Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Jam Man

Regulars
  • Posts

    48
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    Jam Man reacted to Nicky in You Don’t Believe in God – Disprove Him!   
    Right, because this hypothetical skeptic wouldn't just go "How do you know that's a yellow house?". He would stick to putting the prefix "How do you know" to just the arbitrary statements of your choosing.
    As for the answer to your question, it's because we named it. That's how I know. People were walking around with their eyes open, looking at things, and then one of them, pretty sure his name was Larry, went "Hey, Bob, you know all that s&*t we see around us, every time we open our eyes? Let's give it a name.". And then Bob went "Ok, how about 'external world'".

    And that's the story of how I know that all the s&*t we see when we open our eyes is the external world. Since this whole "using symbols" idea Larry and Bob came up with seems to have confused you, I would suggest trying this little mental exercise: instead of "external world", always say "all the s&*t we see when we open our eyes". Then see if the statement "Well, a skeptic might say: How do you know that all the s&*t we see when we open our eyes is all the s&*t we see when we open our eyes?" makes any sense or not. If it still does, you have a serious problem.
  2. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from Harrison Danneskjold in On Akstons reason to strike   
    Ragnar recovered stolen money. The stolen money, before it was repatriated, was being shipped off to prop-up Peope's States across the globe... states who have already drained themselves of resources and capital and who were now looking at the US as the last apple on the tree. Yes, Ragnar took money that was to keep it all from falling apart, thus allowing it to fall apart. What you fail to recognize is that he didn't steal the money in the first place, he was recovering it for its rightful owners; he didn't promise the citizens of the People's States stolen wealth from abroad, the leaders of those states did; he didn't organize the collapse of those states, the states' leaders did when they erected their society upon the moral foundation of a tapeworm.

    Ragnar destroyed nothing except a criminal enterprise. I'm sure there are innocent benefactors of the mafia who suffer when a local don is gunned down or arrested. Giving to the poor is an effective and popular method of maintaining favorability within a community, particularly when you want the community to turn a blind eye to some of your less-moral endeavors. That an entire continent was dependant upon criminals to steal and extort money from productive men for their survival was a non-issue for our just pirate Ragnar. The criminals -- the leaders, the politicians, the dictators -- were dooming themselves and their people when they began to rely upon force for their livelihood.
  3. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from dream_weaver in Ragnar's lesson   
    Every post you've made in any of these inter-connecting threads is based on the premise that it is immoral to break the bonds that tie the abuser and the abused; that one adversary doesn't have the right to withdrawl from the other, but instead must continue taking abuse in order to teach the other why abuse is wrong. Especially if breaking those bonds would cause harm to the abuser.

    Consider that a kid at school takes my lunch money every day. According to you, I would not only have to continue to let him take it, but take the trouble to explain to him why it's wrong for him to take it -- the lesson being delivered, presumeably, through a bloody nose. Well look, it's not like my missing lunch money is breaking me; and I still continue to study and excel at my main goal, which is keeping up with my scholastics; and in fact when I leave school for the day I don't have him to worry about, and all in all life is pretty damn good. You would tell me: "Suck it up. You know how to live, he doesn't. Teach him, even as he pummels you."

    You also teach me that I am in fact responsible for the consequences of his own actions. What happens if I leave that school, and without my lunch money he starves to death? Or is malnourished to the point that his success is impossible? You would say "He needed your lunch money and you knew it: you starved him." What if I went further, and rallied my classmates to oppose bullying? Or if I went further still, and built my own school where there would be no bullies allowed? Then you would say I was purging the world of bullies, that I was a murderer and responsible for all the things that the bullies ought to have known, even as I taught them and they rejected the lesson.
  4. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from SapereAude in Ragnar's lesson   
    Every post you've made in any of these inter-connecting threads is based on the premise that it is immoral to break the bonds that tie the abuser and the abused; that one adversary doesn't have the right to withdrawl from the other, but instead must continue taking abuse in order to teach the other why abuse is wrong. Especially if breaking those bonds would cause harm to the abuser.

    Consider that a kid at school takes my lunch money every day. According to you, I would not only have to continue to let him take it, but take the trouble to explain to him why it's wrong for him to take it -- the lesson being delivered, presumeably, through a bloody nose. Well look, it's not like my missing lunch money is breaking me; and I still continue to study and excel at my main goal, which is keeping up with my scholastics; and in fact when I leave school for the day I don't have him to worry about, and all in all life is pretty damn good. You would tell me: "Suck it up. You know how to live, he doesn't. Teach him, even as he pummels you."

    You also teach me that I am in fact responsible for the consequences of his own actions. What happens if I leave that school, and without my lunch money he starves to death? Or is malnourished to the point that his success is impossible? You would say "He needed your lunch money and you knew it: you starved him." What if I went further, and rallied my classmates to oppose bullying? Or if I went further still, and built my own school where there would be no bullies allowed? Then you would say I was purging the world of bullies, that I was a murderer and responsible for all the things that the bullies ought to have known, even as I taught them and they rejected the lesson.
  5. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from moralist in Was the strike, a purge?   
    At risk of assuming the nature of a broken record, I'll restate:

    "You seem to imply that if they were not his "kind" (you keep forgetting a space between those two words), then Galt would hunt them down and continue the purge; or, if he stumbled across of a band of altruists in the wilderness, he'd exterminate them on the spot.

    You curse Galt for wanting to live, and damn him for not caring enough to stop living his life long enough to show you how to live yours. It's his life! That's kind of the theme of the novel, that Atlas has a right to his own life, no matter what the demands of the entire globe might be. Galt doesn't want to plie-drive the globe, Ragnar doesn't want to teach them a lesson they'll never forget, they just wanna be fuckin' free, man, and the easiest way to do it AIN'T going door to door with pamphlets extolling the virtues of freedom. They saw that the world was going to shit, and they withdrew to a safe location... one where whatever the rest of assholes on the planet did to themselves didn't affect them, one where they could be free.

    What could Galt have said to Cuffy Meigs that would have made a man like that want to give it all up?"

    And what about the babies... all the babies, so innocent, so unentangled with the affairs of the world.... Indeed, unentangled and and innocent they may be, but John Galt's responsibility they are not. Should he remain a slave, because society has rigged it so that if he frees himself, innocents suffer?

    Why wage war or commit violence against a society that is already committing suicide? Why do you equate the recognition of the fact that a society is comitting suicide, with the murder of that society by the one who recognizes that fact and steps out of its influence?

    You even admit that it's moral to let a society act how it wants, rather than wage war against it, which is just what Galt did. What exactly is your beef?
  6. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from AbA in Was the strike, a purge?   
    At risk of assuming the nature of a broken record, I'll restate:

    "You seem to imply that if they were not his "kind" (you keep forgetting a space between those two words), then Galt would hunt them down and continue the purge; or, if he stumbled across of a band of altruists in the wilderness, he'd exterminate them on the spot.

    You curse Galt for wanting to live, and damn him for not caring enough to stop living his life long enough to show you how to live yours. It's his life! That's kind of the theme of the novel, that Atlas has a right to his own life, no matter what the demands of the entire globe might be. Galt doesn't want to plie-drive the globe, Ragnar doesn't want to teach them a lesson they'll never forget, they just wanna be fuckin' free, man, and the easiest way to do it AIN'T going door to door with pamphlets extolling the virtues of freedom. They saw that the world was going to shit, and they withdrew to a safe location... one where whatever the rest of assholes on the planet did to themselves didn't affect them, one where they could be free.

    What could Galt have said to Cuffy Meigs that would have made a man like that want to give it all up?"

    And what about the babies... all the babies, so innocent, so unentangled with the affairs of the world.... Indeed, unentangled and and innocent they may be, but John Galt's responsibility they are not. Should he remain a slave, because society has rigged it so that if he frees himself, innocents suffer?

    Why wage war or commit violence against a society that is already committing suicide? Why do you equate the recognition of the fact that a society is comitting suicide, with the murder of that society by the one who recognizes that fact and steps out of its influence?

    You even admit that it's moral to let a society act how it wants, rather than wage war against it, which is just what Galt did. What exactly is your beef?
  7. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from SapereAude in On Akstons reason to strike   
    Ragnar recovered stolen money. The stolen money, before it was repatriated, was being shipped off to prop-up Peope's States across the globe... states who have already drained themselves of resources and capital and who were now looking at the US as the last apple on the tree. Yes, Ragnar took money that was to keep it all from falling apart, thus allowing it to fall apart. What you fail to recognize is that he didn't steal the money in the first place, he was recovering it for its rightful owners; he didn't promise the citizens of the People's States stolen wealth from abroad, the leaders of those states did; he didn't organize the collapse of those states, the states' leaders did when they erected their society upon the moral foundation of a tapeworm.

    Ragnar destroyed nothing except a criminal enterprise. I'm sure there are innocent benefactors of the mafia who suffer when a local don is gunned down or arrested. Giving to the poor is an effective and popular method of maintaining favorability within a community, particularly when you want the community to turn a blind eye to some of your less-moral endeavors. That an entire continent was dependant upon criminals to steal and extort money from productive men for their survival was a non-issue for our just pirate Ragnar. The criminals -- the leaders, the politicians, the dictators -- were dooming themselves and their people when they began to rely upon force for their livelihood.
  8. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from Craig24 in Was the strike, a purge?   
    The title itself may give you some insight. Why did Atlas shrug? Because "...he stood, blood running down his chest, his knees buckling, his arms trembling but still trying to hold the world aloft with the last of his strength, and the greater his effort the heavier the world bore down upon his shoulders." In short, he was quickly approaching a point where he had to make a choice: It's either me, or the world. He shrugged to save himself. As was proper.

    Your concern lies with the shrugged world.

    That it was to perish was a given in either circumstance. Either it would crush Atlas and therefore cause its own destruction, by removing the support upon which it depended; or, it would perish after Atlas removed himself as that support. Atlas had no choice about the destruction of the world. Neither did Galt. That the world set itself on its own path towards doom was beyond their power to alter. To use your metaphor, the world was already gassing itself, whether Galt took he and his friends into the clean air chamber or not.

    You're confusing an act of self-defense for an act of agression. You're mistaking the shrug for a body-slam. And you're mistaking the strike for a purge.

    "Hey guys, look: the world's going to shit. You see it, I see it. And besides that, you see how they're riding us like jockeys? Stealing from us to survive, then damning us for having something to steal? I don't know about you, but I'm out. Who's with me? I got some nice land in the mountains, we'll be free and live as men.... Well, what about the rest of them? They have no right to weigh upon our backs. I'm not forcing them to do anything at all, except live without including me in their unspeakable evil. Sure, their ways will bring death and destruction. But not to me... or you, if you strike with me."

    Yes, Galt knew that defending his own life against another who claimed it for himself was the highest moral feeling (it stems from "I am worthy to be alive"). Not an act of murder, but of self-defense. What he went out to do, that night after the meeting in the factory, was defend himself against that unspeakable evil. He spoke in terms of motors, but you could also say that he collected all the good meat and kept it ziplocked while the parasites consumed the rest of the contaminated meat. Of course, the unprotected meat and the parasites would both perish: the meat by being consumed by the parasites, and the parasites by having no more meat on which to feed. All Galt really did was step aside and let nature take its course. He didn't have to purge the world of the parasites. He knew they would purge themselves. He just went on strike against being food.
  9. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from Nicky in Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics trumps Politics: vote Obama   
    I have the impression that the Republicans are intellectually vague, and don't know exactly what course to set; while the Democrats are intellectually firm, and know exactly what course to set. So with the R's, as with Bush, we get a sloppy, inconsistent administration that has a general tendency towards capitalism (but without really knowing why its best), and with the D's we get as clear a path as they can make to Marxism.

    I also have the impression that the OP admires the fidelity to a central ideal that the D's display, and has disdain for the half-hearted bumbling done by the R's when they have the ball.

    Firm convictions, founded upon an intellectual base, inspire confidence in the man or men holding them. Wishy-washy notions of tradition have the opposite effect upon the men holding them.

    If this were enough to judge a man or party fit for leadership, then the D's win. But the analysis doesn't end there. We must consider what convictions these men hold.

    A liberal professor, say, can articulate very well why private property doesn't exist. But that doesn't make the professor right, even though some schlub can't express his argument for private property any better than "It's mine 'cause I earned it". The professor makes his claim based upon (faulty) reason and logic, and the schlub makes his based upon a seemingly self-evident principle but without any real argument to support it.

    So do I stand by the professor or the schlub, when the time comes to implement their ideas? Do I stand by a party dedicated to an end, or a party which can't justify its own ends? One clearly expouses Marxism. The other gives lip service to Freedom and Capitalism, while not knowing how justify them in altruistic terms, or perhaps in any terms outside of being endowed by our Creator....

    But God-damn, at least the R's know the Constitution is GOOD, even if they don't fully understand it. They respect Individual Rights*, even if they don't have a thorough comprehension of them. They don't want to violate the Constitution's every principle in favor of fairness and equality.

    Neither party espouses laissez-faire, which is, politically, the only way to implement Individual Rights. But one is closer to doing it than the other.

    (*This is untrue of the R's in every aspect, of course. The War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage, Abortion immediately pop into mind)
  10. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from softwareNerd in Epistemology, Metaphysics and Ethics trumps Politics: vote Obama   
    I have the impression that the Republicans are intellectually vague, and don't know exactly what course to set; while the Democrats are intellectually firm, and know exactly what course to set. So with the R's, as with Bush, we get a sloppy, inconsistent administration that has a general tendency towards capitalism (but without really knowing why its best), and with the D's we get as clear a path as they can make to Marxism.

    I also have the impression that the OP admires the fidelity to a central ideal that the D's display, and has disdain for the half-hearted bumbling done by the R's when they have the ball.

    Firm convictions, founded upon an intellectual base, inspire confidence in the man or men holding them. Wishy-washy notions of tradition have the opposite effect upon the men holding them.

    If this were enough to judge a man or party fit for leadership, then the D's win. But the analysis doesn't end there. We must consider what convictions these men hold.

    A liberal professor, say, can articulate very well why private property doesn't exist. But that doesn't make the professor right, even though some schlub can't express his argument for private property any better than "It's mine 'cause I earned it". The professor makes his claim based upon (faulty) reason and logic, and the schlub makes his based upon a seemingly self-evident principle but without any real argument to support it.

    So do I stand by the professor or the schlub, when the time comes to implement their ideas? Do I stand by a party dedicated to an end, or a party which can't justify its own ends? One clearly expouses Marxism. The other gives lip service to Freedom and Capitalism, while not knowing how justify them in altruistic terms, or perhaps in any terms outside of being endowed by our Creator....

    But God-damn, at least the R's know the Constitution is GOOD, even if they don't fully understand it. They respect Individual Rights*, even if they don't have a thorough comprehension of them. They don't want to violate the Constitution's every principle in favor of fairness and equality.

    Neither party espouses laissez-faire, which is, politically, the only way to implement Individual Rights. But one is closer to doing it than the other.

    (*This is untrue of the R's in every aspect, of course. The War on Drugs, the Patriot Act, Defense of Marriage, Abortion immediately pop into mind)
  11. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from whYNOT in accept objectivism ALL of objectivism?   
    Roark makes this point while being a starving architect in The Fountainhead:



    Would I be tempted to lie? Absolutely. Would I feel like a piece of shit after I did? Without a doubt. Would I enjoy the steak dinner it bought me? It would lack savour, and fail to nourish my integrity and self-esteem as it would my body.

    "Yes but a just a little teeny white lie!? You would feel so bad over a very small compromise of your values and integrity!?"

    Indeed I would. Hopefully it would cause me to realize I need to find a career where I can perform my work honestly, and more fruitfully than I have been. Dominique sums it up:



    There is no difference between "honest" and "totally honest" or "completely honest". You don't start sentences with "Let me be honest..." because it ought to be a given, and you shouln't have to make that distinction to youself when you realize you're speaking to someone else out loud instead of thinking privately; as if everything you say without that qualifier may or may not represent your true and actual thoughts and opinions, or reality. Either you're honest, or you're not. To yourself and to others. The first step to being honest with yourself is to stop trying to justify your dishonesty, especially with life-or-death scenarios that don't represent day-to-day life.

    Mr. Foddis,



    To be honest does not mean that you must reveal secrets, or may not have them. If she asked me, I would tell her the truth. If she didn't ask, I would die with that knowledge, hoping for her sake she'd never find out another way, because she would've rather heard it from the man she loves than his lover. Either way, the consequences of my dishonesty in the past are unescapable. I'm a wreck on my deathbed, and instead of a solemn, final goodbye I'm left consumed with guilt or a twice heartbroken soon-to-be-widow on my conscious. If I've lived dishonestly, what else should I expect?

    A person doesn't need to be honest 100% of the time. Certainly he can lie his way into a win-win situation, and even rationalize to himself that he did right, given the results. A man only needs to be honest to the extent that he values his integrity. Some men don't, and lie willingly, white or otherwise. And being honest doesn't mean broadcasting every thought in my head out loud for the world to hear. It just means if you ask, you'll get the truth.

    Again about the dress: if she asks for my opinion, I'm going to give it to her, because that's what she asked for. It's more important to my integrity to be honest to her than to lie to her, yes. Just because social considerations come into play doesn't mean that principles go out the window.



    Is there no other way to postpone a conversation than to lie? If you're saying I tweaked my argument to show that honesty was the only option, then certainly you're tweaking this whole argument to show that lying is the only option that wouldn't lead to a shit-storm. "...with Dude X? No thanks, everytime he's around my girlfiend he tries to get her to leave me for him. I'd rather not." The possibilities are endless. Just tell your buddy the truth. "Why not Dude X?" "Don't worry about it right now man, go enjoy yourselves, we'll catch up later on." Done. Conversation postponed, integrity intact.



    That's the nail being hit on the head right there.
  12. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from Timbo in Does objectivism find everything after death to be valueless?   
    Interesting topic.

    Consider this. Your children exist now, when you are alive. It's not for the peace-of-mind of your corpse that you bequeath your inheritance to them. It's for your peace-of-mind now, while you are alive, that you make such arrangements.

    To the one who dies, no values are possible to him after death. If he attempts to arrange things to operate a certain way after his demise, it's only for his benefit now, in life. If he wants his classic car given to a museum, or his mechanic, it's not because he's worried about watching what's going to happen to it from above, when he's a ghost and his no-good son has ownership of it. It's because he values this thing in life that he takes the trouble to secure it after his death. It's for his peace-of-mind and well-being now.
  13. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from whYNOT in Does objectivism find everything after death to be valueless?   
    Interesting topic.

    Consider this. Your children exist now, when you are alive. It's not for the peace-of-mind of your corpse that you bequeath your inheritance to them. It's for your peace-of-mind now, while you are alive, that you make such arrangements.

    To the one who dies, no values are possible to him after death. If he attempts to arrange things to operate a certain way after his demise, it's only for his benefit now, in life. If he wants his classic car given to a museum, or his mechanic, it's not because he's worried about watching what's going to happen to it from above, when he's a ghost and his no-good son has ownership of it. It's because he values this thing in life that he takes the trouble to secure it after his death. It's for his peace-of-mind and well-being now.
  14. Like
    Jam Man got a reaction from SapereAude in Does objectivism find everything after death to be valueless?   
    Interesting topic.

    Consider this. Your children exist now, when you are alive. It's not for the peace-of-mind of your corpse that you bequeath your inheritance to them. It's for your peace-of-mind now, while you are alive, that you make such arrangements.

    To the one who dies, no values are possible to him after death. If he attempts to arrange things to operate a certain way after his demise, it's only for his benefit now, in life. If he wants his classic car given to a museum, or his mechanic, it's not because he's worried about watching what's going to happen to it from above, when he's a ghost and his no-good son has ownership of it. It's because he values this thing in life that he takes the trouble to secure it after his death. It's for his peace-of-mind and well-being now.
×
×
  • Create New...