Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tenzing_Shaw

Regulars
  • Posts

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tenzing_Shaw

  1. Actually, Blood of the Fold is the low point in the entire series in my opinion. Wait until you get to Faith of the Fallen. Also, keep in mind that some of the Wizard's Rules are warnings as opposed to recommendations.
  2. The vast majority of SoT books do not end via Deus Ex Machina. Most plots are resolved as in WFR, with Richard (or other characters) using reason to solve their problems.
  3. Just as A (leaping off the top of a tall building) does not automatically imply B (dying). Just as C (not studying for a test) does not automatically imply D (failing). But A does cause B and C does cause D. There is more to truth than logical implication.
  4. Tenzing_Shaw

    Ability

    If you believe that aptitude is objectively definable, then there should be some way to measure it objectively. I know that I would score much higher on any existing math aptitude test (example: the SAT) now as compared to 5-10 years ago. So, assuming my aptitude has actually remained constant, you would have to claim that these tests do not, in fact, measure aptitude. In that case, I would ask how you would measure mathematical aptitude objectively, if you belive that this is possible. Also, you are primarily mistaken about the nature of mathematical reasoning. The ability to handle large quantities of information simultaneously is certainly valuable in solving math problems (and at least some degree of this ability would be necessary to solve problems at all). The essence of mathematical problem solving, however, is not performing feats with your brain's "hardware" (such as doing mental arithmetic very quickly, or visualizing complex shapes). I claim that the essence of mathematical problem solving is first to gain a very clear understanding of the problem you are attempting to solve (such as by making precise definitions), and then to break the problem into simple pieces, each of which can be grasped easily. This second step is the meat of problem solving, and there are many ingenious ways of doing this, such as mathematical induction, the pigeonhole principle, proof by contradiction, counting the complement, etc. If you know calculus, this is basically the essence of calculus: expressing complex measurement problems in terms of simple linear measurement. Any reasonably intelligent person with enough patience and motivation can learn to apply these techniques to solve (what would have been) very hard problems. This is what I did, not because my mental "hardware" was especially suited to math, but because I desperately wanted to do it. I am certainly not disputing that a genius would have reached my level of mathematical ability with less effort, provided he put in the effort (I don't think anyone would dispute that). What I do dispute is that it is not possible for me to solve problems as well as a gifted person, though it might take me far more effort to reach the same level. My point is that it is objectively the same level. Next, I want to bring up the example of Richard Feynman. I have seen no evidence that Feynman could perform mental feats comparable to individuals such as Gauss. With respect to his mental "hardware", all the evidence seems to suggest that he was "merely" a very intelligent man. Why, then, was Feynman more successful as a physicist than many prodigies? The answer is that he knew how to think about physics (the essence of which is relating theory to observations of reality). Essentially, I completely agree with Ayn Rand's view of intelligence: "Intelligence is the ability to deal with a broad range of abstractions. Whatever a child’s natural endowment, the use of intelligence is an acquired skill. It has to be acquired by a child’s own effort and automatized by his own mind [...]" -Ayn Rand, Return of the Primitive: The Anti-Industrial Revolution, 58 So I think you are confusing intelligence with some sort of genetically determined "raw processing power". But humans think by forming concepts which relate to reality. The degree of your intelligence is the degree of your skill at doing precisely that, regardless of how you acquired that skill.
  5. Tenzing_Shaw

    Ability

    Years of direct personal experience tell me this is false: First, almost all of my blood relatives exhibit a high verbal aptitude, while very few of them exhibit a talent for math (most of them read constantly, but few of them know more than basic algebra). When I was young, I fit this family trend perfectly: I read all the time, I had a better vocabulary than other children my age, and I always scored well on verbal aptitude tests. Although my math abilities were not below average, I was often confused by math problems. I felt helpless when attempting any nontrivial problem, as if my mind turned into a haze in the face of anything so concrete. In my second year of high school, I took a physics class, and was unable to handle any but the most simple quantitative problems. I loved science, and wanted desperately to be good at it, but I could not solve simple mechanics problems, even after hours of effort. I had a sort of awed respect for anyone who was good at advanced math, and experienced constant anxiety due to my own lack of understanding. This situation began to change in my third year of high school, when I set a goal for myself: working independently, I wanted to finish two years of math in one year, so that I would be able to take calculus in my final year. At this point, I began to go through my textbook at home, solving every problem at the back of each chapter. Shortly after this, I came to the realization that it is possible to understand math through rational thought; that mathematical ability is not a mysterious power determined by a fixed inherited ability. By doing endless problems and relating these problems to reality, I ended up meeting my goal with time to spare at the end of the year. The hazy sense of helplesness I had experienced before was gone, and I found that solving the mechanics problems which had baffled me a year earlier became easy. It was not only my mathematical knowledge that increased during this time, but also my aptitude itself. Before the events I have described, my scores on mathematical aptitude tests were only a little above average. On a test of calculation speed, I once even scored in the 20th percentile. After training myself and acquiring confidence, however, my scores on such tests were constantly above the 90th percentile. This process has continued throughout college, where I studied physics and electrical engineering (I have just started graduate school in electrical engineering). In college, I never got less than an A in any math class, I won a math competition, and I recently got a perfect score on the math section of the GRE. While my "genetic math ability" is probably somewhat above average, it cannot by itself explain my success in math. Far more important was the effort I put into learning, my intense desire to be good at the subject, and my realization that the only thing math problems require is rational thought (which led me to discover how to think about these problems). My conclusion? Any rational person with a reasonable aptitude for math and a desire to learn the subject can increase his aptitude for the subject. Finally, there is no upper limit on this increase. I do not mean that an average person can become a Newton or a Gauss by virtue of the factors I have mentioned, but that an average person can always further improve his mathematical ability using these factors.
  6. You seem to be assuming that each of us has some sort of fixed, pre-determined intellectual potential which we cannot surpass. I don't think this is true. In fact, I have found that one can substantially improve one's mind through effort and focus. Though one may not become a genius (I use the word "become" because I believe even this is sometimes possible), one can always keep improving.
  7. I'm not very familiar with the examples you mentioned, but I think a good principle would be that a police officer should refuse to carry out any major rights violations (which will be rare in any case). On the other hand, you can't ask a police officer (presumably a rational man) to lose his job in order to avoid violating the rights of a (presumably irrational and self-destructive) heroine addict. A rational police officer would not crusade against addicts or advocate for stricter drug laws, but he would arrest an addict if he could not avoid doing so. I am deriving this rule from the fact that the pursuit of many rational careers these days requires involvement in rights violations. Let's say that in the future (I don't know if this is the case now or not) all teachers are required to join unions. In this case, one could not urge teachers to give up their careers by refusing to join. The answer to your question, then, is that it is irrational to condemn police officers who are required to carry out minor rights violations in the course of doing rational work. On the other hand, if a police officer's job required him to murder innocents, it would be time for him to quit. At that point, it would be impossible for the officer to pursue his career rationally. Although you have named a few examples, I claim that this sort of situation is extremely rare in the United States.
  8. This is a very irrational thing to say. Either you want to live with a police force or you don't. If you want to live without a police force, go live in a jungle. If you don't want to live without a police force, do not condemn those who make a police force possible. Instead, as David Odden said, you should be directing your anger at lawmakers. You are trying to have your cake (have a police force) and eat it too (condemn the police, without whom there would be no police force). Basically, I think you are falling into the trap of rationalism: Violating individual rights is bad. Therefore, anyone who participates in such violation is bad. The police do participate. Therefore the police are bad. This argument drops the entire context of the situation. It ignores the fact that the police are absolutely necessary for the well-being of rational citizens. It ignores the fact that police who are forced to violate rights by the state are victims of force themselves. Finally, it ignores the fact that in the United States, the police rarely violate rights. In fact, the argument would only be valid in a totalitarian dictatorship, where the existence of the police force became detrimental to the ability of citizens to act rationally.
  9. Since the church can't legally make eunuchs anymore, I suppose this is the next best thing. Perhaps they have also realized that guilt can be a more effective weapon than force. These days, their victims are even sincerely thanking them (see the "testimonials").
  10. I have watched the first (approximately) two and a half seasons of House, and I have loved almost every minute of it. To see such heroic competence portrayed in any form of art these days is rare indeed. The essence of House's approach to his work is an incredible talent combined with an absolute devotion to reality. Whatever his flaws, House understands and applies the primacy of existence constantly and ruthlessly. The fact that House may make occasional nihilistic statements does not change what his actions demonstrate. When I see House's approach to his work, I see the image of what a doctor can and should be. I see a man who revels in his ability to understand the human body and to use his mind to fight disease. While House's psychology may be unfortunate, the most important part of an individual's character is his work. This is why Hank Rearden is heroic even before he corrects his psychological errors. In fact, my reaction to House is similar to my reaction to the (early) Rearden. Though they may be miserable and irrational at times, they exhibit a faculty of production which far outweighs their faults, and they inspire me to strive for the same level of competence in my own life.
  11. My favorites are Terry Goodkind, Philip Pullman, George R. R. Martin, Orson Scott Card (mostly for Ender's Game, Ender's Shadow, and Enchantment), J. K. Rowling, and Koushun Takami (he has only written one novel, Battle Royale, which is the best thriller I have ever read). These days I think most high-quality writing takes place in the science fiction and fantasy genres. Most modern "literature" tends to be very naturalistic and depressing.
  12. Yes, but I did think that episode 4 was a small improvement over episode 3. Some positive points: 1. Zedd uses the Wizard's First Rule. I thought the Zedd in episode 4 finally began to resemble the Zedd from the books (I think the actor is great, but his dialogue has been poor until now). 2. Richard uses his mind more than in any previous episode. Also, he actually does things on his own without relying on Zedd/Kahlan to save him. Hopefully this will be the start of a gradual improvement after episode 3.
  13. It pains me to say this, but I found episode 3 to be very disappointing (I thought 1 and 2 were at least acceptable). The behavior of the main characters was not at all true to their portrayals in the books. Especially disturbing was the lack of the deadly seriousness which characterizes Zedd and Kahlan. I will keep watching the series (at least for the first season) out of respect for Goodkind, but I certainly hope that the quality of the episodes improves. I think it is definitely not too late for this to happen.
  14. I would also point out that killing and dying for freedom is a recurring theme in the Sword of Truth books. However, the other quote people have been attributing to Richard in episode 3 is disturbing. It is true that Richard's explicit philosophy is confused at times during the first few books. Although I hope that the quote is simply a manifestation of this fact, I'm afraid it may be Raimi injecting altruism into the script. The fact that the Spiderman films (although superbly directed for the most part) are filled with some of the most awful altruism I have ever seen does not reassure me.
  15. I think that "closed-mindedness" has become a smear-word similar to "extremism". If you reject unreality, then you are "closed-minded" implying that you reject new ideas for being new. If you take strong positions, you are an "extremist", implying that you take the positions merely because they are strong, and not due to their specific nature. Extremism is clearly an invalid concept, because there are no people who consistently take every extreme position as a matter of principle. I don't think the same is true of closed-mindedness: there are indeed people who reject new ideas as such (the Catholic Church, for example). Therefore, I don't think that open-mindedness has to be an invalid concept; I think its rational meaning would be: anyone who does not reject new ideas on principle is open-minded. To be certain here, I think it would be necessary to discover the origin of the open-minded/closed-minded distinction (perhaps by consulting an older dictionary). If open-mindedness used to be defined simply as a rejection of closed-mindedness (but has since been hijacked similarly to "selfishness"), then I think it is a virtue. If it has always been a smear-word used against the rational, then I think it would be better to invent a new term, or simply use a word like "dispassionate". In any case, according to its current dictionary definition, open-mindedness is certainly not a virtue.
  16. I don't have any book recommendations, but I do have some suggestions for how to approach this task in general. My early education in math was also quite poor, and I have been in the process of repairing that fact for about 6 years now. In my case, I struggled with math until my junior year of high school, and then slowly began to improve. I have given a lot of thought to identifying the change in my epistemology which caused this improvement, and I have come to some basic conclusions, which you may be interested in. First, a large problem with basic math education is the emphasis on learning algorithms by rote. This approach is better than what I have heard about "Whole Math": at least you learn some concepts of method, which can help you in practical situations. You mentioned wanting to "work with numbers mentally", however, and simply memorizing algorithms will do little to help you in this area. To be clear, I do recommend learning these algorithms (long division, for example) until you can do them quickly. You should especially follow the drill approach in the beginning, in order to become comfortable with the subject. If you really want to increase your ability to think mathematically, you should follow this up by trying to understand as clearly as you can why the algorithm works. If you follow this "practice then understand" approach for all of your mathematical knowledge, you will improve your mathematical reasoning ability tremendously. By understanding why something works, I mean reducing it to first-principles. You should, for example, be able to understand why the long division algorithm works by reducing it to simple counting, which you can take as the basis for your knowledge of mathematics. You say that you are interested in a practical knowledge of mathematics. I think that the above approach is very practical for several reasons. First, if you just want to learn the algorithms, you might as well carry around a calculator instead. Epistemologically, blindly using algorithms is barely preferable to relying on a calculator. If you have reduced your knowledge to first-principles, you will not only not be dependent on a calculator, but you will be able to recreate the algorithm if you forget it (and you will be less likely to forget it to begin with). Most importantly, your ability to apply your knowledge will be greatly increased, since you will know exactly which algorithm applies in which situation, and why. So, whichever textbook you choose, I recommend the following epistemological strategy: 1. Do lots of practice problems, until you are confident. 2. Reduce your knowledge to first principles, until everything you know seems "obvious" to you. I know this is not exactly what you were asking for, but I hope you find it helpful.
  17. I think the principle here is that one must not expect to acquire information or education from others, or promote such an expectation (which is one thing that public libraries do). I don't think it is correct to say on principle that information should not be free. One of the functions of the Ayn Rand Institute, for example, is to provide free information about Objectivism. In general, the valid reason for providing free information is to promote rationality in other people, in order to further one's own life in the long run. Conversely, providing free information is immoral when it violates individual rights, or when it is done out of the conviction that all information should be free as a matter of principle (which it certainly shouldn't).
  18. For overall effect, I would choose Take On Me by A-Ha: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-P_TV-gierM The lyrics are nothing special, but the combination of the song and the video project an excellent sense of life. On the basis of lyrics, I would go with Thunderball (the James Bond Theme), especially the first verse: http://www.lyricsfreak.com/t/tom+jones/thu...l_20138376.html
  19. First, I would like to apologize for repeating my post. I think the website was having problems last night, and my (failed) attempts to view the thread must have resulted in duplicate posts. I basically agree with Sarrisan's answer, but I would like to stress two points. First of all, the fact is that we don't know of any other rational animal besides man, and counter-factual conditionals (outlandish "what ifs") are not truly relevant to ethics. Secondly, allowing such hypotheticals for a moment, a race of aliens that happened to possess a rational faculty but did not use it as a means of survival (maybe they also have great physical strength, for example) would not have rights. I don't take this example to have any ethical significance, I only use it to clarify the relationship of rights to rationality. I don't think it is the potential to become rational that leads to the concept of rights. This might lead to the view that a fetus has rights, for example. Rather, an infant has rights because its nature dictates that reason is its means of survival. The fact that an infant's rational faculty is undeveloped to the point that it would die on its own does not change this fact. Also, it is not the case that an infant begins life without a rational faculty and only acquires it later. Rather, he has this faculty from birth, but must learn how to use it over a long period of time. Although an infant is born tabula rasa, according to Objectivism, he begins to form concepts (very basic ones and very gradually) from the moment of birth. I agree with what Sarissan said. Rights are derived from an objective fact of reality (the means of man's survival). They are not "earned", "inherited", or "assigned". I want to address the last error in particular. If rights could be assigned or withdrawn by any man at will, then a criminal or a dictator would not be violating his victim's rights (he does not recognize any such rights). Also, to take your example, a man could not assign rights to an inanimate object. The reason is that it is not in the object's nature to have rights (the object does not "survive", let alone "survive using reason"). But Ayn Rand did not believe that. You are free to believe what you want about rights, of course, but I am trying to help you understand the Objectivist position on rights, and that isn't it. If you want to claim that Rand saw rights as a question of "worthiness", you will have to provide a quote from her which proves it. This is a false conception of rights, according to Objectivism. The proper purpose of the law is to protect rights, but the rights themselves exist independently of the law. Thus, the rights of Jews were violated by the Nazis, even though Nazi law did not recognize their rights. In that case, I think you have come to the right place. Remember, however, that those books (and especially VOS) should be your primary source of information on this matter. Given that, I would be happy to answer any further questions you have.
  20. Man is an animal that survives using his mind. No other animal has this property. But no man can use his mind in the face of force initiated on him by other men. Therefore, if men are to interact with one another in a way which is conducive to survival, then no man may use force (except in self-defense) against another man. This is the basis of rights. From this, the nature of rights should also be clear: all rights are "negative" in nature. Rights include, for example, the right not to be murdered, assaulted, enslaved, or robbed. Even humans who are too young or too old to use their reason to survive independently have rights, because they are instances of man, and all instances of man have rights. Rand's argument, as I understand it, is not "reason implies rights" but "reason as a means of survival implies rights". Reason is still the only means of survival of a newborn infant, even though that infant would not be able to use it to survive on his own. In your question, you repeatedly used the concept "worthiness" when you spoke of rights. This is a mistake, because rights are not a reward for any sort of virtue, which some entities have and others do not. Man is not worthy of rights, he has rights, and these rights stem from his nature. The greatest hero and the most worthless coward both have rights, while a zebra does not. The zebra does not have rights, not because it is unworthy (animals cannot be judged ethically), but because reason is not its means of survival. If you are interested in a detailed explanation of the Objectivist position on rights and their source, I think The Virtue of Selfishness would be a good place to look, although I don't recall whether Rand explicitly addresses the issue of "animal rights" in VOS. I hope this helps.
  21. It is interesting that you mention chess. In junior chess tournaments, there is often one player who is much more skilled than the rest of the field. The essential issue is that eligibility for these events is often determined by a single objective standard: age. To use age as the standard while excluding players who are "too good" is irrational. Alternatively, one can choose skill as the standard of eligibility (chess has a rating system which allows this), in which case stronger players might legitimately be excluded from a lower category. What one must not do is to adopt age as the standard and then decide ex post facto that a certain player is too skilled. As a chess player, I have often played in events with strong grandmasters in which I had no realistic chance of winning. In such tournaments there are usually substantial prizes decided by certain objectively defined categories of age and skill, for which weaker players compete. Here are two possible solutions for the league in question: create an objective limit on the skill of players who are allowed to participate (to be enforced with all new teams entering the league), or offer lots of prizes for non-1st place finishes. What is not acceptable is to bend the standard of eligibility when confronted by superior talent. This amounts to pretending that certain teams are the best in their age category when in fact better teams have been subjectively excluded. If one wishes to play with players close to one's own level, one has to recognize that one is at a lower level, using an objective standard. Anything else is evasion. Here is an example from chess: I played in a tournament in which the standard of eligibility was being a college student in the United States. In this event, one of the teams featured a foreign grandmaster, whose skill was such that other players had almost no chance of winning. Even so, many players entered the event; they did not spinelessly refuse to play, or demand that the top-seed be banned.
  22. In other words, those with superior ability should not be concerned only with winning, while the same attitude should be tolerated in others. That is a double-standard.
  23. I would like to clarify my own position so that it isn't misunderstood. I do not support immediate war with Iran. What I support is delivering an ultimatum to Iran to the effect that any further actions or threats against America or its allies will be considered an act of war, or at least cause for military retalliation. If Iran was to attack American land or citizens at any point, I would support immediate, total war against Iran (the same would go for an attack on Israel). In the event of an explicit verbal threat to destroy the United States or an ally, I would be more inclined to support the dismantling (via bombing and assasination) of the Iranian regime, followed by an immediate withdrawl. So, for example, the "Israel must be destroyed" propaganda would have to stop. The reason for this is not that Iran has not provoked us in the past, but that we want to send an unequivocal message to dictatorships worldwide. An immediate war would not send such a message, given our long-standing policy of appeasement, but would only cause confusion and chaos. "Cooperate or die" is the incentive which we want to give to our enemies. Spontaneous bombing in response to nothing specific will instead give our enemies an incentive to attack. "What are the Americans doing? Are we next? Maybe we should attack while we can." I agree completely. Proper criticism would focus on the methodology of these wars (as I think I stated). I believe, for example, that the war in Iraq should have been a "hit and run" aimed at destroying the regime and the military. It is ludicrous to suggest in any way that these dictatorships have some sort of rights which the United States has violated. *Edit: Looking back at my posts, I can see that I was less explicit about this than I intended.
  24. Personal experience certainly counts as evidence, but mine was severely outdated. I agree with you that there is now anti-American sentiment in Japan. I just don't think that it is a result of our actions toward Japan in WWII (I maintain that the sentiment is relatively recent). From your posts, I take it that you agree with this? Because the proper purpose of the government in war is to protect American lives and property from foreign governments. Since China has threatened neither, it would be altruistic of us to spend billions trying to liberate China. It would be a violation of the rights of Americans to have their money and lives (in the case of soldiers) spent in war only when there is actual need of this. We would not, however, be violating the "rights" of the Chinese government, since dictatorships forfeit their rights. I don't. I don't think that trade restrictions are an act of war (assuming that would-be traders are sent away peacefully, and not harmed). I don't recall trying to draw moral principles from history in any of my posts. In any case, I agree. The point is that the critics of American "imperialism" are very immoral, since they give moral defense to horrible dictatorships against the freest country on Earth. It would be moral of them to criticize the United States for fighting frivolous wars which are not in its own interest, and to urge it to be more decisive in wars. Most of these people, however, are motivated by a hatred of the good. It is a monstrous reversal to claim that the United States must not go to war, while defending the "right" of countries like Iran to threaten us constantly. They take our citizens hostage, issue death threats to people living abroad, finance terrorist groups which kill Americans, and spread explicit anti-American and anti-semitic propaganda (what they do to their own citizens is worse). A saner world would be filled with anti-Iranian sentiment. Then I absolutely disagree. I quote from Dr. Leonard Peikoff's essay Fact and Value: The United States, as the freest country in the World, deserves the admiration and emulation of people everywhere, not the calumny it receives. Criticism of U.S. policy is appropriate in the case of Iraq or Vietnam. But to uphold the enemies of the United States as morally superior in those cases (as many do) is an outrage.
×
×
  • Create New...