Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

jrs

Regulars
  • Posts

    447
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jrs

  1. No. The printing press already existed in his time. What Gutenberg invented was movable type -- small pre-cast blocks with letters or other symbols on them which could quickly be assembled into a die (I am not sure whether "die" is the right word here.) which would be inked and then pressed onto paper. Before his invention, the printer laboriously carved an entire page to make the die. Gutenberg's invention made printing many books, pamphlets, and newspapers PRACTICAL.
  2. Her Majesty is Elizabeth II, not Elizabeth I. http://www.royal.gov.uk/output/Page1.asp If you-all want to keep a hereditary monarchy and yet introduce an element of popular choice, I suggest that before a new monarch is installed you-all hold a referendum on whether he/she should be crowned. If the people vote against him/her, then you-all should move on to the next member of the royal family in the line of succession (as if the one who was rejected had died or abdicated); and try again.
  3. If you believe that an argument is invalid, you should be able to identify the first step in that argument which is fallacious. I would suggest that that step should be the thesis of the thread.
  4. It has been decades since I studied economics. So take my answers with a grain of salt. An interest rate is the result of an agreement between a lender and a borrower. It is affected by several factors, including: the expected rate of inflation or deflation (change in the purchasing power of money); the expected risk that the borrower will default in whole or in part; the expected risk that the lender will encounter a need for the money before it is paid back; the duration of the loan; the way the payments are structured over time; and especially the time preferences of the borrower and the lender. When considering the economy as a whole, most of the variations in these factors will average out. However, the inflationary expectations can and often do change under our current system. Even if the quantity of money were fixed, changes in the rate of economic growth would change the rate of deflation of prices. And the time preferences of people could change due to: natural disasters which create an immediate need for resources just to survive (hence higher interest rates); or, in good conditions, a saturation of investment opportunities (hence lower rates); or a cultural change which affects people's feelings about the relative value of the future compared to the present. If the rate of interest increases, then people will be more inclined to lend money to get that interest. So savings will increase. On the other hand, people who were considering borrowing money to build a business (or for any other reason) will be discouraged. So investment will decrease. Conversely, if the rate of interest decreases, then savings will decrease and investment will increase.
  5. I am pleased that you appreciate my skill at committing the logical fallacy of Argument from Authority. Not many authorities are as impressive as the chairman of the Ayn Rand Institutes's board and author of the "Ayn Rand Lexicon". Of course, one should not take anything on faith. Nor should one accept the word of any authority as irrefutable evidence of a fact. I give a proof in the form of an example of a philosophical truth which is not part of Objectivism. It was discovered by Leonard Peikoff in 1989. http://www.aynrand.org/site/PageServer?pag...objectivism_f-v This is a philosophical truth which was not incorporated into Objectivism. If Ayn Rand had incorporated the fact that failing understanding objectivity is cause of the schisms in Objectivism into her philosophical writings, then surely Leonard Peikoff would have already been aware of it and would not have had to discover it for himself after her death. If you disagree with this, then the burden is on you to disprove one of the following: 1. This idea is philosophical in nature. 2. This idea is true. 3. This idea is not in the philosophical writings of Ayn Rand (which she finished for publication) and those philosophical writings of other people which she specifically approved.
  6. For your information, I was the one who added the following passage to the Wiki. It is not a smear; it is the truth; and I stand by it. And I resent that you called me a coward. http://wiki.objectivismonline.net/index.ph..._is_Objectivism This is in the nature of a disclaimer to clarify the relationship of the Wiki to Objectivism. Now I will explain where I got these parts. The first paragraph of my addition to the Wiki is extracted from these two messages in the other thread. http://hblist.com/policies.htm My first paragraph and the first sentence of my second paragraph are equivalent to this statement by Harry Binswanger. My last sentence ("And you should not assume without proof that everything in Objectivism is true.") follows from the Objectivist principle that one should not take anything on faith. It would be wrong to make Objectivism into a religion and take those writings as scripture which reveals an intrinsic truth.
  7. Please describe in detail an instance when you made a choice. What about it leads you to believe that it is "free"? And in what sense is it "free"? What would the "unfree" alternative be like? According to psychoanalysis: Your Ego is the part of your mind which you feel is yourself, i.e. your Ego is YOU. ("Ego" means "I".) Your Id is the part of your mind which is the repository of childish impulses which you have repressed. You become aware of your Id as unwanted urges to act out: to hit someone at whom you are angry; to steal something you like; to grab someone who sexually arouses you; to ram your car into someone who cut you off; etc.. ("Id" means "me".) Your Superego (or Ego-ideal) is the part of your mind which objects when you do something which you feel is morally wrong or against your parent's (or society's) standards. It is your feelings of guilt and shame; or your conscience. So "you have no control" is wrong. You are your Ego. So you are in control. Your mind is part of yourself. So you are in control of it by definition. Why is control necessary in order to have knowledge? If I merely observe an experiment rather than conducting it myself, does that make it an invalid source of knowledge for me?
  8. If it is an error for Galt to say "If nothing exists ...", then is it not an error for YOU to say "... for if nothing exists, Galt does not exist, ..."? Why are complicated mathematical theorems an exception? Why is mathematical "information" different?
  9. http://drhurd.com See! Dr. Hurd agrees with me.
  10. It is or has been a common practice for State governments to pay or allow bail-bondsmen to pay bounty-hunters (who are private citizens) to forcibly arrest bail-jumpers. Would you outlaw this practice? Why or why not?
  11. In your post #40, you said "... the more difficult [the question being discussed or debated], the better.". But if it is too difficult, you may not be able to understand it. Or your co-discussant may not be able to understand it. In either case, the discussion would then be futile. Because it would NOT meet your needs. Unless you are merely interested in scoring points in a debate which is not what we are doing in this forum. Is it? What have I said that makes you think that I am a skeptic? No. But, as a rational person, I am concerned about how my actions affect other people BECAUSE it affects how those people react and those reactions affect me. You yourself said that people should be polite to facilitate commerce between them. I agree that an analysis of one's own errors is very important -- in order to correct them and avoid similar errors in the future. But you said that a difficult issue which "leads the other discussant to errors" is good. Creating confusion in either discussant is counter-productive. This is typical of the type of question which you often ask of other members. I quote it here to set the context for my next point. So how should someone like me (and, I suspect, virtually all members of this forum) who agrees with the essentials of Objectivism, but not every single idea, answer your standard question? Do I say that I am "essentially an Objectivist" or a "quasi-Objectivist" or what? And what about you, Burgess? Are you an Objectivist or a quasi-Objectivist or what? Would someone who agrees with Kant on 95% of his philosophy be a Kantian? Or must one agree with 100% to qualify? Given your definition of "Objectivist", asking whether someone is an Objectivist amounts to asking whether "every element of his philosophy" agrees with Ayn Rand's. So while you may not have EXPLICITLY asked for "every element of his philosophy" (and thus not contradicted yourself), you have done something which is tantamount to that.
  12. I tried to find a quotation which would support my claim that philosophy is explicit, but I could not find one. And I did see one use of "explicit philosophy" which could be taken to imply that there is such a thing as an implicit philosophy. So I withdraw my claim; and I accept your position that philosophy also includes implicit ideas. I suppose that it is reasonable to bend the meaning of "at all" far enough to exclude an infant's first learning of the axioms and their corollaries in an implicit form. So I withdraw my objection to the third sentence in chapter one of OPAR.
  13. The absence of any sensations, i.e. nothingness. Or a dream-like (or Alice-in-Wonderland-like) condition where things do not behave consistently (i.e. lack identity). In particular, if my hand had not touched the table, but had gone thru it (interpenetrated); or if either my hand or the table had disappeared; or if the distance between them had suddenly and inexplicably increased; etc.. What do you mean by "conceivably"? What do you mean by "really qualify"? If you mean that the experiment does not tell you anything which you do not already know, then I would point out that: You already know that existence exists. So why would you expect any other result?
  14. I think that you are including both generalization and instantiation in your concept of "induction". Most of us consider instantiation to be deduction, not induction.
  15. Notice that the word "philosophy" refers to one's aggregate of EXPLICIT philosophical ideas. Implicit ideas do not count as philosophy, even if their content is similar. Philosophical ideas, if true, are helpful; and may be necessary for more advanced thinking. But the sentence in question says that one cannot function "at all" without philosophy. This is impossible, because one could never arrive at such true philosophical ideas in the first instance without being able to function at all. How did they survive to adulthood? How did they acquire a complex set of concepts? How did they begin to philosophize? If they were not functioning "at all", they could not have done these things.
  16. "Existence exists." means "Existents exist." which means "Some things exist." or "There are things.". The experiment: Select one of the objects one observes (such as the table on which one's computer rests). Reach out and touch it. Was it there, i.e. did one make contact? When I did this experiment, my answer was -- yes, it is there. Thus existence exists. Just because the experiment is trivial does not mean that it is not real.
  17. I totally disagree with you on both points. Everyone has a limit on the complexity of what he can comprehend. And even if he can comprehend it, he may not be able to explain it given the constraints of the English language. And even if he can explain it in a way that would be clear to some people, there may be many others who would find it incomprehensible. I was tempted to respond to your lack of concern for your co-discussant's needs by simply not answering at all. One does not arrive at the truth thru errors. Beginning on page one of OPAR: 1. "... man by his nature as a conceptual being, cannot function AT ALL without some form of philosophy to serve as his guide." (page 1, emphasis added) is false. 2. "Your only CHOICE, she continues, is whether your principles are true or false, rational or irrational, consistent or contradictory." (page 2, emphasis added) is false. One does not choose truth or falsity. 3. "For a philosophic idea to function properly as a guide, one must know the FULL system to which it belongs." (page 3, emphasis added) is impossible to implement. 4. "Even lower are the men of an advanced civilization who -- thanks to the work of a genius such as Aristotle -- know the explicit identification of the axioms, then consciously reject them." (page 9) is an ad hominem and argument by intimidation. It also assumes incorrectly that all men in the advanced civilization are fully familiar with Aristotle. 5. "Entities constitute the content of the world men perceive; there is nothing else to observe. ... none of these categories has metaphysical PRIMACY; all represent merely aspects of entities." (page 13, emphasis added) confuses epistemological primacy with metaphysical primacy. 6. "If, under the same circumstances, several actions were possible ... such incompatible outcomes would HAVE to derive from incompatible (contradictory) aspects of the entity's nature." (pages 14 & 15, emphasis added) is not justified and may be false. Et cetera. Suppose you asked me to name my philosophy and I said that I am an Objectivist. Would you understand me to be saying: (1) that I agree completely with Ayn Rand on philosophy; or (2) that I agree with her on the essentials which can be stated "standing on one foot"? The first is supported by the first part of the following quotation. The second is supported by the second part.
  18. The December 2005 issue of "Scientific American" has an interesting article on page 84 -- "Smarter Use of Nuclear Waste" by William H. Hannum, Gerald E. Marsh, and George S. Stanford. This article shows how we can increase the amount of energy obtained from nuclear fuel by a factor of 20 while virtually eliminating the need to store waste during the period from 300 years to 10,000 years in the future. A new technique is used to burn up the plutonium and other actinides (transuranic elements) and eliminate depleted uranium waste.
  19. I have heard that there is a proof that the conservation laws follow from certain symmetries. Specifically, conservation of energy is a consequence of the invariance of the equations of motion under translations thru time, i.e. that the same laws of physics apply at all times. Conservation of linear momentum follows from the invariance under translations thru space, i.e. that the same laws of physics apply everywhere. Conservation of angular momentum follows from the invariance under rotations, i.e. that the same laws of physics apply regardless of the orientation. Unfortunately, I have not seen the proof and do not remember the name of its author. "Arbitrary" means that there is no evidence either of the assertion's truth or its falsity. So if a proposition is arbitrary, then its negation must also be arbitrary. So if it is arbitrary to say that objects can act randomly, then it is also arbitrary to say that objects cannot act randomly. Right?
  20. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Auction I suggest using a reverse Vickery auction.
  21. This same argument could be used against abortion. This argument is sloppy thinking. To be clearer, let us focus on what is prohibited by law, i.e. what is legally wrong. If a third person interfered with a parent providing material support to his child, that interference would be wrong. But this is not the same as saying that the parent is wrong, if he fails to provide material support. Most parents who are able to do so will provide the support that their children need voluntarily. So the survival of humanity is not at risk, if the parents are not compelled. As for the unfortunate child whose parents want to abandon him, well, there are no guarantees in life. I have already shown (in Post #71) that the parent's choice to live could lead to abandoning their child in some unfortunate circumstances. How would telling the parents that they have GOT TO take care of their child help a third party to maintain his own life? It cannot.
  22. "The collective writings by J.R.R. Tolkien and his son, Christopher Tolkien" (which purports to describe Middle Earth) has a complete identity. But I am trying to distinguish that from Middle Earth itself which does not have a complete identity. They should not be confused with each other. No. I cannot give a complete description of the Earth. No. The Earth has a complete identity. Any particular description of the Earth is distinct from the Earth itself. Is this distinction really so hard to understand? But at least for Patel there would be a definite answer. And if you cared enough, you could go to India and compare his fingers to get the answer.
  23. The mere fact that natural law is derivative does not imply that it is inconsistent with Objectivism. E.g. suppose we define natural law as I did in another thread -- "Natural law consists of that part of the Objectivist ethics which deals with issues relating to the use of force in a social context.". Alternatively, one could define it as the unique "objective standard by which to judge the use of force.". (My thanks to AisA for this phrase.) Natural law is fixed by reality. It may be discovered, but not created. You seem to be saying that natural rights can be understood independent of any particular philosophical basis. Is that correct? If so, then please demonstrate how you would justify your claim that pedophilia violates the natural rights of children without using any deeper philosophical premises such as Objectivism or Utilitarianism.
  24. I do not think that its identity can be complete. Let me make an analogy to Mathematics. An oak tree is like a vector in a very high-dimensional vector space. A description (or idea) of the oak tree is like a system of equations which are alleged to be true of that vector. If the ideas are true, then the system will have at least one solution -- the vector (oak tree) in question. However, it is unlikely that the system will be complete, i.e. have only that one solution, because that would require describing the oak tree in exquisite detail which is impractical, if not impossible. A description of Middle Earth would suffer the same lack of sufficient detail, but it is likely to also be inconsistent, i.e. there is no vector which satisfies all the equations. Right. But you know that Terry Goodkind is talking about "God" when he uses the word "Creator". Don't you? So how is "God" different from "unicorn"? And is a rhinoceros a unicorn? (I heard that the idea of a unicorn was based on reports of rhinoceroses.) But that is my point. I am saying that the "square/round peg-thing" has no (complete) identity. And it cannot be completed because it is not consistent. So it should not be portrayed in fiction as if it were real. On Sam's right hand, is the middle finger longer, shorter, or the same length as his index finger?
×
×
  • Create New...