Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

RationalEgoistSG

Regulars
  • Posts

    295
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by RationalEgoistSG

  1. Before I begin this discussion, I want to establish a few things. 1. I understand and believe that there is a distinct difference between economic power and political power, and that purely economic monopolies could not gain political power under capitalism. 2. I am against antitrust law. That being said, I am wondering about the economic effects of monopolies rather than political ones. My main concern is that once a monopoly is established in a given market, because of the fact that there are such extravagant costs required to enter that position, no competition could ever possibly challenge that monopoly and thus the monopoly could lessen the quality of their products and raise their prices without much to fear. Now, the main argument I have heard against this is that while such monopolies would make it very difficult for competition to arise against them, no such monopoly could forbid the possibility of future competition (only the government could do such a thing). Also, such monopolies would still be subject to the laws of supply and demand, and so they could not arbitrarily lessen the quality of their products and raise their prices. I agree with all of that, and it seems clear that such monopolies would still be subject to such market forces. What I am concerned about is the speed and efficiency of progress in a given market if a monopoly takes hold. It seems that at the very least, competition in markets was a great catalyst to the economic growth that we have experienced in our history. When this competition is essentially removed in a market with a monopoly however, what incentive is there for that company to lower costs and raise quality TO THE EXTENT that they would have in a highly competitive market? Thanks for your time.
  2. RadCap, Your argument about the funding of government services is a good one. I am wondering though, if a person does not pay the contract fee and loses protection of that contract, do they lose their protection from the police and the military as well? Or, is it the case that everyone receives the protection of the police and the military regardless of paying the contract fee? Thanks.
  3. My posted topic on Kant's argument about space and time, as well as my reading of his Critique of Pure Reason has intrigued me. I am curious as to whether or not we can say that space and time are entities in reality, or that they are relations between objects that we measure, or that we must agree with Kant and say that space and time exist in the mind only. I am currently inclined to say that space and time are measurements between objects in reality, thus being another example of a third alternative to intrinsicism (space and time exist as entities which our mind passively receives) vs. subjectivism (space and time are created by our minds). What do you all think?
  4. For my history in 19th century philosophy class we have been studying Immanuel Kant in order to gain a much needed understanding in how Kant influenced the bulk of 19th century philosophy. We are solely concerned with the Critique of Pure Reason. I have recently completed the section on Kant's science of the transcendental aesthetic in which he argues that space and time exist as a priori (prior to experience) intuitions in the human mind. Space and time, for Kant, are the pure forms of intuition that order our empirical intuitions (sensations) and allow us to have them. Thus, the essence of his view in this regard is that space and time are subjective human conventions that our mind brings to the realm of experience. There is on argument of Kant's for space being a pure intuition in particular that I find compelling (so far). Essentially, Kant says that empiricists advocate that the concepts of space and time are derived from our sense experience. Kant argues however, that it would be impossible for space and time to be concepts derived from sense experience because of the fact that all of our sensory experience is already ordered spatially (by our mind). In my study of Kant's view, I have so far found a few possible problems with his argument about space. 1. Could this be considered to be comitting the logical fallacy of begging the question? Space is an a priori concept which forms our sensory experience. Why? Because our sensory experience is ordered spatially by our mind. Therefore, space is a pure intuition. (This may however be an oversimplification). 2. Continuing in the same line of thought, it seems rather arbitrary that Kant posits space to the realm of the mind as opposed to some fact about existence (whether space be an entity or a relation between objects). The above argument alone that Kant uses to advocate that space is only in the mind can seemingly be used to argue that space exists as an entity or as a relation between objects. 3. If we take Kant's view seriously, the result seems almost absurd. If space and time do not exist in reality, but only in the human mind, then reality as it exists would essentially have to be one whole. There could not be multiple objects in reality because then there would be space between them and time as measured by distance between them. Thus, reality as it actually is could not be pluralistic. (I see two responses to this view: one, Kant would have to grant this; and two, Kant would grant that it is possible that space and time exist in reality itself but we can have no knowledge of it. However, this second response seems to severely weaken Kant's overall argument about space and time.) Any responses would be more than welcome.
  5. I moved this question to the Ethics and Aesthetics question due to the fact that it clearly poses an ethical question.
  6. In addition to what makemore said, there is the question of the standard of value. According to Objectivism, the standard of ALL value is one's own life. Think about it. Values are those things that we act to "gain and or keep" as Rand said. What makes the pursuit of values possible? Life. Therefore, life is the standard of all value, or rather, the highest value, because it makes all other values possible. According to an environmentalist however, nature, or the environment, or the ecosystem, or Earth, or whatever; has intrinsic value, meaning it is automatically valuable and is the highest value there is. This is clearly true of one's life, as Objectivism states, but can it be true of the environment as well? Some environmentalists would argue that the environment is the source of our life, therefore, it must be taken care of above all else, even our own lives. The same is true of those advocates of religion that claim that God exists and has intrinsic value since He is the source of our lives and therefore we must act according to His will no matter what. And, the same is true of those socialists who merely substitute God for society. Are you starting to see a pattern? So far I have named four alleged intrinsic values: life, the environment, God, and society. What exactly makes life the correct one? The fact that it is objectively determined through reason as opposed to the other values which are based on subjectivity such as feeling and faith.
  7. In my anthology of writings from Benjamin Franklin, there is a section in which he is discussing a case in which parents of a child were responsible for her death, in fact, Franklin believed they should be tried for murder. When these individuals were only given the sentence of manslaughter, he wrote: "...they had not only acted contrary to the particular Laws of all Nations, but had even broken the Universal Law of Nature; since there are no Creatures known, how savage, wild, and fierce soever, that have not implanted in them a natural Love and Care of their tender Offspring, and that will not even hazard Life in its Protection and Defense."
  8. Kgvl, I like your idea, but there are two primary problems: 1. Money 2. What major network would ever carry an Objectivist TV show? While I think it is clear that getting Objectivism on television would be beneficial, the best way to go about it would be to start with a much smaller network in just one area of the country. For example, if possible, on some local network in the area of a major city. (What I speak of is almost like what Swoop did in Andrew Bernstein's Heart of a Pagan, though obviously that was fiction, this is reality).
  9. While their may be some cases in which people call themselves "students of Objectivism" in order to have a "free pass" as it were to make any sort of contradictory errors in their own philosophy, for the most part I think people refer to themselves as that because they feel that they do not have enough knowledge in order to make the claim that they are an "Objectivist." When I originally wrote this post, I felt that I did not have enough knowledge of the philosophy to properly refer to myself as an Objectivist. However, at this point in my development, my knowledge has definitely increased. Most importantly, I have come to realize that the core of my own philosophical beliefs is reason and egoism. I have advanced past the point of referring to myself as merely a student of Objectivism.
  10. Hunter, The reason why our government at the foundation of this country was very secular was because of the fact that most of the Founding Fathers were Deists. Yes, there are many mentions of the Creator, etc., in founding documents, but the basic views of most of the Founding Fathers were very different than those of Christianity. First of all, Deists believe that God created the universe and has since done nothing to interfere with it. God, for Deists, is not all-good, all-powerful, or all-benevolent and does not act in our own lives. Also, I would contend that many Christians today are CLEARLY attempting to blur the line between religion and state if not down right trying to destroy it! Another point that I would like to bring up is the distinction between liberalism and fundamentalism. In this context I am referring to liberals as those who believe that morality can be accessed independently of any authority (through the use of reason in most cases) and fundamentalists as those who believe that only a particular authority can arrive at morality (and consequently, knowledge as well in most cases). It seems clear to me that the Founding Fathers of our country were profoundly liberal and therefore did not attempt to create any sort of theocracy. I see this belief to be very different from most modern Christians, as well as most Christians of the past as well as can be seen through their attempts to influence government policy in their favor. Finally, I agree with AshRyan about why you are finding Christians who claim that Christianity is at the core of the foundation for America. He is absolutely right when he says that they wish for facts to be otherwise and are using the Deists' language about God in the attempt to manipulate facts.
  11. When I first read Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal I was strongly convinced of the superiority of capitalism. But I soon thought to myself, right now America is slipping ever closer to statism by both of the dominant political parties, so how can this be stopped? In my opinion, the best way to begin to influence politics would be to follow the same path as the Green Party today and the Progessive Party of the past. In both cases, neither of these parties had really strong Presidental candidates, but nevertheless, strongly influenced the politics of the dominant political parties of their day. I think that an Objectivist Party or Capitalism Party or whatever, could slowly begin to influence the dominant political parties of today through time and reasoned argument. However, the key point is NOT that an Objectivist Presidental candidate presents himself onto the political scene but rather that Objectivism is accepted "enough" to gain enough support to do what I suggested above. Now AshRyan asked, what exactly is "enough" in this instance? From what I said above, I do not think Objectivists would have to convince a whole lot of people in order to start having an influence. It is obviously the case that Objectivism does not have nearly enough support to make any sort of important run for the presidency. However, that being said, I do think that Objectivism has enough support to form a small political party with the purpose not of putting a President in office but rather to influence the dominant parties.
  12. From my knowledge so far, going for a masters instead of straight to the Ph.D is suggested for students coming from small liberal arts schools who do not feel confident enough in there knowledge of philosophy (both apply to me). I feel that I can gain much experience and knowledge from the extra time spent in a masters program. Plus, if I am not mistaken, I should have a better chance of actually getting into a Ph.D program if I have a masters as well. However, I will be applying to a few Ph.D. progarms and should I get into one, I will most likely take that opportunity.
  13. As of now, I plan on pursuing a masters in philosophy followed by a Ph.D. I have heard, and it seems to make sense, that it is best to pursue a masters in philosophy at universities that do not also offer the Ph.D. in philosophy. The logic behind this is that one has a better chance of receiving more attention and money if there are no Ph.D. philosophy students to get those things first. That being said, does anyone have any suggestions as to universities that are masters-only in the philosophy department and are good? Any suggestions would be appreciated, thanks!
  14. Welcome to the forum! As GreedyCapitalist already said, it's great to have professional philosophers participating here at the forum. It's especially exciting for those of us who are thinking of becoming professional philosophers ourselves, myself included.
  15. In my experience in having discussions with environmentalists, the argument that is usually put forth is that man's excessive intrusion into the environment causes a discord in the "ecosystem." Since the ecosystem is so delicate, the environmentalists claim, it is very important that human beings do not do anything to upset it. I can attack such an argument from a moral standpoint (that environmentalism and the "ecosystem" argument attack the value of man and the very fact that he must produce in order to live). However, I am wondering how much scientific merit, if any, there is to the notion of an "ecosystem." Is there any reason to conclude that the concept of an ecosystem is flawed in some way? Thanks.
  16. I think that NIJamesHughes has a point here. When the suggestion to break up the forums into separate branches of philosophy was first made, it did not seem justified to do so on the grounds that posts and new threads were low. Since then however, this forum has seen a lot more posts and a lot more threads. I think it would be beneficial to split up the philosophy section into different categories. However, I think we should keep the distinct categories a bit more simple than NIJamesHughes suggested, in order to avoid confusion and to keep things more simple and organized. I suggest that the philosophy section be split up in three: Metaphysics and Epistemology Ethics and Aesthetics Politics (and perhaps a section for the philosophy of science) (and I suppose a "General" or "Miscellaneous" section as well) As to the suggestion that there be a separate forum for questions about Objectivism, I think that just about every post discussed in the philosophy section deals with questions about Objectivism. Therefore, it is not necessary to create a separate forum for that in my opinion.
  17. I've been a member here since the beginning, but I never posted my AIM screen name on this thread for some reason. It is RationalEgoistSG.
  18. Yes, I suppose that I should have mentioned a budget. I'm looking to spend, at max, around $300. I have looked into that series that you mentioned, however, it seems a bit too expensive, thanks. While I am very interested in those history lectures, I'm also quite interested in fully undertstanding such Objectivist positions as free will, consciousness, the validity of the senses, and the nature of axiomatic concepts.
  19. I am currently looking into purchasing some audio lectures from the ARI bookstore. Seeing as how I am a poor college student, I am looking for lectures that would provide the most value. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated, thanks.
  20. I openly profess that I do not know much about mathematics or the philosophy of mathematics. However, I have been curious about one important point. Are mathematical objects (such as the number 2 or an equation, etc.) existents in reality or are they like objective concepts that describe the relationship between physical existents? (Or are they something else altogether?) It would seem to me that mathematical objects are the latter, concepts that describe the relationship between physical existents. I may be way out of my league here, but I was curious as to whether or not anyone has any interesting ideas on the subject.
  21. Matt, The idea behind their objection was that no other company would be able to provide a higher quality product and a lower price than the "super-corporation." I'm not sure that I understand this argument, could you elaborate on it? I think this is a very good point. However, is it possible that they could counter that it is more likely that the super-corporation will be the one to innovate because they have so many more resources at their disposal?
  22. RadCap, 1. Take Microsoft. They have consistently offered a high quality product at a low product and have achieved a high level of economic power. The objection made to my comments was that once this high level of economic power is achieved, it would be easy for such a company to defeat its competition without having to specifically be concerned with providing a high quality product in the long-run. For example, say that this hypothetically company drastically reduced its prices long enough to eliminate the competition, then raised prices again once the competition was eliminated. The idea is not that Microsoft would be able to do so if they had a lower quality product and a higher price than the competition, but that no company could reach the point of having a higher quality product at a lower price because of the amount of economic power Microsoft has. 2. Please keep in mind that this is not my argument, but the objection that was presented to me. I agree with you in this instance. In fact, the argument you just presented was my argument against one of the counterexamples they presented to me, the DeBeers corporation. As to your aside, again, keep in mind, that this is not MY argument, but rather the argument presented to me by the people I was discussing this issue with. Therefore, I am not trying to justify capitalism on these grounds (in fact, as I said in my last post, I concentrated on a moral justification of capitalism in my arguments). As to their definition of efficiency, I took it to mean the idea of a steadily increasing quality of product and lowering of price that history has seen in many different markets under capitalist economies. So their objection, essentially, was that if there was no protection against non-coercive monopolies, the great practical benefits of capitalism demonstrated by history would be harmed.
  23. Last night, at the weekly meeting of my university's philosophical society of which I am the vice-president, we discussed the issue of antitrust law and monopolies. Our reading for the meeting was Alan Greenspan's Antitrust from Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal (I am in charge of choosing the readings for the meetings, hehe). An interesting question came up that I am struggling to find a proper answer for. In the meeting, I clearly made the case that in a capitalist system, there would be no overlap of economic power and political power, and that a coercive monopoly can only exist by government force. I specifically stressed the definitions of economic power and political power and how they are separate in capitalism by definition; the distinction between coercive monopolies and non-coercive monopolies; and most importantly, that a non-coercive monopoly, no matter how much economic power it may have at a given time, can not set its prices independently of the market. Through Greenspan's article as well as my own arguments, I convinced everyone there that under capitalism, coercive monopolies could not exist. However, a problem arose that I was not able to answer fully. The objection was essentially that a company could amass so much economic power that it could maintain control of the market at a low quality product and a high price. That is not to say that such a company could FORBID the possibility of future competition, but rather that a given company would have so much economic power that it would be close to impossible for any company to successfully defeat that strong company in competition. The result of this, according to the objection, would be a drastic decrease in efficiency in that given market; efficiency being a steady increase in product quality and decrease in product price. In response to this objection, I maintained that even such a company would not be able to set its prices independently of the market. If they charged too much for their products at too low of a quality based on the demand of the consumers, they would begin to lose revenue and would have to act accordingly to increase their quality and lower their prices if they wanted to maintain their success. Regardless of how much economic power a given company has therefore, they still have to answer to the conditions of the market. However, it still seems that a company with a large amount of economic power (examples given were Microsoft and DeBeers), would be much more resistant to the conditions of the market than a much smaller company would. Essentially, it was concluded that while I had given an excellent moral justification for capitalism (based on the conception of rights that I gave, etc.), I had not demonstrated that the free market is the most efficient economic system. While I believe that history clearly demonstrates the efficiency of the free market, I am struggling to give an adequate answer to the charge that a large amount of economic power centered in one company drastically decreases the efficiency of a market. Any ideas would be appreciated!
×
×
  • Create New...