Jump to content
Objectivism Online Forum

Whoisjohngalt

Regulars
  • Posts

    128
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Whoisjohngalt

  1. Since the question is whether we should draft ourselves, the consideration of cost to the enemy is irrelevant. We have other threads where collateral damage is discussed: here, the question is whether we ourselves should destroy the basis of what we are trying to protect. Clearly we shouldn't. Clearly, involuntary servitude is exactly what we are trying to prevent.
    Isn't the damage to the enemy (Islam) more important than the "damage" done by the state to the people? The people are just being protected by the government by drafting people into fighting for the national security against Islamic Totalitarianism. I don't see how this is contradictory to a rational policy.
  2. That is a very clear contradiction -- you cannot protect reason at the cost of reason. How about "At any cost except that which we are trying to protect". Now, identify what you want to protect.
    Yes. The cost I'm talking about is to our enemies.... killing all enemies of the state. Of course, we need to protect ourselves (our state). For example, the movie 300 had a draft and they were fighting as one. Everyone was a professional soldier. Isn't that a good thing? Of course, the economy will have to be a command economy for it to work. But such temporary concessions will have to be made to protect the national security.
  3. It seems to me very unlikely that Rand would think that history is only caused by ideas. Natural events influence man's actions precisely because relying only on ideas is a very unrealistic (reality-denying) way to live life. Even if you modify your statement to "history is caused only by ideas, being acted on in a certain fashion, and interating with reality, to produce a series of events", you would still need a more specific theory. The ideas of one man won't make a bit of difference, except in certain kinds of societies and given certain facts. So what facts of society would be relevant to determining whether a man's ideas do or do not influence subsequent events? It isn't sufficient to simply say "ideas determine history".
    I still do not see why one needs to explain natural events by other theories than the scientific factors that caused them (I am guessing you mean natural disasters, evolution and the like). Your last question would probably lead to asking what was the degree of political freedom in those societies. I'm still not convinced why anyone needs history to fit certain pet theories like the Marxoids insist on.
  4. Do you think that history is not ammenable to theorizing?
    Well, if you are a materialist-determinist, like Marxoids are, it may be. However, I had thought that Ayn Rand thought that history is caused only by ideas, i.e., philosophy determines history. In such a case, I really do not understand why one needs to "theorize" about it.
  5. (Its been some time since I visited these forums. Here is an essay of mine that I just wrote.)

    TRADITION AND MODERNIZATION

    The often heard complaint that tradition and modernization are incompatible and that one must choose between them is not a valid one. Traditional or modern ideas are either true or false depending on the content of these ideas. One has to choose between the right and the wrong ideas and not among the traditional and the modern ones. I will first give some common examples to illustrate the commonly held beliefs about tradition and modernization. Later, I shall show that one should rationally evaluate both the traditional and modern ideas before passing any judgments on both.

    Some people say that traditional ideas are always false and some say that they are always true. To cite a simple real world example, if a father tells a son not to touch fire since it may burn his hand, it would be well for the son to consider this advice before taking any further action. Now, if the son rejects this advice point-blank, citing, for example, that he is too modern to listen to old people’s advice, and goes ahead and touches fire, it will surely burn his hand. It is only now that he will realize that his father’s advice was a sound one. On the other hand, it is the argument of some that tradition is always true. For example, in India, it is a popular tradition that one’s caste, which is determined by birth, determines one’s qualities. People hold this to be valid merely because it is a tradition. However, this is not valid since it is not always true that birth decides the qualities of an individual. Proper bringing up and education play a more important role in deciding one’s qualities. Thus, the argument from tradition that caste is a major factor in deciding one’s qualities is a false one. Similar examples can be given to those who say that modern ideas are always either true or false. Since these examples will be repetitive, these will not be included in this essay.

    Let us now understand the terms “tradition” and “modernization”. Tradition, as commonly known, is the knowledge handed down to us from past generations. To elaborate, traditions are the thoughts and practices of people who are older than us. On the other hand, modernization is the knowledge, inclusive of thoughts and practices, handed to us from the present or recent generations, that is the people who are nearly of our age or younger. Thus, time is the only difference between traditional and modern knowledge! Saying tradition and modernization are incompatible is akin to saying what is said at a particular time X is false and what is said at another time Y is true just because time X occurred before time Y or vice versa. This is patently absurd since it does not take into account the actual content of the knowledge, but only takes into account the time at which the knowledge originates out of the human mind. For example, if I see a box and, at time X, say that it is blue and, at time Y, say that it is green, which of my utterings should be correct? This actually depends on the color of the box but not on the time of my saying it is of such and such a color. Since this is the case, the time at which I say that it is of such and such a color is totally irrelevant to the discussion.

    The dividing-line between tradition and modernization, which is implicitly assumed by so many people of today, is a false one. This is because, this dividing-line does not take into account the actual content of the traditional and modern knowledge, but only the time at which the two knowledge’s originate from human minds and this “time factor” is an irrelevant consideration while evaluating the thoughts and practices of other people of either past or present age.

    Therefore, to say that tradition and modernization are incompatible is not correct. This is because neither traditional nor modern ideas are always true or false. Some ideas may be false and some may be true, but this depends on the ideas themselves and not on the time at which these ideas originated. Thus the choice that one has to make in evaluating ideas is between right and wrong ideas, not old and new ones.

  6. A proper government would not tax, not even to finance its proper functions. Voluntary donations are the only way a proper government can be financed.
    Could you elaborate a bit on the "voluntary donations". I personally do not like the word donation as it subtly implies protection only for those who donate. So, pretty much everyone who does not want their houses to be robbed will have to "voluntarily" donate to the state. This is just another tax, IMO.

    Any proposed method that involves engaging the government in some business (such as a lottery or insurance) means the government will be uncompetitive (its private competitors don't have to finance a government). Any proposed method that makes government service (its proper functions) contingent on payment is de facto taxation (your rights are unprotected unless you pay).
    That is what I am saying above. How exactly is "donation for protection" different from paying "protection money" payed to thugs, since the government does hold a coercive monopoly on force?

    No, the government shouldn't own roads (apart from those for strictly government use like the ones in military installations), nor should it tax to provide roads.
    I would like to know how these military installations will be maintained, unless by having at least a minimal tax?
  7. An atheist professor of philosophy speaks to his class on the problem science has with God, The Almighty. He asks one of his new students to stand and.....

    Prof: So you believe in God?

    Student: Absolutely, sir.

    Prof: Is God good?

    Student: Sure.

    Prof: Is God all-powerful?

    Student: Yes.

    Prof: My brother died of cancer even though he prayed to God to heal him. Most of us would attempt to help others who are ill. But God didn't. How is this God good then? Hmm?

    Student is silent.

    Prof: You can't answer, can you?

    Let's start again, young fellow. Is God good?

    Student: Yes.

    Prof: Is Satan good?

    Student: No.

    Prof: Where does Satan come from?

    Student: From...God...

    Prof: That's right. Tell me son, is there evil in this world?

    Student: Yes.

    Prof: Evil is everywhere, isn't it? And God did make everything. Correct?

    Student: Yes.

    Prof: So who created evil?

    Student does not answer.

    Prof: Is there sickness? Immorality? Hatred? Ugliness? All these terrible things exist in the world, don't they?

    Student: Yes, sir.

    Prof: So, who created them?

    Student has no answer.

    Prof: Science says you have 5 senses you use to identify and observe the world around you. Tell me, son...Have you ever seen God?

    Student: No, sir.

    Prof: Tell us if you have ever heard your God?

    Student: No, sir.

    Prof: Have you ever felt your God, tasted your God, smelt your God? Have you ever had any sensory perception of God for that matter?

    Student: No, sir. I'm afraid I haven't.

    Prof: Yet you still believe in Him?

    Student: Yes.

    Prof: According to empirical, testable, demonstrable protocol, science says your GOD doesn't exist. What do you say to that, son?

    Student: Nothing. I only have my faith.

    Prof: Yes Faith. And that is the problem science has.

    Now the student said can I ask something to you Professor.

    Student: Professor, is there such a thing as heat?

    Prof: Yes.

    Student: And is there such a thing as cold?

    Prof: Yes.

    Student: No sir. There isn't.

    (The lecture theatre becomes very quiet with this turn of events.)

    Student: Sir, you can have lots of heat, even more heat, superheat, mega heat, white heat, a little heat or no heat. But we don't have anything called cold. We can hit 458 degrees below zero which is no heat, but we can't go any further after that. There is no such thing as cold. Cold is only a word we use to describe the absence of heat. We cannot measure cold. Heat is energy. Cold is not the opposite of heat, sir, just the absence of it.

    (There is pin-drop silence in the lecture theatre.)

    Student: What about darkness, Professor? Is there such a thing as darkness?

    Prof: Yes. What is night if there isn't darkness?

    Student: You're wrong again, sir. Darkness is the absence of something.

    You can have low light, normal light, bright light, flashing light... But if you have no light constantly, you have nothing and its called darkness, isn't it? In reality, darkness isn't. If it were you would be able to make darkness darker, wouldn't you?

    Prof: So what is the point you are making, young man?

    Student: Sir, my point is your philosophical premise is flawed.

    Prof: Flawed? Can you explain how?

    Student: Sir, you are working on the premise of duality. You argue there is life and then there is death, a good God and a bad God. You are viewing the concept of God as something finite, something we can measure. Sir, science can't even explain a thought. It uses electricity and magnetism, but has never seen, much less fully understood either one. To view death as the opposite of life is to be ignorant of the fact that death cannot exist as a substantive thing. Death is not the opposite of life: just the absence of it. Now tell me, Professor. Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey?

    Prof: If you are referring to the natural evolutionary process, yes, of course, I do.

    Student: Have you ever observed evolution with your own eyes, sir?

    (The Professor shakes his head with a smile, beginning to realize where the argument is going.)

    Student: Since no one has ever observed the process of evolution at work and cannot even prove that this process is an on-going endeavor, are you not teaching your opinion, sir? Are you not a scientist but a preacher?

    (The class is in uproar.)

    Student: Is there anyone in the class who has ever seen the Professor's brain?

    (The class breaks out into laughter.)

    Student: Is there anyone here who has ever heard the Professor's brain, felt it, touched or smelt it? No one appears to have done so. So, according to the established rules of empirical, stable, demonstrable protocol, science says that you have no brain, sir. With all due respect, sir, how do we then trust your lectures, sir?

    (The room is silent. The professor stares at the student, his face unfathomable.)

    Prof: I guess you'll have to take them on faith, son.

    Student: That is it sir... The link between man & god is FAITH. That is all that keeps things moving & alive. .

    The "Student" above gives no reasons supporting his beliefs in a supernatural entity. Instead he tries to show why God cannot be disproved and also why "science" is based on "faith". But, science is not really based on faith. It is based on reason alone.

    Also, why is the "atheist philosopher" teaching his students evolution? ("Do you teach your students that they evolved from a monkey? "):P

    This should be a suitable reply. Any other answers to the above would be welcome.

  8. Funnily, I was thinking about such a list myself and I'm delighted to find it already. The "other list" of the most harmful books is quite useless IMHO unless you were religious and looking to "shield" yourselves from others' opinions.

    In the present list, I would include "On Liberty" by JS Mill and other books by Classical Liberal authors like Lord Acton ("Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.") Of course, I agree that revolutionary books on evolution and modern physics should be included.

    1984
    I was actually a little disappointed with this. In particular, the ending was totally hopeless.
  9. I have a couple of questions:

    Provided that Objectivism posits the necessity of a "rights-protecting government", would this government own the roads and/or other public places? In other words, would some form of "public property" exist in an Objectivist society?

    If so, would collecting taxes from the people for maintaining these places also be practised?

    Thanks in advance for your answers.

  10. 1. Critique of pure reason by Immanuel Kant

    2. The Bible

    3. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

    4. Mein Kampf by Adolf Hitler

    5. Beyond good and evil, Friedrich Nietzsche

    6. Das Kapital by Karl Marx

    7. Qur'ān

    8. The Kinsey Report: Sexual Behavior in the Human Male by Alfred Kinsey

    9. Democracy and Education by John Dewey

    10. Quotations of Chairman Mao a.k.a. "The Little Red Book" by Mao Tse-Tung

    11. The Feminine Mystique by Betty Friedan

    12. The Course of Positive Philosophy by Auguste Comte

    13. Beyond Good and Evil by Friedrich Nietzsche

    14.General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money by John Maynard Keynes

    15. Silent Spring, by Rachel Carson.

    All ages, want to add something more? Or change order?

    You have included "Beyond Good and Evil" twice. Why have you mentioned this at all?

    It is true that all these books have contributed to: socialism, communism, fascism, Christianity, Islam, feminism, environmentalism etc. But what school of thought do you think Nietzsche has in particular contributed to?

    BTW, how did you make up this list?

  11. And I'm not sure China can really be called a "former" communist country.... :(
    I thought the same too, after I posted. :lol:

    I wonder what the situation was during the early and middle 20th century when socialism was the "craze" among everyone? I wonder did they even have an idea of free markets?

    I would also be curious what the global situation will be in a few decades time.

  12. Although he clearly comes from a leftist perspective
    How did you you gather this? The author of this piece does not pass over the gulags etc of the Soviet Union which most leftists try to ignore.

    Personally, I am impressed with the factual accuracy of this article. Or has he got some facts wrong?

  13. Could you explain what you mean by "historicist"? Does it means something other than: "based on the observation of past experiences"?

    A theory that events are determined or influenced by conditions and inherent processes beyond the control of humans.
    (source)

    To answer your question, it may be based on past experiences. But my question is: Can we predict the course of a society or country based on the past or present state of that society or country. Unless one is a determinist, I do not see how one can claim that the future of a society will follow its past or present.

  14. I'm trying to reread them all before the 7th one comes out.
    Me too!

    Secondly...when there's all these grandiose fights between wizards, such as the one at the end of book 5...why don't they all just cast the killing curse at each other? When Voldy was dueling Dumbledore in the Ministry of Magic, they were both just kinda dancing around using non-lethal spells. That seems dumb, given that they could kill each other with a single spell
    Voldy actually taunts Dumbledore in OotP during the fight that Dumbledore wouldn't use a killing curse against him. So Dumbledore might actually have been holding the curse back knowing Harry had to kill Voldy in the end. Voldy actually uses the killing curse against Dumbledore and he is saved by the Ministry of Magic statues. (I remember in detail as I just finished the book)
  15. Sorry for the late reply. I was caught up in work.

    The reason that I asked this question was that the claim of some that "the philosophy of a society determines its future" sounded a bit historicist to me. However, Ayn Rand's reply to the interviewer in her Playboy interview was:

    PLAYBOY: Do you believe that Objectivism as a philosophy will eventually sweep the world?

    RAND: Nobody can answer a question of that kind. Men have free will. There is no guarantee that they will choose to be rational, at any one time or in any one generation. Nor is it necessary for a philosophy to "sweep the world." If you ask the question in a somewhat different form, if you say, do I think that Objectivism will be the philosophy of the future, I would say yes, but with this qualification: If men turn to reason, if they are not destroyed by dictatorship and precipitated into another Dark Ages, if men remain free long enough to have time to think, then Objectivism is the philosophy they will accept.

    Source: http://www.ellensplace.net/ar_pboy.html

    And, as far as statistical predictions go, I have to say that they are some caveats on that too. For an example of a caveat, if 300 people in a town were killed by road accidents in one year then the statistics would say some similar number would die the next year. Now say the town is destroyed (by, say, a tidal wave), then naturally the statistics would not hold for the next year.

    The socialists' predictions that communism will replace capitalism has no basis in fact, but is just as valid (or invalid) as an astrologer saying the fates of people and countries are in the hands of the stars.

    In conclusion, saying:

    You can also predict that America will become slowly more socialist and that law will become more subjective, and this will be so for many decades -- or until a catastrophic event which changes everything on a massive scale. Such a disaster on the day before an election could make life really strange.
    is not right (unless it is said in jest) as we have no way of predicting the future by some arbitrary conditions.

    Also, I would like to know the non-historicist reasons, if any, against state interventionism. By that, I mean:

    Historicist reasons for anti-interventionism would go like: "If the government interferes, the economy will be destroyed". That sounds historicist to me.

    Is there any non-historicist argument against interventionism?

    P.S. Sorry for the long post

×
×
  • Create New...