Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

dark_unicorn

Regulars
  • Posts

    222
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by dark_unicorn

  1. Arinze is an embarrassment to the Catholic Church as far as I'm concerned, unfortunately Aquinas' view of reason is not universal to the church, and some of the old style mystics still hold high positions of power in the Church. The Da Vinci code is so blatantly absurd in it's historical errors that I think I actually saw a hidden reference to black helicopters between the lines. The people whom take the proposed senarios of a fictional novel as factual without researching the history involved will obviously be confused by this, as will most whom already hold hostility to the Catholic Church will be the primary audience that will preach the theories held within as factual. Arinze is serving the enemies of the church by lashing out agains this movie, he is implying that there is something in these conspiracy theories that needs to be hidden. I plan to see the Da Vinci code myself, so I can fully engage those duped by it in a reasoned debate. The boycott is within the bounds of reasoned dissent, but it is not neccesary, people need to understand the ineptitude of some of today's authors so they can fully understand why a man can not live by faith alone. P.S. - If I've crossed the bounds on what is permissable on this forum, I apologize.
  2. I just got a call from the TAU pressure group (Turkeys of America United), they've taken off from their campaign against Thanksgiving to let you know that they are offended at being compared with Chicago politicians. They are so mad that they are planning to file a lawsuit under the anti-discrimination act.
  3. I have a question I'd like to inject into this discussion, particular as it pertains to the Libertarian arguement against Big government. The Objectivist belief is that the Courts should be the body to deal with all property disputes, if I remember correctly, and such a daunting task would require a pretty massive court system considering the sheer number of fraud cases that could come up, even in a country with no room for government manipulation to cover one's bases. Would it be correct to assert that one of the differences between Libertarianism and Objectivism is that Libertarianism arbitrarily makes the assumption that a free market implies a universal adherance to individual rights? I've always been heavily critical of the Libertarian party because of it's hostility to reason, one which I have openly experienced when debating them on such issues as copyright and patent laws, foreign policy, and law enforcement.
  4. God Bless the wonderful city of Chicago, not only do the dead vote, but now so do the ducks and geese.
  5. dark_unicorn

    Allies

    One of the noted criticisms that Ayn Rand was correct on was the inconsistent defense of individual rights, and this applied to even the likes of John Locke and Adam Smith. Locke was pretty big on certain obligations, but I would assert that these obligations would mostly be in a volitional capacity, ergo the choice to have children, for example, would come with the accountability required for making such a choice. Furthermore, I think Ayn Rand herself made a distinction between obligations and duty, one which I agree with. As far as the principle of faith goes, I would tend to think that he believed that it was a matter of principle introspection, rather than a means for establishing laws. I don't think he would be a fan of the arbitrary nature of how our current legislature decides matters for the state. But I do see a point in your concern, if he supported faith as a method for attaining knowledge, in a free society this could open the door for Sophist-like politicians and philosophers to attack reason. I don't think that any of the Enlightenment philosophers were perfect, in fact, I would classify such charlatans as Rousseau, Hume, Bentham, and Kant as the Counter-Enlightenment. There definately needs to be a re-assessment of some of the original ideas of the Enlightenment if we are to understand how to reverse the course that this country is on, let alone the course of man in the universal sense. As far as the two worlds principle goes, there have been several assertions made by some parties amongst Christian apologists that an afterlife does not automatically imply a separate reality, but merely a change in the state of being after one's death. Granted, such a change in state can not be rationally defined since it would exist outside of a person's perceptive capabilities. I think there is a difference between believing that a part of your soul, the medium by which abstractions and memories are retained, goes on eternally after the flesh has expired, is different than asserting that an elite group of people keep the gates to such a place and alone have the capability to recieve messages from it (Platonic Christianity). Some protestants, surprisingly, have a high level of respect for reason. I would chalk this up to the splits amongst the original 3 protestant churches. Though the Luther and the Calvin were openly hostile to Aquinas, many of their followers left the Catholic Church due to local problems of priestly hypocrisy, more so than theological or philosophical concerns. P.S. - My apologies for my capitalization mistakes, sometimes I neglect to hit the shift key when typing, hense the mistake on the critical term Objectivism. This is not done purposefully, I assure you, as the implications would be that I give credence to some who label themselves as such yet do not follow the principles of the philosophy's founder.
  6. dark_unicorn

    Allies

    - Ethics: As far as my readings of him go, he leaned more towards egoism, but by the standards laid out by objectivism, he has some "concern for others/public good" tendencies that can't be denied. It's difficult to say for certain, but I don't think he saw a contradiction between benevolence and individualism, which would suggest something more in line with individual rights. He was no Immanuel Kant, that much is certain, but I myself noted some several references to public service. But as a Thomist, I don't see this as altruism, because the kind of charity that is in line with individualism is one where a mutual value exchange takes place, ergo the giver is rewarded in some way. At least by Comte's standard, Locke was not an altruist, although I don't know if he satisfies the definition of a rational egoist. - Epistemology: Most Deists sought God through a posterori reasoning, or in more basic terms, they sought to avoid the absurdities that would often result from what is rightfully called blind faith (non-rational means of knowledge). This is a slightly more consistent form of what Aquinas used in his arguements for a reason based proof of God's existence. I know that this method is not a perfect proof, in fact, it is notably imperfect by virtue of how many people reject it even when fully understanding it. Voltaire was openly hostile to any form of religion, which he classified as the ridiculous methods of the tyrant by virtue of the lack of reason involved. Since the good Frenchman, whom I admire highly (my Catholicism non-widthstanding) was influenced by Locke, it would make sense that Locke would be more in this school. Granted, this is a different conclusion of metaphysics than objectivism. All questions of God stem from either an affirmation or a denial, both answers can come from either reason or irrational thought. - Metaphysics: I would guess based on what I've read (I am still at study) that his views on this were similar to Aristotle's, though close to the objectivism, still carries what Leonard Peikoff refers to as some remnants of Plato. The belief in a "Natural God" indicates the existence of an afterlife, otherwise the existence of a diety would serve little purpose other than explaining the origin of the universe. This is definately not in line with objectivism, and it's also the determining factor in why I do not qualify as a follower of the philosophy.
  7. dark_unicorn

    Allies

    I understand the distinction in the causes, John Locke did not believe in an eternal universe which is what Objectivism asserts in metaphysics and there were some Epistemological differences as well, and of course Ayn Rand's addressing the problem of universals puts her in a different school than any philosopher of the enlightenment, but I would hope that you guys look more fondly on John Locke than you do on the Libertarians. John Locke was very prolific philosopher and had a very comprehensive philosophy, where as my readings on Libertarian ideology would lead me to believe that they value choice more than reason, which is an obvious absurdity. I would assert that the Libertarians are pretty much in line with Nihilism, they're view on the war on terror in particular (of those I know anyway) leads me to believe that they are moved more by conventional wisdom at times than by rational discourse.
  8. dark_unicorn

    Allies

    To correct the initial error, I'm interested in both political and philosophical alliance, and I will try to frame both a bit more clearly. Political - Advocating laws based on individual rights and minimizing/eliminating statist policies conducted by the government. Philosophical - Advocating a system based on individual rights, a philosophical condemnation of both the tyranny of individual government despots and the tyranny of the majority. (This philosophical alliance would deal mostly with Ethics, since there would obviously be strong contradictory views on metaphysics)
  9. My advice when it comes to the historical question, get alot of different sources, weigh the facts against each other, use logic to seek out any contradictions, try to resolve them by leaning towards the more likely answer, hypothesize what you think happened based on the facts at hand. Ultimately history functions the same way that mathematical measurements do, just in a different context. You can only question details as far as they are both knowable and practical, hense the mathematical technique which we know as approximation. Approximation is done specifically for the purpose of keeping the measurement accurate enough to be practical, and at the same time not reduce it beyond it because such reductions are not neccesary. If someone asks how many kilometers it is to drive from point A to point B is, simply stating an approximation as 1.25 kilometers is sufficient, and further specifying to something as lengthy as 1.249986574 kilometers is not neccesary, and will probably leave the person asking for directions perplexed. There comes a point where you have to weigh the relevance of a given event in history. For example, if we wish to know Abraham Lincoln's motivation for seeking to end slavery in the south, I don't think we need to take into account the fact that he was flat footed and often went barefoot when company was present. (Such facts are true, but are not relevant to the situation). Furthermore, if a historical event touches on a subject that you have a certain opinion on, particularly an ideological one, you must reprove your own premises before objectivity is possible. One of my biggest complaints of many political historians is that they are often revisionists and will intentionally mis-represent historical events or divorce them from any sense of perspective in order to satisfy their own ideological caprices. P.S. - Bear 2 things in mind, although I've read nearly all of Ayn Rand's books I do not qualify as an objectivist for some various differences, and also I am not a professional historian, though I am an avid reader of history, particularly that of Ancient Greece, Rome and Late Medieval/Renaissance Europe.
  10. Most Protestant Christians have Augustinian tendencies, this is mostly due to the fact that Martin Luther and John Calvin were both Augustinian enthusiasts in their view of theology (Martin Luther's By Faith Alone doctrine, which is an extreme take on Original Sin even by Augustine's standards, as well as John Calvin's predestination doctrine, which is in line with Plato's principle of unearned wisdom from the realm of ideas). Some Protestants who protested the original protestant churches have picked up on some of Aquinas' re-telling of Aristotle's philosophy, but they often get it in lesser amounts due to conflicts with their doctrine of Scripture Alone (which most protestants kept from the original reformation). This is the reason for the confounding of the borders between reason and faith, and ultimately why the "Bible Belt" can not differentiate between a metaphysical speculation to the source of existence and logical experimental methods done by induction and deduction. Essentially the so-called Bible Beater is walking in the 21st century, but his sense of rational discourse is still locked in the pre-13th century mindset of Platonic Christianity. As far as what I've read of Kant, he was essentially an eccentric, and this can probably be traced back to his education in the Lutheran Church. One of the things which the Lutherans are really big on is extreme humility, to the point of appearing guilty of some crime. This would explain his extreme punctuality, as he did not wish to appear arrogant or prideful to his patrons. His nightly walks are a bit more of a mystery to me.
  11. As a former student of philosophy (as a minor which I later dropped) I was immersed in debate with Kantians and all of the various schools that his philosophy ended up fathering (Existentialism, Pragmatism, Marxism, Hegelanism, et cetera). I was unique not only because I was also a student of theology, but in that I was the only one who argued for an objective reality, though be it one where God existed as the first cause (in line with the Thomist school). Most Kantians were emersed in metaphysical agnosticism, ergo they couldn't even be sure if a pencil that they use to write existed in the same form independent their A Priori Synthesis, and they would get extremely offended if I even snickered at this (which I did constantly). This metaphysical agnosticism made such simple concepts as pencils and paper so convoluted that when it came time to talk of such things as God, there seemed to be a sense of mental fatigue, probably due to the overload they had given their minds with all the concepts at war with needless anti-concepts. Kantians, furthermore, are extremely threatened by anything that would crush their little subjective universe, and the concept of an immutable diety that creates natural laws that can't be avoided is probably the most offensive attack to them in that regard. But ironically, when Ayn Rand's name would occasionally pop up in discussions (this was before I read her books), there was such vitriol and contempt for her that I wondered how an atheist could anger them more than Catholicism could. After I read "Intro to Objectivist Epistemology" I found my answer. P.S. - It has often been my belief that Kant himself did not neccesarily share his followers fear and loathing of Objective Reality (this is by no meant to absolve him of the responsibility of the chaos that we've seen in the 20th century), and this is probably due to the fact that most Kantians are also influenced by Hegel, who inverted the principle and basically asserted that the subjective whim of the individual is an absolute (a contradiction to be sure) and the result is a person who is so militantly untrusting of his own mind that he feels threatened when others use their's to understand an external reality.
  12. McCain is a fascist, there is no doubt about it, and from what I understand his censor-happy democrat ally Russ Feingold also plans to run. It's Mussolini and his german protege, back from the dead.
  13. dark_unicorn

    Allies

    Forgive the confusion in terms, but what I was inquiring about is the nature of a relationship between those who follow the Philosophy of Objectivism (Ayn Rand's philosophy). versus someone who maintains the Voltaire/Locke position that Natural Law through a natural god. Deism is a belief in a rational pursuit of God, Objectivism rejects the existence of a God. I'm not interested in convincing anyone on this forum that God exists (I don't think this ever actually happens, since belief requires volition), I'm just seeking to understand better the nature of Objectivism's contrast with the old Enlightenment philosophers, and the God issue is one example where I see a difference. What I was seeking was to understand the reason why a philosophical alliance with a Lockean would not be possible.
  14. I'm actually opposed to the death penalty, the sentencing wasn't the issue, as I explained in my post, my issue was how they came to their decision. Court precedents can filter into future decisions. @DavidOdden - I am aware that it is required by law to consider such things, but the law does not command them to give it credence. But in either case, I don't support the laws as they exist, so knowing that, my objection still stands. Besides, the same public education system produced the morons who originally came up with such laws.
  15. (Emphasis added by myself) As a non-objectivist member of this forum and as a practicing Catholic I have to take issue with this statement. The application of the term "dogmatic" does not apply to Objectivism because of the nature of it's axioms, the most important one being taking your senses percieve as the basis of reality. Here is the definition of Dogmatic. 1. Relating to, characteristic of, or resulting from dogma. 2. Characterized by an authoritative, arrogant assertion of unproved or unprovable principles. Objectivism takes as an axiom the validity of our senses, so if you assert the 2nd definition, you are basically saying that anything we see or hear is not provable, which is absurd. Furthermore, if you are asserting the 1st definition, I can link you to a series of polemics that Rand, Peikoff, and several others have launched against the Catholic Church or several other religions, all of them based on contrary principles. Religious Dogma is arrived at for a number of various causes, most of them based upon denying reason for some non-rational means. However, when it comes to actually proving the existence of a personal God, such a being is defined as being the source of nature, which would suggest something either greater in size than the physical universe (which we can not fully percieve by our senses), or existing in a form divorced from physical perception. Objectivism does not deal with the existence of things that are not provable because it ventures outside the rational realm, hense what you get is a rather pleasant indifference to the subject of God existing or not, rather than the militant form of Atheism that I observe from most Kantian students, which is why I like it here. Objectivists are not automatically hostile to religion, but they are heavily critical of it at it's fundamental level, so comparing Objectivism to it is completely absurd and can only function as a personal attack, which is always counter-productive. One of the bones of contention amongst various students of Thomism, myself included, is the problem of ontologically arguing proofs. In essence, though Aquinas did not fully come to this conclusion at the time, it all stems from the problem of a priori knowledge being a standard of validating things. A few mavericks such as myself think that a priori knowledge doesn't actually exist, and that all mathematical constructs are based upon experience, and this view is held more strongly by Objectivists. If you take the arguement that Objectivism is wrong because it stands upon the basis that reality pertains to sensory perception (the only known basis for rational thought), then you are basically either stating that you think that some non-sensory means leads to a clearer reason (the Kantian principle) or the contrarian arguement that "I don't like it because philosopher A said so and I don't like him/her because of how he/she said it", which is the childish response I get from Libertarians.
  16. The thing that troubles me the most about this wasn't neccesarily the decision, but the reasoning behind it. People taking into account such patently absurd things as family upbringing and emotional trauma as a child, as if such things can be used to rationalize such actions. Essentially many of those jurors felt that Mussoai was not possessed of a free will, and that therefore he is not responsible for his actions. By this standard any potential terrorist could escape punishment, because this can easily apply to anyone brought up in an Islamicist country. God Bless progressive education, for it produces such wonderful morons who, in turn, decide matter of justice from the jury box. Is it any wonder that justice is failing in this country?
  17. dark_unicorn

    Allies

    Out of curiousity, and anyone else is free to answer this, what would be the nature of a so-called long term alliance. What I mean about this is, how would the Objectivist approach a political alliance (though by no means in 100% principle) with such pro-capitalistic groups as the Adam Smith Society, or Classical Liberal/Naturalist groups such as the John Locke foundation or the Voltaire Society of America. These groups claim a moral defense of individual rights, though they are naturalists rather than objectivists, and inspired by Deist philosophers rather than Atheist philosophers. I am not interested in neccesarily having an epic arguement over this, I am just seeking a simple, principled answer from any of you.
  18. In the interest of being fully forth-coming, I am not an objectivist, I am a renegade Thomist/Lockean with a desire to rid America of the evils of comsumerism. I do not favor faith over reason, but a president's fallacious views on metaphysics are less of a concern than the ethics that the democratic party, which is a rather potent blend of altruism and pragmatism. Harry Binswanger's arguement against Kerry was a bit more interesting, I suggest giving it some credence before you swallow the idea that supporting a democrat is something that a proponent of laissez faire ought to do. Kerry's tax policy was my principle concer, with his views on nationalized health care and more economic controls. They're both Clinton chronies and will bring back the same era of government/business corruption that gave us the Enron and World Com scandals. We need less statism, and independent a complete reversal of the political trends, I say support the person who will delay the process over someone who will speed it up. Ahh yes, the great Stalinist prosecutor from the Reagan era who persecuted businessmen in a fashion reminiscent of the General Electric debauchle. I will only associate one name with this Leftist Republican, and that is Michael Milken.
  19. I listen to him from time to time, he is preferrable to the boring crap I see on the television news networks. (Even Fox News is starting to get on my nerves) His arguement that the environmentalists are actually just anti-capitalists is an accurate observation. Unlike the original Greens that spawned from Europe, America's entire left movement has been in a state of evolution and malformation based on the power of their opposition. Essentially the environmentalist movement in America is a mutant offspring of the failure of American socialism.
  20. dark_unicorn

    Debitism

    I have a question about the Gold Standard, does it neccesarily have to consist only of Gold? Can Platinum or Silver possibly substitute for Gold because they are also fairly rare and durable? I'm just curious as to why it is particularly gold that should be the standard of worth.
  21. Hmmm, I need to reread my history books a bit, but this is very interesting, because technically all that would be required to eliminate the right to free speech is a large enough vote of both houses of congress. As Aristotle put it so eloquently "Republics fall into democracies, and democracies deteriorate into despotism".
  22. Basically it's closer to the correct answer. Although a more objectivist form of government would obviously not involve all the contradictory functions which a statist government would, it is still a fairly complex theory and requires a bit more detail than you gave. I think that the 3 branches of government that we've had since the beginning work just fine, the problem is that our constitution had some flaws in it and those have been exploited in order to undermine the spirit of both individual rights and capitalism. They include some of the following. 1. The Interstate Commerce Clause 2. Eminent Domain 3. The lack of full acknowledgement of the rights of all individuals (granted, the US corrected this before any other nation considered it, so we must keep our perspective) 4. The capability of levying an income tax (it should have been outlawed by the constitution)
  23. Speaking from my own perspective, any concept or concepts would be referring to the human mind's capability to grasp concepts. The difference is that Russell seems to believe that concepts have some sort of metaphysical existence, which has been an error that many Aristotilean philosophers have fallen into. The human mind has a metaphysical existence for it is part of the body of an existing entity (man), however, the abstractions that it creates within it's own function do not exist in metaphysics unless interpretted by a rational mind, hense the dividing line between Metaphysics and Epistemology.
  24. Manmade Global Warming is, by it's very nature, a criticism leveled at man's existence and prosperity. It seeks to delegitimize man's existence on the planet by stating that our nature is incompatible with that of all things in nature. It is a contradiction in metaphysics, human beings are subsumed under the concept of nature, we sprang out of materials existing within the natural universe. (Even the staunchest of creationists accepts the fact that man is partially composed of otherwise non-living matter such as calcium). The arguement is not merely that industrialization has caused a subjectivistic strawman known as man-made global warming, but that one of it's bi-products, increases in human population and life-span, is also contributing to it. It is the worst creed of man-hating on the planet, I fear them more than the Marxists, at least they can be reasoned with to a certain degree. I concur with Inspector's assertion regarding the CO2 emissions of volcanoes, and would also like to add that Earth's orbit is not a perfect circle around the sun, but a varying oval that can shift depending upon any irregularities in solar activity. Furthermore, the sun does not burn at a constant, uniform rate, it has eruptions, sunspots, solar flairs, and other awesome phenomena of pyro-technics that can cause shifts in seasonal conditions. When you consider the immensity of the universe, and all of the things going on in it that are 100% beyond our control at this time in our existence, that alone is enough to make the doomsday followers of Gaia worship appear as raving lunatics, but when you actually put some scientific scrutiny to it, (and I mean rational science, not voodoo science) you find that you need to create new words such as "moonbat" because "raving lunatic" just doesn't cover the insanity on full display.
×
×
  • Create New...