KendallJ
-
Posts
2800 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by KendallJ
-
-
It's a question of whether or not humans are likely to destroy themselves. It's not extremely specific; I am merely using one specific example of a genetically modified plant that could pose serious problems if allowed into the wild.
An example which is extremely flawed in it's premise as I pointed out.
-
I already responded to that. Britain did not uphold their ends of the contract. They were the aggressors.
I am not concerned with what Rand would have advocated. I am concerned with what is right. Objectivism is a philosophy, not a set of conclusions.
That's odd. You started this thread by questioning who would rightly advocate the foreign policy such as ARI's, that it was not properly Objective, as in consistent with Objecivism. When pointed to evidence that Rand herself would have advocated it, you simply shrug her off as obviously not being consistent with Objectivism. You remember that post don't you?
Please, fellow Objectivists, tell me how any of you can support the neo-conservative foreign policy endorsed by the Ayn Rand Institute?...
I cannot see how any Objectivist could promote a foreign policy of nation building, military interventionism, and first-strike assaults. Please, somebody, for the love of science and logic, show me Objectivist literature endorsing this evil and horrifically inhuman practice!
I'm not sure how exactly one separates the philosohpical principles from the conclusions they lead to, especially with a philosophy that advocates reality identification, and the idea that the facts of reality lead to moral conclusions. TO suggest that one separates the two would be in complete violation of the very integrated nature of Objectivism. One can certainly debate whether or not reality has been appropriately identified, but if it has, the philosophy and the conclusions are inseparable.
And of course, you seem to be concerned with what Rand advocated when it conveniently fits your perspective. As in this case (which of course was an erroneous interpretation itself).
What?4:01 into this video, Ayn Rand unequivocally shows how you're wrong.
As to the claim about the British, let's support that shall we? Could you provide an unbiased reference to the history? My quick pull of Wiki gave this note:
After World War II, AIOC and the Iranian government initially resisted nationalist pressure to revise AIOC's concession terms still further in Iran's favour. But in March 1951, the pro-western Prime Minister Ali Razmara was assassinated.[3] The Majlis of Iran (parliament) elected a nationalist, Mohammed Mossadeq, as prime minister. In April, the Majlis nationalized the oil industry by unanimous vote.[4]Most of the middle east history is filled with this sort of "change of terms." What sort of successful democracies assassinate their leaders in order to bring their candidate into power. "Thanks for building us that refinery but you forgot to build us a school" strikes me a bit as a trumped up excuse to nationalize, as most nationalizations require. Nor would nationalization be the sort of remedy under any sort of objective law. An objectively based legal system would not allow for "you didn't live up to a specifid term of your contract, therefore we can do anything we damn well please" sort of mentality. You really think this is anything but a complete power grab by the Iranian govt? Come off it Andrew. You're an apologist for what was NOT a successful rights respecting democracy, and you're using the same thin veneer of an excuse that they did to justify your whole basis for argument. Rand was right. It wasn't their oil.
Successful, rights respecting countries have laws, and they have courts, and you and I both know that the objective proper redress for contract breach is either a remedy or damages in proportion to the damage incurred. Once the extraction infrastructure was built nationalization was far and away more than would ever have been awarded in any lawsuit over a school or wages. But then that might be why there was never a trial in Iranian court. And of course, that was Rand's point. The oil in the ground has no value. It is only the product of men's mind, i.e. the knowledge and technology to extract it that has value, and that is what the Iranians confiscated. The proper response to nationalization then would simply have been to destroy the wells and refineries and the plans for building such, and let them figure out how to extract it themselves.
I'm just stunned that someone can sit here and suggest that nationalization is a proper objective response to these concerns. Unlike many things which are only alluded to in her novels, Rand illustrates pretty well that natiolization is the tool of thugs. She does that in a book called Atlas Shrugged. Maybe you've read it.
But I'm sure you're going to provide us a well-integrated whole of an explanation, and not a 'they didn't live up to their end of the deal," and how nationalization would then have been proper, objective redress to those concerns.
-
Let's assume that it is an issue.
Let's not until you've made a case for it. That's the whole point. One does not posit arbitrary assertions for the sake of issuing doomsday predictions. The assumption quite misunderstands natural selection.
I wouldn't necessarily say that it would be a problem if the genetically-modified plant that has x hazardous effect on humans would only become widespread if the trait also conferred a survival advantage on the plant... but all that is necessary for a mutant strain to proliferate is if it doesn't harm the survival of the plant. It might not be rapid, but eventually, the mutation would spread.And genetic engineering in the sense of selective breeding (a la Mendel) is quite different than modern gene-splicing and recombination.
actually, it's not that different.
But let's be clear. If a gene confers no survival benefit to a species and it confers no survival cost, then it would mutate away from itself over time. Genes that are neutral to the survival of a species get jumbled up over time. It is the selective pressure on those that matter in some way that keeps them the way they are. "Spread" they would not. Exist as a varietal, maybe. Most likely you'd see genetic drift away from the specific mutation.
Again, this is a very low fraction of mutations that would both be dangerous and confer survival benefits to the species. Take your "contraceptive corn." Any mutation that causes a species to manufacture antibodies which it does not need incurs a survival cost. I would posit if anything its survival value is quite low. As a result it would not spread.
If you're concerned about a mutation that is genetically induced that is acutely poisonous to man, well, I think man would be hard pressed to induce a mutation that is more toxic than most of the ones that exist naturally. 99% of all toxins known are natural compounds created by some genetic codes. Yet we don't have these toxic species proliferating themselves all over the planet. We don't call these plants and animals an issue or a threat.
-
which definitions exactly?
-
The problem of genetic pollution and undesirable gene flow is a real issue.
Ironically, the wiki article that you pointed to is quite ambivalent as to whether it is a real issue.
Your assertion of widespread presence of biomodified plants is only really true for certain modifications, those that have enhanced survival value for the plant over natural plants. This is actually a very small subset of modifications. The example you give of "contraceptive corn" is a prime example of a trait that in and of itself isn't going to take over the world. What survival value to corn does the production of sperm killing antibodies bring? none. As a result a mixing of seeds would not lead to some take over by the contraceptive corn. Even if seeds are mixed, they can be screened for certain traits. Dosage is critical as many health effects might not be seen at low concentrations. This includes the therapeutic effect itself, or allergic reactions to bioactive compounds. So a certain amount of contamination would probably not be an issue.
Genetic modification has been ongoing since Gregor Mendel started modifying pea plants and today we don't have prolific species taking over the world (except by the choice of farmers)
Doomsday predictions like this have been around for decades.
-
Anybody who is interested in selling or renting this course out, let me know!
I've got it. Need to unload it. PM me.
-
Uh, is it just me or do I read "... stop wasting our time..." in the quote above. The one that you quoted and agreed with as well. It's when one chooses to deal with something that is not explicitly stated that one is psychologizing. As in the implication that the poster is evading or "blanking out" his mind.
If that's not what you intended to agree with, then choose your quotes more carefully.
-
You are all familiar with the "Aristotle, Aquinas, Ayn Rand" quote.
What makes you say that? What quote are you referring to? My recollection of Rand's comments was that she marked him as a turning point, rather than as a significant philosopher in his own right.
There were many of the scholastics that were working with the newly discovered Aristotelian treatises at the time. For additional background, I'd suggest The Aristotle Adventure, which chronicles these.
-
The big bang theory which is derived from the doppler effect (clearly visible in the expansion of the universe which we observe using telescopes) shows there was a beginning of the universe about 15 billion years ago in which all matter was compressed into an infinitesimal speck (called a "singularity") that had infinite density. The singularity exploded, producing gargantuan amounts of energy, some of which formed matter and produced the universe as we know it. Questions:
To me this is an example of extrapolating beyond knowns. Similar to saying the earth is flat by measuring an acre of land (which is the mistake that early predictors of such things made).
The doppler effect certainly shows that matter is expanding. It also would indicate that matter was closer together than it is today, at some point in the past. Beyond that, what it exactly was and whether it had a specific beginning or not, I'm sure is not explained by the observed data. It could also suggest that other factors outside the current regimes become signficant and are not yet accounted for. That woudl call into question, all of your other questions.
When someone asserts that something exists with infinite density, one starts to question the assertion. Infinity is not a property of entities. There is no basis for asserting it is. If of course you demand that it can be, then you also wipe out the objection to God, but you've got no more evidence to assert that, than to assert God.
Infinity does not represtent a property of something. It represents no specific property. That would be anti-axiomatic.
Your representation of Rand's position is not correct as I understand it. This thread really shows a misunderstanding of what Rand means by axiomatic.
-
And to Juttles stop wasting our time ignoring everything posted and contradicting yourself. If you want to waste time fantasizing about mystical creatures and claiming they exists because you think contradictory logic and belief is knowledge that is fine but it's fairly annoying to blank your mind out and not make an effort to think.
I'd actually like to disagree with you and Jeff. It may be true that Jutley is ignoring the disucsison and contradicting himself. However, the only person responsible for having his time wasted and being annoyed is you. This is just a bit of psychologizing on your part. Anyone who is continuing to argue with Jutley after his demonstrated methodology in this thread, well, you certainly can't say you didn't know what would happen.
-
Why yes, a wonderfully deceptive misquote from KenndallJ. Anybody who actually reads that post would know immediately that I was not speaking of the present-day Iran, or even an Iran of 50 years ago. You know, Iran did used to be a free, peaceful nation.
No actually it goes back to the very issue which you have yet to address. Remember that vid I linked you to. Iran being a peaceful government who rightly tired over "imperial control of their oil." If of course it was their oil, then they might have such a right. If not, then maybe they weren't the peaceful successful government you claim. then they would be the nationalist government who flagrantly violates property rights at whim under the guise of calling it their oil. If you're going to bring up history and suggest what it is that Rand would or would not have advocated, at least have the decency to not be directly contradicted by her own words.
Keep trying Andrew, this libertarian bull gets old.
-
Andrew, you are attempting to explain the irrational, with rationality.
These are people who do not require a "WHY". Give it up.
Remember, this is the guy who called Iran the "peaceful, successful free government of Iran."
-
Could we know that ahead of time before asking for a proposed plan?
Do you really want to wait until mid-week for a meet up dinner?Dinner on the 7th?
6th is Tara Smith at 8. Don't want to miss that one.
-
OO.net dinner. Sunday July 5th? How's that sound to folks? I'm not sure how many are going so raise your "hands" please.
-
Axioms. If you've not studied the objectivist concept of an axiom you should.
That all things have identity is an axiom, for example. Axioms are the fundamental characteristic of all things. They are not taken on faith. They are validated by sense perception. I tis a unique form of knowledge because they are not proven, but rather you look around and see that.
What you can say generally about all things then is that htey are something. This is true regarless of wether or not you've sensed it.
However that does not mean one has to see all things to know that all things will be something. All things have a specific nature. Every concept of God that is meaningful has him being omniopotent, omniscient. Infinite categories have no identity. Something that is supposedly infinite, has no specific identity. There is no entity that is infinite. It is a violation of the idea of a specific nature. To say soemthing is infinite is the same thing as saying it is an orange and and apple at the same time. It means nothing.
If God is bounded, then God is not a God in any of the theistic conceptions of him. God as a really powerful alien is unsatisfying to every theist out there. God as a really powerful alien, because it is something specific, is possible. God as an unbounded non-entity is impossible. I dont' need to be omniscient to know that everything is something specific.
-
What?
4:01 into this video, Ayn Rand unequivocally shows how you're wrong.
My point was exactly what she said: That you cannot ever be asked to prove a negative, and that religion is immoral because it is mystical. But if there was 100% solid evidence that a god existed, that wouldn't be mystical anymore, would it?
Quit while you're ahead. This is the easiest of all battles for me to win even without having to stoop to your level of undeserved pretension, pompousness, and name-calling.
Rich..
Take he video I pointed you to. With the first point on it that you never refuted from the other thread, and use it against me.
First of all, his response is valid, and she only alludes to the proper, complete philosophical defense of atheism.
Rand: I would say no that there isn't because I've been given no evidence.
Donahue: Well, the fact that I've been given no evidence means that you've not been in the right place at the right time. (applause) I mean it may mean that.
[that's a valid response, if you think God is provable. Basically up until now she's given an argument that would work for a religionist. Donahue counters with the agnostic's response. She then alludes to the more fundamental philosophical reason.]
Rand: It could mean that about somebody else, but not about me. [laughter] Because I'm interested in this.
She's not implying that she has been everywhere at all times (i.e. that she is omniscient) although the crowd takes it as a mark of conceit. She is most definitely alluding to the proper philosophical argument to be found in objectivist literature, which is that God is a non-sequitur. Contextually she cannot get into axioms and that God is anti-identity because her audience is not philosophically trained and she doesn't have 10 minutes to explain the concepts fully. The questioner here started essentially at Donahue's response and you countered by returning to the previous argument. She chose the argument because it works against someone who asserts God. You chose it out of context to someone who had already shown he not a religionist, but an agnostic.
Now, why don't you go back to that other thread where I gave you this link and refute Rand's first point, starting at 0:00.
I wonder who the audience thinks is winning? The victory I think is in your own mind. I realize you think I'm belittling you. That of course requires that you are actually be as knowledgeable as you think you are. Since you've proven yourself in so many threads to not know what you're talking about, this is simply a form of justice, knocking you down a peg to where you actually belong. Shoot, if I wanted to belittle you, I'd pick something arbitrary and unrelated like your University choice to poke fun at.
Btw, I'm not suggesting that it doesn't appear as if Rand is making this argument. But there is a whole body of objectivist literature that would counter this point. I'm not saying she's wrong. I'm saying one argument suffices to someone who asserts God, another suffices to the one who asserts the possibility of God. You chose the wrong one (or technically you chose two and blend them up into mush) to answer the agnostic, as I stated before.
-
And I can't imagine a charity school offering a decent education.
That is becuase given today's mindset an "education" is defined as a single product consisting of a single set of features, and obviously has a single price. Additionally becuase today's teachers lobby is probably the largest political lobby out there, out teachers are paid relatively uniformly and relatively far over-compensated.
In an objectivist society education education is a free market, capatilistic venture. If you look today at what the free market does with a wide variety of needs, you'll see that it develops a wide variety of products. Some are high end; some are low end. Most will do better at meeting the individual needs of their purchasers than their socialized counterparts. Today's public education is a Socialist-style clunker but because its the only product available we don't know what we're missing. And because we think everyone should have a Ford Taurus, we forget that a 50 cc motorbike meets the needs of a much larger proportion of the population.
How about a decent education for 10 cents per day?
http://crucibleandcolumn.blogspot.com/2007...t-solution.html
-
My response, to all of this is that there are possible dimensions of space and time that we are incapable of understanding or seeing into. God could exist in these dimensions, we wouldn't be able to tell. I simply acknowledge the possibility of this. Ayn Rand may think she could prove the lack of a God, but she can't do anything more than man is capable of. The laws of physics don't necessarily apply in these dimensions.
I don't think these ideas should change the way we live life. Perhaps we are omniscient. The only point I want to make is that I don't think we should make conclusions about something we don't know.
But you are making a conclusion about something.
"There are possible..."
To be possible means something. To conclude this, you need some sort of reason. What reason do you have to even claim possibility about something that for which there is no basis? I speak here not just of "other dimensions" but dimensions where the laws of physics don't apply. Identity is not a "law of physics." The laws of physics presuppose identity. So I am going to assume that you mean something for which identity doesn't' apply. That's part of the problem. To state that something is possible means you have to integrate into your established knowledge. You know nothing today which would allow you to state that such a thing is possible.
To claim that for the singular reason that I cannot know something in any way that it is possible is the mistake that the agnostic makes. It cannot be a reason to assert that the arbitrary is possible. It remains the arbitrary. The arbitray vs. the possible, and also what exactly it means to be axiomatic are some of the misconceptions that prevent the resolution of this problem.
-
Well, my first response is that capitalism is not based upon being paid. It is based upon the trader principle, i.e. trading value for greater value. Who is the recipient of the value obtained in this trade? Who pays and why is the childs success of value to them?
If you look at this as not an example of "pay for performance" but rather as an example of "value for value" it is not so clear that it is an equivalent example.
If you read on in LVD's series you'll see that she actually indicates that what you think cannot be done, actually can be. That is children can understand and value education, but only in a certain context. Her closing paragraph...
The basic principles of motivation are really quite simple: the teacher must identify the value of his course, design the curriculum accordingly, and name the value explicitly. If he does this properly, he can dispose of the pizzas, gold stars, and rulers, and enjoy the radiantly eager response of children who really grasp what they are learning and why. -
Um what? He asked if it's better to make money based on the merits of one's own mental work instead of correctly investing in the minds of others.
I read it. In fact, I answered it directly.
This is exactly the point. The answer to this is not how one invests. He already grants that one makes an "honest profit" by correctly investing. His question is isn't there something about being the guy to come up with the idea, than being the guy to invest in it, that is better. His quote is a direct comparision of the substance of the work, not of it's method. He's granted the method can be "honest."
As to growing up. I'm not the one hurling insults. So far, I've dealt with the substance of your arguments which have been wrong and/or useless every time I've engaged you. If your own shoe fits...
-
If you're producing something,
Exactly the reader isn't questioning the how. His question is really getting at what is being produced when you buy a share of stock.
Your answers continue to be useless.
-
I think the premise has intellectual merit, but we must remember at all times that it's not the "work" itself that is judged on any level of positive or negative, but rather how you do that work.
There is nothing wrong with playing the stock market, or even being a garbage man, as long as you are doing it the right way, with the right results, and for the right reasons.
That's not true either. It is possible for an endeavor itself to be entirely second-handed, regardless of how you do it. Theivery would be such an example. Some people claim trading in the market is theivery. Some people claim that theivery is a form of making a living or "work". It is a question of both the what and the how.
-
I'm fully aware that Objectivism is not what Rand's characters did in her books, however, you'll have a tough time telling anybody that has read the book that his playing the stock exchange was an example of immoral behavior.
I'm not suggesting that it's immoral behavior.
I'm suggesting that you have in this thread someone who read the book and wasn't convinced or at least is asking for clarification. So simply pointing out the fact that a character behaved that way would in and of itself be a useless approach. It is an argumentum ad veracudia in that context.
For you to choose NOT to use an explanation of principles is yet another hack job attempt to stick words in Ayn Rand's mouth.
Calling me an asshole doesn't make it so. I'm letting your behavior speak for itself.
-
One district accidentally used a principle of capitalism: if you want people to produce, pay them. It works! The number of students passing standardized tests is up nearly 40% at some schools.
Your principle is not a principle of capitalism.
Lisa VanDamme has a very nice series of articles on motivating students. This particular method falls into a class of subjective motivational tools.
You can read more at: http://www.pedagogicallycorrect.com/index.php?p=23
A complicated romance issue
in Relationships, Love, Sex, Romance
Posted · Edited by KendallJ
Hi Bluecherry,
I wanted to respond to your last post because it seems that you've been doing a lot of introspection on the issue and the two items you've come up with are very essential and core items to deal with. In fact, I think your second item is an extremely important item for you to make a decision around, and it seems you're having trouble sorting it out.
First, as to guilt for hurting someone. This guilt may be valid or invalid. That is, it's possible that the situation is such that you should not feel guilt for what you have done, and also the reverse. THe desire you have, to "try to make things better" is generally a good one. But it can lead to actions that coudl be considered meddling. It really depends on the situation. The thing we can't control in a situation is someone else's response to our actions. You may have taken actions that are reasonable and the person may be responding irrationally. If so, then you have to sort out the situation to realize that you should not be feeling guilty. However, the actions you were taking, even though motivated by good intentions might have reasonably hurt the other person and they are responding rationally. In this case, you've let your desire to be a good influence get away with you and you need to understand what you're doing is not right. In order to decide which situation you have, one would have to know more about the details of the situation.
As to your second item, this is far more critical. You are having feelings of loneliness because your partner doesn't share and recognize key values that you hold. This raises a very important principle in relationships, that of "psychological visibility". That lonliness will prevent the relationship from being a full value to you, and it is a valid feeling. In a relationship that lasts, two things must occur, a. each party must value the other, and b. each party must feel valued or "visible" as a result. This must happen for both parties, and a, and b are not necessarily mutual. I wrote a little bit about this awhile ago, and you can find it under point 3 in this post. If feelings of invisibility persist and they very well might, the relationship will not work. You will continue to feel lonely, and you will eventually develop negative feelings about it, as you've described. If it continues this is one of those things where you must develop a sense of self-esteem and recognize your need for visibility. It's perfectly possible that you value him and he feels valued (visible) and he values you, yet you don't feel valued. In which case you are not gettign what you need from the relationship and you need to say so, and possibly end it. It is not his fault then. It simply is. But this aspect, visibility is a crucial aspect to resolve. It is how our values translate into long lasting durable feelings of love.