aequalsa
-
Posts
2171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Posts posted by aequalsa
-
-
I had another idea.
Satire is highly effective and underused except by the political left(John Stewert, Colbert, etc) I realize this would be personality dependent and require a team of extremely skilled comedic writers to not fail miserably, but a newscast making fun of the idiocy on both sides might be a good way to affect some change...maybe it wouldn't be that hard...there's a lot of low hanging fruit in current leftist economic policies. No idea what kind of production value a million bucks buys but excellent writing and acting talent can make up for a lot.
-
Is there any particularly substantial difference between your first idea and the Ayn Rand Campus program that has just opened on the ARI site today?
As for the dictionary, I've been planning to do petty much exactly that for a while once I finish college.
I'm not familiar with it. If they're doing that, then great!
-
I'd never heard of her
Indeed! Including respect-deserving veterans who never chose to wear any label, but share and admire Ayn Rand's opera, and complement her work. An example of such a person in need of real assitance would be Celia Green.
I am not the perfect messenger, and you may shoot down my ideas, but judge Celia Green's work and its relationship with Objectivism yourselves!
I'd never heard of her before your post, but in perusing her website I'm a bit put off. She seems to blame quite a bit on her father, early school life, and the world at large for someone her age. I can see the cross over of her views with Objectivism but they do seem to seriously conflict in a number of ways.
-
I imagine a free online university, something along the lines of Khan University with an Objectivist twist would be useful. A repository of courses, talks, Q and A regarding Objectivism and Philosophy, political Science and what not, which has no inconsistencies or conflicts with objectivism. A good deal is copyrighted, I suppose, but it could build over time. Free access would be key to having a wide spread effect.
A second idea would be a wikipedia style online dictionary with perhaps, a slightly more strict contribution standard. Objective definitions, genus, differentia....ahhh...so much clarity of thought.. especially if it was all hyperlinked and grouped by genus and differentia. Ill make the first contribution
Dictionary: dik-shu-nar-ee noun Genus-Reference Book, Differentia-language guides; Genus Cohorts-encyclopedia, almanac, etc; Species-translation dictionaries, thesaurus, etc : A book or list of words, provided in alphabetical order complete definitions, examples of use, genus and differentia, pronunciations, etymology, etc. used for clarity of conception in spoken or written communication.
-
I would like to ask if anyone has any knowledge of essays/articles/books on the distinction between Republic and Democracy.
There are some entries on capitalismmagazine.com, but I'm looking for something more substantial on which to base a work arguing for a rights-respecting political system, rather than a whimsical, cliche-filed concept of democracy.
Thanks.
The Federalist Papers
-
That's correlation only, and like the article says, it may have as much to do with recreational drug users having been more likely to have gone to college as the effects of the drugs. I have no idea why they even would do(or publish) a study like this. We can infer almost anything we want from average IQ's of drug users to the "use it or lose it" approach to mental capacity to college being a hedonistic holding vat where the most intelligent(on average) 1/3 of the population is bored enough to blitz their mind out on a semi regular basis.
If they could bother to show any actual causation and we are left with "smoking pot increases working memory" or whatever, than sure it would affect objectivist's views if they wish to improve their mental sharpness. Personally I'm doubtful though having been well acquainted with some long term pot heads. I could imagine that some drugs lightly used(hallucinogenics mainly) may be of some value in allowing someone to make broader connections but I don't think that they do anything like increase sharpness.
-
Here is my response.
Article 1 Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution states:
The Congress shall have Power .... To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;
Grames, thanks for your, as usual, cool headed legal explanation in "Captain dummy talk." It laid to rest some of my fears regarding the NDAA, but not my primary one which I wondered if you could address.
I'm concerned that since "terror" is a pretty ambiguous enemy, the war on terror could become similar to the war on drugs or poverty, but maybe worse, as precedents are broadened and expanded to include more and more people considered "hostile" or "belligerent" to the government. In the same way that the patriot act has been a great boon for chasing down drug dealers and tax evaders. but not terrorists, i think it possible that this act could be used in the same way. Do you have reason to believe, as opposed to hope, that this will, or has to be used solely for its alleged purpose?
-
I was responding to the premise of the argument itself, a fact which unfotunately was not made evident in my post.
Ah, no worries. I thought since you quoted my response that you were attributing the origination to me. Thanks for clarifying.
-
Ascribing any importance to melanin levels in the skin is a sign of the lowest form of tribalism. The number of multi-racial couples and families is a meaningless factoid.
Tribalism is the lowest form of collectivism, and racism is just one of many flavors of tribalism.
Just to be clear, I was not ascribing importance to it except to say that the OP is factually mistaken, which is important since he used Brazil as an example of how a hedonistic culture leads to lower levels of racism as defined by a larger rate of romantic involvement across racial lines.
-
I get the impression from your statements that you have a deeper confusion on the delimited nature of children's rights as a special case?
-
The problem, is that in Brazil, the lines between "black" and "white" is heavily blurred, (unlike in America) and so its not entirely clear how "white" the white people are or how "black" the black people are.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say. Are you basing your assertion that the tropical hedonistic paradise of Brazil is not racist because of a higher percentage of intermarriage and admixture than the US? If so, your link does not specify that.My understanding is that in the US, most "blacks" have significant percentages of "white" DNA, as high as 30% by some estimates with 10% having more than 50% white DNA. Not sure what Brazil's numbers are but they couldn't be much higher than that or there would be no clear visual division between the 48% self classified whites in the country.
Either way though, even if there was a much larger mixture rate, it's hardly an indication of there being no cultural racism, since the mixture was likely even more common in earlier days when Portuguese men took black wives who were slaves do to an absence of Portuguese women. I don't think it makes your point really, unless there is something I am misunderstanding.
-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_Brazil
Brazilians that I've known don't tend to agree with your assertion so I did a quick search. No shortage of material if your interested in correcting your view. This doesn't discredit your primary point. it's just not a great example.
-
I think that your confusion stems from not identifying the fact that Objectivism is aimed primarily at producers rather than consumers. The fact that consumers want an easy way to buy books is barely relevent. They want all sorts of things from prius's and cocaine to brocoli and ipads. Human desire, in general can be good or bad depending on the premises of the individual doin' the wantin'.
To actually produce what is necessary to feed those desires, however, requires long term conceptual thought and mountains of delayed gratification. The desire does not create the technology. The ability of some to move away from "concrete bound" thinking and wait and work for what they truly want rather than what they want in any particular whim filled moment, does.
-
Zeitgeist much?
My grandmother(born a couple decades after Rand)had cigarettes prescribed by her doctor. It was a different world. Aristotle advocated slavery. Probably why he's had no effect on the world, right?
The funny thing is Christians do, (and have for hundreds of years) understood this principle and its another reason why Christianity is successful. Objectvist's don't. Which is part of the reason why Objectivism is not successful.
Perhaps your not familiar with Christianity. The whole point is that humans are fallen through original sin, and can NOT (as in are not capable of) live perfectly and consistently according to its tenets, as the founder allegedly did. Of course, we could allege the same thing about Rand with the same likelihood of it being true.
-
The worry amongst many of us is not that he'd refuse to spend trillions of dollars repairing countries--we are against that... but that he'd refuse to destroy countries that are actually threats and consequently, badly need a destroying. He seems to be in denial about Iran, in particular. But I will admit that I could be wrong about Iran being an objective threat.
I understand your concern, totally, and share it. What I can't get my mind around is how anyone could imagine that Obama or Romney or Gingrich would make us so much safer as to justify allowing the wholesale destruction of our rights that they are currently engaged in. Given that the president will be one of few with all of the relevant information, ultimately we have to trust them to make a rational decision on a proper moral basis in regards to it. Paul's the only one in the field who I can judge in this regard since the others are completely unprincipled politicians, at best, and outright liars otherwise. I find him to be generally credible, knowledgeable and sincere and really the only realistic option right now for slowing the damage being done. Regardless of the next 4 years, I'm not really certain that we have survived the last 4 years and shudder to think about which have to be obliterated next....What's left? The 3rd amendment and half of the second? Scraps of the 1st? From where I sit foreign threats to my negative liberties are a minor blip on the screen compared to the aggression we are facing within so he could be a total pacifist and still come off as preferable to the rest of those statist thugs intent on owning me.
-
Although I'm far more concerned about domestic than foreign policy in this election, Ron Paul's foreign policy is so bad as to disqualify him, in my view. America would not survive four years with him at the helm, I don't think.
I don't know if that is meant hyperbole, but I am not sure at all what would be less "survivable" about his constitutional approach to war making. If his predecessors(or opponents) had a record of consistently acting in the best interests of the country in Foreign policy, let alone their totally disastrous domestic policies, that would be one thing, but spending trillions of dollars repairing countries we destroyed is hardly an unequivocal example good foreign policy. And further, if we have now, as a country, decided that the government has the right to censor the internet and the 4th amendment is decimated, we are rapidly approaching the point where there is little freedom to defend.
-
"I'd be surprised to learn that this experience of Objectivists is much more than confirmation bias, and whats more, i don't believe that the essence of the response is entirely inappropriate."
Would you tell me what is meant by "confirmation bias"?
If you just read more of Ayn Rand's works, then you'd understand.
....sorry...I couldn't help myself.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias It's the tendency keep track of answers that confirm your original view. I think that this is accomplished in this case by choosing groupings of people that are not equitable for comparisons. Comparing people from a philosophical movement, a political party, and a religion will bias the answer you find when examining a debate tactic, since those three groups have differing goals. This allows the OP to come to the conclusion that the response in question that he receives from objectivists is related to or caused by Objectivism as opposed to some other factor like age or philosophical movements at large. Comparing Libertarians to Democrats or Atheists and Jews to Christians, would be more accurate in forming a generalization.
And tell me just how, in plain but specific language, you see enough merit to deem that you don't believe that "the essence of the response is entirely inappropriate."That's what I get for dicking around with double negatives. I meant to say "is not entirely inappropriate." Thanks for pointing that out and sorry for the confusion.
-
3. Often times, if I know I’ve cornered the Objectivist, they will resort to ad hominem and then tell me to come back when I understand Objectivism better/have read more Objectivist books.
I'd be surprised to learn that this experience of Objectivists is much more than confirmation bias, and whats more, i don't believe that the essence of the response is entirely inappropriate. I've experienced this in argumentation with philosophically interested people in and out of objectivism equally but only if you're careful to keep careful track of the context. Ever try arguing with and advocate of AGW without being turned to literature?
Most often it seems to be more the result of youth and especially, a lack of complete(enough) knowledge on the immediate subject. So say for example, if I were a Kantian with my current mediocre familiarity with his writings, and we were involved in a debate, we would very quickly get to a place where I'd have to say, "I am personally satisfied that the categorical imperative is well validated but cannot reproduce his whole argument for you. You'll need to study his works if you have more questions." That, I think is perfectly fair. I'm not Kant after all and people do need to go to the source eventually or you end in arguing and defending what amount to little more than straw men and caricatures of broadly explained philosophical systems. Their are of course more and less politic ways of expressing that, and that would be an aspect of youth and inexperience.
Obviously, if you were dealing with an intellectual defender of the system, they should have their understanding integrated well enough to not need to resort to that kind of a response. That's a bare minimum of due diligence and the least we should expect. At a level of expertise in any field, you reach that point where you are familiar enough with the subject that you are aware of most of the difficult parts and in possession of several ways of resolving them. Seeming contradictions, leaps of faith and whatnot, so being questioned doesn't put you immediately on the defensive. My guess though, is that your basis for judgment consists in large part of what amounts to first year philosophy students with only the beginnings of a fully functional and philosophically mature outlook. Expecting a doctoral level of knowledge is unfair. I wouldn't even do that to a Kantian.
If you are talking about Peikoff, or whomever, then I'd need to see the specific interaction before commenting.As far as the Democrats and Republicans being exempt from that sort of response, I'd not be surprised, mainly because neither have anything even resembling an integrated philosophy uniting their thoughts. Categorizing people is best done with care, and in this case, comparing a political party participant to a follower of a philosophy won't yield useful information about either. Regarding your religious people example, I have had them use that argument, but only if they are debaters and scholars of the subject, rather than proselytizers, which, I'd note, most aren't. A proselytizer's goal is to have you read everything that they have and become convinced but the tactic they employ is invite you with open arms to be in fellowship with them at bible studies and let you take your time to become convinced later. Their purpose is wholly different so avoiding insult or even defensiveness is paramount. Compare that to a young student of Objectivism who finally stumbled across a book that corresponds to their long held intuitions and views of the world. They've read 2 or 10 books and find her views to be immediately obvious and imagine that anyone else who they show it to will be as immediately swept away and what's more, appreciative of being given this leap forward in mental clarity and philosophical justification for what they already are.They have very little of an inclination to convince you and no reason to suspect that incredulity that one would expect if they were advocating eating the metaphorical body of a dead Jew to avoid being cast into fire and darkness, for example.
What those objectivists would do well to realize is that while their primary sense of life view of the world may hinge on justice, a reality independent universe model, fiscal conservatism or something else that jives well with objectivism, someone else may have their whole life view revolving around egalitarianism or subjectivism or any number of other things, so their response to objectivist ideas is anything but an "ah ha" moment.
But anyway, I'd recommend more patience with youth and clearer context based classifications for these sort of informal sociological studies.
-
the known devil will come out winner.
I'm totally disgusted by Obama. Things that he's so far said and done lead me to believe that he's a complete socialist and opposed to individual liberty, as such. I think between the massive debt he's created, the mandated purchase of health care, and the decimation of our oil industry(amongst other things) no president has done as much damage to this country since FDR(Gingrich's favorite president, btw, because of his "progressive policies). That said, I can't in any way bring myself to believe that Gingrich or Romney would be any better. All 3 are insiders with no regard for anything that I hold dear. To the extent that they say anything otherwise it's pretty clear that they're lying. That Paul is doing so well tells me that there's a significant percentage who feel the same. This "Two" party system is a total fraud and I don't intend to support it with the pretense of my involvement in the process.
If Paul runs, I'll vote for him, otherwise I'm going to write in Gary Johnson.
-
The Baby Boomers and Gen-X gave up trying to better the world by creating value, and decided to complain about it instead. "But such and such isn't made in America! It's the big evil corporation's fault!"
Most data seems to point to your generational generalizations being incorrect. This new crop, the Millennials, are the ones spitting out most of the OWS whining and pro socialist ideologies. Gen Xers were the latchkey kids who were largely left at home alone when their mothers started working working, before daycares were the norm. The tend towards skepticism and away from political parties, skeptical of established government with a higher likelihood towards fiscal conservatism paired with social liberalism. Largely over represented as libertarians and bloggers.
http://motorcitytimes.com/mct/2010/10/gen-x-politics-and-the-tea-party/
-
No, I wasn't evading, actually I didn't have time, until now. By what virtue does Roark possess the ability to exert physical force and thereby dominate Dominique? Is it by virtue of the values he holds? Is it by virtue of his intellect, or the strength of his character, or his sense of life? No. The primary reason he is able to overpower Dominique physically is because he was born a male. In other words, he is able to overpower her and take her by force because of an accident of birth, and not by virtue of anything within his control or within the province of choice.
You, perhaps inadvertently, made a connection for me that I had not before noticed. You're right in that he was only able to do what he did because he was a man. It was a demonstration of her view of masculinity in its most appropriate context, that is, acting without apology and with full desire, upon a woman. You can, of course, disagree with her notions of masculinity(many do), but I think that is what she was trying to convey.
The building's destruction, I'm surprised to learn that anyone thinks was wrong. He made the realization that his "contract" had been totally violated and the justice system he lived under would not act to correct the wrongdoing, so he took away what he had given them. He took pains to insure that no innocent's rights had been violated and he was fully willing to accept any consequences that resulted. It might be argued that it wasn't sensible to risk, throwing his life away in prison, but the demonstration was that his sense of integrity was inviolable and allowing that monstrosity to continue existing would be an injustice he couldn't tolerate. If we lived in a world where just men weren't cowards, than that bastardized building would not likely have been built in the first place, but that's not the case, so it was and he had to act.
The fact that any brute can destroy a building doesn't mean that men who are not brutes ought to never destroy one. Which seems to be your same thought process with regard to the "rape" which, I would guess, stems from a mind-body dichotomy on these issues. That force and brute strength, as such, is wrong or amoral at best. Ragnar made the point that answers it best when he explained what happens when brute force meets force with a mind behind it. Force and action and masculinity all have their place, but never disconnected from the mind. I have no reason to think that Roark banging Dominique or blowing up the building was anything but, intimately connected to his mind and really his highest values.
-
Wait, wait, let me guess...Is it the percent of people in the US who pay all the taxes so that the other 47% can be professional consumers?
-
I guess it goes without saying, but what a bunch of children! I think their shutdown tactic is interesting because to me because the refusal to engage in dialogue implies that the only violence is left as an option for interaction with others. If they weren't just a pack of whiny cowards lacking any of the kind of efficaciousness necessary for an actual violent uprising, I'd be really concerned.
Silencing opposition by sticking your fingers in your ears and shouting "NAHNAHNAHNAHNAH!" only works in that moment, in that place. This won't amount to a historical footnote with their nearly complete lack of intellectual capital.
-
Julia Childs first learned to cook when she was 40 and got pretty good by 50. Stan Lee started drawing Spidey in his 40's. Harrison Ford Played his first significant role as Han Solo when he was 33. Or for real inspiration, read about Buckminster Fuller's experimental life.
I think it takes kids from rough backgrounds 5 or 10 years, once out of the environment, to a) decide conclusively that what happened to them was not their fault and
that, ultimately, it doesn't matter whose fault it was because the only one who can change their life going forward is themselves. Some do and some don't. I recommend the former. It's harder than it seems to those who haven't experienced it, so congratulations.Of course you'll have some limitations, but everyone does. You can do almost anything you want, but not everything you want, so your life and choices have already closed off some possibilities...olympic gymnastics and whatnot...but like I said, that's the nature of life, not the nature of abuse.
It's ironic, I suppose, but I have heard people use their lack of abuse as an excuse for why they have accomplished little. As though the trial by fire would have granted them a magical source of willpower which would have been more valuable than their initial psychological health and personal, family-made safety net. All it comes down to, ultimately, is your own decision to disregard your discomfort, ignore your excuses and act with purpose on what you love. Love what you do more than yourself and you'll be halfway there, wherever the hell there is.
The Age of Fear
in Political Philosophy
Posted
So, like "General Welfare" we should have nothing to worry about?