Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Tenzing_Shaw

Regulars
  • Posts

    171
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Tenzing_Shaw

  1. Neither truth nor evaluation can be given any sort of precedence over the other in the context of ethics. Unevaluated facts and evaluations based on falsehoods are equally useless to human life. Hence, since life is the standard of value, it is wrong to separate the two (again, in the context of ethics). This is basically the central point of Fact and Value. (Bold mine) Implicit in your statement is that the very purpose of determining the truth or falsehood of an idea is to determine its value; i.e. to evaluate it. Here is a parallel (fallacious) argument: The purpose of a sword is to cut. Hence, the value of the sword depends first on the sharpness of its blade, i.e. whether it can cut or not. This argument is intrincisim: the sharpest sword in the world will have no value lying in the middle of a desert. Conversely, a blunt, rusted sword will not cut an enemy. Observe that both the sharpness of the sword and its intended use are essential, and are included in the definition of the concept "sword". Similarly, a true idea has no value apart from its use in guiding the action of a man. The reverse fallacy is to suggest that false ideas can be used for evaluation, which is subjectivism. Hence Dr. Peikoff's (very correct) claim that Kelly accepts the dichotomy of intrinsicism vs. subjectivism.
  2. In such cases, there is no need of concrete evidence, meaning specific details about the person's life. The reason is that this matter can and must be resolved philosophically (that is, on principle); any other approach would lead to pragmatism. Suppose I tell you of a man who is addicted to gambling, and is convinced that gambling is a proper career, and that he will make money in the long run (I am talking about games of pure chance here, not poker and the like). I then ask you to judge his character based on this information. You would then have to ask me "well, did he get away with it?", and if I tell you that he won the lottery, you would have to concede that his beliefs were irrational, but that they have been a benefit to his life. After all, he made millions legally, and the money will help him to survive. In other words, you would have to claim that this man drew strength from his irrational ideas. Please correct me if this would not be your position. I absolutely reject the idea that a false belief, or worse, a denial of reason, can lead to actions which are good for man's life in the long run. I condemn the gambler in the example above, the marxist professor whose career consists in assaulting the minds of his students, the businessman who finances a religion whose goal is the destruction of man's happiness on Earth. I do so on principle, without any detailed examination of the lives of these people. What is the principle? That man can live only to the extent that he uses his reason, and that, in the end, reality will be avenged by causality. But irrationality implies a conflict with reality. Also, I would claim that Franklin's Deism was an honest mistake, and not a sign of irrationality (I don't know his arguments, but I am sure that he saw the need for arguments). In other words, the converse of my statement does not hold. An irrational belief is a belief which is not only false, but flies in the face of reason. Thus, Dagny Taggart was morally perfect even though she did not immediately grasp the validity of Galt's position. But look what her false belief cost her: she had to see her highest value being tortured by the villains she was unwittingly supporting. While man should forgive an honest error, reality exacts revenge for any error. However, just as irrationality will lead to destruction in the long run, despite possible transient delays (see the gambler example), rationality will lead to happiness in the long run, and the effect of an honest error will be transient. Thus, my argument in the previous paragraph is consistent with my condemnation of the gambler, and my admiration of Franklin. I don't think I presented the standard as exactly as I could have before, and I will try to clarify it here. If I am solving a mathematical equation on an exam and accidentally drop a negative sign, I do not say to myself: "well, now I am irrational, immoral, and doomed to unhappiness." I do accept any negative consequences of my false idea (such as a reduced grade), but I do not condemn myself. If I (knowingly) cheat on the exam, however, then not only are my ideas false, but they fly in the face of reality. Now I am guilty of irrationality, and am immoral. In this case, I may have to work for a long time in order to make up for my evasion. The younger I am at the time, the easier this will be. If I go on to fully embrace reason and repudiate my previous evasions and the action they led to, then I can still achieve moral perfection. An experienced adult who committed the same offense would probably never be able to achieve unbreached rationality. A cheater cannot be a hero, but a former cheater generally can (with the above qualifications). Character judgement is often easy in practice even if borderline cases cause problems in theory. See my discussion of honest errors above. A false belief is not necessarily the product of irrationality. As I mentioned above, judgement is often quite easy in practice. If I see a student cheat on an exam, I can judge him instantly, knowing nothing else about him. Also, while an error in reasoning can be forgiven, the (implicit or explicit) rejection of reason is not an error in reasoning. A Marxist professor is guily of far more than errors in reasoning. I do not understand your reference to Christianity, which preaches a horrendous brand of judgement-suspension and arbitrary forgiveness. Recently, I heard a Church member state proudly on television that Christ would forgive a mafia killer if only the man would "repent". My standard does not admit such perversion. Or do you refer to that principle of Christianity which implies that happiness is impossible to man? As far as I know, Ayn Rand did meet the standard of perfection I outlined above, the hatred of her enemies notwithstanding. I could name other individuals who, in my opinion, probably meet this standard. Obviously, such a thing is difficult to determine conclusively and would require an intimate acquaintance with the person and/or extensive study to prove. I would say that "rational until proven irrational" would be a good standard because of this. In any case, the point is that heroism is possible to man. I think that Rand's novels prove this conclusively, while also making the point that honest errors do not preclude heroism. I don't understand what you mean by this.
  3. If your question is whether the government should ban private individuals from possessing nuclear weapons, the answer is yes. A person who owned such a weapon would be implicitly issuing a death threat to everyone in the area (thereby initiating force against them). If your question is whether governments should agree among themselves to not build nuclear weapons, the answer is no. However, a legitimate government may properly attempt to prevent its enemies from getting nuclear weapons.
  4. Please name your conclusion. Yes indeed. The principle is that one is immoral to the extent that one is irrational. This follows from the fact that rationality is the primary virtue, and that all other virtues can be thought of as derivatives of rationality. People who hold irrational ideas and yet lead moral lives often do so by strictly dividing their lives into those areas in which they apply reason and those in which they do not. A good fictional example of this is Hank Rearden during most of Atlas Shrugged. In reality, many religious people would fall into this category. It is absurd, however, to conclude that these people are not harmed by their irrationality. One cannot be morally perfect without being completely rational, which means that one cannot achieve the highest possible degree of happiness in life. It follows from this that those such as Kant, who repudiate reason completely and systematically, are completely immoral. You seem to be advancing some sort of straw-man in which individuals are the moral equivalent of either John Galt or Ellsworth Toohey. No one is advocating that. It is possible to lead a moral and productive life while possessing some degree of irrationality. However, any degree of irrationality precludes moral heroism, and a sufficient degree of irrationality precludes even a basically moral and productive life. A Marxist intellectual, for example, would be incapable of such a life. And a cannibal would no doubt proclaim that he draws strength from killing innocents and consuming their flesh. Finally, to answer your final point, I would like to state that rationality is a necessary but insufficient condition for complete happiness. Apart from rationality, there is also the necessary psychological condition of having one's emotions in line with one's rationality (i.e. being emotionally convinced that one can succeed). I would say that such a condition will result from rationality only in the long-term.
  5. The question being debated is: to what extent can we judge a man by his ideas? In order to come to a valid conclusion, only relevant facts should be considered. Such facts do not include anyone's potential evaluation of the conclusion reached. Concretely, the fact that John Smith may refuse to associate with me if I reach a certain conclusion is entirely irrelevant. Firstly, incitement to violence is properly considered a crime because it is not speech in the philosophical sense, but action. A mafia boss saying "go kill them" is not attempting to express any idea about reality. My point is that the difference between Kant and a mafia boss ordering an execution is one of kind, not of degree. The actions of the boss are illegal because rational men cannot function while he is free to kill. A rational man, on the other hand, is free to ignore Kant's ideas. Secondly, this is a legal distinction, and is not directly relevant to the task of judging either Kant or the mafia boss. Conversely, the judgement that Kant is the moral equivalent of Hitler does not imply that any legal action should be taken against him (which, of course, it shouldn't). Irrational beliefs are beliefs in contradiction to reality, and strength is strength to live in reality. Therefore, it is impossible to draw strength from an irrational belief. It is possible to lead a moral, productive life in spite of irrational beliefs. The degree of irrationality will determine the degree of unhappiness. Do you believe that Benjamin Franklin would have been a less efficacious individual had he been an atheist? I claim that his deism acted as an impediment, however small, to his achievements, which were nevertheless formidable.
  6. Newton's Laws of motion are true. The fact that they "break down" at very high speeds and/or precisions of measurement is not relevant: there was never any evidence that they did apply at those speeds and precisions. To have arbitrarily suggested that they applied at very high speeds (before relativity was discovered) would be to ignore the context of all existing experimental evidence. The general principle is that truth is independent of the scope of it's context, as long as the context is properly defined. Thus, knowledge is possible no matter how narrow the context, and insufficient evidence is no excuse for a false conclusion. The man who observes three Europeans, all of whom have light skin, and then concludes that all humans have light skin is irrational. To uphold faith in place of reason as Kant did is worse: there is in fact no context in which faith is a proper standard for action. Isn't that a rather harsh judgement of my ideas? How can I be expected to know the truth anyway? The conclusions other people may draw about me because of my ideas are not relevant.
  7. No, it doesn't. Whatever bias it may have, the purpose of Fox News is to report important events and to provide analysis of these events. As with other news channels, the idea is to let people know what is happening in the world, and what people are saying about it. When someone sees Yaron Brook on Fox News, they are not going to say "How nice, another perspective on moderate conservatism. Of course, everything is relative and all perspectives are equally good." On the contrary, the actual content of his ideas will be the important thing, which determines whether people agree with him or not. If someone were to appear on Fox and declare "I staunchly support the Republican party because I contacted a ghost using a ouija board and he told me to do so", he would not be taken seriously. Now, consider what happens when an Objectivist goes to a Libertarian convention. The fundamental difference is that in this case his ideas will not be taken seriously. The only thing that will be taken seriously at such an event is the common belief in a political platform of liberty. What makes it impossible for a true Libertarian to take the ideas of an Objectivist seriously? He may sit in the audience during a speech about Objectivist epistemology, hang on every word, and conclude that he agrees with the speaker. He may even conclude that he rejects the ideas of the next speaker, say a fundamentalist Christian. The problem is that the conclusions he has reached will not affect his actions. He will not proceed to shun the second speaker and praise the first. Instead, he will conclude that, in the realm of external reality (i.e. of actions), everyone present can work together for common goals. To take an idea seriously is to apply it to reality (if you agree with it), or at least to hold that ideas should determine action. There can be no benefit in interacting with those who explicitly deny this. You cannot promote an idea by discussing it with those who see all ideas as subjective opinions, social constructs, or anything else with no relation to reality. Years ago, I was rather excited about the Libertarian movement. This changed when I met a Libertarian who would not take a defninte position on any issue, philosophical or otherwise, and who declared himself to be "sort of a relativist". What could anyone who holds reason as an absolute possibly gain by associating with such a person? Not only will Dr. Brook speak on Fox, he will also debate with those who hold nearly opposite political views (such as Thom Hartmann). No one listening to Hartmann and Brook argue is going to conclude that Objectivists do not take ideas seriously. What if Hartmann declared at the beginning of his program "This is a show dedicated to promoting peace and love among men. We will now here from Dr. Brook, who has his own unique perspective on how this should be done." No speaker from the ARI would ever appear on his show again. As it is, debate between them is possible because Hartmann never tries to insinuate that they agree when, in fact, they do not. Hartmann is badly mistaken about most issues, and deserves to be judged for his evasions accordingly. This does not, however, imply that he and his listeners are not open to reason. It is nothing less than absurd to debate with a barbaric dictator (such as Khomeni) or with a moral relativist. Neither one of these even recognizes the importance of debate, except as a political facade of a meaningless game. In general, I am defending two criteria which need to be met in order for debate to be acceptable: 1. Participation in the debate must not imply, in and of itself, any sanction for the ideas of one's opponent. 2. One's opponent must take the idea being debated seriously. In other words, he must believe that the idea being debated can and should translate into specific courses of action in reality. One's opponent need not be completely innocent of evasion. I believe that the actions of ARI speakers meet both criteria admirably.
  8. I think the only viable option is to attempt to change the culture by spreading rational ideas and expressing dissent. Another possibility would be to actively assist the religious right in coming to power in the United States, on the premise that they, at least, will not tolerate the eventual Islamization of American culture. This might even succeed, but it assumes that a Christian theocracy is preferable to a Muslim theocracy, and I see no evidence for that. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is to encourage anti-religious sentiment among leftists, which might counter-act their newfound multiculturalism. Moderate leftists can sometimes be made to see reason on such issues, while conservative Christians will simply follow theology in any situation. In any case, the most important thing is to promote reason whenever possible. Furthermore, democracy is not even desirable in a society which is neither free nor subject to the rule of law (these things are what makes democracy viable in the west). I agree with your evaluation of the Iraq War. I would say that no action against Iraq would have been preferable to what happened, and I doubt a Democrat would have launched the invasion. Of course, the damage has been done, and a Democrat in power will not change that. My point was simply that the merits of Democrats vs. Republicans with regard to national defense are debatable. Actually, a nuclear strike by Islamists against the United States would be a strategic blunder, as the whole world would instantly turn against them, and the United States would have nearly free rein to retaliate. I believe that Islamists know this, and that this is one reason why there have been no major terrorists attacks against the United States since 9/11. If the goal of Islamism is to eventually gain power in the west, what would a nuclear strike accomplish? Taqiyya is a far more potent weapon. It is true that money can be used to win court cases or fight public-opinion battles. All of these measures presume a relatively free society, however. You might keep your money in a theocracy, but the government would sensor your speech, and any lawyers you hired would be meaningless in a trial in which the verdict has been decided beforehand by the state. Under a socialist regime, your money would simply be confiscated. Under a theocracy, the attitude might be "let him keep his wealth for the time being, since we can seize it whenever we want". I do not see one of these options as being significantly preferable to the other. If I understand you, the case you are trying to make is that during the interim period before a right-wing dictatorship, you will be able to use your money to influence events, while during the interim period before a left-wing dictatorship, your money will already have been confiscated. While you may indeed be richer in the former case, I claim that religious conservatives are not influenced by court rulings or the media in the same way that leftists would be. A leftist might not file a second irresponsible lawsuit when he realizes that he can't get away with it. A religious fundamentalist will keep trying long after everyone stops listening. This is a consequence of the difference between pragmatism and idealism which I discussed in an earlier post. I will take a look at the link you posted, and will do some research on my own. My main argument consists in defending the position that if the religious right is gaining power then we must not vote Republican. I had assumed that the premise was true, mainly due to personal experience. If you can give me convincing evidence that it isn't, I would certainly be open to it.
  9. Actually, I didn't make any such predictions. The threat is theocracy, not isolated violence by individuals. In fact, this goes for Islam as well, the most dire threat being the non-violent spread of fundamentalist ideology, as opposed to terrorism. First of all, I submit that you, as an Objectivist (I assume), are hardly representative of a typical American youth brought up under that situation. If even a sizeable minority of the American youth were as rational as the average Objectivist, I claim that we would have nothing to fear as a nation for the next century at least. I actually have first-hand experience with the dangerous results of religious indoctrination: one of my friends (from India) was taught in high school that the holocaust is a myth. He honestly believed this until I told him otherwise. He is a highly intelligent person (a physics student), yet refuses to apply reason to his religious beliefs. A Catholic student in my high school had been told absurd lies by her parents concerning human sexuality. Though also of more-than-average intelligence, she honestly believed these fantasies. I very much agree that Islam is a threat. As I indicated above, I also believe that cultural infiltration is the primary threat from this direction. However, neither the Democrats nor the Republicans can prevent such infiltration; all they can do is protect us militarily. Since general deportation of Muslims would be immoral, I do not see what the government can do about such trends. A cultural threat can only be answered by changing the culture, which is not the purpose of voting. As far as military threats go, I believe that both Democrats and Republicans are equally feeble. Not even the Democrats will ignore military threats. Considering the utter debacle the Bush administration has suffered in Iraq, it is even possible that a Democrat would be marginally better in this respect. Communism and environmentalism are two different ideologies with specific definitions. Traditionally, communism does not even take the environment into account at all. I agree that most radical environmentalists are socialists. However, some of them are also religious. Example: Mike Huckabee regards protecting the environment as a moral issue. In any event, socialism as such is no longer very dangerous. Instead, the danger comes from religious fundamentalists and environmentalists who happen to support socialist economics. When I said that communism is dead, I meant that that specific ideology, taken as an end in itself, is dead. That is why we don't hear many Democrats urging the workers of the world to unite, or calling for the creation of a peasant utopia. I'm not sure what you mean by power in this context. Is it your position that a man like Bill Gates will be safe from coercion, so long as the government decides not to seize his fortune? Money is a tool of reason, not of force. It would become as meaningless under a theocracy as if it had been confiscated by a communist regime. I would like to see some of those statistics, since I need to do more research on this matter myself. Could you repeat some of them, or post a link to where they can be found? Thanks.
  10. That is unjust. The difference is that Obama has a chance of being elected. The proper standard of choice in this case is: who will be more damaging to freedom in the long run-Obama or McCain? My vote for Obama reflects my answer to this question. Whatever Obama's views, he will have to respect the Democratic party line to some extent, which will have a moderating influence on his policies. The fact that he may talk like a socialist or a green is not necessarily a good indication of his policies while in office. This may be true in the short run, though I suspect it is exaggerated. The real question is not who will raise taxes more, but who is more likely to bring about a new dark age. Good. Better that than a candidate who will be forced to appease perhaps the most dangerous phenomenon in America today: religious conservatism. The Democratic party is certainly not a "large mob of socialists and greens". I know many democrats and nearly all of them are disillusioned moderates who were serious about socialism decades ago, but have since decided that "one has to be practical". Recently, I overheard a college-age democrat say something to the effect that one must retain one's ideals while living in the 'real world' (in other words: not acting on them). I am pretty sure she is an Obama supporter. I claim that most democrats are like this: they are pragmatists who do not take ideas seriously. Do not be fooled by their speeches. Many leftists enjoy hearing such speeches, but most of them do not really expect many changes to be made (except perhaps for a withdrawl from Iraq). After all, "we have to be practical". The only strong unifying issue in the Democratic party is a dislike of the Republican party. I am not claiming that the democrats are harmless by any means. Among other things, the nationalization of healthcare would be very harmful if carried out (though I think it is only a matter of time until Republicans also advocate this). The Democratic party, however, is not a threat to western civilization as it stands today (I'm not saying that this couldn't change). It is merely an impediment to progress. That is absurd, and everyone knows it. Even a Soviet communist would understand that such a policy could not be enforced. Also, it is wrong to ascribe so much importance to the minimum wage. A raise in the minimum wage, while destructive, will not bring about a new dark age. As Peikoff has argued, religious conservatism is a genuine threat to civilization. Which do you regard as a greater danger, the teaching of Creationism in public schools, or a drastic rise in the minimum wage? I don't think these two are even comparable in terms of destructive potential. Communism is dead in most of the world, and even the most radical of leftists knows it. Religion is by no means dead: it has throttled mankind for thousands of years, and it can do so again if it is allowed. While McCain may not personally be a religious conservative, most Christian fundamentalists consider themselves to be Republicans, and a Republican victory will only embolden them. Whatever the truth, many of the more moderate religious conservatives will see consistent democratic victories as a rejection of Christianity, and that is the message that has to be sent. The Republican party gives religious conservatives a forum for their ideas. Being the most philosophically consistent members of the party, they will likely come to dominate it in time. The stronger the Republican party, the more legitimacy the fundamentalists will gain. Make the Republican party weak, and it will moderate it's positions in order to get votes. When this happens, the religious right, whose members take ideas seriously, will likely form/join alternative parties, and will be marginalized. After this happens, voting Republican will be an entirely reasonable alternative. Moderate leftists confront civilization with a speedbump. The religious right confronts it with a road-block.
  11. The second assertion is false if it refers to Rand. In fact, Rand did give a well-reasoned argument for rational egoism. If the assertion is meant to apply to egoist philosophers in general, then, while true, it constitutes an evasion of Rand's arguments. Whether or not the author agrees with Rand, he should explicitly state that she is an exception. To do otherwise would be dishonest, considering that he has chosen to devote a section to Objectivism. Regarding, the first quote, I have a question: does the author attempt to provide a rational argument for the "commonsense view", or does he simply assert it? If the latter, he is applying a double-standard: a view held by sufficiently many people need not be justified, while a more controversial view must be. If he accuses egoists of failing to provide rational justification, he must require the same kind of justification from the critics of egoism. Why should we accept this "middle ground" he speaks of? I would say that the most glaring problem with the author's treatment of egoism is the double-standard I mentioned above. Why is this "middle ground" desirable? If he regards that as self-evident, then he is essentially taking the most important conclusion of the whole field of ethics as an axiom, and confining himself to its applications. If this is permissible, then it is also permissible for me to take egoism as an axiom, and confine myself to its applications. If the author has actually bothered to attempt a rational justification of his "commonsense" approach (I assumed he hadn't because of the name), then I would need to hear that argument before commenting further.
  12. I actually only remembered that scene after posting. Even if his action was an initiation of force (I don't deny this, but I would have to read the passage again to form an opinion), my point still stands. Keating's main evil was not the initiation of force or any obviously self-destructive actions (by which I mean things like binge drinking, reckless driving, etc.). He was evil because he did not act in his own long-term self-interest. The action you refer to is merely a consequence of many years of altruistic depravity. If you don't like the Keating example, there are plenty of loathesome characters in Atlas Shrugged who never initiate force or harm themselves physically: Philip Rearden is an example. A real-life example: Immanuel Kant was neither a thug nor a drunk, but was highly immoral nonetheless. I believe that this issue is of the utmost importance. Taking the non-initiation-of-force principle as the basis of morality is altruism because it uses relationships with other humans as the standard for determining action. In order to be moral, one must actively pursue one's own happiness.
  13. First, I assume that by "being a hero" you mean being the best one can be in the context of one's abilities. Not everyone can be a hero in the sense of Galt or Roark. If so, my answer is: It is immoral. Assuming a man has rational values, he must pursue those values to the best of his ability (anything else would involve some degree of self-sacrifice). It is not immoral, however, for him to choose not to pursue goals which other rational people strive for, but he himself does not hold as high values. To answer your specific example, therefore, a man who holds the rational value of physical strength as one of his top values should pursue it as much as possible. It would be very immoral for a man who dreams of becomming a champion athlete to be out of shape and make no effort to change that. It is possible that another man may hold physical strenght as a much lower value, and he should devote only as much effort to it as is consistent with its position on his hierarchy of values. A scientist or philosopher could be heroic without making any effort to become physically strong, or even moderately fit. DarkWaters correctly stated that any action which actively harms one's life is immoral. This is one thing that we can properly say about man in general. It would be wrong, however, to say that all men should hold exercise as a high value. I think that Peter Keating concretizes this point perfectly. First, I don't recall him ever initiating force against anyone. Second, he pursued goals which rational men could value (getting good grades, becoming an architect, getting a job). In spite of this, he was deeply immoral, because he sacrificed his desire to become an artist (presumably, his highest rational value) to the wishes of others. The fact that becoming an architect is a goal which rational men (such as Roark) can value does not mean that all rational men should value it or pursue it. To be moral, one has to discover one's highest values, and pursue those values to the best of one's ability.
  14. Such distinctions are not meaningful, as Dr. Peikoff showed in his essay The Analytic-Synthetic Dichotomy. I'm going to try to present a brief refutation of your claim, drawing from my recollection of that essay. I will be assuming that all knowledge comes from observation of reality. You probably dispute this. If so, I recommend that you read Introduction to Objectivist Epistemology. The dichotomy, Peikoff argues, is founded on an equivocation between a concept and its definition. A concept is not the same thing as its definition-in other words, the two are not interchangeable. As an example, consider the concept "bachelor", and it's definition "unmarried man". According to proponents of the analytic-synthetic dichotomy, a single married bachelor would "rend the fabric of meaning and existence", as you put it, since the existence of such a bachelor would imply a man who is both married and unmarried, which is a contradiction. To derive this contradiction, however, you have to use "bachelor" and "unmarried man" interchangeably at some point, and that step is invalid. Here are some examples of the problems you run into in this specific case: 1. Is a newborn male infant a bachelor? 2. Suppose a man is married for 50 years, and dies in the hospital five minutes after his wife. Is he a bachelor during those five minutes? 3. Is a man in a permanent coma a bachelor? 4. How about a priest? 5. How about a man from a culture without the institution of marriage, who has a long-term mate to whom he is faithful. Do we call him a bachelor? 6. Suppose a rational species of aliens was discovered, and that these aliens possess an equivalent institution to marriage. Do we call unmarried instances of this species bachelors? Here is a case of ambiguity in the other direction. Here is an even clearer instance of these problems: Consider the definition of man (as in human): a rational animal. Does this mean that a man who cannot think due to brain damage is a contradiction? You probably object to that definition. Consider, then, the definition of man qua animal (the biological definition of man). Would you say that a sterile man is a contradiction? After all, sexual reproduction is an essential characteristic of all mammals, man included. Give me any reasonable definition of man, and I will be able to find an example of a man who lacks the defining characteristic you named. What is the concept "bachelor" if not its definition? It is the set of all bachelors you have observed in reality. You observe (or hear about) a large number of men who seem similar to you in some way. Eventually, you decide that the fundamental characteristic which distinguishes this group of men from other men is the fact of not being married. What if we don't want to call infants bachelors? Since age is not the defining characteristic of a bachelor, we don't want to add it to the definition. Why is this not a problem? Because infants are too different from other instances of "bachelor". The fact that bachelors and male infants happen to share a characteristic which defines the former does not necessitate that we include the latter in the concept "bachelor" (because a concept refers to a set of things in reality). Since concepts come from reality, the negation of an "analytic" truth is empirically false. I have disputed the fact that "a bachelor is the same thing as an unmarried man" is even true at all. One true statement which is thought to be "analytic" is your example, essentially "There are no square circles". There are no things in reality which I would call both square and circular. In other words, the set of real circles and the set of real squares are disjoint. How about "there are no circles which are also polygons"? I claim that there are lots of things in reality which are subsumed by both concepts. Remember that all the circles you see on your computer are also polygons. Yet (assuming a polygon with a finite number of sides) the definitions of these two concepts contradict one another. It is also true that the negation of a "synthetic" truth is a contradiction. Let's consider your assertion that "the entropic arrow of time could reverse". This would mean, among other things, that objects could "fall up", or be repelled by massive bodies. Our concept of gravity, however, includes the fact that gravity is an attractive force. Hence, your statement logically contradicts the observed nature of gravity. In effect, you are claiming that an attractive force can repel, which is a contradiction. Your claim that the Earth could stop spinning is also a contradiction, since the Earth is a massive body, and all massive bodies obey the law of inertia. Thus, in asserting that the Earth could spontaneously stop spinning, you are contradicting something which is included in the concept of the Earth, mass, because you are contradicting something which is included in the concept of mass, inertia. You are claiming that a body which cannot spontaneously stop moving can spontaneously stop moving. One could bring up a scenario with another object coliding with the Earth and having precisely the right momentum to halt its rotation. I don't think this is what you were getting at though.
  15. -Fletch Children are not automatically debtors to their parents, since they have no choice in the matter of their birth and (early) upbringing. If one's parents have been particularly competent, loving, or helpful, the proper payment is to respect them, and to be the best person one can be. The last is a selfish goal, but it can also be a rational way of repaying a beloved parent (obviously, the fundamental motivation must be selfish, this is just an added benefit). Slavish obedience to the emotions of one's parents at the expense of one's virtues is a self-sacrificial policy, and a very poor way of repaying those who have spent so much of their lives trying to make one into a good person. On this "to hell with integrity" premise, Rearden should have granted his mother's with to give Philip a job in Atlas Shrugged. The fundamental tradeoff here is between one's integrity and the emotional state of another individual (one's mother in this case). In choosing to sacrifice one's integrity, one is placing the emotions of one's victim above reality. That is, one is choosing these emotions as a standard from which to determine one's actions (I believe Dr. Peikoff attributed this argument to Rand in one of his podcasts). This is the policy followed by Peter Keating in the Fountainhead. Keating consistently held the emotions of others as his highest values, and chose his actions accordingly. -Live forever or die trying I don't think one can assume that the son's grasp of reality is unaffected by the lie. Is this not the assumption that most liars (including Keating) make? Lying to others does not simply wipe out knowledge from one's mind and replace it with the lie-the effect is gradual and more insidious. Imagine a person like Keating who always puts emotions above the truth. However hard such a person tries to keep facts straight in his own mind, he will not be able to do this in the long run. My Mother was initially very unhappy when she learned that I was an egoist. Suppose that I had pretended to be an altruist in order to spare her feelings. Then every time I speak with her, I would have to mentally "switch gears" and begin to praise altruism. Over time, I would inevitably begin to lose track of what I believe is right. The degree to which I lied would be the degree to which my mind would be destroyed. This does not mean that I have to make a speech every time I hear something I disagree with. It does mean that I must tell the truth to the extent that I decide to say anything at all. To be honest, I think that the situation with the question from one's mother about the status of one's relationships is very clear-cut. Stating the opposite of the truth to someone one values highly, concerning such an important part of one's life can hardly be called a "white" lie. Lying under the threat of force is moral because life is the standard of value. In this case, one could say "to hell with integrity", since life really is a higher value. More accurately, one could say that the principle of integrity loses it's value in such a context. A man who consistently lies to his would-be killers is a man who survives in emergencies. A man who consistently lies in order to make others hold false beliefs is a second-hander. The reason that the first man can retain his grasp of reality is that he holds rigorously to the principle of integrity in a normal context, and drops it completely when his life is in the balance. The second man cannot make such a distinction: as soon as he makes "an exception" to the principle in the context in which it is meant to apply, he will make more and more exceptions, until he changes his ways, or it ruins him. Where can this man draw the line? If he sacrifices his integrity for his terminally ill mother today, then why not for his best friend tomorrow, who needs "just a little" help on his final exam, or for his Father, who would be so proud of him if he had a 4.0 GPA in college, when in fact he is an average student? To paraphrase Dagny Taggart (I don't have my copy of Atlas Shrugged with me), language should be an oath of allegiance to reality. By the way, could someone tell me how to quote people so that it automatically fills in the name of the poster? Thanks!
  16. The argument is invalid. First of all, we have to figure out exactly what Lewis is arguing. Here is one possibility: 1. If God does not exist, then I will have to believe that most people are wrong. 2. I do not wish for most people to be wrong (since this would not be a "liberal" view). 3. Therefore, God exists. This is an instance of the fallacy of wishful thinking. Wishing to be able to accept the beliefs of others does not make those beliefs true. Here is another possibility: 1. If God does not exist, then most people throughout history have been (and are) wrong. 2. All of those people cannot be (or at least are not likely to be) wrong about something so important. 3. Therefore, God exists. The second premise in this argument is obviously false. Most people believed that the world was flat, that objects tend to slow down unless acted upon by a force, and that the Earth was the center of the solar system. These beliefs also concerned the fundamental nature of the physical world, and were examined by a great many people, yet turned out to be false in spite of that. More fundamentally, the fact that many people believe a statement is, in and of itself, irrelevant to the truth of that statement. At most, one could make the argument that successful action taken on the basis of a theory is evidence for that theory (ex. successful technology as evidence for science). Since a glance at history shows that religion leads to disaster and misery in practice, one could hardly make such an argument in this case. Finally, I would like to address the statement you made, which I take to be a summary of Lewis' argument: To start with, I don't know what you mean by a "naturalistic explanation". In demonstrating a truth, one is never required to provide an explanation of the psychology of those who evade that truth (this is an entirely separate task). If I prove a theorem in mathematics, for example, then the theorem is true, and I cannot be called upon to account for the behavior of those who reject it in spite of the proof. Their behavior would then be as relevant as the color of the ink which I used to write the proof, or the weather on that particular day. Even if such a burden were present (which it certainly is not), then it would work both ways: I am an atheist, and hence all who believe in God must provide a satisfactory explanation of my atheist "impulse". I hope this helps.
  17. Thanks for welcoming me to the forum! My avatar is the Tiwaz rune, a viking rune which stands for victory. I like it because it resembles the cross, but has a completely different meaning. I actually got a Tiwaz amulet as a suvenir on a trip to Norway, simply because my first name begins with 'T'. When I later found out what the rune means, I decided to adopt it as a sort of personal symbol, as an answer to those who use the cross as their personal symbol.
  18. Hello, my name is Tenzing Shaw. I have been reading the forum for years, and have posted once or twice, but have not yet introduced myself. I am currently studying electrical engineering in college. I became an Objectivist during my last year of high school after reading Atlas Shrugged. The story behind this is quite amusing, I think. The first time I ever heard of Ayn Rand was many years ago in a card game called, as I recall, "Twentieth Century American Authors". From this game, I learned the titles of Rand's 4 novels, but had no idea that her works were controversial in any way until another player made a disparaging comment about them. Years later, the same person actually gave me Atlas Shrugged as a gift, hoping that I would reject Rand's ideas as she herself had done. After reading the first half of the novel, I was surprised to find that I enjoyed the quality of the writing and even agreed with Rand on a few issues. At that point, however, my ideas were very irrational (I was a radical leftist), and, concluding that I did reject Objectivism, I stopped reading. During the following two years, I found it more and more difficult to justify my former ideologies. In debates, I found myself defending positions I didn't really believe in, and using arguments that I knew were weak (such as appeals to authority). One day, in my senior year of high school, my English teacher (a Mormon, if you can believe it) recommended Ayn Rand to another student. At this point, I couldn't resist saying something like "the virtue of selfishness" in a sarcastic tone, implying that anyone who holds that selfishness is a virtue is not worth reading (I think I said this more out of habit than conviction). In the following conversation, my teacher recommended that I give Atlas Shrugged another try. I did so, and that time I was thoroughly convinced, especially after reading Galt's Speech. Since then I have read all of Ayn Rand's novels, as well as much of her nonfiction, and I love/agree with everything I have read, though Atlas Shrugged is still my personal favorite. In any case, I doubt many people can claim to have been introduced to Objectivism by a leftist and a Mormon. Also, I wonder if anyone knows the meaning of my Avatar.
  19. Thank you for posting the image, intellectualammo. Looking at his descriptions of the paintings, I can see that my interpretations of many of them were more wishful thinking than anything else. For example, I would never have guessed that the Candle symbolized the "light" of Christianity dispelling "ignorance". Nonetheless, I think Mr. Kush has created some good works of art, and I don't think this can be completely accidental. Perhaps he has some good premises lurking in his subconscious in spite of his irrational (or incomprehensible) explicit themes. From now on I will have to enjoy his paintings for their own sake, knowing that he is ignorant of any objective value they may have.
  20. I am surprised no one has mentioned Eye of The Needle, as I think this has a very recognizable (not to mention rational) theme. Kush paints a line of camels stretching to the horizon, passing through the eye of a giant needle, which is held up by a scaffolding. I see this as a sort of "oh yeah?" thrown in the face of the Biblical quote "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God". I think the scaffolding is also relevant: he is saying that rich men will pass into the "kingdom of God" (metaphorically speaking) through the power of technology. Sorry, but I can't figure out how to post an image of the painting here. If someone else could do so, or tell me how, I would appreciate it.
  21. I also have not read the original "A Christmas Carol", but I happened to see "The Muppet Christmas Carol" a while ago, and that film is indeed a monstrous attack on productivity, and material achievment in general. In a sequence of flashbacks, Scrouge is portrayed as having been exceptionally intelligent and self-motivated from a very young age. In one scene, as I recall, he is (implicitly) criticized for standing up to an irresponsible employer who squanders his firm's wealth on revelry. In the film, Scrouge becomes bitter after being abandoned by the love of his life, who leaves him because he is 'too' focused on his career. Her actions are clearly portrayed as being rational. Later in life, he is shown not as a cruel tyrant, but a strict man who expects competence from his employees (this is of course implicitly equated with tyranny). I was surprised to find that the film (obviously meant for young audiences) is a philosophically elloquent condemnation of productivity. I suspect that previous interpretations of the story had mainly attacked straw men (it's not that we're against businessmen in general, but look at how cruel and depraved this particular one is). Not so with "The Muppet Christmas Carol". In fact, I think the director of this film managed to capture the essence of the story perfectly. Tenzing Shaw
  22. Hello, I am new to the forum (at least to actually writing posts of my own), but I have given a lot of thought to the problem addressed in this thread, so I thought I would make some comments: I have not watched Harriman's video on quantum mechanics, so I don't know what aspects of the theory he refers to. However, I have studied quantum mechanics at an advanced undergraduate level, and do not find the main body of the theory to be at all irrational. First of all, I do not count ideas such as Schrodinger's cat to be legitimate parts of the quantum theory. I believe that the Schrodinger's cat myth applies quantum mechanics out of its proper context, and thus produces an absurdity. It would be analagous, and equally absurd, to predict that two cats will orbit each other around their common center of mass. Cats are neither electrons nor planets. Why, then, did physicists invent such an irresponsible idea (I agree that it is irresponsible)? The reason, I think, is that it is incredibly difficult (probably impossible) to understand quantum mechanics on the basis of our experiences of the macroscopic world. I do not mean that QM has no basis in reality (all scientific theories must), but that it is hard for us to understand the world on a scale that is so much smaller than anything we can directly observe. It is probably in an attempt to concretize the very indirect observations that support QM that physicists create such myths. This is unfortunate, but it is important to realize that such things are in no way essential to the quantum theory. Of course, one cannot simply dispense with all unfortunate aspects of a theory in order to claim that it is true (this would be redefining the theory). However, I am defining quantum mechanics according to what I was taught in school (to be consistent with the topic of the thread), and I can tell you that Schrodinger's cat was never treated as a serious topic by my professor. When he mentioned this sort of thing at all, it was generally in response to student questions, and was treated rather light-heartedly (my professor called the relevant section in our book "summer reading"). If our professor did not spend his lectures discussing irrational myths, what did he do? He taught us how to solve the Schrodinger Equation, which is the fundamental equation of non-relativistic quantum mechanics. For example, we used the Schrodinger Equation to compute the behavior of the single electron in a hydrogen atom. In particular, one can solve for the energy levels of this electron, go to the lab, pass an electric current through hydrogen gas, and observe these energy levels directly (as colors). This is the sort of thing one actually does in quantum mechanics, assuming one has a competent teacher. What is the real philosophical basis of quantum mechanics? Physicists observed that small-scale phenomena can seem bizarre and unpredictable. Over time, they began to see some patterns in the phenonmena, and they eventually discovered that a single differential equation (not counting the Dirac equation), along with some relevant physical facts, logically imply all of the phenomena they were observing. Why is this useful? It is useful because it gives us a systematic way of making predictions (by solving that equation), rather than just blind experimentation. Thus, I think that it is proper to consider QM as a tool for making useful predictions. Anything beyond this is suspect, at least with our current level of knowledge. Science may be becoming more irrational, and scientists less responsible, but this does not mean that we should renounce theories like QM as nonsense. Far from being nonsense, the quantum theory is true, at least in its essentials, and it is a great accomplishment. Tenzing Shaw
×
×
  • Create New...