aequalsa
-
Posts
2171 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
24
Posts posted by aequalsa
-
-
I think in cases such as the pidgeon,(assuming it is valid) it is important to differentiate between recognition abilities and conceptual abilities. Animals of all types can certainly recognize objects, human and otherwise. That does not neccessarily imply conceptualization. Even if they could distinguish smith from jones, it could be a recognition and memory process rather then conceptualization.
I think a valid test for conceptual abilities would require abstraction to at least one level above precepts. So for example, they would have to not just recognize humans as humans, but also be able to know that they are mammals with certain similiarities to other mammals. And really, I think conceptualization is probably an either/or thing. You either have it or you don't and if you do you should also be able to follow a concept up or down conceptually. To use Rand's furniture example, a single chair to concept chair to concept furniture to manmade objects should be an easily tracable path for a conceptual creature. To actually hold a concept like furniture, you would need to be aware that it included all kinds simultaneously-desks,tables,etc. Also it would be neccessary to apply it in principal to any other group of objects or group of abstractions. This ability is what makes it possible for humans and not pidgeons to invent computers and visit moons.
What am I am still unsure of is whether or not it is a different kind of mental ability or a different quantity of mental ability. Any neuroscientists on the list?
It seems to me that birds are seen as at the bottom of the hierarchy in Objectivist Epistemology. Didn't Rand refer to the inability to go beyond the number of 3 as crow-epistemology?The crow refers to an experiment involving crows that is referenced in OPAR. I do not think it implied that they were near the bottom intelligencewise. They just happened to be the subject of the experiment.
-
That explains why esthetics are objective: there is an objective reason why someone likes something (ie a person's choice of values will determine what he likes).
Ayn Rand said taste is personal, but that there are reasons for it. And those who say "I like X, but I don't know why," simply fail, or refuse, to introspect and find out why they like X. Ask yourself why you like the things you like, and you'll see what I mean. Note, also, what the people who insist they cannot, and should not, account for their tastes profess to like.
A really good example is Peter Keating reading a book by one of Toohey's disciples in The Fountainhead (in part two, right after Roark starts work on the Enright House). Rand spells out the reasons why Keating likes the book (briefly: it makes him feel superior to those who do not like it).
Objective does not mean Universal. There are right answers and wrong answers to complex issues, but not just one right answer to every complex issue. So, the use of the word "beauty" is a judgement on the esthetic value of something (a man, a woman, a sunset, a color, a spacecraft, etc). That judgement is based, objectively, on other values. That's why beauty can be judged objectively. But you should not expect all men to find the same things, or people, beautiful in the same way and for the same reasons.
Hello D'Kian
I don't disagree with you in general, on any of what you wrote. For most things, I agree that causes can be found but I still feel as though there is something I don't fully grasp. To stick with the color example....blue is my favorite color but when I try to introspect why, I come up blank. I think it is because I probably formed the inclination at a somewhat preconceptual age and probably not because of some moral deficiency or lack of willingness to acknowledge the reasons. I see no negative consequences associated with prefering blue and no causal relationship between it and anything else I remember in my life. So personally with these minor issues I don't spend a lot of time trying to understand, becuase their effect on my life seems fairly negligible. I don't doubt that there is a cause or number of causes, just that they are neccessarily knowable or important. I would think this could also apply in circumstances like prefering blue eyes or whatever.
-
Well, Yes. But inside peoples heads you can find any manner of thing which is not objective including contradictions.
-
Fair enough....I lay down my sword *cling*
-
"Undocumented immigrants are ineligible for welfare, food stamps, Medicaid, and most other public benefits."
Technically you are mostly right. What you may not realize is how extensive ID fraud is. I refer here to one of my earlier posts on the issue. This is of course my own first hand experience and as far as I know, not well documented so you can take it as you like. I know that it exists and that it's rampant. So I also know that the costs that are documented are much lower then the real cost. Fake Social and Fake ID's will get you plenty of stuff. Further, emergency rooms take all cases regardless of ability to pay or national origin. So does prison. So even if you deny all of the fraud I have witnessed, costs still exist.
"People come to the USA because there's litte socialism here - they come here exclusively to work (look up statistics on illegal immigrants employment rate). "
Exclusively? Common. How many people in mexican neighborhoods on border states have you met that you can make an assessment like this? I've met literally thousands, and I can tell you for sure that they don't come here exclusively for that reason. I will grant that work is a motivation for most. However, that in no way signifies that that is the only reason, or that they don't collect government money in addition to work. I also agree that france is worse. They absolutly are, but the fact that it's worse elsewhere doesn't justify allowing the problem to progress here.
"Not true - I don't know why would you want to move to Europe in the first place, but if you wanted to, you'd have very little trouble obtaining work permit, especially coming from the USA. It's the other way around that's almost impossible to accomplish."
I shouldn't have said Europe as my research was only into ireland. The research I did made it seem that it was very difficult to work there coming from the US. An employer to sponser you has to verify that no one in ireland can do the job and he has to import someone to do it. There is a process of adds in news papers and significant government fees the employer must pay. It seemed difficult and unlikely from what I gathered. Perhaps I shouldn't have extrapolated to the rest of Europe. I did so thinking they would be similiar, being part of the EU. My apologies for misrepresenting the case if i am mistaken.
"Newsflash - it's been done in the US for decades. Read up on H1-B visas. That's pretty much the only legal way (other than marriage), that you can eventually become a citizen."
This is excellent to hear....now if we could just get them to enforce it...we would have a much more sustainable socialism
-
The folks who are trying to convince us that immigration of poor people is a big problem are just not interested in solving it in a rational and just manner. Some of them are fearful of jobs being taken away, others of culture being eroded.
I guess I am the "folks" you speak of so I ought to clarify some things. For the record, I am an employer in construction amd not an employee, so I could benefit more from cheap labor then most. So to answer the indirect barb, I have no concern that I might loose my job. And regarding loosing my culture, I'm an atheistic objectivist american with nihilistic parents. I have no 'culture' to loose. I don't advocate closed borders. Just marines all along it with a couple single file lines. Reform is well and good and I am interested to hear the relatively simple solution you speak of. Mine is to end socialism. Not sure where the problem is with that-maybe you'll tell me. I don't have any particular love for the US. Our government may not be as bad as most since they only control 35% of the gdp instead of 50 or 75, but it's bad enough that it shouldn't warrant much love. So truly, you'll find no jingoistic pride here. I am honestly just looking at the numbers. I get the impression you want wide open borders for people who demonstably use more government resources then they pay in taxes. No one anywhere but here on this list and perhaps in mexico disagrees with these numbers. Do a search on the cost of illegal immigration. You'll get literally millions of links. My only point is that to advocate for the inclusion of people who you do not know that are costing you money is an act of altruism. One I'm not willing to back.
-
I have no idea what you mean by "induction", above. Regardless, it does not matter if 1 million, 2 million or 4 miilion of the Mexicans are single men who do not use any significant amount of government services. All that matters is that they are an easily identifiable group and that there is no excuse to keep them out.
By induction, I mean that one can learn new specific knowledege about reality from a few examples when those examples are viewed in their context. When causal relationships are apparent, in other words, you can infer that objects in a similiar genus will react in a similiar way to the same affecting objects.
I suppose this will require more research on my part, but I would think, that single men use hospitals and other free services as much as women do. Especially older men. Schools are not the only free social program we provide. We are far more socialist then that here. Medicine, subsidized housing, food stamps, emergency rooms,and prisons(illegal immigrants make up 31% of the population of federal prisons), just to name a few. To really limit it by class in an effective way you would have to limit it to men betwen the ages of say 18-45 with no pre-existing medical conditions, and an agreement to not use said free services while here. I just don't see that as realistic since most don't have an interest in following our laws in the first place-thus the name "illegal immigrant". It's basically saying we want people who pay more in taxes then they use in services.
So this brings me back to my original point. To solve this problem you have to eliminate socialism. Then, fewer people will want to come here and the ones who do will, for the most part, come for the right reasons.
As it stands, this will be a continual drain on the legal people here. Opening borders now in the way you suggest will only exascerbate the problem. You just cant reasonably expect to open the borders to a group who as a whole consumes more then they produce and not have consequences for it. This is precisely the reason that socialism doesn't work. It always attracts the looters and moochers while pushing away entreprenuers.
I cannot move to most of europe(I can live there and spend money-just cant work) for the very same reason. Unlike us, they apparently realize they can't absorb the kind of drain that hordes of poverty stricken illiterate masses that our policies draw. They limit immigration by only allowing in people with certain types of degrees in fields where they need more of them(computers,finance,etc) If you do wish to put parameters on who we allow in, that would make a good deal more sense. We'll take as many computer engineers as they can send our way.
-
Can someone explain to me why beauty is not subjective? I am an objectivist and not very knowledgeable on subjectivism, so I would appreciate it if I could get an accurate response to my question?
Im curious where you'd heard that beauty is not subjective. Was it something Rand said? If so where?
I ask because I wonder if you are confusing aesthetics being objective with particular tastes being objective. Rand, for example, liked the color aqua green. She also liked "tiddlywink music", cats, and skyscrapers. I don't recall her ever saying that everyone ought to like these things.
With regard to aesthetics, I understood her to mean that things were not subjective in the sense that the subjects chosen by artists, novelists, etc. reflected real values and not whatever they felt like. One example she provided in the romantic manifesto(?) was about an artist doing a portrait of a beautiful woman. If the woman(model) had a blemish on her face, it should not detract in any meaningful way from her attractiveness. On the other hand, if an artist chose to paint her and included the blemish in the painting that would demonstrate something objective about the artists sense of life(or lack there of). It would also say something about you if you preferred the painting with the blemish.
In most cases(perhaps all) the things you prefer stem from some earlier positive or negative association you developed. Possibly at a young age. In these cases, the things are usually fairly innocuous. Preferring blue to red probably doesnt imply any moral shortcoming. Writing a story about an immoral louse as opposed to a giant of industry, on the other hand, implies a concious choice that speaks volumes about your code of values and view of the world.
There may very well be a reason as to why someone prefers one color over another, but that is up to each person to figure out individually, first, if it is a meaningful difference and second what to do about it if it is.
I consider most differences in assessment of personal attraction to be fairly harmless. An exception might be something like what francisco d'anconia said in his speech about the meaning of sex. A man attracted to a prostitute type of woman might have issues and ought to reconsider the more moral types available. This of course is heavily context dependent. At any rate,
Hope that helps a bit.
Best Regards,
Gordon
-
"I've searched for information about the the age/sex distribution of people detained along the Mexican border, but have not found any. There are some countries (particularly the middle-eastern ones) that allow immigrants who come to work, but do not allow their families in. I think a variation of some such scheme is politically viable in the US. "-softwarenerd
Following is some statistical evidence regarding demographics of illegal immigrants. Although, once again I think it to be unneccessary since induction gets us there faster. We already know that California spends several billion a year on illegal immigrants free education alone. From that it is fair to also believe that other states spend a good deal on their education-especially border states. So if the government is spending a good deal of our money on their primary education, I would think it safe to assume that some significant percentage of them must be women and children.
Regarding the complexity of tracing the spending on illegal immigrants I disagree completely. The same could be said of any government program. Since I can't directly trace the dollars from my account to theirs, I shouldn't worry about it? Sorry, but i do. Because here is the simple truth of the matter. They consume far more then they pay in taxes. I pay far more then I consume. Ergo, transfer of wealth by gunpoint. That seems like pretty simple math to me. Whether or not they spend it on other programs has no bearing on this matter. I am opposed to ALL socialism. The fact of the matter is, the reasons it gets re-spent is because some people accept the handouts and some people agree to pay. I am guilty of the second part but only because I get a gun in my face if I don't. People who accept free stuff are under no such compulsion.
"Some of the demographic information may surprise people who think the illegal immigrant population consists largely of single young men.
About 36 percent, or 2.3 million, of the estimated 11 million to 12 million illegal immigrants are single men with no children; another 12 percent, or 740,000, are single women with no children. About 540,000, or 9 percent, are couples without kids. According to a Pew Hispanic Center analysis of census data, the other 41 percent or so break down into an assortment of "mixed status" families where parents aren't here legally. "
http://www.catholic.org/national/national_story.php?id=19460
-
"The state of california alone spend $5 billion a year on heallth care and $8 Billion a year on free education for illegal immigrants."
On the other hand you don't have to pay 30 dollars for a package of strawberries or a 10 dollar service charge to eat at McDonnalds. If you want to evaluate the "economic impact" of immigration you have to look at it from all sides.
First I highly doubt the difference in cost would be quite that high. Mcdonalds had, and still does have in some areas,the same low prices for value meals where there are teenagers working in them for $6/ hour instead of illegal immigrants.
But secondly and most importantly, if they do cost more, it is because they should cost more. That's what markets do. If these items are significantly cheaper now, it's because they are subsidized for all practical purposes. Not unlike wal-mart who provides it's underpaid employees with documentation to access government free stuff. I personally would rather pay higher prices directly for items I buy then have the costs taken from me indirectly and through the use of force. Especially when you consider the fact that anytime the government does something it costs a minimum of 10X's what it would cost in the market.
-
I don't consider Mexican immigration to be causing a significant problem to the US or to tax-payers -- until someone presents evidence to the contrary. All this hullabaloo is pretty surprising when there is little to show that a problem exists.
www.cis.org/articles/2004/fiscalexec.html
Here's evidence to the contrary. Although I would like to point out that it is probably superfluos since you can inductively know from a single example that if you provide free services to poor uneducated people, those free services will be used.
And personally I consider that article to be quite lowball as it excludes state, county, and town costs as well as the cost of children born here to illegal immigrants that have legal status. Also, it obviously cannot track all of the instances of fraudulent citizenship which I know exist from extensive first hand experience in the constuction industry. So I consider anything that costs billions of dollars to be 'significant'. I estimate that my personal part of paying for this insignificant problem to be, according to their low estimates, in the $100-$300 dollar range. With amnesty it would triple.
I firmly believe that if you eliminate social programs, this issue of illegal immigration would, by and large, dissappear. In the mean time, since I have to pay for these social programs, I'd rather pay less then more.
-
I have always had trouble with these kind of issues. Essentially, for me, it boils down to conflict of interest between men created entirely by government economic intervention.
On the one hand immigration is fine because in our perfect capitalist country other people coming here to produce wealth can only increase my standard of living as they buy sell and trade. On the other hand its certainly not in my best interests to allow open immigration because the actuality created by our rampant socialism makes it antithetical to my best interests. The state of california alone spend $5 billion a year on heallth care and $8 Billion a year on free education for illegal immigrants. This of course excludes the amount the federal government spends as well as all the other states. Also any other programs such as food stamps and what not are exclueded. One not aquainted with the circumstance first hand might conjecture that this isn't an actual cost since they pay taxes too. The thing is, they don't-at least not significantly. In construction the circumstance is so well known that it's almost a complete joke. At roofing companies I've worked for, when mid january rolls around you can find a whole basket full of w-2's in the dumpster. They don't file because they don't have too since most are operating with fake ID's. They claim 9 dependents so that virtually nothing is taken out of their check each week. One fellow had his social security number come up as invalid. He said "ok...I be right back, okay?" !*20 MINUTES*! Later he came back with a new drivers license and sociali security card on which Paco was now spelled P-A-C-C-O. After that he was fine.
As a result of this process I have to shell out more every year to balance out this increasing free rider problem. On top of this, because they are not coming here and opening businesses and investing money to increase the wealth of this country, they are have a significant impact on the availability of jobs. Importing 20 million people puts a profound downward pressure on wages when they are not creating new jobs by investment. As a testament to this fact, I have worked in the same profession in Texas, Colorado, and Wisonsin. The same Job that pays $8 an hour in texas, pays $20/hour in colorado and $30/ hour in wisconsin. And lest you think that your safe from this pressure by not having a job in construction or strawberry picking, consider the fact that any legitamate tax paying sort not able to exist and pay uncle scam on $8/ hour has a good incentive to move into work as a salesman or a graphic design artist. And those folks have a good reason to become engineers and lawyers. An increase of labor of this nature has far reaching and unobvious consequences.
So the obvious answer is to eliminate "free stuff" here. Then you can legitamately have open borders. We for all practical purposes have open borders now and it does nothing for us but ensure that this will be the first generation in american history to have a lower standard of living then their parents. So in the meantime I'm not going to support something detrimental to my life.
-
I suspect we may be operating on different definitions for the word natural. By natural, I'm thinking genetic. I suspect you are meaning knowledge gained prior to objectivism which was consistent with it. I don't deny that as possible. That was what I was getting at in the last paragraph. Because objectivism is consistent with reality, anyone who honestly considers reality ought to come to the same conclusions about it.
This reminds me of something an ex girl friend of mine said. That she has met 2 different types of objectivists. the "oh my god, atlas shrugged changed my life" types and the "i'm glad she wrote all that....saved me the trouble" types. Not sure if it's an accurate split. I would guess there are many border line cases but i did think it a clever way of putting it.
Best Regards,
Gordon
-
Yeah, he argues that. He basically says that "you cannot prove anything, so you cannot necessarily prove that free will exists."
Hi...I believe the main problem that exists with regard to "proving" free will is essentially the same as trying to prove that existence exists. Peikoff's answer to the question is to just look out at reality and say "yep, it's there" and if someone doesn't agree, then there's not much point in continuing to speak to them. Same goes for free will. If someone denies having it, they ought not bother with discussion at all since their words are just preordained ramblings with no connection to truth. In the interest of polemics though, I offer this explanation. With regard to the existence of the universe question....The universe(existence) is everything which exists, known and unknown. To prove something, in the scientific sense, requires the person making the claim to provide evidence. So to request proof that the universe exists without reference to everything around you(everything which exists) like Peikoff does, is to request evidence from something outside the realm of existence, which by definition would be non-exixtents.
Now with regard to free will I view the problem as essentially the same. A hard determinist claims that you cannot have free will because you cannot act independent of reality and the causation inherent in it. So now, free will in its essentials, means the ability to make a choice. A choice implies 2 or more alternative actions. Actions imply an actor and an object being acted upon. The actor and the object imply existence. So Existence is neccessary as a back drop for choices to be made in. So to ask for a kind of freedom of will which is independent of causation and existence is to ask for a motive force from outside of the universe. Since everything that exists is in the universe by definition, to ask for free will of this sort is to ask for a non-existent. (I believe they are both forms of equivocation-probably several equivocations-, but I am not certain yet. Maybe someone here would like to hash that out a bit with me)
The one idea that brought all of these things into focus for me is the same one that I believe to be the best proof that there can be no god. To wit, If a god exists he has conciousness. Conciousness implies iidentification. Identifying implies at least two existents. Something to observe and something to differentiate it from. "A conciousness concious only of itself is a contradiction in terms" (OPAR I think) You cannot be aware of something alone, you have to be able to identify it as being not something else. So, god ,the ultimate primacy of conciousness concept, existing before the universe had to be concious of only himself which means he had to identify himself as something distinct from himself. Very difficult job since it is logically impossible. Lucky he's god I guess. At any rate, to make my point, you cannot have conciousness outside of reality, let alone free will.
When I first thought about this problem many moons ago, I thought causation was an unfortunate existent since it seemed to get in the way of free will. Turns out that without it, freewill is impossible. Funny how life turns out, eh? Hope that helps with your friend.
Best Regards,
Gordon
-
I realize this post has not been active for some time, but I would like to add, regarding Rand's influences that H.L. Mencken may have played a significant role. She was familiar with him prior to any of her publishing if I remember correctly. I believe there were a couple letters to him in "letters" which would confirm this notion. For those who are not familiar with him, he was a journalist writing in the US from approx. 1900 to 1950. Strong advocate of individualism and reason. Many, many parrellels to objectivism Just a bit more nietchean and negative in tone.
I read him some years before discovering Rand, so reading objectivist philosophy was a bit redundent in some ways for me. Of course, a great deal more material is available in objectivism and as a result it is more fleshed out as a philosophy, which is a great value. Mencken on the other hand wrote primarily newspaper articles with reference to current events of his time.
At any rate, I think rands greatest achievement philosophically is one of integration. Most of the ideas in objectivism have been around for a long time. Aristotle, aquinas, thomas jefferson, nietche, all promoted many great ideas central to objectivism. Problem was that they also promoted ideas which were not as beneficial from aristotles defense of slavery to nietches rampant emotionalism. That being said, I am quite sure someone with a mind tied to reality could read these people and siphon through the most of it and come to many of the same notions. I don't think that most could do it as precisely and consistently as rand did.
I was raised by a father that was self-employed and learned 1st and 2nd hand from a very young age that government was almost entirely useless and a complete stifle on achievment and productivity. It was easy to come off of that into a political view that was libertarian in nature(small L). In the same way, it was easy to move from reading aristotle, nietche, and mencken to Rand. When I found Rand about 10 years ago, it was that same "well, duh" feeling. But I don't think that qualifies me as a "natural born objectivist". In fact, I would say that there could be no such thing, Rand included. Your personality and beliefs develop primarily(though certainly not completely) over the course of 20 years. To say I was an objectivist when I was 4 or 8 even is, to me, rediculous. There hardly exists a concept of self, as such, at that point. I would suggest that earlier influences could lead to positions consistent with rands which would make it feel more familiar with some then others, but i reject the notion of it being natural in the sense of a fully worked out philosophy. "Shoulders of giants" and all.
The only way I can consider it natural is that it is consistent with reality. To the extent that a philosophy or idea is consistent with reality, it should be able to be induced from reality. But a human lifetime is not enough time to induce an entirely consistent philosophy from scratch, which is what would be required to be a "natural". Despite the fact that rand only gives credit to aristotle as an influence, I find it extraordinarily hard to believe that the other philosophers(and journalists) she read did not have an influence.
-
Well, I think the main point is that happiness is a feeling, and you should not use your feelings as a guide to action.
I apologize for being unclear. I shouldn't have said that happiness was the good, but rather a good assuming it was based on a proper sense of life and proper philosophy.I didn't mean that one should make decisions based on emotions that were not considered. I was thinking of them in their proper places. Happiness being an indication of the gaining of proper values and unhappiness being and indication of failing to gain or losing those values.
To reexplain what I meant, happiness is(properly) an indicator of having gained values which benefit your life. It's relationship to your life is what would make it an example of a good when using life as the standard by which you judge things. Meaning that happiness itself is not the standard, life is. I hope that's more clear.
Regarding the issue of emotionalism, I think the two main(if not only) reasons to make a decision based on emotion are lack of time for thought and pre-considered values. In the first case, things such as being attacked or car accidents come to mind. If you are attacked by a bear and you experience fear and run away, I don't think you are neccessarily breaching any morality.
For the second circumstance a personal example comes to mind. I saw a small crowd gathering on a college campus so I went closer to inquire. As I got past the throngs, I saw a guy on a small raised platform. I saw that he had a bible in hand. I felt a momentary disgust and left the area before he got to his second "jesus". I didn't stay to determine if it would be a waste of time. I didn't think back to the other religious nutballs I've encountered. I simply felt disgust and dissinterest and left. After I was gone, a moment of thought cleared up any doubts as to wether or not it was the right thing to do, but my emotions, meaning my automatized reaction to earlier conceptualized ideas,and reactions to them, were automatic. I don't believe this to be improper. It saves a lot of time.
I think the mistake comes more often when you make bigger, more complex decisions on whim. Who to marry or what job to take. That sort of thing. Usually a lot more to take into account, so making those decisions based on feelings is probably a form of mental laziness.
-
Based on the posts, I seem to have misunderstood the concept of life being a standard of value, perhaps by being to literal. I thought that life was the standard in the sense that in judging good and bad, that which promotes your life was the good and that which damages your life the bad. Happiness, since it promotes your life, is the good when using life as the standard of judgement in this way. Am I misunderstanding something?
Thanks in advance.
Best regards,
Gordon
-
I'm pretty inclined to agree with everyone here regarding your situation. I'm hearing all kinds of warning bells in my head on this one. First, she didn't have one oops...she had several. She's intimate with you, then says "woops...i should have told my boyfirend first" then shes intimate again with you and says "woops, I should of...." Not a real recognition of her immorality if she continues to do it. Kinda like someone that spends lots of time talking about going to the gym more often or giving up smoking. Also, her being "social" sounds a lot to me like her lacking self-esteem. If someone is or might be your greatest value in life and your "friends" disapprove, then either the frinds are not worth having or the highest value isn't very high. Either way, the end is nigh...or should be. I highly agree with jmegansnow regarding the differeence between the potential and actual. A lessoned I've learned and am still learning(im a bit slow) is that banking on the potential is something of a crap shoot in general and given the details of your precarious start, even more so. You can waste an awful lot of time waiting for someone to turn into what you want them to be or think they can be. Time you could otherwise be spending with someone you value actually rather then potentially.
To avoid this sort of circumstance in the future I recommend getting a well thought out idea of what your looking for. Not in regard to the specifics, but with regard to the values and traits that really inspire you. In engineering their is a visual aid called a "project triangle". Each angle is labelled. 1-quality 2-cost 3-time. As you move around the triangle you simultaneuosly effect all 3 traits. Higher quality=more cost and time for example. I find it useful to gauge people in this way(different labels for the angles, hopefully) extraverted vs introverted, bubbly and bouncy vs sarcastic and sarconic. Specific knowledge of philosophy I have found to be fairly unimportant as many people I have met have an excellent sense of life without neccessarily knowing why and viceversa. Also, formal philosophic knowledge is a skill which can be learned and taught. My experience has been that a sense of life can't be. Having your desires defined will give you a much better chance of recognizing it when you stumble accross it.
Best Regards,
Gordon
-
A quote from Ayn Rand:
If all prices have risen by 2% (including my nominal wage), then my real wage has stayed the same. Whats the problem?
The main problem I see is that inflation is essentially fraudulent in nature. If 10 people each have 10 dollars and 10 apples to trade with, each apple costs $1. Now say we introduce 100 more dollars(10 each) Now the apples are worth .5 dollars. No problem so far. But what happens in actuality is, 1 of the 10 people is the nationalized bank or the government and they print the extra $100 and get to spend it first. The other 9 accept the money as if each dollar were worth 1 apple, but guess what? The dollar is now worth .5 apples. now the 9 other people can buy back 1/2 the apples they started with and the bank/government can start the cycle again. Simply put its an insidious form of taxation. Incidentally, I'm fairly certain that that 2% figure they put out(in the US) is nonsense. I would guess that the actual number is closer to 11%.
-
I apologize for my being a bit snippy but I get that way when I hear someone blaming a philosophy devoted primarily to "living life on earth" for their giving up on the ability to succeed. Ayn rand never said that her philosophy was a set of directions for how to live in a perfect capitalist utopia...that would be so easy that it wouldn't need directions...it was how to live in this universe. The same rules apply to a Jew in a Russian gulag that apply to an American in the late 1800's.
I read all of the posts on this subject and what I kept getting from you was that you had all of these problems and nothing you could do would fix them and nothing anyone suggested could work because the situation is hopeless. So I guess the nice thing to do is to commiserate and agree and feel bad that your in this circumstance that you can't get out of. That’s just not something I can't do. Because, frankly, I don't believe life is ever hopeless. I do know some investments have to be walked away from but that is not giving up, its just accepting a loss and stopping the bleeding of the wound, so to speak.
So look....I'm not the sharpest marble in the bag. I do construction for a living for Chris sakes. I've been broke more often then I care to remember and I have failed repeatedly. And your right...I haven't walked a kilometer in your shoes and I don't have all the details of your circumstance. But here's something I do know. You never ever give up or let yourself go down that path that I get the impression you have. When the government bred spawn of female dogs knock you down you get back up and try again. Try to learn what you can about why you failed and try again. This applied when I was six years old, it applied when I was 19 it applies now and I’m quite certain it will apply when I'm 50 when I'm 70 and when I’m 112. To do anything less is to let them win and I personally, hate them far to much for that.
And yes....your abilities do change as you age. Reflexes slow down....strength declines...health becomes precarious...but you know what?...I know a lot more then I did when I was 20 and I suspect I know a lot less then I will when I'm 50. What you loose in vitality you more then gain in wisdom if you've been paying attention even a little bit to your life. I could not have done 5 years ago what I'm doing now and that's not because my back got stronger. It's because I developed a better grasp of my circumstances and how to deal with them. Government nonsense included.
So all in all, your right...I can't tell you what you should do. I can't even guess about your likelihood of success with regard to any particular but I can say that none of it is the fault of objectivism. To say that objectivism poisoned you....made you in some way less capable of prospering because you realize the futility of trying in a faulted system...to say that your parents died because they couldn't bare to live in such a horrid place knowing what they knew(i.e. objectivism) is to commit a considerable epistemological error. If your self-esteem and therefore happiness in life is in some way tied to the government you live under then your right in your view that all is lost. And it will stay that way to whatever extent your self esteem is second handed.
I'm not going to psychologize here and guess why you haven't succeeded...only you can decide if you lack the ability to commit or refuse to take enough risks or whatever. But what I do suggest for your own benefit is that you back away from adult attention deficit disorder or any other sort of deterministic view regarding the contents of your mind. I personally believe the ability to focus is a skill which can be learned and improved upon. I've studied martial arts for a little over a decade now and have noticed marked improvement in that regard. Besides, even if mental disorders such as ADD or depression aren’t medicinalized, over-diagnosed mistakes in epistemology and were beyond refute in terms of there being inescapable genetic based factors, then I still would avoid believing them to be that way otherwise I Would not retain the ability to function. When you say "I’m clinically depressed" instead of "I'm unhappy" or "I have add" instead of "I lack focus" then the ball is out of your court. free will’s a tricky thing. It only seems to exist while you believe in it. I'll keep believing in it even if its a fools paradise.
Regarding your house, I understand now that it's a choice your making. I got the impression from earlier posts that you felt you had no choice. I thought basically that you could not afford the property taxes and the roof was caving in. Ergo...selling for whatever you can get and getting out seemed to be the only option. The case is though that you can afford to stay or at least believe you can find a way to afford to and will do so to maintain your hobbies. So the real problem boils down to the fact that your paying more property tax then you would like. With that I can sympathize. Your choices for avoiding property tax I think are a)not owning any
fraud c)armed rebellion. I'll let you pick. 
Take care
-
I agree with softwarenerd regarding the comment on spiritual values.
Emotionally when I hear about any one of....I'm going to guess....thousands of schemes for reallocation of wealth(legalized theft)...I am inclined to support them. Everyone but me ought to take in as much "free money" as possible so as to hasten the inevitable economic collapse. For example, when they instituted the "lets steal lots of my money to pay for free medicine for old people with poor foresight" scheme called the medicare drug plan...or when they refuse to alter the worlds largest pyrimid scheme, known as social security, I am quite certain they moved economic collapse forward by 20 years or better. Being a devout pessimist with regard to the ability of our current government to change for the better, economic collapse would in my oppinion be a step forward as a certain amount of reorginsation would neccesarily follow. The bigger the crash...the more the change. Might be worse after, but at least there'd be a chance of moving towards capitalism.
Intellectually though, I realize "taint no such thing as a free lunch" so with regard to myself I do not accept money from government(excluding a tax refund if any that I might get). The price that I see is that the acceptence of government funding is a surefire way to obliterate your self-esteem. I run a small construction company and could make a lot of money(much more then the private sector) by bidding on government contracts. I could bid but I would have a much better chance of getting those contracts if I pursue "friendships" with beaurcrats I despise or politicians I despise more-their friendships only require campaign cotributions.. Now suppose I do that. Make a nice size boat load of money after a decade or two and then think about my accomplishment. I could lie to everyone else that I'm a "self-made man" but when I looked in the mirror everyday I'd know that I probably couldn't have done it without "a little bit of help".
When I first started I in my line of work I worked for a real first rate guy, a hank rearden sort of chap. He built his business basically from scratch and did very well for himself. He's happy in that serious joyful all is right in the universe sort of way. Antoher guy I knew started the same sort of business under the name of his girlfriend so as to acquire a government subsidized loan for 0% interest to the tune of several hundred thousand dollars, part of some "supporting female entreprenuer's at my expense" nonsense. He was always unhappy in that "I hate the world cause it never gave me a chance "sort of way. Also he was out of business a few years later. In short my ex boss had self-esteem....the other guy didn't. that is the clearest example of the "spiritual" cost of "free" money that I have ever encountered first hand.
So I say in the interest of society take as much free money as you can get your hands on, but if you give a rats patoohey about your self-esteem, then stay away from it. The only way I could fathom taking it was if you fancied yourself a modern day ragnar dansksold and were stealing as much as possible and returning it to the producers based on tax returns. If that's your plan by the way, let me know so I can send you the last 15 years of my tax returns
-
I could be mistaken as I cant seem to remember(or find) which book it was in but I do remember Rand describing herself as an antifeminist or something to that effect. If memory serves correct it was in a questiion and answer period during a speech possibly with regard to "hero worship". I'll keep looking though.
Best regards
-
Hello, I was looking up "unalienable rights" and stumbled upon this site and your posts. I have to say, I find them a bit irritating. So irritating in fact, that I signed up to this site to repond to you. My thought is you need some tough love. So here it is.
First, You spend as much time writing about how your not good at things as I spend working at getting good at things. I understand that the system is rotten. I'm a roofing contractor and have been in the construction business since I was 19 (I'm 30 now) and I could tell you stories of corruption that would make your head spin. The kind of taxes your subject to as a self employed person are appalling. The amount of paperwork involved decreases my productivity by no less then 50%. And if you think it's bad by yourself, try having an employee or two. On top of that through in the risk of $80,000plus, osha fines for safety violations by employees that you ultimately have no control over or public officials requiring bribes and you see what not sleeping enoughmeans. All that being said, the one good part about a system this far gone is there are all kinds of loopholes. Even if you file a 1040ez you have enough deductions between your dependent daughter and yourself, that you should pay virtually nothing in income tax. And besides that, using the tax burden as an excuse to not make the money in the first place, is a cop out. Make the money first then spend as much of it as you can on accountants to make sure the b@#^@#%'s get as little as possible.
Now regarding your house, get over it. If land values are that high in your area, someone wants to buy the land and doesnt give a hoot what condition the house is in. The reason the land values are that high is because many people are buying the land. You seem to be a clever guy-despite your multiple comments as to your lack of mental accuity-As a clever guy, I'm certain that you could find a way to clean up what ever "spilled" in your backyard and then sell your house. If you really can't find an agent to sell it then at least stick a sign in your front yard. Maybe post an add online. I'm quite certain you havent spent 1/2 a century on this planet without hearing the phrase "by owner". To summerize...clean up....sell house...move to podunk, Arkansas, rent or buy a trailor in the middle of nowhere for next to nothing and enjoy your hobbies while paying your $300/month rent with a part time job or your $11,000 a year business. Or even better, move to the area where you can find a job in the field that you specialize in. It's not 3600 miles by the way and even if it were, you could make that drive in 4 days. Oh, And get more bids by other contractors. I could put the most expensive roof system available on a 12,000 square foot roof for $70,000. So unless your living in a fairly nice size mansion, replacing a roof should be in the 5k-15k range.
As far as your materialsim goes...it at ment to me is the most obvious statement of how misconstrued your views of objectivism are. And your misconceptions are what led you to this place your at mentally. You may remember in atlas shrugged, tycoons gave up big companies with lot's of perks, lots of money, lots of toys, to live in a little valley with a few people and performed fairly menial jobs. Bank owners raised pigs, industrial magnates fixed cars,etc...so now ask yourself why...It's because the "stuff" doesnt matter. Objectivism is not materialism. It's a way of living, not an outcome. So basically...the socialists want to steal our cookies right? That sucks, it really does, but for someone like hank rearden, its not a big issue. Because he knows he can bake more cookies. The real crime is that after they steal your cookies, they then tell you your bad for making cookies and want to know when your delivering the next batch. The real trick to it is learning to live without the guilt or fear their world instills. The act of pursueing your values is what matters most. And you pursue your values no matter how bad the world gets. I don't care if your in a concentration camp...you still pursue the betterment of your life.
Your self-esteem seems largely based on outcomes that you only have some control over. Money is not an indication of your achievment. It is an indication of how much others value your achievement so to base you happiness on how much other people value your work is to make the mistake of a second-hander. Don't do that. That is an only marginally useful gauge in a world populated by predominantly rational people with good values and good self-esteem. In our current world great wealth is more often an indicator of having sold your soul.
I am a roofing contractor and I install standing seam metal roofs. They are the best roof money can buy. Predominantly they are used on commercial applications...store fronts and such...thats where most of the money is. What I predominantly pursue, however, are individuals and architects who build custom homes with this sort of roof on it even though it pays less then the commercial stuff. Why would I do this? Simple...becuase I get to do the kind of work I want to do. I don't just build roofs, i get to build land marks. I get to build houses that people have dreamed about for years. I get to hear people I respect and admire say, "it looks just like i imagined it" about my work. And most importantly, i get to be challenged. And the funny thing about it is, doing what you really want to do, does eventually get you where you want to be in life financially and otherwise. Little by little on client at a time I'm getting to spend more and more time doing the kind of buildings I like all by word of mouth advertising. And I've only been in business for 2 years.
So now your think "well good for you...your getting to do what you love"...nope try again...I'm doing this to make enough money to get to where I'd really like to be, which is opening a montessorri school. But I don't have to sacrifice my values to get there. I can still live by them in the meantime.
I was kicked out of my house at a tender age, left florida and drove until i ran out of gas money which turned out to be texas and found myself shortly thereafter breaking up concrete in 100 degree texas sunn with a 90 lb jack hammer for the third week in a row when I briefly felt as you've described. I was making $6.00/ hour- a good part of which was appropriated by uncle scam-and every part of my body hurt every day. And you gotta wonder at that point what your doing wrong. I never did figure it out exactly. What I did do was keep going anyways because I didn't have a choice. I was alone in the world and needed to eat. I did what I had to do to get to do what I want to do. And Ive continued with that process to this day. I know you understand this concept on some level because youve already stated that your primary concern in life is your hobby's and that work is a secondary value used to support them. So don't despise the means by which you achieve your values because to do that is to despise reality. To despise cause and effect.
So suck it up, sell your house, stuff tampons in boxes, move accross the country, do what you have to do and don't ask why. The answer is simple. Reality demands it. Everytime you find yourself thinking. I can't do this, or this won't work, or this is useless, ignore the subject and think about something you can do and then do it. Movement and growth is what seperates living things from inanimate matter. You feel like your getting old and dying because thats what your doing ...voluntarily. Choose life instead. If you find yourself thinking you'll probably be dead in ten years because of some kind of genetic determinism, so why try, look at your daugther and remember that you have to be alive in 16 to see her graduate highschool and in 20 to see her graduate from college. And that gives you 2 full decades to live as a role model for her. Which means 20 years to pursue your values. Your in a unique place. At the bottom with not much left to loose from your own perspective. that allows you to take big risks. I further, suggest that you pick up a biography of buckminster fuller for inspiration from that perspective.
Best of luck...errr....I mean....May the universe not be malevolently opposed to your existence
Are Humans The Only Species That Can Conceptualize?
in Questions about Objectivism
Posted
I don't know if this applies to parrots but with horses who could alledgedly count, I think it turned out that they were responding to different ticks that their trainers possessed. For example, when the horse starts counting with its hoof, for 2+1, it goes until 3 at which point the trainer and the people around react to the number 3, then it stops counting.
I would be curious to read about the parrot experiments. If it is not double blind then I'd be surprised if their successes could not be traced to something similiar.