judging the intellectual honesty of others, Peikoff and Kelley give two very different answers. Peikoff puts forth his position in his essay, "Fact and Value". According to Peikoff: "Just as every 'is' implies an 'ought,' so every identification of an idea's truth or falsehood implies a moral evaluation of the idea and of its advocates." In other words, according to Peikoff, as soon as we identify an idea as true or false, this immediately implies a moral judgment of the person who is advocating the idea. In this context, 'moral judgment' means we are trying to determine if this person is being honest, or dishonest. If the idea is true, we assume that he has sought the truth. However if the idea is false, then we must decide if he has committed an honest error, or has engaged in evasion. In other words, we must determine the person's state of mind. Peikoff offers a simple test to make this determination: "The general principle here is: truth implies as its cause a virtuous mental process; falsehood, beyond a certain point, implies a process of vice." In other words, if your idea is false, and the falsehood goes beyond a 'certain point,' then you cannot simply be guilty of an honest error in your thinking. Rather, you must have engaged in evasion, which is the root of all evil."
  15. [Mod's note: Merged with an earlier thread. - sN] I read recently that many Objectivists believe that when someone's beliefs reach a certain point of falsity they can no longer be ignorant or mistaken but intellectually dishonest and immoral. Has anyone else heard this sort of thing, and if so what were your thoughts on it?
  16. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    I can't quite see how that would work, what about the property of the government or corporations for example. In Rand's veiw, what would we do with say the lands currently used by police stations?
  17. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    Thanks for the reply. Did Rand make any distinctions between kinds of property - material possesions, capital, real estate etc?
  18. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    I skimmed through the rest of COS for anything on property. I couldn't find anything so I concede that particular point.
  19. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    Nope, checked my PDF, page 27. Could be we have different versions. But anyway I'm getting tired of being accosted by you guys. Edited for strong language
  20. No but I know more than I did before.
  21. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    Oy. Once again, a BS arguement over nothing. Let me speak more slowly so that you can hear me this time. 1. Marx beleived all social relationships have an economic base. The supposed exploitive relationship of capitalism is just one of these relationships. As is the relationship between husband and wife in previous ages, as is the relationship between a commisar and the workers, as is the general and his men. This was the basis for everything else he said. Property, wages, and revolution were derived from this. Read that twice, because I'm not going to be forced to repeat myself half a dozen times for people again. Actually, read it three times. Now, let me qoute Miss Rand for you - "The principle of trade is the only rational ethical principle for all human relationships, personal and social, private and public, spiritual and material." Page 27 VOS Hmm. Sound similar to me. So you would agree with Rand, Marx, Locke, and myself here? Excellant. Okay, so I called Rand a marxist? No, I did not. I did, read a post now and then. But, I'll repeat myself because I like you, okay? 1. The emphasis on economics. Economic relationships form the basis of politics and ethics for both Rand and Marx. This can not be said for many others. Hitler stressed race, Jefferson individual rights, Ben Gurion nationalism, the Pope religion. 2. The portrayel of the honest worker versus the parasite in Atlas Shrugged. Dagny and the track engineers contrasted with Jim and the other playboy. Economics and the worth of labour are emphasised more in Rand then in any non communist literature. 3. Rand and Marx beleive that self worth is largely economic in origin. 4. Both beleive that 'Reason' will take one from a religous to a more economic understanding of life. Very few other major thinkers make these points. Am I saying they agree on wages, property rights, class warfare, and other topics? No. Am I saying they are alike because economics are stressed more than in any other major system and therefore have much in common - more than they do with other systems? Yes. Edit - Rational One, it would be a waste of time trying to post. You read some snippets of the manifesto? Great, that makes you a scholar on Marx. You're on my ignore list so replying to my post is a waste of your keyboard.
  22. I'd hate to burst your bubble, but you're wasting your time. Ancient history, classics, physics, biology, modern issues, ethics, and politics are all that you will find here. If you seek teen glamour, sowing, or Ben Affleck's hair, your time is wasted. Nice to meet you, what brought you here?
  23. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    Somehow I realised you would have no idea. Can you read RO? Have you ever even read Marx?
  24. GWDS

    VOS Chapter 1

    Hi, I just finished reading Chapter 1 of 'The Virtue of Selfishness' and had some thoughts I hoped you guys and gals could comment on. I apologise as I have only the PDF version and can not give exact qoutes, but all of this is from VOS. 1. Ayn Rand begins by talking about the differences of life and non-life, aswell as the values of early man, much of which I disagree with, for the following reasons - A She states that the functions of life form will always be to ensure survival. From what little of biology I know, the 'purpose' of life is reproductive success of a species, not the survival of the indivdual. This is why giants of the feild such as Richard Dawkins speak of genes being bent on moving to the next generation, often causing the host organism to perform harmfull actions to 'have at it with the cute one'. The exact same could be said of humanity, we are biologically driven to think of reproduction as a major priority. She gets out of this however by stressing our reason sees in the long term so we can see past our need for reproduction. I would say this is true, at least when we have a low blood/alchohol level. B She seems to make a few more minor mistakes aswell. She makes comments along the lines that the higher animals can not learn new knowledge or invent new knowledge on their own. To my knowledge scientists have been able to greatly enhance the minds of chimpanzees with language, and have also proven that they can create tools independantly. Language being defined as a few dozen symbols and tools being defined as sticks, but the point remains. C As I mentioned in an earlier thread, Rand begins by stressing survival as the ultimate choice and source of values. She says that for men, the source of survival, in a primitive state, is reason and production. Now this is definatly false. History has shown that in ancient societies it was the rich, useless individual who lived with the greatest abundance. Using nothing but shear brutish force to keep this place. She brings up, from what I could see, two counters - Living as a brute is not honourable, not becoming of a human - Nice try, but living without honour and surviving are two different things. It will lead to the end of nations for leaders to behave this way - Again, it is the individual's survival, not a nation's survival at issue. D She seems to mistake the nature of cognition. It is something hard wired into our mind, we look for patterns and logic even down at the subconcious level. It is a natural, automatic trait, the idea is for us to choose to make it the dominant trait. Next she moves out of questions about nature and moves straight into ethics. This is when I started seeing things happen. She seemed to take everything that I knew had to be in an ethic but couldn't quite put together and find a pretty solid system. She brings up the idea that values are the foundation of morality and that the first value is the one that ensures survival. She then asks sarcastically, 'where is the is-ought gap now?' My first reaction was simply to say 'we must do X for survival therefore it is moral, nice try Rand, but no'. Then I re-read her, she was talking about using moral language as a discription for the good values - virtue ethics. Virtue Ethics just happened to be the plave I KNEW morality HAD to come from, but could never really 'make it click together', it was here I really buckled down. A She talks about emotion and value, in this she is dead on right, no need to say more. B When she began to talk about production I realised she was taking everything I liked about Marx but dudging the more outlandish aspects of his work. The idea that all real relationships have an economic base was dead on, the idea that all rights to property come from labour dead on, the idea that those who choose not to work are less value than those who do, dead on. There are communist (read, labour oriented) principals all over Objectivism. In Atlas Shrugged, she gives the clear impression she sees the railroad engineers to be of a higher order than the billionaire playboy. I had avoided any real commitment to Marx because of his excesses, Rand has just laid out a kind of redeemed Marxism; although I'm sure she'd cringe at the label C Well, let me summarise, mostly everything else she said was right to. Earlier I had thrown you guys off by saying things like 'Moral Technology'. What I meant was seeing morality not as something in itself, but as a means to an end. See that stuff I summarised from Rand, what she said? That is what I meant, only refined, codified, and given a name. Please, any and all thoughts are greatly appreciated.
×
×
  • Create New...